The Real Victors of WW2 in Europe

[Anotherkiwi]

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.

Really?  During a war, in a total blackout, with spotlights flashing and anti-aircraft gunfire all around, and night fighters intercepting every bombing raid?  From your own quote earlier, Billy, the British lost 60% of their aircrew in Bomber Command (it was actually "only" 55% - 44% killed, and 11% who died later from injuries - but I won't quibble).  The chances of surviving a full tour of duty (30 ops over two to three months) was given as 1 in 5 - 20%.  The odds of surviving two tours were given as 1 in 40 (2.5%), so there were very, VERY few "experienced" pilots to lead the way for the newbies.

It not that hard to distinguish the silhouette of bridges and factories compared to houses.

Again, at night in a blackout, with probably clouds and often no (or little) moonlight to assist, and with AA guns and fighters chasing you, you would have to be incredibly lucky to spot the silhouette of Cologne Cathedral, let alone a bridge or factory.

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.

"After the first few bombs" is right - before then most of the bombers were flying in hope.  What a difference the Pathfinders made later on.

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

I don't know about JayH, but I'm well aware of "Bomber" Harris and his history.  Neither of us are in denial, as we're both well aware that British policy changed in 1942 - TWO FULL YEARS after the night bombing began.  As for Dresden, read what I wrote earlier about Hamburg, which happened a lot earlier and with far more deadly effects.

[BillyB]

Again, at night in a blackout, with probably clouds and often no (or little) moonlight to assist, and with AA guns and fighters chasing you, you would have to be incredibly lucky to spot the silhouette of Cologne Cathedral, let alone a bridge or factory.

Under bad weather and full cloud conditions the bombers would cancel and bomb another city that they can visually see.

I don't know about JayH, but I'm well aware of "Bomber" Harris and his history.  Neither of us are in denial, as we're both well aware that British policy changed in 1942 - TWO FULL YEARS after the night bombing began. 

You don't know about JayH but you say he's aware British policy changed in 1942? You haven't read our previous exchanges but I guess you did read my links. British parliament approved of bombing civilians in 1942 and Harris was the man in charge to execute this order. I don't know why you two keep claiming the poor accuracy of bombers is to blame. Does it really matter if the bombs hit house B, C or D although it aimed for house A? Hitting any house would have accomplished the goal of the mission. Blaming bad accuracy is a poor excuse for the war crimes committed.

[Anotherkiwi]

Under bad weather and full cloud conditions the bombers would cancel and bomb another city that they can visually see.

A lot of the time this didn't happen, because there was no alternative target available, so the bombs got dropped anyway.

You don't know about JayH but you say he's aware British policy changed in 1942? You haven't read our previous exchanges but I guess you did read my links. British parliament approved of bombing civilians in 1942 and Harris was the man in charge to execute this order. I don't know why you two keep claiming the poor accuracy of bombers is to blame. Does it really matter if the bombs hit house B, C or D although it aimed for house A? Hitting any house would have accomplished the goal of the mission. Blaming bad accuracy is a poor excuse for the war crimes committed.

Neither of us is claiming any such thing - we're talking about two different time periods, before and after the change of policy in 1942.  The great majority of civilian casualties in the earlier period were effectively collateral damage, for various reasons.  After the change they became a proper target.  I agree that it's a terrible thing to happen, but try to remember that the Germans did it first, deliberately.  It was more than two years later that the UK retaliated in kind.

[SANDRO43]

Alright, let's try to summarise WWII Allied bombing policies:

The RAF started daytime bombing of German targets in 1941, but reverted to nighttime bombing after its losses became unsustainable. They could rely on two navigation aids since 1942:

- Oboe: radio transponder technology, could be installed on one bomber at a time only, usually a "Pathfinder"- error radius of about 120 yards at a range of 250 miles.

- Gee: radio navigation system measuring the time delay between two radio signals to produce a "fix", with accuracy of a few hundred meters and range around 350 miles - too short for deep raids into Germany (e.g. 570+ miles to Berlin), and susceptible to jamming.

The USAAF 8th Army Air Force started daytime bombing in 1942, and persisted prevalently in that throughout WWII, partly because of its faith on the defensive capabilities of the B-17 Fortress in box formations - and partly also because the night skies were already crowded with RAF bombers . For navigation aids it also relied on the RAF Oboe/Pathfinder approach, but had a far superior bombsight:

The Norden bombsight

Incidentally, its use over Japan first led to the Western realisation of the jet stream, previously discovered by the Japanese who tried to bomb California with bomb-laden balloons pushed by it .

That's as far as official history goes. However, I have in my library a dozen+ autobiographies by WWII bomber pilots (mostly RAF), and what they wrote is that aids would work only to a certain extent and that they did most of their navigation by dead reckoning, hence the many diversion to 'secondary' targets or missions being cancelled altogether in bad weather.

On the whole, precision bombing was rather haphazard, hence Churchill's decision that 'area' bombing would prove more effective - at least in depressing the German population's morale for the war effort .

[Anotherkiwi]

That's as far as official history goes. However, I have in my library a dozen+ autobiographies by WWII bomber pilots (mostly RAF), and what they wrote is that aids would work only to a certain extent and that they did most of their navigation by dead reckoning, hence the many diversion to 'secondary' targets or missions being cancelled altogether in bad weather.

On the whole, precision bombing was rather haphazard, hence Churchill's decision that 'area' bombing would prove more effective - at least in depressing the German population's morale for the war effort .

Thank you, Sandro.  That's the point which BillyB seems unwilling to accept.  No matter how hard the crews (especially navigators) tried, the technology of the time was light-years away from what's available today.  It's pretty amazing to me that so many bombs, in the night raids especially, DID actually land on the intended targets.

[SANDRO43]

A favourite navigation fix then - provided they could see it - was what they called Lake Drum or Drum Lake, a perfectly circular lake somewhere SW of Berlin, but I've not been able to locate it on current maps .

[jone]

You sure you don't mean Dümmer Lake which is South Saxony?

[Muzh]

Blaming bad accuracy is a poor excuse for the war crimes committed.

Hi Mr. Revisionist. What are you calling war crimes?

I wait your answer with abated breath.

[SANDRO43]

You sure you don't mean Dümmer Lake which is South Saxony?

Yes, I think that's it, although they called it Drum .

[Anotherkiwi]

You sure you don't mean Dümmer Lake which is South Saxony?

Not circular enough, and too far from Berlin. 

I was thinking perhaps Steinhuder Meer, north-west of Hannover, but again it's still a long way from Berlin.  The other possibility would seem to be the Arendsee, which is rather more circular, but it's about 80 km WNW of Berlin near the modern Highway 190.

[jone]

I was thinking of the name, Kiwi.  But you're right.  It is not circular.  But it was the rally point for many of the air attacks on Berlin.

[SANDRO43]

Not circular enough

It may look somewhat circular from a height and some miles off to the south .

[BillyB]

On the whole, precision bombing was rather haphazard, hence Churchill's decision that 'area' bombing would prove more effective - at least in depressing the German population's morale for the war effort .

I can understand Churchill trying something new to win the war but it was discovered bombing civilians was ineffective. That's why Air Marshal Harris bombing civilians till the end of the war was controversial. In one of the links I provided after the bombing of civilians became policy, the output of the Germany economy rose and became more geared towards wartime needs. Public support in Germany for the Nazi regime, and civilian morale, was not affected. This kind of stuff can backfire when you bomb somebody's women and children.

That's the point which BillyB seems unwilling to accept. 

Accuracy of the bombers isn't the issue, their choice of targets is which is bombing civilians over pursuing strategic targets. In this case, accuracy isn't all that important so using a lack of accuracy as an excuse for their behavior is lame. I showed you it was British policy and they put a man in charge to execute this policy. According to the link I provided, 6 out of every 10 British bomber airman died. If they pursued the heavily defended strategic targets, it would have been more. They chose to take the low and easy road.


Anybody ever seen the movie Memphis Belle? True story of the first American B-17 bomber to successfully complete 25 missions. At one point the Memphis Belle was flying over a Germany city to bomb a factory. It was heavily clouded and they couldn't get a good site on the target. Memphis Belle had the lead and if they dropped their bombs, the following bombers would follow. The captain couldn't see the target so he ordered them to circle around to find it again. The co-pilot wanted to drop the bombs just to get it over with and go home since they were under heavy flak fire. The captain didn't want to drop the bombs on civilians and he also reasoned if they didn't get the factory, another mission will have to take place risking pilots lives to bomb it. As individuals, we sometimes make wrong or right decisions in a time of war. Sometimes we take the high road or the low road out of fear or anger. British pilots weren't given a choice. It was their nation's policy to "area" bomb German cities which is a nice way to say civilians are on the menu. I'm sure it weighed on many pilots consciences.

Hi Mr. Revisionist. What are you calling war crimes?

I wait your answer with abated breath.

What's the difference between dropping an incendiary bomb on civilians or burning them in ovens? If there were real results to ending the war sooner which would save lives, I'm all for it but it was proven ineffective yet the British continued with the policy. Victors get to write the history books so in this case, unlike the concentration camps, you won't read it as a war crime but it is what it is.

[Anotherkiwi]

I can understand Churchill trying something new to win the war but it was discovered bombing civilians was ineffective. That's why Air Marshal Harris bombing civilians till the end of the war was controversial. In one of the links I provided after the bombing of civilians became policy, the output of the Germany economy rose and became more geared towards wartime needs. Public support in Germany for the Nazi regime, and civilian morale, was not affected. This kind of stuff can backfire when you bomb somebody's women and children.

Accuracy of the bombers isn't the issue, their choice of targets is which is bombing civilians over pursuing strategic targets. In this case, accuracy isn't all that important so using a lack of accuracy as an excuse for their behavior is lame. I showed you it was British policy and they put a man in charge to execute this policy. According to the link I provided, 6 out of every 10 British bomber airman died. If they pursued the heavily defended strategic targets, it would have been more. They chose to take the low and easy road.

Billy, I get your point - seriously, I do, but we still seem to be at cross-purposes.  I'm referring to the first couple of years of bombing Germany, the period before the USA got involved.  I'm well aware of the policy change and, like you, I abhor the results.  However, that was then, when everything looked different to those in charge.

Anybody ever seen the movie Memphis Belle? True story of the first American B-17 bomber to successfully complete 25 missions.

It wasn't the first - it was the second.  "Hell's Angels" completed its 25th mission a week before "Memphis Belle."

At one point the Memphis Belle was flying over a Germany city to bomb a factory. It was heavily clouded and they couldn't get a good site on the target. Memphis Belle had the lead and if they dropped their bombs, the following bombers would follow. The captain couldn't see the target so he ordered them to circle around to find it again. The co-pilot wanted to drop the bombs just to get it over with and go home since they were under heavy flak fire. The captain didn't want to drop the bombs on civilians and he also reasoned if they didn't get the factory, another mission will have to take place risking pilots lives to bomb it. As individuals, we sometimes make wrong or right decisions in a time of war. Sometimes we take the high road or the low road out of fear or anger. British pilots weren't given a choice. It was their nation's policy to "area" bomb German cities which is a nice way to say civilians are on the menu. I'm sure it weighed on many pilots consciences.

Billy, the "Memphis Belle" raids were in daylight, which creates a rather different scenario and, putting aside questions of conscience, the extract above simply shows that they had a second chance to go after the original target, a choice which was almost always denied to those bombing at night.  Additionally, and critically in the context of this discussion, only six of those missions were over Germany.

What's the difference between dropping an incendiary bomb on civilians or burning them in ovens? If there were real results to ending the war sooner which would save lives, I'm all for it but it was proven ineffective yet the British continued with the policy. Victors get to write the history books so in this case, unlike the concentration camps, you won't read it as a war crime but it is what it is.

Billy, your moral outrage over what happened may be righteous, and there will be many people who agree with you, but look at the reality of the situation at the time.  Great Britain was under continuous attack, and the Germans had already come very close to being able to invade England.  There was no guarantee that the Nazis could be held off forever, or defeated, so the British Government took the measures that it thought were necessary.  We cannot look back from this distance in time to sanctimoniously decree that what they decided was wrong.  If so, you would have to revisit every decision in every war in history.  What was done at the time (in any war) was done without any thought as to how the morality of the 21st century may judge that part of history.

Just think for a moment how the parents and grandparents of the current generation may have reacted had the United States itself been bombed and under the threat of invasion in the 1940s or 1950s.  Take a moment to imagine that the US has been moved to somewhere within easy flying distance of Germany or Japan, and that there are bombs falling continuously on New York or Los Angeles, then start wondering how Roosevelt and the US Government would have responded.  Would their answer have been so different from what the British did?  We know by their actions in sanctioning the raids on Tokyo that their morality was exactly the same.

[BillyB]

It wasn't the first - it was the second.  "Hell's Angels" completed its 25th mission a week before "Memphis Belle."

The movie wasn't technically lying. The crew of the Memphis Belle was the first to complete 25 missions if you add their missions completed in another bomber. But you are correct the bomber named "Hell's Angels was the first bomber to complete 25 missions. The crew of the Memphis Belle got the glory though, were treated like rock stars and toured America. Many people wanted to meet this crew. The government also wanted to use the crew to promote war bonds. The crew of Hell's Angels probably wouldn't sell as much war bonds, especially to the Christian population.

look at the reality of the situation at the time.  Great Britain was under continuous attack, and the Germans had already come very close to being able to invade England.  There was no guarantee that the Nazis could be held off forever, or defeated, so the British Government took the measures that it thought were necessary.

Exactly so the way to stop an invasion is to stop the war machine. Bomb ships, military bases, and factories, not civilians. I don't blame the British government for trying a different method but it was quickly discovered it had no effect on reducing support for Hitler and actually increased German industry.

  Take a moment to imagine that the US has been moved to somewhere within easy flying distance of Germany or Japan, and that there are bombs falling continuously on New York or Los Angeles, then start wondering how Roosevelt and the US Government would have responded.

I was pissed when 9/11 happened and I was all for the invasion of Afghanistan. I'm also for the prosecution of American military soldiers who raped or murdered Afghani citizens.

[Brasscasing]

What's the difference between dropping an incendiary bomb on civilians or burning them in ovens? If there were real results to ending the war sooner which would save lives, I'm all for it but it was proven ineffective yet the British continued with the policy. Victors get to write the history books so in this case, unlike the concentration camps, you won't read it as a war crime but it is what it is.

American bombing policy WW2 was pretty well on par with British bombing policy...

UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY
 SUMMARY REPORT (Pacific War)
 WASHINGTON, D.C. 1 JULY 1946
 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1946

..."On 9 March 1945, a basic revision in the method of B-29 attack was instituted. It was decided to bomb the four principal Japanese cities at night from altitudes averaging 7,000 feet. Japanese weakness in night fighters and antiaircraft made this program feasible. Incendiaries were used instead of high-explosive bombs and the lower altitude permitted a substantial increase in bomb load per plane. One thousand six hundred and sixty-seven tons of bombs were dropped on Tokyo in the first attack. The chosen areas were saturated. Fifteen square miles of Tokyo's most densely populated [Page 17 ] area were burned to the ground. The weight and intensity of this attack caught the Japanese by surprise. No subsequent urban area attack was equally destructive. Two days later, an attack of similar magnitude on Nagoya destroyed 2 square miles. In a period of 10 days starting 9 March, a total of 1,595 sorties delivered 9,373 tons of bombs against Tokyo, Nagoya, Osake, and Kobe destroying 31 square miles of those cities at a cost of 22 airplanes. The generally destructive effect of incendiary attacks against Japanese cities had been demonstrated. "...

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/service/gdc/eadxmlgdc/eadpdfgdc/2013/gc013001.pdf

Carpet or saturation bombing was widely used by the Americans in both theatres of war...

..."USAAF leaders firmly held to the claim of "precision bombing" of military targets for much of the war, and dismissed claims they were simply bombing cities. However the American Eighth Air Force received the first H2X radar sets in December 1943. Within two weeks of the arrival of these first six sets, the Eighth command gave permission for them to area bomb a city using H2X and would continue to authorize, on average, about one such attack a week until the end of the war in Europe.[158]"...

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

Reports of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey
 Held at the Library of Congress

..."During World War II, the United States undertook massive aerial attacks against cities and industrial areas in the European and Pacific Theaters to destroy German and Japanese military forces. To study the effects of the bombing, the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) was organized in November 1944. The USSBS was assigned two tasks:"...

http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/trs/trsbombingsurvey.html

Precision bombing inWW2 was not what it is today. A fairly accurate description from the Wiki link above...

..."In reality, the day bombing was "precision bombing" only in the sense that most bombs fell somewhere near a specific designated target such as a railway yard. Conventionally, the air forces designated as "the target area" a circle having a radius of 1,000 feet around the aiming point of attack. While accuracy improved during the war, Survey studies show that, overall, only about 20% of the bombs aimed at precision targets fell within this target area.[159] In the fall of 1944, only seven percent of all bombs dropped by the Eighth Air Force hit within 1,000 feet of their aim point."...

And for those worried about "low roads" and "war crimes"...

German Village (Dugway proving ground)

..."German Village was the nickname for a range of mock residential houses constructed in 1943 by the U.S. Army in the Dugway Proving Ground in Utah, roughly a hundred kilometers southwest of Salt Lake City, in order to conduct experiments used for the bombing of Nazi Germany"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Village_(Dugway_proving_ground)

The external links supplied at the bottom of this article include U.S. Army Air Force historical information.

Brass

[Brasscasing]

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.

All the allied nations wanted to end the war faster. That included the Commonwealth nations who not only wanted to end the war faster but also during the first three or so years wanted to survive the war as well.

So cut the "We fire bombed more humanly than you did" crap, Billy. I could post for days historical documentation from official US gov edit:records showing that the US and Britain's strategic and areal bombing policies were virtually identical.

Brass

[JayH]

Thankyou BC for those posts -- do not want to use emoticon on such a serious topic.

For BB--I said earlier your ideas were created from US movies-- you denied it ( from TV you said-duh!) --and later in the thread  specifically quote a movie as being authoritative source.It is exactly your slavish incorrect conclusions and assertions that the rest of the  world sees as US propaganda- attempting to re-write history is exactly what we condemn Putin's Russia for.

[lordtiberius]

Everything is America's fault.  Original sin, obesity, Islam, we created the world's problems.

[Brasscasing]

Everything is America's fault.  Original sin, obesity, Islam, we created the world's problems.

Nonsense. But I'll be damned if I'm going to log into the forum to read post after post of sanitized holier-than-thou crap about how the Americans prosecuted a better/cleaner kind of war than their allies when U.S. historical records and war diaries state otherwise. It's an insult to all the countries that fought and sacrificed to bring WW2 to a successful conclusion.

Brass

[AC]

I could post for days historical documentation from official US gov edit:records showing that the US and Britain's strategic and areal bombing policies were virtually identical.

This is completely true, so I don't even understand why you guys are debating.

The firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo were horrific actions, which had the other side won, would have had some of our officers on trial.

[lordtiberius]

Nonsense. But I'll be damned if I'm going to log into the forum to read post after post of sanitized holier-than-thou crap about how the Americans prosecuted a better/cleaner kind of war than their allies when U.S. historical records and war diaries state otherwise. It's an insult to all the countries that fought and sacrificed to bring WW2 to a successful conclusion.

Brass

You can't change history.

[BillyB]

American bombing policy WW2 was pretty well on par with British bombing policy...

Well then, I guess that makes it alright. If Americans do it, it must be okay.

I'll be damned if I'm going to log into the forum to read post after post of sanitized holier-than-thou crap

First you got to read, then you got to comprehend what you're reading. You're getting mad at me when you should be mad at yourself. Anotherkiwi and I were discussing accuracy of bombers and policies. He said the accuracy of WW2 bombers are bad especially at night and I said accuracy isn't important if it's policy to bomb citizens.

[Brasscasing]

You can't change history.

Which is exactly what I was conveying to you.

Brass

[Steamer]

You can't change history.

Sure you can. Remember to the victor goes the spoils and part of those spoils is the ability to rewrite history.