WWII boming debate

Gamers can also use this forum to chat about any game related subject, news, rumours etc.

Moderator: maddog986

User avatar
tocaff
Posts: 4765
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:30 pm
Location: USA now in Brasil

RE: WWII boming debate

Post by tocaff »

No kidding?  Gee none of us knew that.  But the bombings of cities were not just to kill civilians as you say.  There was industry located there and the attempt was made to disrupt production so cities were bombed.  The daylight and night bombings of Germany were effective in that it stretched an already over taxed defensive network.  Imagine if Germany could've fielded all of those planes, troops and guns against the advancing Allied armies instead of trying to defend the Fatherland from air attacks.  The ME-262 could've flown over a year earlier than it did in combat if Hitler hadn't demanded that it be a bomber.  Yes, wars are won by feet on the ground and a modern economy doesn't function without oil.

Now, how about answering all of the questions that've been directed at you of late.  People don't dodge your questions, why do you duck theirs?
Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768
User avatar
borner
Posts: 1485
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:15 pm
Location: Houston TX

RE: WWII boming debate

Post by borner »

two points.. first, why do I answer IKE? (as I assume that comment was in part directed to me) Personally, I do not have an issue with him. Yes, at times his comments about his games can be considered excessive, but in the emails we exchange about the games I have found him to be very civil.
 
As for the bombing campaign on the allied side, you have a hard time arguing that until 1944, it was very ineffective, and not worth the cost. The 8th air force and bomeber ommand went along seperatley, reducing the effectiveness. Eventually, as the weight of the raids began to tell, Germany was forced to pull back much of it's fighter force off the front lines, which especially helped the Red Air Force. When a concentrated effort was made against the Oil industry, it did have an impact. Ground units had gas shortsages, pilot training was cut down, and the new ME-262 units were short of fuel. Another intersting what is that in 1943, how much shorter would the war have been nad both the US and GB air forces picked oil/fuel and the main target, and made a conentrated effort to knock it down and keep it down.
 
 
User avatar
Ike99
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 11:06 pm
Location: A Sand Road

RE: WWII boming debate

Post by Ike99 »

There was industry located there and the attempt was made to disrupt production so cities were bombed.

A British report said a strategic bomber is having an extremely good day if it puts a single bomb within 5 miles of its target. Besides Tocaff, you´re talking out of both sides of your mouth. In your previous post you said..
The people are a county's greatest resource. If that's true then strategic bombing of population centers, no matter how you feel about it, is justified.

...in an attempt to say it was justifiable to bomb cities because as a result, civilians are killed, and as a result of that it causes an end to a war by destroying the countrys greatest asset, people. Then you went on to talk about Atomic bombs targetting Russia and all this to support your statement.

Bombing cities in world war two did one thing. Kill civilians. It did not break morale, it did not destroy any industrial bases, it did not change any leaders mind about anything. In no way, shape or form did ¨Strategic Bombing¨ do anything it was supposed to be able to do by it´s proponents.

The tactical...¨tactical¨ use that is of airpower in WW2 was quite effective. The strategic use of airpower was a total failure.

The daylight and night bombings of Germany were effective in that it stretched an already over taxed defensive network.

In what way? By putting the 12 year old boys and 70 year old men up on flak towers?



Imagine if Germany could've fielded all of those planes, troops and guns against the advancing Allied armies instead of trying to defend the Fatherland from air attacks.

They did field ¨all those planes, troops and guns¨ and bombing population centers didn´t stop them. The industries were all widely dispersed outside of the cities.

Even today the USA, Russia and others target potential targets with ICBMs and they aren't all strictly military targets as the cities again are primary targets. Destroy a country's will to fight and you win.

They can save themselves a lot of cities by simply blowing up each others oil refineries. Do that and the war will be over very quickly. Blowing up each others cities won´t break anyones will as it didn´t in WW2. It will just make each other angry.
Now, how about answering all of the questions that've been directed at you of late. People don't dodge your questions, why do you duck theirs?

What questions are you talking about?

¨If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine.¨ Che Guevara

The more I know people, the more I like my dog.
User avatar
tocaff
Posts: 4765
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:30 pm
Location: USA now in Brasil

RE: WWII boming debate

Post by tocaff »

Borner, I wasn't directing at anyone other than Ike.  My question to him wasn't an attack on him.  As to his excessive remarks about his games, he has stated that at times he tries to get into his opponent's head (psychological warefare).

Even if the bombing campaign never was as effective as desired it did hinder Germany's war effort.  If a factory is closed for a week or 2, it is disruptive.  If a factory no longer has a roof on it then rain can disrupt production.  Without the bombing German production would've been substantially greater in it's expansion as the war progressed.  Japan, on the other hand, saw production become a partial cottage industry due to bombing.  If you force an opponent to allocate resources to an area at the cost of another, then your bombing campaign is having a negative effect on him.  Imagine a Russian assault where they carried the day because they had so many tanks that they overwhelmed the defense.  Now imagine that same battle with with an antitank gun battalion armed with Flak 88s added to the order of battle, could be a different result.  Oil was and still is the key.  No oil, no machines and all grinds to a near halt.  The Allies should've bombed the hell out of the oil fields and refineries from the get go.  Yes I know about Germany's shale oil production and that should've been bombed out of business too.
Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768
User avatar
borner
Posts: 1485
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:15 pm
Location: Houston TX

RE: WWII boming debate

Post by borner »

no offence taken.
 
Yes, against Japan the allies come closer to getting it right. I think part of that is the campaign starting in 44 after the mistakes of 1943 in Errope had been learned from. Also, the targets were easier to damage due to the nature of how thigs were built. I think the final insult was US Battleships siling up to the coast and shelling Japanese factories. Not sure what discussion that would fall into though.
User avatar
tocaff
Posts: 4765
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:30 pm
Location: USA now in Brasil

RE: WWII boming debate

Post by tocaff »

Really a bombardment is a bombardment no matter how it's delivered the results are the same-death and destruction.  Kind of like someone sailing up the ship channel and unloading on Houston.  Like pouring salt on the wound or twisting the knife.  Again trying to impress on the Japanese how hopeless their situation really was.
Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768
ILCK
Posts: 422
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 11:28 pm

RE: WWII boming debate

Post by ILCK »

This is a lot of latter day morality as well. At the time you had the following realities:

1. A total war environment. Everyone was helping fight the war. They were either shooting at you, making the bullets to shoot at you or growing the food to feed the people shooting at you or making the bullets to shoot at you. Draw the line between civilian and combatant. Is it better to wipe out a Panzer factory that makes 100 tanks a month or shoot 100 tanks on the battlefield?
2. There were no non-military targets since even (the two biggest crying points) Dresden was a major rail transport city that the Russians badly wanted bombed and Hiroshima had thousands of Japanese solidiers and other facilities. That is as good as it has ever gotten for the revisionists.
3. Non-precision weapons. Even the vaunted Norden did not allow you to precisely drop on "military" targets. There was just no way to "only" attack military targets.
4. Distributed manufacturing. The Japanese farmed out large chunks of their manufacturing ensuring that "civilian" areas were necessary targets but the Germans began to do so as well. If you could not hit a factory complex there's no way to target a single house.

The simple fact is that, in WWII, everyone bombed and targeted "civilian" areas  - good guys and bad guys. It was, as Lucien Febvre, would say about atheism in the 16th century, almost impossible to conceive of not bombing in this way and not using the weapons at your disposal.
User avatar
tocaff
Posts: 4765
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:30 pm
Location: USA now in Brasil

RE: WWII boming debate

Post by tocaff »

The "vaunted" Norden bombsight was a joke among the aircrews according to my father.  It was not nearly as accurate as claimed.  Remember that though it was state of the art for it's day by today's standards it couldn't hit the broadside of a barn, from the inside.  In the near future they'll be laughing at our present day accuracy for our weapons. 
Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768
User avatar
borner
Posts: 1485
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:15 pm
Location: Houston TX

RE: WWII boming debate

Post by borner »

yes, my grandfather had the same opinion of the bombsight. He was a ball turret gunner in the 8th air force. (my other grandfater was in the marines in the pacific - kinda luck I am here at all if you think about it)...  He understod what they were doing, but back then, it was part of war. I also he was happy as he** when p-51's starting showing up. Amazing how bombing became more accurate when you have escorts isn't it?
 
 
User avatar
Wirraway_Ace
Posts: 1509
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Austin / Brisbane

RE: WWII boming debate

Post by Wirraway_Ace »

ORIGINAL: Ike99

The bombing of population centers or ¨strategic bombing¨ did not do much in WW2 except kill civilians Tocaff. It´s a myth that it did.

German war production, with the Allies bombing day and night doubled, tripled and quadrupled during the 5 years of ¨strategic bombing ¨

In 1944 German production of the ME262 was 564 planes. In just the 4 months of 1945 before they surrendered 730 were produced just as one quick example.

No strategic bombing effected overall war production in WW2 by much if at all. To say otherwise is a good example of being impervious to facts. Look at the numbers.



Ike, while I am not a big fan of the Strategic Bombing Campaign, I not sure I agree with your use of "the numbers" in this way. I am an economist by training, and all this really tells you is that Germany was able to increase production of key weapon systems in spite of the bombing. It doesn't tell you what their potential production was if their industries had been left alone.

A reasonable arguement could be made that the allies would have faced a lot more Panthers on the ground and ME262s in the air had their industries been left to function safely.
User avatar
Wirraway_Ace
Posts: 1509
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Austin / Brisbane

RE: WWII boming debate

Post by Wirraway_Ace »

ORIGINAL: ILCK

This is a lot of latter day morality as well. At the time you had the following realities:

1. A total war environment. Everyone was helping fight the war. They were either shooting at you, making the bullets to shoot at you or growing the food to feed the people shooting at you or making the bullets to shoot at you. Draw the line between civilian and combatant. Is it better to wipe out a Panzer factory that makes 100 tanks a month or shoot 100 tanks on the battlefield?
2. There were no non-military targets since even (the two biggest crying points) Dresden was a major rail transport city that the Russians badly wanted bombed and Hiroshima had thousands of Japanese solidiers and other facilities. That is as good as it has ever gotten for the revisionists.
3. Non-precision weapons. Even the vaunted Norden did not allow you to precisely drop on "military" targets. There was just no way to "only" attack military targets.
4. Distributed manufacturing. The Japanese farmed out large chunks of their manufacturing ensuring that "civilian" areas were necessary targets but the Germans began to do so as well. If you could not hit a factory complex there's no way to target a single house.

The simple fact is that, in WWII, everyone bombed and targeted "civilian" areas  - good guys and bad guys. It was, as Lucien Febvre, would say about atheism in the 16th century, almost impossible to conceive of not bombing in this way and not using the weapons at your disposal.

I agree with points 1,2 and 4 and your final point about the inertia of having certain weapon systems at your disposal. My concern is with point 3. The Allied leaders knew approximately how inaccurate these attacks (particularily the Brits) were, but continued to commit truly massive resources to these campaigns. I question the wisdom and morality of this in the context of what was otherwise a fully justified war to defeat a trio of countries that had to be dealt with. I have led soldiers in combat a few times (as I suspect many of you have these days), and believe that war must be fought within a reasonable set of moral rules established by leaders, or many humans quickly desend to a level of cruelty that defies reason, military need, etc.

While not unjustified or unreasonable in the context of WWII, it appears to me the Strategic Bombing Campaign included a wide streak of "punishment" in its unstated rationale that reminds me to question its morality from time to time. As an American, I think this is healthy. My wife and one of my parents are foreign born, and I am constantly reminded as I interact with extended family living outside the U.S., that the world views us very differently than we view ourselves.

As a humorous anecdote, my wife (an australian), believes strongly that the U.S. occupies Korea to exploit it...It is difficult to describe to her that in 1951, there wasn't much to exploit. The Japanese had already pretty much taken care of that.
User avatar
tocaff
Posts: 4765
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:30 pm
Location: USA now in Brasil

RE: WWII boming debate

Post by tocaff »

Good point about how the world views the USA differently.  I live in Brazil and though they copy the culture of the US and like the people they dislike the current government.  When the US invaded Iraq I was visiting Brazil and there were posters on almost every street corner of Bush with a Hitler-like 'stash.  It was upsetting to me that my country would be viewed this way.  When people tried to engage me in discussion about this I told them that I was from Canada.  Nothing is perfect and war shatters civilized rules.  
Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768
User avatar
Ike99
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 11:06 pm
Location: A Sand Road

RE: WWII boming debate

Post by Ike99 »

no comment.[:-]

[:D]
¨If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine.¨ Che Guevara

The more I know people, the more I like my dog.
User avatar
tocaff
Posts: 4765
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:30 pm
Location: USA now in Brasil

RE: WWII boming debate

Post by tocaff »

Now that's a first! Correction a second!
Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768
User avatar
Ike99
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 11:06 pm
Location: A Sand Road

RE: WWII boming debate

Post by Ike99 »

Now that's a first! Correction a second!

I´m not being baited into this topic Todd. We´re not allowed to talk about this here.

You know how we feel. Walk out onto your street corner and ask someone if you don´t.


¨If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine.¨ Che Guevara

The more I know people, the more I like my dog.
User avatar
tocaff
Posts: 4765
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:30 pm
Location: USA now in Brasil

RE: WWII boming debate

Post by tocaff »

Who is we in the "You know how we feel"? Ask people on my street corner about what? Feel about what?



Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768
User avatar
Ike99
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 11:06 pm
Location: A Sand Road

RE: WWII boming debate

Post by Ike99 »

Who is we in the "You know how we feel"? Ask people on my street corner about what? Feel about what?

Nothing Todd.
Wirraway_Ace- I not sure I agree with your use of "the numbers" in this way. I am an economist by training, and all this really tells you is that Germany was able to increase production of key weapon systems in spite of the bombing. It doesn't tell you what their potential production was if their industries had been left alone.

Well it would be impossible to put a number on what German production would have been without strategic bombing but we can compare their rate of expansion with someone who wasn´t bombed at all.

Germany, total aircraft produced by year.

1942-12,822
1943-20,599
1944-35,076

So from 42´ to 43´ German aircraft production rose
by around 60%. From 43´ to 44´around 57%

USA, total aircraft production by year.

1942-46,907
1943-84,853
1944-96,271

So their expansion went 54%, from 42´to 43´. Then
from 43´to 44´ they had a growth rate of just
around 1%. I suppose the industrial base was
maxed out.

So as far as aircraft production is concerned I
would think the strategic bombing campaign had
at most a very minor effect if any at all. Germany
was able to expand it´s aircraft production by
actually a larger percentage than the USA who was
not being bombed at all.

I´m thinking what is effecting this a lot also is
simple manpower numbers. Getting pilots.

If you move over to armored vehicles etc, you will
find comparable numbers.

Take strictly tanks. Germany produced give or take
20,000 tanks during the war. The USA produced
61,000. About a 3-1 margin.

So by comparing tank production 3-1 total. Aircraft
production close to 3-1, I would conclude the
strategic bombing had about zero effect on German production, at least in these two categories.

You have Germany being bombed daylight and dark with the USA not being bombed at all and the production figures in these 2 areas, adjusting for the size of their respective industrial bases seems just about identical.

Now this does not take into account every single
item of war, artillery, etc., and I don´t feel like looking it up right now but unless you can show
me something else I still say the strategic bombing
campaign was a waste of resources. It didn´t do
much from what I see as far as reducing war time production.

One could say, well the Allies had to build all those
ships too so that used up a lot of their industrial
capacity but they would have had to build them
anyways.

I think I got all my numbers right. If not I´m sure I´ll be corrected.
¨If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine.¨ Che Guevara

The more I know people, the more I like my dog.
User avatar
Wirraway_Ace
Posts: 1509
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Austin / Brisbane

RE: WWII boming debate

Post by Wirraway_Ace »

Ike,

I will take a look into this further and see if there is some more complete measure of industrial output over time.

As a working hypothesis, how would you argue that having most of your major industry centers bombed to rubble did not affect industrial output?
ILCK
Posts: 422
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 11:28 pm

RE: WWII boming debate

Post by ILCK »

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

While not unjustified or unreasonable in the context of WWII, it appears to me the Strategic Bombing Campaign included a wide streak of "punishment" in its unstated rationale that reminds me to question its morality from time to time. As an American, I think this is healthy. My wife and one of my parents are foreign born, and I am constantly reminded as I interact with extended family living outside the U.S., that the world views us very differently than we view ourselves.

Right but, we'll dig up Clausewitz here, the goal of war is to break the will of an opponent to resist. The theory of strategic bombing wasn't about killing people, per se, but about collapsing the will of the civilian population to support a war. The strategic bombers were trying to recreate the German collapse in WWI on the homefront during the war. the problem is that the Germans and Japanese government were not that fragile because unlike the Kaiser's authoritarian regime they'd gone full on totalitarian.

The strategic bombing campaign in WWII shares the same flawed assumptions that make such popular use of embargoes today (Cuba, Iraq) - that in a totalitarian state :
1. The people have a voice to change policy if they become angry enough
2. The government can be moved by suffering to change policy.
Neither is true and so Strategic bombing was not going to be able, using conventional means, to achive it's aim anymore than an embargo of Iraq was ever gonna get rid of Saddam.
User avatar
Ike99
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 11:06 pm
Location: A Sand Road

RE: WWII boming debate

Post by Ike99 »

Ike,

I will take a look into this further and see if there is some more complete measure of industrial output over time.

As a working hypothesis, how would you argue that having most of your major industry centers bombed to rubble did not affect industrial output?

Well I haven´t researched in detail but I´ve seen with the ME262 the Germans had it´s production dispersed and almost entirely underground.

I´ve seen where whole plants where put underground and in caves. Japan being a mostly hilly and mountainous country did the same. I´ve read Tokyo was ringed with caves full of war production. I know they never had a Zero shortage. They had no fuel and no pilots for them but there was no Zero shortage.

If your cities are going to be leveled the first thing going to be done is disperse the industries and attempt to hide and bomb proof them.
¨If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine.¨ Che Guevara

The more I know people, the more I like my dog.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”