Jump to content

War Discussion Forum Group


The Space Dino

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Columbia said:

The strategic bombing campaign did help burn out Luftwaffe aircraft and pilots, though. Ironically, German war machinery was at its peak in 1944 (I believe so), and their issue was pilot shortage. And yes, the Blitz and Dresden style. 'Twas on the level of the atomic bombings if not worse, and wasn't even for a greater good either.

Yes, it did burn through Luftwaffe pilots, but that wasn't its stated goal. It saw supposed to stop the German industry, and like you said it did nothing of the sort.

If it had focused on oilfields and troop formations things would have gone differently. In Normandy, most of the Panzer Lehr division was wiped out by strategic bombers used in a tactical role. The pilot shortage would have been the same, because fighters would have been required to defend against bombers anyway

The Blitz galvanized the British against the Germans. Without a real enemy attacking them, political leaders like Churchill would have just been talking heads.

There is something to be said, though, about taking the war to the enemy's civilians. If they get tired enough, they can sue for peace. But it's a tricky thing to gauge.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had quite a few books on the air war over Europe when I was younger. I had a particular interest in it because my uncle was a waist gunner on a B-17 who was KIA in March of 1944. Interestingly, the story my father had always told me was that he was shot down over Germany. When the Internet came around, years after my father had passed away, I did some research and discovered the website of the reunion group for my uncle's bombardment group, and according to them his bomber was actually sabotaged. They were taking off for a mission, and his bomber had just cleared the end of the runway when it exploded for no reason at all. They had seen signs of infiltration in the area, the night guards had found parachutes in the woods, and they surmised that the saboteurs had planted explosives in the bomber's wheel well so that they detonated when the landing gear were retracted. The War Department wasn't about to tell people that their sons were being killed by saboteurs in England, so they told their families that they were killed over Germany instead, and that was the story my father believed all his life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dman979 said:

Yes, it did burn through Luftwaffe pilots, but that wasn't its stated goal. It saw supposed to stop the German industry, and like you said it did nothing of the sort.

If it had focused on oilfields and troop formations things would have gone differently. In Normandy, most of the Panzer Lehr division was wiped out by strategic bombers used in a tactical role. The pilot shortage would have been the same, because fighters would have been required to defend against bombers anyway

The Blitz galvanized the British against the Germans. Without a real enemy attacking them, political leaders like Churchill would have just been talking heads.

There is something to be said, though, about taking the war to the enemy's civilians. If they get tired enough, they can sue for peace. But it's a tricky thing to gauge.

Well, you also have to realize that at the time it was going on everyone believed that strategic bombing was achieving its stated goals. It wasn't until after the war that detailed reporting revealed that it wasn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Columbia said:

Anyone interested in WW2 Aviation? Specifically, the Battle of Britain and the Allied strategic bombings are parts of the war that seem to be neglected when it comes to the history books, even though some of the most inhumane.

The Bf 109 G-6 is probably my favorite aircraft. Spent its first days over Poland and lasted to the end, defending the Reich that it came from.

WW2 aircraft were my entry-level drug to military history starting perhaps in middle school.

This is a good start as an overview of the war:

Airwar: Outraged Skies / Wings of Fire: An Illustrated History of Air Power in the Second World War

There are 2 volumes.

I also have a set of Impact bound:

IMPACT: The Army Air Forces' "Confidential" Picture History of World War II. COMPLETE 10 volume set. 1989.

It was published during the war in magazine format for USAAF personnel. Not objective, and often not accurate (security concerns), but fascinating. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dman979 said:

Granted, they didn't sue for peace, but it demoralized them.

Demoralized them who means nothing, while making just more cruel and headless them who was fighting.

Military patrols and exemplary executions successfully solve the problem of panic between civilians through all human history.
Also civilian:combat efficience is 20:1, so any riot is easily supressed until total crash of a country.

So, civil disasters cause nothing except more evil in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Demoralized them who means nothing, while making just more cruel and headless them who was fighting.

But in this case it did take away from the combat force of the Confederates. They lost access to food supplies, horses, and railroads. Letters to soldiers emphasized the need for them to come home to protect their farms. The Confederate armies suffered from desertion and starvation, reducing their combat effectiveness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

At least one IRL example?

Japan. 

Japan was wrecked by a combination of airpower, and the submarine forces as they were, like Britain, entirely dependent upon imports. One aspect of the airwar that is often neglected was the vast number of maritime mines dropped. I'd say that counts. If bombing civilian areas counts, then the 2 atomic bombs unambiguously worked---the civilian aspect gets sort of gray in the case of Japan, however, as the Emperor issued an Imperial Edict that made all men 15-65, and all women 17-47 technically combatants. That's all men and women in that age bracket, everywhere in Japan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Dman979 said:

They lost access to food supplies, horses, and railroads.

I.e. the Northern army successfully occupied and devastated the enemy territory, destroying the logistics. With civilian casualties or not.
Civilian casualties and sufferings themselves caused nothing except more hate between the people.
No significant riot was caused, no mass disorganisation.

7 minutes ago, tater said:

Japan. 

Japan was wrecked by a combination of airpower, and the submarine forces as they were, like Britain, entirely dependent upon imports. One aspect of the airwar that is often neglected was the vast number of maritime mines dropped. I'd say that counts. If bombing civilian areas counts, then the 2 atomic bombs unambiguously worked---the civilian aspect gets sort of gray in the case of Japan, however, as the Emperor issued an Imperial Edict that made all men 15-65, and all women 17-47 technically combatants. That's all men and women in that age bracket, everywhere in Japan.

Did Japanese civilians rise a riot which caused the capitulation? Or stop working, or so?

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Did Japanese civilians rise a riot which caused the capitulation?

Doesn't matter. It forced capitulation---even though many in the military wanted to continue with their plan of fighting. In a free society, such attacks could possibly create public pressure, which could be rising up, or just political pressure. In Japan, post Meiji Restoration, such an uprising would be a stunningly unlikely counterfactual, I cannot imagine it happening. The population was already literally eating sawdust, and yet they would have met invaders with spears.

It took something spectacular to force surrender. If they were entirely rational actors, they would have sued for peace by the end of 1942.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, tater said:

It forced capitulation

Sorry, but this is just an assumption.

14 minutes ago, tater said:

even though many in the military wanted to continue with their plan of fighting

While others in government wanted a possibility to softly slip off until things get harder and they woudl be accused in something.

14 minutes ago, tater said:

In a free society, such attacks could possibly create public pressure, which could be rising up, or just political pressure.

Until the free society turns to war and proclaims this position as a betrayal. After that: see above about patrols and exemplary punishments.
Also as we can see in case of Vietnam War, the pressure appeared mostly at the side who was bombing, rather than at the side who was bombed.

14 minutes ago, tater said:

It took something spectacular to force surrender. If they were entirely rational actors, they would have sued for peace

Unless they treat the surrended part of the population living on the occupied territory as already lost.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Sorry, but this is just an assumption.

To quote Karl Compton,

On July 26, 1945, the Potsdam Ultimatum called on Japan to surrender unconditionally. On July 29 Premier Suzuki issued a statement, purportedly at a cabinet press conference, scorning as unworthy of official notice the surrender ultimatum, and emphasizing the increasing rate of Japanese aircraft production. Eight days later, on August 6, the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima; the second was dropped on August 9 on Nagasaki; on the following day, August 10, Japan declared its intention to surrender, and on August 14 accepted the Potsdam terms. (The Atlantic, December 1946)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dman979 said:

On July 26, 1945, the Potsdam Ultimatum called on Japan to surrender unconditionally. On July 29 Premier Suzuki issued a statement, purportedly at a cabinet press conference, scorning as unworthy of official notice the surrender ultimatum, and emphasizing the increasing rate of Japanese aircraft production. Eight days later, on August 6, the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima; the second was dropped on August 9 on Nagasaki; on the following day, August 10, Japan declared its intention to surrender, and on August 14 accepted the Potsdam terms.

April 1942, Bombing of Tokyo. Same casualties as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but yet 3 years till the end of war.

August 9, 1945: Machurian Operation has begun.  Next day,

Quote

August 10, Japan declared its intention to surrender, and on August 14 accepted the Potsdam terms.


So, having at once naval battle with allies, land battle in Burma and so, Soviet invasion from the North (which had been being prepared since May 1945), new type of bombs able to destroy the Emperor's HQ or capital at once, lack of resources, Japan at last decided to surrender.
The civilian sufferings don't look as ultimate factor, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

April 1942, Bombing of Tokyo. Same casualties as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but yet 3 years till the end of war.

You need to read some books. Seriously. The Doolittle raid---which was in April, 1942 killed hardly anyone.

Perhaps you refer to the second Tokyo firebombing raid in 1945? It indeed killed more people than either atomic bombing (north of 100,000, but the toll is merely a guess). Sans atomic bombings, those targets would have been just as burned, but with M-69s, instead of a-bombs.

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

August 9, 1945: Machurian Operation has begun.  Next day,


So, having at once naval battle with allies, land battle in Burma and so, Soviet invasion from the North (which had been being prepared since May 1945), new type of bombs able to destroy the Emperor's HQ or capital at once, lack of resources, Japan at last decided to surrender.
The civilian sufferings don't look as ultimate factor, though.

 

Read Downfall, by Richard Frank, and get back to us. The Soviet invasion in China would not have ended the war in 2 days. It would have butchered even more Japanese (troops in this case), but like everywhere else in the war, they would have fought nearly to the last man. 

I never said civilian losses were the factor, I'm not sure the Japanese cared at all about that. Also, again this is technically, very few Japanese were civilians at that point, anyway, they were all conscripted as defense forces for the presumed upcoming invasion.

We have their decrypted comms, and some was only declassified in 1996. The Diplomat's cable suggesting they seek a peace negotiation has been known for decades, and often used to make the claim that they wanted a negotiated peace. The replies, however, were still classified (as was the fact we were reading some allied mail as well). The 1996 releases showed the reply to the Japanese diplomat regarding seeking a peace negotiation. It was an unequivocal "no." They were planning on letting the US invade, and making heroic (read: suicidal) efforts to incur maximal losses on the US, then use the horrific cost of invading Japan as a tool to seek better terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tater said:

Perhaps you refer to the second Tokyo firebombing raid in 1945?

Certainly, my fault.

2 hours ago, tater said:

those targets would have been just as burned, but with M-69s, instead of a-bombs.

Yes, Tokyo was attacked with incendiary ammo. But I mean: if similar civilan casualties hasn't stopped anything, why somebody thinks that A-bombing was something different in such sense?
It was rather different in sense of sequential elimination of the cities and objects. And such perspective was much more important than civilian sufferings.

2 hours ago, tater said:

The Soviet invasion in China would not have ended the war in 2 days.

We have two events happened in one day: Nagasaki and China.
We have similar event happened three days earlier which obviously hadn't stopped anything.
We have Tokyo event when 100000 civilian casualties hadn't stopped anything, too.
We don't have a second front against Japan happened before. It's definitely a difference.
Japan capitulated a day later both of August 9 events. And finally surrendered about a month later, when both Japan fleet in the ocean and Japan army in China had surrendered.

But by some reason one of August 9 events is declared "it stopped the war", another one - "of course not". This doesn't look much objective. The situation in total caused them, not one event or another.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read Downfall. We have some intelligence, as well as post-war interviews with Japanese within the Palace, and IGHQ. The deciding factor was unambiguously the atomic bombs, not the Russian invasion. Well before the bombings, the Japanese had set an appointment in Moskow for their ambassador, and they were rebuked. They had no illusions about Soviet intentions. Also, the Soviet invasion only affected their troops on the mainland, it had zero bearing on the home islands, as there was no possible way for the Russians to invade Japan (and no possible way for their troops to return home, either, the Sea of Japan was no longer their pond, it was a hunting ground for US Fleet boat wolf packs at that point---and the problem the US subs had was even finding targets bigger than Sea Trucks to attack with deck guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I found out this when I was reading a book:

The Japanese sent bombs on unmanned hydrogen balloons during the late war which followed the jet stream to the United States. The balloons were fitted with weights, altimeters, and timers to control the balloons. Some actually made it and caused some casualties and damage. When the US military managed to get hold of one without it exploding they traced the sand in the balloon's sandbags which were used for ballast during flight to specific beaches in Japan. After that the US bombed those places and destroyed 2 of the 3 hydrogen producing plants and the project was canceled. 

I've never heard of this but it's pretty interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/15/2016 at 10:42 PM, The Space Dino said:

So I found out this when I was reading a book:

The Japanese sent bombs on unmanned hydrogen balloons during the late war which followed the jet stream to the United States. The balloons were fitted with weights, altimeters, and timers to control the balloons. Some actually made it and caused some casualties and damage. When the US military managed to get hold of one without it exploding they traced the sand in the balloon's sandbags which were used for ballast during flight to specific beaches in Japan. After that the US bombed those places and destroyed 2 of the 3 hydrogen producing plants and the project was canceled. 

I've never heard of this but it's pretty interesting.

Yeah, it is interesting. But as a practical matter, the bombs didn't do much to the US morale, production, or military.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/19/2016 at 11:39 AM, Dman979 said:

Yeah, it is interesting. But as a practical matter, the bombs didn't do much to the US morale, production, or military.

Yeah but the submarine aircraft carrier that Japan developed to bomb the US was as cool as heck.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400-class_submarine

Pardon me for using Wikipedia as a source but still. Though what if the German Amerika bombers actually managed to make it? They were built after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Spacetraindriver said:

Yeah but the submarine aircraft carrier that Japan developed to bomb the US was as cool as heck.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400-class_submarine

Pardon me for using Wikipedia as a source but still. Though what if the German Amerika bombers actually managed to make it? They were built after all.

Yes, the I-400s were pretty cool.

If the Amerika bombers made it it would probably be like the Blitz, just over the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i clicked the thread so i must be interested a way or anothers, even if mostly from the historico-geopolitico-socio-psycho-ego-egosum-time-stamp-semantico aspect 'sigh'

you can eventually add me to the list ...

(wich is also the reason why i won't post too much in here due to the fact half of my post might fall under the forum rule: "not this, no that, no this&that")

Edited by WinkAllKerb''
get interested in some stuff they said, well, well §§§
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, this is the KSP forums after all, so why don't we talk about the combat effectiveness of the most Kerbal plane in WW2: The He 111-Z? I mean the more the merrier right? Yes I know it was a glider Tug but still! (Yes I like War History)

 

OR...The combat effectiveness of Zeppelins! I mean in their defense, USA's Naval Blimps were pretty effective, why not scale it up? (Im also a very interested in airships. RIP USS Akron and Marcon. You never got the chance to shine ;.;)

Edited by Spacetraindriver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...