Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
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)

Contents

[edit] Portsmouth?

Is the list at the foot of the page supposed to include all cities that suffered serious bombing? If so it should include Portsmouth, England. 68.44.187.12 (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2008 (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)

Aerial warfare
Tactical bombing
Close Air Support

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
    1. 600,000 about 80,000 were children in Hamburg, Juli 1943 in Der Spiegel © SPIEGEL ONLINE 2003 (in German)
    2. 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)
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
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+.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.144.148.58 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 23 October 2006

[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)

I have already read the 9th Air Force link here and it doesn’t explain what the 9th was doing before April 1944 in UK other than building up it’s forces, so I guess that was it. Thanks. As for Canada, I understand what you’re saying. They would have had to make their own heavy bombers and bombs and have their own bomber group, represent their own country and fly under Bomber Command like the RAF did with United Nations Air Force crew in order to meet the criteria. Brocky44 06:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I’m going to try one more time Philip. You said that “I Removed Candada, because during World War II the RAF could have been called the "United Nations Air Force” Surely you are aware that the RAF was the British Airforce which leads me to ask what does your explanation have to do with Canada? Brocky44 03:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

See List of Royal Air Force aircraft squadrons: American, Czechoslovakian, Polish, Dutch, French, Norwegian, Greek, Belgian, Yugoslavan, RCAF, RAAF, and RNZAF sauadrons. I don't know how many of those were in Bomber Command but quite a few were, and the list is missing many other nationalities like South Africans and Empire forces who flew in Bomber command RAF squadrons. For example Dominion personnel from Australia, Canada and New Zealand made up a significant proportion of the initial members of the Dambusters who took part in Operation Chastise. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


Dominion…? I know Australia had quite a few in the Dambusters and Canada accounted for 30 of the 133. Many nationalities or rather all of them flew in RAF squadrons, 25% of RAF were RCAF during the war, and were therefore flying for the British. I don’t see what you are trying to establish by pointing out the list of RAF squadrons. The RAF was not RAAF, RCAF or RNZAF. If RAAF, RCAF and RNZAF bomber squadrons were bought and paid for, or made, by their respective nations, flew to and bombed Germany in the name of their country, contained the same mixture of nationalities that made up the RAF and went through the same lengths and pains as the British to achieve the same, how can it be said that they did not conduct strategic bombing? The RCAF had 14 squadrons in its bomber group and contained mostly RCAF air and ground crew personal by the end of the war. No. 6 Group mostly joined in raids with the RAF but also went out on bombing raids over Germany alone without any other RAF squadrons attached and in total dropped one fifth the tonnage on Germany that the US 8th AF dropped. 10,000 RCAF crew died bombing Germany, not as high a number as the British had, 38,000, but a significant number in comparison. The only difference between the US and Canadian strategic bombing of Germany, other than size, is that the RCAF was under (RAF) Bomber Command, the same as the RAF. I don’t see how you think that being under a higher Command means that those under that Command should not be mentioned. If that’s the case we should go to the Wiki D-Day article and strike Canada from that history as well. Brocky44 (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

See Dominion. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
There were two independent Allied commands involved in the strategic bombing offensive over Europe and one against Japan. I think that introducing other nations into the lead is a mistake. It clutters up the lead and is not very informative. If we go that way then every country that had a man who flew on one strategic bombing mission will be able to justify their country in the lead with a "me too" argument and then we will end up with a list that contains almost every Axis and Allied nation. Far better that the credit and damnation is laid at the doors of the principle decision makers, which for the men who flew under the operational command of the RAF was the British high command. There is no reason why there should not be a paragraph (or even a section) added to this article, or the RAF Bomber Command article, that explains the composition of Bomber Command rather than all the countries that contributed to the European campaign are put in the lead sentence. There is a further complication that most of the figures for dead, tonnage dropped etc by the RAF is not broken down by nation. IMHO there is far too much of this "me too" listing of countries in Wikipedia articles, for example I have argued against the inclusion of British in the Battle of the Bulge because it distorts the articles battle boxes and introductions. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taiwan

Web searches show "the economy of Taiwan was still recovering from heavy Allied bombing during the Second World War." Therefore please mention Taiwan. Jidanni 04:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strategic Bombing over Germany

According to the book Dirty Little Secrets of WWII by James F. Dunnigan, Allied planners dismissed the bombing of Germany's power grid, believing them to be too heavily redundant and not worth the effort to attack. However (also according to the book) post-war analysis found that bombing the power supply would have have actually crippled Germany's war machine in a matter of months and brought about an early end to the conflict. Anyone want to check this out and write it into the article? Masterblooregard 03:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We should change the title

"Strategic bombing" is not NPOV. It is a military euphemism. An encyclopedia shoudl have a neutral term. "bombing of cities"? I'm not sure if that covers it "Bombing of civilians" ? 193.51.149.216 15:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No, we should not change the title. There were two types of bombing, strategic aimed at strategic targets far behind the front lines, and tactical bombing aimed as supporting ground operations with targets close to the front lines. Neither description is an euphemism for anything else. To take a clear cut example what else would you call an attacks made with Grand Slams as they were clearly not used on civilian targets or cities? --Philip Baird Shearer 16:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USAAF POV

I don't think the hidden comment made by editor Philip Baird Shearer is needed within the Conventional Bombing of Japan section. The paraphrased portions of the USAAF report point out that they shouldn't have required as great of a bombing effort to defeat Japan; that they could have used a smaller force with a different focus than firebombing of cities. The report also criticizes the bomber command's failure to coordinate their operations with the Navy's anti-shipping submarine campaign so as to choke Japan's merchant shipping earlier and more completely. Both conclusions are hardly a ringing endorsement of a separate Air Force arm. Other conclusions drawn elsewhere within the report aren't presented here in this article. Binksternet 19:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The debate over whether (conventional) bombing alone could win the war was raging before and through World War II, and continues down to today. A report by a party to the campaign with one eye on Congresses's piggy bank is not the most unbiased of sources. They were hardly likely to issue a report that said "bombing of strategic targets proved to be ineffective and morally bankrupt so we recommend that the soon to be created USAF be stripped of a strategic wing and remain a tactical adjunct of the U.S. Army". My comment is hidden because we should no put into articles OR, but a comment about this is needed to balance the USAAF's self serving assessment as it is a blatant non neutral point of view -- even though I happen to think that there is a lot of truth in what they wrote. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed your hidden comment. The section of the Bombing Survey I cited has nothing to do with pushing for a separate Air arm. In fact, the report says the bombing effort against Japan was too large and too independent! These are not the facts one would use to convince naysayers of the need for a separate Air Force. Binksternet 06:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I am putting it back. It is a report by an organisation about itself and is known to be controversial. I think in this case it is best to keep it as a hidden comment rather than an section NPOV. But if you insist on removing it I think it will be necessary to slap such a template on the section. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"Known to be controversial" by whom? The Strategic Bombing Survey page doesn't reek of such a controversy. Controversial or not, how does that affect the simple facts listed in this instance? Once again, this citation is one in which the USAAF comes to the conclusion that they were too big and too independent; proof that could be used against the USAAF's very existence. Somehow your warning of POV falls away at this point. The hidden comment tilts at windmills. Binksternet 14:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversial for the Army and Navy for a start[2]. The same controversy surrounded the setting up of the RAF, it did during WWII (see the dehousing memo, and still does (for the RAF). Should there be an independent air arm capable of its own strategic initiatives, or should air power be a primarily a tactical adjunct of the two other services. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


I do not have access to the full survey but assuming that the the SUMMARY REPORT is an accurate reflection of the report and it does not support you inferance for example see the section Hindsight
  • Upon entering the war, we were deficient not only in numbers, but in quality of many of our aircraft types. We were forced thereafter into hasty and costly modification and technical development programs to raise the performance of our aircraft to acceptable standards. These programs could have been conducted more efficiently and economically during prewar years.
  • We underestimated the ability of our air attack on Japan's home islands, coupled as it was with blockade and previous military defeats, to achieve unconditional surrender without invasion.
Also Integration of our military establishments
  • Within a department of common defense which provides unity of command and is itself oriented toward air and new weapons, the Survey believes that, in addition to the Army and the Navy, there should be an equal and coordinate position for a third establishment.
Which speaks for itself --Philip Baird Shearer 23:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Airmen lost on strategic combat missions

There was a phrase in the intro that said 100,000 airmen lost their lives. It seemed to apply to the US strategic bombing of Japan, where only 414 B-29s and US 80 fighters were lost on combat missions; a maximum of 4634 possible airmen dead. Some airmen survived the loss of their aircraft, and many B-29s went to Japan with less than 11 men on board. Binksternet 20:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

See the reference, it is a book about Bomber Harris so it is likely to be total losses or total losses in the European theatre. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Richard Overy in Bomber Command (page 204) reports 57,582 RAF Bomber Command airman deaths during WWII, some 72.7% of total casualties (79,172) within that organization. I'll try to find death totals for each country that performed offensive strategic bombing missions but the 100,000 number in the article seems at this point likely to be a worldwide total of either all Allied deaths or combined Allied plus the lesser number of Axis airman deaths over England and China. Binksternet (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the references, PBS. 100-160k Allied airmen in ETO alone is higher than I had expected. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There are other sources that cite 160,000. A Google search on [160,000 casualties strategic bombing Germany] returns a number of other reliable sources. One of which is "On the History of Man-made Destruction: Loss, Death, Memory, and ..." which is a pay per view article, but Google peek inside and quotes "A high figure of nearly 160000 total British and American losses appears in the ‘United States Strategic Bombing Survey Summary Report (European War)" And with that lead I looked in the report and found this sentence "The number of men lost in air action was 79,265 Americans and 79,281 British. [Note: All RAF statistics are preliminary or tentative.] More than 18,000 American and 22,000 British planes were lost or damaged beyond repair."[3]

The two numbers added together come to 158,546 which is probably where the figure of 160,000 comes from in the two sources I have quoted. But as the Note notes "All RAF statistics are preliminary or tentative." then if Overy is correct we should reduce the RAF figure from 79,281 --which appears to be total casualties within the RAF -- to Bomber Command airman deaths during WWII 57,582, then we end up with 79,265 and 57,582 RAF Bomber Command which is 136,847. So I guess we need to put in a range footnote this. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk)

[edit] British "deeply psychologically affected" by First World War bombs

"The British had been deeply psychologically affected by the German strategic bombing campaign of World War I. It was the first time in hundreds of years London had been successfully attacked by an enemy"

This sentence strikes me as needing amendment or removal. It stands out in what is otherwise a very concisely and carefully written article. I can see three things wrong with it:

1. I doubt it's correct. In the First World War, London suffered a few bombs dropped by Zeppelins, and North Sea coastal towns were shelled by German navy. No other part of Britain was affected so I can't see how the British as a whole were likely to have been psychologically affected, let alone 'deeply'.

2. The relevance of any psychological hurt is not explained in the article.

3. 'hundreds of years' is literally true, but a bit extravagant. London was attacked during the Civil War, three hundred years before. Why not just state that?

I suggest that this claim be referenced or deleted 219.89.16.15 23:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree on all counts. Binksternet 00:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

London was not attacked during the Civil War. The attackers got no closer than Turnham Green. If one assumes that the propaganda of the Glorious revolution is true, then the last attack by a hostile state (before WWI) that threatened London was the Dutch raid on the Medway in June 1667 during Second Anglo-Dutch War.

The sentence is not at all a "novel narrative or historical interpretation" it school text book history in the UK, and is one of the standard reasons given for British appeasement during the 1930s. The assumption was that "the Bomber will always get through" and that poison gas coupled with calculations of the number of dead from the World War I raids with high explosives that the results would be something like those not realised until the use of atomic bombs -- The best way of seeing this view in the modern world is the Cold War doctrine of MAD coupled to the psychological reaction of the Americans to the World Trade Center bombings.

Here are a Googled selection of URLs relating to this subject:

On May 23, 1917, a fleet of 21 Gothas appeared over the English coastal town of Folkestone. On the deadliest day of bombing yet, 95 people were killed, and England began to panic. At noon on June 13, another Gotha fleet dropped bombs onto London. For the next month, the daily raids on the capital city met with little opposition from the Royal Air Force, angering the population of London. Production levels within the city dropped. Citizens felt that their government was incapable of protecting them. They demanded that the military protect them and stop the bombs. They felt exposed and helpless, just as German military strategists had hoped they would.
After Hitler came to power in 1933, Britain had to decide how best to respond to the threat he posed. Britain had a very small army. The Chancellor of Exchequer, Neville Chamberlain, opposed any funding for an army to fight overseas. Chamberlain wanted funding for air power which he considered a more effective deterrent against enemy attack. In the 1930s the theory was developed, as mentioned earlier, that nothing could stop modern bombers. The increased speeds of the bombers reduced the time taken to reach the target, and because they flew higher this made it impossible to send fighters in the air in time to intercept the bomber force. If the bombers were intercepted, their heavy armament would enable them to defeat the attackers. It was a convincing argument, especially because it coincided with the need to save money because of the Great Depression, and the difficulty Governments faced in paying for mass unemployment. This was also the time of the famous 'Peace Ballot' and the Oxford Union debate on not fighting for King and Country. People in Britain felt very strongly that anything was better than another war - and the Bomber Theory suggested that the bomber might prevent another war.
Many military thinkers believed that in any major conflict of the future vast fleets of bombers, pounding the enemy's capital to rubble, would decide the issue in a matter of hours. In 1932 Stanley Baldwin, then a prominent member of the government, gloomily told the House of Commons, 'I think it is well for the man in the street to realise that there is no power on earth that can protect him from being bombed. Whatever people may tell him, the bomber will always get through. The only defence is offence, which means that you have to kill more women and children more quickly than the enemy if you want to save yourself.'
In fact, by the beginning of World War II, the RAF air staff estimates of civilian deaths reached the astronomical level of 72 per ton of bombs (W. Hays Parks, “Air War and Law of War,” The Air Force Law Review, No 32, 1990, 118. p.48). In supplying this knowingly or unknowingly vastly inflated casualty figure to His Majesty’s government, the air staff may well have encouraged those who counseled appeasement. Such seemingly authoritative numbers could only have weighed heavily on the mind of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain during the Munich crisis of 1938—a supposition confirmed by Winston Churchill when he wrote in October 1941, “Before the war we were greatly misled by the pictures they painted of the destruction that would be wrought by air raids. This is illustrated by the fact that 750,000 beds were actually provided for air raid casualties, never more than 6,000 being required. The picture of destruction was so exaggerated that it depressed the statesmen responsible for the pre-war policy and played a definite part in the desertion of Czecho-Slovakia in August 1938.”(Churchill to chief of the air staff, Sir Charles A. Portal, 7 October 1941, PRO AIR 8/258.).

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British Attack

“Despite an ever-increasing tonnage of bombs dispatched, the inaccuracy of delivery was such any bomb falling within five miles of the target was deemed a "hit" for statistical purposes”

I’ve asked for a citation for this before and would be interested in knowing where this idea of a “hit” came from. The Butt report?

“inaccuracy of delivery” might make some think of the accuracy of bombs released on an indicated target and should be changed. The low percentage of bomb hits within 5 miles of the target was the result of bomber crews being unable to find the intended target and releasing their bombs on a different aiming point. I think the article should better explain the failure rate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brocky44 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the Butt report article explains this with citations. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


I’ve read the Butt report here again and still can’t find any explanation. Also read other versions or parts of the Butt report elsewhere, probably never a full version. If no sources like the Butt report or the RAF or someone of authority is shown to have said that then the line should be removed. Brocky44 (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the sources given in the Butt report says:
As the British War Cabinet was reassessing the role of Bomber Command, it had, for the first time, compelling empirical evidence of the effectiveness of the Command’s raids. Mr David Butt made an examination of over six hundred photographs showing the accuracy of more than four thousand aircraft. He found that on average just one-third of all bombs fell within five miles of the centre of the target. But if he confined his study to the inland, industrial haze-covered Ruhr on moonless nights, then only 7 or 8 per cent fell within five miles of the target. As Butt did not include those aircraft that did not bomb because of equipment failure, enemy action, weather, or simply getting lost, the reality was that about 5 per cent of bombers setting out bombed within five miles of a target. On these figures several conclusions were obvious. To keep losses to an acceptable level, the bombers had to fly on moonless nights, but in those conditions precision bombing in Germany was impossible. Only broad areas of several square miles could be hit, and that meant cities. To be effective, the raids required hundreds of bombers to saturate the defences and to ensure that a sufficient density of bombs fell within the target area.
Although he had access to the underlying data (so he could have chosen any arbitrary distance) D. M. Butt chose to compare bombs that dropped within 5 miles of the target against those outside. So with the statistics he produced those that fell within five miles were compared with those outside, therefor I think it reasonable and not misleading to sum this up as a hit for statistical purposes. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I've just checked Longmate one of the other sources used in the But report article. To quote him "A bomb only had to be dropped within five miles of the aiming-point to count as a hit, which meant, as he pointed out, anywhere within an areas of 75 square miles, or in terms of London, though he did not make the comparison, that a bomb aimed at the Houses of Parliament would have been counted as a being on target if it had landed on Streatham Common, Hammersmith Broadway Or the East India Dock Road (Longmate, Norman; The Bombers: The RAF offensive against Germany 1939-1945; Pub. Hutchinson; 1983; ISBN 0091515807. pp. 120,121)." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bombing on Russia

The Germans had a bombing campaign in Russia during WWII. Moscow and St.Petersburg were quite heavily bombed at certain points during WWII. I think this aspect needs to be included in this article but I myself have little information on the subject. In short I am asking for someone else to do this.

Both cities were also attacked by land forces, so was it tactical bombing or strategic bombing? For example in Caen's suburbs were carpet bombed by strategic bombers but that was a tactical not a strategic raid. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] between 305,000 and 600,000 German civilians

The numbers include non-German forced workers. Xx236 (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] "Amsterdam draft international rules"

"The British government ordered the RAF to adhere strictly to the Amsterdam draft international rules " -- Could a link to additional info on this please be added to the article? Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] image usage

This article currently contains an animated gif entitled AlliedOfensiveInGermany.gif. This image is not suitable to the article as it shows tactical engagement rather than strategic and therefore is not relevant to the article. If there are no objections then i will go ahead and delete it. Deckchair (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)