5 ms·

Excellent video describing why losses were so high. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTC_RxWN_xo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTC_RxWN_xo

by drmpeg 8y ago

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
I think that video over emphasizes technical side of things and under-emphasizes that everyone was flying by the seat of their pants. Literally nobody on earth had experience in strategic bombing, it didn't even exist until then. The tactics had to be figured out as they went along.
- jarvist 8y ago
  Contemporary accounts suggest that it was an almost intentional ignorance. People were addicted to the idea that heavy-bombers were strategically useful in Europe (when they just flattened civilian parts of cities, all the manufacturing was hardened); and that valiant gunners were doing something useful for their comrades (when data showed that stripping out the turrets + guns + gunners, and flying higher and faster would decrease losses). Freeman Dyson complains that operational-research was intentionally nobbled in bomber-command, even after great successes had been shown in the navy + coastal command: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLBBI8Wnrfk&index=38&list=PLVV0r6CmEsFzDA6mtmKQEgWfcIu49J4nN https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLBBI8Wnrfk&index=38&list=PL...
  - ansible 8y ago
    And the technology just wasn't up to snuff either. The Norden bombsight was a technological marvel. An analog computer to figure out when to drop bombs based on speed, height, wind direction, etc. It worked fine in optimal conditions. But during wartime it wasn't that accurate in practice.
    - coredog64 8y ago
      I would argue that the primary value of the Norden was as propaganda. The Allies could pretend they were executing surgical bomb strikes rather than just indiscriminately bombing.
  - jabl 8y ago
    > and that valiant gunners were doing something useful for their comrades (when data showed that stripping out the turrets + guns + gunners, and flying higher and faster would decrease losses). For the British, in particular, the (unarmed) Mosquito bomber loss rate was one tenth of the Lancaster loss rate, needed 2 crew instead of 7, cost about 1/4'th of a Lancaster, and carried about 1/3 of the bomb load.
    - lutorm 8y ago
      What was the range of the Mosquito compared to the Lancaster?
      - jabl 8y ago
        Wikipedia claims the bomber version of the Mosquito had a range of 2400 km with 1800 kg bomb load (good enough for Berlin and back), whereas the Lancaster had a range of 4073 km with an admittedly massive bomb load of 6400 kg. So no, the Mosquito was not a replacement for all missions the Lancaster was capable of, but for many it probably would have been a better choice.
nerdponx 8y ago
Huh? This video is Secret History of Silicon Valley
- jabl 8y ago
  The first 30 mins describes the electronic warfare part of the WWII strategic bombing campaign in Western Europe. Personally, I think it explains part of it. But certainly the, in retrospect idiotic, idea that unescorted bombers armed with machine guns would be a match against fighters played a major role as well.
  - LanceH 8y ago
    What do you propose instead of the "idiotic" idea? An extended ground campaign? Sending fighters without the range along? It was a grim decision, but it was effective as they did reach their targets and perform the mission.
    - nradov 8y ago
      With the benefit of hindsight a better option would have been to build more unarmed fast bombers like the de Havilland Mosquito instead of slow, heavy bombers like the B-17 and B-24. The Mosquito could deliver more bombs at a lower cost, only risked two crew members, and was less vulnerable to fighters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito_operational_history#First_Berlin_raids https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito_operatio...
      - mandevil 8y ago
        I disagree. Mosquitoes could be very effective flown by highly skilled pilots and navigators given great latitude to use those skills effectively. But one problem with the war was that it tended to kill those highly skilled pilots and navigators faster than they could be replaced. Even in 1944, after losses had declined, most 8thAF Bomb groups had one or two really good navigators and bombardiers, and had everyone else play "follow the leader," even to the point of having entire bomb groups release their bombs simultaneously, rather than each bombardier making their own independent calculations. Obviously if the leader was shot down, then the next man up would take over, but degrading accuracy. Similarly BC used skilled Pathfinders (in Mosquitoes) to mark a target, and then let all of the rest of the unskilled drop somewhere in the target area. Without the skills to take advantage of the Mosquito, the majority of pilots would have been worse off with less defensive effect, and because it would take more planes- and therefore pilots and bombardiers- to carry the same bomb load, it would have pulled more heavily from the middle and lower levels of pilot skill to put the same bomb loads into occupied Europe.

Excellent video describing why losses were so high. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTC_RxWN_xo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTC_RxWN_xo

by drmpeg 8y ago

Excellent video describing why losses were so high. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTC_RxWN_xo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTC_RxWN_xo

dsfyu404ed 8y ago

I think that video over emphasizes technical side of things and under-emphasizes that everyone was flying by the seat of their pants. Literally nobody on earth had experience in strategic bombing, it didn't even exist until then. The tactics had to be figured out as they went along.

jarvist 8y ago
Contemporary accounts suggest that it was an almost intentional ignorance. People were addicted to the idea that heavy-bombers were strategically useful in Europe (when they just flattened civilian parts of cities, all the manufacturing was hardened); and that valiant gunners were doing something useful for their comrades (when data showed that stripping out the turrets + guns + gunners, and flying higher and faster would decrease losses). Freeman Dyson complains that operational-research was intentionally nobbled in bomber-command, even after great successes had been shown in the navy + coastal command: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLBBI8Wnrfk&index=38&list=PLVV0r6CmEsFzDA6mtmKQEgWfcIu49J4nN https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLBBI8Wnrfk&index=38&list=PL...
- ansible 8y ago
  And the technology just wasn't up to snuff either. The Norden bombsight was a technological marvel. An analog computer to figure out when to drop bombs based on speed, height, wind direction, etc. It worked fine in optimal conditions. But during wartime it wasn't that accurate in practice.
  - coredog64 8y ago
    I would argue that the primary value of the Norden was as propaganda. The Allies could pretend they were executing surgical bomb strikes rather than just indiscriminately bombing.
- jabl 8y ago
  > and that valiant gunners were doing something useful for their comrades (when data showed that stripping out the turrets + guns + gunners, and flying higher and faster would decrease losses). For the British, in particular, the (unarmed) Mosquito bomber loss rate was one tenth of the Lancaster loss rate, needed 2 crew instead of 7, cost about 1/4'th of a Lancaster, and carried about 1/3 of the bomb load.
  - lutorm 8y ago
    What was the range of the Mosquito compared to the Lancaster?
    - jabl 8y ago
      Wikipedia claims the bomber version of the Mosquito had a range of 2400 km with 1800 kg bomb load (good enough for Berlin and back), whereas the Lancaster had a range of 4073 km with an admittedly massive bomb load of 6400 kg. So no, the Mosquito was not a replacement for all missions the Lancaster was capable of, but for many it probably would have been a better choice.

nerdponx 8y ago

Huh? This video is Secret History of Silicon Valley

jabl 8y ago
The first 30 mins describes the electronic warfare part of the WWII strategic bombing campaign in Western Europe. Personally, I think it explains part of it. But certainly the, in retrospect idiotic, idea that unescorted bombers armed with machine guns would be a match against fighters played a major role as well.
- LanceH 8y ago
  What do you propose instead of the "idiotic" idea? An extended ground campaign? Sending fighters without the range along? It was a grim decision, but it was effective as they did reach their targets and perform the mission.
  - nradov 8y ago
    With the benefit of hindsight a better option would have been to build more unarmed fast bombers like the de Havilland Mosquito instead of slow, heavy bombers like the B-17 and B-24. The Mosquito could deliver more bombs at a lower cost, only risked two crew members, and was less vulnerable to fighters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito_operational_history#First_Berlin_raids https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito_operatio...
    - mandevil 8y ago
      I disagree. Mosquitoes could be very effective flown by highly skilled pilots and navigators given great latitude to use those skills effectively. But one problem with the war was that it tended to kill those highly skilled pilots and navigators faster than they could be replaced. Even in 1944, after losses had declined, most 8thAF Bomb groups had one or two really good navigators and bombardiers, and had everyone else play "follow the leader," even to the point of having entire bomb groups release their bombs simultaneously, rather than each bombardier making their own independent calculations. Obviously if the leader was shot down, then the next man up would take over, but degrading accuracy. Similarly BC used skilled Pathfinders (in Mosquitoes) to mark a target, and then let all of the rest of the unskilled drop somewhere in the target area. Without the skills to take advantage of the Mosquito, the majority of pilots would have been worse off with less defensive effect, and because it would take more planes- and therefore pilots and bombardiers- to carry the same bomb load, it would have pulled more heavily from the middle and lower levels of pilot skill to put the same bomb loads into occupied Europe.