 |
| De Havilland DH.98 Mosquito B Mk IV Series 2 of No. 105 Squadron of the Royal Air Force. Source |
Ah, WWII bombers. By the end of the war, single engine bomb-carrying aircraft had roughly the same bomb-load as the heavy bombers, and were faster. Imagine if Great Britain had concentrated on Mosquitoes instead of all the heavy bombers. Less crew, less engines, same bomb load and far faster. And we could have done the same, as the lowly A1 'Spad' was a late war airplane. Or a 2 seat bomber version of the P-47 or F-82 or such.
As to War, the only rule is to fight to win, no matter what. Hague conventions? Geneva Conventions? The League of Nations or the UN? Fugedaboutit. Win. Win so horribly that anyone thinking of doing it again to the victor gets pimp-slapped by all the ghosts of their ancestors.
I mean, yeah, there are rules of war, always has been. Like the Medieval European rules of war. 1. No fighting on Sunday and Wednesday. 2. You don't target the peasant or serf population because if you win you'll have them working for you. 3. No fighting during planting or harvest season, because if you do, ain't no food. 4. The Rule of the Siege (3 parts) A: Pull up to a fortified place, call for surrender, little damage done. B: If they resist, pop a hole in the wall and then call for surrender, some looting and pillaging if the place doesn't cough up treasure. C: If they still resist, kill them all, God will know his own. These worked for all medieval wars, including the Crusades. It's the reason the Sack of Jerusalem occurred (see Rule 4 C.)
But past the medieval period? Rules got closer and closer to win at all costs. Actually all wars break down to that, win at all costs. Do what you have to do to come out on top. Anything else is holding one or two hands behind your back.
Sigh. If only things were 'clean' and 'only the warriors and leaders pay' yada yada yada. Pure pipe dreams. The Civilians have always paid the costs of war, either by being raped, slaughtered, enslaved, impoverished. War has never been clean. Bullies in the school yard beating up nerds have more constraints on their behavior (or used to be) than war.
- AnonymousSeptember 17, 2024 at 11:48 AM
The idea of RAF Bomber Command using a preponderance of Mosquitos was mooted by a middle ranking RAF officer in 1942 (I can't remember where it was posted but it was an idea that didn't see the light of day) The reasons were economic, the Mosquito could be mass produced using locally available wood and only needed two crew and two merlin engines, as you say it delivered a hefty bomb load over a long distance and was virtually immune to interception.
Delete
The thing was 'Bomber Harris' had a lot of influence over Churchill and Churchill needed to show the British public that offensive action was being taken against Germany. The trouble was that equipping and manning Bomber Command took up a disproportionate amount of the British war effort. Churchill's main scientific advisor, Lord Cherwell was adamant that a strategy of 'de-housing' the German population would work. It didn't. Both population and industry proved more resilient than previously thought. Harris also fought tooth and nail against the use of Bomber Command on what he called 'panacea targets' i.e. transport, oil etc.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing however.
Retired
.jpg){kind=link}
The NEW JERSEY came as a nasty shock to the North Vietnamese, too.
ReplyDeleteNot relevant but okay, sure.
DeleteWell, Vietnam, once the gloves came off, drove the North to the bargaining table, didn't it?
ReplyDeleteWho got the South East Asia Wargames 2nd place award? I think France got the 3rd place award.
Just pre-coffee ponderings.
Too deep a topic to get into here. Was there anything untrue about that statement?
DeleteUntrue, no. They did come to the table.
DeleteResults wasn't clear at best.
Did we "win"? Guess it depends on the terms applied.
Michael
Seemed to me that the Communist's goal was to get the other people out of the country.
DeleteWe didn't win. And South Vietnam definitely lost. We had an agreement in place with the North and the South which allowed us to pull out and turn the war over to the South Vietnamese. The North violated their bit by invading the South, Congress threw it all away by abrogating the agreement we had with the South, essentially saying "no ammo and no support for you!"
DeleteA shitshow no matter how you look at it.
Rob - Missed your comment. The North Vietnamese were more nationalists than Communists in some respects. But yeah, it was their country, get the damned French out (and us as well, we made the stupid mistake of supporting De Gaulle and his stupid dreams of French Empire), Vietnam for the Vietnamese as it were.
DeleteThere were twofold problems with the strategic bomber offensive versus Germany. First, the bombing accuracy was far cry from the ads for the Norden bomb sight and similar instruments for other air forces. Even US air force bombing during daylight had CEP of almost mile, and RAF at night was even worse, by order of magnitude, forcing them into dehousing campaign. As for the other problem, it was enemy having a vote. Germans did devise a fairly sophisticated air defence system, including radar, AA guns , foremost the mighty 88, and fighters. Brits, lacking the long range fighters, turned to night bombing. US, first attempted unescorted raids with disasters like Schweinfurt ensuing, and tide turning only with advent of Mustang all the way escort. It is said when Goering saw Mustangs over Berlin, he knew the war was lost.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, the bombing was not total waste effort either, all those 88s defending skies were not on the front killing allied tanks. And when all the stars aligned in late 44, fuel industry was hit so hard, so Germany was doomed, especially with Soviets waltzing into Romanian oil fields.
It also pulled the Luftwaffe in to defend the Reich. In doing so, the Luftwaffe was decimated and played virtually no role on any front (other than over the Reich) for the remainder of the war.
DeleteThe saying "die Deutsches Blick" was coined to describe the look on German soldiers faces when traveling during the day, one eye on the sky at all times because any aircraft spotted would most likely be hostile.
Once we stopped pussy-footing around in Vietnam and went 'gloves-off' we did indeed drive them to the bargaining table. Same with the outcome of the Tet Offensive, which we won, hands down. Until the media threw it away.
ReplyDeleteEven after going full Bomber Command, we 'weren't' allowed to destroy the rail lines to China, mine the harbors, destroy anti-aircraft sites until they fired upon us and definitely not any that potentially had Russians.
But, yes, we did bomb them into the Stone Age, and then the media and a democrat-led Congress threw it all away.
Bingo.
DeleteThe problem is, US were not ready to stay in Vietnam indefinitely, politically. Draft was becoming untenably unpopular. So, the idea was to force enemy to table, exit, and let South deal with North. As with Afghanistan, it was weakness of the local forces who eventually folded without direct US presence in large number that doomed the war.
DeleteMedia and Congress were only reflection of general nation's mood, which was, Hell no we wont go.
Nixon commiting political suicide by violating laws AND taping himself while doing it didnt help.
By comparison, North was willing to suffer millions upon millions of dead if needed to fullfill their unification dream, and continue it for decades if needed.
Beans, When since WW2 didn't have politics running the "war " ?
DeleteWe might have "won" but what is the price vs prize?
Do we occupy the nation like we did in Germany and Japan?
Did we really contain communism, looking around current American politics.
Michael
Paweł - Good points.
DeleteMichael - Yup. The South Vietnamese government was corrupt and poorly run. Can't really blame the South Vietnamese grunts for not wanting to fight for that.
DeleteI'm starting to believe that Communism can no more be contained than the common cold, they're both viruses. Communism will always flourish as long as there are stupid people willing to support it and corrupt people wishing to take power via that scam.
Sad agreement. Free *hit sells well. TAX the RICH and all that. Every political cycle proves that point.
DeleteThing with Nixon is he really didn't violate any laws that hadn't been violated by JFK and LBJ, it's just that the eneMedia and the Democratic Party used a highly politicized issue to kill Nixon's career.
DeleteConveniently forgotten was that the phone tapped at the Watergate was used to order hookers and cocaine.
As to South Vietnam, they got their poop together and they were in it to win it, until our f'in Congress refused to help them according to the signed treaty that the very same Congress approved (unlike the 'treaties' that have been done by executive fiat during Clinton, Obama and Bidenzombie's terms.)
Sarge, I never really paid a great deal of attention to the weight versus agility (or in this case, sourcing/cost) debate until I did some recent reading on Moorish Spain (Al-Andalus) and the Reconquista (Sigh. Yet another thing I have lack the time to fully read up on...). Armor and tactics were somewhat different in there, due to a combination of weather, terrain, and opposition. I wonder if this sort of thing could have been argued in this case: e.g., Mosquitos (one of the few airplane models I actually ever finished) for short in close runs (likely earlier in the war) and the heavier bombers for later in the war when cost was maybe a bit less of an issue and you need the additional firepower due to the increased range of travel. Different tools for different purposes, that sort of thing.
ReplyDeleteOn the bomb run agility counted for nothing, aircraft had to stay straight and level to get the bombs on target. It was also part of the plan to get a LOT of bombs on the target so the aircraft flew in large formations.
DeleteThere were also a lot of purpose-built twin engine bombers used by the Allies in WWII, the B-26 and the B-25 immediately spring to mind. They were used for the shorter range targets and once we were on the Continent were part of the tactical air forces, bombing targets near the front to support the ground troops.
Much of the push for daylight strategic bombing came from the theorists who were trying to prove a point. Their point was wrong (Douhet's theory that "the bomber will always get through" was a crock of horse dung) but like true believers everywhere, they just wouldn't quit until the evidence was overwhelming. Also, there was a push for an independent Air Force during the war.
Politics always plays a role.
And the accuracy of the Norden bombsight was very much blown all out of proportion. And didn't work well at all in areas with lots of levels of cross-winds, like over Japan.
DeleteOne thing about Mosquito: scalability of the production. It needed a very specific type of wood, namely South American balsa (I've learnt about this wood in my youth airplane modelling days...) imported to UK and not available in huge quantities.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I think that was mentioned in that Reddit discussion.
DeleteBut if the supply chain could be maintained (or swapped for another suitable wood), it seems brilliant. Sure, a fighter isn't as imposing, but they're smaller targets, and higher numbers, even with a slightly lighter load, would increase bombs on target for less cost, less men, etc. Or am I missing something?
DeleteI realize that's a lot of "ifs" though.
DeleteI think part of the problem here is that the supply chain probably couldn't be maintained. There was a lot of stuff coming across the Atlantic to support the war effort. Had the Mosquito been available before the war and someone had thought it would be a useful bomber, then perhaps it might have worked. Would have required a lot of people changing their minds and getting someone to pay for it.
DeleteThe Mosquito being a smaller target isn't really a factor, the Germans had a lot of Flak and a lot of fighters to oppose the bomber stream, especially during daylight raids. Also those two crew members in the Mossie were among some of the most highly trained airmen of the war. Would not have been easy generating the number of men fully trained in those roles. But a lot of this was discussed in that Reddit thread. (Which also had a link to Mosquito encounters with the Me-262 German fighter jet, interesting stuff.)
There are always lots of "ifs" in life.
Delete"Quantity has a quality all its own" (often misattributed to Stalin) holds true. The debate over twin or quad engined bombers dropping small, medium or large bombs is a valid one. But, only if you have the production and logistics capacity to create the luxury of making such choices. Especially in wartime when production facilities, workers and raw materials have competing priorities to make stuff, while the enemy gets a vote as to what actually will get to the users.
ReplyDeleteHuman factors play a part too. The self assured big shots who know it all (when they might not), the egos who protect their reputations, politicians (some overlap with previous) who may place their own power above all other interests, and the natural tendency of people to resist change when confronted with new and unconventional ideas.
Monday morning quarterbacking is easy. Picking the best (or least bad) option when engaged in a war, with conflicting intelligence, high stress, sleep deprivation, and constant streams of urgent decisions to be made can result in bad or wrong decisions, but sometimes the right ones are made in some cases.
Churchill's support for R.V. Jones and "Wizard War" projects, the support for cryptological efforts, and his masterful leadership inspiring the British people and armed forces were all huge factors. His cooperation with Allies, including Stalin, an ally by the sole virtue of being the enemy of our enemy, helped fight the war with global strategy. The sacrifice of Coventry in lieu of giving away knowledge of our breaking the German codes was a tradeoff.
Bombers were not an "either/or" option, and picking both was probably the best decision for manufacturing. Employment for strategic missions early on was about the only option, but the tactical use was really important when "ground support" was essential, and stroking the egos of the bomber mafia less so. (Anyone wanna debate A-10s vs everything else in the USAF inventory, and ground support mission vs everything else? (Muddy booted grunts somehow are not invited to that discussion in the USAF O' Club on the golf course.)
Alternate history is a great discussion topic. Understanding history of past actions, decisions, and technology is important too, where facts become more important than hindsight opinions. As ADM Rickover said "Learn from the mistakes of others, you won't live ling enough to make them all yourself."
John Blackshoe
My old service's unflinching hatred of the magnificent A-10 grates on me. Every, damn, day.
Delete