How effective was strategic bombing in the defeat of Germany

#1
I've had an argument with a mate of mine (he's soon to join the RAF) and he swears blind that the strategic bombing of Germany was vital to winning WW2.

I disagreed, saying that yes it was important but bare in mind there were enormous problems in navigation (I understand that the RAF only bombed at night (?) which would only make it harder and maybe most bombs missed the industrial targets), targeting and anyway, surely the Germans suffered from a lack of resources, i.e., oil to carrying on the war?

Also...I looked on wikipedia (the source of all knowledge I know...) and it quotes the US strategic bombing survey which points out that if anything there was an increase in war material production - how could that be the case if strategic bombing was so effective?

To be honest, my knowledge of air power is very limited (like my knowledge of everything else to be fair)...and can anyone shed light on this?
 
#2
It was no more effective than the Nazi Blitz was for winning the war for Hitler.

But it made people feel good that we were taking the war to them (sausage eating boxheads).

Later in the war, with total allied air supremacy a reversion to daylight bombing, better & bigger bombs, better and bigger aeroplanes, H2S Navigational aids and more accurate bombsights did strategic bombing really take effect !

Hurrah for Barnes Wallis !
 
#3
the RAF lost 57000 men,was it worthit .Berlin cemetary is a funny place theres seven graves and then a space. we pondered this and then we knew, there was seven men in a bomber crew
 
#6
Rockhopperst4 said:
It was important in that it demonstrated to the Russians that we were activly doing something to help them.
As in Dresden... But mainly it showed (Getting all Churchillian) that not only could Britain take it, we could dish it out too !
 
#7
tropper66 said:
the RAF lost 57000 men,was it worthit .Berlin cemetary is a funny place theres seven graves and then a space. we pondered this and then we knew, there was seven men in a bomber crew
What language are you typing in ? :roll:
 
#8
The attack on oil production, oil refineries and tank farms was, extremely successful and made a very large contribution to the general collapse of Germany in 1945. In the event, the bombing of oil facilities became Albert Speer's main concern; however, this occurred sufficiently late in the war that Germany would soon be defeated in any case. Nevertheless, it is fair to say the oil bombing campaign materially shortened the war, thereby saving many lives.

(Robbed from wiki)
 
#9
wenglish
 
#10
smudge67 said:
The attack on oil production, oil refineries and tank farms was, extremely successful and made a very large contribution to the general collapse of Germany in 1945. In the event, the bombing of oil facilities became Albert Speer's main concern; however, this occurred sufficiently late in the war that Germany would soon be defeated in any case. Nevertheless, it is fair to say the oil bombing campaign materially shortened the war, thereby saving many lives.

(Robbed from wiki)
The Soviet advance probably had something to do with it too.
 
#12
It strikes me that it is effective, but to contribute defeat, air power has to work in synergy with land and sea forces. Air power on its own I doubt would be effective.

Does the bomber always get through? no it doesn't! IMO uneducated opinion air power has been overrated for many years by its proponents. No way am I saying air power and bombing is useless, just that it hasn't lived up to the hype it initially had.
 
#13
It certainly became more effective from Middle 1944 onwards, but never underestimate the Speer factor. The man was simply a production/logistics genius

Wasn't it Carl Spaatz who said if he had known just how crucial Speer had been to the German war effort, he'd have had the entire 8th Air Force hunting for him?
 
#14
no wenglish, welsh/english. aber i spreche deutch auche, aber mistens am wochenende wen ich besofen bin
 
#16
ich bin in bet mit mine shafer hund
 
#18
Ask yourself this, if NO strategic bombing had taken place, what would have happened. How much harder would it have been to beat Germany, think of all the advanced weaponry that was in develpoment, the lack of oil late on and the damage to electricity and power production, not to mention rail heads and docks.
 
#19
As stated earlier, Speer was an exceptional talent in the right job, so production did go up for a long period when you might think it should have gone down. Those production rises came a a cost though.

My point:
The bombing campaign had more than it's explosive side though. Defences were withdrawn to defend cities, this leeched manpower and equipment from both fronts.

It will always remain difficult to convince septics that the offensive was worth it.

For those of you who care the Telegraph is running an appeal to get the members of Bomber Command a memorial here

Airpower can achieve mighty things, and is, if used properly is extremely effective. There should of course be full co-operation between Land-Sea-Air
 
#20
Thats it insty, the defeat of Germany had to involve all forces where each force had to play its role to its optimum ability - essentially working together to achieve the policy objectives.

Did one service outweight the other in importance?
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top