ALLIED 'STRATEGIC BOMBING'

[Blashy]

The scale is different.

Like corps, if we had the same scale as real life, we would have alot more on the map.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Desert Dave:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> No, but the Mosquito zipping by afterwards usually did.

Valid point.

So... make the informing pop-up

Closer to 50 %

OK by me.

Thing is, though, from a gaming stand point,

Would be better, IMO, if

We didn't always KNOW for SURE

The PRECISE damage.

</font>

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Rolend:

Speaking of Paratroops with hardcaps why is the U.S. only alowed to build 1 uint didn't they have 3 by the time of D-Day?

3 divisions = 1 corps normally.

[SeaMonkey]

Only two at the time of D-Day.

But added a couple more later, 17th and 13th Airborne. Eventually grouped together as the First Allied Airborne Army with the 82nd and 101st.

Should be two corps allowed remembering that glider regiments were attached at times according to operational needs. 3 jump Regts + 1 glider = a large division.

[Timskorn]

In light of this conversation I decided to go into the scripts of my mod and tweak the US to favor early air production to achieve 'dominance' over France by 1943 unless the German player diverts their airforce.

It's April 1943 and the US now has 5 Fighers and 1 Bomber in France, along with the UK's Fighter and Bomber. The net result has been the complete shutdown of Axis operations in France. I had a Corp. in Brest for awhile, but I was reinforcing it with 33+ MPP's a turn due to the damage it was taking from the air. Once the unit was gone, the AI focused on hitting strategic targets.

I'm bogged down outside Stalingrad and I've bought 2 AF, 2 Corp, 1 Army and an HQ to sit around the Siegfried line. A British Army has landed in Brest, but if I poke my head out to take it back my units will take a beating from the air.

In comparison to my other games, I've realized this is an absolutely necessary strategy for the Allied AI. A human player would probably be able to achieve similar results, with the Axis player unable to compete with the amount of air units fielded by the Allies unless they were all taken off the Eastern front.

I'm awaiting D-Day, which I imagine will be far more successful with the historically correct Allied air superiority over the landing areas. A US Torch landing does put early pressure on the Axis, but it seems better to focus on an "Air Power" research and production as the US to shut down operations and production in France/Western Germany.

[Barcelona 1936]

I want to recommend reading about the real effects of the strategic Bombing (economic war) and specialy what said the recently deceased economist J.K. Galbraith :

"At the end of the second world war, I was the director for overall effects of the United States strategic bombing survey - Usbus, as it was known. I led a large professional economic staff in assessment of the industrial and military effects of the bombing of Germany. The strategic bombing of German industry, transportation and cities, was gravely disappointing. Attacks on factories that made such seemingly crucial components as ball bearings, and even attacks on aircraft plants, were sadly useless. With plant and machinery relocation and more determined management, fighter aircraft production actually increased in early 1944 after major bombing. In the cities, the random cruelty and death inflicted from the sky had no appreciable effect on war production or the war.

These findings were vigorously resisted by the Allied armed services - especially, needless to say, the air command, even though they were the work of the most capable scholars and were supported by German industry officials and impeccable German statistics, as well as by the director of German arms production, Albert Speer. All our conclusions were cast aside. The air command´s public and academic allies united to arrest my appointment to a Harvard professorship and succeeded in doing so for a year."

[Lars]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

After raid damage assessment was notriously unreliable - even teh mossies - it wasn't until AFTER the war that there was any real knowledge of how much damage was and was not done.

Yep. And that's what I want. A unreliable assessment.

We do get an assessment - eitehr you made a significant hit, or you did not.

You mean the "bang" sound effect? Whee.

IMO that's perfectly reasonable - there are much more important things for Hubert to fix than this - which isnt' actually broken.

True, but it could be better with very little work.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Timskorn:

It's April 1943 and the US now has 5 Fighers and 1 Bomber in France, along with the UK's Fighter and Bomber.

Sounds a bit fighter happy. Wouldn't tweaking it a bit more towards Bomber be more realistic?

Say 2 Bombers, 2 Fighters for escort, and hit the three techs, especially Long Range.

[rleete]

An excellent source is Speer's book, "Inside the Third Reich". He says that for all the destruction, it was surprisingly ineffective. He always wondered why the bombing wasn't concentrated on the Rhur dams, because power production/distribution was the weak link in the system.

The only notable exception was the bombing of major bridges and rail hubs, which hampered supply and troop movements.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Barcelona 1936:

I want to recommend reading about the real effects of the strategic Bombing (economic war) and specialy what said the recently deceased economist J.K. Galbraith :

Here's the report.

THE UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY

I think Galbraith's statement of "cast aside" is a bit over the top. It's still the standard reference.

[ May 16, 2006, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: Lars ]

[guinty1]

Originally posted by Yogi:

Actually this discussion fits in with an earlier discussion about US MPP's. It seems quite difficult to refelect the historical air power situation in the game. It is hard for the US/UK to build bombers and/or fighters while at the same time keeping up with tech or getting any reasonable sized ground force together. This may mean more MPP growth or the need for additional "free" air units.

I have found attempting "strategic bombing" with only two units difficult. One or two Axis fighter units in the west (especially if higher tech) can wreak havoc on the allied bombers and escourts. If the Allies try to keep the air units at strength (or create more units) they may find themselves with little left to take care of everything else.

this is exactly why strategic bombing is a waste of mpp and time.The allied bombing from 1942-45 was the biggest waste of men and material of any action in ww2.If they had went for the oil and targeted factorys only ...germany would have had a major problem on its hands long before 1945,flattening a city created no major gain for the allies,(majority of all city housing in germany destroyed or damaged by the war end).Bombers where used only for tactical operations for d- day (until d-day +40) and the results where startling to the allied high command(no SS panzer div lasted long with 500 heavy bombers on its ass) ...its just that harris was desperate to get back to his raids that it was scaled back....

[Desert Dave]

Originally posted by Lars:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Timskorn:

It's April 1943 and the US now has 5 Fighers and 1 Bomber in France, along with the UK's Fighter and Bomber.

Sounds a bit fighter happy. Wouldn't tweaking it a bit more towards Bomber be more realistic?

Say 2 Bombers, 2 Fighters for escort, and hit the three techs, especially Long Range. </font>

[Timskorn]

Lars/DD: Yep, it was 'fighter' happy, even though the % were skewed towards bombers, just happened to get more rolls for fighters in my first playthrough. Bottom line though, is the Allies having enough airpower over France to put a dent in German MPP's and also make the German player think twice about sending units out from cover. Also force them to invest in AA tech or purchase/redeploy their fighters to France.

I also agree that the brunt of the work SHOULD be done by land units, Patton-style, but until the 1st patch is released the AI needs all the help it can get! And it's not totally unrealistic that German units were thrashed from the air during and after D-Day. The Battle of the Bulge was partly successful in the beginning for the Germans due to the inability of Allied air to sortie against them. Had their been enough clear skies it's possible the "Battlin' Bastards of Bastogne" may have never had the chance to receive their moniker.

It's apparent however, that air dominance over France is necessary for the allies, one way or the other.

[Rolend]

@Barcelona Yep I tend to agree that damage to German industry and moral was not all that good compared to the losses both the RAF and US air forces suffered. However I don't think you can under state the effect it had on German infrastructure as rail, road and bridges slowed transportation of needed reinforcements and supplies to both fronts. Not to mention that by the time of D-Day the Luftwaffe was totally decimated by the defense against strategic bombing.

To say that strategic bombing was a failure just because it did not have much effect on German industry is wrong, after all how much more industry and war making ability could Germany of had if they didn’t have to deal with strategic bombing at all?

Strategic bombing effected how Germany could conduct the war in both the East and the West and if you look at the big picture I believe that strategic bombing was a success. A war winner? No but certainly it played a large roll.

[Lars]

Rolend, read the report. Pay particular attention to the section marked "Electric Power"

[David Chapuis]

strategic bombing was a war winner in the pacific.

[Exel]

Originally posted by David Chapuis:

strategic bombing was a war winner in the pacific.

Obviously, considering Hiroshima and Nagasaki were strategic bombings.

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Exel:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by David Chapuis:

strategic bombing was a war winner in the pacific.

Obviously, considering Hiroshima and Nagasaki were strategic bombings. </font>

[Liam]

To add to this comment I once cracked open my book, it was the Historical Documentation with a Wargame I'd bought with a Flight Simulator, indepth it described the effects of US and UK bombing of Germany and Ploesti. The facts are this:

Because of German resolve, much of the wartime production was returned to it's peek within a shortime. This was likely do to the Morale boost to keep fighting and similar to the Morale situation during the Blitz on England. The Theory Pre-War and WW1 was that Strategic and the Bombing of Cities would crush Morale is untrue. Ultimately it was never proven in WW2 to have an effect similar to that and even Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan now are not the sole reasons for a Japanese Surrender. Reds in Manchuria may have been as big an influencing factor, one thing is true many in the Japanese Military wanted to fight on.

Furthermore, many of the bridges that were bombed out, were rebuilt some within a day. The BallBearing Factories, well, that sucked, it hurt the turning radius of German Armor but they bought some from Sweden and Switzerland and since the BallBearing Machines were so massive, some were not even destroyed though massive bombs crushed the building over them. The Germans manfactured alternatives to BallBearings as well when Allies pressured her neighbors not to provide her the essential Tool for all Military vehicles.

The Ploesti Raids were costly but effective, and that probably hurt Germany most of all. From what I recollect in reading. I do not know how truly influential they were in the Wars outcome. I do know Germans were refining Coal into Oil in a percentage so that may have made of for some of the shortfalls.

The biggest effect of Strategic Bombing was the diversion of German Resources from the Eastern Front. A Million Guns pointed in the Sky, the Fighters that could've been serving eslewhere. God knows what difference they'd of made? So we cannot say that the campaign was completely unsuccessful, the Threat as with many other's was deemed real by the German High Command and they did allocate resources to it and the cost was ultimately the loss of the War. Had all those German Resources been moved and used properly on the Eastern front, God knows? Even though Hitler didn't understand what an intelligent withdrawl was till it was too late and was a good defense was either. So maybe not

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Exel:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by David Chapuis:

strategic bombing was a war winner in the pacific.

Obviously, considering Hiroshima and Nagasaki were strategic bombings. </font>

[Cheese Panzer]

One thing to keep in mind about Strateic Bombing is that this was the first war where it was attempted. Thousand plane raids are certainly impressive but in many ways the Allied commands were making it up as they went along.

The very earliest raids by the UK were little more than retaliation for German bombing of UK cities after the Fall of France. The London Blitz and Coventry were revenged by the UK bombing of Berlin (which caused Goering's famous "Call me Meyer" statement). It wasn't until later, when more and better planes were available, that industrial bombing started. And it wasn't until 1944 that critical industries were finally identified and targetted. With mixed results, as evidenced by the debate here.

After WWII Strategic bombing has proved to be either a complete waste of resources (Korea, Vietnam) or brutally effective (Iraq - whose power system has never really recovered).

[Desert Dave]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Exel:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by David Chapuis:

strategic bombing was a war winner in the pacific.

Obviously, considering Hiroshima and Nagasaki were strategic bombings. </font>

[Lars]

Originally posted by Desert Dave:

Could have ended without dropping those 2 fat bombs, and WITHOUT invading Japanese home islands.

Possibly, but not guaranteed.

It was fortunate that the Japanese surrendered when they did, for both us and them.

[Desert Dave]

Well, Lars,

This is only anecdotal

And not culled from the, literally,

THOUSANDS of opinionated,

Thus compromised "histories:"

My Old Man served in Pacific

From 1942 to War's End,

Was involved in "island hopping"

All over the bloody running ocean,

Guadalcanal to Iwo.

Was on a troop ship,

Looking over the railing and READY

To invade an already annihilated Japan.

HE has told me, on one of those rare moments

When he would even talk about it, oh,

Once every 10 years or so,

And then, maybe

About 6 or 8 words in toto,

Well,

Long story short,

This career military man told me:

"It was a tragic mistake, never should

have happened."

I go with that,

EQUALLY as much as the fact

Of "diplomatic initiatives" by Sweden

On behalf of the non-kamikaze element

Of the "better natures"

That did indeed exist in Japan.

No use arguing it over,

It's a sore point for Americans,

And the collective guilt

[... so vigorously and vehemently denied, well, that's a sure SIGN that there is some hidden TRUTH to be finally reckoned with, in there somewhere, eh?]

Of these - first time ever!

Outright air assaults on non-combatant,

Citizens - now fobbed off, double-speak, as

"Collateral damage,"

Which PREVENTS Americans from confronting

This horrendous escalation

Of - just what is a LEGITIMATE

Target in war?

Well,

Events have since indicated

That we have no more shame, nor remorse,

We just bomb the hell out of

Whatever we choose,

And if some don't like it - tough,

Get with the program!

Or we call you a traitor.

LOLOLOL.

Enlightened "progress."

She ain't what she used to be.

[Lars]

Hey, I've always been a proponent of the submarine/mine blockade strategy.

But, it was never a sure thing either. It wouldn't have forced the Japanese to surrender. They could have let half the population starve.

I can understand why they made the decision they did. They took a chance, and it worked.