Operation Steinbock question

[RT]

The more general question is hv ALL strategic bombings failed ???
Put apart the moral question, it seems..

Rémi

[Graham Boak]

Define failure. The Strategic Bombing Survey of Germany concluded that it had been a success. It is difficult to argue with the success of the B-29 against Japan.

If the criteria is the defeat of a nation by strategic bombing alone, then the answer is that it has never been tried. Wisely, I feel. It is argued that the retreat of the Serbian forces from Kosovo with no direct action other than aerial attack proved the principle. Others disagree, but then there will always be disagreements over such involved matters.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by RT

The more general question is hv ALL strategic bombings failed ???
Put apart the moral question, it seems..

Rémi

Try to get hold of a recent paperback "The Wages of Destruction" by Adam Tooze. It's about the economy of the Third Reich and includes an interesting discussion of the impact of Allied bombing.

[RT]

THks Nik for the hint try to get this one,

Graham when I wrote my message I think about the Serbian case, Serbia hv to lay down when International.com , read the USA, decide to put them dow, any mean they use they fail, Concerning Germany nd Japan man could think that when they decided, or forced to be defensive they hv lost the war nd by far no strategic war hv been engaged against them at that time.

"nation by strategic bombing alone, then the answer is that it has never been tried"
England tried nd failed nd without the back-up of the US this strategy to invest considerable assets in the bombers could hv been the only way to loose the War for U.K..

Remi

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by BC

The Luftwaffe, he states, lost approximately one bomber and four trained crewman for every five British civilians killed on the ground.

BC

Two things need to be considered.

Firstly, those 300+ plus bombers appearantly include aircraft lost in the accidents/non-enemy related causes, and one has to wonder what a bomber crashing on takeoff at France and becoming a write-off would mean 4 lost bomber crews in each and every case, like it would be if the bomber would be lost over England. I belive Price is actually quoting some Churchillian paper from the given wartime period, actually, estimates on enemy losses, with a bit of a political spin on it. It would be most interesting to see the actual figures.

Secondly, it would appear the targets included a good deal of other things than just civillians - Londond docks for example, and major seaports - so a bizarre comparison of dead civvies vs. dead aircrews is odd, and simplifies things as well.

The '60% lost' figure is also nice, save for it appears to be a smokescreen for the fact that overall, the losses were not particularly heavy by any standard - we`re speaking of a period of five months here, which works out to 60 bombers lost per month, of which about 40-50 lost per month to enemy action over Britain. That`s considerably less than the losses suffered between July-October 1940, and quite miniscule compared to the big picture. Bomber Command lost as many, or even twice as many during single raids over Germany, rather than a month..

If my Excell tables on German bombers (ie. Kampfgeschwadern only) losses are correct (I think there are some small glithces, but the number is apprx. good, certainly not less), it shows for example 191 bombers lost to enemy action, 148 to non-enemy action, and 169 were written off to overhauls and repairs. 508 in a single month to all causes, and yet the bomber force alltogether stood at some 2200 aircraft by the end of January.

From Jan-May, the figures are ~881 enemy, ~700 n-e, ~1063 to Überholung, total ~2644. It would also appear that some 150 bombers were transferred from bomber units to others during the period.

[RT]

In fact the discussion is not , at my sense , the loss are worth the damages caused ??, but is there any sense to throw bombs as near blind, just to obliged ennemy to build-up its defence, compare to WWII the qties of bombs dropped over vietnam was quite more considerable without having caused the expected results
Yes the losses suffered by the KG during the Baby-blitz were soft , more serious hv been the high consume of gasoline, to prepare nd conduct those raids, not speaking of the relatively poor response bombers gave after to the Normandy "raid",
Even Goering at the time of "baedecker" was not convince of utility of these bombings

remi

Germans were never in position to conduct a Strategic war, people could also thing that even England don't hv the means of this politic, just the US with the atomic-bomb....

[Brian Bines]

Further to the loss question on Steinbock aircraft looking through the lists shows the following - 18 aicraft on transfer flights ( including 1 which fell to fighters over the UK), 72 Steinbock aircraft falling on or near the UK ( plus the one on transfer flight and non-Steinbock related desertion ), 110 crashes on the Continent, 129 further aircaft listed as missing, 5 aircraft on recon. missions plus the 1 desertion (not Steinbock).
Transfer Flights - 17 of the 18 aircraft were lost as follows 9 to Allied Fighters, 3 to own Flak, 4 to engine/technical problems and 1 to Fighters over the UK. Of the 83 aircrew involved in the 17 incidents 50 were killed and 17+ injured/wounded. Addtionally there were casualties amongst groundcrew carried on some of these aircraft
Crashes on the Continent while on Steinbock attacks - 93 incidents with some form of loss of aircrew. Of these 25 were to aircraft returning with NF/AA damage, 23 crashed following technical/ engine trouble, 9 fell to intruders, 3 fell to own Flak, at least 15 crashed on landing/take off, and 6 crashed followng weather/navigation problems. Of the 356 aircrew in these incidents 176 were killed and over 70 injured/wounded.
Recon. Flights - a Ju 88 ( 3 POW's and 1 killed), 2 Ju188's and a Bf 109 (crews missing) lost on missions to Scotland plus one Bf 109 (pilot Killed)shot down over France returning from a mission to London/Thames Estuary (checking Steinbock bomb -damage ?)

Aircraft not included in the 335 losses, 2 Ju290's shot down by fighters while on sea-recon near Ireland, a Ju 52 of KG6 crashed on transfer flight killing 11 groudcrew passengers, Ju88S of KG66 on domestic flight, 3 Me410's of KG51 on non-op. flights, 4 Ju188's of operational staffels of KG2 on non-op. flights, a Ju88 of KG6 and a He177 of KG100 shot down by fighters while on workshop flights, a Arado 96 plus 5 Fw190's of I/SKG10 on domesic/non-Steinbock missions

[Graham Boak]

A couple of comments.

Steinbock losses were not "soft", however they compare with cherry-picked examples from Bomber Command, as they have to be compared with the available forces and the overall loss rate. Soft or not, they did not produce results proportional to the effort, even by the standards of other bombing campaigns, even if discussed only in terms of civilian damage. As for bombing seaports, wasn't the main effect of the bombing of Bristol the destruction of the shopping centre?

The British did not attempt to win the war by strategic bombing alone, although much effort was placed behind this as the one direct means of hitting Germany between 1940 and 1944. Unable to field an Army capable of facing the German one, or indeed of transporting one to any point of contact, in the early years they did manage to defeat Germany's main ally on two different fronts. The Army was continually expanded and improved, not an effort that would have been needed had a genuine attempt at winning by bombing alone been intended. The Navy carried out a trade blockade of Germany which was successful in preventing the supply of war materials such as key metals, rubber and fuels, amongst others. Later they had to fight the Japanese as well. All in all, Britain was rather busy even without the bombers.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Two things need to be considered.

Firstly, those 300+ plus bombers appearantly include aircraft lost in the accidents/non-enemy related causes ... and yet the bomber force alltogether stood at some 2200 aircraft by the end of January.

The losses to all causes are important because accidents in France and in the training units were all part of the cost to Germany of conducting the Steinbock campaign. The numbers of aircraft that were sent over on the first raids could nor be sustained as the campaign progressed. The first raid involved about 400 aircraft, within a month 200 or less was more typical and in the last few raids less than 100.

Units brought back from Italy for Steinbock but had to be returned after the Anzio landing. Typical raids in Italy in early 1944 involved about 100–110 aircraft.

If the whole bomber force was 2200, a much smaller number could actually bomb targets on a given night.

[Bombphoon]

In the back of Simon Parry's excellent 1987 book Intruders over Britain it mentions that a book about Steinbock was due to be published by the same company. It never came to light.

I spoke to an aviation artist last September at the Victory Show in Leicestershire UK and he told me that - finally - he knows that somebody is writing a book about Operation Steinbock for publication. Sorry, I haven't got anymore details than that, but when I next see him, I'll ask again and post more info.