Quote:
|
Originally Posted by George Hopp
....who caused greater damage and production loss to German industry, Bomber Command by burning down cities, or the USAAF by destroying factories and refineries?
|
Sorry, George, but this is a rather weak and black & white statement that seems to get thrown around all too often these days. Bomber Command was not always area bombing cities (especially from 1944 onwards) and the Eighth Air Force was not always achieving precision attacks on factories and refineries...
In 1945, for example, only 36% of the Bomber Command effort was (mis)directed against area targets.
Although it is true that the Mighty Eighth lead the way, Bomber Command, for example, had a major effect on the attack against oil. Between May 1944 and May 1945, the USAAF mounted more attacks on oil (170 versus 82) but Bomber Command dropped a higher tonnage of bombs (63,674 versus 45,617). Without arguing the respective accuracy and effectiveness of these attacks (both air forces had their successes and failures), it should be noted that, at times, the higher capacity blast bombs of Bomber Command could cause more destruction, if the target was hit, than the 500-2000lb bombs or incendiary devices used by both air forces.
As for the discussion that seems to have developed regarding the B17 and the Lancaster, simply put, both were outstanding aircraft that reflected more than anything the differing philosophies of their respective air forces.
It should be stated that as fine as the B17 was, in daylight it was mince-meat without the benefit of the air superiority gained by the escort fighters. This was not a failure of the aircraft, but of the "self-defending bomber" brigade.
On the same token, the Lancaster burned easily and it's poor downward defensive qualities, allied with the overloading to increase bomb tonnage and the venerability of it's fuel and oxygen systems, was exploited by the Nachtjagd. Without the benefit of the weakening of the Nachtjagd, due to a number of different factors, I think that the loss rates of early 1944 could have prevailed.
The the point I am trying to make (sorry, 'cause it is a 'what if' question) is how would have both aircraft performed if:
(a) the B17 lost some armour and defensive firepower in order to increase bomb load (with a corresponding increase in the size of the bomb bay)?
(b) the Lancaster increased armour and the calibre of defensive armament at the expense of bomb load?
To me, only then can true comparisions be made - when the aircraft have equal capabilities (bomb load, defensive armament and armour) - otherwise the argument is actually about the validity of the differing philosophies of the USAAF and Bomber Command....
Cheers
RodM