More strategic bombing of Germany during World War II

The US had an experimental aircraft program in the late thirties. They basically told the aircraft companies to just build the best aircraft they could, with no, repeat, no, guidelines. We got stuff like the ascender out of that program, so you can see that they meant it.
Now if DeHavilland had gone to the Americans instead of the British, then their design would have been accepted in October of 1938 instead of March of 1940 after it had already been turned down once by the British government in 1938. Since it was the best bomber of WWII in terms of bomb load, survival, construction cost, gas consumption, crew needed, etc, the air war over Germany would have been considerably different. As in four times as many bombs dropped in the course of the war.
Think of the Mosquito as the war winning wooden wonder of world war two!
 
Yeah, a wonder of needless mass murder of Germans. I don't think Germany could be bombed into submission; if it were possible, they would've done it in OTL. The German cities were already bombed for more than was neccessary, and that didn't help the Allied victory in any way.

(Not that they didn't deserve it though. Bastards got what they deserved, after what they did to Rotterdam and Stalingrad and other cities)
 
Strategic bombing of Nazi Germany

As it was it failed to bring about an immediate surrender and arguably was merely stiffened the resolve to fight on. More selective bombing to knock out dockyards, shipbuilding, aircraft factories, railways and other econopmic targets would have had a better effect but had some of the resources been directed against U-boats the wear might have ended earlier. The official naval historian Stephen Roskill estimates that more resources to coastal command could have taken 6 months off the war.

Initially it was the only means of retaliation but but it went over the top. It prevented the Luftwaffe from being tried at Nurenburg whereas the U boats were put on trial although they largely went for economic targets. By the time of Dresden it was halted only Bomber Harris wanted to carry on. Although it cannot be equated morally with the cold blooded extermination policies of the SS it does cast a stain on the allies. It should however be remembered that they had started it at Guernica, Warswaw and Rotterdam and with the Zeppelin raids in the First World War and less publicised Hipper's Battlecruisers killed civilians when the shelled the Easdt Coat Towns in 1914, they didn't restrict their bombardment to harbours.

All I will say is thankfully we didn't, what occured in hindsight was bad enough
 
As it was it failed to bring about an immediate surrender and arguably was merely stiffened the resolve to fight on. More selective bombing to knock out dockyards, shipbuilding, aircraft factories, railways and other econopmic targets would have had a better effect but had some of the resources been directed against U-boats the wear might have ended earlier. The official naval historian Stephen Roskill estimates that more resources to coastal command could have taken 6 months off the war.

The way I understood it, the strategic bombing campaign contributed a great deal to winning the war, tying up a huge proportion of German industrial capacity in air defence production and helping the war on the Eastern Front a great deal.

More naval resources might have ended the Battle of the Atlantic earlier, but surely wouldn't have finished off Germany much quicker - only an invasion could do that.
 
Hipper's Battlecruisers killed civilians when the shelled the Easdt Coat Towns in 1914, they didn't restrict their bombardment to harbours.
Interesting.

I always assumed that the Scarborough Raid of 16 December 1914 was the most controversial attack as said harbour was not being defended by gun batteries, despite German assumptions to the contrary.

There is also the problem that even a defended harbour should only be attacked after the locals had been given a chance to destroy it themselves ... but one might argue that this German disregard of Hague 1907 has to be seen in the light of prior systematic violations of the laws of warfare by the RN (e.g. attacks in neutral waters, loose starvation blockade).

Live and learn. ;) Any sources?
 
Last edited:
The Germans were an organized community that didn't run around like helpless chickens when they were bombed. Heck, if in 1940 the British could stand it, why couldn't the Germans?

But a mass bombing campaign bigger than OTL would seriously damage the morale of the Germans. Unlike some people, they like to suffer silently, but it will take a toll, especially mass firebombings.

To quote Goebbel's (Het Dagboek van Yoseph Goebbels) diary :
7 March 1943
Last night there was a massive bombardment in Essen. Krupp's factory damaged. If the British continue bombing this way, it would put us in serious danger. The morale of the people will suffer, when they know they can't do anything about it. Our Flak isn't enough. Our fighters make success, but there are too many of them.

The Industrial effect would be less, though. The Germans spread their industry, minimalizing the damage, unlike the Japanese.
 

Markus

Banned
The way I understood it, the strategic bombing campaign contributed a great deal to winning the war, tying up a huge proportion of German industrial capacity in air defence production and helping the war on the Eastern Front a great deal.

Just like it tied up a huge proportion of British industrial capacity and 1st rate manpower!

Furthermore the number of heavy bombers Costal Command needed to secure the SLOCs was minimal compared to the demands of bomber Command. And last but not least let´s not forget the one thing you need to fight a battle are secure lines of communication. So: subs first, cities second.
 
Personally I think that an increase in massed strategic bombing over Germany would not have had any significant impact - except possibly in the post-war years where this sort of action would be seen to be even more reprehensible & morally dubious than it was in OTL.

Also, I happen to think that the mass slaughter of civilians in persuit of the war aim of 'breaking their morale eventually' comes pretty close to a war crime in my book.
 

Markus

Banned
Personally I think that an increase in massed strategic bombing over Germany would not have had any significant impact - except possibly in the post-war years where this sort of action would be seen to be even more reprehensible & morally dubious than it was in OTL.

By the way, did some mention you need long range fighters to do it in the first place? Night bombing wasn´t that accurate and casualty rates were very high well into 1944.
 
Just like it tied up a huge proportion of British industrial capacity and 1st rate manpower!

Furthermore the number of heavy bombers Costal Command needed to secure the SLOCs was minimal compared to the demands of bomber Command. And last but not least let´s not forget the one thing you need to fight a battle are secure lines of communication. So: subs first, cities second.

But the British capacity couldn't have been used for all that much. Do you really think we could have invaded mainland Europe without the Americans? If not, then surely the best thing is to use our capacity to tie down as much German production as possible, thereby weakening them on the fronts in which they are actually in combat.
 
Top