|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 7, 2019 16:40:40 GMT -6
Thanks for the information, always learn new things from you.
Did British make some analysis when changed to night bombing of Germany? I expect that as they losses decreases they can accept even less precision of bombing runs combined with dehousing bombing raids where precision is needed so much.
The three air forces, German, British and US all tackled the issue of strategic bombing in a different way. Their bomb methods were derived from the types of bombers they had, the different defenses they would face and old-fashioned geography. The US had an advantage of being able to watch the other two nations implement their strategic bombing which allowed us to develop our tactics and improve our aircraft. The last requirement was the use of long-range escort fighter. The German’s had developed their air face as a flying artillery to support the army. Its bombers were not developed nor were their tactics, to be used in a daylight bombing raids at the distances required, they were to be used for short and medium range on a front. They also did not develop a long-range escort fighter. So, when faced with the RAF fighters and radar network, they opted for night bombing. The British Bomber Command had to take a back seat to fighter command due to economics and of course requirements to defend the nation. Bomber command was essentially obsolete to the end of 1941. In May 1940, bomber command realized that while their bombers had excellent ordinance capacity, they were vulnerable to fighters and ground fire due to the in-line engines. This led to a gradual realization that night bombing, essentially area bombing was the only way to accomplish their strategic mission of hitting the enemy’s production facilities. However, the German's developed airborne radar and ground radar, and using their JU-88's and ME-110's did punish Bomber Command and losses mounted. When the US entered the war and the Eighth Air Force began operations, now the US with their well armored, radial engine bombers and better bomb sight could attack in daylight and the British could attack at night. This was now a 24 hr. around the clock bombing which would hit the populations morale and industries. The key was always, the US developing the long-range escort fighter; the P-51. Another tactical operation was to send fighters ahead of the bombers to hit the enemy fighter fields while they were still occupied. However, we had to develop and build enough fighters for these interdiction missions. You could hit the fields before they launched and then send in another group after the bombers had turned for home and hit the fields as the fighters returned. Many German aces were killed in this manner. I've added this report released on 18 August 1941 which revealed the failure of RAF Bomber Command up to that time. This report led to area bombing instead of precision bombing. Advances in navigation such as OBOE, GEE and ground-mapping H@S did improve bombing accuracy and pathfinder squadrons improved the navigation and bombing but area bombing was always the tactic. butt-report-transcription-tna-pro-air-14-12182.pdf (149.19 KB)
|
|
|
Post by oaktree on May 12, 2019 1:14:48 GMT -6
The air war over Germany (and France as well) during WW2 is a broad subject worthy of reading up on. The UK and Germany fought a electronic and tactics war that see-sawed back and forth as each side added new equipment, developed countermeasures to enemy equipment, and adapted tactics as the war progressed. The USAAC offensive followed a different route and provided different challenges for the Germans. And a lot of things went poorly for the Germans in mid- to late- 1944 which culminated with their air defense system collapsing to a large degree.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 12, 2019 11:10:29 GMT -6
The air war over Germany (and France as well) during WW2 is a broad subject worthy of reading up on. The UK and Germany fought a electronic and tactics war that see-sawed back and forth as each side added new equipment, developed countermeasures to enemy equipment, and adapted tactics as the war progressed. The USAAC offensive followed a different route and provided different challenges for the Germans. And a lot of things went poorly for the Germans in mid- to late- 1944 which culminated with their air defense system collapsing to a large degree. I agree that the Strategic Bombing of Germany and France along with Romania and other Eastern European nations was interesting. I have original source documents and many books on the subject. I have also talked to former bomber pilots and fighter pilots.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on May 12, 2019 12:30:51 GMT -6
A good book that I would recommend on the subject of strategic bombing (one I read a few months ago) is: "Bombing the European Axis Powers: A Historical Digest of the Combined Bomber Offensive, 1939-1945" by Richard G. Davis.
You can download it from the United States D.O.D. site (in PDF format) at the following URL:
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 12, 2019 13:40:29 GMT -6
A good book that I would recommend on the subject of strategic bombing (one I read a few months ago) is: "Bombing the European Axis Powers: A Historical Digest of the Combined Bomber Offensive, 1939-1945" by Richard G. Davis.
You can download it from the United States D.O.D. site (in PDF format) at the following URL: Yes that is a fine book. I have the complete "The Army Air Forces in World War II " By Lesley Craven and James Cate. It is the official Air Force documentation. www.afhistory.af.mil/FAQs/Fact-Sheets/Article/458967/the-u-s-army-air-forces-in-world-war-ii/
|
|
|
Post by oaktree on May 12, 2019 16:42:54 GMT -6
The RAF vs Luftwaffe night air war is particularly fascinating in the move/countermove department both in terms of aircraft, tactics, and especially electronics developments regarding radar, detectors, and jamming. There are a couple of fine boardgames from recent years on the subject and the designers notes were a good short read on the subject and had a decent bibliography as well.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 12, 2019 18:43:26 GMT -6
The RAF vs Luftwaffe night air war is particularly fascinating in the move/countermove department both in terms of aircraft, tactics, and especially electronics developments regarding radar, detectors, and jamming. There are a couple of fine boardgames from recent years on the subject and the designers notes were a good short read on the subject and had a decent bibliography as well. I have the video game "Defending the Reich" which also includes the Battle of Britain".
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 13, 2019 0:28:54 GMT -6
Thanks for the tips, this subjects is not well known for me, so I have something to read.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 13, 2019 7:20:06 GMT -6
Thanks for the tips, this subjects is not well known for me, so I have something to read.
Well, the journey of a 1000 miles takes a first step. Your first step should be to find on the net, maps of German Fighter bases in France and Germany and keep that for reference. Second, know the aircraft on both sides. For defensive fighters, range isn't as important as fire power, they are facing bombers. Third, strategic bombing strategy and lastly technology. Radar, navigation beacons and the like. Good luck in your quest.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 13, 2019 10:00:09 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on May 13, 2019 13:35:39 GMT -6
Above links to a pdf copy of the book from the Air University Press site.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 13, 2019 14:38:48 GMT -6
Above links to a pdf copy of the book from the Air University Press site.
Thanks William, I bought the book on sale at Amazon so I lost the location. Great.
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on May 14, 2019 0:31:18 GMT -6
Interesting discussion! I believe there was chance to stop Hitler if nations of Europe actually could overcome their petty problems and worked together. Had French and Britain actually worked together and not against each other at Versailles and actually discussed if they wanted to keep strong Germany or weaken them as much as possible. If they wanted the latter (French way) they would have made Poland stronger (giving Gdansk, East Prussia, and Polish parts of Silesia) and give actual support during Polish-Soviet war rather than trying to hamstring Poland by taking away one major port that was available as nonsensical Free City Danzig and trying to force Poland to agree on unacceptable border with Soviets (still hoping that Whites would win the civil war). Had Czechoslovakia not invade Zaolzie with its coal mines in 1920, when Poland was saving the Europe from Red Army, the mutual support between Poland and Czechoslovakia could be a thing, as French hoped. Had the Poland not drift towards more and more autocratic and intolerant regime in the thirties and especially after death of Piłsudski in 1935, it would be easier to work diplomatically with democratic countries. Had Polish government was a bit more far-sighted and not take German bait and refused to get Zaolzie, again more threat could be put on Germany. In fact, I read somewhere that Polish working hand by hand with Germany was the final reason French decided to not support Czech. In 1938 combined Polish and Czech armies were still capable of standing up to German army, especially if they were forced to diverge resources to the west against the French. But probably more important is that such coalition could have activated opposition to war in German Army, so a coup could have ended Nazi rule and threat of war. The problem was that Czechoslovakia was seen in Poland as traitors (due to occupation of Zaolzie) and drifting towards communism, while Soviet Russia was seen as the grave threat to Poland. In fact, war plans against Germany were made at the very last moment.
And after retaking Zaolzie, Poland was seen as German ally, while in fact not willing to be one.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 14, 2019 8:32:22 GMT -6
Interesting discussion! I believe there was chance to stop Hitler if nations of Europe actually could overcome their petty problems and worked together. Had French and Britain actually worked together and not against each other at Versailles and actually discussed if they wanted to keep strong Germany or weaken them as much as possible. If they wanted the latter (French way) they would have made Poland stronger (giving Gdansk, East Prussia, and Polish parts of Silesia) and give actual support during Polish-Soviet war rather than trying to hamstring Poland by taking away one major port that was available as nonsensical Free City Danzig and trying to force Poland to agree on unacceptable border with Soviets (still hoping that Whites would win the civil war). Had Czechoslovakia not invade Zaolzie with its coal mines in 1920, when Poland was saving the Europe from Red Army, the mutual support between Poland and Czechoslovakia could be a thing, as French hoped. Had the Poland not drift towards more and more autocratic and intolerant regime in the thirties and especially after death of Piłsudski in 1935, it would be easier to work diplomatically with democratic countries. Had Polish government was a bit more far-sighted and not take German bait and refused to get Zaolzie, again more threat could be put on Germany. In fact, I read somewhere that Polish working hand by hand with Germany was the final reason French decided to not support Czech. In 1938 combined Polish and Czech armies were still capable of standing up to German army, especially if they were forced to diverge resources to the west against the French. But probably more important is that such coalition could have activated opposition to war in German Army, so a coup could have ended Nazi rule and threat of war. The problem was that Czechoslovakia was seen in Poland as traitors (due to occupation of Zaolzie) and drifting towards communism, while Soviet Russia was seen as the grave threat to Poland. In fact, war plans against Germany were made at the very last moment.
And after retaking Zaolzie, Poland was seen as German ally, while in fact not willing to be one.
There are many "paths not taken" and I am certain that many nations including France and England wished they had followed the Wilson Plan. Any one or two of your observations could have changed the whole geostrategic situation including leaving the gold standard after WW1 which might have prevented the depression era of the interwar period. The primary reason for the actions take, IMHO, was the memory of WW1. It was hoped that strategic bombing would eliminate any real need for a ground war. So much for that thought.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 14, 2019 8:55:17 GMT -6
Interesting discussion! I believe there was chance to stop Hitler if nations of Europe actually could overcome their petty problems and worked together. Had French and Britain actually worked together and not against each other at Versailles and actually discussed if they wanted to keep strong Germany or weaken them as much as possible. If they wanted the latter (French way) they would have made Poland stronger (giving Gdansk, East Prussia, and Polish parts of Silesia) and give actual support during Polish-Soviet war rather than trying to hamstring Poland by taking away one major port that was available as nonsensical Free City Danzig and trying to force Poland to agree on unacceptable border with Soviets (still hoping that Whites would win the civil war). Had Czechoslovakia not invade Zaolzie with its coal mines in 1920, when Poland was saving the Europe from Red Army, the mutual support between Poland and Czechoslovakia could be a thing, as French hoped. Had the Poland not drift towards more and more autocratic and intolerant regime in the thirties and especially after death of Piłsudski in 1935, it would be easier to work diplomatically with democratic countries. Had Polish government was a bit more far-sighted and not take German bait and refused to get Zaolzie, again more threat could be put on Germany. In fact, I read somewhere that Polish working hand by hand with Germany was the final reason French decided to not support Czech. In 1938 combined Polish and Czech armies were still capable of standing up to German army, especially if they were forced to diverge resources to the west against the French. But probably more important is that such coalition could have activated opposition to war in German Army, so a coup could have ended Nazi rule and threat of war. The problem was that Czechoslovakia was seen in Poland as traitors (due to occupation of Zaolzie) and drifting towards communism, while Soviet Russia was seen as the grave threat to Poland. In fact, war plans against Germany were made at the very last moment.
And after retaking Zaolzie, Poland was seen as German ally, while in fact not willing to be one.
This is more complex issue.
After WW1, there were new entities which were newly created based on nations and history. Two of them were Poland and Czechoslovakia. In both cases borders need to be determined. However some of them was not so easy to agree.
Poland Most of the borders were with Germany, Czechoslovakia and USSR. With Germany borders were settled through west powers. However there were east border which need to be settled. On top of that there were certain areas disputed with Czechoslovakia - mainly Zaolzie.
Czechoslovakia After creation of borders the main threat was reinstallment of A-H. And after Czechoslovakia-Hundgarian war the little entente was forged to counter this. On north the situation was not clear with Poland, Zaolzie. However the attitude of Czechoslovakia is easily shown by what was told by President: "There is no discussion about borders, there is shooting about it".
Zaolzie As both states Poland and Czechoslovakia claims land there was accepted interim agreement. The issue was that this part was quite rich (coal), have heavy industry and there were important railway which link Bohemia and Moravia with Slovakia. And whole part was historically part of Bohemia Kingdom. For this reason it was not acceptable to let Poland this area. Another reason was that in this area there were more Polish and Czechoslovakia do not want precedent in Sudetenland.
In Poland at that time was war with USSR about east border. At that time Czechoslovakian Legion was still in USSR around Trans-Siberian railroad fighting Red Army. So it could seem that both nations could help each other however there were still disputes in Zaolzie.
I do not know why but Poland broke interim agreement by allowing voting for Sjem in that region. Czechoslovakia protests but Poland did nothing. Quite strange move from Poland being in war with USSR.
Reaction of Czechoslovakia was sending army in that area (quite unfortunate but it could be expected). As Poland main forces fights USSR, Czechoslovakia advanced quite quickly and stop after pressure by Entente.
After that there were agreement giving Czechoslovakia even more land and this was the reason for very bad Poland-Czechoslovakia releations. And this was reason included later non-democratic Poland regime why in 1938 both countries could not be on one side. Czechoslovakian and Poland army together was still superior to German army 1939.
We can see that both nations (Czechoslovakia and Poland) push tension high. It was strange as Poland should not expect friends from east and so logical step should be Czechoslovakia to help with that. On Czechoslovakia situation it was short sighted as at that time the main threat was reainstallment of A-H which was secured by alliance with Romania and Yugoslavia. Nobody expect German as threat and in 30s nobody did anything to help releations between these 2 nations which was close even by history.
Czechoslovakia secured themself by alliance of France and by agreement of mutual help from USSR (in case France agree to help). This brings relation with Poland even worse.
note: There was no dangerous drift to communismus in Czechoslovakia during 1918-38, on opposite France was seen as allied nation of great powers. The drift to communismus was started by Munich agreeement but mainly after Czechoslovakia was liberated mainly by Red army. If American army liberated Prague there would be likely no coup in 1948. (note: in this case Churchill was right about Stalin and USA was short sighted).
France and UK cooperation This was logical step against Germany however UK always wants status quo in Europe, they do not want France dominate continental Europe. And later there were more worried about communismus than about Germany and think about Germany more as defender of against communismus.
EDIT: English corrections. Please apologize my English, sometimes I had no time to read it immediately and it is still far from perfect.
|
|