6 ms·

Actually, the real solution was to build fighter escort planes that could match the bomber's range, like the P-51 Mustang, or to have bases in France or Italy t

Actually, the real solution was to build fighter escort planes that could match the bomber's range, like the P-51 Mustang, or to have bases in France or Italy that the other shorter range fighters could escort the bomber fleets out of. Once this happened, the Luftwaffe was quickly decimated and bomber casualties dwindled.

btilly 7y ago
Actually, the US and UK airforces took very different strategies. And different things worked for them. The US went during the day mostly aiming for precision bombing of targets. The UK went at night with mass bombing runs. The UK had horrible casualties until the introduction of chaff. After that they shut down the German air defense and took out Dresden. The USA had lighter casualties but didn't dare hit targets at the same range until they had better fighter escorts. Fighter escorts didn't work so well for the British because the German planes had better radar. And while we are at it, the European war was mostly won by American manufacturing and Russian soldiers. During the Cold War decades, we retold the story in ways that minimized the Soviet contribution. But more German soldiers died fighting on the Eastern front than were killed by all other countries in all other theaters of war combined.
- derefr 7y ago
  > the European war was mostly won by American manufacturing and Russian soldiers. That's one way to think about it. Another way to think about it is that WW2 was two separate campaigns: one between all the powers you normally think about, and the other just between Germany and Russia, an entirely-optional war that likely wouldn't have begun if Germany hadn't decided to start it. It's not really that Russia was aiding the Western powers in a single fight; it's more that an independent, simultaneous Russo-German conflict starved Germany of the materiel it needed for its other campaign. See also: https://nationalinterest.org/feature/what-if-hitler-never-invaded-russia-during-world-war-ii-17492 https://nationalinterest.org/feature/what-if-hitler-never-in...
  - vl 7y ago
    If Germany didn't invade then the USSR would attack first (and WW2 would be over sooner, probably with larger part of Europe under Soviet control). Both powers had attack plans, Germans executed theirs sooner. Some historians claim that Germans got ahead if Soviet attack just by few weeks.
    - jandrese 7y ago
      There's also the point that Germany absolutely needed the oil fields to keep their war machine running. I'm skeptical on the USSR executing on a plan to attack Germany only two weeks later given how disorganized they were in the face of the German attack. The Russian army isn't something you can move across the country in a couple of weeks.
      - bzbarsky 7y ago
        The argument as I've seen it presented was that a large part of the army was already moved up close to the border and in attack positions, and not set up for defensive operations. Which is why, the argument goes, there were so many soldiers to surround and cut off. I'm not endorsing the argument, note; I haven't looked into this enough to have anything resembling a useful opinion.
        gdy 7y ago
        "I haven't looked into this enough" And yet you rushed to disseminate it.
        squiggleblaz 7y ago
        You have to rush to disseminate it. If you don't, the topic drops off the front page and eventually it gets locked. Hacker News has many pros, but it doesn't exactly facilitate slow, careful and thorough discussion. (Old fashioned mailing lists might've I guess, but I'm not aware of any contemporary platforms that do.)
        7y ago
- hdjejdjd 7y ago
  And while we are at that, if the russians hadn't made a deal with the nazis to steal poland, there wouldn't have been a war to begin with and all those untold lives would be alive.
  - vl 7y ago
    If they wouldn't split Poland, then both of them would have tried to just capture it, and essentially the same end result would be achieved. Both powers were primed to go to war.
    - hdjejdjd 7y ago
      It's quite the gift to speak with someone who can see the result of historical hypotheticals.
      - jmmcd 7y ago
        Isn't that exactly what are doing in your previous comment?
      - gdy 7y ago
        The irony
  - btilly 7y ago
    If you want hypotheticals, here is what Winston Churchill had to say on the topic in a speech to the US Congress after the war was won. President Roosevelt one day asked what this War should be called. My answer was, "The Unnecessary War." If the United Stated States had taken an active part in the League of Nations, and if the League of Nations had been prepared to use concerted force, even had it only been European force, to prevent the re-armament of Germany, there was no need for further serious bloodshed. If the Allies had resisted Hitler strongly in his early stages, even up to his seizure of the Rhineland in 1936, he would have been forced to recoil, and a chance would have been given to the sane elements in German life, which were very powerful especially in the High Command, to free Germany of the maniacal Government and system into the grip of which she was falling.Do not forget that twice the German people, by a majority, voted against Hitler, but the Allies and the League of Nations acted with such feebleness and lack of clairvoyance, that each of Hitler's encroachments became a triumph for him over all moderate and restraining forces until, finally, we resigned ourselves without further protest to the vast process of German re-armament and war preparation which ended in a renewed outbreak of destructive war. Let us profit at least by this terrible lesson. In vain did I attempt to teach it before the war. In his book The Gathering Storm, he adds several more points where Hitler could have been easily stopped before he started.

btilly 7y ago

Actually, the US and UK airforces took very different strategies. And different things worked for them. The US went during the day mostly aiming for precision bombing of targets. The UK went at night with mass bombing runs. The UK had horrible casualties until the introduction of chaff. After that they shut down the German air defense and took out Dresden. The USA had lighter casualties but didn't dare hit targets at the same range until they had better fighter escorts. Fighter escorts didn't work so well for the British because the German planes had better radar. And while we are at it, the European war was mostly won by American manufacturing and Russian soldiers. During the Cold War decades, we retold the story in ways that minimized the Soviet contribution. But more German soldiers died fighting on the Eastern front than were killed by all other countries in all other theaters of war combined.

derefr 7y ago
> the European war was mostly won by American manufacturing and Russian soldiers. That's one way to think about it. Another way to think about it is that WW2 was two separate campaigns: one between all the powers you normally think about, and the other just between Germany and Russia, an entirely-optional war that likely wouldn't have begun if Germany hadn't decided to start it. It's not really that Russia was aiding the Western powers in a single fight; it's more that an independent, simultaneous Russo-German conflict starved Germany of the materiel it needed for its other campaign. See also: https://nationalinterest.org/feature/what-if-hitler-never-invaded-russia-during-world-war-ii-17492 https://nationalinterest.org/feature/what-if-hitler-never-in...
- vl 7y ago
  If Germany didn't invade then the USSR would attack first (and WW2 would be over sooner, probably with larger part of Europe under Soviet control). Both powers had attack plans, Germans executed theirs sooner. Some historians claim that Germans got ahead if Soviet attack just by few weeks.
  - jandrese 7y ago
    There's also the point that Germany absolutely needed the oil fields to keep their war machine running. I'm skeptical on the USSR executing on a plan to attack Germany only two weeks later given how disorganized they were in the face of the German attack. The Russian army isn't something you can move across the country in a couple of weeks.
    - bzbarsky 7y ago
      The argument as I've seen it presented was that a large part of the army was already moved up close to the border and in attack positions, and not set up for defensive operations. Which is why, the argument goes, there were so many soldiers to surround and cut off. I'm not endorsing the argument, note; I haven't looked into this enough to have anything resembling a useful opinion.
      - gdy 7y ago
        "I haven't looked into this enough" And yet you rushed to disseminate it.
        squiggleblaz 7y ago
        You have to rush to disseminate it. If you don't, the topic drops off the front page and eventually it gets locked. Hacker News has many pros, but it doesn't exactly facilitate slow, careful and thorough discussion. (Old fashioned mailing lists might've I guess, but I'm not aware of any contemporary platforms that do.)
        7y ago
hdjejdjd 7y ago
And while we are at that, if the russians hadn't made a deal with the nazis to steal poland, there wouldn't have been a war to begin with and all those untold lives would be alive.
- vl 7y ago
  If they wouldn't split Poland, then both of them would have tried to just capture it, and essentially the same end result would be achieved. Both powers were primed to go to war.
  - hdjejdjd 7y ago
    It's quite the gift to speak with someone who can see the result of historical hypotheticals.
    - jmmcd 7y ago
      Isn't that exactly what are doing in your previous comment?
    - gdy 7y ago
      The irony
- btilly 7y ago
  If you want hypotheticals, here is what Winston Churchill had to say on the topic in a speech to the US Congress after the war was won. President Roosevelt one day asked what this War should be called. My answer was, "The Unnecessary War." If the United Stated States had taken an active part in the League of Nations, and if the League of Nations had been prepared to use concerted force, even had it only been European force, to prevent the re-armament of Germany, there was no need for further serious bloodshed. If the Allies had resisted Hitler strongly in his early stages, even up to his seizure of the Rhineland in 1936, he would have been forced to recoil, and a chance would have been given to the sane elements in German life, which were very powerful especially in the High Command, to free Germany of the maniacal Government and system into the grip of which she was falling.Do not forget that twice the German people, by a majority, voted against Hitler, but the Allies and the League of Nations acted with such feebleness and lack of clairvoyance, that each of Hitler's encroachments became a triumph for him over all moderate and restraining forces until, finally, we resigned ourselves without further protest to the vast process of German re-armament and war preparation which ended in a renewed outbreak of destructive war. Let us profit at least by this terrible lesson. In vain did I attempt to teach it before the war. In his book The Gathering Storm, he adds several more points where Hitler could have been easily stopped before he started.