Could Germany have won WWII

**Chogy** · 02 Dec 11,, 14:55

The impact of strategic bombardment of Germany and occupied Europe is very hard to quantify, given that Germany's industrial output increased YoY between 1942 and 1944. The question becomes "How much MORE would the output have increased without the bombing campaign?"

This question will never be answered. I'd suggest the obvious damage, and more importantly, the tying up of manpower, 88's and other AAA pieces, and ultimately the strangling of petroleum and transportation, made the campaign valuable.

The contribution of strategic bombardment to the defeat of Japan is undeniable. The one-two punch of Naval commerce and transport destruction and USAAF mainland bombardment, effectively cut off the Japanese tentacles and isolated them.

**astralis** · 02 Dec 11,, 16:08

chogy,

interesting you bring this up. this was recently discussed on Stirling mailing list-- the what if resources were used elsewhere argument.

----

"-- it would have made it possible to exert much more pressure on the
Germans on the ground.

But one of the reasons the British put so much effort into the bomber war
was precisely to -avoid- fighting the Germans on the ground.

In a way, the actual results in terms of hurting the Germans were
irrelevant. The political-strategic aim was satisfied as long as the bomber
offensive gave the -appearance- of doing something significant.

(Mind you, Harris and Churchill really did believe the arguments they
advanced; it's just that it was so convenient to believe them that they were
probably impervious to evidence that they were wrong, of which there was a
good deal at the time.)

Almost anything that beat the U-boats earlier would have opened out a lot
of options for Anglo-American action; this was the great bottleneck, the
"only thing that frightened me", as Churchill put it. "

----

" The Mosquito in particular had exceptional range (it could
go to East Prussia and back) and was so fast that interception was extremely
difficult for German fighters.

Mosquito speed and maneuverability was so good that modified models were
used as heavy fighters and fighter-bombers. The 2-man crew and high speed
meant that unarmed Mosquito bombers could deliver ordinance far more
cost-effectively than Lancasters or B-17's. That's why they were used for
precision attacks, like the raid on the Gestapo HQ in Copenhagen.

WWII heavy bomber design was based on an erroneous defense concept; they
kept trying to design a four-engine bomber that could -fight- interceptors.
Hence "Flying Fortress". This was inherently wrongheaded. The solution
was to design bombers that had little or no defensive armament but were so
fast that it was difficult to get an attack run at them -- and of course to
put escort fighters around them in great numbers."

**Doktor** · 02 Dec 11,, 19:57

Astralis,

There were different concepts in Allied Strategic bombardment.

Brits were ready to sacrifice as many German civilians as needed, (since the Germans didn't care about Polish and British civilians, why would they care about Germans), while the American were more cautious and paid attention to abide to FDR's appeal of 1939, until late 1944.

Unless you take German civilians as "resources", the Brits were not focused on resources only, but on revenge.

**astralis** · 02 Dec 11,, 20:10

doktor,

Unless you take German civilians as "resources", the Brits were not focused on resources only, but on revenge.

which does not necessarily disagree with Mr Stirling's statement,

In a way, the actual results in terms of hurting the Germans were irrelevant. The political-strategic aim was satisfied as long as the bomber offensive gave the -appearance- of doing something significant.

also shows the mistake of acting out of a sense of vengeance. the british DID try to make a strategic argument out of it by stating that such bombardment would "break enemy morale", but continued this process even when evidence pointed the other way.

**USSWisconsin** · 02 Dec 11,, 22:09

I agree. the flying fortress idea was a failure, the B17 only carried 8000# of bombs, something two single engine fighter bombers could do by the end of the war. The B29 wasn't all that effective in Japan until Le May took most of the guns off and dropped down to 10,000 feet. The B36 was a odd duck with all those retractable 20mm turrets - and never dropped a single bomb on an enemy, but the B52 is still with us, it has dropped more bombs than any other bomber type, having been designed with a single gun turret.

**Doktor** · 02 Dec 11,, 22:17

I guess they couldn't come up with a better idea of selfdefense bomber then the fortress at the time.

I am curious how Harris survived so long. RAF lost more crew members and pilots then bombed Germans on the ground.

**1979** · 05 Dec 11,, 08:43

Originally Posted by Doktor

I guess they couldn't come up with a better idea of selfdefense bomber then the fortress at the time.

I am curious how Harris survived so long. RAF lost more crew members and pilots then bombed Germans on the ground.

Four and half years the fighting was on the outskirts of Europe, Harris made the Germans feel it's effects on their homes... literally.

**Doktor** · 05 Dec 11,, 09:29

Originally Posted by 1979

Four and half years the fighting was on the outskirts of Europe, Harris made the Germans feel it's effects on their homes... literally.

At what costs?

**1979** · 05 Dec 11,, 11:17

isn't a airmen a soldier like any other ?

**Doktor** · 05 Dec 11,, 11:22

Originally Posted by 1979

isn't a airmen a soldier like any other ?

Americans did sorties over Germany, too, but their loses were lower.

As for your comment, a soldier in the plane is same like a soldier in the tank.

You don't send your conscripts directly to any of those without training.

**1979** · 05 Dec 11,, 11:31

They had a late start.
AFAIK in terms of personnel the losses were about the same.

**astralis** · 05 Dec 11,, 18:14

1979,

Four and half years the fighting was on the outskirts of Europe, Harris made the Germans feel it's effects on their homes... literally.

which actually solidified german morale until the very end. oops.

**1979** · 05 Dec 11,, 18:49

Being left homeless definitively has a effect on anyone morale, but I would not go as far as calling it solidification.

**zraver** · 05 Dec 11,, 20:26

Originally Posted by USSWisconsin

I agree. the flying fortress idea was a failure, the B17 only carried 8000# of bombs, something two single engine fighter bombers could do by the end of the war. The B29 wasn't all that effective in Japan until Le May took most of the guns off and dropped down to 10,000 feet. The B36 was a odd duck with all those retractable 20mm turrets - and never dropped a single bomb on an enemy, but the B52 is still with us, it has dropped more bombs than any other bomber type, having been designed with a single gun turret.

The load was as limited by the wing spars as anything. The B-17 wingers were mounted low and the spars went through the aircraft instead of being attached to the aircraft like the B-24 or the British bombers. It made the bird incredibly tough.

Also v the whole fighterbobmer thing.

A fighter bomber can't bomb and do A2A- the B-17 could.
A fighter bobmer can't carry 8,000lbs to Berlin- the B-17 could.
A fighter bomber that lost an engine was called a crash....
A fighter bomber had a harder time navigating if weather turned bad
A fighterbomber and pee break are an oxymoron....