Air fleets & ships too powerful

[jon_j_rambo]

WHAT'S GOING ON? Now people tell me US bombing of Germany was worthless? This a joke. Bunch of freaks on this site. SC1 was a better game & better crowd.

[Cary]

In other words, German production rose because there was excess capacity. So the question isn't whether German production was harmed by bombing, but what production would have been in the absence of bombing.

[snip...]

Add in the cost of an gigantic air defense network with radars, searchlights, flak and fighters, and the indirect costs of bombing were considerable.

It's hard to say whether strategic bombing was the wisest use of Allied resources. For Britain, it was about the only way they could attack Germany before 1943. The problem isn't that bombing was ineffective, but that the Bomber Barons promised to win the war with airpower alone.

Yes, that's right, Hitler tried to keep Germany producing both Guns and Butter through 1943. Goering himself consumed a lot of butter.

There was a lot of debate at the time. I've tended to discount the points you raise because they were made quite passionately by a lot of people with a large vested interest in having made the right decisions with the bombing campaigh, but who knows... The clincher, I think, is that regardless of these arguments, Curtis LeMay changed Air Force bombing strategy in Japan in response to the Survey's conclusions, dropping high altitude precision bombing for low altitude area bombing -- at some point, soldiers face a hard truth that civilians can "spin" around.

Bombing had some effect, clearly, and made life more difficult for the Germans. It may also have pushed Hitler to make a number of rash decisions instead of good ones -- appointing Speer (and taking away control of the aircraft factories from Goering) was not one of these bad decisions, it must be noted.

Your question, what production would have been in the absence of bombing sounds simple, but it's more complicated than it appears. History would have been very different had Germany actually stretched its economy to the extent that the United States did: the comparison between German and American tank production is amazing, to say nothing of the (perhaps more relevant) comparison between truck production. But then again history would also have been very different if Germany had refrained from exiling and killing its best scientists before taking on the rest of Europe, or , for that matter, if the German elites had decided in 1933 that Hitler was just a little too loony -- or, perhaps, that he just was sufficiently sane to be really dangerous.

Sure, strategic bombing had an effect. Moreover, American mobilization gave us the luxury of wasting military resources, a luxury the German strategists did not have. Was it the optimal strategy? Well, a lot of the (civilians, particularly) who were involved in planning the effort were quite vocal in arguing that it was. The numbers, however, seem to contradict them.

From what I can see, you raise what is the strongest argument for the strategic bombing campaign -- it was a low-risk way for the Western allies to continue attrition warfare against Germany, without actually having to commit ground troops. Germany pointed a lot of 88s up at the sky instead of using them in PAKfronts...

There are two problems here: loss ratios in airplanes were ballpark 1-1 between the Allies and the Germans. But the resultant attrition of aircrews was extremely unfavorable. If an FW-190 goes down over Germany, its one pilot has a reasonable chance of flying again next week. Even if the the B-17 crew survived, the likelihood was that they spent the next year or two in a prison camp, perhaps being hit by their colleague's bombs.

Not only that, the Air Forces' aircrews were A-1 draftees and volunteers who were sorely needed in June and July of 1944. Smart, literate, and motivated, they were the kind of soldiers who make the difference between a parachute unit and mediocre line infantry.

Finally, by late 1943 the question is not whether Germany will lose, but when and to whom. For the Poles, the Czechs, and the Germans, the American decision for an air campaign instead of an early invasion may have had real costs. The Soviets paid the true blood-price to get to Berlin first, and they were the ones to dictate the settlement in in Eastern Europe.

Long ago, Sun Tzu wrote that it is best to win a war by attacking the enemy's strategy, second best to win by attacking his alliances, and worst to win by attacking his cities. He seems to have been right.

[ June 24, 2006, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: Cary ]

[Blashy]

Ah yes, once again Sun Tzu's words of wisdom are as relevant today as in his time.

[jon_j_rambo]

Forget Sun Tzu, I'll take Gideon's God. Number the men of war, then lap like dogs at the river.

[Rolend]

Originally posted by dicedtomato:

...

Add in the cost of an gigantic air defense network with radars, searchlights, flak and fighters, and the indirect costs of bombing were considerable.

...

Diced Tomato

And right there is why I consider the bombing campign worth doing. It was the indirect effects that was the killer to Germany the biggest IMO was the destruction of the LW, but not by destroying airplane factories, history shows that just did not happen, but by detroying it the battle over the skys of Germany.

[Guest Mike]

It wasn't destroyed in the skies over Germany - it was destroyed by bombing the oil refineries so it couldn't fly.

[R.J.]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

- it was destroyed by bombing the oil refineries so it couldn't fly.

Speaking of which, I recently saw the 1962 film The Counterfeit Traitor, the true story of Eric Erickson (played by William Holden) the American born Swedish oil businessman who was one of the most important spies in the war. He passed key information to the Allies about the location of German oil refineries and their synthetic oil production. It's also one of the best war movies I've ever seen, a great character study, well worth seeing.

[Rolend]

Yes fuel shortages hurt the Germans in the last year of the war but I contend that the LW was destoryed by the constant stratigic attacks made by both the Americans and Brits on not only industry but LW bases. The LW just could no longer field enough planes and crew in 44 to make a differance, fuel or no fuel.

[ June 27, 2006, 08:40 AM: Message edited by: Rolend ]

[Lars]

Pilot training.

If you've ever read the war logs, the LW accident rate was horrific towards the end.

[Desert Dave]

Speaking of which, I recently saw the 1962 film The Counterfeit Traitor, the true story of Eric Erickson (played by William Holden) the American born Swedish oil businessman who was one of the most important spies in the war. He passed key information to the Allies about the location of German oil refineries and their synthetic oil production. It's also one of the best war movies I've ever seen, a great character study, well worth seeing.

[... pardon, a bit off-topic, but, not really]

Thanks for the recommendation RJ,

Since I have somehow missed that one.

William Holden is, perhaps, THE most

Under-rated American "actor" - ever.

One of the few,

As with Burt Lancaster,

Very early and honest Jack Nicholson

When he had not become mere

Charicature of himself, and

Humphrey Bogart, beginning to end,

Who could - literally, stop a "moving picture"

Frame by frame.

IOW, he had that rare quality

Of... "quietly exerted" charisma,

And a kind of stoic, and

Natively wise, yet "expressionist" demeanor.

As Michael Caine or Max von Sydow

Can sometimes also accomplish now.

I am fair certain you've already seen

THE best motion picture

RE: WW-2,

That has ever been made, IMHO:

Cabaret.

It isn't merely the lavish production values,

Nor the "haunting & poetic" songs,

And not even the excellent, explicit

Attention to period detail,

But... FAR more,

A chilling portrait of "group consciousness"

On the verge of collective regression

To a primitive "fear & loathing;"

A whole Society crashing to base impulse

And superstitious embrace

In the vain hopes

Of subduing the "slouching Beast"

As it trudges toward

(... a secretly greeted)

Apocalypse.

Some of those scenes,

As with the one lone GErman Youth

Inspiring the ordinary "Rathskeller Volk"

To a hyper-heightened "nationalism,"

Are harrowing and, truly,

An age-old, yet ever risible warning

That what happened in GErmany,

Circa... 1930, to and through 1945,

CAN happen... anywhere.

As the prescient author,

Sinclair Lewis has written it

In a novel with deliberately ironic title:

"It Can't Happen Here." (1935)

IE, here,... in America.

Unbridled power done run amok,

Safeguards indolently pitched on trash heap,

In the name of impossibly achieved

"Complete security."

Well, sure it can.

Yep, recent evidence

Would unequivocally suggest,

If not... INSIST,

You bet it can.

[jon_j_rambo]

@Desert Dave --- NICE take, Rack 'Em! Somebody give this cat a "Camp Rambo" muscle shirt to wear this summer! Why are you getting racked? WILLIAM HOLDEN is Sgt. J.J. Sefton!!! Stalag 17 is one of the greatest flicks! Sefton was real to me.

Now, far as Jack, well, lets say I only like him as Col. Jessup.

Bogart is a Legend, I liked him as the Man With No Face.

Best overall actor of the old days was Gregory Peck, he could take a sorry flick & make it good.

"Round up the usual suspects" --- French dude in Casablanca.

God Bless the USA,

-Legend

[Rolend]

DD Yes nice post and by the way it is very nice having you and your ideas back, good to see you.

[Iron Ranger]

weird, some of this could be cut and pasted out of SC1 forums!

[R.J.]

DD - Holden and Bogie were definitely two of the best and always fascinating to watch. My mother raised me on a steady diet of classic films - while most of my school chums were drooling over Cindy Crawford I was entranced by Audrey Hepburn and Gene Tierney - and for my money actors from that golden era had both more style and substance than the "stars" of today.

I must confess I've never seen Cabaret. I remember in school all I knew was that it was a musical with the dark-haired girl from "Arthur," after that I put it so far out of my mind that I never even realized it had a connection to WW2. Thanks for recommending it, I'll definitely move it to my must see list.

[Sombra]

Originally posted by Iron Ranger:

weird, some of this could be cut and pasted out of SC1 forums!

Airfleets are not anymore the "all deciding" force in Sc2. Ground troops rule. Still they are very very powerful as bunkerbuster and citykiller.

+ combine it with the general direction of sC2 , attack is the best defense and its nearly impossible to hold a position even for 1 turn.

I see two ways to adress this issue:

- Either reduce moral and rewadiness loss due to air attacks in cities and fortresses

- and or apply AA tech aginst fighters in cities and fortresses

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Rolend:

Yes fuel shortages hurt the Germans in the last year of the war but I contend that the LW was destoryed by the constant stratigic attacks made by both the Americans and Brits on not only industry but LW bases. The LW just could no longer field enough planes and crew in 44 to make a differance, fuel or no fuel.

Contend what you like, but I'd like to see some facts to back up your oipinion.

Germany produced over 40,000 a/c in 1944 - more than in 1942 and 1943 combined - 560 of them were Me-262's, and yet nothing like 500 Me-262's ever saw combat. Another 700 were produced in 1945, and yet only a handful of units ever got around to flying them.

USAAF Strategic bombing survey - check out hte section "The attack on oil"

Output of aviation gasoline from synthetic plants dropped from 175,000 tons in April (if 1944) to 30,000 tons in July and 5,000 tons in September.

So even with over 3000 planes/ month being delivered in September of 1944 they simply had no fuel to fly!

[Desert Dave]

@Desert Dave --- NICE take, Rack 'Em! Somebody give this cat a "Camp Rambo" muscle shirt to wear this summer!

Well, jjr,

I had already been promised one of these

Awhile back, only,

For some reason I don't know

What-for or why,

I never received it via the mails. :confused:

Still got Pony Express up 'er in old Idaho?

LOL.

'At's alright.

All I EVER wear are Levis and T's,

So I got plenty.

Wear 'em everywhere I go, no exceptions,

I ain't enny fawning fashionista.

Weddings,

Larks in the park,

Frequent trips to the local Hoo Doo Shop, or

Out to dinner with the wife, usually,

It's... Levis and T's.

Trouble being, if it's some sort of up-town

Place where the in-crowd yearns to hang out,

They like to MAKE you wear a tie.

Not a problem.

I have this skinny thing from high school

Graduation that I keep close

To hand, in ragged back pocket.

Utilitarian item for sure.

Use it as bandana,

Or a kerchief to wipe my brow

Then I head on out into the desert

Hereabouts, and BTW,

Once I lasso'd a rattlesnake with it, and,

I insist, that's no lie.

DD Yes nice post and by the way it is very nice having you and your ideas back, good to see you.

Thanks San Diego

I've enjoyed reading yer apt

And game-improving contributions

As well.

I FIRMLY believe ANY good forum

Has MANY myriad sorts of things in it, as

I am quite convinced

That...all work and no! play

Makes Jack & Jill

As though they had spent the whole day

Rolling an out-of-round rock

Up & down the hill, over

And over and over again,

Like Sisyphus had to do, eh?

... and for my money actors from that golden era had both more style and substance than the "stars" of today.

Couldn't agree more, RJ.

In them days the Studios controlled

Actors with long-term contracts,

At outrageously low pay, compared

To these lucrative Malibu days, anyway,

And would trade them around

To other Studios,

Like us kids down and dirty,

Bartering baseball-cards.

And yet,

Despite being semi-subservient,

Somehow... they managed to project

A kind of "majestic elegance"

And they truly KNEW their craft,

How to hit the mark and make a spark

That translated mere celluloid

Into a view... resembling the arc

Of a night star's light

Sleightly adrift,

And you half asleep, half awake,

There in the dark.

And very best,

An innocent T-shirted arm looped

Oh so casual... 'round yer lightly

Perfumed, soft-shouldered Beauty.

Yeah, them were the days, alright. :cool:

[Lars]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Output of aviation gasoline from synthetic plants dropped from 175,000 tons in April (if 1944) to 30,000 tons in July and 5,000 tons in September.

So even with over 3000 planes/ month being delivered in September of 1944 they simply had no fuel to fly! </font>

[Rolend]

SO I think I didn't state my views in a very clear manner. I agree that the stratgy to bomb German industry to destroy the German war making ability was a total failure. However it forced the Germans to spend a LOT of resources to defend the German homeland. It was this defense that destoryed the LW, in the air on the ground at their airfields certenly not the actul bombing. Also the number of 88's that had to be deployed around German cities were very large numbers and those 88's sure could of been used better against Stalins tanks.

So I agree with you that boming German industry to destory that industry was a total failure, however by making the attempt it meant an Allie victory for control of German airspace.

[Cary]

Originally posted by Rolend:

SO I think I didn't state my views in a very clear manner. I agree that the stratgy to bomb German industry to destroy the German war making ability was a total failure. However it forced the Germans to spend a LOT of resources to defend the German homeland. It was this defense that destoryed the LW, in the air on the ground at their airfields certenly not the actul bombing. Also the number of 88's that had to be deployed around German cities were very large numbers and those 88's sure could of been used better against Stalins tanks.

So I agree with you that boming German industry to destory that industry was a total failure, however by making the attempt it meant an Allie victory for control of German airspace.

That's probably a fair assessment. I do have some quibbles with the issue of the 88, though. Frankly as an AA gun it was doing what it was meant to do -- it just got a moderately deserved rep as an AT gun from the desert and from German desperation to stop the T34 in '41 and '42: there really wasn't much else in the German arsenal up to that task.

I'm not so sure that more 88s at Kursk or Normandy would be all that bad a thing, though: they were AA guns, so they had a high silhoette, large crew, and poor mobility -- best way to deal with them was with artillery, and there was artillery aplenty at Normandy, or, for that matter, at Kursk.

On the other hand, if airpower is not decisive in a strategic role, but decisive tactically, it seems reasonable to move as much of it over to a tactical role as possible: why fight for control of the air over Berlin when you could fight over Normandy? There are some weaknesses to this argument, but certainly from the perspective of grinding down the Luftwaffe, it would have made a lot of sense.

(scrap the bomb bay and 6 crew from the B17s and convert them to a WWII version of the AC-130)...

[ June 28, 2006, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: Cary ]

[Rolend]

Cary that is exactly what the Brits and Americans did just prior to D-Day. The vast majority of Allied bombing was given over to Ike to help with the landings. Man there were a couple of VERY unhappy generals over this, both the British and American Air commanders(sorry bad with names) were convinced they could win the war with just air power but of course as we know with hind sight that was not going to happen. They saw it as a total waste of resources and were convinced that Germany was on the verge of surrender just beacuse of their stratigic bombing.

When used to directly support ground units it is very questionable how effective it was but when it was used to take out rail and road systems as well as command and control centers it played hell with German reinfocements to the beach area.

[Cary]

Very true. The question is whether Overlord could have happened earlier, or the break-out quicker, had the focus been on Close Air Support from the start. A similar question might be asked about better CAS for Market-Garden (certainly the weather sucked, but it's also notable that 1 Para couldn't raise the flyboys by radio.)

Of course the problem is that any change in strategy produces a lot of friction: over Normandy it meant using B-17s in a role they weren't really suited for. But even so, it seems to have been very effective.

Interestingly I recall there was some discussion about CAS in this thread or another a while back -- it was possible to do it well, but it took organization and a true effort to pull it together. If I recall correctly the Desert Air Force was an organization that learned to do it right, and on Sicily and in Tunisia they were perceptibly better at it than the Americans.

You're right, when you think about it: Direct Support is probably not all that helpful-- arty does it nearly as well, and at less risk of highly trained people. But close interdiction is another story.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Lars:

5,000 tons of av fuel is still a lot of gas. You'd get 5 sorties a month out of those 3,000 planes. Not great, but good enough to come up and fight when you wanted to, considering the weather in Sept.

What nonsense! It's only 20% of what it took to mount a proper defence - any attacking force would notice the difference immediately.

That 5000 tons has to cover everything - recce, training, ferry flights, bombing attacks.

And if training and other non-combat flights are also curtailed to that same 20% then replacements become poorly trained and/or non-available.

Certainly a vast amount of resource was diverted to the German home front to defend against he bombing, and certainly the LW suffered very badly from air-air losses vs escorting fighters.

But those losses didn't stop it flying in late 44-45.

What stopped it flying was that it couldn't fly without fuel.

[Blashy]

Just ask any Germany commander of that era if he could choose between being bombed or not and you have your answer if it was effective.

[Guest Mike]

Ask anyone at any time whether they want to be bombed or not!

It's hardly an important question because the answer is axiomatic.