The Winning Strategy - WW2 air campaign against Germany

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


Make airfields the top priority though like Kenney did because if the aircraft are destroyed/damaged on the ground or have nowhere to safely land then they are no longer a threat to the bombers. Damaged aircraft take manpower and resources to repair and if the hangars are damaged/destroyed then repairing them becomes more difficult.
 

Definitely an angle to attack, but attacking refineries, or the rail-cars that transport that fuel, will also keep those aircraft on the ground -- albeit it will take longer, it will have larger ripple effects on the wider economy.
 
Make airfields the top priority though like Kenney did because if the aircraft are destroyed/damaged on the ground or have nowhere to safely land then they are no longer a threat to the bombers.
I recall reading that between 1 Jan 1944 and 31 Dec 1944 the Germans lost something like 20,000 aircraft while they were in the process of being delivered to the operational units. So it sounds like the USAAF got that aspect pretty well covered.

I recall reading that in order to supplement their AL the Germans used an alloy that used an unusually high percentage of MG. When they caught fire the skin of the aircraft itself would burn.
 
Magnesium was mostly used in brakes as I understand it, as it was expensive and hard to source and not in sufficient quantity for skinning thousands of planes. For American aircraft aluminum was the sheeting of choice. Aluminum burns too, just not as readily.

Odd to use magnesium in brakes as it is not just flammable but prone to thermal shock -- i.e., if a plane locked brakes on landing causing a brake fire, throwing water on them would often result in brake discs exploding from thermal shock, sending shrapnel to Hell and breakfast.

By the time I was a USAF firefighter, we had Purple-K to smother brake-fires without putting water on the things, a dry powder that clung to the burning metal and killed the fire by anoxia.
 
Last edited:
Many castings on NAA aircraft during ww2 were magnesium as they are lighter than aluminium.

Bristol Hercules engines have a lot of magnesium in the rear cases.

Likewise other airframe and engine manufacturers used it randomly - including at least two turrets that I have worked on.

I cannot remember which but I have worked on at least one aircraft that had spot welded magnesium control surfaces. I think it was an early Vtail Bonanza.

I think the use on brakes was because of its rapid heat transfer/dissipation.
 

I think the word "contributions," when applied to the countries invaded and occupied is inappropriate, as the word implies the goods and services were voluntary. "Stolen" or "extorted" may be more appropriate.
 
Hi

Details from BBSU Report, reference the "Top Priority Objectives" and what type of targets were bombed:
RAF Bomber Command:

VIIIth USAAF:

XVth USAAF:

Concentrating on one target type throughout the war, whatever the war situation was, would more likely be a "losing strategy" rather than a "winning strategy".
German Oil Stats:

This is in thousands of metric tons.

I hope that is of interest.

Mike
 

Interesting charts as it shows the RAF almost ignored attacking aircraft targets, despite the LW almost eliminating the RAF as a fighting force in early 40. Only 2.94% of RAF bombs were on aircraft targets for the whole war.

In comparison the VIIIth USAAF dropped 21.87% of its bombs on those targets and the XVth USAAF 18.04.

All three concentrated on transportation.
 
Neither Bomber Command nor the USAAF had the technology to accurately hit industrial targets. Lindeman all but acknowledged this when he proposed the real purpose of strategic bombing was to "dehouse" the enemy workforce. Dehouseing civilians doesn't kill enemy solders.

Patrick Blackett wrote: "if the Allied air effort had been used more intelligently, if more aircraft had been supplied for the Battle of the Atlantic and to support the land fighting in Africa and later in France, if the bombing of Germany had been carried out with the attrition of enemy defences in mind rather than razing cities to the ground, I believe the war could have been won half a year or even a year earlier."

Wars are won by killing enemy solders, plain and simple. GEN Marshall directed GEN Eisenhower to: "You will enter the continent of Europe and in conjunction with other Allied nations, undertake operations aimed at the heart of Germany and the destruction of her armed forces…" If more industrial output had been used for tactical aircraft perhaps the German Army may have been destroyed sooner and the War ended sooner, but this is wise long after the events.

A good read is the United States Strategic Bombing Survey Summary Reports. https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Po...B_0020_SPANGRUD_STRATEGIC_BOMBING_SURVEYS.pdf
 
Overlord failing was unthinkable, all plans had to err on the side of caution, it would take a lot to reduce the French rail system to where it could move less to Normandy per day than the allies could land there by ship.

The army does not run on aviation fuel, the USSBS indicates German petroleum products peaked at over 700,000 tonnes in March 1944, down to around 685,000 tonnes in April, 605,000 tonnes in May, 400,000 tons in June, further steep declines to 265,000 tons in September, then another halving November/December. Aviation fuel, which effectively means the hydrogenation plants, peak about 180,000 tonnes in March 1944, to 170,000 tonnes in May, 100,000 tonnes in May, under 30,000 tonnes in July. The above is read from a USSBS graph, Speer reports aviation fuel 175,000 tons in April, 156,000 tons in May, 53,000 tons in June, 29,000 tons 1 to 28 July, 12,000 tons in August, 9,400 tons in September, 18,000 tons in October, 41,000 tons in November, 23,000 tons in December.

Bomber Command was heading for a defeat in early 1944, heavy bomber loss percentage for attacks on Germany went above 5% end 1943 and went above 6% in January 1944 and apart from April, stayed above 5% until July. Accuracy for targets in Germany was around 55% end 1943, went to 60% in April 1944, 70% in August, aircraft with crews 879 in November 1943 and 1,132 in May 1944 then 1,245 in August 1944 so 70/55 times 1,245/879, Bomber Command was about 80% more effective in August 1944.

Only counting the 8th Air Force fighters ignores the contribution of the 9th Air Force for a start, November 1943, 1,621 USAAF fighters in Britain (including reserves) with 231 Mustangs, end April 1944 it was 3,685 including 950 Mustangs. From Richard Davis figures, 8th Air Force percentage of attacking bomber losses, raids on Germany November 1943 to April 1944, 3.85, 3.58, 4.61, 4.23, 4.41, 5.03. 8th Air Force total bombs dropped November 1943, 6,416.8 tons, May 1944 36,007 tons. The following is the May to October 1944 bomb tonnage on oil targets / the November 1943 to April 1944 bombs on Germany / November 1943 to April 1944 total bombs dropped.
2872.9 / 5383.5 / 6416.8
4966.1 / 8893.7 /11734.5
6880.5 / 8287.8 / 11679.2
9390.1 / 13065.8 / 18339.4
7638.7 / 14641 / 21046.6
5112.2 / 15274.7 / 24931.3

Starting oil earlier at the historical intensity should make predicting the target for the day easier and up losses.

The lack of H2X sets limited the amount of bombing the 8th Air Force could do late 1943 into early 1944, coupled with good weather reserved for strikes on occupied countries. Overlord commitments saw the trend, 8th Air Force % of bombs on Germany November 1943 to April 1944, 83.90, 75.79, 70.96, 71.24, 69.56, 61.27

The 8th Air Force dropped 237 tons of bombs on Gelsenkirchen/Buer and Nordstern on 5 November 1943, on 30 December it was 1,394.0 tons on Ludwigshafen/I. G. Farben, on 7 January 1944 another 980.4 tons, Dollbergen oil refinery 128.5 tons on 3 March, few people seem to have noticed, Spaatz believed in the oil plan and so waited until good weather before doing the 12 May raids, with 1,383.6 tons of bombs on 5 synthetic oil refineries, he had permission to try them for days to weeks before.

No one disputes switching to oil some of the missions done end 1943 and early 1944 would be a win for the allies, obtaining the May 1944 on production effects results would not happen without more bombs being dropped given bomber accuracy, lack of forces, weather and the defences would make any systematic attempt at oil targets unsustainable, while giving the Germans 6 more months to increase active and passive defences.

The use of heavy bombers as a super break through artillery barrage was quite effective, essentially destroying the ability to resist for troops under the bomb carpet. One Bomber Command and one 8th Air Force raid per day, in conjunction with a limited ground attack (sort of like 1918 not trying for that breakthrough), 2 German divisions a day heavily hurt, times 20 days in June, don't knock it until you have tried it.

Since Germany was not going to surrender to airpower alone an invasion of France was required, to do so in the second half of 1943 would basically require all allied amphibious lift, none available for elsewhere, the belief the U-boats would be defeated before the invasion really required lots of supplies and assuming it could cope with the German forces used at Kursk. More amphibious shipping could have enabled Overlord a month or two earlier with greater weather risks while still enabling Pacific and Mediterranean operations, taking the approaches to Antwerp immediately around another month saved. There are plenty of statements about ending the war earlier if only, ignoring the time needed to provide the trained, equipped forces needed, backed by working supply lines. The tanker situation in mid 1943 would cause fuel problems.

This is what would be behind a US Army 1943 Operation Overlord - Shipping to England. It took until mid 1943 for the US Army to work out and put in place a standard set of mandatory labels for cargo, what was in it and who it was for, standard manifests followed in 1944. The failure to do this in 1942 had caused considerable angst. In mid 1942 an example given was one ship 30% of the cargo had no markings, 25% no addressee and just general description, e.g. Quartermaster. This was compounded by the lack of shipping, resulting in loading to capacity with what was on the docks, and the shortage of army equipment, leading to piecemeal arrivals of equipment on the docks. In September 1942 the equipment of 1 infantry regiment was sent to England split up between 55 ships.

The result was although the equipment was in England for the US troops already in England allocated to Torch some of the equipment had to be sent a second or even third time because it became lost somewhere in England. This was a major issue in 1942 as equipment that could have been training troops in the US was simply "lost" for the time. The lack of equipment and shipping space meant the troops had to give up their equipment 30 days before the voyage to be packed and it took 80 to 120 days longer than the troops to arrive in the UK. By mid 1942 the idea of "preshipment", excess stocks for later use, was mooted and put into practice in 1943. This had the advantages of using port capacity in England in 1943, that troops could be issued equipment on arrival, that troops posted overseas could wait until the last minute to give up equipment to another unit before moving. Note preshipment was not for everything and troops still moved with a significant amount of their own equipment. Some 2,427,628 measurement tons of preshipment cargo was sent to England in 1943, another 1,863,629 measurement tons in the first 5 months of 1944.

British Bombing Survey Unit has 3,218 tons of bombs dropped by the 8th Air Force from start of operations to 21 January 1943, the USAAF Statistical Digest says 2,452 tons including jettisoned bombs to end January, Richard Davis says 2,044.2 tons dropped on targets to 21 January, 2,314 tons to end January 1943, Davis breakdown to 21 January 1943,

330.3 A/F
161.8 A/I
286.1 Loco/Wks
153.6 M/Y
136.5 P/A
54.5 Shipyard
192.7 Steel & Eng
55 T/O
673.7 UB/Pens

Things do get better, BBSU wartime 8th Air Force tonnage 702,927, USAAF Statistical Digest 714,719 (including 25,335 tons jettisoned and unidentified), Davis 686,933.3 on targets. For wartime tonnage on airfields, BBSU 85,005, Digest 82,691, Davis 81,803.5 plus 126 tons on A/F & Signals Depot and 53.5 tons on A/F (Dummy)

January to October 1944 the 15th Air Force reports jettisoning 16,777 tons of bombs while dropping 182,194 tons on targets, total 198,971 tons, the Statistical Digest says 201,386 tons of bombs dropped. Davis says 182,344.8 tons dropped on targets.
 

Industrial targets were hit many times. From the aero engine factories, tank/AFV factories and indeed oil targets.
Just because there was no great accuracy, bombers (and bombs) still came in. Further, there is nothing to prevent greater effort in training and developing of optical and electronics aids. Even the humble flares as used by FAA would've been a boon for the night bombing, but problem with that idea was that it was developed in the late 1930s by an entity that was not true & pure RAF.

Unless WAllies are not deep in France by, say, August-September of 1943, there is no way that the war can end by May of 1944. Especially with LW being with full stocks of fuel and their aircraft manned with the pilots that have full set of flying hours as the WAllied pilots, and not just a half - or worse - as it was the case historically.
The historical Normandy landings were supported by hordes of bombers and light bombers as-is.

Idea of winning the war by killing the enemy soldiers is simple, but execution of that idea might not be. Luftwaffe will not be lured to fight above France in 1943 in a major way as the Allied planners might've wished. For the WAllies, to defeat Germany is to defeat Luftwaffe 1st, and Heer 2nd.
US, UK and many other entered the continent of Europe in Summer of 1943, by the same time of 1944 they barely captured half of Italy. That is despite having an overwhelming support by both tactical and strategical air units.

US & UK not embarking on the strategic air offensive would've released hundreds of Flak crews to go to either frontlines of production lines, it would've freed the manufacturing capacity to make more field and anti tank guns and the ammo. It would've meant that there is no dip in German industrial production due to the bombing, fear of bombing, lack of manpower and lack of energy. It would've also meant that Germany has enough of fuel, nitrates, methyl and ethyl alcohol and whatnot for the needs of LW, Heer, ammo production and for civilian needs.
 
Last edited:
So.

The strategy (such as it was) against Germany in WW2 was less successful than it might have been.

What would have been the optimal strategy or elements thereof?

Assume the same resources available.

Fight!

There is a huge amount of things that need to sorted out here.
Just picking on the British here (US made a lot of mistakes of their own and were over 2 years late so they had 2-3 years to learn and sometimes didn't).

Most Air Forces were flying around in La-La land.
Their bombers would always find the target.
Their bombers would hit the target (mostly).
Their bombs once they hit, would destroy the targets.

Turns out that this was mostly untrue to different degrees.
Now until you can fix these 3 problems any discussion of target selection is rather moot.
We have not even gotten to points of defensive fire/loss rates and so on. If you not even hitting the right cities the loss rates per mission are also rather moot except to draw off enemy fighters and AA guns.

If you want to destroy heavy machinery and/or a lot of oil refining equipment you need big bombs. Very few Air Forces actually tested their bombs against actual buildings or industrial plants before the war. So in the early part of the war (or even 1942/43) the bombers were using bombs that were not very effective against certain targets. Dropping a lot of 250lb bombs increased the chances of hits but the smaller bombs didn't do as much damage and had a smaller blast radius.

Now in both the British and American Air forces there was a large element of "empire building" going on. In both forces the "bomber" Generals wanted to prove that the Air Force was a dominate weapon/force fully the equal of the Navy and Army and deserving of equal (or larger share) of the budget and and equal number of flag rank officers. They can't do that if they are seen as a "supporting force" like ASW. They have to be able to claim that the air force significantly affected the enemies ability to wage war.
Target selection and/or panacea target selection/campaigns should always be looked at with that in mind. May not be 100% but just keep it in mind.
Now a lot of decisions were made in ignorance. Testing in peace time was expensive. So a lot of officers were basically guessing in the first few years of the war.
 

Users who are viewing this thread