-  [WT]  [PS]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return]
Posting mode: Reply
  1.   (reply to 13747)
  2.   Help
  3. (for post and file deletion)
/hi/ - History and Culture
  • Supported file types are: JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 1000 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 480 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2018-08-24 Show/Hide Show All

We are in the process of fixing long-standing bugs with the thread reader. This will probably cause more bugs for a short period of time. Buckle up.

There's a new /777/ up, it's /Moldy Memes/ Check it out. Suggest new /777/s here.

Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7: Web Player, .m3u file. Music via Radio7: Web Player, .m3u file.

WebM is now available sitewide! Please check this thread for more info.

Historian 13/05/17(Fri)21:11 No. 13747
13747

File 136881787650.jpg - (134.76KB , 1247x817 , German Gen_ Anton Dostler is tied to a stake befor.jpg )

Did the bombing of Germany have any affect at all? Could we really say it was necessary? Wasn't it the ground battles that made all the difference in Germany's defeat?


>>
Historian 13/05/20(Mon)20:20 No. 13752

one way to win war is to defeat a country's will to continue fighting


>>
Historian 13/05/21(Tue)23:32 No. 13756

it disrupted their industrial production and military logistics


>>
Historian 13/05/25(Sat)01:22 No. 13765

It unified the German civilians, the same thing happened during the Blitz. One of the goals of strategic bombing was to cripple the enemies' will to fight, but it ended up doing the opposite.

However, in the weeks leading up to D-Day the Allies switched tactics and started to exclusively bomb military targets such as convoys, railroads and factories. these raids tended to be a lot more precise (utilising fighter-bombers and medium bombers), and had a noticeable effect on stopping German reinforcements from reaching the front lines and on their wartime production capabilities


>>
Historian 13/06/01(Sat)02:10 No. 13776

Allied bombing of supply infrastructure caused massive famine and death in the work internment camps in germany and poland.


>>
Historian 13/06/02(Sun)22:42 No. 13778

It had a lot of effects: it destroyed buildings, infrastructure, people, ...

Can it be justified in terms of civilian vs. military impact? Maybe. The thing is, the Allies had more industrial capacity than they knew what to do with within manpower constraints. Building huge bombers was one way to at least put all those factories to some use.


>>
Historian 13/06/20(Thu)14:53 No. 13819

Whilst its often assumed that bombing was to destroy the enemy's will to fight, it was always accepted that a large scale land invasion was still necessary.

Allied bombing pre-1944 sent a clear signal to the Soviets that they were not fighting a war alone and at times the bombing of certain German cities was at the request of the Soviets who lacked the long range bombers.

Destruction of enemy industry was also important, and due to the inaccuracy of WWII bombing, carpet bombing of cities was inevitable in order to achieve this. 'Tactical' bombing also occurred alongside the strategic attacks, especially after the Normandy landings when soldiers received direct support, and when the V-weapons threat had been established.

The US daylight bombing campaign also helped with the pacification of the Luftwaffe, especially as the P-51 Mustangs came into play. When the Germans moved to intercept the bombers they suffered losses above the rate of replacement for planes and pilots.


The bombing of Germany was beneficial to the allied war effort. Although ultimately ground warfare was decisive, the force multiplier that Air Power provides helped to shorten then war and reduce the risks posed to men fighting on the Western front.


>>
Historian 13/06/25(Tue)00:47 No. 13820
13820

File 137211403179.jpg - (272.90KB , 1440x972 , 1353604717206.jpg )

well you cant say the airwar was the most important force of ww2 it deffinently was decisive if you control an airspace you control the ground mailnly beacuse your enemy will be unable to move there heavy equipement tanks artilliary ect without major risk of losing those pieces of equipment all of which are costly basic materials labour to construct them and facilitys to build them and if you lose these tools of war your infantry will be destroyed also the Strategic bombings of german and japan proved the effectivness of aircraft in a war zone theres a reason aircraft are still used to this day and that they have become the first forces usally to go in to a conflict if you can hit a countrys infrastructure roads railways supply bases and military targets before your troops even get there the advantages are obviously so ww2 bascially made the wordern strategys of a combined air/ground wars into what it has become today so id say yes it was important and brought the war to its conclusion years sooner than if aircraft had been grounded and thought of as useless


>>
Historian 13/06/25(Tue)22:50 No. 13823

air superiority allows for close air support within battles, pwning tanks and stuff quite easily all over the place, allowing patrols to do to columns what UBoats did to merchant ships

strategic bombing used the bigger planes, and was most useful for reducing factory output, and transportation capabilities


it's like stabbing someone so that they're bleeding out while you're trying to bash their head in

eventually it gets real easy for the coup de grace

oh, also having lots of planes in the sky allows you to know what's going on better


>>
Historian 13/06/26(Wed)01:32 No. 13826

They fucked up by constantly switching their focus. Had they taken out the Romanian oil fields in 43 there could've been a major impact.

The British nighttime raids were total bullshit tho.


>>
Historian 13/07/07(Sun)14:30 No. 13837

lots of stuff happened, that didn't have to happen that way, but they did - on all sides

the only reason hitler "made blunders" is because the allies were willing to throw units away en masse because they had the production and the nazis didn't

so for them it was "just as planned"

kekeke zerg/muta rush


>>
Historian 13/07/08(Mon)23:01 No. 13838

>>13837
>the only reason
Hitler careening from methamphetamines to cocaine to sleeping pills on a daily basis might have had a bit to do with his erratic decision making process.


>>
Historian 13/07/10(Wed)05:07 No. 13841

yes but his attempt to drug himself into ubermenschian computer programmer with coffee mode, was *due* to the masses of allied things that are typically thrown at people you want to throw things at, being thrown at him


>>
airwar over germany ww2 dude 13/12/21(Sat)21:55 No. 14073

Reichminister of Armaments Albert Speer estimated that Germany spent 1/3 of its resources to defend against USAAF & RAF bombing campaigns during ww2. By 1944 the Luftwaffe was a spent force resulting in Germany losing air superiority over Northern Europe & Germany.
Although Germany was able to increase production figures from tanks to aircraft it's lack of oil affected quality of it's replacements especially pilots & armor crews.


>>
Historian 13/12/22(Sun)02:08 No. 14074

Certainly it had an effect, but, strategically, it was a failure. The bombing campaign came about because Allied (and Axis) Air Force leaders subscribed wholeheartedly to the theories of the Italian Fascist Douhet, who claimed that all future wars would be won by bombing civil populations into submission. Unfortunately, Air Force leaders STILL subscribe to Douhet's theories, which is why American bombs have fallen like rain in Vietnam, Serbia, Iraq, and Afghanistan...and air-power did not win a single one of these conflicts. You cannot terrorize a population into submission; you certainly can piss the hell out of them and encourage them to strap on explosive vests and mosey out to try to blow up Americans.

As for the effect on WWII, consider these two related points. (1: The strategic bombing campaign was supposed to destroy German industrial capacity. (2: German war production reached its PEAK output during November-December, 1944...a mere five months before Germany was invaded, over-run, and forced to surrender.


>>
Historian 13/12/22(Sun)08:48 No. 14075

the intended consequence did not occur
the side effect is that it opened up another manner of overwhelming germany

keep in mind that germany didn't simply get beaten on the field of battle, it collapsed as a nation before it was defeated

doucet's theories work but only in a situation where your population is absolutely enamoured with the idea of crushing the enemy completely into the ground with no second thoughts of their humanity

it's best summed up by machiavelli's thing about how if you have to hurt someone, do it so badly that they can never be a threat to you again


>>
Historian 13/12/26(Thu)09:43 No. 14081

>>14074
Part of the reason it was a failure, though, was because Germany's war production was extremely low given the sheer number of factories in operation. Bombing the crap out of one area affected production in that area, but they ramped up production in all their other under-utilized sections and made up for the lost capacity. After a short time that area would be returned to normal, at which point it could help absorb capacity from another area that got bombed.

The reason for low production was varied, but two major factors were lack of manpower and lack of raw materiel. What raw materiel existed could be shuffled around, as could manpower. Which is why raids on cities were made, to try and curtail their manpower.

Remember, by the time round-the-clock bombing was in instituted nearly every man of fighting age was in Germany's armed forces, leaving old men, youths, and women to staff factories. America reached that point too, but had far more raw materiel to feed to their factories.



[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]



Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason