Tactical Strikes of World War II

[lesofprimus]

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...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Agreed Les.

[Hunter368]

Agreed, syscom just stop.

[Bullockracing]

Originally Posted by syscom3

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?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Bullockracing when did you repair runways? We are talking about WW2 here. The techonology and tools have changed.

[Bullockracing]

Originally Posted by Bullockracing

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.

Roger that Adler. I was addressing that the estimated time frame to repair a runway in the forties would be significantly greater than a couple of hours, since the record time using modern tools and techniques is just over an hour.

I was (and still hold my 3E271 skill level) a Heavy Equipment Operator in USAF Civil Engineering for over ten years before retraining into computers. RRR is the primary wartime job of USAF Civil Engineering.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Thats cool. Maybe you can give syscom some info on that, but he will not believe you.

[syscom3]

Lots of airfields in WW2 were dirt.

[wmaxt]

Looking at things from another angle. Say a tactical strike hit a rail yard, it might be partly operational again in six hours. Which is reasonable in most cases but may only be one track. If that delay (not to mention a slower speed and a bottle neck at that point) kept reinforcements, supplies and or equipment from getting to the front or to a beach head, it could be the deciding factor in a battle, invasion or campain.

During the invasion of Normandy the delay from lack of rail transport and downed bridges, both taken out with Tac air, delayed the full German response as much as 48 hours (over and above Hitlers contabution). The German response was also piecemeal because the temporary repairs were limited in there capacity to move people or equipment. It was enough to assure the success of the landings.

Another thing tac-air does is that each time it knocks out a rail yard, bridge etc it delays materials which stops factories and interupts the operations all up and down the line. It also ties up material and manpower - the guy thats laying rail is not shooting at you! He's also not building fighters. tanks, bombs or shells.

I haven't even mentioned tac-air in relation to troops in contact with a larger force or trapped. Finally there is a record of a P-47 group that captured a German division by harassing them until they surrendered!

Tac-air has a profound effect on the outcome of any war that has aircraft in it.

wmaxt

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by wmaxt

Looking at things from another angle. Say a tactical strike hit a rail yard, it might be partly operational again in six hours. Which is reasonable in most cases but may only be one track. If that delay (not to mention a slower speed and a bottle neck at that point) kept reinforcements, supplies and or equipment from getting to the front or to a beach head, it could be the deciding factor in a battle, invasion or campain.

The railyards near the front wouldnt see many trains to begin with. And a slower speed to go through a 1/2 mile long railyard is not going to upset many timetables.

During the invasion of Normandy the delay from lack of rail transport and downed bridges, both taken out with Tac air, delayed the full German response as much as 48 hours (over and above Hitlers contabution). The German response was also piecemeal because the temporary repairs were limited in there capacity to move people or equipment. It was enough to assure the success of the landings.

Thats because a concetrated effort by large numbers of medium and heavy bombers hit many vital communications targets, continuoulsy and with lots of "tons on target". Loys of bombs on target means lots of damage. a few bombs on target is not going to accomplish much because the damage will be minimal.

Another thing tac-air does is that each time it knocks out a rail yard, bridge etc it delays materials which stops factories and interupts the operations all up and down the line. It also ties up material and manpower - the guy thats laying rail is not shooting at you! He's also not building fighters. tanks, bombs or shells.

The Germans never were short of manpower to do the repair work. And the guys in the back doing the logistics work took cover when the planes came, and then went to work when the all clear was sounded.

I haven't even mentioned tac-air in relation to troops in contact with a larger force or trapped. Finally there is a record of a P-47 group that captured a German division by harassing them until they surrendered!

Have any evidence for that?

Tac-air has a profound effect on the outcome of any war that has aircraft in it.

Agreed. But aircraft carrying light payloads in few numbers attacking large targets are not going to do much if anything.

Thats the reason the A20's went away without fanfare.

[Bullockracing]

Originally Posted by syscom3

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 am 100% sure I have more time actually doing Rapid Runway Repair than you have even researching this subject. I have personally repaired grass, concrete and asphalt runways. A grass runway would take about 30 - 45 minutes per hole (using modern equipment), and yes, you don't have to fix it all, just enough for a MOS (Minimum Operating Strip). Again, each hole in concrete or asphalt would take over an hour using modern equipment.

As far as using '40s equipment, I'll post some pics for you. Here's your track-loader:


Here's your tractors (you'll need both):



Here's your scraper (pulled with one of your tractors):


Here's your grader (pulled with the other tractor):


Here's your roller:


And here's your paver:

[Bullockracing]

And this is what it looks like these days:

[wmaxt]

Sys, your ignoring the facts.

1. Tac-air destroyed almost all the rail heads and bridges in Normandy.
2. Large bomber formations were regretted in almost every task they had in conjunction with the D-Day landings. There are reports of large formations of bombers in WWII in which only 3 bombs actually hit the target! Thats why the went back so often to a previously hit target.
3. The lack of rail traffic at the front was directly due to tac-air and its affects up stream to both trains and to the rail infrastructure.
4 No I don't have further documentation I saw it on a documentry complete with photos of the actual surrender.
5 the A-20 slipped away because it was replaced by better bombers Mossies, B-25 and B-26 bombers. BTW the B-26s were still being used for tac-air in 1966.
6. The immediate dissruption may be minor the effects are not.
7. Plenty of manpower? is that why new German pilots had 10hrs when they went into combat? Is that why 15 and 70 year olds were being drafted?

Just a side note: I have had direct experiance with track work and railroad capabilities and scheduling. I've also had direct experiance with manufacturing facilities and processes, even a few minutes delay can have very large effects on production lines.

wmaxt

[syscom3]

1. Tac-air destroyed almost all the rail heads and bridges in Normandy.

I never said it didnt. I said that the light bombers carrying small payloads were next to useless. And I dont count the fighter bombers as light bombers.

2. Large bomber formations were regretted in almost every task they had in conjunction with the D-Day landings. There are reports of large formations of bombers in WWII in which only 3 bombs actually hit the target! Thats why the went back so often to a previously hit target.

Very true. They were most effective in hitting the large targets way in back, where a lot of bombs were needed because of the area it needed.

3. The lack of rail traffic at the front was directly due to tac-air and its affects up stream to both trains and to the rail infrastructure.

I know that. reread my prior statments. Medium bombers and heavy bombers did the most damage. light bombers only put the targets out of commision for a very short period.

4 No I don't have further documentation I saw it on a documentry complete with photos of the actual surrender.

I seriously doubt this happened.

5 the A-20 slipped away because it was replaced by better bombers Mossies, B-25 and B-26 bombers. BTW the B-26s were still being used for tac-air in 1966.

The mosquito was a specialized aircraft that could have been a great light bomber, but was never ddeployed in large enough numbers to work the role. By the way, the B26 used in 1966 was for counter insurgency warfare and it was the A26. The Marauder had been retired right after the war ended.

6. The immediate dissruption may be minor the effects are not.

depends on what was attacked, how vital it was and how long it was out of commision.

7. Plenty of manpower? is that why new German pilots had 10hrs when they went into combat? Is that why 15 and 70 year olds were being drafted?

Im not talking about pilots, but the ground ponders and forced labororers

Just a side note: I have had direct experiance with track work and railroad capabilities and scheduling. I've also had direct experiance with manufacturing facilities and processes, even a few minutes delay can have very large effects on production lines.

Thats why the germans production potential was crimped. The industrial dispertion added to the strain on the transportatioon links.
The #1 way to stop the railroads from working was to destroy the engines. Putting in even a small hole in a steam boiler meant it was out of service for some bit untill repaired. 2nd best was the destruction of the rolling stock. 3rd best was taking out key bridges and tunnels, but that was a rare event due to the limit of bombing technologies at the time. Of course, the closer the bridge or tunnel is to the front, the more the possibilities of actually delaying trains because the number of by pass routes decreases. The worst way of disrupting the trains was to destroy the tracks. Those were always easy to repair. Unless the rails were actually blown into water and unrecoverable, then track gangs could bend misshapen rail back into place. Now of course blown tracks near the front have more effect, as large groups of men working on them could attract attention from patroling fighter bombers.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by syscom3

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.

During the BOB one of the command centers was destroyed (by a small German raid) and like syscom said they were able to move to temporary buildings, rig up new telephone lines, install new radio's and recommence operations.

The bit he would probably forget to remember, is the bit where they could only direct one squadron instead of an entire wing. This was (and I bet its no suprise) because temporary lash ups no matter how good, are never as good as the purpose built buildings.

Syscom, I don't suppose there is an outside chance that you can supply some evidence to either
a) Support your contentions that small raids did no damage
b) That my evidence and many others are wrong.

Go on give some examples.

Quote from the RAF Biggin Hill Site to support above
The size of the raid
a small formation of less than a dozen bombers at low level reduced Biggin Hill to a shambles with 1,000 lb. bombs. Workshops, stores, barracks, W.A.A.F. quarters and a hangar were wrecked.

Again, on September lst there were two attacks, the second of which by Dornier Do 17s, hit runways and the Sector Operations Room.

Impact on operations
For one week however the damage was so severe that only one squadron could operate from it.