RAF strategic bombing

Discussions on all aspects of the The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Andy H
User avatar
Kristian S.
Member
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Apr 2005, 11:20
Location: Germany

RAF strategic bombing

#1

Post by Kristian S. » 18 Jul 2005, 13:03

[Split from "Luftwaffe lost"]



Why was the RAF so inept to conduct decisive strategic bombing even late in the war?

User avatar
redcoat
Member
Posts: 1361
Joined: 03 Mar 2003, 22:54
Location: Stockport, England

#2

Post by redcoat » 18 Jul 2005, 19:38

von Brockdorff-Ahlefeldt wrote:
Why was the RAF so inept to conduct decisive strategic bombing even late in the war?
The policy of strategic bombing by the RAF in the last stages of the war can be called many things, but 'inept' is not one of them.


User avatar
Kristian S.
Member
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Apr 2005, 11:20
Location: Germany

#3

Post by Kristian S. » 18 Jul 2005, 19:48

Well, please have a look on the the thread "Luftwaffe Lost" of it was splitted from. I made some kind of irony on a posting by Michael Kenny who used the word "inept" regarding the defence capabilities of the german Luftwaffe.

AdolfDettmer
Member
Posts: 412
Joined: 31 Aug 2003, 23:47
Location: Michigan

#4

Post by AdolfDettmer » 18 Jul 2005, 20:10

Well the Luftwaffe's defense of the Reich was inept.

It was ineffective and failed miserably at its mission, protect German cities and industry from the allied bombers. The RAF bombing campaign was far from inept when you consider it was restricted to night.

User avatar
WalterS
Member
Posts: 1497
Joined: 22 Feb 2004, 21:54
Location: Arlington, TX

#5

Post by WalterS » 18 Jul 2005, 20:23

The Luftwaffe wasn't inept, but it did fail in all of the most important mission areas, including preventing RAF bombing of its cities.

The concept of "area bombing" was formally adopted by the RAF in Feb 42 when the Air Ministry ordered Bomber Command to attack the morale of German civilians, in particular German workers who supported the war industry.
A review has been made.. and it has been decided that the primary object of your [Bomber Command] operations should now be focused on the morale of the enemy civilian population and, in particular, of the industrial workers.
Martin Middlebrook: "The Battle of Hamburg," p. 24

Throughout 1939-41 the RAF had been spectacularly ineffective in attacking German industrial targets. Daylight raids were abandoned due to high losses. The Spitfire, great plane that it was, had very short legs. Night bombing of industrial targets was resorted to, with poor results. The RAF was incapable of finding a discreet target such as a factory or a shipyard at night from 20,000 feet. The Air Ministry directive was a recognition of reality. If the RAF was going to attack the heart of German war production it had to do so by laying waste Germany's cities. From Feb 42 onward, this was the sole objective of Bomber Command and it had the complete support of the British government and nation. Fully a third of British war production in 1943-45 was devoted to the "area bombing" effort. The Brits could do this because they had powerful allies, namely the USA and USSR, who were "taking up the slack" in other areas. So, while Soviet soldiers were slaughtered at Stalingrad, Kursk, Kharkov and American ships were blown out of the water in the Solomon Islands, the British war economy could, and did, focus on attacking Germany's war production.

Kurfürst
Member
Posts: 282
Joined: 01 Apr 2005, 16:04
Location: Hungary
Contact:

#6

Post by Kurfürst » 22 Jul 2005, 01:18

Basically, the RAF failed conduct 'decisive strategic bombing' because they never tried strategic bombing, just mass murder of civillians.

Well, the only thing the RAF`s Bomber Command succeeded in sending Britain`s most finest, qualified sons to a slaughterhouse to be messacred, and getting Britain bancrupt at the cost but failing to have notable effect German war effort at all. The Bomber Command cost 40% of the British war expenses. It yielded ZERO results. It was the most spectatular failere of the whole war.

The RAF failed to protoct their bombers in the daylight, so they sent them in the cover of darkness. But since the RAF miserably failed to hit anything in the dark, they began to target civillians in a sadistic terror campaign. But it turned out, the RAF was also incapable of protecting the RAF bombers from German nightfigters... thus ended the circle. Basically, the Brits bled themselves to death systematically.

Harris tried to put everything on one card... and win the Battle of Berlin. He said it will cost bomber command 500 planes and Germany the war. Well it turned out it cost the Bomber Command 1000 bombers and over 7000 men, and was forced to given up after the devastating defeat over Nurnberg from the LW. Germany was in war, uneffected.

JonS
Member
Posts: 3935
Joined: 23 Jul 2004, 02:39
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

#7

Post by JonS » 22 Jul 2005, 01:32

lol

Huck
Member
Posts: 1188
Joined: 19 Jul 2004, 13:52
Location: Detroit

#8

Post by Huck » 22 Jul 2005, 02:27

JonS wrote:lol
Can you share with us the funny thing you found?

JonS
Member
Posts: 3935
Joined: 23 Jul 2004, 02:39
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

#9

Post by JonS » 22 Jul 2005, 02:56

Sure.

I find it funny that K doesn't seem to be aware that the GAF lost. Apparently 'the Brits bled themselves to death' and suffered 'devastating' defeats, while the Germans were 'unaffected'. Even while fully allowing for ESL, that still makes for some funny reading.

Huck
Member
Posts: 1188
Joined: 19 Jul 2004, 13:52
Location: Detroit

#10

Post by Huck » 22 Jul 2005, 04:00

JonS wrote:Sure.

I find it funny that K doesn't seem to be aware that the GAF lost. Apparently 'the Brits bled themselves to death' and suffered 'devastating' defeats, while the Germans were 'unaffected'. Even while fully allowing for ESL, that still makes for some funny reading.
He says very clearly that civilians did suffer a lot from British bombing campaign, but his point is that German war effort was not affected by it, or at least to no significant amount compared with the efforts made by the British for this campaign.
Still I'm not capable of finding anything funny in this.

JonS
Member
Posts: 3935
Joined: 23 Jul 2004, 02:39
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

#11

Post by JonS » 22 Jul 2005, 04:08

Yes, quite. That'd be why I'm the one laughing, and you're the one not.

Erich Hartmann
Member
Posts: 255
Joined: 26 May 2005, 16:35
Location: Berlin

#12

Post by Erich Hartmann » 22 Jul 2005, 04:30

JonS wrote:Yes, quite. That'd be why I'm the one laughing, and you're the one not.
Me thinks you are the only one laughing here... 8O

Belrick
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 05:23
Location: New Zealand

#13

Post by Belrick » 22 Jul 2005, 05:54

Not all Kiwis are like JonS. I personnaly find bomber commands effort in WW2 detestable. Slaughtering of civilians was a heinous crime. Plus they even did an inept job of that. Stupid things like sending out the bombers under the cover of darkness while insisting that they carry a 'flash light' to attract the german nightfighters like moths to a flame. (airbourne radar etc)

User avatar
WalterS
Member
Posts: 1497
Joined: 22 Feb 2004, 21:54
Location: Arlington, TX

#14

Post by WalterS » 22 Jul 2005, 08:09

Actually, Bomber Command's "area bombing" campaign, though costly, did have significant effects and did affect German war production and resource allocation. To say otherwise is to ignore the facts.

The Hamburg raids of Jul-Aug 1943, for example, though horrendous in the cost to German civilians, reduced that city's war production by nearly 50% for months after the raids. Although Hamburg slowly recovered, war production never regained its pre-raid levels. It's estimated that approximately two dozen U-Boats were never built as a direct result of the Hamburg raids. At a time when the Battle of the Atlantic was in balance, depriving the German Navy of 24 U-Boats cannot be considered insignificant.

See Middlebrook "The Battle of Hamburg," Chapter 18, "The Reckoning."

Additionally, as the RAF raids grew in intensity and sophistication the Germans were forced to divert more and more resources to fight them. Hundreds of planes, thousands of flak guns and upwards of one million personnel were devoted to the night air wars, along with the considerable resources used against the day raids by the USAAF. These were valuable resources that could have been used elsewhere. The nightfighters that chased down Lancaster bombers could have been employed as tactical aircraft in support of German troops in the east. The 88mm flak guns that ringed Germany's cities could have been employed in shooting at American and British tanks in Normandy. The huge infrastructure of personnel devoted to the night war could have been meaningfully used in other areas of the war effort.

Finally, the relentless grinding of the RAF and USAAF assaults destroyed the Luftwaffe. As a result the Luftwaffe was largely ineffective in intervening against Allied ground operations in France and Germany in 1944-45. I would consider that factor to be quite significant.

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002, 15:12
Location: Europe

#15

Post by Andreas » 22 Jul 2005, 09:15

Huck wrote:
JonS wrote:Sure.

I find it funny that K doesn't seem to be aware that the GAF lost. Apparently 'the Brits bled themselves to death' and suffered 'devastating' defeats, while the Germans were 'unaffected'. Even while fully allowing for ESL, that still makes for some funny reading.
He says very clearly that civilians did suffer a lot from British bombing campaign, but his point is that German war effort was not affected by it, or at least to no significant amount compared with the efforts made by the British for this campaign.
Still I'm not capable of finding anything funny in this.
I suggest doing a bit of research before making nonsense statements like one that BC yielded 'zero results'. Kurfürst's statement is clearly laughable.

Kurfürst - back up your statements and stop opinionating. If all you want to do is bash the British find another place to do so. Thank you.

All the best

Andreas

Post Reply

Return to “The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth 1919-45”