DJ mentioned this in one of the other post which do you guys think was more effective, day or night? I have my on opinions but more on that latter.
Ross
History Club
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Hosted by Frank Amato
Best bombing method?
Mahross
Member Since: March 12, 2002
entire network: 837 Posts
KitMaker Network: 183 Posts
Posted: Friday, December 17, 2004 - 12:41 AM UTC
Drader
Member Since: July 20, 2004
entire network: 3,791 Posts
KitMaker Network: 765 Posts
Posted: Friday, December 17, 2004 - 01:05 AM UTC
I don't think there is one best technique, much depends on the technology being used. Most air forces started with the intention of using daylight 'precision' bombing, but both the RAF and Luftwaffe learnt that losses were prohibitive and 'precision' more an ideal than a reality. E.g. the RAF managed to hit both Switzerland and Denmark while aiming for Germany and the Luftwaffe managed to bomb their own towns instead of France.
The USAAF came in with similar intentions and again suffered very heavily until long-range fighter escorts appeared. And managed to bomb Switzerland.
OF course how accurate you want your bombing to be depneds on your targetting priorities, which was just as much a political question as it is now - and probably a separate debate.
In the end the RAF night bombing and USAAF day bombing ended up complementing each other. Given radio guidance and decent terrain-mapping radar night bombing was reasonably accurate during the latter part of the war.
The USAAF came in with similar intentions and again suffered very heavily until long-range fighter escorts appeared. And managed to bomb Switzerland.
OF course how accurate you want your bombing to be depneds on your targetting priorities, which was just as much a political question as it is now - and probably a separate debate.
In the end the RAF night bombing and USAAF day bombing ended up complementing each other. Given radio guidance and decent terrain-mapping radar night bombing was reasonably accurate during the latter part of the war.
DD-393
Member Since: March 14, 2004
entire network: 97 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Friday, December 17, 2004 - 01:32 AM UTC
I'm going to interpret "best" as "most effective" and add a couple of new wrinkles to the discussion Note that this isn't intended to start a hollering match as I am quite a sensitive individual. 
How about dive bombing? I'll use the SBD Dauntless dive bombers at Midway that took out all four Japanese aircraft carriers. The American training and methodology smashed Adm. Nagumo's First Carrier Striking Force.
Then, there are the B-29 Superfortress raids on Japan. As the high level bombings were not as effective as hoped for, General Curtiss LeMay decided to go with low-level night fire-bombing attacks that turned Japanese cities into ashes.
One thing that the US day bombing did that wasn't necessarily intended was to decimate the German Luftwaffe to the point that after about a year of steady combat, the attrition rate of German pilots dictated that they had to be pulled back to defend the Reich and the D-Day landings were virtually unopposed from the air.
I'm enjoying these discussions.
Best regards:
-Charlie
How about dive bombing? I'll use the SBD Dauntless dive bombers at Midway that took out all four Japanese aircraft carriers. The American training and methodology smashed Adm. Nagumo's First Carrier Striking Force.
Then, there are the B-29 Superfortress raids on Japan. As the high level bombings were not as effective as hoped for, General Curtiss LeMay decided to go with low-level night fire-bombing attacks that turned Japanese cities into ashes.
One thing that the US day bombing did that wasn't necessarily intended was to decimate the German Luftwaffe to the point that after about a year of steady combat, the attrition rate of German pilots dictated that they had to be pulled back to defend the Reich and the D-Day landings were virtually unopposed from the air.
I'm enjoying these discussions.
Best regards:
-Charlie
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Friday, December 17, 2004 - 03:54 AM UTC
My two cents. The pre-war Army Air Force claimed daylight precision bombing was the key to smashing the industrial might of Germany. They had the wherewithall in the Norden bombsight to be pretty darn accurate for that time period. The B-17 was certainly a highly capable platform. They are not as successful as they would have wished (even though there are several examples of their acccuracy) because of a variety of factors.....weather, enemy air defenses, lack of fighter escorts, flying techniques. When you compare the European to the Pacific, the B-29 engages in daylight high level precision bombing with dismal results. The jet stream is too powerful in the Pacific to allow the bombardier to make accurate calculations...pushes the aircraft too fast. Mediocre results are swept aside when Le May takes the highly risky tactic of stripping the bomber of defensive weapons and crewmen, sending them in at low altitude, not flying in formations and loaded with incendiaries. They area bomb and let the fire do the rest. The results are amazing, as I recall, they destroy 80% of Yokohama and some equally impressive amount of Tokyo. The end result is that the post war bombing survey gives poor marks to the European daylight "precision" bombing (I might add, the night time results are not too much better). The Pacific has only Japan as a strategic target and adjusting the tacctics, techniques and procedures to deal with the almost complete absence of Japanese night fighters, lack of ground fire fighting equipment and housing construction yield much better results. Several interesting books on the subject. I would recommend anyone interested in the comparison start with the US Strategic Bombing Survey.
Good question to kick around.
DJ
Good question to kick around.
DJ
DaveCox
Member Since: January 11, 2003
entire network: 4,307 Posts
KitMaker Network: 788 Posts
Posted: Friday, December 17, 2004 - 06:18 AM UTC
From the few figures that I have actually seen first hand (as opposed to TV reports), and the views of veterans; I would have to say night bombing with H2S radar and 'pathfinder' flare dropping beforehand.
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Friday, December 17, 2004 - 06:36 AM UTC
Dave-- do you know what aircraft they used for the pathfinder operations? I cannot imagine them diverting a Lanc for that type mission, but I am not that well read on the subject. Also, do you know about the effectiveness of the German night fighters? Seems to me there was something about the lack of a ball turret on the bombers that caused losses from figthers coming from below and hitting the aircraft from below. Any truth to that thought?
thanks
DJ
thanks
DJ
DaveCox
Member Since: January 11, 2003
entire network: 4,307 Posts
KitMaker Network: 788 Posts
Posted: Friday, December 17, 2004 - 07:01 AM UTC
The Pathfinders used Mosquitos and Lancs. The Mossies were used at low-level to mark the target accurately, and then the Lancs backed up the flares from higher up. They then circled the target and could halt the attack and then lay more flares if the bombing started to 'creep back'. This ensured that successive waves of bombers stayed on the main target. At a dinner (Sally-B - B17 Preservation Society) I had the pleasure of listening to a speech by ex- Group Captain Hamish Mahaddie, a former commander of the Pathfinders and hearing first hand how the system worked.
Night - fighters were a major problem, sometimes losses of up to 40% were often sustained.The early Lancs did have a ventral .303, but this was often removed. A ball-turret would have reduced the size of the bomb-bay and reduced the useful 10-ton load that made the Lanc (in my opinion!) the best heavy in common use in WW2. No other 'plane could carry the tallboy and grandslam bombs!
Night - fighters were a major problem, sometimes losses of up to 40% were often sustained.The early Lancs did have a ventral .303, but this was often removed. A ball-turret would have reduced the size of the bomb-bay and reduced the useful 10-ton load that made the Lanc (in my opinion!) the best heavy in common use in WW2. No other 'plane could carry the tallboy and grandslam bombs!
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Friday, December 17, 2004 - 08:08 AM UTC
I read something as I recall "Flames Over Tokyo" which mentioned the American use of flare aircraft in the Pacific. As I recollect these guys flew out ahead of the formation and started fires that marked the area the bombers where to saturate. Very effective. Of course, the bombing of Dresden stands out as controversial to this very day in Europe. Another interesting subject as is the bombing of Hamburg.
DJ
DJ
jimbrae
Member Since: April 23, 2003
entire network: 12,927 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,060 Posts
Posted: Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 07:21 AM UTC
I think one of the problems (dealing with the knotty subject of 'carpetbombing') is that it was an outdated philosophy continued thru WW2...Any thoughts? ..Jim
Robster
Member Since: October 04, 2004
entire network: 386 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 08:45 AM UTC
The best way of bombing is in the sky and then throw bombs out a bomber :-) :-) :-) Funny :-) :-) :-)
Henk
Member Since: August 07, 2004
entire network: 6,391 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,600 Posts
Posted: Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 02:00 PM UTC
Quoted Text
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think one of the problems (dealing with the knotty subject of 'carpetbombing') is that it was an outdated philosophy continued thru WW2...Any thoughts? ..Jim
Although this does not quite follow the tread subject as set out, it is however very true. Bombing in WW II was very crude compered to todays technolocical standards, and 'carpet bombing' has been proven to be wholy ineffective in every instance. German bombing of Britain didn't bring about the capitulation of Britain, but only strengenth the resolve of the people. The relentless bombing of German cities didn't stop the manufacturing abilities of the Germans enough to shorten the war, but did add to the German resolve to 'fight till the end', therefore probably lenghtening the German resistance.. Even as late as the 70's the carpet and fire bombing of Vietnam didn't work..
But then again, if man would learn from his mistakes, where would we be now?
Henk
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
bowjunkie35
Member Since: November 19, 2004
entire network: 576 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 06:53 PM UTC
Well, seeing as how a time period wasn't mentioned, I will take the question the way it was worded. In the present tense. That being said, today, for the U.S., nightime bombing runs are the predominate way to do it. I think we have been witness to that not only in '91, but presently also. The reason they are so effective is because of our superior technological advances in night vision for both the pilot and the aircraft. If we were fighting an enemy with equal technology, it might be a different story, but let's face it. We (the U.S., no offense other countries) rule when the sun goes down! It is safer for our pilots to fly night sorties and bombing missions because our enemy is basically blind, but we're not! My .02 cents.
bowjunkie35
Member Since: November 19, 2004
entire network: 576 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 06:55 PM UTC
Ooops! My bad. I read the question wrong. I thought you said, "is" not was. I will give my take after I sleep on it! Now it is bedtime. Nighty night girls! zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 01:09 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think one of the problems (dealing with the knotty subject of 'carpetbombing') is that it was an outdated philosophy continued thru WW2...Any thoughts? ..Jim
Although this does not quite follow the tread subject as set out, it is however very true. Bombing in WW II was very crude compered to todays technolocical standards, and 'carpet bombing' has been proven to be wholy ineffective in every instance. German bombing of Britain didn't bring about the capitulation of Britain, but only strengenth the resolve of the people. The relentless bombing of German cities didn't stop the manufacturing abilities of the Germans enough to shorten the war, but did add to the German resolve to 'fight till the end', therefore probably lenghtening the German resistance.. Even as late as the 70's the carpet and fire bombing of Vietnam didn't work..
But then again, if man would learn from his mistakes, where would we be now?
Henk
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
I would disagree with some of what you stated. Sadly, the aerial attacks on North Vietnam did not achieve the results one would have hoped. Why? Probably because we failed to bomb the right targets and target areas (Hanoi and Haiphong). We were too predictable in our target selections (bridges, Ho Chi Minh Trail system). The NVA had some of the best air defense systems in the world and knew how to use them. Fully 50% plus of aircraft lost were due to 57mm and below meaning that we were flying way too low among other things. We did learn from this tragic sequence. Night time bombing, better ordnance and tactics were developed and paid off. We hit Kuwait with a vengence in 1990 and air attacks certainly assisted ground maneuver. During our latest move into Iraq air played a very important role. We certainly studied out faults. So, I know we learnt the lessons of Vietnam and corrected most of the faults....we did not lose a B-52 in either the Gulf War or Iraq.
DJ
Easy_Co
Member Since: September 11, 2002
entire network: 1,933 Posts
KitMaker Network: 814 Posts
Posted: Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 07:16 AM UTC
Id like to give an opinion from the recieving end,I was born just after the war in the East end of London where the docks and factorys were, believe me any bombing is effective I can remember mile after mile of destroyed docks and factories, our street should have had forty houses in it, only two were left my school took a direct hit destroyed one end killed a load of kids.Everyone says about the british stiff upper lip and our resolve and how happy the queen was that a bomb blew their fence down and how she could now look the east end people in the face.Rubbish! if you talk to the people who lived through the blitz they were very close to breaking, and they were very bitter about the lack of help coming from the govrnment thousands killed in the east end and one bomb blew up a night club in the west end and someone spilt there champers it hit the head lines.How the germans took what we dished out to them and carried on fighting i will never know.sorry about the rant but history does get clouded and what i have said here comes from family and friends who lived through it . any how good thread. 
Henk
Member Since: August 07, 2004
entire network: 6,391 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,600 Posts
Posted: Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 08:09 AM UTC
Quoted Text
would disagree with some of what you stated. Sadly, the aerial attacks on North Vietnam did not achieve the results one would have hoped. Why? Probably because we failed to bomb the right targets and target areas (Hanoi and Haiphong).
Would bombing Hanoi have brought about the end of the war? The question was 'what is the best bombing method', and the only point I was trying to make is that the relentless carpet bombing which we saw in WW II and after has never been succesful. The manufacture of wapons will move into the countryside or underground, and the fighters will live amongst the rubble. Modern bombing practice (hitting specific, military, targets with single, aimed ordonance) was used to great effect in WW II ( destruction of German armour with rockets, the disabeling off the Bismark with torpedo's, the Dambusters, the Stuka's.)
Quoted Text
We hit Kuwait with a vengence in 1990 and air attacks certainly assisted ground maneuver.
Surely it was Saddam who hit Kuwait, but yes, air superiority helps you to stay in charge of the battle field, but doesn't win a war on it's own.
Quoted Text
....we did not lose a B-52 in either the Gulf War or Iraq.
I am no wingy expert, so I don't know the exact height that a B-52 flies, but I think it's a bit out of range of AA guns. Seeing that Iraq didn't have an airforce left, I'm not surprised the B-52 flew unopposed.
Still, I don't know what the significant succes of dropping many tons of explosives on a virtualy uninhabited mountain area (AKA Afganistan) or a large sandpit has been.
Quoted Text
So, I know we learnt the lessons of Vietnam and corrected most of the faults....
Did we?..
Quoted Text
Id like to give an opinion from the recieving end,I was born just after the war in the East end of London where the docks and factorys were, believe me any bombing is effective
John, I did not try to marginalise the suffering of those subjected to the bombing, I could not possibly try to imagine what it must be like to be on the receiving end of such terror most days, without knowing when, or if, it will stop. I just made the point that, despite the suffering of the innocent, carpet bombing is ineffective. And I agree with you, let's not start about the royal family 'feeling the pain and identifying with the Eastend'. I believe it was a coincidence that Buckingham palace and the westend were not targeted....
Cheers
Henk
Cheers
Henk
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Monday, December 20, 2004 - 02:14 AM UTC
Henk-- We lost B-52s over North Vietnam due to a host of reasons. Some I recall included a failure to jam the North Vietnamese radars and going in too low. Hitting Hanoi and Haiphong would have caused the same results that are so elegantly expressed by John in his recollection of the Blitz. In the end, air works when employed as part of a combined arms team that includes a ground maneuver element. Improvements in warfighting techniques are constantly made and adjusted, but we are not perfect. 80% solutions win wars. We beat their butts in North Vietnam, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq. Proud of what has been done and will be done.
DJ
DJ
Splinty2001
Member Since: October 01, 2004
entire network: 283 Posts
KitMaker Network: 84 Posts
Posted: Monday, December 20, 2004 - 05:06 AM UTC
General Giap said after the war that if the Linebacker II raids had gone on a little longer we would have ended the war, it was that close. The trouble was we didn't know that and Nixon called off the raids because the North Veitnamese agreed to peace talks.
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Monday, December 20, 2004 - 07:33 AM UTC
Quoted Text
General Giap said after the war that if the Linebacker II raids had gone on a little longer we would have ended the war, it was that close. The trouble was we didn't know that and Nixon called off the raids because the North Veitnamese agreed to peace talks.
I agree that airpower has a role as part of the overall strategy to win a conflict. Returning to Vietnam, what was our strategy that used airpower as a means to attain a given end? It is not, IMHO, whether, for example, carpet bombing worked but rather where did it fit into the goal of winning the war. I apply the same test to determine what the Germans wanted to achieve by bombing England. Examining these tactics in isolation causes us to perhaps fail to appreciate what they did or did not do.
DJ
Elad
Member Since: June 19, 2004
entire network: 458 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Monday, December 20, 2004 - 09:46 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Henk-- We lost B-52s over North Vietnam due to a host of reasons. Some I recall included a failure to jam the North Vietnamese radars and going in too low. Hitting Hanoi and Haiphong would have caused the same results that are so elegantly expressed by John in his recollection of the Blitz.
I dont think that would have yielded the same results as the raids on Britain.
the type of regime is also a factor and myabe thats why bombing Dreseden into ashes and concrete dust didnt slow down the German willingness to fight and probably wouldnt have made the communist government of N.Vietnam to give a seconed thought either because they just didnt care for public opinion as much as say the Brits in the 'Blitz' period of WWII.
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 KitMaker Network and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.