4 ms·

Indiscriminate bombardment of cities does very little to achieve any military objectives, especially when a substantial part of the country 'under siege' is act

Indiscriminate bombardment of cities does very little to achieve any military objectives, especially when a substantial part of the country 'under siege' is actually entirely untouched by enemy troops. In purely military terms, doing that would be almost the same as just having all that artillery sit around and do nothing while the Ukrainians execute major counter-offenses.

gruez 5y ago
>Indiscriminate bombardment of cities does very little to achieve any military objectives, especially when a substantial part of the country 'under siege' is actually entirely untouched by enemy troops. So all the allied bombings in ww2 were pointless?
- magicalist 5y ago
  > So all the allied bombings in ww2 were pointless? More bombs were dropped in Vietnam. Pointless was your word but to address the GP, how effective was that militarily? Stationed artillery is not an occupation.
  - melling 5y ago
    To answer his question and not provide a meaningless comparison, YES ALL THOSE BOMBINGS IN WW2 were effective. Now, if someone wants to digress into Vietnam…
    - heavenlyblue 5y ago
      > YES ALL THOSE BOMBINGS IN WW2 were effective. How exactly?
      - Timshel 5y ago
        Some strategic ones at least appear to have ben effective: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_campaign_of_World_War_II https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_campaign_of_World_War_II Not do much for area bombing (cf https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_Wor...). In both case we are talking of multiple years of bombing.
        heavenlyblue 5y ago
        So not all of them were effective, and the second link specifically mentions bombings of Dresden and Hamburg as controversial. And it’s very easy to be effective at bombing oil installations as they are not a part of the city.
  - hackeraccount 5y ago
    Vietnam probably was pointless because they couldn't bomb where all the weapons were coming from. Bombing Germany in WWII was less pointless because bombs could have an effect on German war material production - and Germany had to defend it like it did. At the end of the day North Vietnam was getting the means to fight it's war from abroad and bombing it back to the proverbial stone age wouldn't stop those weapons from coming in country.
- steve76 5y ago
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Many experts do think they were of little military value. Remember that WWII was the first time humans could attack cities far behind enemy lines. Bombers were revolutionary, but nobody knew how to use them effectively. They could destroy enemy factories and infrastucture, though unguided dumb munitions were so innacurate that you needed 500+ to destroy one building (IIRC). Modern precision guided munitions work much better, but the Russians apparently are using dumb ones, at least sometimes. But both the Nazis and possibly the Allies thought that they could break the enemy's will to fight by bombing civilians - throughout history, protected from the ravages of war until the armies reached them - into submission. That doesn't work - bombing London didn't drive Britain toward surrender, and bombing Dresden didn't cause Germany to surrender. Bombing/shelling Ukraine won't do much more, unless they just try to kill everyone in the city (unlikely, even for Putin). IIRC Air force leaders in WWII claimed that they could defeat the enemy through air power pretty much alone, and that land forces were becoming obsolete. It didn't work but they've claimed that ever since - including even for the Afghanistan invasion in 2001. As we have seen, all the airpower in the world wouldn't stop the Taliban. Bombers are especially ineffective against insurgencies: The insurgents don't present targets, especially ones that linger in the open like a tank division or a weapons factory. And even if you could target a few insurgents, that is a very expensive use of a bomber, its fuel, bombs, etc.
  - philwelch 5y ago
    > They could destroy enemy factories and infrastucture, though unguided dumb munitions were so innacurate that you needed 500+ to destroy one building (IIRC). And when you account for all of those bombs, and the bombers that carried them, and the fighter escorts for those bombers, and the ammunition for the fighters and turret gunners, and the aircraft losses to enemy fire, and the loss of manpower in air crews, and all of the logistics to maintain these bombing campaigns, you are paying very heavy costs for the damage you’re ultimately inflicting.
- philwelch 5y ago
  For the most part, yeah.
- mediumsmart 5y ago
  24 July 1943 Hamburg 30.000 died in that one night. Firebombing.
- notacoward 5y ago
  Did you not read the "indiscriminate" part? Bombing production facilities and supply lines/depots is one thing. Bombing apartment buildings and hospitals is quite another. Unfortunately, Putin has quite a record of doing the latter.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- throwoutway 5y ago
  > all the allied bombings Not all. Many of those had the explicit goal of at machine factories and industrial centers (sometimes the whole town) for airplanes, ball bearings, etc, (at least in 1943/1944) although there were carpet bombings and there were a fair share of generals in favor of the “indiscriminate” aspect
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

gruez 5y ago

>Indiscriminate bombardment of cities does very little to achieve any military objectives, especially when a substantial part of the country 'under siege' is actually entirely untouched by enemy troops. So all the allied bombings in ww2 were pointless?

magicalist 5y ago
> So all the allied bombings in ww2 were pointless? More bombs were dropped in Vietnam. Pointless was your word but to address the GP, how effective was that militarily? Stationed artillery is not an occupation.
- melling 5y ago
  To answer his question and not provide a meaningless comparison, YES ALL THOSE BOMBINGS IN WW2 were effective. Now, if someone wants to digress into Vietnam…
  - heavenlyblue 5y ago
    > YES ALL THOSE BOMBINGS IN WW2 were effective. How exactly?
    - Timshel 5y ago
      Some strategic ones at least appear to have ben effective: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_campaign_of_World_War_II https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_campaign_of_World_War_II Not do much for area bombing (cf https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_Wor...). In both case we are talking of multiple years of bombing.
      - heavenlyblue 5y ago
        So not all of them were effective, and the second link specifically mentions bombings of Dresden and Hamburg as controversial. And it’s very easy to be effective at bombing oil installations as they are not a part of the city.
- hackeraccount 5y ago
  Vietnam probably was pointless because they couldn't bomb where all the weapons were coming from. Bombing Germany in WWII was less pointless because bombs could have an effect on German war material production - and Germany had to defend it like it did. At the end of the day North Vietnam was getting the means to fight it's war from abroad and bombing it back to the proverbial stone age wouldn't stop those weapons from coming in country.
steve76 5y ago
wolverine876 5y ago
Many experts do think they were of little military value. Remember that WWII was the first time humans could attack cities far behind enemy lines. Bombers were revolutionary, but nobody knew how to use them effectively. They could destroy enemy factories and infrastucture, though unguided dumb munitions were so innacurate that you needed 500+ to destroy one building (IIRC). Modern precision guided munitions work much better, but the Russians apparently are using dumb ones, at least sometimes. But both the Nazis and possibly the Allies thought that they could break the enemy's will to fight by bombing civilians - throughout history, protected from the ravages of war until the armies reached them - into submission. That doesn't work - bombing London didn't drive Britain toward surrender, and bombing Dresden didn't cause Germany to surrender. Bombing/shelling Ukraine won't do much more, unless they just try to kill everyone in the city (unlikely, even for Putin). IIRC Air force leaders in WWII claimed that they could defeat the enemy through air power pretty much alone, and that land forces were becoming obsolete. It didn't work but they've claimed that ever since - including even for the Afghanistan invasion in 2001. As we have seen, all the airpower in the world wouldn't stop the Taliban. Bombers are especially ineffective against insurgencies: The insurgents don't present targets, especially ones that linger in the open like a tank division or a weapons factory. And even if you could target a few insurgents, that is a very expensive use of a bomber, its fuel, bombs, etc.
- philwelch 5y ago
  > They could destroy enemy factories and infrastucture, though unguided dumb munitions were so innacurate that you needed 500+ to destroy one building (IIRC). And when you account for all of those bombs, and the bombers that carried them, and the fighter escorts for those bombers, and the ammunition for the fighters and turret gunners, and the aircraft losses to enemy fire, and the loss of manpower in air crews, and all of the logistics to maintain these bombing campaigns, you are paying very heavy costs for the damage you’re ultimately inflicting.
philwelch 5y ago
For the most part, yeah.
mediumsmart 5y ago
24 July 1943 Hamburg 30.000 died in that one night. Firebombing.
notacoward 5y ago
Did you not read the "indiscriminate" part? Bombing production facilities and supply lines/depots is one thing. Bombing apartment buildings and hospitals is quite another. Unfortunately, Putin has quite a record of doing the latter.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
throwoutway 5y ago
> all the allied bombings Not all. Many of those had the explicit goal of at machine factories and industrial centers (sometimes the whole town) for airplanes, ball bearings, etc, (at least in 1943/1944) although there were carpet bombings and there were a fair share of generals in favor of the “indiscriminate” aspect

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]