• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bad ideas in war

Bollocks

What point of the war are you using as your reference for this?

What do you think the output of slaves working in underground caves was compared to skilled workers in well equipped factories with working transport infrastructure and constant power?

"exit interviews" with Nazis after the war.

I'm not saying they had no effect, but on their own they would not have won the war - it still took Normandy and huge numbers of troops.
 
Bollocks

What point of the war are you using as your reference for this?

What do you think the output of slaves working in underground caves was compared to skilled workers in well equipped factories with working transport infrastructure and constant power?

Very few things, such as the V-2 were underground, and that had nothing to do with slave labour. The two were orthogonal. Most slaves either worked in the same kinds of factories as everyone else (albeit in worse conditions and starved half to death all the time) or, as Zaganza was saying were used to repair whatever the allies bombed, including making the cement and whatnot.
 
Mind you, slave labour was indeed NOT as productive as qualified and well paid workers (which is why almost everyone gave up on it and even on serfdom in the late middle ages,) and that's not even going into the sabotage they occasionally did. But I have seen no evidence that it had anything to do with the allied bombing.
 
Mind you, slave labour was indeed NOT as productive as qualified and well paid workers (which is why almost everyone gave up on it and even on serfdom in the late middle ages,) and that's not even going into the sabotage they occasionally did. But I have seen no evidence that it had anything to do with the allied bombing.

I read the autobiography of Charles Frazer Smith many years* ago. He was one of the inspirations for "Q"

One of the requests he received was ultimately from a French forced labourer who was making U-boat crew uniforms and wanted to harm them, and decided to ask for itching powder.

Frazer Smith said he wasn't sure what effect it had but had heard one report of a U-boat surrendering because of an outbreak of an unidentified skin disease


*Late 1980s early 1990s

ETA

https://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/...uecTQlxMkb_GZz_g2N_K-_TBY0eUvubwaAgfxEALw_wcB


Fraser-Smith, not Frazer
 
Last edited:
Hell, it went as far as some U-Boot coming back because some disgruntled slave (funny how you never hear about any other kind of slave;)) had drilled small holes in their fuel tanks :p
 
Of course the allies loved their bombers. Everyone loves bombers. Bombers are awesome. They're one of the the best ideas in war ever. But there is a nuance. Bombers are artillery, and artillery alone doesn't win wars. Sooner or later, you always have to do a ground offensive to seal the deal. This is not a failure of artillery. Only an idiot or a desperate man would attempt a ground invasion without all the artillery he could possibly have. This is true at every scale of warfare, from close quarters combat to total war.
 
Technically... not really, no. No army ever was better off by just having all of X they could get, without the consideration to other forces.

E.g., you could make the same argument about wanting all the tanks ever, but Germany discovered fairly early in Poland that that it's a bad idea. They started, much like everyone else, from the idea of having 2/3 (or AT BEST 1/2) of a Panzerdivision being tanks, vs the rest being infantry, but eventually discovered than just 1/3 worked better.
 
Bollocks

What point of the war are you using as your reference for this?

What do you think the output of slaves working in underground caves was compared to skilled workers in well equipped factories with working transport infrastructure and constant power?

How resource constrained are they? You can only make so many tanks with x amount of iron ore and so on. ANd of course it would have been slaves working it either way, german men were needed for the front.
 
I wonder how much those raids boosted morale in occupied Europe. I recall many years ago watching a WW2 documentary (I want to say The World At War but I skimmed a few episodes for it and couldn't find it) a Belgian or French farmer talked about being out in his field one evening, thought he heard thunder and then saw the first thousand bomber raid heading for Germany. "At that moment I knew we would win this war".
Found footage, no history
 
Technically... not really, no. No army ever was better off by just having all of X they could get, without the consideration to other forces.

E.g., you could make the same argument about wanting all the tanks ever, but Germany discovered fairly early in Poland that that it's a bad idea. They started, much like everyone else, from the idea of having 2/3 (or AT BEST 1/2) of a Panzerdivision being tanks, vs the rest being infantry, but eventually discovered than just 1/3 worked better.

I admit I got a little hyperbolic there, but I believe the principle is sound: It would be a bad idea in war to not use artillery, and to not use all the artillery available to you, that suits your purpose. You use grenades and mortars to clear trenches, if you have them. You use breaching rounds or JDAMs to clear buildings, if you have them. You use cluster bombs to take out AA complexes (if you're allowed to). You use strategic bombing to weaken an enemy theater-wide, prior to your ground assault. What TGZ portrays as a vice of the allies is actually one of the highest virtues in warfare - the generous application of artillery wherever possible.
 
How resource constrained are they? You can only make so many tanks with x amount of iron ore and so on. ANd of course it would have been slaves working it either way, german men were needed for the front.

What happens to your stock of resources for making weapons when you have to keep using it to repair the damage done by bombing? How do you replace resources directly destroyed by bombing?
 
I wonder how much those raids boosted morale in occupied Europe. I recall many years ago watching a WW2 documentary (I want to say The World At War but I skimmed a few episodes for it and couldn't find it) a Belgian or French farmer talked about being out in his field one evening, thought he heard thunder and then saw the first thousand bomber raid heading for Germany. "At that moment I knew we would win this war".
Found footage, no history

And you have to off set that against all the non german civilians killed by such bombings. I imagine a lot of french people in normandy had complex feeling about D-Day with the heavy bombing they had before it and hundreds of civilians killed.
 
From the Trident conference in May 1943 onwards, the main aim of the US 8th Air Force was to destroy the Luftwaffe, the bombing of factories was a just part of their mission.
By by the end of 43 the raid accuracy was to put the bombs within a 1000 yard circle over the target. they were getting 34% of the load within the circle, the remainder were close.
 
Last edited:
@theprestige

OK, seriously, I may have been a bit flippant, but the message I was trying to get across is that there's no such thing as a free meal.

If some time traveller offered you some 100% free 10,000 MLRS systems and 10,000,000 missiles for it, sure, you'd have to be completely drain bamaged to refuse.

But in actual historical situations, it's more like you could have 1 extra mobile artillery regiment, or 1000 trucks, or 1,000,000 extra SMGs. There are no two choices. Neither is for free. Each of the 3 choices you take, means you don't get either from the other two.
 
Allied casualties averaged 11,333 every day during the war.


If the strategic bombing campaign shortened the war by just a week that's more lives saved than aircrew lost in the bombing raids.
If the raids hadn't happened at all and German industry was left to produce unhindered the casualty rate would have been higher as a all the troops and guns employed in AA would have been available for the front, all the fighters defending Germany would have been available and the unhindered industry would have been able to produce much more equipment.



D-Day would have been more deadly and complicated as the Luftwaffe would have been able to attack the ships and landings in a big way and the defenders would have had more and better equipment.

So anyone saying the effects were minor or it was wasted effort are just repeating ignorant mythology.

My last words on the subject.
 
@theprestige

OK, seriously, I may have been a bit flippant, but the message I was trying to get across is that there's no such thing as a free meal.

If some time traveller offered you some 100% free 10,000 MLRS systems and 10,000,000 missiles for it, sure, you'd have to be completely drain bamaged to refuse.

But in actual historical situations, it's more like you could have 1 extra mobile artillery regiment, or 1000 trucks, or 1,000,000 extra SMGs. There are no two choices. Neither is for free. Each of the 3 choices you take, means you don't get either from the other two.

Thanks for telling me this. I did not know it. I will carefully consider that everything has a price, and war is full of trade-offs for competing resources, before I form any further opinions.
 
You're welcome... But seriously, you'd be surprised at how many people think X is a good idea, compared purely to not doing anything at all, and haven't even put any thought at all into "what if we had put the same resources into Y or Z instead." :p

Yeah, it's easy to have an ego wank about being so smart that it involves not even having a clue of any other factors. Like, just get more artillery, don't mind what else you could do with the same resources, claim that that would have SOMEHOW won the war. Or even that OBVIOUSLY any army ever MUST have been agreeing to your dumb brai-fart. But that's kinda actually the difference between dumb ego wank and actually having an argument :p
 
Last edited:
How resource constrained are they? You can only make so many tanks with x amount of iron ore and so on. ANd of course it would have been slaves working it either way, german men were needed for the front.

This quote from the piece I linked seems relevant:

O’Brien is at his absolute best describing the subtle factors that whittled away Axis combat power. Air and sea power created a situation where the Axis war machine simply could not function anywhere near as efficiently as it needed to.

For example, after the Allied air bombings started, Germany built vast underground aircraft factories to protect production. But that move carried a host of negative side effects. To name a few:

- The direct cost of building new factories in inconvenient places was very manpower intensive.

- The old factories had been sited convenient to resource bases. The new factories were necessarily not near resource bases—they were in areas where one could dig out big new facilities.

-Railroads, by far the most efficient means of transportation, were set up to efficiently move goods to and from the old factories, not the new ones.
Those factories had to be optimized for things like size and compactness, not efficiency and quality control. Aircraft frequently broke down on their way to the front lines. Once damaged, they could not be fixed on the front lines and were effectively useless.

- These effects ultimately mean fewer airplanes produced as the war went on, and dramatic increases in non-operational losses. Citing the German field marshal in charge of aircraft production, O’Brien assessed that the Germans lost approximately half of their planned fighter production in this way. This comports with post-war American assessments, which assessed total German aircraft losses at the front as 15,327 in 1944, and non-operational losses at approximately 15,000. For comparison: total German aircraft losses at Kursk were approximately 159(!)

[there's a graph showing non-operational losses of aircraft]

Data from HtWWW, recreated to improve image quality
The inefficiencies stemming from bombing ruined several would-be German technological panaceas. Germany developed the world’s first operational jet fighter, the Me-262. Lack of fuel meant there was not enough training for its pilots, and maintenance shortfalls meant that about half of the 1,400 Me-262s produced by Germany were lost outside of combat. The Germans developed a dangerous, relatively modern submarine, the Type XXI. They intended to deploy dozens in a way that the Allies would have been hard pressed to fight, but production delays meant that only one ever actually went on a mission.

Allied Bombings Provoked Vastly Expensive Reactions

O’Brien thoroughly documents how expensive Germany’s reaction to Allied bombings was. First, expenditures on anti-aircraft weaponry and fighter planes skyrocketed. The Germans practically denuded the Eastern Front of fighter planes to have more to throw at the bombers. By late 1944, a bare 15% of German aircraft were fighting on the Eastern Front. In the second half of 1943, significantly more concrete was devoted to the construction of protected aircraft factories in Germany than to the entire Eastern Front. The amount of concrete devoted just to protecting Hitler personally from air attack was almost a third of the entire total for fortifications on the Eastern Front
 

Back
Top Bottom