Dam Busters: The Race to Smash the German Dams

[Milo Minderbinder]

just noticed on BBC2 @ 11:20 i.e. NOW!

[glojo]

Just noticed your post, thanks and have now rescheduled 'Yes Prime Minister' :)

I see that they experimented off of Chesil Beach! Not far from here..

[NutLoose]

Thanks, flicked over.

[Farfrompuken]

8 weeks to develop the bomb?!

It'd be 8 years nowadays!

[Evening Star]

Milo, thanks for letting us know.:ok:

Interesting and sober programme.

"We went under the wires ... which were just above the bridge"!

[Milo Minderbinder]

now in iPlayer
BBC iPlayer - Timewatch: Dam Busters: The Race to Smash the German Dams (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0175nh1/Timewatch_Dam_Busters_The_Race_to_Smash_the_German_Dams/)

Amazed by the comment
"We were at thirty feet and Les Munro flew underneath..."

and the fact that one aircraft had ten attempts at the Sorpe

[parabellum]

From the title I thought we were setting up to have another go?!

[PPRuNe Pop]

Has to be the best presentation of all. Well done James Holland.

[Pontius Navigator]

And some shot in the library of the RAF Club :)

[Biggus]

Wouldn't know, never been there......









....but apparently the breakfast is great!






Dambuster programme safely recorded for eventual leisurely enjoyment.

[diginagain]

Nice to see clips of Halifax & Stirling thrown-in for good measure.

[MPN11]

Nice to see clips of Halifax & Stirling thrown-in for good measure.
... and a Manchester, if my eyes did not deceive me.
However, a very decent summation of Op CHASTISE for the uninitiated.

No mention of a dog.

[Green Flash]

With the mention of James Holland, please may I bring this to our attention? https://www.patreon.com/wehaveways/posts?filters[tag]=Discussion

[diginagain]

No mention of a dog.
Probably wise at this moment in time...

[diginagain]

With the mention of James Holland, please may I bring this to our attention? https://www.patreon.com/wehaveways/posts?filters[tag]=Discussion (https://www.patreon.com/wehaveways/posts?filters)
But why the imitation M65 jacket and Indiana Jones MkVII gas-mask bag?

[MAINJAFAD]

With the mention of James Holland, please may I bring this to our attention? https://www.patreon.com/wehaveways/posts?filters[tag]=Discussion (https://www.patreon.com/wehaveways/posts?filters)

Fantastic Find, the whole lot is here https://play.acast.com/s/wehaveways/0849b672-9867-40aa-bd81-57e2090ca3dc

[bobward]

I think this was a repeat showing. Certainly at the end it showed a copy right date of 2001(?)

In any event, a good programme about great aviators!

Thanks BBC

[rolling20]

And some shot in the library of the RAF Club :)
Pontius, I daresay like yourself , I am looking forward to getting back into the club again. Last time I was in the library they were doing an index check. Interfered with my snooze somewhat!

[Chugalug2]

For a Service that counts attaining Air Superiority as a sine qua non, the RAF post WWII seems to have a blind spot regarding the Bombing Offensive against the German Reich. That Holland shares its view is a matter for him, but to suggest that Wallis did too, simply because of Upkeep and Tallboy is really gilding the lily. Harris believed in area bombing true. But what else could take the war to Germany? No amount of pickle barrels could provide precision bombing in any modern sense. Certainly some weapon systems (mainly Wallis's) provided for precision attacks by day but at considerable cost, and even then shared the beneficial effects that Harris's Old Lags achieved by bludgeoning Germany night after night, together with the USAAC by day. The concentration of flak, and day and night fighters, in the Reich denuded the Eastern and later on the Western Fronts of Air Defence. That slippery charmer, Speer, admitted it was the second front, so by D-Day we are talking four fronts, and counting.

Bomber Command was a war winning weapon system, achieving air superiority in the East and the West for the Allies, and finally in the skies above Germany itself. Harris may have believed that Strategic Bombing could win the war alone, he certainly implied that it might, but he had to fire the bellies of those Old Lags that he sent out night after night with resolve. He was poorly treated by Churchill and by his own Service. 55573 of his command paid the ultimate price, but not in vain. You don't win wars by being nice, you do so by destroying your enemy's ability to wage war. That is what drove Harris and he should be given the credit for his share in final victory.

As to the programme (first tx in 2011 I believe), very good, but could be better I'd say simply by praising Upkeep without the knee jerk need to damn the Bombing Offensive (though the Beeb will never do otherwise I fear).

[rolling20]

For a Service that counts attaining Air Superiority as a sine qua non, the RAF post WWII seems to have a blind spot regarding the Bombing Offensive against the German Reich. That Holland shares its view is a matter for him, but to suggest that Wallis did too, simply because of Upkeep and Tallboy is really gilding the lily. Harris believed in area bombing true. But what else could take the war to Germany? No amount of pickle barrels could provide precision bombing in any modern sense. Certainly some weapon systems (mainly Wallis's) provided for precision attacks by day but at considerable cost, and even then shared the beneficial effects that Harris's Old Lags achieved by bludgeoning Germany night after night, together with the USAAC by day. The concentration of flak, and day and night fighters, in the Reich denuded the Eastern and later on the Western Fronts of Air Defence. That slippery charmer, Speer, admitted it was the second front, so by D-Day we are talking four fronts, and counting.

Bomber Command was a war winning weapon system, achieving air superiority in the East and the West for the Allies, and finally in the skies above Germany itself. Harris may have believed that Strategic Bombing could win the war alone, he certainly implied that it might, but he had to fire the bellies of those Old Lags that he sent out night after night with resolve. He was poorly treated by Churchill and by his own Service. 55573 of his command paid the ultimate price, but not in vain. You don't win wars by being nice, you do so by destroying your enemy's ability to wage war. That is what drove Harris and he should be given the credit for his share in final victory.

As to the programme (first tx in 2011 I believe), very good, but could be better I'd say simply by praising Upkeep without the knee jerk need to damn the Bombing Offensive (though the Beeb will never do otherwise I fear).
John Strachey, who Harris tried to have removed from his post at the Directorate of Bombing Operations due to his communist leanings, was the post war Under Secretary of State for Air and is assumed to have snubbed Harris for an honour and thus BC as a whole. Harris was determined to continue his way and that way was lost after the Battle of Berlin. When BC came under the control of Eisenhower in April 44 it achieved great success in destroying transportation and invasion targets. It has long been held that Harris should have been dismissed in the winter of 44, when he returned to the destruction of cities, but there was not the political will to do so. Air superiority in the west won by the USAAF with their long range Mustangs and the attrition of the German day fighter force. So what of the men who flew and died for BC? My family and my wife's family lost members in the service of BC. My adjutant was an X BC man. No one can or should attempt to tarnish their resolve and courage. To go and fly night after night in the face of overwhelming odds, in my opinion ,should mean everyone of them deserves a VC.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Bomber Command ... achieving air superiority in the East and the West for the Allies, and finally in the skies above Germany itself.
Not sure that claim would stand up to scrutiny.

[tdracer]

Not sure that claim would stand up to scrutiny.
I would tend to agree. Post war analysis showed that Germany's weapons output month to month increased throughout the war until January 1945 in spite of the relentless bombing. The level of resources dedicated to the Allied air offensive was simply not offset by the level of damage on the ground.
The greatest contribution to victory by the Allied air offensive was the eventual grinding down of the Luftwaffe by the daytime bombing offensive (which the RAF had little to do with), leading to Allied air superiority. Although the Germans were still able to produce fighter aircraft in large quantities, they eventually ran out of the skilled pilots to fly them.
While achieving air superiority was certainly a welcome result - I seriously doubt it was the primary outcome envisioned for the strategic bombing campaign in 1941/42.
This is in now way intended to downplay the heroism of the RAF airmen - just pointing out that historical 20-20 hindsight suggests those resources might have been better used.

[CoodaShooda]

You often read about how German weapons production grew throughout the war but I haven't seen any studies on what they might have achieved had there not been the disruptions caused by the bombing.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

It was the lack of air superiority that forced the RAF to switch to night bombing. In the same way that the Luftwaffe's night bombing of Britain's cities did nothing for their air superiority, night bombing of German cities did little for ours.

[Islandlad]

You often read about how German weapons production grew throughout the war but I haven't seen any studies on what they might have achieved had there not been the disruptions caused by the bombing.
Isn't that called peacetime output? Or better if you include slave labour and forced production.

[Islandlad]

It was the lack of air superiority that forced the RAF to switch to night bombing. In the same way that the Luftwaffe's night bombing of Britain's cities did nothing for their air superiority, night bombing of German cities did little for ours.
An air force defending its own skies day and night is not free to attack yours.

[Chugalug2]

There are a lot of entrenched views being expressed here. First, Harris was carrying out the directives of his superiors, willingly of course (until he was ordered to tactical bombing pre D-Day perhaps) but part of an RAF High Command that ditched him as soon as it became expedient to do so. Second, the rival Services resented the resources directed to Bomber Command and used every opportunity to belittle its efforts. Third, you don't only achieve local air superiority by shooting down enemy planes. You simply oblige him to move them elsewhere. Where was the Luftwaffe in the main when the Red Army made its advance to Germany, when the Western Allies invaded Italy and France? In Germany! Yes of course it was countering the USAAF by day as well as Bomber Command by night, and both of them paid dearly in that bloodbath, but they ensured that Germany was successfully invaded and defeated. Without the Bomber Offensive victory would have been delayed or, worse still, denied. No amount of switching resources to the Atlantic or elsewhere would have compensated for that!

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

I don't have any entrenched views. I don't have a problem with the bombing of the cities. I don't necessarily believe the results of that strategy were worth the cost. I think it had more to do with Harris's belief that Bomber Command was unable to reliably and accurately hit strategic targets by night, instead relying on widespread carpet bombing. The forming of the Pathfinder's is evidence they needed to tighten up where the bombs were ending up, and when this was used against defined tactical targets prior to D-Day, it worked. Admittedly air superiority was assisted by the Bombing offensive, but it was achieved by the introduction of long range fighters in overwhelming numbers.

[Chugalug2]

TIEW, yes of course the local air superiority above the Reich proper was gained by LR escort fighters, I'm not quibbling about that. But long before then the Luftwaffe had to withdraw an enormous amount of its fighters (and bombers, converted to nightfighters) together with the complementary flak batteries (think of all the 88's that could have been aimed at Russian tanks rather than adding to the ever enhanced barrage over Germany). That NAZI air power withdrew to Germany to wither and die there meant that Allied armies could advance from East, South, and West in great measure unmolested by it, and that the Wehrmacht retreated unprotected by it. In the end it is boots on the ground that bring victory (a point that Harris might indeed have had issues with) but they did so under generally benign skies. To a very great degree that had been achieved by the Bomber Offensive, by Bomber Command, and by the USAAF.

As to bombing accuracy, it was appalling by day and by night (though especially by night) but that just came with the limitations of navigation then. Blackouts, obscured skies, moonless conditions, all made for difficulties in finding a city, let alone a target outside it. The Nav had a sextant, an API, a Drift Sight, and forecast winds that were largely guess work. He couldn't even simply tell the captain to follow the stream ahead as it couldn't be seen, other than when those below were silhouetted by the target's fires. A lot of cows died in the service of the Fuhrer as a result. Later on radio and radar aids helped it is true, but only when security allowed for it, and even then enemy counter measures made their use questionable. Carpet bombing, Area bombing, call it what you like, it was simply bowing to the inevitable. Bomber Command was not so much a big stick as a cudgel. There was no precision about it. we could find cities, we even had targets and aiming points within the cities, and yes the Pathfinders could finesse those in the midst of a raid, but in the final resort Bomber Command destroyed German cities because that is what it could do.

The result was that on D-Day the assaulting troops could be told, "Don't worry about aircraft overhead, they will be all ours!".

[rolling20]

I think that to go on losing aircrew at the rate that BC was doing in late 43/ early 44 for no discernable result shows that the tactics/ strategy were wrong. Many BC men knew their chances were very slim, some described it as plain murder. Freeman Dyson, who died recently , worked for the BC Operational Research Section. It was staffed by about 30 civil servants and young academics. His first day was the day after the first raid of the Battle of Hamburg.He said the staff that day were elated, they were never elated again until the end of the war. It makes interesting reading, if it didn't agree with BC doctrine, then the powers that be didn't want to know. Many thousands of men died needlessly.

[tdracer]

I think the question should be - if the primary objective was to destroy the Luftwaffe - could we have done it more efficiently and effectively.
For example, in the early part of the Battle of Britain, the primary German targets were British airfields, radar, and other air defense facilities. It was working - the RAF was on the verge of collapse until Hitler decided to bomb London instead. Might the Allies have been more effective at destroying the Luftwaffe with a similar campaign had they gone after airfields and the like instead of factories? Granted the necessary level of accuracy likely couldn't be achieved with night bombing.

[DCThumb]

tdracer, as I recall - and its been many years since I studied this - the Germans knew this. The airfields were rather well defended and any attack on them would come at a high price. Also, bearing in mind towns were hard to find, landing bombs on an airfield and putting it out of commission would be a tall order to say the least. Finally, the Luftwaffe had a small number of key locations in the South East of England to target. Shutting, and keeping shut airfields across Germany, France and the low countries would be a gigantic task - especially as the aircraft could always just operate from grass fields anyway!

[langleybaston]

[QUOTE=Chugalug2;10800176]TIEW, and forecast winds that were largely guess work.

BOLLOCKS!

They were state of the art and informed by every aid and theory that science could provide. The forecasters [as ever] carried a heavy burden of expectation. Whatever else, guesswork was and is not a part of it.

[Chugalug2]

Have you watched the film, LB? Losses on Chastise started when coasting in, let alone making the dams. They were blown south into heavily defended airspace and suffered accordingly. One of your successors even produced the Met charts to prove it. A northerly 30kt wind that was forecast as calm.

Sorry if I offended your sensibilities, and gladly withdraw guess work for state of the art. They still got shot down as a result of it though.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Final resort Bomber Command destroyed German cities because that is what it could do.
So it could equally be said that it was used to destroy German cities because that was all it could do.

[rolling20]

[QUOTE=Chugalug2;10800176]TIEW, and forecast winds that were largely guess work.

BOLLOCKS!

They were state of the art and informed by every aid and theory that science could provide. The forecasters [as ever] carried a heavy burden of expectation. Whatever else, guesswork was and is not a part of it.
Langley, I think to be fair weather reconnaissance evolved during the war, accelerating towards the end. 1409 flight was formed in April 43 to provide a meteorological service. The Jetstream and it's effects were not really understood until very late in the war. Aircraft crossing the Atlantic below the Jetstream from the west noted 100mph tailwinds, but the phenomenon was not fully understood

[Chugalug2]

So it could equally be said that it was used to destroy German cities because that was all it could do.
When it had to operate by night, then pretty well, yes. When it could operate by day it could take out precision targets, witness Tirpitz, Bielefeld Viaduct, etc, but with specialised weapons and specially trained crews and with potentially very great risk. There were exceptions of course, Chastise per this thread and Peenemunde at night for example. The latter used main force bombing from 8000ft and in a full moon, a very hazardous combination ameliorated by diversionary signs of a raid on Berlin and intruder attacks on the nightfighter bases that protected the target. Peenemunde was made possible by being on the coast and utilising H2S, and excellent work by the pathfinders. It was a very high risk operation justified by the importance of disrupting V2 production and testing.

[rolling20]

When it had to operate by night, then pretty well, yes. When it could operate by day it could take out precision targets, witness Tirpitz, Bielefeld Viaduct, etc, but with specialised weapons and specially trained crews and with potentially very great risk. There were exceptions of course, Chastise per this thread and Peenemunde at night for example. The latter used main force bombing from 8000ft and in a full moon, a very hazardous combination ameliorated by diversionary signs of a raid on Berlin and intruder attacks on the nightfighter bases that protected the target. Peenemunde was made possible by being on the coast and utilising H2S, and excellent work by the pathfinders. It was a very high risk operation justified by the importance of disrupting V2 production and testing.
Chugalug2, Peenemunde/ Hydra was the first use of a master bomber in John Searby and also the first main operational use of Scutage Musik by the Luftwaffe. At briefing crews were told that they were hitting a new nightfighter factory and if they didn't destroy it, they would be back again the next night! Was it a success? It delayed the introduction of the V2 by weeks or months depending on who you believe.The Germans fabricated damage to fool photo reconnaissance, so the bombers never went back. Perhaps the biggest victory of all was that the Germans had to move the production to the mountains of Thuringia, which was a huge drain on man power.

[falcon900]

The debate seems to be becoming rather over simplified and binary if I may say, but to continue in similar vein, Bomber command did what it could and what it was ordered to do.

What it could do changed during the course of the war: at the start, it could barely hit the proverbial barn door , day or night. As equipment, technology, and of course experience developed, there evolved some extraordinary capability, of which the Dambusters raid stands out. We can debate the long term impact of it on the German war effort, but as a bit of bomb tossing it remains exceptional.

As for what Bomber Command was ordered to do, that also developed during the war. From dropping propaganda leaflets through to 1000 bomber raids. In the beginning, its mission was little more than "hitting back" when we had few other means at our disposal to do so, and as much for national morale rather than substantive military objectives.

Prompted by what we now know to be the inadvertent dropping of bombs on London by a single aircraft, Churchill ordered a raid on Berlin, again for symbolic rather than substantive purposes. The rest we know. Whilst we did persist with military targets, area bombing didnt take long to emerge and eventually dominate Bomber Command activities. Agree or disagree with it, it was considered a legitimate tactic at the time in the context of "total war" although it was not aimed at achieving superiority over the Luftwaffe, albeit a diminution of the Luftwaffes offensive capabilities would have seemed a likely by product.

In my view, Bomber Commands post war "image" problems start and finish with Harris. A very difficult guy to like at the best of times apparently, he was a devout believer in area bombing, and persisted with it after it was clear that there were better targets available which would have had a more direct bearing on the end of the war. It has been suggested that he refused to countenance a shift from area bombing to attacking oil refining capacity, up to and including refusing direct orders to do so. That he was not removed was testament to his status within public opinion and Churchills direct intervention.
This was not forgotten post war, and the ensuing "snubbing" of Bomber Command" was in my view simply a snubbing of Harris. The subsequent revisitation of the morality of area bombing with the benefit of hindsight, detailed accounts of what it was like to experience it, and evidence of its limited effects on morale have simply added fuel to the fire. Grossly unfair to those who served in Bomber Command, and even, to a degree, to Harris

[rolling20]

I have always found it bizzare that Britain's post war defence doctrine was built on the ability to send V Bombers to the Soviet Union to potentially kill millions of civilians, yet we were somewhat ashamed of the fact we had killed 500k Germans in WW2.

[Chugalug2]

Ah, but the Soviet Union was no more our gallant ally, helping to crushing the German NAZI threat, it was now a threat to the whole world and to the NATO signatories in particular. In contrast Germany rid of its NAZI regime was now our ally, a fellow NATO member, occupied by the Red Army in the east and threatened with invasion in the west. Events, dear boy, events...

[rolling20]

Chugalug2, I think you miss my point. Regardless of who it was, our doctrine was back to where it had ended in 45, but on a far greater scale. It just didn't make any sense.

[Video Mixdown]

our doctrine was back to where it had ended in 45
It wasn’t back where it ended, they were two entirely different strategies. The bomber offensive against Germany was intended to help achieve victory and so end the war as quickly as possible - and it worked. The nuclear deterrent was intended to deter any attack on Western Europe by Warsaw Pact forces - and it worked.

[rolling20]

Ok, one last time. The point I am making is that BC was snubbed by the government/ officialdom because it was decided that the policy of area bombing and it's civilian deaths were unpalatable post war. Yet the the government/ officialdom gave BC the tools to potentially do it again on a far greater scale. Hence the snubbing of BC was entirely hypocritical. Reminiscent of Tommy this and Tommy that....

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

When it could operate by day it could take out precision targets, witness Tirpitz, Bielefeld Viaduct, etc, but with specialised weapons and specially trained crews and with potentially very great risk. There were exceptions of course, Chastise per this thread …..
It being essentially one (and one other in the case of the Tirpitz) squadron out of the whole of Bomber Command in these instances.

[Chugalug2]

It being essentially one (and one other in the case of the Tirpitz) squadron out of the whole of Bomber Command in these instances.
Glad you added the one other there TIEW or there might have been trouble at t'mill. :ok:

But I agree with your point entirely, Bomber Command wasn't about pinpoint targeting, it was about taking the war to Festung Deutschland, and in doing so it bottled up a great deal of the Luftwaffe both on the ground and in the air, as well as creating chaos in the Reich. By doing that night after night (and day after day by the USAAF) it kept them bottled up which was an enormous strategic effect in its own right. It was a war of attrition which bled BC dry and in no way secured Air Superiority for us (that was done later, and by day, and by the little friends) but it meant air superiority elsewhere and hence paved the way to ultimate victory. As to a waste of lives, war is always a waste of lives but if it leads to an early victory it saves many others. BC is an easy target to snipe at, rather like the trench warfare of WWI, but both were the art of the possible and both led in the end to victory.

[langleybaston]

................ and Haig is as little loved as Harris.
Many similarities.
Where would we be without the like?
Speaking German perhaps?

PS Sorry about the BOLLOCKS, one of my studies early in the job [1955] was of the development of forecasting of winds in the war. Unusually, I do know what I am talking about.

[Chugalug2]

No worries LB. 'Guess work' was a cheap shot and you were right to call me out. I was gilding my own lily at the time!

[Jackonicko]

Bomber Command's war against German cities may have represented "the art of the possible" and may have "led in the end to victory", but had all of the resources been devoted to tactical bombing (which actually resulted in real effect, against more than the odd cow), would we have won quicker, and with fewer losses?

Had every Wellington been a pair of Whirlwinds, and every Halifax, Lanc, and Stirling a pair of Bostons, Beaufighters, and Mosquitos I suspect that we'd have done MUCH more damage to the German war machine, with much lower losses.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

The German's had no appreciable night fighter force, compared to their day fighter numbers, and night fighter production did not really result in any substantial increase (although the technology they employed did). BC hardly bottled any of the Luftwaffe up. AAA was seen as the primary means of defence against airborne attack, particularly against the relatively low flying RAF. It was the withdrawal of day fighters (because that's mainly what they had) from other theatres to counter the daylight bombing offensive that produced the most effect on the Luftwaffe's ability to project force in those areas. The USAAF flew too high for most of the German AAA to be effective, and thus fighters were the only other alternative, even though by that time their performance at those altitudes was inferior to the Allied equipment.

[tdracer]

Bomber Command's war against German cities may have represented "the art of the possible" and may have "led in the end to victory", but had all of the resources been devoted to tactical bombing (which actually resulted in real effect, against more than the odd cow), would we have won quicker, and with fewer losses?

Had every Wellington been a pair of Whirlwinds, and every Halifax, Lanc, and Stirling a pair of Bostons, Beaufighters, and Mosquitos I suspect that we'd have done MUCH more damage to the German war machine, with much lower losses.
Pretty much my point, perhaps better stated :ok:
Granted, this is all with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight. I don't doubt that those in command thought what they were doing was the best way to win the war. A better analogy might be the old saying that if all you have is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail.

[Jackonicko]

I don't know about that.

There were plenty of people urging greater investment in the kind of things that 2 Group was doing with its Bostons, etc.

Operation Oyster (the raid on the Philips plant at Eindhoven) showed what was possible - major damage was inflicted with great accuracy, relatively light collateral damage and (apart from the Venturas) with relatively light losses.

But too many senior officers wanted more obvious 'headline' results, even though they clearly lacked the tools to achieve them.

Harris was supremely indifferent and uninterested in anything that he saw as a sideshow, and 'tactical' bombing fell into exactly that category for him.

[Chugalug2]

The nature of night fighter tactics creates a force that is bound to be numerically smaller than a day fighter one. Much of the infrastructure is ground based, witness the Kammhuber Line and the associated ground radars. The airborne Lichtenstein taking over only for the final interception. The system was clunky and easily overwhelmed by using the single bomber stream to do so. Thereafter it was measure and countermeasure by both sides, even resorting to day fighters (Wilde Sau) and upward firing cannon in the night fighters (Schrage Musik). But numbers involved were always less than the daytime interceptions. One was a precise choreography, the other a swarm. To infer it was an insignificant drain on Luftwaffe resources (which also provided the flak batteries of course) is misleading.

Would medium bombers have better disrupted Germany's ability to conduct the war rather than BC's heavies? I can't see how. The Luftwaffe had only medium bombers and the answer to them in the East was to withdraw the targets outside of their radius of action. I've no doubt that if the RAF had switched to medium bombers the targets would have been moved accordingly. It was the ability to follow them that gave the Allies the upper hand in the bombing offensive. In the end we would have had an enormous fleet of twin engine bombers and a paucity of targets for them to strike.

[Jackonicko]

Chugalug,

The problem is that for most of the War, the night bombers went out, night after night, and failed to hit their targets, and indeed to inflict damage and/or casualties that came anywhere close to outweighing losses. Occasionally, and more often from 1944 on, they caused massive civilian casualties and disrupted industrial production.

Did German bombing cause a collapse of UK civilian morale? No. Do you think allied bombing did anything different?

Did Allied bombing actually force dispersal and more efficient production methods?

Weighed against that I can't see how medium bombers could have done any worse, and they would most likely have done much better. Bear in mind that every Lancaster and its seven aircrew could have been two Mosquitos. How many targets could the Mosquito not reach? How many more targets could a Mosquito have accurately bombed than a single Lancaster? How many Mosquitos and crews would have survived? And that's if you just chose to hit the same target sets.

They could have been making life impossible for German forces in France and the other occupied countries. They could have made it impossible to complete coastal defences, and could have disrupted the supply of ammunition, supplies and food to the German defenders. D-Day might have been a lot easier. They could have remorselessly hit the German airfields and V-weapon launch sites.

[Chugalug2]

We can go on bandying what ifs forever, and all to little point. My contention is that the Allied Bombing Offensive by day and by night disrupted Germany's ability to conduct the war even more aggressively, particularly in the forced withdrawal to the Reich of Luftwaffe capability that could have been hampering, preventing maybe, advancing land forces on the major fronts that were converging on the Reich. Yes, day fighters of course, but the immense numbers of flak batteries and their crews as well. The latter as previously pointed out were there to deal mainly with the night bombing. The effect of releasing them to the Eastern Front (in particular the 88s) could have been devastating against the T34s of the Red Army. The Night Bombing Campaign was in effect the second front that Stalin demanded long before D-Day. It was his forces that progressively drove the Wehrmacht back from whence it came.

Civilian Morale if anything hardened as a result of city bombing. Even if it hadn't the population had little opportunity to do anything other than do as it was told and keep its mouths shut, agreed. But the night bombing had a great effect on production and man power resources. Even if it hadn't the chaos it created diverted even more resources to dealing with each and every raid. If the effort had moved away from the Reich then resources could have been switched elsewhere and in particular to the Russian front. We had no quibble about laying waste to German cities, then at least, but taking out targets in occupied cities was another thing entirely. They would have to be bombed by day, they would be better defended if this was now where the threat was. The success against such targets during BC's actual campaign was because the Luftwaffe was in the main defending the Reich. I repeat, the main effect of the Allied Bombing Offensive was to cede air superiority outside of the Reich. That led to Kursk, Italy, and Normandy, and the driving back of the Wehrmacht in those theatres