Bomber Command
 

:= Hi Jackonicko,
Please don't this develop into a comparison between Bomber and Coastal Command. It is a shame that it appears to be going that way. If there is a just cause to champion the efforts and achievements of C.C. by all means do it in another forum.
Naturally the morale of crews of B.C. was very important to enable them to go out the next night or whenever so it was just as well we didn't know the fine detail of losses of crews and their aircraft. News coverage then was at an entirely different coverage than today. At no time did I hear any adverse criticism of the efforts of B.C. but whether it was because I came from the Thames Estuary area where the Luftwaffe did so much damage to housing, oil refineries and London itself. One or two may have adopted an attitude like Canon Collins in his attempts to persuade aircrew to disobey orders but we took no notice of him anyway.
If Bomber Command had been given better aircraft, better compasses, etc., earlier in the war the war may not have lasted so long as five and a half years. Sir Arthur Harris had to be tough in his handling of his job as C in C but where there was justification that he should listen to other advice, I think he did. At one time he offered his resignation to those above him because friction did develop between them but they agreed to back him in his attempts to go out and attack the German mainland. For many months no other branch of the armed services, except for the Submarine service, was taking part in any attacking activity, just defensive.

"Please don't this develop into a comparison between Bomber and Coastal Command. It is a shame that it appears to be going that way. If there is a just cause to champion the efforts and achievements of C.C. by all means do it in another forum."

I'm not the one proposing that we single out Bomber Command aircrew for special recognition, above and beyond that accorded to their comrades in arms. The whole point is that the kind of Bomber Command medal being proposed would be divisive and profoundly unjust to the men of all other commands. Even the Battle of Britain fighter boys only got a bar, and not a dedicated medal, and they won an undisputed victory that was not tarnished by its conduct, nor by the callous disregard for his men shown by Bomber Command's egotistical and arrogant AOC in C.

How would you feel if the Desert Air Force got a dedicated campaign medal, above and beyond the Italy and Africa Stars? Or if Coastal had a dedicated campaign medal.

If Bomber Command (whose achievements have at least been recognised and trumpeted since the War) deserve a campaign medal, then so do the others. But to accord such an honour to Bomber Command alone is to diminish and nullify their achievements.

And I'm just using Coastal Command as an example. You could make just the same points about the Army Co-operation Command Mustang and Tomahawk Tac R pilots, the pilots of the Whirlwinds, Hurribombers, Bostons et al who were on the offensive (and rather more effectively than Bomber Command were during 42 and 43) throughout. And the Desert Air Force boys, and ......

You get the picture, I'm sure.

And the idea that there is any merit in "attacking activity", if it fails to do more damage to the enemy than it does to your own side seems to me to be a pretty dubious way of winning a war. Attacking the enemy ineffectively, at vast cost, just to appease public opinion and a public appetite for revenge is all too reminiscent of what today's Labour Party might do.

There's a time to be on the defensive, and there's a time to mount attacks that hit the enemy hard, where it hurts, and which does so at minimal cost to yourself. And that's what the Bostons and Mitchells did, quietly, and did so without the coverage from the Daily Mirror and Daily Express, and the newsreels, that was lavished on Harris' populist but wrong-headed and ineffective strategic offensive.

Anyone spouting the blinkered nonsense that you do, Chugs, should be made to go and read the Bomber Command War diaries, back to back with the reports from the German civil authorities.

Reading of the attacks on Duisberg in July 1942, for example (and it's a random, that's-where-the-page-fell-open, example), you'd read of the ten aircraft that failed to return on 13/14 July, having killed 17 civilians or the 31 bombers that failed to return from raids against the town on 21, 23 and 25 July. You might balance that against the 120 German civilians killed, and against the Burgomeister's matter of fact listing of the few houses destroyed and damaged. Or the 131 aircraft attack against Dusseldorf on 17 August which saw just four bombers fail to return, but which saw hardly any damage on the ground and just a single German fatality. And the shocking thing is that these weren't isolated and unrepresentative raids - the general run was of raids that cost us far more in lost aircraft and aircrew than they cost the enemy.

We were rarely as successful in 1942 and 1943 as we were against Wilhelmshaven on 8/9 July, when the damage caused (for the loss of five heavies) included the town's bus garage and 30 buses, and when we managed to kill 25 enemy civilians.

Accuracy was risible, and was typified by the 10/11 April attack against Essen, when 254 aircraft set out, 172 claimed to have bombed the target, but just six aircraft actually hit the city.

For YEARS, Bomber Command scattered bombs ineffectively about the German countryside, causing negligible damage, while haemorraging the cream of its men, and losing aircraft in droves. Before Harris took over, the average Bomber Command crew had a 28% chance of completing a tour. It plummeted to 11% when he started to attack targets deeper inside Germany, while the effectiveness and accuracy of the bombing declined dramatically.

What if all of those men and wasted aircraft production had instead been devoted to the kind of attacks that the Bostons and Mossies carried out? The German presence in the Low Countries and France could have been made untenable.

On 16 April 1942, as another random example, 12 Bostons attacked the power station at Le Havre (not just the town as an area target). Every bomb hit the target, and all 12 aircraft returned to base. Exactly the same had happened on 14 April, when 12 Bostons attacked the power station at Mondeville. No.2 Group showed quite clearly that REAL damage could be done to the enemy with a low loss rate, but its star waned under Harris, who ignored all evidence and pressed ahead with a heavy bomber night offensive against area targets whose effectiveness was negligible.

Instead, Bomber Command managed to stimulate German war production, and to increase the German will to resist in just the same way that their bombing inculcated a 'Blitz Spirit'

Jacko, Hugh and I are not trying to be divisive or seek anything other than to correct the wrong that was done to those who took part in the bombing offensive in 1945, when the plan to issue a campaign star for the Battle of Germany was shelved and the offensive characterised as something of which we should be ashamed. It may suit your purposes to perpetuate this myth but I see it as betraying the 55,000 who gave their lives, and those like Hugh who survived. This was war for God's sake, you don't give points for presentation and interpretation. The important thing is to win, which was not a given from beginning to end. If the campaign was so ineffective, how do you account for the frustrating of Speer's attempts to massively crank up production, the withdrawal of the Luftwaffe from the west and its virtual grounding by 1945? Perhaps you think it was all done by day by the 8th USAAF? It was a joint effort and round the clock. Yes we certainly did for a lot of cows, and every other type of livestock. Main Force was a blunt instrument, but in sheer quantity it achieved what was needed, stopping Speer (who should have hung) giving the Fuhrer what he needed to prevail. Comparing this with twin engined attacks in France (by day?) is pointless. The industrial base was in the Reich, and that is what they sensibly defended. As to Coastal, presumably they expended a lot of munitions simply blowing up the Atlantic. That isn't a criticism, merely pointing out that a lot of expenditure is required to take out a target.

You seem obsessed with attacking Harris. Well of course that is your prerogative. His own crews it is true called him "Butcher", not for the effects he had on the enemy, but rather on them. It is surely up to them to decide if he was an inspiring commander, or a tyrant. As I understand it most plump for the former, but either way it is their call in my book.

As regards the medal itself, I don't call for a medal above and beyond that accorded to their comrades in arms. As I understand it the limits would prevent that anyway. I have always said that is for the authorities to resolve. All I call for is for that studied slight in 1945 to be put right. It may be that a "Battle of Germany" bar as per the Battle of Britain one might fit the bill. This would not be a dedicated Command medal (or bar), but a Campaign one. The fact that it would be issued mainly to Bomber Command crews simply confirms their overwhelming presence in the bombing campaign. As I say the experts can work it out, I simply call for the need to finally and properly recognise this important campaign.

As to suggesting that the offensive could be just as well conducted by New Labour, well I find that just...offensive! You seem to regard yourself as the oracle on this subject, Jacko, and not prepared to entertain any contrary views, even from someone who served in it. Let me guess, you've written, or are writing, the definitive work on Harris's campaign and I have been thoughtlessly spoiling it. I can only apologise!

Well I wasn't there but my father was (Halifaxes from Topcliffe).

If they had been given medals in 1945, all to the good. But in 2007 I am afraid that the majority of the grand old chaps are no longer with us. And as it is for them, it does seem we have missed the opportunity long ago.

I have a few of his items from that time, like his RAF hammer he used on sundry recalcitrant parts when airborne and which assisted in repairing my garden fence only today, and these can go on down through the generations to my own descendents. If he had been given a medal at the time I or my brothers would have that as well. But a new medal he never saw is not the same thing at all. If he didn't have it then I don't want it.

Bomber Command
 

Jackonicko,
I suggest you take up some balanced thinking and not make spurious remarks, even comparing anything to the present Labour government. Yes, I have the War Diaries and what you picked confirms what I said about having the best equipment. Should B.C. have waited for the later gear before striking at the enemy? Chugalug, I may be opting out of this discussion as we appear to be going round in circles. But I do appreciate what our latest contributor says about this 'too late' application. Right from the start I was adding my name to the petition, that is all. :rolleyes:

Fair point WHBM, but some of Harris's lags are very much alive and kicking, including Hugh Spencer who posts here, and he does want his bombing medal! That is why I feel that it should be done, for the survivors. I find it insufferable that after surviving against such terrible odds they should have been sidelined. Sidelined because; their boss was unpopular, people felt uncomfortable about the suffering of German civilians, Churchill wanted to be re-elected, the bombing in the last days of the war was aimed at facilitating the advance of the Red Army (ie Dresden), the Red Army was now morphing from gallant ally to threatening opponent, Germany was morphing in the opposite direction, Canon Collins, et al, felt the whole campaign was morally wrong.

The bombing campaign that your father and his comrades had fought so hard and so long, with so many of them dying in the process was disowned by the nation and the RAF, together with the CinC and the planned campaign medal that would have acknowledged it. It was expedient to perpetuate this position throughout the cold war, and later when policy was to be "at the heart of Europe". Only now, with the end of the former and the distrust of the latter is there a window of opportunity to right this wrong. Bliar has gone back further to pardon those shot at dawn in WWI, and issued GSMs to Suez survivors only 11 years following our period, so it could be done. Once again may I emphasise that I feel it should be done within the existing rules. How and what is up to "them". Just acknowledge Harris's Battle of Germany as a major campaign in its own right!

Hugh, just caught your last post, so adding this P.S. Please don't be put off by Jacko's hectoring and haranguing, that is his problem not ours. I take your point about this going round in circles, it was mainly caused by trying to address his posts, which were not so much in answer to ours but repeating the same agenda over and over, which is indeed going round and round. Like you I've had my fill, unless others like WHBM post. Like you I am only a supporter. The words horses and water come to mind I guess. If indeed this is goodbye Hugh, thank you for posting here and giving us a first hand account of what those dangerous nights involved. Live long and prosper Sir, I salute you and your kind, we can never repay our debt to you!
Regards Chug

Bomber Command
 

:D P.S. Just thought I would offer some comments about Sir Arthur from the book Tail-End Charlies by Nichol and Rennell.
Page 189 - 'He knew there was an awful job to do and the airmen of B.C. would be the ones to die doing it.' 'He was always balancing the demand for success against the risk to lives.'
Page 190 - 'the wife of the padre at B.C. 'His distress at casualties went very deep'
Page 191 - 'He rarely visited bomber bases....not for him the morale-boosting sessions so loved by other commanders......it has been suggested that he could not face the thought of meeting men he would have to order into battle.'
Page 192 - 'The very few visits he did make were emotional occasions.....gave the crews a salute.
Page 194 - 'His old lags really got to know him at squadron reunions....I felt in the presence of a great man, a man of affection and a humanitarian'
Page 203 - 'His real quarrel was with the politicians who refused to be honest about the consequences of modern warfare and were two-faced about the killing he and his men were carrying out in their name.'
And there are a lot more examples in a very readable book, not about rear gunners, as the title might suggest, but about the last battles of 1944-45. Cheers! :D

I think this poem sums it all up for the 55000 WW2 dead of Bomber Command:

Let them in Peter, they are very tired;
Give them the couches where the Angels sleep.
Let them wake whole again to new dawns fired
With sun, not war. And may their peace be deep
Remember where the broken bodies lie.........
And give them things they like. Let them make noise.
God knows how young they were to have to die!
Give swing bands, not harps, to those our boys.
Let them love, Peter - they have had no time -
Girls sweet as meadow wind, with flowering hair.
They should have trees and bird song, hills to climb -
The taste of summer in a ripened pear.
Tell them how they are all missed. Say not to fear;
It's going to be all right with us down here.

Anonymous

(written in POW camp Marlag 1, Germany
1944)

A book review just released which may help answer some questions.

A tribute to bomber command bravery

Last Updated: 12:01am BST 18/04/2007
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/ma...15/bobis15.xml

James Holland reviews Bomber Boys: Fighting Back 1940-1945 by Patrick Bishop
After the enormous success of Fighter Boys, Patrick Bishop's homage to the fliers of the Battle of Britain, a companion piece to the airmen of Bomber Command was an obvious follow-up. It was one, however, that was always going to be much harder to pull off successfully. As Bishop points out, the men of the Battle of Britain were The Few and the battle they fought was short; the men of Bomber Command were The Many and their struggle went on and on.
Spitfires were beautiful and fast, like racing cars; bombers were bulky and heavy, like trucks. The Battle of Britain will always be synonymous with a long English summer and pilots sitting in deck chairs waiting to take to the skies. 'In the letters and diaries of the Bomber Boys,' Bishop notes, 'it seems to be always cold and dark, no matter what the season.'
A potentially greater sticking point is that Bishop's book focuses on an aspect of the Second World War that now sits uncomfortably with many people. Where the Fighter Boys were shooting down black leather-jacketed German fighter pilots, the Bomber Boys were dropping bombs on centuries-old cities and their civilian residents.
The fact that Bishop has produced one of the most profoundly moving books about the war to have emerged in recent memory is testimony to his skills not only as a writer, but as an historian wholly able to understand his subject. During the Second World War a new breed of war correspondents emerged - men such as Ernie Pyle and Alan Moorehead - who were able to convey not only the sounds and smells of battle, but more importantly empathised greatly with the men who were doing the fighting. It is this empathy that Bishop, also a war correspondent, brings so successfully to his writing.
It is empathy born of deep respect. Night after night these men were forced to play Russian roulette as they sat in their cramped and freezing aircraft, risking death at any moment. Chances of successfully baling out of a doomed bomber were less than one in four. Even if they made it to the ground, there was a high possibility of being lynched or shot there.
Being in Bomber Command was not the most dangerous wing of the RAF - torpedo bombers, with a smaller than one in five chance of surviving one tour, took that honour - but the statistics are none the less astounding. Of the 125,000 men who passed through Bomber Command, about 55,000 were killed - a tenth of all British and Commonwealth war dead. Of course, most men had to believe that they would be spared but the odds were stacked against survival, and witnessing the plane in front dissolve into a ball of fire and debris did little to ease the nerves.
As Bishop says, 'The swing of the scythe was impressively arbitrary.' One crew member might be hit and leak blood all over their Lancaster while the others were unscathed. A pilot might have an eye and nose shot away; in this case he flew on, valiantly trying to fly the plane and his crew back to safety.
Back at base, those who failed to return were quickly wiped from the slate. Every man kept his wash-bag in a satchel on a peg above his bed so that if he was killed, all evidence of his existence could quickly be removed and the next man moved in. 'The spirit of death was everywhere,' says Bishop. 'The crews accorded it an awed, medieval respect.'
Rather than methodically tell the story of the bomber campaign in strict chronological order, Bishop sensibly opts for a looser approach. The birth of the campaign, the development of aircraft, bomber tactics, and the move towards 'area bombing' are all given plenty of space, but in between are chapters dealing with specific themes.
There is a typical day in the life of a bomber crew, full of tension, drama, excitement and the terror of taking part in the raid. There is a section on life at the base: bad food, miserable conditions and few creature comforts were typical of the airman's lot. Romance is also touchingly dealt with. Nor does he shirk from telling the story from the point of view of the civilians crouching underneath one of Bomber Command's raids. Indeed, the description of the destruction of Cologne is one of the most affecting passages in the book.
Of course, no book about Bomber Command can ignore the thorny question of its rights and wrongs. While Bishop avoids openly lauding the merits of mass destruction, he does clearly believe that the extraordinary bravery and resilience of the men who carried out this campaign deserve our lasting recognition and respect.
Redressing this 'wrong' is a mission statement declared at the outset. The men of Bomber Command were never properly thanked for their significant part in the Allied victory - neither by Churchill in his victory address, nor with a specific campaign medal. Nor is there a national memorial. Bishop hopes that Bomber Boys will mark the first step in rectifying this. If this fine book is half as successful as it deserves to be, his mission will undoubtedly be successful.

Amen to that. :D

Thank you HR for that moving piece. James Holland's review of Patrick Bishop's book "Bomber Boys" tells of this bloody but essential struggle far more eloquently than I have read before. For all the impersonal nature of the bombing war, for all the relentless toll of life, be it allied or axis, military or civilian, this is still an essentially human story and here it seems at last is told, and told well. Hopefully it is a sign that now there is sufficient distance between us and those deadly nights to see past the natural revulsion at the waste of war and recognise that, if this one was going to be won, then this had to be done. All the more reason that the survivors be awarded their campaign medal now, while they are still with us. Time as well to consider a fitting memorial as is mentioned by Holland. I must read this book!

Just signed the petition, bit late.

My own thoughts, we are looking at a Medal for the crews who flew through the campaign. Nothing to do with anyones likes or dislikes for Bomber Harris.

Jackinoko, yes CC do deserve a medal...........so start a petition for them.

Hugh Spencer, thank you.




shaun

Bomber Command medal
 

Hi,
So the 'powers that be' have decided that there will be no further consideration of awarding a Bomber Command medal or clasp. All I will say is what I have said before. A clerk in the office was awarded a France and Germany Star like me but he was not exposed to the terror and fear that many crews felt during eight and a half hours on one operation, exposed to fighter attack and shrapnel from AA guns. Nuff said!

I got the email. Makes me very sad. Ignorant :mad:ers!

For those who may not have received a reply from the great leader, it reads as follows:
Once again the deliberate confusion between a medal for Bomber Command (not asked for by this petition) and a Campaign Medal for the Bombing Campaign (which is a different and worthy recognition of that deadly and arduous battle). The reason given for rejecting the award, that second guessing the decisions taken at the time is inappropriate and not policy for the last 50 years, is immediately rubbished by the GSM awarded (quite rightly) to those who took part in the Suez Campaign, and done so by this very government! But double standards mean you get twice as many I suppose! :confused:

PS I don't want to be "contraversial", but it used to be "controversial". Perhaps new spelling comes after new thinking!

And she gives Salmon Rushdie a knighthood!

Well that's the muslims upset 'n all then.

Sad to hear that they cannot do something about the medal innit.

VFE.

Following on from HR's summary of "Bomber Boys", I would like to add that the author indicates that although the throughput of men of Bomber Command was 125000 over the period, up to 15000 of that could be discounted as being in training at the end of the war. This is indicative of a 65% death rate on operations. The closest we have ever been to near suicidal dedication since the first world war.

For those of you mentioning the involvement of "colonials" the author points out that at least 8,000 of the 55,000 killed were Canadian.

As a teenager I worked in the bar of the Scottish and Newcastle brewery club in Edinburgh. One of the managers was an old man with blazer and RAF aircrew tie. Turns out that he had completed two tours on bombers. I naively asked him if he had kept up the flying. He told me that after his last trip he walked away from the aeroplane and had never set foot in any aircraft again.

I received my e-mail from Great Leader, but I reckon we asked for the wrong thing. A campaign medal for Bomber Command wasn't what was needed, because such had already been considered and rejected all those years ago. We ought to have asked for something specific that had not been considered previously: a Campaign Medal for Fortress Europe - The Bombing Campaign 1942-45 for example. These are after all, the people who decided that the Arctic Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean are one and the same place. Flying into almost certain death night after night bears no comparison with qualifying for the France and Germany Star. My Uncle Lewis cooked his way from Normandy to Germany with the Catering Corps attachment to the Durham Light Infantry to earn that one. :rolleyes:

Now that they are almost all gone, perhaps a medal is a moot point.

How about a great big everlasting monument in a principal public place.

Bomber Command medal
 

Ho, ho, ho ! So our prime minister can change things after all. I am pleased that the Bevin Boys are getting a miners' badge after all these years but what about all the fuss in his reply that those decisions were made at the time and nobody can alter them now? He is as deceitful as ' a bag of monkeys'. How could we, during the past ten years, trust such a man!