Tactical Strikes of World War II (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Isn't the Charnwood raid on Caen an example of what is being discussed?

Charnwood included the use of heavy bombers to shock and destroy German defenders, clear obstacles and boost the morale of the hard-pressed British Infantry. It started at 9:50 p.m. on July 7, 1944 when 467 Allied aircraft dropped 2,300 tons of bombs on the city. In forty minutes, the medieval city was reduced to rubble. This was the first time Bomber Command used heavy bombers tactically. The attack front was 4,000 yards wide. Naval gunfire was also used in the operation.

The major effects of the bombing were counterproductive. Because the bombs were dropped on an urban area, many French civilians were killed. The shock value was ineffective because the bombing was not followed by an immediate assault, while the defenders were stunned. Instead the ground attack started the following morning at 4:30 a.m. July 8th. Finally, the bombers used very heavy bombs (500 and 1,000 pounders) which created huge piles of rubble. This actually had the effect of delaying Allied tank movement into the city. After the capture of the city, a survey to determine the bombing's effectiveness found that there was virtually no sign of enemy gun positions, tanks, or German dead in the target.

I believe that during this raid some Allied soldiers, including a general, were killed by the heavy bombers

Operation Charnwood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By contrast, fighter-bombers proved more suited to attacking pin-point targets such as tanks, convoys, and trains, although many fighter-bombers were lost in these operations due to the experience and numbers of flak crews.

Heavily escorted high alitude heavy bomberes were more suited to attacking targets heavily defended by fighters and flak, for example airfields, ports and factories.
Due to the relatively high number of flak posts, airfield attacks were particulary dangerous for fighter-bombers. I read an account by Pierre Clostermann which stated that in less than thirty seconds, his squadron lost eight tempests in an attack on an airfield.

Here's a definition of tactics and strategy:

Tactic (method) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

* defines the tactical level as

the level of war at which battles and engagements are planned and executed to accomplish military objectives assigned to tactical units or task forces. Activities at this level focus on the ordered arrangement and maneuver of combat elements in relation to each other and to the enemy to achieve combat objectives.

* Strategy is the overall plan.

An example of the difference:

* The overall goal is to win a war against another country.
* The strategy is to undermine the other nation's ability to wage war by annihilating their military.
* The tactics (told to the combatants) are to do very specific things in a specific place.

Michel de Certeau writes of the differences in The Practice of Everyday Life. Like strategy, tactics operate in space. However, unlike a strategy which creates its own autonomous space, "a tactic is a calculated action determined by the absence of a proper locus. … The space of a tactic is the space of the other" (ibid., 36-37). A tactic is deployed "on and with a terrain imposed on it and organized by the law of a foreign power." One who deploys a tactic "must vigilantly make use of the cracks that particular conjunctions open in the surveillance of the proprietary powers. It poaches in them. It creates surprises in them" (ibid. 37). Tactics, then, are isolated actions or events that take advantage of opportunities offered by the gaps within a given strategic system yet the tactician never holds onto these advantages. Tactics cut across a strategic field, exploiting gaps in it to generate novel and inventive outcomes.
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
T......
Syscom small tactical raids by 9 bombers each does help win a war. Have you actually in person seen the destructive power of a 1000lb bomb? I have and 9 of them will tear up a rail yard and put it out of commision.

9 bombers attacking a runway and hangers takes out the enemies ability to launch fighters and bombers of there own.

.....

Nine bombs on the Liege railyards would create nine holes in the yard which were very easily filled and repaired. It would damage or destroy the rolling stock there, but there wasnt much to begin with.

Even when the heavy bombers put a few hundred bombs on the big rail yards, the German repair crews found that they could get the rails back into place and start limited operations again after several hours. So to say nine bombs is going to destroy a railyard, woukld be stretching things.

And nine bombs on the runways? big deal. Fill them in without effort, or if it was a grass field, just plant a few flags for the pilots to know where they are and advoid them.
 
Blitzkrieg used close air support from Stukas, Ju 88s, He 111s and Do 17s, all medium/short range pinpoint attackers.

Thankfully Hitler then delayed operation barbarossa and turned away from Moscow, dooming him to defeat. If he had long range bombers he could have tried to bomb soviet factories at long range but that was not an option. All military leaders want a quick victory and his chance had gone.

The Allied bombing raids helped to weaken industry in germany and accelerated Hitlers defeat.
 
syscom3 said:
Nine bombs on the Liege railyards would create nine holes in the yard which were very easily filled and repaired. It would damage or destroy the rolling stock there, but there wasnt much to begin with.

Even when the heavy bombers put a few hundred bombs on the big rail yards, the German repair crews found that they could get the rails back into place and start limited operations again after several hours. So to say nine bombs is going to destroy a railyard, woukld be stretching things.

And nine bombs on the runways? big deal. Fill them in without effort, or if it was a grass field, just plant a few flags for the pilots to know where they are and advoid them.

I never said that 9 bombers were going to take out the Liege railyards. Some targets require large formations of heavy bombers, however some require small tactical bombers.

Your assumption that small tactical bombers carrying 1000lb bombs each does not help the war effort and does nothing to the enemy is absured and shows that you lack common knowledge in warfare.
 
It could be interesting to note here that US pacific carrier strike forces used bomber solely in the tactical role (either bomb or torpedoe shipping or to bomb and strafe ground forces) with a very comparable payload at all. I regard those SBD-Dauntless, Kates and Avengers as effective tactical planes.
 
The questions I asked are plain and clear, syscom. Go back a page and read through the posts, you will find them.

"And nine bombs on the runways? big deal. Fill them in without effort, or if it was a grass field, just plant a few flags for the pilots to know where they are and advoid them"

Why would you drop the whole payload on the runway? Two planes drop a 1,000 lbs bomb each on the runway, while the rest aim for the control towers, HQs, hangars, and planes on the ground.
 
There are so many questions.

You go back and tell me which ones I didnt answer for you.

"Why would you drop the whole payload on the runway? Two planes drop a 1,000 lbs bomb each on the runway, while the rest aim for the control towers, HQs, hangars, and planes on the ground."

Two holes on the runway, easily repaired.
The other seven bombs take out the buildings but hardly impact operations.

I bet a raid like that put the airfield out of commision for an hour or so, untill the holes in the runway are filled in.
 
How do you suppose the airfield organises the missions, or is warned about approaching aircraft if the squadron HQs, communications and hangars are destroyed?
 
Ummm, lets see, telephone service is repaired quickly as its only a simpleton type setup, radio gear is still working, ops can work in buildings still standing (or are there only seven buildings total)? Or, they can work out of tents. Heck, set everything up in the back of a truck and youre back in business.

Hanger Destroyed? Oh well, guess the mechanics will have to work on the planes in the open like they did most of the time. And with all the damged buildings around, they can easily find some timber to hang their tarps on. (by the way, since in the PTO, rare was the airfield that had a hangar. So did that mean the planes couldnt be kept operating? Didnt Guadalcanal have a tiny shack that operated as an ops and an HQ?

I fail to see how the loss of the buildings is going to impact the operations to any degree.
 
Ever thought that the hangars have planes in? Destroyed.

Telephone service repaired? Within hours? When the whole communication and board is destroyed? Don't think so.

Radio? Probably would, but often unreliable. As they found out in all theatres of war.

Ops can work in tents, as the 2nd TAF did. But what if the ops team was in the building at the time? You can't rebuild people.

You could only ever hope to knock out an airfield for a few days at the most, unless you kept on the pressure. But tactical bombers can go in small numbers and hit the precise targets, the HQs, the planes, the hangars, the little shack! Instead of planting a tonnage that represents nothing but a bunch of holes around the airfield, and a couple inside it.
 
Are you saying all of the airplanes on the base will be destroyed by only a couple of biombs? Even the ones that are dispersed will suffer losses? Hmmmmmm.

"precision bombing"... in WW2...... heheheheh, keep dreaming.

You mean if a telephone cable is broken it cant be fixed? Even the telepgraph? :O

And radios never worked? :O

Funny how many airbases kept operating even after large raids. And that goes for everyone.
 
"Are you saying all of the airplanes on the base will be destroyed by only a couple of biombs? Even the ones that are dispersed will suffer losses? Hmmmmmm."

What posts are you reading? They can't be mine, I never said that all the planes would be destroyed. But since I've read a few 2nd TAF that have caught plenty of German planes on the ground, I know that these bombers caused a lot of damage.

""precision bombing"... in WW2...... heheheheh, keep dreaming."

Of course, because managing to drop bombs down tunnels, or blowing up a single wall of a compound, or destroying a building while only smashing one window of a building nearby is not precision. When it came to tactical bombing in World War II, you couldn't get more precise than the RAF.

"You mean if a telephone cable is broken it cant be fixed? Even the telepgraph? :O"

I never said only the cable was going to be cut. I mentioned the board, you know where the cable goes in? And then gets sent around the airbase? The cable doesn't just run to a single telephone.

"And radios never worked?"

Where did I say that? Can anyone point out where I said radios NEVER worked? Anyone?

"Funny how many airbases kept operating even after large raids. And that goes for everyone."

Not funny at all really. Because I've mentioned earlier that the best you're going to hope to achieve is knocking out for a few days. The sole reason to attack an airbase is to delay it's use, and destroy the planes on the ground. Which really throws your "mass bombers destroy everything" bollocks out of the window.
 
syscom3 said:
Are you saying all of the airplanes on the base will be destroyed by only a couple of biombs? Even the ones that are dispersed will suffer losses? Hmmmmmm.

"precision bombing"... in WW2...... heheheheh, keep dreaming.

You mean if a telephone cable is broken it cant be fixed? Even the telepgraph? :O

And radios never worked? :O

Funny how many airbases kept operating even after large raids. And that goes for everyone.

And it still disrupts the German war effort. It still helps shorten the war.

Please tell me again syscom that small raids like that do not help the war effort. Please tell me that again, so I can laugh at your face because you dont know anything about warfare!

You really dont. Again I am not going to try and prove anything because you have not given me anything to counter yet.
 
This thread officially sucks.... Syscom, ur being more stubborn than ever before here, and honestly ur embarrasssing urself to no end.... This argument is a lost cause for u, so just roll over and say, "yea, tactical bombing did have an effect.." and thats the end of it.. Jesus Christ man, there are dozens of exaples to prove u wrong here and u skip right over and ignore them...

How do u replace veteran combat leaders who've earned the Knights Cross in 1945??? With some student pilot that has 10 hours of stick time???? It made a difference.. PERIOD...
 
syscom3 said:
Two holes on the runway, easily repaired.
The other seven bombs take out the buildings but hardly impact operations.

I bet a raid like that put the airfield out of commision for an hour or so, untill the holes in the runway are filled in.


Now you're in my territory. I have done RRR (Rapid Runway Repair) in the AF using modern equipment, like folded fiberglass mat and steel mat, which is by far superior to the PSP used in WWII. The AF record for RRR is barely over an hour to have a MOS (50' x 5000'), and I was on the team that did it. The heavy equipment available in the forties and the materials used could not support that type of RRR. You could patch a dirt field maybe, but not an actual runway. As an aside, you get a lot more than a crater from a bomb. You get upheaval, destabilized base material, and numerous spalls in the surface.

If you think an airbase needs no buildings, you need to convince the DoD they are wasting money on the bare base concept. Buildings? Who needs buildings?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back