Best Bomber of WW2 (continued)

[the lancaster kicks ass]

but we're talking accuracy not mission success rates, there's a difference, and finding the target by day is much easier than it is by night.........

[MP-Willow]

CC, when it was available the Day bombing was held for military targets. But there was always targets of Oprotunity and of coarse if yu bomb out the house you break the spirit, or well what the USAAC thought. But Germany and Britten both had cities flattened and production not greatly hurt.

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

dude the americans "terror bombed" just as much as us, and remember we were bombing by night, it's allot harder............

That's true - vs. Japan. Not against Germany.

[cheddar cheese]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

but we're talking accuracy not mission success rates, there's a difference, and finding the target by day is much easier than it is by night.........

We wasnt talking about accuracy, nor mission success rates...But I will agree with that. However By day fog and heavy cloud cover can cause problems.

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

but we're talking accuracy not mission success rates, there's a difference, and finding the target by day is much easier than it is by night.........

That's only partially true. As you know European skies tend to have a lot of clouds. Quite often it was impossible for the USAAF bombers to visually locate their actual IP's, and this effected average "accuracy" tremendously, since they dropped the bombs at that point as best they could. When the weather was clear, US bombing was generally much more accurate than RAF night bombing. RAF night radar bombing was not much effected by clouds, and they flew lower too.

In general, the British considered they'd hit the target if they put a bomb within the city targeted, the US considered they'd hit the target if they put a bomb within about 500 meters of the structure targeted. Different standards entirely!

=S=

Lunatic

[the lancaster kicks ass]

but different stratagies for the most part...........

America still carpet bombed though...........

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

but different stratagies for the most part...........

America still carpet bombed though...........

Yes, espeically against Japan. Against Germany it was either done as part of dumping bombs when the target point could not be seen, or at British request.

The British actually wanted the USAAF to night bomb with them, in 1943 Bomber Command believed the German people could be broken in 6 months if the USAAF would do so.

=S=

Lunatic

[trackend]

There's been a lot of talk of terror bombing mass civilian targeting etc etc I think you,ll find that London was the first target picked for long term mass civilian demoralization raids, the aim being to turn London into a pile of rubble, although it now seems that the old excuse of it was a strategic important target rears its head from ex axis sources as a reason to request an apology for Dresden etc. Sorry but this gaul's me it was total and I mean total war its really easy to sit back and analise the rights and wrongs of the raids sixty years on, hind sight is a wonderful thing but I believe if any of us had been stuck in the blitz or on convoy duties or in the Pacific, island hopping from one slaughter to another the thought of laying waste the enemies home land in revenge would seem like a great idea. (and that includes pushing the atomic button)
There I feel much better for that

Carry on the discussion lads Im off for a cup of tea

I have no problem with having "terror bombed" the Germans or the Japanese. Both were evil empires who deserved worse than they got.

=S=

Lunatic

[the lancaster kicks ass]

altough after the way we treated them after the great war they proberly felt the same about us.............

[trackend]

Is that why they persecuted their own Jewish,mentally ill, homosexual,ect,ect population to get back at the Evil Allies.
I agree with RG if any war can be called just WW2 was about as close as can be measured.
Oh by the way Lanc bought a double DVD called RAF at war yesterday
great footage of the Tirpitz getting the chop and the submarine pens at Brest having a dose of tallboys as well 2 right through the roof.

[MP-Willow]

Tracked I agree that the war was total and that if you talk with those who did serve most will agree thatin the war all was fair. But after that some made up and old fows were friends.

But I do not think he area or fire bombing of Germany or Britten was very effective. Japan on the otherhand was!

[the lancaster kicks ass]

well it was decisive but it played a major part, i mean the bombing of germany..........

[MP-Willow]

Yes it did, but it could not slow production. Quality was hurt, and tranportation crippled. But the plans and tanks still were built in caves and underground, they just could not get to the fight.

[KraziKanuK]

original poster, T. Williams

Professor Richard Overy is one of the foremost historians of WW2 and this was the full conclusion of a lecture about the Allied bombing campaign he gave recently:

"Bombing: The Balance Sheet

The effects of the bombing campaign went far beyond the mere physical destruction of factories and dwelling-houses, although these effects should not be underestimated in a complex and technically sophisticated industrial economy stretched taut by the demands of war. The bombing produced serious social dislocation and a high cost in terms of man-hours (or woman-hours in many cases). Evacuation, rehabilitation and welfare provision were carried out on the largest scale in an economy struggling with serious manpower losses and cuts in civilian production. Bombing also encouraged a strategic response from Hitler which placed a further strain on the war economy by diverting vast resources to projects of little advantage to the German war effort.

The net effect of the many ways in which bombing directly or indirectly impeded economic mobilisation cannot be calculated precisely. But in the absence of physical destruction and dislocation, vvithout expensive programmes for secret weapons and underground production and without the diversion of four-fifths of the fighter force, one-third of all guns and one-fifth of all ammunition to the anti-bombing war the German armed forces could have been supplied with at least 50% more equipment in the last two years of war, perhaps much more. In an environment entirely free of bomb attack the German authorities and German industrial managers would have had the opportunity to exploit Germany’s resource-rich empire in Europe to the full. In 1942 the air force had begun to plan the production of 7000 aircraft a month, yet at the peak in 1944 a little over 3000 were produced, of which one-quarter were destroyed before even reaching the front-line.

Bombing took the strategic initiative away from German forces, and compelled Germany to divert an ever-increasing share of its manpower and resources away from production for the battlefield. As it was, German forces proved a formidable barrier to the end of the war. With more men, more heavily armed, an intact transport system and an uninterrupted flow of industrial resources Germany might well have kept the Allies at bay in 1945. Then the Allies would have faced the agonising decision about whether or not to drop atomic weapons on German cities rather than on Hiroshima and Nagasaki."