Area bombing is not a dirty word.

From: "Bill Phillips"



I did a quick search on Germany+war+production.

This is the first hit I got:

http://www.usaaf.net/surveys/eto/ebs4.htm

It indicates that German Industry has so much slack in it that bombing had
little effect.

Psychologically bombing may have been counter productive, it made us appear
inhuman and therefore caused the Germans to fight longer and harder.

True Germany was crumbling at the end but that was as a result of many
effects.

IMHO the only useful thing bombers did was draw the Luftwaffe out so that
the P51s could shoot them down.


In my opinion a great many strategic bombing missions were a waste of men and
aircraft.

1) The bombing of London had already proved the population would NOT be
demoralized yet the Allies seemed to think the Germans would cave.

2) Formating missions could take as long as 2 hours during which time the
Germans would be alerted by radar. I have always wondered if 1 or 2 Forts or
Lancs could sneak in at night and hit the target at dawn. Both bombers had good
accuracy at 5 kilofeet giving a good chance of taking out the target.

3) Targets kept changing prorities. If the bombing missions were planned to
knock out a system or production of a specific item such as ball bearings or
oil and continued until that system or product was brought to a stop they could
then go on to the next priority. Speer said a follow up to the Schweinfurt raid
would have seriously hurt ball bearing production to the point of affecting the
war effort. However the next bombing missions were elsewhere.

You can see where I am going with this. I wonder how many airmen would have
lived if the Allies changed their methods. I wonder how much shorther the war
would have been if oil production and distribution alone were the sole primary
targets early in the war. Secondary targets would be airfields and flack.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Subject: Area bombing is not a dirty word.
From: (B2431)
Date: 1/1/04 1:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

From: "Bill Phillips"



I did a quick search on Germany+war+production.

This is the first hit I got:

http://www.usaaf.net/surveys/eto/ebs4.htm

It indicates that German Industry has so much slack in it that bombing had
little effect.

Psychologically bombing may have been counter productive, it made us appear
inhuman and therefore caused the Germans to fight longer and harder.

True Germany was crumbling at the end but that was as a result of many
effects.

IMHO the only useful thing bombers did was draw the Luftwaffe out so that
the P51s could shoot them down.


In my opinion a great many strategic bombing missions were a waste of men and
aircraft.

1) The bombing of London had already proved the population would NOT be
demoralized yet the Allies seemed to think the Germans would cave.

2) Formating missions could take as long as 2 hours during which time the
Germans would be alerted by radar. I have always wondered if 1 or 2 Forts or
Lancs could sneak in at night and hit the target at dawn. Both bombers had
good
accuracy at 5 kilofeet giving a good chance of taking out the target.

3) Targets kept changing prorities. If the bombing missions were planned to
knock out a system or production of a specific item such as ball bearings or
oil and continued until that system or product was brought to a stop they
could
then go on to the next priority. Speer said a follow up to the Schweinfurt
raid
would have seriously hurt ball bearing production to the point of affecting
the
war effort. However the next bombing missions were elsewhere.

You can see where I am going with this. I wonder how many airmen would have
lived if the Allies changed their methods. I wonder how much shorther the war
would have been if oil production and distribution alone were the sole
primary
targets early in the war. Secondary targets would be airfields and flack.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired


Hindsight is always 20-20. The bottom line is we beat the *******s and left
Germany a smoking, smoldering, burning ruin. Not bad for a bunch of 19 year old
kids vs the supermen. Before talking about all we did wrong, just consider all
that we did right. And we did a lot more right than we did wrong.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

From: (ArtKramr)


Hindsight is always 20-20. The bottom line is we beat the *******s and left
Germany a smoking, smoldering, burning ruin. Not bad for a bunch of 19 year
old
kids vs the supermen. Before talking about all we did wrong, just consider
all
that we did right. And we did a lot more right than we did wrong.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


Agreed.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

On 01 Jan 2004 22:09:46 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

From: (ArtKramr)


Hindsight is always 20-20. The bottom line is we beat the *******s and left
Germany a smoking, smoldering, burning ruin. Not bad for a bunch of 19 year
old
kids vs the supermen. Before talking about all we did wrong, just consider
all
that we did right. And we did a lot more right than we did wrong.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


Agreed.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

On the one hand, it *is* dirty.
Area Bombing is a dirty word-- it represents the death of many
people on both sides, many horribly.
I agree with that. But for those who think it is the MOST dirty
word, let me give a few others.
Genocide. Dachau, The Eastern Front, Nanking.

If we had been fighting an enemy that avoided attacking civilians,
that abided by the laws of war, that refrained from imposing
dictatorship at home and abroad, mass bombing raids would be an
atrocity-- they wouldn't have been needed. (For that matter, there
wouldn't have been a war). But we were fighting governments that had
proven that literally NO atrocity was beyond them. Any, literally any
means to defeat them was not simply allowed, but required of any moral
natiuon.

And to those who say that it was "too horrible", I would point out
the beneficiaries of these battles that few think of today-- every
Japanese and German citizen who grows up, protests and votes in a
state where such actions are not fraught with danger.

Subject: Area bombing is not a dirty word.
From: Charles Gray
Date: 1/1/04 2:59 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On 01 Jan 2004 22:09:46 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

From: (ArtKramr)


Hindsight is always 20-20. The bottom line is we beat the *******s and left
Germany a smoking, smoldering, burning ruin. Not bad for a bunch of 19 year
old
kids vs the supermen. Before talking about all we did wrong, just consider
all
that we did right. And we did a lot more right than we did wrong.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


Agreed.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

On the one hand, it *is* dirty.
Area Bombing is a dirty word-- it represents the death of many
people on both sides, many horribly.
I agree with that. But for those who think it is the MOST dirty
word, let me give a few others.
Genocide. Dachau, The Eastern Front, Nanking.

If we had been fighting an enemy that avoided attacking civilians,
that abided by the laws of war, that refrained from imposing
dictatorship at home and abroad, mass bombing raids would be an
atrocity-- they wouldn't have been needed. (For that matter, there
wouldn't have been a war). But we were fighting governments that had
proven that literally NO atrocity was beyond them. Any, literally any
means to defeat them was not simply allowed, but required of any moral
natiuon.

And to those who say that it was "too horrible", I would point out
the beneficiaries of these battles that few think of today-- every
Japanese and German citizen who grows up, protests and votes in a
state where such actions are not fraught with danger.



Well said.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Before talking about all we did wrong, just consider all
that we did right.

However, it is useful today to study what you did wrong to ensure we do it
right the next time. Unlike infantry and artilliary tactics that are thousands
of years old, aerial warfare is a mere infant at less than a hundred and the
historical examples to study are much fewer. Don't take it personal Art, we are
in the process of sifting through what we did wrong over Iraq less than a year
ago. Sometimes it seems us air minded people are pretty self deprecating.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Subject: Area bombing is not a dirty word.
From: (BUFDRVR)
Date: 1/2/04 2:51 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Before talking about all we did wrong, just consider all
that we did right.

However, it is useful today to study what you did wrong to ensure we do it
right the next time. Unlike infantry and artilliary tactics that are
thousands
of years old, aerial warfare is a mere infant at less than a hundred and the
historical examples to study are much fewer. Don't take it personal Art, we
are
in the process of sifting through what we did wrong over Iraq less than a
year
ago. Sometimes it seems us air minded people are pretty self deprecating.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"


I think it is a question of who's ox is gored. We should always study the past
to correct errors. But it is a case of who is doing the studying. When those
who never flew a mission or even served in the military start telling us
everything we did wrong, I resent the hubris. When skilled experienced military
airman do the studying, I perk up and listen. I think it is a matter of
perspective. But from where I sat in WW II, it sure looked as though we did a
lot more right than wrong. And we left a burning defeated Germany as proof.



Regards,

Arthur

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Area bombing is not a dirty word.
From: (BUFDRVR)
Date: 1/2/04 2:51 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Before talking about all we did wrong, just consider all
that we did right.

However, it is useful today to study what you did wrong to ensure we do
it
right the next time. Unlike infantry and artilliary tactics that are
thousands
of years old, aerial warfare is a mere infant at less than a hundred and
the
historical examples to study are much fewer. Don't take it personal Art,
we
are
in the process of sifting through what we did wrong over Iraq less than a
year
ago. Sometimes it seems us air minded people are pretty self deprecating.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"


I think it is a question of who's ox is gored. We should always study the
past
to correct errors. But it is a case of who is doing the studying. When
those
who never flew a mission or even served in the military start telling us
everything we did wrong, I resent the hubris. When skilled experienced
military
airman do the studying, I perk up and listen. I think it is a matter of
perspective. But from where I sat in WW II, it sure looked as though we
did a
lot more right than wrong. And we left a burning defeated Germany as
proof.

Unfortunately airman are a prone to spinning findings as anyone else.
Airman lied about the effectiveness of WW1 bombing to justify building up
airpower between the wars. They lied about the effectiveness of German
bombing at the start of WW2, to justify a counter offensive. Throughout WW2
they lied about the effectiveness of their bombing to justify throwing good
resources after bad.

I say it is better to ask someone who does not have an ox in the ring.

They lied about the effectiveness of German
bombing at the start of WW2, to justify a counter offensive.

Wrong. The USAAF part of the CBO was born out of AWPD-1, first drafted in
1938. The only thing the USAAF can be accused of was too easily dismissing the
German failure in the Battle of Britain when they revised AWPD-1 in late 1940.
According to most air power experts of that time period, Germany failed because
their bombers were ill equipped to the task. They were correct in that regard,
but they let that explain away everything and literally learned no lessons from
the Battle of Britain.

Throughout WW2
they lied about the effectiveness of their bombing to justify throwing good
resources after bad.

Wrong again. They had a real time intelligence problem with attempting to
analyze exactly the results of their bombing. They had excellent photo recon
and excellent SIGINT due to Ultra, but a hard time correlating the 2. 60 years
later, we are still struggling with this, albeit not nearly as bad.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
They lied about the effectiveness of German
bombing at the start of WW2, to justify a counter offensive.

Wrong. The USAAF part of the CBO was born out of AWPD-1, first drafted in
1938. The only thing the USAAF can be accused of was too easily dismissing
the
German failure in the Battle of Britain when they revised AWPD-1 in late
1940.
According to most air power experts of that time period, Germany failed
because
their bombers were ill equipped to the task. They were correct in that
regard,
but they let that explain away everything and literally learned no lessons
from
the Battle of Britain.

I was think of the RAF, however, the main lesson of the BoB was that bombing
was not as effective as had been expected. As far as I can tell the USAAF
did not learn this lesson.

Throughout WW2
they lied about the effectiveness of their bombing to justify throwing
good
resources after bad.

Wrong again. They had a real time intelligence problem with attempting to
analyze exactly the results of their bombing. They had excellent photo
recon
and excellent SIGINT due to Ultra, but a hard time correlating the 2. 60
years
later, we are still struggling with this, albeit not nearly as bad.

Again I was thinking of the RAF, bomb damage assessment in the early days of
night bombing were mostly wishful thinking and was subsequently proved to be
wildly optimistic. BDA did improve as the war progressed, but by then
people were committed to the bombing offensive and so there was less need to
lie.