got an essay to write for uni, title being;
Assess the effectiveness of allied Ariel strategy in the bombing of Germany during ww2?

just wondered everyone’s opinion on the matter, its a short essay, only 2000 words so not looking to go too in-depth on what can be such a huge subject,

I would advise to read the US Strategic Bombing Survey.

European war part: http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm

Pacific War part: http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm

__________________

you may just want to go to :

www.armyairforces.com

join up and post a question(s) in the Heavy bombers section. you should have several experten including bomber crew vets help you along the road

good luck !

E ~

__________________
Rip it up !

As you say tnt, can be a huge subject and indeed is. Not knowing the character of your lecturer makes it a bit hard to guess about any expected moral coloration, but probably a safe tack is run heavily with data over opinion? Being you’re in a British college, I would imagine they’re looking for British thinking before and after Harris, the results/problems of day bombing and the initial gross inaccuracy of night bombing, the philosophy of ‘Area Bombing’, the change of consideration for heavy explosives on ‘military’ targets and that loose interpretation (i.e. freedom to randomly select secondary targets – especially USAAF flights) – compared to incendiary drops on civilian targets ‘that would burn well’, and whether or not it helped shorten the war/defeat Germany. Perhaps you can ‘play safe’ by just mentioning it raised moral issues without weighing in with opinion – which might upset the lecturer?

On effectiveness, probably worth a mention is the success of attacks in Normandy and towards Paris, to destroy the German lines of communication?

Good luck.

No.9

I guess the previous messages summed it all pretty well.

Anyway, some aspects that could be discussed more in my view if possible, although the 2000 words does not leave much room really.

1. ball bearing factories at Schweinfurt

2. the synthetic oil factories

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...aug/becker.htm

__________________

Look at the time wasted bombing the ball bearing plants. Then they bombed the fighter factories. For some reason the allied planners figured that Hitlers war machine ran on ball bearings and forgot that if you bomb the refineries and storage tanks the entire effort collapses. If they had gone only after the oil supplies in early 1943 when the US started sending large groups of day bombers the whole thing would have been over by late 1944. All of the fighters would have been grounded and the U boat fleet would have been stuck in port. And no panzers to attack the army when they invaded France.

Could all be just "hot" air, but...A question none the less...
When speaking of better targets, weren't the Hydro-Electric dams in Germany (and nearby) the main source of power for many factories and cities alike?
I've heard that these were either owned (partly or in full) by foriegn investors? Who put pressure on to avoid their loss?
I've also heard that these figured prominently in the plans to re-build Europe, and were not to be demolished. Damaged maybe, but not destroyed.
I've heard that a possibility of a year, or even years off the war could have been achieved, but then decades added to re-construction?
True or false?

__________________
There's one way to find out if a man is honest-ask him. If he says "Yes", you know he's a crook. Groucho Marx

Well, don't forget the Dam Busters - two dams destroyed in May 1943 at huge loss of highly trained crews for what , in the final analysis, was a result which fell far short of the 'knock-out blow' which had been hoped for. After the attack, all dams in Germany were surrounded by highly efficient defences.

Even so, 617 Squadron were still attacking dams in September and October 1944 ( the Urft, Kembs and Sorpe Dams ). And despite attacks - in daylight - with Tallboy bombs, the Sorpe never was breached.....

Again, attacks on dams were great in theory but in practice, trying to effectively destroy such a relatively tiny target with 1940s technology was an almost impossible task.

The fact that the Eder and Mohne dams were successfully broken remains one of the greatest feats of air warfare in history - but did it bring Ruhr industry to a halt ? No.... [img]graemlins/no.gif[/img]

The 'foreign investors' theory sounds to me like another of those WWII myths....

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

Martin,

I was wondering about Barnes Wallis; I think I read that Barnes was upset because the dams were not bombed later on " the normal way" but just with the "bouncing " bombs? I suppose he could not decide on the strategy but did Barnes advice further bombings? I guess this should have been done very soon because the dams probably got very protected afterwards like you mention.

__________________

What Did the bombing of 2 dams do to the German production of tanks etc.?

There doesn't seem to be much hard evidence that any serious disruption was caused to German production. Locally, towns and factories were destroyed, railways disrupted, etc but repairs were effected very quickly.

In retrospect and with the benefit of hindsight, conventional bombing raids while the dams were under repair could have been effective. However, this theory rather ignores the problems of navigation and target-finding in mid-1943 : 617 Squadron flew on a clear night at very low level, and even then they still had real problems locating the targets - and half the Squadron was shot down or crashed. 'Carpet-bombing' by Main Force would in all probability have missed the dams anyway ; they may be big when you stand next to them but they're very small from 15,000ft - in the dark.... [img]graemlins/no.gif[/img]

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson