Yes, I acknowledge that my views of him were rather harsh, given the time frame which he was in when electronic warfare was pretty much in its infancy.
However, I remember reading at least one book, years ago, on Bomber Command operations in which he and his staff were similarly harshly criticized by the author for their shortsightedness,
two of which were the Monica and Schrage Muzik
aspects.
Window, while innovative, was a disaster during
Nuremberg. I think H2S, for the blurry radar images it provided, carried an unacceptable weight and drag penalty. Former RAF servicemen whom I talked to at the Defence Services Asia event in Kuala Lumpur some years ago also mentioned that H2S didnât serve much usefulness.
How? It is never anything but a handicap to the defender, and the Luftwaffe were too week to use it effectively over the UK
It wasnât fantastic, but given the alternatives was incredibly useful. It changed Bomber Command from a clear weather/moonlit only force to an all weather/dark night force far more capable of hitting the right country. When combined with Pathfinders it was very, very effective when compared to what went before. Do NOT make the mistake of thinking every bomber carried it - only a few did, and they rarely carried a proper bomb load. Flares and target indicators were the usual load.
No, it wasnât - go away and read the Hague convention again. Bombardment of a town is legitimate if the enemy occupy it, are defending it from your land forces and have not declared it an open city. The bombarding power are however obliged to try to miss churches, hospitals and the like - which should be clearly marked by the defender.
International law changed a great deal immediately after WW2 - you are applying modern standards of law to events before they existed.
it wasnât a breach of the hague convention to bomb cities.
If it was, then the Germans breached prior to the bombing of German cities.
Even the dam busting raids didnot breach any regulations (except those brought in after the war).
Over concern and pity tend to be directed at the German cities because of the destruction involved. It is worth pointing out that the Germans were the first to target cities in this way⌠the deliberate targeting and firebombing of residential areas.
Sorry to interrupt you guys but let me add a bit.
The reason of the uneffective Bombing of Britain in 1940-41 was the rought paritet of air forces - the RAF had not a less power then the Luftwaffe.Plus RAF had the advantage - the close airfieldsand friendly AAA-artillery.
in the end of the war the germans had a lack of everything - the total aircraft of the Union air-defense system was in the best times no more then the 350-400 aircrafts( in mid of 1943) .
in 1945 it was no more 250. At the same time allies could reach the Absolute supriority ( the strategic armades consists of 600-1000 of bombers plus 200-350 escort fighter) . the germans had no any ability for the defence, simply coz they had no enought fighters atthat time.
As it was proved in Korea in 1951-53 even the relatively small groups of speed fighter ( about 40-60) were able to naitralized the group of allies strategic bombers B-29 with the escort fighters( 80-100 aircrafts).
For instance the flight of Mig-15 without any special optics and super-radar was able to shot down 10-15% of the bombers- too much for the days bombing raids.
Germans who already in the end of 1944 had the fighter that could fly with speed 800-840 km/h ( more then the allies could even dreamed with Meteor;))
they had a real chance to change the situation in tha sky- but the ability of german industry and lack of everething did not let them to do it.
Even if they was able to produse the 1000 of fighter per lasts month - the lack of fuel and experienced pilots do not let them to use it in full power.
Which it never was with Bomber Command, at least not officially. It was merely a terrible accident that all these civilians lived next door to the factory they worked in, and the RAF was anyway lucky to hit the right country early on in the war.
Itâs worth pointing out at this point that the Germans did explicitly bombard cities with the intent of killing civilians - Belgrade being perhaps the most obvious and well documented (by the Germans) example.
In any case, Iâd still like to see any evidence that bombardment of cities with the intent of killing the civilian population was illegal at the time. Prior to WW2 there were so far as Iâm aware no laws against it (despite it being held since antiquity as morally unjustifiable), and indeed many theorists thought of it as the most humane way to wage war.
The only one you can argue on is the âlaws and customs of warâ, as it is a long-established custom that noncombatants may not be explicitly targeted. That is still more custom than law however - and bombardment has by itâs very nature always been considered largely random.
Why yes, yes it is. But thatâs my opinion. Take it or leave it my friendâŚ
I donât think so firstly coz we know for sure that American property in Germany were not bombed- thus the allies BOMBED it SELECTIVELY. Was it luaghtable assertion on you mind;)
No. We donât âknowâ this at all. I believe the internet speculations you refer too involve deliberately missing some Ford factory or something. Well, I think this can be refuted since it is quite clear by the RISE in levels of German manufacturing in 1944 that Allied strategic bombing was largely nullified by Speers dispersion of the Reichâs weaponsâ industries. They were missing a lot of factories because they were too spread out to sufficiently target and commit aircraft tooâŚ
So, you could say that a lot of GERMAN property was âmissedâ as well, including Krupp, Mercedes, and Opel factories that were also not hit by bombing raidsâŚ
Second - the Marshal plan was MAINLY aimed for the USA profit - to get the Europe credits for bying the American goods.
This fact helped the USA economy get rich and avoid the post-war economic crisys.
Shortly speaking ,they spreaded it economical influence over the western Europe.
True, the Marshal credits helped the Europe for the first time- but IT WAS NOT INVESTITIONS- it was not aimed for the restruction and restore of European industrial power.
Oh, those dastardly Americans! Helping to rebuild European industries just so we could selfishly trade goods and services with them. The poor children of Europe. Who will save them from a boundless variety of consumer goods?
I 've read in one of the book ( westerr germany author) that the direct resault of the Marhall plan was that the most of European corporation got the new american masters. The Europe losed the controll for the manies of former its own plants and ets.
So the influece of Marshall plan was not strongly positive for the Europe - this helped the USA to spread its controll over European industry and economic and subdue it politically.
Interesting. Iâd love to see actual evidence, and specific examples, of this as a long term affect. I mean, itâs not like Dahlmer-Benz owned Chrysler or anythingâŚ
I do not say it was definitelly bad in the conditions of Cold war - but it had a other side - the pure american interests.
How could something benificial to Europe, enjoying amongst the highest standards of living in the world be âpure American interest(s)?â
So i/m really do not see the reason why the USA/UK could not bombed out the Germnas industry in the last mounts of war- to liqudate the European competitors.
Considering the fact that in this last period of war all USA/UK/USSR war strategy was determined not as much the military goals as the political post war aims - this fact IMO could explain the sensless destruction of Germans cities in last months of war.
Cheers.
Well, I do think strategic bombing could have been put to better use than to simply firebombing population centers. But there was an urgent sense to get it all over with. Was there not?
Do you really believe that the attack on Dresden for example was for anything else but sheer terror? Again I have to point out it is fairly easy to understand the motivation, but two wrongs donât make a right.
I know, I explicitly mentioned Guernica for that being something like the testing ground for terror bombing. I donât intend to downplay the role the germans of that time played in that bloody mess.
This is tricky I have to admit, it largely depends on how you interprete and prioritize some of the laws in the Hague Convention but because it was not made for aerial warfare this is pure speculation. I agree that there simply was no international law on the conduct of aerial warfare simply because it was not known by the time of the original convention.
But I think we can also agree that there was no military need for some of the later city raids and that they were if not illegal by the time at least morally more than dubious.
By todays standards Mr. Harris would share a cell with Mr. Milosevic, but I agree that it is highly unfair to judge him that way.
No. We donât âknowâ this at all. I believe the internet speculations you refer too involve deliberately missing some Ford factory or something. Well, I think this can be refuted since it is quite clear by the RISE in levels of German manufacturing in 1944 that Allied strategic bombing was largely nullified by Speers dispersion of the Reichâs weaponsâ industries. They were missing a lot of factories because they were too spread out to sufficiently target and commit aircraft tooâŚ
So, you could say that a lot of GERMAN property was âmissedâ as well, including Krupp, Mercedes, and Opel factories that were also not hit by bombing raidsâŚ
I do not kow about Krupp, Mersedec and Opel but the that what i found in net:)
. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0760700095/qid=1116229290/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/002-0580726-5939223?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
âŚThe outbreak of war in September 1939 resulted inevitably in the full conversion by GM and Ford of their Axis plants to the production of military aircraft and trucks⌠On the ground, GM and Ford subsidiaries built nearly 90 percent of the armored âmuleâ 3-ton half-trucks and more than 70 percent of the Reichâs medium and heavy-duty trucks. These vehicles, according to American intelligence reports, served as âthe backbone of the German Army transportation system.ââŚ
So do you see the allies could be more effectively bother the Germans army not with the fireboming but the bombing the Ford plans. But they did not , right?
Oh, those dastardly Americans! Helping to rebuild European industries just so we could selfishly trade goods and services with them. The poor children of Europe. Who will save them from a boundless variety of consumer goods?
really they are dastard ?
They saved the Europe from a communism ( but the voluntary pay of Europe for this saving was the full american military ( NATO) and financial submission). I did say this bad - but this madal has other dark side;)
How could something benificial to Europe, enjoying amongst the highest standards of living in the world be âpure American interest(s)?â
The standards in Europe could be even higher then in America without the finantial subordination- How could you know?
Why for instance the standards of life in the Japane ( who avoided the Marshall plan) are higher then in the Europe?
How do you think the Germans who reached much more befor during the War ( in technological sence) today are forced to catch up the Japanes( who mostly saved its economical and finantial independence after the war)?
Well, I do think strategic bombing could have been put to better use than to simply firebombing population centers. But there was an urgent sense to get it all over with. Was there not?
Mate , really firebombing had the urgent sense in the last phase of the war?
I think for the violation of transport sistem of Germany by the usial targeted bombings raids should be much effective in war sense. For instane in Dresden allies burned out a whole city but the strategical bridged was undamaged( the few Lancasters could damage it fully)
Cheers with vodka.
As I recall reading a book on Nuremberg years ago,
(I donât think it is the one by Martin Middlebrook),
bomber crews frantically threw out bales of Window.
It didnât make any difference - some 300 German
night fighters, including quite a number of Wild
Boar day fighters, easily found them in the clear
moonlight.
The links below appear to confirm Harris as a
stubborn commander who had input from many staff
advisiors, as you mentioned, but refused to listen
to them, at least on this raid. He probably considered
his men âexpendableâ in his obsession to wreak
mass destruction and death on the German cities.
He virtually sent over 500 men to their deaths
for nothing on this raid.
Even when Schrage Muzik was common knowledge
(and British intelligence must have in fact known of
this even long before this) and British bombers were
being shot down in droves, Harris did nothing.
Even a simple window on the floor and a single .50
caliber machine gun would have made a big difference.
Harris just allowed his hapless men to be shot down
like flies. The German pilots must have thought
this was an arcade duck-shooting game. So goes
the caption " ⌠and the next one please ! "
He also did nothing to improve the bombersâ
pitiful .303 armament. A single .50 Browning
would have been far more effective than the
twin .303s on the front and dorsal turrets.
Similarly, a single Oerlikon FF would have been
far harder hitting than the four âpea shootersâ
in the tail turret.
Despite intense running firefights with the
night fighters to and from Nuremberg, the
bombers shot down a mere 11 fighters.
Contrast the Lancasterâs and Halifaxâs armament
with the Japanese Kawanishi HK82 âEmilyâ flying
boat, which had no less than FIVE Type 99 cannon.
What still puzzles me to this day is why Mosquitoes
were never used as escorts at this point. The
German night fighters were basically not very fast
aircraft, being heavily laden with large radar antenna
and sets. Just about 100 Mosquitoes would easily have
caused a lot of havoc to the 300 night fighters.
As to Harris, go back in time and ask the men. Hindsight is great but the boys in 1942/45 didnt think the same of him that some do today.
I know they didnt know what he did, but then, its like saying Patton was great while forgetting about some of his moves too, especially where he threw his men away indiscriminately trying to take forts that could easily be bypassed.
Actually I think it was a combination of a tactical raid against a major railway junction (and given the abilities of Bomber Command at the time, the only way they had of destroying a specific railway junction was to burn down the city around it) and bureacratic inertia.
Personally I take aerial bombardment as a subset of bombardment - the parallells are IMHO pretty clear - in which case the Hague convention explicitly deals with it. There was IIRC some form of convention on aerial bombardment prior to WW1, but the fact that none of the contracting powers every abided by it is clear evidence to me that it never came into force.
Concur, to an extent. However, my attitude is that when youâre fighting an opponent who is willing to violate the laws and customs of war in such a way (as the Germans clearly were during WW2) and you are not clearly able to crush them with conventional military force then it is perhaps acceptable to make an example of them as to where frightfulness will lead. Some form of deterrent to committing atrocities is needed, even if it is only âwe will do unto you worse than you do unto anyone elseâ. This has very limited applicability - most despots make war against the wishes of their populace - but Hitler was democratically elected and had the support of the overwhelming majority of Germans. As such there is at least a case to be made.
That is one hell of a long way from saying Window was ineffective. That is merely down to an operational planning issue where the bomber force was misused and could not take full advantage of Window. I guarantee you that had they not used it casualties would have been higher still - radar will always outrange eyesight on even the clearest of nights. Furthermore Wilde Sau night fighters were not equipped with radar anyway so Window would be irrelevant.
They were. Harris was fighting a battle of attrition in which your men are deliberately expended in return for causing substantially more damage to the enemy. He lost a number of individual battles (Berlin and Nuremberg being perhaps the most obvious) but won his private war. Whether it was a war worth fighting is way above his pay grade - thatâs a matter for the cabinet and the Imperial General Staff.
Right⌠so a single .50 cal hand-aimed machine gun is really going to be a decent defence against 4 x 30mm cannon in a fixed mounting. Adding the extra MG position and the crewman to man it will increase your personnel losses by 10% right off, reduce your cruise speed and operational ceiling by a substantial amount (hence making you much more vulnerable to Flak and night fighters) and give you hardly any increased chance of survival. Have you ever tried to pick out a camouflaged object against a dark background at night? Itâs all but impossible - the overwhelming likelihood is that the first this gunner would know the enemy were there would be when they saw the muzzle flashes. By then, itâs way too late to do any good and theyâre quite possibly dead anyway.
So what? The primary duty of the gunners was to warn the pilot when a night fighter got close so that he could commence evasive action. Putting down suppressive fire on the enemy night fighters to aid in breaking contact was a rather distant second, and actually shooting down the enemy was a distant afterthought. Effective range at night is so short and the chances of a hit so low that the primary purpose of the defensive machine guns is to distract the oncoming nightfighter and hopefully scare it off. That requires a high rate of fire and fast traverse - in other words the characteristics of a small caliber machine gun. Hitting power is irrelevant - it would take a minor miracle to actually hit the attacker enough to shoot them down no matter what the calibre.
Purely and simply the difference in fighting by day and night. Cannon are a liability for a bomber at night as mentioned above. In daylight however the additional range is very useful.
Limited numbers of night fighter Mosquitoes were available - the airframes were all needed for defensive purposes in the UK and as Pathfinders for the main force (where they were of far more use than as night intruders). Furthermore, the UK wasnât willing to take the slightest risk of the Germans getting hold of centimetric radar fighter sets at this point (they were still using what by UK standards were obselete sets) so the early night intruders were all Beaufighters fitted with obselete AI radar (Mk IV IIRC).
Uh, this democracy thing was pretty much done by mid 1933 after the Ermächtigungsgesetz (Which only passed cause the SA prevented SPD and others from voting). He was assigned as Chancellor by Hindenburg and got his power from parliament with the votes of the conservatives who clearly had no clue what they were doing and Iâm not sure if their voters would have approved his election.
It is very hard to tell how many actually approved his later doings and I am absolutely sure, that if you wouldâve done a survey in august 39: âShould we start yet another warâ the vote wouldâve been a very clear no, despite all the propaganda and mass psychology. But I agree he was pretty well liked in the first part of his reign. He hadnât done much damage to the majority of the population up until then. Just to some minorities and people have a tendency to look the other way. Civil courage is unfortunately a pretty rare commodity in a dictatorship. Most people just want to live their lives and I personally donât put blame on them, cause I am not entirely sure if I wouldâve found the courage to stand up against the nazis, because it was well known what happened to those who did. Most likely I wouldâve left as well. Fear is a very powerful weapon.
The really smart germans of course immediatly realized the extent of the mistake most prominent would be Albert Einstein, who left Germany practically on the very day of Hitlers rise to power. He was jewish, but I believe he wouldâve done so even if not, as have many others.
This is one of the articles that could apply, yes. But thatâs why I said it would be very tricky lawyerbabble. It also states in article 23:
Besides the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially prohibited:
To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury; (I would count inceniaries such as napalm under this rule)
When it comes to this âdefended partâ it becomes again very tricky. The airspace over germany was defended, so basically not even the smallest village was undefended. But you could also count a peasant with a fork as defender under the rules of this convention, yet I would find it highly inappropriate to blast him out of his pants with an mp;). It becomes obvious the bombardment part was intended to be used in case of an actually besieged city, it was simply unsuitable and outdated for the kind of conflict at hand. But letâs say it applies. It states :
-In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art, science, and charity, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military purposes.
I am not sure to what extend there were markings in dresden for example and I also give credit that aerial bombardment was very unprecise, but the allies didnât even try there. They simply used a big flat hammer.
One point I would want to add to the âIt was illegal only later, so donât blame himâ part of the conversation:
The laws under which several of the crimes the nazi leaders were prosecuted for in the nuremberg trials (very rightfully i might add) such as preparations for waging an aggressive war and crimes against humanity were invented only after the war. So technically speaking they wouldnât have applied as by the time they commited the crime, it wasnât one.
Another point I would want to add, is that itâs a very nice change to find a decent and civilized dialogue in an internet forum about a possibly very controversial topic.
The reason the Allies were able to bring charges against the Nazi leadership for the preparation and waging of aggressive war was because Germany had signed the Kellogg Briand pact in 1928, which outlawed such practices
The âversusâ comparator is quite superficial and arbitrary, and is a common misconception amongst many people.
If the .50 caliber rounds hit the German night fighter, they are going to do their same damage regardless of how many 20 or 30 mm guns the enemy aircraft has. If they hit, they hit. Or at least throw the German off-aim. The heavy cannons donât do anything to âprotectâ or save the night fighter.
This is similar to the common misconception that the Bf109F, with a single 20 mm in the centerline, is âless heavily armedâ than the Spitfireâs two 20 mms. Most times, I believe only one of the Spitfireâs cannon will hit the target, due to the spaced-out wing mounting, regardless of convergence corrections.
And if your reasoning is logical, then one might as well not do anything and sit down, shaking legs in their bombers, as cannon fodder to be shot down like flies.
The British didnât even have any ventral remote-
controlled .50 caliber turrets anyway, let alone 20 mm ones, and night vision devices were only a dream at that time. The suggested ventral window and hand-aimed .50 Browning was a fast, stop-gap measure in the face of countless Schrage Muzik losses. It was also suggested
by the British author of that book I mentioned earlier. The radio operator or navigator could perhaps man that gun when approaching the target, negating the need for an extra man.
