Strategic Bombing Campaign Impact on German Oil Production

wuzak · Aug 2, 2011

Not just the ability of the USAAF to destroy targets, but also the ability of the Germans to repair them. Often the USAAF would time a new attack on teh same plant to coincide with the completion of repairs.

mhuxt · Aug 2, 2011

There are some (brief) first-hand reports of damage to the hydrogenation plants during May '44 in the Fischer-Tropf archive, think it's one of the Technical Oil Mission reels, TOM-214-1301.1407.pdf

mhuxt · Aug 2, 2011

There"s a table of oil attacks, number and tonnage dropped, by air force by month, on this page from the BBSU report.

Edit - if you download the image and zoom in, the numbers are fairly clear.

"Please not to shoot messenger."

Will see if I can post links to the whole section on oil, will take more organisation than I can generally muster.

mhuxt · Aug 2, 2011

Nikademus · Aug 2, 2011

drgondog said:
Wuzak - I think the RAF would have made a very strong contribution had Harris permitted them to join earlier..the weakness in the USAAF doctrine was over estimating the effect of 500 and 1000 pound bombs, which curiously lasted through 1966 in Vietnam.

Fire certainly did a lot of damage to the pertochemical plants and the 8th and 15th AF did cripple German petrochemical industry - but in retrospect the USAAF should have used 1000 pound bombs as minimum, with mix of incindieries, and 2000 pounders would have been preferable.

I have often wondered why the 8th AF didn't get intelligence feedback regarding the success of German rebuild efforts and ask the question about bomb types.

Probably a combination of several factors.....dogma, questionable intel, and the limitations of the primary air types in use by the USAAF. By "dogma" I'm referring to some comments made by Dr. Alan Zimm on an unrelated subject but one that can be applied to any military situation. Zimm was commenting about conclusions re: the battleship Arizona's cause of destruction. The original conclusions were reluctant to admit that the armor deck was penetrated as it would make the design look bad so they tended to side towards arguments that explained the loss through more extenuating circumstances. For the SB campaign.....there was probably a similar feeling re: it's standard 500lb GP bomb.....put enough on target, the math says they'll do the job.

The intel picture, IIRC from reading Miller's book (Masters of the Air) was anything but crystal clear. As with Harris and BC, they would pour over photos and try to access the damage....often the accessments were far more rosy than real life and it wasn't really until after the war when they could access on the ground the effects that they realized just how hard it could be to destroy a target even if the damage appears severe from above (such as a collapsed roof etc....but with machine tools intact inside)

Also, now that i think of it....with the whole original idea being "Precision" bombing.....the USAAF would not initially have looked at mass incendiaries because this would cause "civilian casualties"....something they learned to live with by 1944-45 over Germany and in particular over Japan under LeMay.

Lastly there were the planes themselves. B-17 was an "old fashioned" design and had a very limited bay which did not allow anything like the 4000lb "cookie" The B-24 with it's Davis wing was more advanced and had a roomier bomb bay but don't believe it could accomidate one of those monsters either. UK bombers sacrified defensive capability for such generous bomb space....even a Mosquito could carry a cookie under limited circumstances....whilst the US bombers emphasized the concept of the self defending bomber.

Ratsel · Aug 2, 2011

Well I think Albert Speer's letters to Hitler summed up the situation really well. Also, the drop of Aviation fuel in the first half of 44 is staggering. So what to do? send fewer fighters to intercept the heavies? or send more fighters with 1/2 tanks. Both situations are extreamely dangerous. I have a diary stating many were sent with less then full tanks of fuel. Also I have a friend, who flew the -109 from 1944- Jan.1945 who confirmed that fact. well at least for his unit. Named withheld for his privacy. 1944 or 2011.. its all about the oil.

wuzak · Aug 2, 2011

Nikademus said:
Lastly there were the planes themselves. B-17 was an "old fashioned" design and had a very limited bay which did not allow anything like the 4000lb "cookie" The B-24 with it's Davis wing was more advanced and had a roomier bomb bay but don't believe it could accomidate one of those monsters either. UK bombers sacrified defensive capability for such generous bomb space....even a Mosquito could carry a cookie under limited circumstances....whilst the US bombers emphasized the concept of the self defending bomber.

The Lancaster and Halifax owed their large open bomb bays to the original requirement of carrying two large torpedoes internally. The Stirling had a long bomb bay, but I believe it was divided into sections, preventing it from carrying the larger bombs that the Lancaster and Halifax could.

Early Lancasters had a lower gun turret, which was sighted by periscope.

No doubt the ball turret ate into the bomb bay space of the B-17, but that didn't appear until the B-17E. I think it was a case of designing the bomb bay around what bombs were available and expected.

Ratsel · Aug 2, 2011

there were designed as litterally ' flying fortresses', no need for escorts. just enough room for a decent bomb load but mostly for weapon placements. IF the USAAF really wanted to, I suspose they could have used the B-29. Wern't a few stationed in England?

TheMustangRider · Aug 2, 2011

I believe the B-29s stationed in England were on their way to China to join the US 20th BC and were used only to deceive the Germans into thinking that the B-29 would be unleashed over Germany.

Milosh · Aug 2, 2011

Ratsel said:
there were designed as litterally ' flying fortresses', no need for escorts. just enough room for a decent bomb load but mostly for weapon placements. IF the USAAF really wanted to, I suspose they could have used the B-29. Wern't a few stationed in England?

How many guns did the early B-17s have?

The B-17's armament consisted of up to 4,800 pounds (2,200 kg) of bombs on two racks in the bomb bay behind the cockpit, and five 0.30 inches (7.62 mm) machine guns.

Ratsel · Aug 2, 2011

whats your point? it ended up with 13 × .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns in 4 turrets in dorsal, ventral, nose and tail, 2 in waist positions, 2 beside cockpit and 1 in the lower dorsal position. remember, we're talking 1944 here.

Ratsel · Aug 2, 2011

TheMustangRider said:
I believe the B-29s stationed in England were on their way to China to join the US 20th BC and were used only to deceive the Germans into thinking that the B-29 would be unleashed over Germany.

unleashed? well maybe. I think they didn't want B-29 parts raining over Germany.

Milosh · Aug 2, 2011

Ratsel said:
whats your point? it ended up with 13 × .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns in 4 turrets in dorsal, ventral, nose and tail, 2 in waist positions, 2 beside cockpit and 1 in the lower dorsal position. remember, we're talking 1944 here.

Be sure, they were initially designed as flying fortresses with 5 .303" mgs.

there were designed as litterally ' flying fortresses'

Ratsel · Aug 3, 2011

maybe the USAAC determined that was more then enough at the time.

wuzak · Aug 3, 2011

Ratsel said:
whats your point? it ended up with 13 × .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns in 4 turrets in dorsal, ventral, nose and tail, 2 in waist positions, 2 beside cockpit and 1 in the lower dorsal position. remember, we're talking 1944 here.

The point is the bomb bay wasn't designed around the improved defensive armament from the E model on. The bomb bay, and its limitations, is something that the B-17 was stuck with throughout its life.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Aug 3, 2011

Ratsel said:
unleashed? well maybe. I think they didn't want B-29 parts raining over Germany.

What makes you think it would have been less succesful?

Mustang nut · Aug 3, 2011

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
What makes you think it would have been less succesful?

I am sure the British enquired about using the B29 during the war but stuck with what they had, they did of course use them post war.

Ratsel · Aug 3, 2011

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
What makes you think it would have been less succesful?

I'm not saying it would be less succesful in the bomber roll in Europe. the B-29 was capable of flight up to 40,000 feet (12,000 m), at speeds of up to 350 mph (true airspeed). This was its best defense, because Japanese fighters of that day could barely get that high, and few could catch the B-29, even if they were at altitude and waiting. The Germans however could get that high, and can catch the B-29 (Me 262, Me 163). A B-29 expensive piece of machinery to loose over Europe. Its odds of survivability were much better in the Pacific.

Milosh · Aug 3, 2011

What was the distance traveled by the B-29, fully loaded, to get to 40,000'?

tyrodtom · Aug 3, 2011

How many aircraft did the Me 163 shoot down ? I think it might have been about as efficient at killing Luftwaffe personel as Allied .

Strategic Bombing Campaign Impact on German Oil Production

Captain

Staff Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Senior Airman

Banned

Captain

Banned

Senior Airman

Senior Master Sergeant

Banned

Banned

Senior Master Sergeant

Banned

Captain

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Banned

Banned

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads