The Real Victors of WW2 in Europe

[Brasscasing]

The British lost 6 out of every 10 airmen which was the worst ratio of any nation. Besides being safer bombing at night, it's also less accurate. The ugly truth is the British didn't care about accuracy and were focused on bombing civilians just as Germany did. There was a dispute between who started it first. Americans bombed during the day for accuracy. Bomb a ball bearing factory and planes and tank engines don't get built. Best way to stop a war is to stop the war machine, not waste time bombing civilians. I'm big on WW2 history. I don't make stuff up.

Well, not quite...

The report by the U.S. Air Force Historical Division (USAFHD) showing the tonnage of bombs dropped by the Allies on Germany's seven largest cities during the war.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II#CITEREFAngell1953

The actual report...

http://www.afhso.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-110208-030.pdf

The figures...

City   Population(1939)  Tonnage:  American  British    Total

Berlin   4,339,000                          22,090     45,517   67,607
Hamburg 1,129,000                       17,104     22,583   39,687
Munich 841,000                             11,471     7,858     19,329
Cologne 772,000                           10,211     34,712    44,923
Leipzig 707,000                             5,410       6,206     11,616
Essen 667,000                               1,518         36,420   37,938
Dresden 642,000                           4,441       2,659      7,100

And not that I want to get into a pissing contest with you over who killed the most civilians during a bombing raid during WW2 but there is that little matter of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the Pacific theatre....

Brass

[SANDRO43]

And not that I want to get into a pissing contest with you over who killed the most civilians during a bombing raid during WW2 but there is that little matter of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the Pacific theatre....

Where actually there were fewer civilian casualties than in the preceding raids on Tokyo and other cities with incendiary bombs, since most houses there were made of wood.

[Brasscasing]

Where actually there were fewer civilian casualties than in the preceding raids on Tokyo and other cities with incendiary bombs, since most houses there were made of wood.

Good point. I'm not sure what the exact figures are, however, if memory serves the Hiroshima/Nagasaki casualties rose sharply in the ensuing 10 or so years eventually surpassing even the Tokyo raids. I'd need to look it up.

Brass

Edit: Nope, you're correct, Sandro. The Tokyo raid is considered the single most destructive bombing raid in history...

..."The atomic bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have dominated the retelling of WWII history, but as a single attack the bombing of Tokyo was more destructive.

The firestorms killed about 100,000 civilians and wiped out about half of the city"....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-09/tokyo-wwii-firebombing-remembered-70-years-on/6287486

[Muzh]

a large number of aircraft carriers
trucks in huge quantities
the P51 Mustang, the preeminent fighter plane of the war
the B-29, the most effective bomber of the war
artillery in huge numbers
cargo ships in huge numbers
two atomic bombs whose use on the Japanese convinced their government to surrender

The P-51 was a flop with its Allison (GM Detriot Diesel) engine. Not enough materials to build the turbo-superchargers they needed to make them scream. Good design but not much improvement over the P-40 Curtiss. The British supplied the Merlin engine used by the Spitfire in 1942 and the legend of the Mustang (P-51B, C, and D) was born. The much improved P-51D incorporated the bubble canopy which increased visibility 100% fold so they could use their 50 cal. machine guns very effectively. Other beasts in the ETO were Lockheed P-38 Lightning and the P-47 Republic Thunderbolt. As the P-51 being the pre-eminent fighter plane, it never saw duty in the Pacific. The Grumman F6 Hellcat and the Vought F4U Corsair were the ones bitch-slapping the Japanese Zekes. But not before they reversed-engineered the Zero.

As for the B-29 Superfortress, They saw limited action in the Pacific. They did drop the A-bombs but, special recognition should be given to the North American B-25 Mitchell as their everyday medium range bomber. Now, the darling of all bombers was the venerable B-17 Flying Fortress. They were the workhorse of the 8th Air Force who did most of the carpet bombing in the ETO along with the Consolidated B-24 Liberator and the Martin b-26 Marauder.

[SANDRO43]

Other beasts in the ETO were Lockheed P-38 Lightning and the P-47 Republic Thunderbolt.

The Lockheed P-38 Lightning

was extremely forgiving, and could be mishandled in many ways, but the rate of roll in the early versions was too slow for it to excel as a dogfighter.

Twin-engined fighters were never much of a match for single-engined fighters, although they had some positive features like endurance and fuselage guns, and were often relegated to roles not involving dogfighting , like the photo-reconnaissance type in which Antoine de Saint-Exupéry lost his life in 1944 off Marseilles, its wreck being finally discovered in 1998 by a local fisherman.

Much more appreciated by fighter pilots was the Republic  P-47 Thunderbolt, affectionately called "the Jug" for its heaviness and damage-resistance hardiness:

[Muzh]

The Lockheed P-38 Lightning
Twin-engined fighters were never much of a match for single-engined fighters, although they had some positive features like endurance and fuselage guns, and were often relegated to roles not involving dogfighting

But you have to agree it IS a beautiful airplane. 

[SANDRO43]

But you have to agree it IS a beautiful airplane. 

Oh yes, but fast manoeuvrability was not one of its assets with those 2 engines .

[Brasscasing]

Oh yes, but fast manoeuvrability was not one of its assets with those 2 engines .

Don't under sell the ol' 'der Gableschwanz Teufl', lol.

..."The Ultimate Weapon
First conceived in 1937 by Lockheed chief engineer Hall L. Hibbard and his then assistant, Clarence “Kelly” Johnson, the twin-boomed P-38 was the most innovative plane of its day, combining speed with unheard-of advances: two supercharged engines and a potent mix of four 50-caliber machine guns and a 20-mm cannon.

Upon its official introduction in 1940, the P-38 was capable of climbing to 3,300 feet in a single minute and reaching 400 mph, 100 mph faster than any other fighter in the world. It also doubled as an intimidating long-range threat, capable of carrying a larger payload than early B-17s and boasting a range of 1,150 miles.

Its versatility and ruggedness were legendary. It could sink a ship.  Strafed enemies on the ground. Crippled tanks. Destroyed entrenched pillboxes and shot down numerous fighters and bombers in all theaters of war.

When a long-range battle-tested airplane was needed for the Allies’ first round-trip mission to Berlin, a modified P-38 was chosen. And in 1943, when code breakers learned of a key inspection flight in the Pacific by Japanese admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, architect of the attack on U. S. installations in Hawaii, sixteen P-38 pilots were dispatched to fly a five-leg, nearly 1,000 mile-long mission. 

It proved to be a turning point in the war. After intercepting the admiral and his escort of Zero fighters, Japanese naval morale was crushed, and Allied morale soared. The intercept helped set the stage for an Allied victory in the Pacific."...

http://www.lockheedmartin.ca/us/100years/stories/p-38.html

I learned something here too. I wasn't aware it was P-38s that shot down Adm. Yamamoto's flight.

Brass

[JayH]

I'm big on WW2 history. I don't make stuff up.

No you are not--you read stuff and think that makes you expert--your interpretation takes  a bend that does not meet the facts.You have a way of saying that is totally negative pia approach.
Britain did not  JUST bomb cities as you infer-- it was specifically after the attacks on the English cities that provoked the retaliation.
      On accuracy of bombing--now BB-- you are being ridiculously ignorant- your knowledge is coming from watching old American war movies-- you know the ones-- where the guys can drop a bomb into a barrel!!
      Try this fact BB-- On D Day-- on Omaha Beach where the American landings took place--the plan was to bomb the beach & immediately approximate area  prior to the troop carrying landing craft arrival -the purpose was to try and damage the German defences but most importantly-- to create craters on the beach expanse for troops to get cover from the German fire from their entrenched positions.American forces on that beach suffered heavy losses as a result-- and only sheer bravery and some luck allowed them to get off that beach.
Do you know how many bombs the US Air Force managed to land on the target area?   NONE, incredibly they missed by kilometres !!
   
     So when you write stuff about bombing accuracy in WW2 -get some real information before you cast aspersions on other nations,

   Come back to us with this one BB-it relates to bombing accuracy-- what height did B-17s drop their bombs from?What height were the British night bombings conducted from?
   
ADDED LATER
Referencing D Day itself and the various landings
Quote
"In the British sector, owing to reefs and foul ground, Monty's Second Army under Miles Dempsey had to land on a flood tide an hour to an hour and a half after we landed. This gift of time enabled the warships of the Royal Navy to deliver Monty's beaches a two-hour daylight bombardment, nearly four times as long as the naval bombardment at Omaha. To this was added a massive attack by British heavy bombers. The combined sea and air attacks in the British sector were far more effective than those in the American sector."

[Anotherkiwi]

The British lost 6 out of every 10 airmen which was the worst ratio of any nation.  Besides being safer bombing at night, it's also less accurate. The ugly truth is the British didn't care about accuracy and were focused on bombing civilians just as Germany did. There was a dispute between who started it first. Americans bombed during the day for accuracy. Bomb a ball bearing factory and planes and tank engines don't get built. Best way to stop a war is to stop the war machine, not waste time bombing civilians.

I do actually agree with you regarding accuracy of the bombings.  The early British night bombing raids were woefully inaccurate, with only 20% of bombs falling anywhere near where they were supposed to.  Again, this was in the Lancaster documentary which I mentioned upthread.  Despite your assertion that the British didn't care about accuracy, civilian casualties in the early stages of the night raids were more accidental because the original aim WAS actually military and strategic targets (such as railroad junctions).  It wasn't until 1942 that targets became far more general, designed in part to weaken the morale of the German civilian population (which didn't really work).

I'm big on WW2 history. I don't make stuff up.

I never accused you of making stuff up - just that you exaggerated.

[BillyB]

A few as yet unmentioned 'bests':

The Focke Wulf 109[/

FW 190?

And not that I want to get into a pissing contest with you over who killed the most civilians during a bombing raid during WW2 but there is that little matter of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the Pacific theatre....

President Truman wanted to end the war faster to save lives and I believe him. If America kept fire bombing and did a land invasion of Japan, the death toll would be in the millions, not hundred of thousands before the war ended.

BB-- you are being ridiculously ignorant- your knowledge is coming from watching old American war movies--   
     

Movies? I got educated through television. Gomer Pyle taught me all about the military.

I do actually agree with you regarding accuracy of the bombings.  The early British night bombing raids were woefully inaccurate, with only 20% of bombs falling anywhere near where they were supposed to.

Sadly accuracy wasn't always the goal. See a group of houses or apartment building and let the bombs fall indiscriminately. Even the "good guys" were doing bad things.

[Anotherkiwi]

Sadly accuracy wasn't always the goal. See a group of houses or apartment building and let the bombs fall indiscriminately. Even the "good guys" were doing bad things.

Billy, I gave you an "out" above.  How the hell could any bomb aimer see "a group of houses or apartment building" from 25,000 feet - at night?  Even if he could, do you seriously think that, with the technology of the time, they could possibly have aimed to hit anywhere near them?

[BillyB]

Billy, I gave you an "out" above.  How the hell could any bomb aimer see "a group of houses or apartment building" from 25,000 feet - at night?  Even if he could, do you seriously think that, with the technology of the time, they could possibly have aimed to hit anywhere near them?

Ever fly in an airplane at night? Moonlight can help but even if there isn't moonlight, you can see a car driving from a much higher distance. Coordinates get the bombers to the city. They should see some lights and even if they don't see any lights, they can drop a few bombs to light the city up to improve the view. Ever look through a window at night? If it's darker on the other side, you can't see anything through the window, if it's darker on your side, you can see through the window. Pilots will turn off all lights inside the airplane to get a better outside at night looking out their window. Aircraft carriers turn off their lights so they won't get sunk yet their planes can come back and find them to land on the tiny deck.


Below link is the Bombing of Dresden at night. Allies bombed a few strategic targets...at night to throw off German defenses before going after the civilians. How did they see those strategic targets at night and accurately bomb them? It can happen more often but some of our ally leadership had a policy of going after civilians more than strategic targets.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

[lordtiberius]

I don't make stuff up.

No.  You don't.  Not like some others we could mention.

[Ed S.]

President Truman wanted to end the war faster to save lives and I believe him. If America kept fire bombing and did a land invasion of Japan, the death toll would be in the millions, not hundred of thousands before the war ended.

Actually by the time late stage planning was happening for X-day, the military wanted up to 15 more atomic warheads for the invasion! Marshall didn't think Hiroshima and Nagasaki would do it, and they wanted nuclear bombs to be able to soften up the landing area. 

[BillyB]

the military wanted up to 15 more atomic warheads for the invasion! Marshall didn't think Hiroshima and Nagasaki would do it, and they wanted nuclear bombs to be able to soften up the landing area. 

I'm not surprised military leadership wanted to do that. In war, people die. It's normal for people, especially the intelligent ones, to prefer it be the enemy, not their troops. Taking back islands in the Pacific were hard and grueling. Just think how hard it would be to take Japan with everybody going Kamikaze on us?

[Anotherkiwi]

Ever fly in an airplane at night?

Of course, and I know my own country fairly well at night.  However, that's a whole different ball game from trying to identify a target, at night, in a country you've never visited, let alone flown over.  I have enough trouble trying to figure out exactly what part of Australia is under me when I'm over there, and that's in daylight.

Moonlight can help but even if there isn't moonlight, you can see a car driving from a much higher distance. Coordinates get the bombers to the city. They should see some lights and even if they don't see any lights, they can drop a few bombs to light the city up to improve the view.

Billy, one of the biggest problems at that time was that very few navigators were able to direct their bombers to the co-ordinates given in their briefings.  Many of the raids ended up being on cities that weren't actually the targets for that night!

Ever look through a window at night? If it's darker on the other side, you can't see anything through the window, if it's darker on your side, you can see through the window. Pilots will turn off all lights inside the airplane to get a better outside at night looking out their window. Aircraft carriers turn off their lights so they won't get sunk yet their planes can come back and find them to land on the tiny deck.

Everyone knows that trick, but it still doesn't work if you don't know where you are to start with.

Below link is the Bombing of Dresden at night. Allies bombed a few strategic targets...at night to throw off German defenses before going after the civilians. How did they see those strategic targets at night and accurately bomb them? It can happen more often but some of our ally leadership had a policy of going after civilians more than strategic targets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

While Dresden was horrendous, people seem to forget about the raids on Hamburg, which killed many more people in the same kind of fire storm.  This was yet another topic of discussion in the Lancaster documentary I referred to earlier.

[JayH]

Billy, one of the biggest problems at that time was that very few navigators were able to direct their bombers to the co-ordinates given in their briefings.  Many of the raids ended up being on cities that weren't actually the targets for that night!

Kiwi--this is where I feel like I am nit picking-- but you are adding 2 + 2 to= 9.
The fact is that good navigators-- and there were plenty of them in the RAF-were able to go to specific  co-ordinates. Other circumstances eg cloud cover over target, heavier  anti- aircraft fire than anticipated,more fighter aircraft present etc all contributed to other alternatives being bombed. Generally-- you are talking about the exception-not the rule.
         
              That type of skewed generalisation is what BB repeatedly does that offends me eg -- the Dresden bombings were in the 6th year of the war--not day one-- and came at a time where the Allies were trying to pressure Germany to surrender.
The totally unfair view promoted 70 years after the event of those city bombings is in my view misguided and wrong in it's conceptual understanding of the time those decisions were made.
         
             Another point on navigation and day/night bombing--the Americans at that time relied on using visual sighting of landmarks  to navigate-that was a big component and they neither taught or used the same navigation methods as the RAF.In particular-they relied on homing beacons to find their way home ( also used by the RAF-but not exclusively-the navigator still had the responsibility).

FWIW-        - I will repeat what I said earlier--it was a combination that defeated the Germans-- it is most likely that without any of the components the result would have gone the other way.
                  EG-- The turning point on the eastern front--  crack German tank divisions were moved from fighting the Soviets  to Italy to defend the American( & other Allied countries) landings in Italy. Subsequently the battle in the east was won by the Soviets and Germans started retreating-- if the Germans had kept their previous strength there that may have seen Moscow fall-- all possible if it was not for the combined efforts of the Allies.

[SANDRO43]

FW 190?

Correct, my typo.

[SANDRO43]

EG-- The turning point on the eastern front--  crack German tank divisions were moved from fighting the Soviets  to Italy to defend the American( & other Allied countries) landings in Italy.

Your dates are a bit off. Allied landings in Italy:

- Sicily (operation Husky): July-August 1943
- Salerno (operation Avalanche): September 1943
- Anzio (operation Shingle): January 1944

Subsequently the battle in the east was won by the Soviets and Germans started retreating-- if the Germans had kept their previous strength there that may have seen Moscow fall-- all possible if it was not for the combined efforts of the Allies.

- Battle of Moscow: October 1941-January 1942
- Surrender of 6th Army at Stalingrad: February 1943

When German divisions were transferred to Italy to oppose Allied landings (late summer of 1943), the Germans were already on the defensive on the Eastern front, and Moscow had been long out of their reach by then, when only Leningrad was still under siege (until January 1944).

That transfer certainly made things easier for the Russians, but the turning point had already occurred before that.

[Anotherkiwi]

Kiwi--this is where I feel like I am nit picking-- but you are adding 2 + 2 to= 9.
The fact is that good navigators-- and there were plenty of them in the RAF-were able to go to specific  co-ordinates. Other circumstances eg cloud cover over target, heavier  anti- aircraft fire than anticipated,more fighter aircraft present etc all contributed to other alternatives being bombed. Generally-- you are talking about the exception-not the rule.

Perhaps I should have phrased my response a bit more clearly.  I'm not knocking the quality of the navigators - almost without exception, they were superb at their job.  It was most often the outside factors which you've quoted here that prevented them from bombing the original targets.  However, the original information given out at briefings was also not always accurate enough to allow precision targeting, which of course sometimes resulted in horrendous collateral damage.

[BillyB]

Of course, and I know my own country fairly well at night.  However, that's a whole different ball game from trying to identify a target, at night, in a country you've never visited, let alone flown over.  I have enough trouble trying to figure out exactly what part of Australia is under me when I'm over there, and that's in daylight.

Billy, one of the biggest problems at that time was that very few navigators were able to direct their bombers to the co-ordinates given in their briefings.  Many of the raids ended up being on cities that weren't actually the targets for that night!

British pilots flew over Germany for years. They know where they're going. Experienced pilots lead the way for guys just coming out of training so they can learn. It not that hard to distinguish the silhouette of bridges and factories compared to houses. After the first few bombs get dropped and the city lights up, there are no more excuses for not seeing. First wave of bombers may make more mistakes than the following waves but that is about it. The bottom line is there were no mistakes. It was British policy to bomb civilians. I don't know why JayH and you continue to believe it was all a mistake. You think I'm exaggerating. Maybe you two are in denial? Read the link below.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Arthur_Harris,_1st_Baronet

That type of skewed generalisation is what BB repeatedly does that offends me eg -- the Dresden bombings were in the 6th year of the war--not day one-- and came at a time where the Allies were trying to pressure Germany to surrender.
The totally unfair view promoted 70 years after the event of those city bombings is in my view misguided and wrong in it's conceptual understanding of the time those decisions were made.
         

If you're offended, it's your own fault for not reading the links I provided earlier. Just because I used Dresden as an example, it's not the only time British targeted civilians. It was their policy since 1942. I will provide the link for you again. No excuses. READ it.


http://www.history.co.uk/study-topics/history-of-ww2/the-bombing-offensive

[fathertime]

British pilots flew over Germany for years. They know where they're going. Experienced pilots lead the way for guys just coming out of training so they can learn. It not that hard to distinguish the silhouette of bridges and factories compared to houses. After the first few bombs get dropped and the city lights up, there are no more excuses for not seeing. First wave of bombers may make more mistakes than the following waves but that is about it. The bottom line is there were no mistakes. It was British policy to bomb civilians. I don't know why JayH and you continue to believe it was all a mistake. You think I'm exaggerating. Maybe you two are in denial? Read the link below.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Arthur_Harris,_1st_Baronet

Billyb is RIGHT of course.  He has provided an excellent link for those that read.  The bombing of civilians WAS intentional.  Jayh tends to get his undershorts knotted up and name-call if you contradict one of his falsities.  I'm curious if he will admit he was mistaken now.   


Fathertime!   

[JayH]

British pilots flew over Germany for years. They know where they're going. Experienced pilots lead the way for guys just coming out of training so they can learn. It not that hard to distinguish the silhouette of bridges and factories compared to houses. After the first few bombs get dropped and the city lights up, there are no more excuses for not seeing. First wave of bombers may make more mistakes than the following waves but that is about it. The bottom line is there were no mistakes. It was British policy to bomb civilians. I don't know why JayH and you continue to believe it was all a mistake. You think I'm exaggerating. Maybe you two are in denial? Read the link below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Arthur_Harris,_1st_Baronet

If you're offended, it's your own fault for not reading the links I provided earlier. Just because I used Dresden as an example, it's not the only time British targeted civilians. It was their policy since 1942. I will provide the link for you again. No excuses. READ it.


http://www.history.co.uk/study-topics/history-of-ww2/the-bombing-offensive

You are truly a dunce BB-persisting in attempting to attribute conclusions not being asserted .
Your attempts to support your twisted statements  continues--- lets quote from YOUR link

"Harris's continued preference for area bombing over precision targeting in the last year of the war remains controversial, partly because by this time many senior Allied air commanders thought it less effective and partly for the large number of civilian casualties and destruction this strategy caused in Continental Europe."

Now that particular point is what I said above.So -- who did not read the link?

Generally speaking-- I am not a huge fan of Wiki on many issues-it is after all -only expressing  an opinion or opinions which are often interpretative-not conclusive as such.
BB--your overall warped attempt to make a case for a misguided conclusion is a pattern here now.

[BillyB]

"Harris's continued preference for area bombing over precision targeting in the last year of the war remains controversial, partly because by this time many senior Allied air commanders thought it less effective and partly for the large number of civilian casualties and destruction this strategy caused in Continental Europe."

Now that particular point is what I said above.So -- who did not read the link?

Do you know what "continued" means? If he continued to bomb civilians in the last year of the war, it means he bombed civilians in previous years in order for civilian bombings to be continued into the last. Now if he initially bombed civilians in the last year of the war, it means that is the first year he chose to bomb civilians. UK History link says they made a policy of civilian bombing in 1942. If you don't like what they're saying, write them.