The Mother of All Bombers...

[KLB]

Whitewashed? WWII was pretty brutal on all sides.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

We weren't perfect then, and we aren't perfect now. We can't inherit guilt for the actions of our ancestors.

 

[SnoopLoggyDog]

Dude, you do know that the reason we were daylight bombing, despite its higher casualty rate, was using the Norden we were precision bombing (at least that day's version of it). The Eighth Air Force paid in blood to do all possible to minimize unnecessary civilian casualties. What more could we have done in that revisionist version of history you're selling - not prosecute the war on Germany at all?

BUGIO2 is correct. The USAAF specialized in Daylight Precision bombing, (What was considered "precision" at the time.) The RAF specialized in Area Bombing. In early 1942, the Allies decided that the RAF would bomb at night and the USAAF during the day. That way, they could keep up round-the-clock pressure on the Axis.

Air Marshall "Bomber" Harris was the RAF's version of General LeMay. He wanted to bomb the Hun back into the Stone Age. He was convinced that the more hurt you can bring upon your enemy, the sooner the war would be over, thereby saving more lives.

 

[SnoopLoggyDog]

Cool story time. 1985 on the flight line at Mt Home AFB, ID. The Wing was conducting an Operational Readiness Exercise. I am working on the afterburner of an F-111, when the sirens go off and loud speakers call out ALARM RED, MOPP 4, TAKE COVER. I jumped out of the Ardvark and ran to the nearest bunker on the ramp. I dived in and rolled onto my back, looking straight up. As I started putting on my protective mask, a B-52 came screaming over at low level. It raced right down the flight line, with it's bomb bay doors open. I just stopped and took it all in. Beast was loud and shook the ground as it passed overhead. Pretty much knew I was obliterated, if it had been a real bomb run.

Of course, in the real world, things would have to be pretty bad if a Russian TU-95 was able to get directly over an Allied base.

 

[Leadeye]

Today I'm more inclined to think that " leadership war" makes more sense than "total war", focus on murdering leadership and it inner circle of people. Today a spy with a cell phone can watch a gathering of leadership and from a cafe down the street and call in enough firepower to flatten the building they are in. Destroying an economy and killing millions who often have no control is an outdated concept. Leadership should face the fear of the consequences of war on a very personal level, not the farmer or factory worker.

 

[2A_Tom]

But we outlawed assassination because it is uncivilized.

We just need to outlaw war and disarm completely. That will solve everything.

 

[Leadeye]

Assassination of leadership is the most fair and civilized way of settling disputes.

 

[Dave A]

Rolling Thunder, Washington DC in May 2010(I think). It was more impressive during the approach but I was slow with the camera.

 

[2A_Tom]

Assassination of leadership is the most fair and civilized way of settling disputes.

Once upon a time...

 

[KLB]

But we outlawed assassination because it is uncivilized.

We just need to outlaw war and disarm completely. That will solve everything.

Dropping a bomb on a leader is different than having someone plant a bomb or shoot them with a rifle.

 

[2A_Tom]

 

[BugI02]

They would usually cruise on three engines, and the jets were only for takeoff and speed over target.

Three or four. Three of six shut down would seem to be an asymmetric thrust configuration

 

[BugI02]

It's not revisionist to acknowledge the Area bombing directive to the RAF and the deliberate targeting of civilians? Not selling anything.

[Your quote referenced 'the west' not just the RAF, hence my response. You are correct Harris was using area bombardment but even he was targeting military targets, just that night bombing had predictably large CAP, and remember that Harris was responding to indiscriminate bombing of population centers by the Luftwaffe]


I understand the reasoning of why it happened, I'm just saying it's been whitewashed.

Hopefully you've seen Saving Private Ryan. Do you remember how visceral that first 20 minutes was? People who were there said it was the best attempt at showing what it was like, but wasn't nearly horrible enough. I think all we know of warthat isn't firsthand experience is whitewashed

 

[BugI02]

[STRIKE]Assassination of[/STRIKE][single combat, preferrably with edged weapons, by] leadership is the most fair and civilized way of settling disputes.

*.*

 

[Woobie]

Hopefully you've seen Saving Private Ryan. Do you remember how visceral that first 20 minutes was? People who were there said it was the best attempt at showing what it was like, but wasn't nearly horrible enough. I think all we know of warthat isn't firsthand experience is whitewashed

That was an awesome scene. I thought Band of Brothers had more of that realism. Black Hawk Down had some really good stuff too. Like when the 60 gunner couldn't hear anything. If you really want to know what war is like, pay attention to what happens to the animal next time you go hunting. They don't just fall down peacefully. Now imagine that animal is your best friend in the whole world. Now realize that that is as nice as combat can be.

Bottom line, get it over quickly. War is total these days, it isn't heroic combat from the Bronze Age. You're just deluding yourself if you think you can sterilize it.

 

[actaeon277]

Killing the leadership is one theory on warfighting. And one many like, because it's less "messy".

But one of the theories on the beginning of WWII was that the general population felt that Germany was NOT defeated at WWI. WWI, the Germans surrendered before it had been invaded. They lost little infrastructure. They felt betrayed by "leadership". So, new "leaders" came into power. The nation thought the war was okay.
So, during WWII, one of the allies worries was that Hitler would surrender "too early", or that German leadership would remove Hitler and then surrender too early. They wanted to pound Germany so bad, that NO one could deny that they were defeated.
This was not to end WWII... this was to prevent WWIII.

 

[2A_Tom]

That is an interesting take. I've never heard that before, but it makes sense.

 

[Woobie]

Killing the leadership is one theory on warfighting. And one many like, because it's less "messy".

But one of the theories on the beginning of WWII was that the general population felt that Germany was NOT defeated at WWI. WWI, the Germans surrendered before it had been invaded. They lost little infrastructure. They felt betrayed by "leadership". So, new "leaders" came into power. The nation thought the war was okay.
So, during WWII, one of the allies worries was that Hitler would surrender "too early", or that German leadership would remove Hitler and then surrender too early. They wanted to pound Germany so bad, that NO one could deny that they were defeated.
This was not to end WWII... this was to prevent WWIII.

I think the German population was done in WWI, though. There were all kinds of home front issues and that led to a lot of Generals' memoirs espousing the "Stabbed in the Back" theory.

But I didn't know that about the fear that Hitler would surrender too soon.

 

[actaeon277]

I think the German population was done in WWI, though. There were all kinds of home front issues and that led to a lot of Generals' memoirs espousing the "Stabbed in the Back" theory.

But I didn't know that about the fear that Hitler would surrender too soon.

There were "home front issues".
People has suffered shortages in material, shortages in food, and loss of loved ones.
But, they felt cheated.
They had not witnessed war.
Infrastructure was largely untouched.
It was hard for the "man on the street" to understand things such as army units being at strength but "outmaneuvered", or long term projections of material production.

 

[actaeon277]

This is NOT a reference, but here is a discussion of it
https://www.boards.ie/b/thread/2057325557