[bsmith13]

Originally Posted by timbo

Hasn't this been pretty much disproved by the execution of the initial invasion in Iraq?? In my humble and laymans view (ie I'm not a professional in this field) we didn't put enough boot on the ground to follow-up and get the job done properly. A Cruse missile or LGB can't followup and secure a valuble location. That can only be done on the ground.

Good point, as it not only shows that boots can't be eliminated, but also that the way the US goes to war is constantly being revised.

I would argue, however, that the amount of ground troops used during the invasion of Iraq was sufficient; it was the follow on plan once we secured the country that was insufficient. If I remember correctly, OIF didn't anticipate either insurgency or civil war.

[Captain Eddie]

Still enjoying this!

[Cardinal]

Originally Posted by Captain Eddie

Still enjoying this!

Ditto that .

[Aircrafty]

Originally Posted by bsmith13

I will once again protest the use of the word "propaganda", as in my mind, it denotes deliberate twisting of a few facts or outright lies to achieve a political end. I believe that american misconceptions about the nighttime RAF bombings are more unintentional buffoonery rather than malicious smear campaigns. That's just my interpretation of "propaganda", though...

There are a number of definitions of propaganda, and few of them are actually sinister. One definition being the systematic propagation of a given doctrine or principles by an organisation or government, which seems appropriate here

I feel this US 'propaganda' is merely a follow on from the rivalry that has always existed between the US and Britian. Ranging from the bitter hatred of revolution times to the frostiness of late WWII. Now it's more of a friendly rivalry such as exists between England and Australia. Btw, how's that English cricket team going

Originally Posted by bsmith13

However, in order for airpower to be employed in a war-winning role, a few preconditions need to exist.

1. The political will employing the airpower must be united in their goals. This was not the case during the Kosovo Campaign.
2. The military power in command of the air component must understand the capabilities and limitations of airpower.
3. The correct "centers of gravity" need to be identified and targeted. This is much easier in a conventional war than in a guerilla war or a terrorist hunt.

If you ignored all the rest of this and skipped to the end ( ), I think that precision guided munitions, when employed properly, can decrease (but not eliminate) the need for boots on the ground.

Counterpoint?

There are few times when those in power agree to when and how airpower is to be used. Sadly it is usually the less knowledgable politicians that have the final say, yet frequently they blame others when they get it wrong.

If history has proved one thing, it is that airpower can never win a war by itself. None-the-less it is often the most important force when it comes to actual area control.

However there are a number of factors that can reduce the effectiveness of air cover. Such as: Vegetation cover, Terrain and effective Anti-aircraft weapons (Vietnam and Afghanistan). Consequently air cover is most effective on vast flat/bare areas where it is difficult to hide vehicles, structures, people and the larger AA weapons (Iraq).

Aircraft can destroy infrastructure, weapons and enemy concentration. But they cannot replace soldiers on the ground and this applies to conventional and guerila warfare. Protection of said soldiers in the field is of prime importance, especially in high risk areas, be they conventional or guerila situations. Consequently armoured transport should be the preferred method, in lieu of soft skinned, albeit faster vehicles.

Now back to the thread

Clearly daylight bombing is likely to be more accurate all things being equal. However this can only occur when the attacking force has the upper hand in aircover which did not occur until late in WWII. By which time the Commonwealth Airforces were very experienced in attacking at night, the same could not be said for the USAAF.

It was therefore decided to bomb day and night to maximise the overall effectiveness. And this decision was proved correct when the USAAF found it very difficult to assemble their aircraft for attacks even during daylight hours. There were a number of reasons for this such as their methods, lack of experience, time, and airspace required. Just imagine the problems if all available allied aircaft needed to assemble for daylight raids.

[Aircrafty]

Originally Posted by chiefs70

I don't have a huge disagreement with the idea of precision bombing today but I do believe it was misrepresented - with the best of intentions perhaps -as it pertains to WWII. I was quite amazed at some of what I have read regarding the feelings of the British public towards the Americans vs their own British bomber crews in the late war period. Americans were held in high regard while many felt the British were murderers and committing atrocities by bombing Dresden, etc and even today these men (of bomber command) are not given the credit they are due and prefer to keep a low profile (correct me if I am wrong Aircrafty).

I don't know from what sources you have obtained this view, but they sound like the more sinister propaganda found on Neo Nazi websites

The men that served in the Commonwealth Airforces have, and always will be held in the very highest regard in Australia. Never have I heard an Australian say anything against those men.

As for the British public, I have no doubt that the vast majority still have a high regard for the men that served in Bomber Command. However it is understandable that fighter pilots will have a higher profile in the UK compared to Australia because they halted the intended German invasion following Dunkirk.

The American airmen are also held in high regard, but I have to say most Australians considered our men were better - which is the usual home team situation

Dresden: it continues to amaze me that after all this time there is so much denial by some Americans on this subject, with the claims it was purely a British operation. If you check the following reliable site you will note that the USAAF were very much involved in the destruction. It's certainly not a good example of the most moral use of Allied Airpower but it still falls far short of the attrocities the Germans commited in WWII.

Dresden bombing website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing...n_World_War_II

Australian Squadrons in Bomber Command (460 being the most famous):
http://www.awm.gov.au/units/ww2.asp

[chiefs70]

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

I don't know from what sources you have obtained this view, but they sound like the more sinister propaganda found on Neo Nazi websites

The men that served in the Commonwealth Airforces have, and always will be held in the very highest regard in Australia. Never have I heard an Australian say anything against those men.

As for the British public, I have no doubt that the vast majority still have a high regard for the men that served in Bomber Command. However it is understandable that fighter pilots will have a higher profile in the UK compared to Australia because they halted the intended German invasion following Dunkirk.

The American airmen are also held in high regard, but I have to say most Australians considered our men were better - which is the usual home team situation

Although I may be a make my living in technology I don't rely much on websites for research materials and accuracy - present company excepted, of course ) and I assure you neo-Nazi websites would be the last resource I would consult. As far as the view of the British (specifically not including the Commonwealth if that helps a bit ... as I recall the sources all focused on the UK) on the late war Bomber Command - and the sources that led me to that impression focused entirely on post-June 1944 operations - it seems to have originated from the top. In response to the Dresden bombings in 1945 Winston Churchill said the following in a statement to the chiefs of staff on March 28th, 1945, "the moment has come when the question of bombing German cities for the sake of increasing terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed... The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing." The statement resulted in a uproar from Bomber Command and the chiefs of staff as it was viewed as an slap in the face to the RAF and was later revised to remove all criticism of how BC was approaching their mission (under Churchill's orders no less). This is excerpted from The Strategic Air Offensive Against Germany 1939-1945 by Charles Webster and Noble Frankland. I would have to dig a bit deeper into my journals to find other more specific quotes and examples which led me to this impression - which may be completely inaccurate - but it is one I gleaned nevertheless.

What I have come across seems to divide into two eras - pre-Normandy and post-Normandy. Perhaps it was simply the sentiment of a war weary people who saw the enormous losses of Bomber Command at a time when Allied troops were in continental Europe as a waste of human life. At the same time, it may simply be too minute a sample to be accurate. As I mentioned I was surprised to see the sentiment expressed by the government and public of a nation which displayed such determined resistance. As a family member of and friend of numerous Viet Nam vets, however, it certainly didn't seem outside the realm of possibility. I'll dig out some of the journals and reread them to refresh the memory.

As always, thanks for the education and respectful discourse.

[Martin Baker]

[ recall the sources all focused on the UK) on the late war Bomber Command - and the sources that led me to that impression focused entirely on post-June 1944 operations - it seems to have originated from the top. In response to the Dresden bombings in 1945 Winston Churchill said the following in a statement to the chiefs of staff on March 28th, 1945, "the moment has come when the question of bombing German cities for the sake of increasing terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed... The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing." The statement resulted in a uproar from Bomber Command and the chiefs of staff as it was viewed as an slap in the face to the RAF and was later revised to remove all criticism of how BC was approaching their mission (under Churchill's orders no less). This is excerpted from The Strategic Air Offensive Against Germany 1939-1945 by Charles Webster and Noble Frankland. I would have to dig a bit deeper into my journals to find other more specific quotes and examples which led me to this impression -

Chiefs70 is spot on with what he saying with winston Churchill post Dresden
bombing plan
I watched the dvd Bomber Harris before Xmas & it made the same point

[Aircrafty]

Churchill thought that the bombing of communication centres in eastern Germany might aid the Soviet advance on Berlin. He ordered Bomber Command to attack Berlin, Dresden, Leipzig and other East German cities to 'cause confusion in the evacuation from the east' and 'hamper the movements of troops from the west'.

Consequently the bombing of Dresden was entirely Churchill's idea and was in response to pressure from the Russians. Therefore if there is any blame it should be applied to the politicians rather than Bomber Command (which of course included the other Commonwealth Airforces) and the USAAF.

However as both the main Allied Airforces (Bomber Command and USAAF) bombed Dresden etc, this issue has little to do with the crux of the thread being, Daylight vs Night bombing.

It is easy for us to look back and say they should have done this or that in WWII. The fact is that accurate vertical bombing from high altitudes is difficult to achieve in the best of circumstances. However for much of the war it was the only means to hit back at the Germans who had started the bombing attacks against civilians, first in Poland and later on London, Coventry, and etc.

Hi Chiefs70, it is a well known fact that the US and British had some major differences of opinion following D-Day, where both accused the other over various issues. These differences were promoted in the newspapers of both countries. Partly no doubt to increase newspaper sales as well as attempts to shift the blame for the the relatively few errors made during the war. These differences were bound to happen as the US increased it war effort and casualties increased. The differences were made even worse when Mongomery and Eisenhower started their memoir wars following the end of WWII.

Imo there is little point in continuing these differences because it is very doubtful that the Germans could have been defeated without their combined efforts. Which of course includes the significant Russian contribution which was largely overlooked (more propaganda perhaps) when the cold war started.

[MoMo]

Hi, Guys,

I've just read over this thread and it seems to me that I have a few points to make by way of summation :

The big fly in the ointment is when we try to prise the politics from any military history. It's just about impossible, I know, to divorce all the political interference by Churchill's Cabinet from, let's say, pre-war theorisers, Harris and Bomber Command's campaign against Germany's cities 1940 to 1945.

Every picture of a destroyed German structure was a boost to the morale of the British people at a time when they felt that they had a knife at their throats. If German civilians got killed in the process, that was too bad. In WW2 we were fighting for our lives and our way of life and " Bombing the Black Heart " of Germany, as Harris personified it, was one way to get back at the Germans for sinking our ships and drowning our sailors as well as killing our people on the ground and destroying their houses.

After the war, the hypocritical Churchill and many members of his cohilition cabinet tried to distance themselves from what Bomber Command had achieved by way of the destruction of Germany's cities. It is quite right to point out that Churchill and the British Establishment knew that they were going to have to use the ex-nazis to bolster the front against " Bolshevism " and they wanted to have a way of approaching the problem.

This became convenient when the truth about the Nazi regime became all too clear in the immediate post-war period. Somehow, destroying Dresden became a counterpoint to the Genocide in the twisted logic of post-war political realignment. It was as if the destruction of the German civilian population was retrospectively going to make us feel as though we owed them something ; they had had enough punishment, indeed some of it was 'too brutal' and the politicos had their 'excuse' for propping up the mass of a thoroughly discredited, easily identifiable ethnic group-the German-speakers outside Switzerland!

This " double-think" about the results of the bombing campaign is still felt today. When the memorial to Harris was finally on the horizon in the 80s and 90s, the " social conscience " of the British and Commonwealth was opposed to a statue of the man who they said had been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. All sorts of excuses and sophistry emerged from this disparate group who were characatured as " Trendy-Lefties ". One factor which they conveniently forgot to mention were the tens of thousands of airmen from the Allied side who died to prove the strategic policy of the politicians, as well as the airstaff who advocated such theories.

The debate on whether the bombing campaign was right or wrong, or whether daylight or night bombing was better will always raise the spectre of of the moral imperative. This idea of the moral imperative has also been mooted as a purely racial question: would Berlin have received the first atom bomb, if there had been a reverse in the fortunes of war in Europe in 1944/45?

Would the U.S.A. have been prepared to drop the bomb to end the war in Europe? This one generates all sorts of responses!

The further we are from the immediacy of the mortal danger of Naziism, the more we can see the dangers of the road which seemingly had to be followed in those times.

If we apply the what we now know from that era, to what we know now, and have now in the way of sophisticated weaponry, we have to be very careful about bandying notions of " clean wars", " tactical advantages " or " non-colateral exingency ", etc.

There is just war. People get killed. People suffer. Lives are ruined.

If you have to have a war, get it over with as fast as you can. Damage only what you have to in order that your forces face the least risk. Don't make the civilian population suffer. Make sure that you have a clear plan to dampen down the opposition after the conflict. Give the civilian population a viable alternative to what they had before you destoyed their Polity.

When has that happened recently? Politicians are such shmucks!

MoMo

[jim]

We have moved a little off topic on this but in doing so has opened a whole new can of worms.At the time ,it was correct to bomb Dresden ,today we say it was wrong!!! But we were not there then!! We did not have to fight for 6 long years with our very right to life being threatend. Again I repeat that we must set our minds to that period, we must look at this from the point of view held then. How would we have felt at that time and would we have done anything different? The one thing we all agree however is that the aircrews were outstandingly brave and gave their all in pursuit of victory therefore they should have been recognised and awarded a campaign medal. It sticks in my throat that the British government failed these brave men after their huge sacrifice. I have met many of the old bomber boys and I can tell you all that they are to a man very bitter about this. What more could they have done for their country? Could I take this opportunity to mention the Canadian lads who took part in the bomber campaign. The Canadians effort throughout the airwar deserves mention. The contribution they made was out of all proportion to the size of the population of Canada. Also remember the Dieppe raid. The Aussies, Kiwis, indeed the whole commonwealth of nations fought together. Its a pity we do not see this togetherness today. very sad.