Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
We should probably work something in about his activities in Japan. -Joseph 02:14, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)
- Agree wholeheartedly. At present this only covers Britain and Germany. The Land 09:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality disputed
Neutrality disputed for obvious cases of bias in the text. Example:
- Curiously, the rhetoric of RAF leaders was not matched by military capability
- a euphemism for simply aiming at entire cities in the hope of killing workers, destroying homes, and breaking civilian morale.
119 02:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree. I think thing that this text must have been taken from somewhere else because of its structure. I have tried to fix the first paragraph. See what you think. Philip Baird Shearer 10:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- If there are no other problems, can we remove the NPOV tag? Oberiko 20:02, 28 Apr 2005(UTC) --taken from history of page PBS
I think that if there is still a problem then perhapse a section not a page NPOV tag would suffice and focus on any addition NPOV problems. BTW The introduction mentions "biological agents". Who used them? Philip Baird Shearer 16:52, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I propose to remove the NPOV tag at my next visit, unels sI hear objections. The Land 09:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] History of the article
Where has the history of this article gone? Philip Baird Shearer 10:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There was an article called "Strategic Bombing During World War II" which according to the history on that page was moved by User:Oberiko on 04:05, 1 Mar 2005 to "Strategic Bombing during World War II" On 14:50, 8 Mar 2005 User:Rmhermen changed the link to Strategic Bombing, I changed it to Strategic bombing during World War II today (09:18, 10 Mar 2005) assuming that the article had been moved again,(because there is no article not even a redirect at Strategic Bombing during World War II), but the history of this article shows that only one person has edited it before I did today. 21:34, 18 Feb 2005 User:SoLando -- So what has happened? Philip Baird Shearer 10:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, it seems to be happening quite a bit. Edit histories seem to be disapearing. I noticed it when my edit of Pathfinders (military) disapeared with the older edit remaining (check history of it). That, until now, has been the only time I've seen evidence of it (though it did happen a few times last year) SoLando 10:41, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Did you move the article? If not what change did you make to it? Philip Baird Shearer 10:46, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- That's bizzare. Is this likely just a wiki-glitch? Oberiko 13:28, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I never moved the bombing article. I added the text: "indeed, it is widely believed that the bombings had the opposite effect." in the "Gradually, in the face of heavy losses to fighters, anti-aircraft guns, and accidents, the Luftwaffe resorted to night bombing. Targeting had been a problem in daylight; by night it was much more so, and British civilian casualties were heavy. The expected collapse in civilian morale, however, did not eventuate; indeed, it is widely believed that the bombings had the opposite effect." SoLando 11:00, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Daylight targetting
-
- Actually, targetting was easy in daylight, thats why the Americans did it. The problem is that in daylight a slow bomber is a sitting duck unless heavily armoured and escorted by fighters.
-
- The american day bombers such as the B17, B25 and B29 had to sacrifice bombload for guns, and had to learn unwieldy formation flying techniques to survive. The English abandoned daylight raids very early on.
-
- Its true that Harris was blind to the effects on english morale of the Blitz. The Blitz consolidated the Londoners and made there resolve harder. Unfortunately, Harris needed the opposite POV to promote his Area Bombing campaign, and so the blitz morale lesson was simply ignored. The germans reacted in the same way as the Londoners, it just made them more resolved to resist, that and the fact if they had fled there war work the Gestapo would have had something to say about it.
-
- You have to put this into context. The RAF WANTED german morale to collapse, so that became the official POV.
193.131.115.253 11:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Targeting was easy, hitting the target was not, even with the Norton bombsight which was the best the Allies had, particularly if it was overcast. When overcast by day, night bomb using H2S (H2X) and G-H was just as accurate. It was not the bomber's guns or them learning "unwieldy formation flying techniques to survive", it was the P-51 Mustang which made the difference in the American European strategic daylight bombing campaign. The article on the bombing of Tokyo in World War II argues that the usual wind conditions over Japan made high-level precision strategic bombing impractical. Philip Baird Shearer 15:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Not logged in
I made the "General Update" change - for some reason, I wasn't logged in :/ Toby Douglass 11:58, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Title
Since it only deals with Europe, and neglects the boimbing of Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki (to name a few!) I think the title of this article should be changed to Strategic bombing in Europe during World War II or something similar. I think we have too many articles about similar subjects, e.g.
Et cetera. Grant65 (Talk) 16:26, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Agree entirely. Happy to join in edits/merges etc. The Land 09:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
No this article should not be renamed. The article needs to be expanded to include the Far East. At the moment it only touches on the subject of strategic boming in a very general way. There is a difference between "aerial bombing" and "stratigic bombing" because arial bombing include tactical bombing (bombing in support of land and sea forces) as well as stratigic bombing. Philip Baird Shearer 11:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I would agree though that "Aerial bombing during World War II" should have links put into it when referring to Strategic bombing.along the lines of "Main article see [Strategic bombing during World War II]". There is also a sections in Bombing of Tokyo in World War II which should be copied (moved?) into this article. Philip Baird Shearer 11:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- Phillip, if the above articles deal with "tactical bombing", I would like to know how. It seems to me that they deal purely with strategic bombing. And if this article is to deal with Asia, then it needs section stubs added. But I think my suggestion is a better solution. Grant65 (Talk) 11:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I am not against radical surgery on the articles. But I think that an article on tactical bombing and strategic bombing are needed and I think on those two issues there is more than enough material for WWII specific articles. I am not convinced thought that there should be separate articles on strategic bombing for Europe and Asia in WWII.Philip Baird Shearer
Agree with Grant65. Tactical air power is not currently covered in these articles and we have 4 articles on essentially common ground, but with different (and valid) content. It is certainly important that tactical air power is included... wll jsut have a look and see where it might be The Land 13:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
answerign my own question. Redards, The Land 13:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- Also:
- Carpet bombing which should defiantly be merged with area bombardment which ought to be renamed area bombardment (air) to distinguish it from area bombardment (artillery) which the Russians still practice as seen in the First Chechen War. Philip Baird Shearer 14:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Quite right. Plenty to do. (BTW am now making the NPOV change I mentioned earlier)
The Land 14:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC) By the way, the article fails to pay off the reference in the lead to strategic bombing by Japan.
--Jerzy•t 17:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The first bombs that fell on Germany during World War II
The statement should be put in the right place. Xx236 07:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] November 1940 to February 1941 fourteen attacks
- The first air raids on London were mainly aimed at the Port of London in the East End of London. From November 1940 to February 1941 fourteen attacks were mounted on ports, nine on industrial targets located further inland and eight on London. In Febrauary 1941, Grand Admiral Erich Raeder persuaded Hitler to switch the focus of the bombing campaign to attacking British ports in support of the Kriegsmarine's Battle of the Atlantic. One last major attack on London happened on 10 May, where many important buildings were destroyed or damaged.
I would like this deleted pragraph in the article, but what is the source for these facts? --Philip Baird Shearer 19:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
You like this paragraph in the article??? Why would you do that? Ths section simply shows that German bombing was mainly focussed on industrial area and does not match the mood of this pro-british biased article, saying 1. "but there is no room to doubt that destroying the will of ordinary people to fight was a major factor, perhaps the major factor" 2. "In Germany, morale collapsed in the face of the bombing campaign" That aside, why are you obstinately refusing to give any casualties? (Coerrect answer: Because the German death toll, 10 to 14 times as high as the British, could give the impression that British bombing was not focussed on military and industrial targets only.)--Number 17 19:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- If you have a source for the paragraph what is it please? The total British was around 60,000 not 40,000. The article does not include the dead from after the initial Blitz like the Small Blitz and the strategic missile attacks (V-1 and V-2), nor for that matter does it yet include a section on the important development of such stratigic missile attacks. It is better not to include any figure than to include the wrong figures. So any figures quoted should be sourced.
- German Deaths by Air Bombardment
- 600,000 about 80,000 were children in Hamburg, Juli 1943 in Der Spiegel © SPIEGEL ONLINE 2003 (in German)
- Twentieth Century Atlas - Death Tolls lists the following totals and sources:
- more than 305,000 (1945 Strategic Bombing Survey);
- 400,000 Hammond Atlas of the 20th Century (1996)
- 410,000 R. J. Rummel, 100% democidal;
- 499,750 Michael Clodfelter Warfare and Armed Conflict: A Statistical Reference to Casualty and Other Figures, 1618-1991;
- 593,000 John Keegan The Second World War (1989);
- 593,000 J. A. S. Grenville citing "official Germany" in A History of the World in the Twentieth Century (1994)
- 600,000 Paul Johnson Modern Times (1983)
- German Deaths by Air Bombardment
- It is not clear if these figures are for Germany or the Third Reich (as there were about 24,000 victims in Austria[1])
- United Kingdom http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2stats.htm
- Keegan: 60,000 (bombing)
- Urlanis: 60,000
- HarperCollins: 60,595
- Ellis: 60,600
- Britannica: 92,673 (incl. 30,248 merchant mariners and 60,595 killed by bombing)
- Davies: 92,673
- Clodfelter: 92,673
- Eckhardt: 100,000
- United Kingdom http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2stats.htm
- The British kept accurate records during WWII so I think the 60,595 was the official death toal with 30,248 for the British merchant mariners (most of whom are listed on the Tower Hill Memorial). So all of these figures for the British Blitz dead are between 60-70K. As to you comment on the ratios, Bomber Harris's comment springs to mind "They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind." --Philip Baird Shearer 00:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
1. They(=Nazi leaders) sowed the wind(=accidental raid over London), and now they(=innocent women and children, whose only mistake it was to speak the same language) are going to reap the whirlwind
2. I've got this section from the Article "The Blitz"
3. Casualties: 2 Options a) We include sections "small blitz" and "missile attacks" and mention all 60,000. (preferred!) b) We don't, but say it was 40,000 so far and 60,000 in total.I can't do it, because my edits will be deleted anyway.
4. I want sources on the following claims or I'm going to spent night and day in deleting them: a)"but there is no room to doubt that destroying the will of ordinary people to fight was a major factor, perhaps the major factor" b)"In Germany, morale collapsed in the face of the bombing campaign"--Number 17 12:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Japan did not develop long-range bombers?
Who wrote this assumption? If you check the specifications of G4M Betty (Japan`s most widely used bomber) and B-17 Flying Fortress you`ll find that the former had about TWICE the range of the latter! The problem with Japanese planes was not the range, but the small bomb payload. The range was actually the Japanese aircrafts` greatest virtue.
Veljko Stevanovich 9. August 2006. 17:07 UTC+1
- So that should read "Japan did not develop long range heavy bombers of the type required to wage strategic bombing".GraemeLeggett 16:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Extent of bombings of Japan
The section on Allied bombing of Japan is nice and long and detailed, describing the development of the strategies and tactics involved in strategic bombing. However, the bombings of Osaka, Kobe, Nagoya, and Tokyo are mentioned only in passing. Though there is some detail given to the firebombing of Kobe, the same treatment is not effected for the other three cities, nor is any mention made of the tens of other cities and strategic targets that were attacked. I have added some of what I think should be here, but I would appreciate it if someone(s) would add more, and reorganize the material to incorporate my additions into the overall flow. Thank you. LordAmeth 15:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] BOMBINGS ON ITALY.
The RAF started heavy bombings on Italy on October, 24 1942: first target was Milan (150 people died). Rome was attacked for the 1st time on July 19, 1943 (3,000 persons died). In July-August the air raids became heavier and heavier. Especially Naples and Milan were heavy damaged but also Turin, Genoa, Palermo and Rome. The climax was reached on July 22, 1943 and on August 19, 1943 against Foggia: in July died 7,000 people, in August 10,000. One says that if the Kingdom of Italy wasn`t willing to surrender on September 8, 1943 the US-Air Force and the RAF were ready to destroy Rome and Turin: FULLY. Nevertheless bombings took place after the surrender, too. On April 7, 1944 died 2,150 people in Treviso, on Oct.20,1944 died more than 600 people in Milan. Tot.Italian casualties: 70,000+.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.144.148.58 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Strategic strikeout
I deleted this
- "In the rush to rearm in the late 1930s, the British had concentrated their limited resources on fighters which were seen as a defensive measure rather than bombers which were perceived as an offensive weapon."
as misleading & rewrote to reflect the correct attitude, based on Deighton et al. I rewrote this
- "knock an enemy out of the war without the need for the stalemate of trench warfare. This had been an important factor in the British adoption of appeasement of Adolf Hitler during the 1930s"
to this
- "In addition, it was widely believed there was no defense against bombers (hence the famous quote, "The bomber will always get through."). This, and the fact British bombers lacked the range and numbers to inflict a telling blow on Germany, had been important factors in the British adoption of appeasement of Adolf Hitler during the 1930s."
and this
- "with the Luftwaffe being part of the German army and so inherently directly towards short term short range tactical goals intimately tied up with ground-based military operations,
as inaccurate; Luftwaffe was never "part of the German army", & I'm astounded at the claim it was. I corrected "Dowding, head of the RAF"; he was Air Officer in Command, Fighter Commmand, an equally astonishing mistake. I rewrote
- " an invasion by ground troops which required air supremacy since this was required to negate the naval supremacy of the British Navy."
as clumsy & inaccurate. I added Macksey note; it's in Invasion or Hitler's Blunders. I added "quite by accident, since the Germans were unaware of it.", from Deighton or Allen. I deleted
- "The major part of the battle (up until about September 1940) was almost entirely tactical; the Luftwaffe aimed to prepare the way for an invasion by ground troops, which was believed to require air supremacy, as a counter to Royal Navy command of the sea.[1] Initially, the Luftwaffe concentrated their attacks on airfields and coastal shipping. By chance, Fighter Command had placed sector control stations at their airfields and so the organizational infrastructure of the defense came under heavy attack, quite by accident, since the Germans were unaware of it. This, combined with the loss of pilots, progressively disrupted the effectiveness of the British defense. (In fact, Dowding, AOiC Fighter Command, discovered after the Battle that the pilot training establishments were only operating at two-thirds capacity.)[citation needed]"
as irrelevant to the subject (it belongs in Battle of Britain, not here), & rewrote to
- "Toward the end of the Battle of Britain, a lost German bomber crew mistakenly bombed London."
I rewrote to "(most notably airborne radar, as well as deceptive beacons and jammers)." because ASV wasn't the only, or even the main, factor; see Jones' Wizard War. I deleted
- "and German industrial production grew much slower than British, American or Russian production."
It was as much a function of Hitler as BC. And more needs doing. Trekphiler 02:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bombing Effort
oops. Someone forgot to include Canada. No problem. It happens. I've added it. The US 8th Airforce is mentioned but not the US 9th which went to the UK in the fall of 1943. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brocky44 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think that the US Ninth Air Force was a tactical air force not a stratigic one, so it should not be included on this page. (other than possibly a mention in Operation Clarion, 22 February 1945 (pp.551-552))--Philip Baird Shearer 10:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I thought that between Oct. 1943 and April 1944 the 9th was doing the same as the 8th in the UK as in 1945. Where would the 9th be needed as a tactical airforce before April of 1944? My sources could be wrong. The colour chart of the bombing effort looks like it doesn’t fit if you’re only talking strategic bombing. For one thing the amount of bombs dropped does not agree with the RAF & USAAF Bomb Tonnages on Germany chart. The tonnage dropped, sorties flown and aircrew killed are not only from the strategic bombing of Germany but also tactical and against all enemy targets. I see that you removed Canada. Your reason for that is what? Brocky44 17:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please read the Ninth Air Force article it explains it, particularly the section "Pre-Invasion Buildup and Operations". Between April and September 1944 the 8th and RAF Bomber Command were taken off stratigic duties and were also involved in tactical support of the invasion.
- I Removed Candada, because during World War II the RAF could have been called the "United Nations Air Force", As I said in the edit box when I made the reversal "reverted the last edit because, all other nations, and there were many involved flew under the command of the RAF or the USAAF see for example List of Royal Air Force aircraft squadrons" --Philip Baird Shearer 18:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Categories: B-Class military history articles needing review | B-Class military aviation articles | Military aviation task force articles | B-Class British military history articles | British military history task force articles | B-Class United States military history articles | United States military history task force articles | B-Class World War II articles | World War II task force articles | B-Class military history articles
