iolo Posted August 9, 2002 Share Posted August 9, 2002 Thanks for the link, which is very interesting reading, and for the historical info which is also fascinating. My point is that this is a game and regardless of whether Allied bombing campaigns (as they were conducted up until late in the war) were largely ineffective, you should be able to try 'what if' scenarios (ie UK invests 100% in strat bombing) and at least see _some_ results. I guess the game's answer to the 'what-if' question is simply, "no. wouldn't have worked." If you happen to play against an Axis player who is foolish enough to be purchasing expensive naval units, re-inforcing them, and wasting precious MPPs in anti-aircraft research then it does work out well since you are indeed diverting precious funds from the Eastern front. But all the axis has to do is keep fighters out of range (or at low strength so they don't interdict) most of the time, and the stategic bombing becomes a 10:1 (or worse) loss in terms of Allied spending to Axis. You can certainly justify the Allies spending some money to reduce Axis MPP, but 10:1 is not affordable, especially considering the low US income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbellamy Posted August 9, 2002 Share Posted August 9, 2002 isn't hindsight wonderful? i do agree that the bombing offensive did draw manpower away for the purpose of providing AA coverage, but the AA guns were manned by 17 year olds, old men, and others who were generally unfit for the rigors of front line combat, so i'm not sure exactly how much of a drain this was on the crack ss/wermacht formations fighting on the eastern front as for the diversion of german production towards AA resources, this is undisputable, but i believe the allies achieved this in non-cost effective way imho the resources given to the strat bombers should have been diverted to produce more fighter planes and tac bombers, which would have produced similar or higher attrition among axis fighter pilots, as well providing more firepower against front line german units, which might have given the allies better progress, especially through tough patches like the bocage country, and the mountains of italy those same resources could have been used to launch overlord earlier, and with greater material resources im not disputing that the bombing offensive produced results, but i believe that the amount of resources used and the tremendous amount of allied airmen lost (>50,000?) was way disproportionate to the results achieved, especially during the first 2 years of such bombing the one place where the strategic bombing offensive _did_ produce cost effective results was the bombing of Japan, which while not as effective against industry (the Japanese would have fought with sticks if they had to), did produce the realization among the Japanese leadership that the Allies would not land in Japan until each and every one of their cities was a devastated smoking ruin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorski Posted August 9, 2002 Share Posted August 9, 2002 im not disputing that the bombing offensive produced results, but i believe that the amount of resources used and the tremendous amount of allied airmen lost (>50,000?) was way disproportionate to the results achieved, especially during the first 2 years of such bombing You need to read books on the air war, not just general books covering the entire war. The luftwaffe only flew and attacked when they felt they had an advantage until daylight strategic bombing forced them to fly and fight against every raid. Without the attrition caused by daylight strat bombing, the luftwaffe would have been able to contest the air over the beaches on d-day. The luftwaffe was also forced to redeploy many of it's fighters far away from Normandy to fight the bombers. Gorski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbellamy Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 Thank you for taking an interest in my reading habits. I recommend Gentile's "How Effective is Strategic Bombing". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iolo Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 lol, seriously guys the whole point of dropping bombs on people is that it makes for great film footage. modern cinema would be bankrupt without the use of the bomber-bay door shots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorski Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 'How effective is strategic bombing' is not the issue. The top generals of the 8th AF knew that their main objective was to destroy the luftwaffe in air to air combat, not put bombs on target. Gorski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 test Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 Originally posted by blackbellamy: i do agree that the bombing offensive did draw manpower away for the purpose of providing AA coverage, but the AA guns were manned by 17 year olds, old men, and others who were generally unfit for the rigors of front line combat, so i'm not sure exactly how much of a drain this was on the crack ss/wermacht formations fighting on the eastern front as for the diversion of german production towards AA resources, this is undisputable, but i believe the allies achieved this in non-cost effective way imho the resources given to the strat bombers should have been diverted to produce more fighter planes and tac bombers, which would have produced similar or higher attrition among axis fighter pilots, as well providing more firepower against front line german units, which might have given the allies better progress, especially through tough patches like the bocage country, and the mountains of italy im not disputing that the bombing offensive produced results, but i believe that the amount of resources used and the tremendous amount of allied airmen lost (>50,000?) was way disproportionate to the results achieved, especially during the first 2 years of such bombing You raise some very valid points, ones that are still debated today. A few points however. While the majority of the manpower employed, of the two million, would not be prime candidates for combat units, they could well have been used for other logistic purposes, such as rail repair. Further, since the Germans refused to use women in any great degree in the production area (no Helga the Rivetter here!), they turned to the very uneconomical and counterproductive use of impressed and slave labor. These self same young boys and older men would have been available to bolster production. By freeing up some of the rear area types the German army would have gained further manpower resources for combat units (though I am NOT arguing 2 million men worth!). The problem with increased use of fighter, fighter-bomber and tac bombers was that, until such a time as the allies secured a fair amount of area on the continent, most targets the luftwaffe felt they needed to defend were beyond the range of all but the heavy bomber. An interesting side note, the allies did toy with the idea of using the P-38 as a bomber. It had the range and was a half way decent bomber, though at range payload tended to drop off. However, it couldnt defend itself when loaded with bombs, would have to jettison the bombs at first sign of fighters (rather counter-productive) and would still have to be escorted. Another point to remember is that the North African Campaign was seen as a side show. For morale purposes on the home front the western alliance had to be seen striking back at the German's directly. Dont underestimate the psychological impact on the home front of the bomber offensive. It was also a mean to demonstrate our committment to the Russians, lacking a true "second front". Though, to Stalin, anything short of a full scale invasion of France would never be credited. Further, the bomber offensive drained two-thirds of the fighter assets from the Eastern Front as well as diverting much needed resources. The gradual switch to air superiority by the Soviets was greatly enhanced by this. Imagine, if you will, three times the amount of first line fighters on the Eastern Front in 43 and 44. The allies also gained valuable experience for running a Strategic campaign including seasoned aircrews and leaders. There is NO arguement that much too much effort was expended on political targets with little effect. The one thing that bothers me when we "count the cost" is a sheer running of a balance sheet of so many aircraft and allied aircrew lost for such and such an effect on industry. What is usually left out of the equation is the fact that several thousand German aircrew also lost their lives, that valuable fighters, using scarce resources, were destroyed in the thousands and that we saw a marked shift in the Luftwaffe from an offensive to a defensive force. Did the Strategic Bomber offensive accomplish what its prewar proponents stated it would? Obviously not. However I must agree with Overy, among others, that Strategic Bombing was one of the major contributing factors to the allies victory in Europe. Now, what this has to do with our beloved game............. Marc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 Originally posted by Titan: testDid we pass? :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted August 11, 2002 Share Posted August 11, 2002 It is not only the manpower involved that was diverted from better uses - the explosives, steel, transport, money, fuel (for trucks, ammo supply, personnel transport), and the resources that went into producing thousands of heavy AA guns and aircraft to defend Germany all matter too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted August 12, 2002 Share Posted August 12, 2002 Has anyone else in this thread noticed that bombing undefended resource hexes inflicts 2x the dmage on the German MPP stockpile, and the bombers NEVER take a hit from them?? Hitting the 10 pt Rhur hex down to 0 (may take 2 hits, for example, costs the Germans 20 MPP's straight away, and then 10+9+8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1 (as it rebuilds) = 75 MPP's total. It's not a huge amount, but it's not exactly insignificant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl G. E. von Mannerheim Posted August 12, 2002 Share Posted August 12, 2002 I dont feel that this game's engine gives strategic bombing its full potential. However. And this can be debated, especially from u brits. Ready, thisll start a big debate. Without the US Eigth Airforce the war in Europe wouldve lasted several years longer, or we may not have won the war altogether. U see. Although u can present factcharts and production figures. The Allied airforces delivered the critical blow to the axis war machine. Especially at the end of the war when the germans couldnt move. why? Because the the 8th, 15th and Bomber command wiped out germna oil production. AND inderdicted the transportation system so much that even traveling at night wasnt safe. Therefore Imho, Strategic bombing is not to powerful in this game. CVM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iolo Posted August 12, 2002 Share Posted August 12, 2002 There you go. When this game goes TCP/IP, I can guarantee you that the top Allied players will not be purchasing _any_ bombers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck_para Posted August 12, 2002 Share Posted August 12, 2002 It will be interesting to see what tactics are used in human vs human games. I played last night as the Allies. The Brit bombers were taking out German cities of 8 points at a time. I had advanced bombers (lvl 4) and good fighters. However, by the time the US invaded France I had no Brit ground troops because all of my points were going into upkeep for the air force. Another point, if you are Axis and keep losing too many points to bombing raids just put a Corps as a garrison, although chances are you need all the men you can get on the Eastern front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts