Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

No Allied Bombing

Discussion in 'What If - European Theater - Western Front & Atlan' started by Martin Bull, Jul 28, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Martin Bull

    Martin Bull Acting Wg. Cdr

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,478
    Likes Received:
    1,385
    Location:
    London, England.
    Good thought, Crazy, but I'm not so sure...

    Virtually all Bomber Crew in the RAF were 'washed-out' fighter pilots. No offence ! I mean, if you read memoirs, etc everyone wanted to be a 'brylcreem boy' but the attributes and mentality of fighter and bomber crew were very different. So I guess we'd have had loads of not very effective fighter pilots.

    True, aircraft production would have been switched to fighters but would that have been much use....? After all, 'sweeps' over occupied France were a waste of effort and manpower as it was. I suppose groundcrew would have gone into the army but that wouldn't have made that much difference to offensive capability.
     
  2. CrazyD

    CrazyD Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2002
    Messages:
    1,370
    Likes Received:
    30
    Good point, Friedrich, on the thread- I'll go bump one maybe!
    Especially since I disagree- the germans were very talented strategically... and yet they lost the war. I would definetely say that manpower and resources win wars. Gasoline, food, ammunition, spare parts- those are some things that win wars.

    Good point also from Martin. In addition, I would think that the german FlaK troops were a bit more well-trained than the bomber crews. FlaK troops I believe were organized into battalions, so the germans would have more manpower that would essentailly be ready to fight... good point.
    I'd still maintain that the outcome of the war would change very little... I actually just helped work on a piece about the 8th air force for a high school textbook I'm working on. My research for this, although pretty basic, did seem to turn up very mixed reviews of the bomber offensive. Some sources pointed to the bombing winning the war, while others claimed the offensive to be so useless that bombs generally didn't even hit anything. I'd think the truth would come in between... the bombing offensive helped the allied effort, but it was not a decisive theater (operation?)
     
  3. Friedrich

    Friedrich Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,548
    Likes Received:
    48
    The resources take part in that thing we call strategy, crazy. But even so, if 1942 would have started with Moscow in German hands and a thick front line, without a Western front then the remains of the USSR could not have launched decisive counter attacks until, let's say, mid 1943 and even then it would have been enormously difficult to fight the Wehrmacht with full resources of all over Europe.
     
  4. CrazyD

    CrazyD Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2002
    Messages:
    1,370
    Likes Received:
    30
    So I guess we would NOT forget about the manpower and resources, hmm?
    I clearly understand what strategy is, Friedrich. Resources must be considered as part of strategy, and in germany's war with Russia resources were the most important aspect. Resources which germany did not have and could not produce.
     
  5. Friedrich

    Friedrich Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,548
    Likes Received:
    48
    Damned, I am playing stupid here...

    Let's say that the resources, natural, men and technological count a little in this case. What counts is the strategic position, the morale and that WITHOUT a Western front, all the German resources could be used against the USSR. And I don't think the Soviets could have fought it easily.

    The man power here doesn't count, because there are a lot of victoriuos Germans, more supplies and an strategic position, beside a high morale. The Russians would not have been organised properly, their morale was awful and their losses were horrendous. They could not counter attack, but they could hold a German attack on spring 1942.
     
  6. dasreich

    dasreich Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    1
    Crazy, if Moscow was in German hands in 1942, then the Soviet command center is gone. The Russians would still have had control over resources, however they would have lost a lot of morale and a significant part of their leadership. I dont think the Soviets could have mounted any sort of offensive in that state, leaving Germany the opportunity she needs to finish the war.
     
  7. Friedrich

    Friedrich Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,548
    Likes Received:
    48
    That's my point! :D
     
  8. Audie Murphy

    Audie Murphy recruit

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    no bombing and no russian front we would be speaking deutche
    with no bombing the war would have lasted longer but the same result
     
  9. dasreich

    dasreich Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ich liebe Deutsch sprechen! :D

    Oh, and welcome to the forum Audie. Enjoy yourself!

    [ 31 July 2002, 12:37 AM: Message edited by: dasreich ]
     
  10. CrazyD

    CrazyD Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2002
    Messages:
    1,370
    Likes Received:
    30
    Well, Friedrich, you didn't mention not having a Western front; original idea here was what would happen without strategic bombing; if the entire western front was removed from the picture, then the germans would have been looking at a different picture entirely, and this thread would only be about the eastern front. Were that the case, I would certainly agre with the above statement.

    And dasreich, that is a good point, but here's my issue- the russians were already demoralized! Even more, the russians had no effective command structure until late 42; Stalin's purges in the 30s and the german victories of 1941 clearly showed that the red army had no significant command and control to begin with, so what would they have lost with Moscow? If we say losing Moscow would have hurt their command structure, we have to assume that they HAD an adequate command structure. Adn barbarossa would tend to suggest otherwise...
    And after taking Moscow, the germans would have been in much the same position- forced to defend a front hundreds of kilometers long, suffer through the russian weather, and deal with masses of T-34s from the urals.
    Maybe the russians would not have been able to counter-attack immediately, but neither would the germans... even if they had taken moscow, we should remember how bad their logistic situation already was. The best troops cannot fight without food and ammo, the best tanks can't move without fuel...

    Back to the original thread, I'd say Audie (welcome!) put it perfectly- No strategic bombing, and the war ends out the same it just takes longer.

    [ 31 July 2002, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: CrazyD88 ]
     
  11. Friedrich

    Friedrich Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,548
    Likes Received:
    48
    Yes, crazy. But no strategic bombing means: NO WESTERN FRONT.

    And I told you this a hundred times. Taking and stabilizing the Moscow front means that the Soviets cannot counter attack because they have their industry bombed and their main communication centre in the enemy's hands. But it was impossible for us to push any further than Moscow.
     
  12. dasreich

    dasreich Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    1
    As I mentioned before, without strat bombing Germany could have withstood any seaborne assault. Strat bombing gave us the overwhelming superiority in machinery and logistics necessarry to invade fortress Europe. Friedrich is right when he says:
    We would have been slaughtered at Anzio (maybe even Sicily) and have been denied any viable way to hit Germany at its strong point on the coast of France. With an intact industry and rail system, Germany could have AT LEAST maintained a status quo on the eastern front and would likely have taken Moscow and denied the soviets their victory. Lets not forget, Stalin was adament about staying in Moscow, which means Stalin could likely have been killed. And I know of no soviets who could have effectively taken his place.
     
  13. Friedrich

    Friedrich Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,548
    Likes Received:
    48
    That is my point and I put it in the Moscow thread. The fall of Moscow would have meant the fall of the regime and without it, without its strenght and the cohesion it provided it would have been enormously difficult for the Sovi... Russians to coordinate a devastated country to counter attack...

    And when I mean no Western front I am talking about a defeated Monty and a starved Great Britain and a USA quietly in America. Without the air raids, Göring would have launched an aerial offensive along with Dönitz against Great Britain and we know what it meant.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page