Effectiveness of Allied Strategic Bombing

[Guaporense]

[These posts were split from the discussion of "Allied Terror Bombings" at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=210792, and given a new topic caption by the moderator - DT]

Whoa, that's brutal logic. Thank god my country was never involved in large scale warfare. I hope that when the next big war happens that the involved countries would develop some more sophisticated laws regarding protection of civilian life.

It's certainly something to be grateful. But why you want better, improved wars? Young soldiers are people too. By partially protecting military supply-chain systems, and cities are a big part of them, you will pay for less destruction in cities with lives of those young men - because victory will be harder to achieve, and wars longer. Is this really a morally superior solution?
I would say a better idea is no wars whatsoever.

That's not Possible. Wars will always exist, including wars between great powers.

In ww2 bombing of residential areas did not have beneficial strategic effects. Bombing of more precise targets like railroads had more strategic effect.

In fact we have better, improved wars already. The current military world hegemon has waged a string of those wars, enjoying total security of its own territory. But for a million or so victims of those wars it wasn't any improvement.
The wars wouldn't have happened if its citizens/war supporters, consumers of nice, exiting military footage from the safety of their homes, had been in danger of their lives as the Germans were during the WW2.
The idea of nice, safe wars is the best enabler of future wars.

Not really before ww2 there was great panic regarding destructive capabilities of strategic bombing. These big wars happen for reasons beyond popular perceptions of the effects of warfare.

[Guaporense]

... Let's say there is a village a few kilometers behind the enemy lines. Some of their units are stationed there. Can you raze it to the ground with artillery? Of course you can. ...

During the siege of Leningrad, from September 1941 to January 1944, over 600,000 civilians died, from indiscriminate bombing and shelling, and especially from starvation, disease, etc. This is many, many more than were killed at Hiroshima or Dresden.

I see a moral difference between killing a Leningrad housewife with a 155mm shell and killing a Berlin housewife with a 500lb bomb, under the circumstances of WW2. The Nazi invasion of Russia (and Poland, etc, previously) was a war of conquest meant to enslave people, subject them to genocide, and deny them every human right. The Nazi leaders were rightly tried for waging wars of aggression and crimes against humanity. The siege of Leningrad may not have been illegal in and of itself, since there have been sieges throughout the history of warfare, but it was part and parcel of an illegal act of aggression. The RAF and USAAF bombing of German civilians, on the other hand, was aimed at defeating this aggression. The Western Allies did not wage a war of conquest. Just look at what happened to Germany after the war. Was it enslaved? No, it was turned into a democracy.

To sum up, yes, the ends justify the means. But there is a very large "but". In my opinion, Bomber Command's area bombing lost its moral justification once its forces became capable of bombing accurately and once the military justification for area bombing passed. For me, area bombing after 6 June 1944, if not earlier, cannot be justified, since by then Bomber Command was well able to hit such small targets as railyards and oil plants, and because area bombing of cities was not going to win the war quicker than bombing operations in direct support of the advancing armies.

FWIW,

Indeed. Area bombing had very poor strategic results.

[Attrition]

~~~~~Indeed. Area bombing had very poor strategic results.~~~~~


Not according to Tooze. If the bombing was only intended as terrorism, it managed to destroy rather a lot of factories and reduce German war production.

[Guaporense]

~~~~~Indeed. Area bombing had very poor strategic results.~~~~~

Not according to Tooze. If the bombing was only intended as terrorism, it managed to destroy rather a lot of factories and reduce German war production.

That depends. I think that strategic bombing had very significant effects on German war production, in the following areas:

1. Bombing targeting steel output managed to reduce German steel output from it's planned level of 32 million tons to 30.6 million tons in 1943.

2. Bombing targeting aircraft fuel plants managed to greatly reduce the supply of aircraft fuel, one of the main reasons for the reduced impact of the Luftwaffe in the last 12 months of the war.

3. Bombing targeting the German railroad system appears to have been the most successful of all, German railroad activity collapsed during the last 8 months of the war, after it was targeted, though the causes are many besides bombing.

Bombing of German cities and general bombing of industrial facilities was not successful. Damage to Germany's industrial capital stock was very small (130,000 machine tools destroyed out of a stock of 2.3 million, 6% or equivalent to 8 months of output), and bombing of cities was successful if you think of killing civilians, destroying their homes, destroying historic buildings of artistic importance, as valid military objectives.

A better use of allied resources would be not bombing cities and allocating these airforce resources against valid military targets or simply reducing the budget of the airforces and increasing the size of the army, enabling greater numerical superiority in the field.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Guys,

My impression is that the term "terror bombing" is Goebbels' Propaganda Ministry's term. If so, the term is somewhat loaded and perhaps best avoided, along with the extra "0" Goebbels added to the 25,000 confirmed dead at Dresden!

After the great Hamburg raid, which definitely did spread terror far beyond the city itself, Goebbels opined that six such raids could cost Germany the war. Luckily for his regime, at least, Hamburg was a one-off.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Attrition]

~~~~~Indeed. Area bombing had very poor strategic results.~~~~~

Not according to Tooze. If the bombing was only intended as terrorism, it managed to destroy rather a lot of factories and reduce German war production.

That depends. I think that strategic bombing had very significant effects on German war production, in the following areas:

1. Bombing targeting steel output managed to reduce German steel output from it's planned level of 32 million tons to 30.6 million tons in 1943.

2. Bombing targeting aircraft fuel plants managed to greatly reduce the supply of aircraft fuel, one of the main reasons for the reduced impact of the Luftwaffe in the last 12 months of the war.

3. Bombing targeting the German railroad system appears to have been the most successful of all, German railroad activity collapsed during the last 8 months of the war, after it was targeted, though the causes are many besides bombing.

Bombing of German cities and general bombing of industrial facilities was not successful. Damage to Germany's industrial capital stock was very small (130,000 machine tools destroyed out of a stock of 2.3 million, 6% or equivalent to 8 months of output), and bombing of cities was successful if you think of killing civilians, destroying their homes, destroying historic buildings of artistic importance, as valid military objectives.

A better use of allied resources would be not bombing cities and allocating these airforce resources against valid military targets or simply reducing the budget of the airforces and increasing the size of the army, enabling greater numerical superiority in the field.

The point of a British mass air force was to avoid a mass army. Do any of your statistics measure the effect of bombing on productivity? Cities were bombed because of the inherent inaccuracy of bombing so industrial targets were hit incidentally. As Bomber Command grew more accurate, it became more discriminating.

[Michael Kenny]

Hi Sid
My understanding was that the USAF deliberately decided to bomb by day to achieve precision bombing. The RAF mostly, and deliberately, bombed at night- hence more inaccurate area-type bombing.

The USAAF did do area bombing. They just re-named it 'marshalling yards'. There was no such thing as 'precision' bombing in WW2.
When the USAAF got on the scene the RAF had an established night-time fleet. It just made sense that the USAAF took the daytime route and left the night to the RAF. 'Precison' had nothing at all to do with the choice.

[dshaday]

The USAAF did do area bombing. They just re-named it 'marshalling yards'. There was no such thing as 'precision' bombing in WW2.
When the USAAF got on the scene the RAF had an established night-time fleet. It just made sense that the USAAF took the daytime route and left the night to the RAF. 'Precison' had nothing at all to do with the choice.

USAF initially preferred daylight raids to derive the max accuracy/results of their raids.

RAF used night raids to attack specific industrial targets, and in 1942 switched to area bombing due to poor results of locating the targets. The RAF went to night bombing because of the large losses they would have otherwise expected. Arthur Harris was personally interested in destroying the German will to resist.

As I understand it, USAF precision bombing aims at a particular target (say industrial zone of a city or single, large plant) and attacks the area on and around it. Area bombing as per RAF means aiming for the centre of that city and dropping your bombs onto it (fully knowing that the spread will probably cover most of the city). Much later on the USAF also used area bombing of cities, 1945 in particular.

Regards

Dennis

[ljadw]

The USAAF did do area bombing. They just re-named it 'marshalling yards'. There was no such thing as 'precision' bombing in WW2.
When the USAAF got on the scene the RAF had an established night-time fleet. It just made sense that the USAAF took the daytime route and left the night to the RAF. 'Precison' had nothing at all to do with the choice.

USAF initially preferred daylight raids to derive the max accuracy/results of their raids.

RAF used night raids to attack specific industrial targets, and in 1942 switched to area bombing due to poor results of locating the targets. The RAF went to night bombing because of the large losses they would have otherwise expected. Arthur Harris was personally interested in destroying the German will to resist.

As I understand it, USAF precision bombing aims at a particular target (say industrial zone of a city or single, large plant) and attacks the area on and around it. Area bombing as per RAF means aiming for the centre of that city and dropping your bombs onto it (fully knowing that the spread will probably cover most of the city). Much later on the USAF also used area bombing of cities, 1945 in particular.

Regards

Dennis

Essentially there was no big difference between precision bombing and area bombing ,because even daylight precision bombings were mostly not precise .
If one wanted to destroy Krupp one had to destroy Essen and if one destroyed Essen,one would destroy Krupp .

[dshaday]

Hi ljadw

Essentially there was no big difference between precision bombing and area bombing ,because even daylight precision bombings were mostly not precise .
If one wanted to destroy Krupp one had to destroy Essen and if one destroyed Essen,one would destroy Krupp .

Perhaps with say 1000+ bombers there is little difference in the end results.

However, in my description I was trying to highlight a subtle point in intention.
There is a difference between aiming your bombs at the Krupp factory area (which is in a specific part of Essen) and aiming all your bombs on the town centre of Essen.

Unless the aim is to destroy the city (morale, housing, living conditions etc) in the first place.

Regards

Dennis

[Attrition]

50% zone.

[Michael Kenny]

.
There is a difference between aiming your bombs at the Krupp factory area (which is in a specific part of Essen) and aiming all your bombs on the town centre of Essen.

Not in WW2. The accuracy and weather problem was such that area bombing was the same as precision bombing. No one could destroy a factory without destroying everything around it. You can use whatever euphemism you like but area bombing was the only game in town.

35% of 8th AF bombing was done through 10/10 cloud and only 6% of bombs landed within a mile of the aiming point. 40% was within 3 miles of AP and 59% within 5 miles of AP.
Only 14% of bombing was done with good visibility where 92% of bombs landed within 3 miles of AP

Source added

http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/ ... l8/id/3339

[David Thompson]

Michael Kenny -- You wrote:

35% of 8th AF bombing was done through 10/10 cloud and only 6% of bombs landed within a mile of the aiming point. 40% was within 3 miles of AP and 59% within 5 miles of AP.
Only 14% of bombing was done with good visibility where 92% of bombs landed within 3 miles of AP

Source please.

[Michael Kenny]

Report On Bombing Accuracy Eight Air Force 1 September 1944 to 31 December 1944

http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/ ... l8/id/3339

Page 69 (good weather) & 76 (10/10 cloud)

[dshaday]

Hi Michael

I am fully aware of the spread of bombs in typical large bomber raids. That is why my full comment was

.
There is a difference between aiming your bombs at the Krupp factory area (which is in a specific part of Essen) and aiming all your bombs on the town centre of Essen.

Not in WW2. The accuracy and weather problem was such that area bombing was the same as precision bombing. No one could destroy a factory without destroying everything around it. You can use whatever euphemism you like but area bombing was the only game in town.

35% of 8th AF bombing was done through 10/10 cloud and only 6% of bombs landed within a mile of the aiming point. 40% was within 3 miles of AP and 59% within 5 miles of AP.
Only 14% of bombing was done with good visibility where 92% of bombs landed within 3 miles of AP

Source added

http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/ ... l8/id/3339

I am aware of the spread of bombs in typical, large bomber raids. This does not invalidate my statements.

Regards

Dennis