http://www.historynet.com/shortening-the-war.htm From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher Fri, 24 May 2013 14:46:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 http://www.historynet.com/shortening-the-war.htm#comment-340941 Jacob DeWitt Wed, 22 Sep 2010 21:13:25 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13682802#comment-340941 I think the best point is that the air forces of British and American needing a great deal of trial and error to figure out how to effectively damage the German war industry. Given the horrible attrition rate of British and American crews (about equal despite the differing theories on casualties during day and night bombing) it was an uphill battle to train and develop an effective bombing force with no prior experience to draw from. The Americans were more accurate, but used weaker bombs(if you can call a 500lb bomb weak) that required so many bombers that they nullified their theory of pinpoint accuracy. The British used the proper ordinance to damage industrial machinery, but were so inaccurate that the Germans sometimes didn't know which city was the target, and also shifted more towards urban destruction. The Oil and Transportation plans probably couldn't have come around any sooner than they did. They shortened the war, but agreed, it was a combined effort of different branches. And it probably did more towards that end than reallocating those men and resources to other branches would have done. It was a new technology using a new strategy. It probably did about as well as it could have. I think the best point is that the air forces of British and American needing a great deal of trial and error to figure out how to effectively damage the German war industry. Given the horrible attrition rate of British and American crews (about equal despite the differing theories on casualties during day and night bombing) it was an uphill battle to train and develop an effective bombing force with no prior experience to draw from. The Americans were more accurate, but used weaker bombs(if you can call a 500lb bomb weak) that required so many bombers that they nullified their theory of pinpoint accuracy. The British used the proper ordinance to damage industrial machinery, but were so inaccurate that the Germans sometimes didn't know which city was the target, and also shifted more towards urban destruction. The Oil and Transportation plans probably couldn't have come around any sooner than they did. They shortened the war, but agreed, it was a combined effort of different branches. And it probably did more towards that end than reallocating those men and resources to other branches would have done. It was a new technology using a new strategy. It probably did about as well as it could have.

]]> http://www.historynet.com/shortening-the-war.htm#comment-340903 Tony Tramonte Wed, 22 Sep 2010 18:54:40 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13682802#comment-340903 I think it clearly shortened the war, held down (at least Western Allied Casualties) and helped to keep the Alliance with the USSR intact, as Stalin could see that Germany was being engaged by the Western Allied Air Forces, and that Germany had to use a lot of their critical resources on air defense. The strategic bombing and the tactical bombing made it possible for the Allied invasion of Northwestern Europe to be held off until 1944, by which time the Soviets had already pushed pushed the Germans significantly back towards Germany. I think it clearly shortened the war, held down (at least Western Allied Casualties) and helped to keep the Alliance with the USSR intact, as Stalin could see that Germany was being engaged by the Western Allied Air Forces, and that Germany had to use a lot of their critical resources on air defense. The strategic bombing and the tactical bombing made it possible for the Allied invasion of Northwestern Europe to be held off until 1944, by which time the Soviets had already pushed pushed the Germans significantly back towards Germany.

]]> http://www.historynet.com/shortening-the-war.htm#comment-339981 michael Mon, 20 Sep 2010 12:40:33 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13682802#comment-339981 The main impact would have been in secondary and even tertiary effects of the bombing. This makes accurate analysis probably impossible to gauge. I do think that the impact of American daylight bombing was much more effective in winning the war than the British bombing at night which seemed to cause more civilian casualties versus a significant impact on military capabilities. The main impact would have been in secondary and even tertiary effects of the bombing. This makes accurate analysis probably impossible to gauge. I do think that the impact of American daylight bombing was much more effective in winning the war than the British bombing at night which seemed to cause more civilian casualties versus a significant impact on military capabilities.

]]> http://www.historynet.com/shortening-the-war.htm#comment-338544 Robert Kapanjie Fri, 17 Sep 2010 02:13:19 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13682802#comment-338544 The bombing war, not only saved a million allied casualities it also spared Germany the horror of atomic bomb attacks. The scientists at Los Alamos were racing to develop the bomb feeling they were in desperate competition with the Reich's A bomb development. If Germany had not surrendered when they did, their viability in August 1945 would have merited the A-bomb holocaust, not Japan, whom Allied military felt represented a greater threat. The bombing war, not only saved a million allied casualities it also spared Germany the horror of atomic bomb attacks. The scientists at Los Alamos were racing to develop the bomb feeling they were in desperate competition with the Reich's A bomb development. If Germany had not surrendered when they did, their viability in August 1945 would have merited the A-bomb holocaust, not Japan, whom Allied military felt represented a greater threat.

]]> http://www.historynet.com/shortening-the-war.htm#comment-338343 Shortening the War » HistoryNet Thu, 16 Sep 2010 18:53:06 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13682802#comment-338343 [...] from:  Shortening the War » HistoryNet Post a [...] [...] from:  Shortening the War » HistoryNet Post a [...]

]]>