What is a strategic bomber?

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

The commanders of the strategic bombing campaigns of WW2 would entirely have agreed with the man who commanded those Zeppelins. Peter Strasser famously declared:

"What we do is repugnant but necessary, very necessary. Nowadays, there is no such animal as a non-combatant. Modern warfare is total warfare."

And:

"If what we do is terrible, then let terror be Germany's salvation."

I can almost hear Harris saying similar words.

Steve
 
Last edited:
Thanks Dave. Z VI was a German Army Zeppelin and the target was the forts at Liege during the German invasion (that's why I couldn't find it in my history of the German naval Zeppelins!).

The commanders of the strategic bombing campaigns of WW2 would entirely have agreed with the man who commanded those Zeppelins. Peter Strasser famously declared:
Click to expand...

Sadly for Strasser he did not have anywhere near the likes of the equipment that he could carry out his aims. The Zeppelins were a lost cause, but significantly, the aeroplane long range bombers the Germans sent to England caused more damage, but again, their numbers were too small to be of any real impact on the course of the war that the Germans hoped they would. Strasser and his crews made it plainly clear they were waging morale bombing against the British population; Kapitanleutnant Martin Dietrich, on commenting about the effectiveness of Zeppelin attacks stated that; "…the moral effect was something else. It was important to remind the English [the Germans refer to the entire British Isles as "England"] that their island empire was no longer safe from attack – attack from the air."

A total of 196 tons of bombs were dropped on the United Kingdom over 51 raids by airships between January 1915 and August 1918, causing the deaths of 557 people and injuring another 1,358.
 
Also sadly for Strasser he died in Norfolk!

It is interesting that as early as 1915 Strasser had realised the importance of incendiary bombs in city attacks. The early German thermite/benzole/ tarred rope devices were very effective. This lesson was not lost on the British and soon learnt by the Americans.

Cheers

Steve
 
Also sadly for Strasser he died in Norfolk!
Click to expand...

Well, in the sea off Norfolk, at least. L 70 was shot down from an Airco DH.4 being piloted by Egbert Cadbury - heir to the chocolate factory, and his gunner Robert Leckie. Strasser's body was recovered and given a sea burial befitting that of a senior naval commander, apparently.

It is interesting that as early as 1915 Strasser had realised the importance of incendiary bombs in city attacks.
Click to expand...

That is, if they were able to get to the cities, let alone over the target area. The amazing thing about the Zeppelin operations is the stories about each individual ship and its escapades whilst droning around over British territory. Airships that were meant to attack Newcastle in 1916, for example, ended up near Loch Ness!
 
The theory of strategic bombing out ran the ability to do so for a considerably period of time. At least to point of effectiveness of really affecting an enemies production/ability to wage war. Make headlines, cause causalities and affect AA gun and fighter deployments is another story.

I figure that even in the 1930s (or even 1940/41/42) ANY bomber that could reach an enemies (or potential enemies) cities, production centers (including fuel), transportation centers (rail yards/docks), etc was a "strategic" bomber regardless of it's size or bomb load. Some obviously were a whole lot better than others, but since the required size, type and number of bombs needed to actually put a target out of commission for a period of time was either unknown or woefully miscalculated some rather small bombers could be considered "strategic" bombers at this time.

As army front lines neared cities a city's target "status" might change from strategic to tactical. Stukas attacking Warsaw does not mean that the Stuka was a strategic bomber if the German Army was in the process of closing in on Warsaw or fighting in Wasaw.
 

I know that they used to lower a crew member in a sort of pod on the end of a cable until he was under the clouds. By telephone he could give the Zeppelin directions, assuming he could actually see anything! It's not a job I'd fancy.

It took the intestines of 250,000 cows to make the gas bags of one WW1 Zeppelin! Unbelievably this led to sausage rationing in Germany of all countries

Cheers

Steve
 
The picture of the 'first German bomb dropped from LZ38' shows an incendiary bomb, but it is lacking its wrapping of tarred rope.



The tarred rope was a simple way to keep the source of ignition burning.

Zeppelins were hard to shoot down with machine guns. Bullets, even the Buckingham incendiaries, passed harmlessly through the gas bags which did not ignite in the absence of sufficient oxygen. Eventually a combination of explosive bullets and incendiary bullets, loaded alternatively into the ammunition drum, proved successful. One would rip open the gas bags, the other ignite the hydrogen/air mixture which would hopefully develop.
Somehow the pilot of the attacking aeroplane was supposed to concentrate the fire from his upward firing machine gun in one area of the airship envelope to ensure the best chance of success.

Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:
I know that they used to lower a crew member in a sort of pod on the end of a cable until he was under the clouds. By telephone he could give the Zeppelin directions, assuming he could actually see anything! It's not a job I'd fancy.
Click to expand...

Reading an account by German crew members, the observation car - there used to be one in the main hall of IWM at Lambeth, not sure now they've renovated the place and moved a lot of the aeroplanes out - was the only place one could have a cigarette on duty in a Zeppelin!

It took the intestines of 250,000 cows to make the gas bags of one WW1 Zeppelin!
Click to expand...

Yep, good ole goldbeater's skin. Not much use for it these days, except for in Scotland in Haggis, although I think it's sheep they use in haggis (oops, gotta keep fooling those American tourists that flock to Edinburgh each year for the festival that the haggis is a wild animal that roams about on the lowland hills with two legs shorter than the other two to stop them falling off the hillside...). Who woulda thought the lining of a cow's stomach was impermeable to hydrogen and how did they find that out?! In later ships of the 33 Class, L 31 and so on, they required some 600,000 oxen to give their lives for the cause. The British built HM Ships R.33 and 34 based on the same diameter hull and gas cell size. At Inchinnan, where R.34 was built - and I guess every other airship building concern, there was a farm for the herds required for the gas cells. Apparently, even after stitching the sheets of goldbeater's skin together, which was usually done by hand by women, they skins would continue to 'grow' together once fastened.

LZ 38 was a German Army Zeppelin and made the first attack against London by an airship on 31 May 1915. What you stated, Steve, this leads me to believe that the Zeppelin Z VI that attacked the forts at Liege was not a strategic raid at all since it was in support of the German army advancing into Belgium.
 
Eventually a combination of explosive bullets and incendiary bullets, loaded alternatively into the ammunition drum, proved successful.
Click to expand...

Here's a recollection from Kiwi Alfred de Bathe Brandon, who attacked both L 15 and L 33 and both escaped him to crash later, on the night of 23/24 September 1916 after encountering L 33, illustrating some of the difficulties pilots encountered:

""After putting on a drum of ammunition I came up behind the Zeppelin and on raising the gun jerked it out of the mounting, the gun and the yoke falling across the nacelle. I managed to replace the gun, but in the meantime had passed under and past the Zeppelin. I turned and passed along it again… …but we passed each other too quickly for me to take aim… The Brock ammunition seemed to be bursting all along it but the Zeppelin did not catch fire. I was using Brock, Pomeroy and sparklet. I turned again and put on a fresh drum and came up from behind and fired again. The gun jammed after nine rounds"

Brandon was in 39 Home Defence Squadron, which produced a few Zeppelin killers in the Autumn of 1916, William Leefe-Robinson, Freddie Sowrey and Wulstan Tempest are the most well known. Another Kiwi connection is that the Pomeroy incendiary bullet was designed by a man from Invercargill, John Pomeroy.
 
Historians have considered the attack by Z VI to have been the first strategic bombing mission and this is where we fall back into defining the true nature of strategic bombing. It would seem that Z VI was on a tactical mission, if in support of an advancing army, but would that be tactical or was it really a strategic strike to incapacitate the defenders?
 

I heard that too on QI. I think the zeppelins were a bigger drain on the German economy than the British one. I read a similar thing about the V2, more people died making them than were killed by them.


I think there were better uses of the British labour force and economy than building so many Halifaxes and Lancasters.
 
pbehn said:
I think there were better uses of the British labour force and economy than building so many Halifaxes and Lancasters.
Click to expand...

I'd ask to do what?

The decision had been taken to mount a strategic bombing campaign against Germany. It was the only means available to Britain to hit back at the Nazi regime. There is a large political aspect to this decision, it was not taken on entirely military grounds. To enable this campaign then huge resources had to be invested in the hardware to carry it out.

I never knew QI had covered Zeppelins, or was it sausage rationing! It's a programme I do watch from time to time so I'll keep my eyes open for that episode

Cheers

Steve
 
nuuumannn said:
Brandon was in 39 Home Defence Squadron, which produced a few Zeppelin killers in the Autumn of 1916, William Leefe-Robinson, Freddie Sowrey and Wulstan Tempest are the most well known.
Click to expand...

It says something for the effect that the Zeppelin raids were having on Britain, and the propaganda value of Leefe-Robinson's first successful destruction of one, that he was awarded the Victoria Cross. Sowrey got a DSO, as did Tempest, for the same feat. That's still a high decoration indeed, but the VC has a certain mystique in British and Commonwealth nations, as our Commonwealth friends well know, which sets it apart.

Cheers

Steve
 

Quite right.
Not only were there domestic politics but Stalin was requesting that Britian (and America) do something to take some of the Pressure off the Russians in 1942/43. A few divisions in North Africa was NOT it. The Western Allies were in no position to mount an invasion of France and open a western front in 1942/43 so the Air campaign had to substitute. It also has to be taken into consideration that the western allies thought they were doing better than they were for actual results of the bombing campaign at the time.
It is the post war analysis that shows a better picture of what was achieved for what was "spent". The large increase numbers in AA guns, ammo and men tied up was a benefit too that doesn't show up on some "score boards".

With 20/20 hindsight we can see the mistakes/errors in the bombing campaign and see how better results could have been achieved with less expenditure of men and treasure.
 
It would seem that Z VI was on a tactical mission, if in support of an advancing army, but would that be tactical or was it really a strategic strike to incapacitate the defenders?
Click to expand...

Which historians? Yep, this is the crux of the matter, but the Z VI was an army aircraft carrying out a strike on a target in aid of the advancing German army, which intended on taking the fort, which was a military installation, which could have hindered the progress of the ground troops. Strategic or tactical? Sounds like Stukas attacking Polish defences in advance of the invading German army, which isn't defined as strategic. The German navy Zeppelins, however, were attacking British cities, not in direct support of an invading army, in fact some distance from the front, but to threaten the British civilian population. Stategic use of the airship, as opposed to tactical use. The naval Zeppelins were initially employed for fleet reconnaissance and they performed this role for the High Seas Fleet on a number of occasions, Jutland included. As I mentioned earlier, the navies, Allied and Axis, used aircraft in keeping with their strategic role, which brings us to policy as much a definition of what is strategic and what is not.


It certainly does; as I mentioned earlier, the threat of Zeppelins was great and it dominated British naval aviation policy throughout the war, whether in defence of cities or warships when Zeppelins were used for reconnaissance. Naval aviators launched strategic attacks against airship sheds on numerous occasions.

Brandon received a Military Cross and a DSO for his two Zeppelin attacks. The most remarkable aspect of these successful interceptions (Leefe-Robinson shot down a Shutte Lanz airship rather than a Zeppelin - must stop using the term generically), was the fact that they were made in the B.E.2c, a most unlikely interceptor; More airships were brought down by airmen flying B.E.2s than any other type of aircraft.
 

They were all Zeppelins to the British public, then and now

I read once in some arcane book about WW1 aircraft that the B.E.2 was a very stable aeroplane which, unusually at the time, would fly straight and level 'hands off'. This may have been useful when intercepting an airship, managing the machine gun, changing ammunition drums etc. It is often forgotten that they flew as 'night fighters' with only one crew.

Cheers

Steve
 
It is often forgotten that they flew as 'night fighters' with only one crew.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed, although one might be tempted to believe that there was some hidden virtue in the unassuming B.E, but the real reason behind its success was the timely introduction of incendiary bullets.
 

Well a better tank by D Day
More lift capacity
More precision fighter bombers

of course a tank and a lanc arnt the same but we had emphasis in the wrong places at times

I think the question was on why were sausages rationed!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Axis Strategic Heavy Bombers?
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
1939 Tactical Bomber
2 3
Replies
41
Views
4K
GrauGeist
XB-24J prototype bomber
Replies
18
Views
1K
GrauGeist
What (or what would) make a good tactical recon aircraft in World War II
Replies
10
Views
1K
ColFord
S
Request help identifying type of Bomber aircraft
Replies
3
Views
863
SaparotRob
Menu
Log in
Register