RE: Strategic bombing (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

barbarrossa -> RE: Strategic bombing (3/16/2006 5:19:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B


Further, as for the contribution of the Red Army in bringing down Germany - HUGE, I agree.


That's an understatement if I've ever read one.

quote:

But Germany was also completely exhausted after the mass bloodshed followed by occupation after WWI, and still never considered itself beaten.


I can see your point in terms of Germans as a whole dreading war on principal, but after the rather rapid fall of France, the population was elated that the "crime" of Versailles was reversed. They thought the war was over at that point, because Britain, it was hoped would accept or offer peace.

When Hitler invaded the Soviet Union it was recieved with dreaded shock by the German population --- the 2 front war.

As the Germans moved through Russia with relative ease in the summer and fall of '41, the populace grew more confident. It was not until the winter at the gates of Moscow and the emergency drive for winter clothing for the front that anyone had any inclination that something other than total victory was at hand. The debacle at Stalingrad was the underlining of public doubt of eventual victory.

quote:

I submit that THAT change of heart happened only because her cities were leveled, ...


Actually, much as the British citizenry came together in solidarity during the blitz, so did the German population for much of the western Allies bombing campaign. What the Germans really feared was the Russian juggernaught steadily chewing it's way westward towards the Reich leaving the Wermacht in its grave.



el cid again -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 5:26:10 PM)

quote:

Strategic bombing in it's pre-war pure concept failed completely. The modified strategic-operational bombing campaign that replaced it succeeded completely. (A grinding, punishing attrition war which chewed up Germany's remaining experienced fighter cadres giving the Allies total air dominance.


Only if "succeeded completely" somehow includes:

1) it cost more than it cost the enemy (maybe acceptable if we had more to lose, this sounds more Russian than American in concept);

2) it is acceptable to wage war in violation of the law of land warfare AS WE ENFORCED IT AFTER THE WAR ( see "bombardment of cities and towns" )

3) it is somehow undesireable to invest the same bombers and crews in more efficient military operations.

I do not regard this as "complete success". Soldiers are in the end political agents. Doing things legally and morally pays off in political terms always, and in operational terms often. And I see no reason to pay more in ALLIED lives than we need to - why "go downtown" when you can go fight Uboats, drop mines, or mess up enemy combat supply? I believe there is such a thing as winning efficiently. I was trained to minimize casualties - all casualties - enemy/neutral/civilian AND allied soldiers/airmen. Failing to do that is hardly "complete success" IMHO.



Speedysteve -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 5:34:30 PM)

I think as several of us have said here The SB campaign CONTRIBUTED to the final downfall. A part of a jigsaw.......

I personally can't see that is completely succeeded since the overall objective of Harris/Spaatz etc was to win the war with their own service.......they didn't but they sure helped.



Nikademus -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 5:34:49 PM)

quote:

do not regard this as "complete success". Soldiers are in the end political agents. Doing things legally and morally pays off in political terms always, and in operational terms often. And I see no reason to pay more in ALLIED lives than we need to - why "go downtown" when you can go fight Uboats, drop mines, or mess up enemy combat supply? I believe there is such a thing as winning efficiently. I was trained to minimize casualties - all casualties - enemy/neutral/civilian AND allied soldiers/airmen. Failing to do that is hardly "complete success" IMHO.


Well its a tragedy then that you were not on hand when the 8th AF forumulated it's plans. As for judging the success factor.....the Allies bled the LW white. It wasn't pretty but it was completely successful.



barbarrossa -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 5:40:15 PM)

The "bomber will always get through" mentality pre-war aimed to strike at the civilian population and thereby end the enemy's will to resist.

This did not succeed.

Destroying the LW capability to resist through strategic bombing did succeed, in the air (a/c attrition) and on the ground (fuel).

That's what he's saying.



Big B -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 5:44:02 PM)

I never said that bombing was responsible for winning the war - I only pointed out that it most definately had an effect on the course of the war, and stand by what I said.

El Cid, I PM'd you with what I had to say.

B



Speedysteve -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 5:47:17 PM)

Roger no qualms there.

The 8th bled the LW dry. From Feb 44 onwards the LW rarely attempted to intercept in force (exceptions apply of course on a few occassions over important oil plants, Magdeburg etc).

I'm just saying the principal of BOMBING someone to smithereens didn't and will not work.



barbarrossa -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 5:52:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again



Only if "succeeded completely" somehow includes:



2) it is acceptable to wage war in violation of the law of land warfare AS WE ENFORCED IT AFTER THE WAR ( see "bombardment of cities and towns" )



This line of thinking falls into the trap of projecting modern values into a past sequence of events without considering the mentality and thought process that guided those events at thier time of occurance.

It was precisely those past events which led to the modern thinking that you express in your post. [:)]



Nikademus -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 6:00:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: barbarrossa

This line of thinking falls into the trap of projecting modern values into a past sequence of events without considering the mentality and thought process that guided those events at thier time of occurance.

It was precisely those past events which led to the modern thinking that you express in your post. [:)]



Very true....that was in Neilland's book as well....a very interesting read. Many a witness said similar when questioned on the messiness and brutality of the whole affair. one simple answer was nevertheless poinient: "it was war"

If war were always neat and orderly....then we wouldn't work so hard to avoid it.



Terminus -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 6:01:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

If war were always neat and orderly....then we wouldn't work so hard to avoid it.



And it wasn't until the 20th Century that we actually found out that war isn't neat and orderly...



Nikademus -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 6:03:51 PM)

oh yes.....technology now brings you war to your living room. interesting that. good point. (though it pains me to admit it)

[:'(]



demonterico -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 6:04:52 PM)

Tell the Vietnamese they've got to draw in their horns or we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age.
--Gen. Curtis LeMay, May 1964

That above quotation highlights one of the fundamental errors we Americans make when evaluating an enemy. We often only see a subject from our own point of view. Le May is assuming that the effect of bombing the Vietnamese people would be nearly identical to the effect such bombing would have on the American people. He is not stopping to think that many of the people in a third world country are still living just one step away from the stone age.

I may be incorrect but I believe that at some point Le May also claimed that the day of the infantry was over. All future wars would be won from the sky.



barbarrossa -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 6:08:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: demonterico

Tell the Vietnamese they've got to draw in their horns or we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age.
--Gen. Curtis LeMay, May 1964

That above quotation highlights one of the fundamental errors we Americans make when evaluating an enemy. We often only see a subject from our own point of view. Le May is assuming that the effect of bombing the Vietnamese people would be nearly identical to the effect such bombing would have on the American people. He is not stopping to think that many of the people in a third world country are still living just one step away from the stone age.

I may be incorrect but I believe that at some point Le May also claimed that the day of the infantry was over. All future wars would be won from the sky.


I don't think this exclusively an American trait.
But a good point nonetheless.



Terminus -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 6:08:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: demonterico

I may be incorrect but I believe that at some point Le May also claimed that the day of the infantry was over. All future wars would be won from the sky.


Sounds like something he'd say...[8|]



Mike Scholl -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 6:13:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

The Axis powers never got close to the kind of production figures per man hour that the US did..., because they couldn't afford the kind of massive and effecient production plants the US could and did build.


Not exactly.

The Axis powers never did approach levels of taxation in the USA or in the UK. They also had much smaller economic systems. So they lacked sheer captial to build something like a Boeing Renton (the largest building on the planet) or Willow Run (the second largest). Then too, they suffered from a lack of political will to organize for a long war early on. They believed their enemies were softer than they were, and didn't make the right sorts of technical decisions. The Allies made similar errors: RN cancelled battleships, still believing in them, on the basis "they could not complete in time for this war" - but in the event there was enough time!
The Axis powers lacked economic focus. Germany did not fully mobilize for war production until 1945! [Steinweg finally stopped making pianos in February!] There are far too many planes (or whatever else you wish to name) built in small batches - and far too many research projects - meaning few are completed and almost nothing is produced in decisive numbers. There was not sufficient effort made in early analysis of production methods - here Japan did better than Germany - and for its size it shows up with relatively better aircraft production - but it pales by US standards and lags the UK. [See The Air War - the one about production - there is another about operations] These are more about choices than about necessity. Planning for the possibility of a long war - or of not fighting because a long war cannot be won - would have been wiser. Fewer research projects, fewer production types, more efficeincy research, higher taxes, mobilization of the whole economy - all were possible paths not taken - not impossible paths either.


Pretty much everything you say is accurate..., and none of it really says anything to refute the statement of mine you quoted. The Japanese and German military really didn't trust "mass production", nor did much of the Nazi hierarchy. And they didn't want to give up the ability to "tinker" with designs already in production. Even their best and most productive plants failed to produce the kind of per manhour totals the US achieved. The other thing holding back German mobilization was Hitler's fear that asking to much of the German Populace would lead to the kind of "collapse" he felt had led to the loss of WW I.



barbarrossa -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 6:17:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: demonterico

I may be incorrect but I believe that at some point Le May also claimed that the day of the infantry was over. All future wars would be won from the sky.


Sounds like something he'd say...[8|]


As goofy as that sounds to we students of military history, the general public (at least those pesky Americans) has come to expect that there are no casualties nor messiness in war due to relatively casualty-free high tech actions in the '90's.

Present real world circumstances are an example.

It was believed in air circles pre-WW2 that air power would decide future wars as well. "The bomber will always get through".



Terminus -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 6:21:05 PM)

Well, yeah... The public has been spoon-fed the concept of a so-called "clean" war for so long that it can't take it when the fight turns nasty. Just look at Somalia, right after GW I, and, of course, what's happening in Iraq now.



WhoCares -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 6:29:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Well, yeah... The public has been spoon-fed the concept of a so-called "clean" war for so long that it can't take it when the fight turns nasty. Just look at Somalia, right after GW I, and, of course, what's happening in Iraq now.

But who is to blame, the public for not just 'sucking up' the losses afterwards or those that feed them with the concept of a 'clean war' to get the public support for a new war?! [&:]

But we are drifting away from the initial topic into dangerous waters... [;)]



Terminus -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 6:31:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoCares

But who is to blame, the public for not just 'sucking up' the losses afterwards or those that feed them with the concept of a 'clean war' to get the public support for their agenda before the war?! [&:]


If we're going to get political (and let's not) the blame is on both sides. It's a self-reinforcing effect of one side telling the other that there aren't going to be many casualties, and the other side ending up accepting no casualties at all.



barbarrossa -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 6:31:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Well, yeah... The public has been spoon-fed the concept of a so-called "clean" war for so long that it can't take it when the fight turns nasty. Just look at Somalia, right after GW I, and, of course, what's happening in Iraq now.


Exactly my point.

But it would be more accurate to say that the Somalia action and withdrawal and all the antiseptic and pointless actions '92-'00 leading to present circumstances happened on Mr. Clinton's watch rather than "after GW I"[:)]

I'll stop there before I get into trouble.[:D]





Terminus -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 6:32:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: barbarrossa

But it would be more accurate to say that the Somalia action and withdrawal and all the antiseptic and pointless actions in the '90's leading to present circumstances happened on Mr. Clinton's watch rather than "after GW I"[:)]


The person at 1600 Penn Ave. is irrelevant. The public had seen a huge victory in GW I, and was convinced that the American military could handle ANY situation ANYWHERE.



Nikademus -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 6:38:50 PM)

thorny question. perhaps a bit of both. A good example was the Dresden bombing. Public was shocked after it came to light. On the UK side, it was pretty much a shoulder shrug....after all their concept of strategic bombing was more pragmatic and honest. On the US side, it was explained that the "doctrine" of the USAAF was that of percision bombing even though at that point they'd switched over to radar bombing during the day which was little more accurate than night bombing. It was the ultimate exercise in hair splitting...."well we meant to hit the factory but if a few bombs missed and hit a house well we didn't do it on purpose." (so that makes it better.) this mullified the US public somewhat. The British were like...."uh...we are at war...don't like it? end the war"




Speedysteve -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 6:43:14 PM)

Been mentioned here by Nik. I recommend to those who haven't read it to read "Robin Neillands' Bomber War".

A well written and thought provoking read.



barbarrossa -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 6:47:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoCares

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Well, yeah... The public has been spoon-fed the concept of a so-called "clean" war for so long that it can't take it when the fight turns nasty. Just look at Somalia, right after GW I, and, of course, what's happening in Iraq now.

But who is to blame, the public for not just 'sucking up' the losses afterwards or those that feed them with the concept of a 'clean war' to get the public support for a new war?! [&:]

But we are drifting away from the initial topic into dangerous waters... [;)]


I think you make good points here. But I think it all boils down to knowledge and education.

We can all recite the relevant numbers and stats on history's battlefields and compare those past conditions to present circumstances and judge present reality through the prism of that knowlege.

The general public does not have the benefit of that knowlege of military history and when this ignorance is coupled with limited information and (shall I dare say) agenda driven information it should not be surprising that people believe what they are told by those supposedly "in the know".



tsimmonds -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 6:47:54 PM)

quote:

The person at 1600 Penn Ave. is irrelevant.


Cool! And I was looking for a new job, too. Not sure I want that one though....[;)]



el cid again -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 6:48:10 PM)

quote:

it is acceptable to wage war in violation of the law of land warfare AS WE ENFORCED IT AFTER THE WAR ( see "bombardment of cities and towns" )



This line of thinking falls into the trap of projecting modern values into a past sequence of events without considering the mentality and thought process that guided those events at thier time of occurance.


Not at all. The Law Of Land Warfare (an American invention in its codified form by the way) was very much a current subject. The conventions that defined it were pre-war ones, and they could not have been enforced otherwise. I remember reading about Hitler asking Ribbentrop if "withdrawing from the conventions" would prevent enforcement (like North Korea and the NPT)? Not at all - was the reply. We would enforce them anyway, Ribbentrop believed - and he was right. Everyone - even the evil enemy - knew the rules - at the time.




Ursa MAior -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 6:48:11 PM)

I read somewhere that democrats like to use financial and clandestine wars, while republicans are for classic military maneuvers. It may be an oversimplification, but if you look at 'dirty, little wars' they were mostly started by republican presidents.



el cid again -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 6:52:29 PM)

quote:

Many a witness said similar when questioned on the messiness and brutality of the whole affair. one simple answer was nevertheless poinient: "it was war"


Curiously, this is the Japanese position post war. Many scholars and soldiers never criticize the USA for what it did - because "war is war" - a literal translation. IF this sort of reasoning is acceptable to you - fine. It is more typical of the Samouri culture than of ours. It turns out Lincoln (the inventer of codified law in war) had sound policy reasons. It turns out they all still apply today. It is politic, economic and above all, it promotes good order and discipline in the ranks and combat effectiveness. I am awfully glad I honored my conscience before I really understood the law - it paid off handsomely - not only saving my life but also preventing bad dreams many others suffer. Possibly the biggest reason to do things well is it keeps you sane and it helps your country win.



barbarrossa -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 6:56:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: barbarrossa

But it would be more accurate to say that the Somalia action and withdrawal and all the antiseptic and pointless actions in the '90's leading to present circumstances happened on Mr. Clinton's watch rather than "after GW I"[:)]


The person at 1600 Penn Ave. is irrelevant. The public had seen a huge victory in GW I, and was convinced that the American military could handle ANY situation ANYWHERE.


I was merely attempting to bring more accuracy......nevermind[:)]

The American military could handle anything anywhere anytime after the Gulf War '90-'91. Ask the Soviets.

And it is completely relevant who sits in the Oval Office. The occupant has to have the will to use the armed forces of which he is commander in chief when circumstances warrant.



tsimmonds -> RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies? (3/16/2006 7:07:02 PM)

I think that we Americans, having had considerable success in many previous conflicts, have come to believe that war is in general a fairly effective way of making things go the way we'd like them to go. I think that historically we have been fortunate in having our wars result mostly from the miscalculations of our foes. In our wars that have occurred as a result of our own miscalculations, we have had less success. I think if you look at history, the decision to start a war has nearly always turned out to have been a poor one, regardless of whose decision it was.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.59375