Discussion
Germany had started ICBM warfare, this was something that caused real concern... ICBMs meant no loss of warriors the war was effectively on the brink of death by death proxy, Germany had to be broken utterly.
We had little idea that they too were unable to build as many as would win the war until after the victory.
It was not a close run thing, if they has started a year earlier, then things would have dragged on for another year or so I guess, but at the time the V2s were truly terrifying.
Bomber Command took the intelligence and acted upon it and stood the cost in men with fortitude and grim forbearance.
Our shame, a real shame, is that we failed to recognise this earlier than we have.
Not all heroes, it seems, are given their due respect.
We had little idea that they too were unable to build as many as would win the war until after the victory.
It was not a close run thing, if they has started a year earlier, then things would have dragged on for another year or so I guess, but at the time the V2s were truly terrifying.
Bomber Command took the intelligence and acted upon it and stood the cost in men with fortitude and grim forbearance.
Our shame, a real shame, is that we failed to recognise this earlier than we have.
Not all heroes, it seems, are given their due respect.
croyde said:
Dropping those bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima saved 10s or 100s of 1000s allied lives. Imagine the carnage once the US troops were fighting on the Japanese home islands.
Every inch would have been fought over at a bloody cost far higher than than the casualties of those 2 cities, horrific as they were.
Exactly. The aim was to bring the war to an end as quickly as possible, by any means possible, and so save many thousands more Allied lives. If you had a new wonder weapon you didn't waste time moralising and debating it on Question Time, you used it asap. Enemy lives were not really on the table; an Allied life was far more important than an enemy life. Harsh by modern fluffy 'aww' standards and incomprehensible to some, but that's the way it was.Every inch would have been fought over at a bloody cost far higher than than the casualties of those 2 cities, horrific as they were.
They'd hoped to finish the war in 1944 but Arnhem, the Westwall and the Ardennes offensive scuppered that.
Simpo Two said:
Exactly. The aim was to bring the war to an end as quickly as possible, by any means possible, and so save many thousands more Allied lives. If you had a new wonder weapon you didn't waste time moralising and debating it on Question Time, you used it asap. Enemy lives were not really on the table; an Allied life was far more important than an enemy life. Harsh by modern fluffy 'aww' standards and incomprehensible to some, but that's the way it was.
They'd hoped to finish the war in 1944 but Arnhem, the Westwall and the Ardennes offensive scuppered that.
Dropping the atomic bombs probably saved more Japanese lives than it did Allied even accounting for those killed in the attacks, if you judge by how previous operations had happened.They'd hoped to finish the war in 1944 but Arnhem, the Westwall and the Ardennes offensive scuppered that.
Simpo Two said:
Exactly. The aim was to bring the war to an end as quickly as possible, by any means possible, and so save many thousands more Allied lives.
The point is area bombing from around 43 onwards wasn't the best way in terms of aircrew and effectiveness. The raf were capable of accurate precision bombing, there was no need for the 1000 bomber raids unless you were expressly targeting civilians.vonuber said:
The point is area bombing from around 43 onwards wasn't the best way in terms of aircrew and effectiveness. The raf were capable of accurate precision bombing, there was no need for the 1000 bomber raids unless you were expressly targeting civilians.
The traget wasn't so much the civilians per se, it was the enemies will to fightMartG said:
The traget wasn't so much the civilians per se, it was the enemies will to fight
Yes, they called it 'de-housing' I think. You would have to be incredibly naive to think that the de-housing strategy was not the deliberate targeting of civilians.My point is, by the way, that this was not the best way to prosecute the war; and probably led to more Allied lives lost than otherwise. For example, Harris was extremely annoyed that his Lancasters had to be diverted to tactical targets before the invasion of France (where they proved how accurate and devastating they could be on pinpoint targets - bridge, railways etc - because he thought that the only way to win the war was to flatten the whole of Germany.
vonuber said:
The point is area bombing from around 43 onwards wasn't the best way in terms of aircrew and effectiveness. The raf were capable of accurate precision bombing, there was no need for the 1000 bomber raids unless you were expressly targeting civilians.
Were they that accurate though? I understood it be certain units, the pathfinders etc but the method did not have pin point accuracy as we might think. It was still a lot better than when the war started when a few miles away was counted as good. Mission creep for example.Another thing with the 1000 bomber raids, it is saying to the enemy, look at this boyo, come and have some more.
The Lancaster was the only bomber capable of carrying the very heavy individual bombs desgned by Barnes Wallis. It first flew in 1941 and entered service in mid 1942. So, it would have been impossible for any such weapons to have been carried to Germany any earlier than they were.
Don't forget that the specifications for the designs that became the RAF's three four engined heavies were set out by the Air Ministry in 1936. The fact that it took so long for the three designs to achieve practical usefullness as bombers was evidence of how difficult building and designing these very advanced and sophisticated aircarft was in the mid 1930s.
Every one of them had serious initial problems and one of them was cancelled altogether (Manchester) and one almost cancelled (the Halifax). Ironically, it was the Stirling that had the smoothest ride into service - apart from serious undercarriage problems.
The early Halifaxes had some lethal handling characteristics and the Machester totally unreliable engines.
Don't forget that the specifications for the designs that became the RAF's three four engined heavies were set out by the Air Ministry in 1936. The fact that it took so long for the three designs to achieve practical usefullness as bombers was evidence of how difficult building and designing these very advanced and sophisticated aircarft was in the mid 1930s.
Every one of them had serious initial problems and one of them was cancelled altogether (Manchester) and one almost cancelled (the Halifax). Ironically, it was the Stirling that had the smoothest ride into service - apart from serious undercarriage problems.
The early Halifaxes had some lethal handling characteristics and the Machester totally unreliable engines.
Bedazzled - what you need is a time machine so you can travel back to 1945 and impart your unbounded and superior knowledge of the situation of the Axis powers to the Allied leaders so that they can stop themselves from being the unmitigated monsters they all obviously were - especially the Brits.
It was so unfair that we unleashed such hellfire and destruction on the loveable and cuddly Germans and Japanese.
Shame on us all - maybe we should have convicted ourselves of war crimes at Nurmberg and allowed that jovial chappie Goering to run us after all - with post war reconstruction headed by Dr Speeer. After all, we could have recovered far more quickly with all that slave labour available. What a missed opportunity. Churchill was a mug.
It was so unfair that we unleashed such hellfire and destruction on the loveable and cuddly Germans and Japanese.
Shame on us all - maybe we should have convicted ourselves of war crimes at Nurmberg and allowed that jovial chappie Goering to run us after all - with post war reconstruction headed by Dr Speeer. After all, we could have recovered far more quickly with all that slave labour available. What a missed opportunity. Churchill was a mug.
Bedazzled said:
Japan was blockaded and on its knees, and by then Russia had poured a million troops into the conflict, they would not surrender easily had the war continued but I think estimates of military casualties were grossly exaggerated to justify what we did. We killed a quarter of a million helpless civilians to shorten the war by a few weeks and test a new super-weapon; the second bomb was dropped before the Japanese even had time to comprehend the devastation from the first.
As for bomber command's tactics, brave though the air-crews were, bombing civilians is not heroic by anyone's standards.
Sorry but this is getting tedious. You can sit there wringing your hands in impotent despair if you want, and saying how dreadful and awful and wrong and horrible and bad we were, and you can even send some money to the grandchildren if you want, but it's done and heppened and gone and over so please deal with it and move on.As for bomber command's tactics, brave though the air-crews were, bombing civilians is not heroic by anyone's standards.
Even my German relatives that were on the receiving end don't moan and gripe as much as some on here have 
It was war and war is terrible and it's laughable that some countries try to play by rules as if it's all a game.
Read how hard it is for the modern British infantryman in Afghanistan as his hands are tied by hand wringing liberals safe at home in London.
In "Sniper One" (This could have been Iraq) they are being mortared by a hidden enemy but can see the guy with a radio calling in the shots. They can't fire on him however as UK troops cannot attack anyone who does not appear to have a weapon.
They had to ask permission to take the guy out who was using the British rules to his advantage.
A bloody joke I say.
It was war and war is terrible and it's laughable that some countries try to play by rules as if it's all a game.
Read how hard it is for the modern British infantryman in Afghanistan as his hands are tied by hand wringing liberals safe at home in London.
In "Sniper One" (This could have been Iraq) they are being mortared by a hidden enemy but can see the guy with a radio calling in the shots. They can't fire on him however as UK troops cannot attack anyone who does not appear to have a weapon.
They had to ask permission to take the guy out who was using the British rules to his advantage.
A bloody joke I say.
Bedazzled said:
Good grief 
As to the other comments, I'm not suggesting we were the 'bad guys' I think most of what we did was necessary but we should be more circumspect about some of the things that happened; Harris' dogged determination to pursue the wrong tactics is a prime example of that and to delude ourselves that we heroically flattened Dresden because of ICBMs is just ridiculous.
Who ISN'T being circumspect?As to the other comments, I'm not suggesting we were the 'bad guys' I think most of what we did was necessary but we should be more circumspect about some of the things that happened; Harris' dogged determination to pursue the wrong tactics is a prime example of that and to delude ourselves that we heroically flattened Dresden because of ICBMs is just ridiculous.
Your arguments are as old as the Bombing Offensive itself.
Asd I said earlier, what would you have done in those dark days?
Gene Vincent said:
Germany had started ICBM warfare, this was something that caused real concern... ICBMs meant no loss of warriors the war was effectively on the brink of death by death proxy, Germany had to be broken utterly.
We had little idea that they too were unable to build as many as would win the war until after the victory.
I'm not sure this is accurate. Each V2 consumed a massive amount of resources for little effect - we knew this. They were also far from an ICBM with a ~200 mile maximum range.We had little idea that they too were unable to build as many as would win the war until after the victory.
Bedazzled said:
Good grief
As to the other comments, I'm not suggesting we were the 'bad guys' I think most of what we did was necessary but we should be more circumspect about some of the things that happened; Harris' dogged determination to pursue the wrong tactics is a prime example of that and to delude ourselves that we heroically flattened Dresden because of ICBMs is just ridiculous.
I might not be the only one to mention ICBMs but I did so perhaps this was addressed at me.As to the other comments, I'm not suggesting we were the 'bad guys' I think most of what we did was necessary but we should be more circumspect about some of the things that happened; Harris' dogged determination to pursue the wrong tactics is a prime example of that and to delude ourselves that we heroically flattened Dresden because of ICBMs is just ridiculous.
I use the term ICBMs but back then people didn't call them that, they were 'terror weapons', the effect of these weapons on the populace [who were thinking we were on our way to winning the war] was devastating, the counter-attack of the Axis seemed to be real and Hitlers announcements that these terror weapons were the saviour of Germany was truly a low point after D-Day.
It effected everyone.
It was not the sole cause of the continued bombing, the bombing was under scrutiny, my guess is that these terror weapons sealed the page on the bombing continuing.
On a slight side note I think the term 'hero' is rather overused these days. Anyone who goes to war needs bravery, but 'hero' to me means more like a VC. Above bravery.
And you'd be equally brave flying deep into Germany whatever the target was. All the crews wanted to do was get to the target on time, drop their bombs and get home safely. The bombing of Dresden wasn't 'heroic' and neither was any other target. Wihtout reading the whole thread, has anyone suggested crews were 'heroic' for bombing Dresden as opposed to any other target? It was just another target, another place to try to get to and try to get home from.
And you'd be equally brave flying deep into Germany whatever the target was. All the crews wanted to do was get to the target on time, drop their bombs and get home safely. The bombing of Dresden wasn't 'heroic' and neither was any other target. Wihtout reading the whole thread, has anyone suggested crews were 'heroic' for bombing Dresden as opposed to any other target? It was just another target, another place to try to get to and try to get home from.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff