Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Gary Grigsby's strategic level wargame covering the entire War in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945 or beyond.

Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

User avatar
Apollo11
Posts: 25340
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Contact:

RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Post by Apollo11 »

Hi all,
ORIGINAL: el cid again

What they wanted to bomb mainly was bases, before they were in range of enemy bombers. For an example of what they had in mind, consider the (long secret) raids on the B-29 airfields by the Ki-67s - amazing raids. Handfulls of bombers (by Allied standards) would (consistently) hit the massed, armed, fueled B-29s just before launch. [We did not understand until after the war how they knew what day that would be? They watched the weather planes, and we only sent them a fixed time before a raid!] They had to stage through Iwo - which is why we took the place - and they had to fly two days (nights actually) each way! But the raids were fantastically productive.

Very interesting (and I never heard of that)!

Can you, please, give some more info on this?


Leo "Apollo11"
Image

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE
User avatar
demonterico
Posts: 288
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 5:57 am
Location: Seattle WA

RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Post by demonterico »

ORIGINAL: MightyPaladin

I've always heard that the USAAF lost more people than any other service during the war. Something like 40,000 airframes and 120,000 people.

When you say "any other service" I assume you must mean USA services, and are excluding the Russian Army.
The world has never seen a more impressive demonstration of the influence of sea power upon history. Those far distant, storm-beaten ships, upon which the Grand Army never looked, stood between it and the dominion of the world. -- Alfred Thayer Mahan
User avatar
Demosthenes
Posts: 525
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:41 pm
Location: Los Angeles CA

RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Post by Demosthenes »

The US Army lost 318,274 dead in WWII. That figure includes the USAAF.
I doubt the 120,000 dead figure for the USAAF is accurate (seems high) - though it may be.
Even so 120,000 USAAF dead is still considerably less than the remaining 200,000 US Army dead.

Demo

EDIT: Just found this..
U.S. Army Air Corps losses were about 55,000 killed and missing

So there you have it[;)]
ORIGINAL: MightyPaladin

I've always heard that the USAAF lost more people than any other service during the war. Something like 40,000 airframes and 120,000 people. Can anyone confirm or deny? I have to go to school, don't have time to look around the 'net for a good source.

Anyway, if the above is true, then very few countries could have sustained stratigic bombing.




Seems to me that alot of people on these forums assume that a different strategy by one side would not be met by a countering strategy on the other side. I wonder what kind of west coast air defense there would have been if Japan had tried some sort of mass formation stratigic bombing?


Cheers



MightyPaladin

anarchyintheuk
Posts: 3958
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 7:08 pm
Location: Dallas

RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Post by anarchyintheuk »

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,
ORIGINAL: el cid again

What they wanted to bomb mainly was bases, before they were in range of enemy bombers. For an example of what they had in mind, consider the (long secret) raids on the B-29 airfields by the Ki-67s - amazing raids. Handfulls of bombers (by Allied standards) would (consistently) hit the massed, armed, fueled B-29s just before launch. [We did not understand until after the war how they knew what day that would be? They watched the weather planes, and we only sent them a fixed time before a raid!] They had to stage through Iwo - which is why we took the place - and they had to fly two days (nights actually) each way! But the raids were fantastically productive.

Very interesting (and I never heard of that)!

Can you, please, give some more info on this?


Leo "Apollo11"

There's some information at the hyperwar site, chapter 19 on Iwo Jima.
User avatar
TulliusDetritus
Posts: 5581
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
Location: The Zone™

RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Post by TulliusDetritus »

Sardaukar, yes, indeed, the british did use the strategic bombing. And germans, japanese, etc. Attacking cities (unless you are supporting the infantry which is about to assault them) is “strategic bombing” (and a big massacre. No, I don’t think Harris was exagerating). Even if they were using planes designed only for tactical attacks (I am talking about the germans here, not the british).

But when the war started, the british (along with the germans and french) used their airpower mostly as a tactical weapon. They changed their mind later. “Retaliation” was possibly the big factor: “you [germans] bomb our cities? We bomb yours!”

The americans on the other hand made the B-17 before the war. And during the conflict they conducted the “most pure” strategic bombing: you must attack the economic and political centers of the enemy. And that’s what they did.

The british, on the other hand, were attacking the cities most of the time. You can’t miss a city. Even at night. A concrete factory, installation, that’s another story. Correct me if I am wrong though.

In fact I wanted to say that the USA was the only country which assumed the very essence of the strategic bombing: the economic and political centers are the key. So my mistake, sorry.
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Post by el cid again »

I would simply reply to you that Japan may have had plans for ANYTHING, but their ability to carry through and deliver said plans and inflict their will on the enemy was totally LACKING...otherwise Japan (in the life and death struggle she was in) would have carried through and delivered on her plans..

The official US high school version of the war:

It was never in doubt - on economic grounds alone - the Allies simply had to win. Comforting I guess. But, if you are interested in history, the truth is much more complicated. The outcome was in considerable doubt.

Key to this was the USSR. Stalin made a deal with both Germany and Japan - and he made other deals with us - none of which were ultimately honored completely - all of which were honored to a degree. To be certain what Stalin would or would not do - well that is an act of faith - but not knowledge. To be certain what the fate of the USSR must be - with both Germany and Japan plotting its end - again that is an act of faith, not knowledge. The seemingly obvious solution of a coordinated effort is not what occurred - but surely it could have. And the USSR was an empire - a place full of unhappy ruled peoples - willing to cooperate in exchange for some autonomy (willing even to fight, as the Ukranian National Army shows). IF the USSR fell, the economic situation changes, and the Allies are on the wrong end of the situation: the conclusion of Luftwaffe Over Amerika is that, with Soviet resources, Germany COULD HAVE mounted out a strategic bomber force.

There are other possibilities: Japan's late offensive in China could have run sooner. A rail connection all the way to Saigon matters - and you cannot torpedo trains! Build a tiny rail link from Saigon's western spur to Phnom Penh and you conntct to the Thai/Malay rail system - of the same gage! Then you run all the way to Singapore - Singaport to Pusan. No ships at risk. And India could have been neutralized.

Finally, you make a fundamental error if you believe no one ever makes a mistake. A capability is not always going to be used - even if it "should" be. Or the reason it was not might be different than that it would not work. We have several Japanese wmd programs, all stopped by different officials, for ostensably different reasons. Yet WE BELIEVED these were so valuable as capabilities we cut deals: for example Ichii and ALL his people went free (except those the Russians got) - in exchange for the technical stuff to give US that capability that "could not matter" in your view.

Real life is not always simple. Sometimes there are possibilities. History is not the story of what inevitably had to happen. It is the story of what did happen, even if it was unlikely at times, likely but not required at others.

The key characteristic about Japanese civilization - and you might say a weakness - something we almost always assume wrongly about - is that it is an extraordinairily divided society. It is anything but unified in purpose, on any subject, at any time. The form of government, and the drive for consensus, fools us often: the extent to which Japanese and Japanese institutions failed to cooperate and coordinate is amazing by our standards. But they remain essentially human, susceptable to the same forces that have always driven all societies - and different leadership could have provided a different set of drivers for what was acceptable conduct. Many things indeed changed in the direction of more effective institutions - but thank goodness for us too late to be decisive. The Grand Escort Command was created only mid-war, and never given enough resources. But it was CONCIEVED in the 1930s, and plans to build for it were also fully worked out - just not implemented (in favor of things like Musashi and Kii - each worth 150 escorts in terms of steel).
THIS is why Yamamoto said

"There are three great fallicies in history: the Great Wall of China, the Pyramids of Egypt, and the battleship Musashi." Clearly SOME Japanese leaders knew better that what others did.


Japan has an essential strategic advantage = position. Adm King felt he needed 2 ships to every Japanese one to be EVEN because of it. Japan had another strategic advantage it failed to fully capitalize on: hatred of colonial empires. What happened in Malaya and Indonesia might have happened many times - with better policy. And Japan finally got it right - just too late to affect anything but the Cold War. Good for us. The truth is it is harder to defeat the enemy than yourself - nations that lose usually defeat themselves. The other guys just win because of the screw ups.

el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Post by el cid again »

One other key point. Strategic Air warfare was the most expensive (in terms of cost per man involved) type of warfare any of the participants in the Second World War engaged in. Japan was a poor country with limited resources. They needed to get maximum return on their limited investment.

A better point might be that strategic air warfare does not work. See Weapons and Hope by Freeman Dyson - the statistical analyst for Bomber Command - the only person who knew all the data real time. He is caustic: "I knew how much we were failing to achieve our objectives. I knew how much the enemy was hurt less than the cost to us." [paraphrase - shortened up] Every strategic air campaign in history generated support for the bombed regime. This is not exactly bright. Germany needed 1/3 the resources to rebuild what was destroyed it cost us to destroy it. The production in target industries - Uboats and aircraft - increased through Feb 1945. Not very effective. The entire concept of high altitude bombing failed utterly against Japan, for technical reasons. We ended up using bombers entirely different than the way they were designed for.
el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Post by el cid again »

Very interesting (and I never heard of that)!

Can you, please, give some more info on this?

Get the Shiffer book

The Ki-67/Ki-109 in History

for an English discussion

probably also mentioned by Francillon in Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War (look up Ki-67 to see)
el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Post by el cid again »

Sardaukar, yes, indeed, the british did use the strategic bombing. And germans, japanese, etc. Attacking cities (unless you are supporting the infantry which is about to assault them) is “strategic bombing” (and a big massacre. No, I don’t think Harris was exagerating). Even if they were using planes designed only for tactical attacks (I am talking about the germans here, not the british).

We tried German airmen for "terror bombing" of Rotterdam (it drove the country from the war) - and convicted them as criminals. But the tribunals had no authority over allied crimes - deliberately. Still, clearly formally we CLAIM the Germans bombed cities. And Japan surely bombed Chinese cities many times.
el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Post by el cid again »

In fact I wanted to say that the USA was the only country which assumed the very essence of the strategic bombing: the economic and political centers are the key. So my mistake, sorry.

The ORIGINAL idea was the enemy civilians would demand peace (see all the advocates in all countries). Their theories had tiny numbers of bombs and bombers. The theory failed - even with bigger numbers. Only atomic bombs might make it work - and that is not clear. It was a failed theory - and only the Americans insisted on applying it in spite of its failures. Church can be like that.
Big B
Posts: 4633
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:41 pm
Location: Cali
Contact:

RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Post by Big B »

Clearly your intellect is dazzling! (You remind me of Vizzini in the movie Princess Bride...breath taking intellect!)

But El Cid - WTF does any of that below have to do with the fact that Japan couldn't/didn't build heavy bombers???!!!


ORIGINAL: el cid again
I would simply reply to you that Japan may have had plans for ANYTHING, but their ability to carry through and deliver said plans and inflict their will on the enemy was totally LACKING...otherwise Japan (in the life and death struggle she was in) would have carried through and delivered on her plans..

The official US high school version of the war:

It was never in doubt - on economic grounds alone - the Allies simply had to win. Comforting I guess. But, if you are interested in history, the truth is much more complicated. The outcome was in considerable doubt.

Key to this was the USSR. Stalin made a deal with both Germany and Japan - and he made other deals with us - none of which were ultimately honored completely - all of which were honored to a degree. To be certain what Stalin would or would not do - well that is an act of faith - but not knowledge. To be certain what the fate of the USSR must be - with both Germany and Japan plotting its end - again that is an act of faith, not knowledge. The seemingly obvious solution of a coordinated effort is not what occurred - but surely it could have. And the USSR was an empire - a place full of unhappy ruled peoples - willing to cooperate in exchange for some autonomy (willing even to fight, as the Ukranian National Army shows). IF the USSR fell, the economic situation changes, and the Allies are on the wrong end of the situation: the conclusion of Luftwaffe Over Amerika is that, with Soviet resources, Germany COULD HAVE mounted out a strategic bomber force.

There are other possibilities: Japan's late offensive in China could have run sooner. A rail connection all the way to Saigon matters - and you cannot torpedo trains! Build a tiny rail link from Saigon's western spur to Phnom Penh and you conntct to the Thai/Malay rail system - of the same gage! Then you run all the way to Singapore - Singaport to Pusan. No ships at risk. And India could have been neutralized.

Finally, you make a fundamental error if you believe no one ever makes a mistake. A capability is not always going to be used - even if it "should" be. Or the reason it was not might be different than that it would not work. We have several Japanese wmd programs, all stopped by different officials, for ostensably different reasons. Yet WE BELIEVED these were so valuable as capabilities we cut deals: for example Ichii and ALL his people went free (except those the Russians got) - in exchange for the technical stuff to give US that capability that "could not matter" in your view.

Real life is not always simple. Sometimes there are possibilities. History is not the story of what inevitably had to happen. It is the story of what did happen, even if it was unlikely at times, likely but not required at others.

The key characteristic about Japanese civilization - and you might say a weakness - something we almost always assume wrongly about - is that it is an extraordinairily divided society. It is anything but unified in purpose, on any subject, at any time. The form of government, and the drive for consensus, fools us often: the extent to which Japanese and Japanese institutions failed to cooperate and coordinate is amazing by our standards. But they remain essentially human, susceptable to the same forces that have always driven all societies - and different leadership could have provided a different set of drivers for what was acceptable conduct. Many things indeed changed in the direction of more effective institutions - but thank goodness for us too late to be decisive. The Grand Escort Command was created only mid-war, and never given enough resources. But it was CONCIEVED in the 1930s, and plans to build for it were also fully worked out - just not implemented (in favor of things like Musashi and Kii - each worth 150 escorts in terms of steel).
THIS is why Yamamoto said

"There are three great fallicies in history: the Great Wall of China, the Pyramids of Egypt, and the battleship Musashi." Clearly SOME Japanese leaders knew better that what others did.


Japan has an essential strategic advantage = position. Adm King felt he needed 2 ships to every Japanese one to be EVEN because of it. Japan had another strategic advantage it failed to fully capitalize on: hatred of colonial empires. What happened in Malaya and Indonesia might have happened many times - with better policy. And Japan finally got it right - just too late to affect anything but the Cold War. Good for us. The truth is it is harder to defeat the enemy than yourself - nations that lose usually defeat themselves. The other guys just win because of the screw ups.

MightyPaladin
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 6:40 am

RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Post by MightyPaladin »

Thanks for the info. I think my source was "casualties" which would count wounded that are unable to recover enough to fight.


The psedo-documentary that I *think* I got my info from was very USAAF-centric (we killed the japs at midway with some help from the navy)

I don't have it anymore so I can't confirm.


And yeah, I ment US military service. :-)


Anyone have stats on US casualties are split into the 4 services? (Army, not including the USAAF, USAAF, USN, USMC) I think it'd be an interesting comparison.


You guys are better researchers than some military "historians"
Mike Scholl
Posts: 6187
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Post by Mike Scholl »

ORIGINAL: el cid again
One other key point. Strategic Air warfare was the most expensive (in terms of cost per man involved) type of warfare any of the participants in the Second World War engaged in. Japan was a poor country with limited resources. They needed to get maximum return on their limited investment.

A better point might be that strategic air warfare does not work. See Weapons and Hope by Freeman Dyson - the statistical analyst for Bomber Command - the only person who knew all the data real time. He is caustic: "I knew how much we were failing to achieve our objectives. I knew how much the enemy was hurt less than the cost to us." [paraphrase - shortened up] Every strategic air campaign in history generated support for the bombed regime. This is not exactly bright. Germany needed 1/3 the resources to rebuild what was destroyed it cost us to destroy it. The production in target industries - Uboats and aircraft - increased through Feb 1945. Not very effective. The entire concept of high altitude bombing failed utterly against Japan, for technical reasons. We ended up using bombers entirely different than the way they were designed for.

A spurious argument CID. Nobody knew that in 1940. Only after the Strategic Bombing Surveys AFTER the war could anyone say for certainty that with the armaments available the true goals of Strategic Bombing could not be realized. It wasn't possible to win a war from the air by destroying the enemies means of production. Bombing with the means available wasn't that accurate.

However, it wasn't a total waste of effort. Your quote is accurate for the early British efforts at night bombing..., they were missing by 100 miles and more on occasion. But they got a lot better as airborne radar and pathfinder marking were gradually perfected. US efforts at achieving better accuracy by day suffered many problems as well, but eventually led to the winning of air superiority when escorts became available in large numbers. The Western Allies were trying to learn "on the fly" how to conduct a totally new form of warfare, and it took virtually the entire war to get to where they THOUGHT they were in 1940.

And you are right that Axis Production peaked in 1944 in spite of strategic bombing. But read Spear again. He himself says that just about the time he got the German economy organized to permit increased and rationally organized production he also had to start breaking it down and dispersing and hiding it due to the Bomber Offensives. The Axis powers never got close to the kind of production figures per man hour that the US did..., because they couldn't afford the kind of massive and effecient production plants the US could and did build. Why? Because they would have been "bomb magnets" impossible to hide or defend. Strategic bombing put an upper limit on what the Axis COULD achieve. Not the result the bombing proponants had promised..., but a significant achievement nontheless.
Big B
Posts: 4633
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:41 pm
Location: Cali
Contact:

RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Post by Big B »

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: el cid again
One other key point. Strategic Air warfare was the most expensive (in terms of cost per man involved) type of warfare any of the participants in the Second World War engaged in. Japan was a poor country with limited resources. They needed to get maximum return on their limited investment.

A better point might be that strategic air warfare does not work. See Weapons and Hope by Freeman Dyson - the statistical analyst for Bomber Command - the only person who knew all the data real time. He is caustic: "I knew how much we were failing to achieve our objectives. I knew how much the enemy was hurt less than the cost to us." [paraphrase - shortened up] Every strategic air campaign in history generated support for the bombed regime. This is not exactly bright. Germany needed 1/3 the resources to rebuild what was destroyed it cost us to destroy it. The production in target industries - Uboats and aircraft - increased through Feb 1945. Not very effective. The entire concept of high altitude bombing failed utterly against Japan, for technical reasons. We ended up using bombers entirely different than the way they were designed for.

A spurious argument CID. Nobody knew that in 1940. Only after the Strategic Bombing Surveys AFTER the war could anyone say for certainty that with the armaments available the true goals of Strategic Bombing could not be realized. It wasn't possible to win a war from the air by destroying the enemies means of production. Bombing with the means available wasn't that accurate.

However, it wasn't a total waste of effort. Your quote is accurate for the early British efforts at night bombing..., they were missing by 100 miles and more on occasion. But they got a lot better as airborne radar and pathfinder marking were gradually perfected. US efforts at achieving better accuracy by day suffered many problems as well, but eventually led to the winning of air superiority when escorts became available in large numbers. The Western Allies were trying to learn "on the fly" how to conduct a totally new form of warfare, and it took virtually the entire war to get to where they THOUGHT they were in 1940.

And you are right that Axis Production peaked in 1944 in spite of strategic bombing. But read Spear again. He himself says that just about the time he got the German economy organized to permit increased and rationally organized production he also had to start breaking it down and dispersing and hiding it due to the Bomber Offensives. The Axis powers never got close to the kind of production figures per man hour that the US did..., because they couldn't afford the kind of massive and effecient production plants the US could and did build. Why? Because they would have been "bomb magnets" impossible to hide or defend. Strategic bombing put an upper limit on what the Axis COULD achieve. Not the result the bombing proponants had promised..., but a significant achievement nontheless.

I wish to add a post script to what Mike Scholl said.
It is true that bombing civilians tends to rally the civilian population behind the govt you are trying to defeat - however that is a diminishing side effect.
It was the unrelenting horror and mass destruction of the civil infrastructure that produced a beaten and cooperative civilian populace at the wars conclusion. The absolute destruction wrought upon Japan and Germany left their civil populations in no mood for continued hostilities, nor did the idea escape them that they had been utterly defeated - unlike the First World War. In short, it (the bombing campaign) very much produced a finality to the war that allowed peace to proceed and victory to become complete (albeit at horrific cost in human terms).

The very lack of this kind of onslaught is what gave the Vietnamese (for example) the fortitude and confidence to continue their struggle.

B
Ideologue
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:33 am

RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Post by Ideologue »

Paladin, you may be thinking about the RAF Bomber Command death rates, which iirc were higher--*by percentage*--than any single arm (i.e., armor, fighters, subs) in that country's armed forces. 55,564 dead men, 51% of the 110,000 Bomber Command aircrew.

USAAF was also very high in percentage of casualties, as was the Luftwaffe's.
User avatar
esteban
Posts: 618
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 2:47 am

RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Post by esteban »

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

One other key point. Strategic Air warfare was the most expensive (in terms of cost per man involved) type of warfare any of the participants in the Second World War engaged in. Japan was a poor country with limited resources. They needed to get maximum return on their limited investment.

Strategic bombing was extremely expensive in fuel.

For example, after VE Day, the British were going to transfer 20 squadrons of heavy bombers (Lancasters I guess) to join the American bomber offensive. Despite the fact that these bombers were not heavily employed in 1945 (not many German targets left by the time the winter weather broke) and that Britain had been fighting the Japanese for 3 and 1/2 years and had built up lots of infrastructure in India, had the resources of the Aussies to help draw on, and were given bases in Okinawa by the Americans, it would have been February, 1946 before the first TWO squadrons of Lancasters would be in Okinawa and operational.

User avatar
Charles2222
Posts: 3687
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 10:00 am

RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Post by Charles2222 »


In short, it (the bombing campaign) very much produced a finality to the war that allowed peace to proceed and victory to become complete (albeit at horrific cost in human terms).

The very lack of this kind of onslaught is what gave the Vietnamese (for example) the fortitude and confidence to continue their struggle.

I don't know, I'm not sure of the source, but I would think that you had heard it too, and that is that Vietnam suffered from the USAF as much bombs dropped as the entireity of all the bombing of all nations from WWII. That may be an exaggeration, but surely Vietnam wasn't spared great bombings; although it could probably be said that most of it was tactical bombing instead.

Other than the USAF air offensives, in my mind it was more a matter of the US forces giving up than of the NVietnamese having confidence to struggle. Vietnam is a whole other ballgame anyway, when you consider that they were entirely dependant on affecting US domestic reactions to survive/win. Japan was into surviving for that reason too, only they had another opponent that didn't care too much how many troops they lost; the USSR. Add to that, that the NVietnamese had that very nation backing them (no matter to what degree it was indirect), that didn't care too much about how many was lost.
Ursa MAior
Posts: 1414
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:10 am
Location: Hungary, EU

RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Post by Ursa MAior »

Although I dont really like Russians, you all seem to forget, that without the steamroller from the east the bombing would have been nothing more than another aspect of WWII.

Strat bombing DID NOT achieve anything MEANINGFUL in the war effort except untold suffering for the civilians, but you are right it was unveiled only after the war. As of productivity nazi ideology said women must stay with the three Ks (does that sound familiar?). Küche, Kirche, Kinder. Church, Kitchen, Kids. So they employed forced, and slave labour. You all can imagine the results.

It was NOT the bombing that brought the nazis to their knees but the land forces. The huge losses of men and territory in the east, and then the much feared two front war.

On Vietnam something like the quadruple of all WWII's bombs was dropped without any REAL success, also in the terms of war efforts. It also has to be said that the vietnamese did not have to produce themselves the equipment they were fighting with (it was supplied by the russian and the chinese), but their will to fight was not broken by the strat bombingg or the unproportionally high losses.

Image
Art by the amazing Dixie
User avatar
treespider
Posts: 5781
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:34 am
Location: Edgewater, MD

RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Post by treespider »

Strat bombing DID NOT achieve anything MEANINGFUL in the war effort except untold suffering for the civilians, but you are right it was unveiled only after the war.

I may be ignorant of this but wasn't the strategic bombing of Germany's oil refining industry in 1944 partly responsible for the collapse of the Luftwaffe and the fuel shortages at the end of the war?
Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910
Speedysteve
Posts: 15975
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Reading, England

RE: Why did the Japanese never build any decent heavies?

Post by Speedysteve »

Hi,

Yes SB of Oil and the 'Transportation Plan' were the most effective strands of the 8/15th AF bombing.

Bombing of the Aircraft and Armaments Industry did not curtail Axis production greatly if at all for example.

I think it's fair to say that the strategic bombing of Nazi Europe did NOT win the war on it's own but did contribute in the war's end by reducing the production (in it's broadest sense) of certain industries. Coupled with this was the HUGE effort applied by the LW and the deployment of AA assets to counter this aerial assault.

Steven
WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester
Post Reply

Return to “War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945”