mm49@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (04/30/91)
From: mm49@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu I keep reading quite a bit about the German bombings of London and other British cities as well as the V-2 missile attacks. I was wondering exactly how many civilians died as a result of German attacks during the course of the war. Further more I am very curious as to the number of civilian deaths caused by the allied bombardments of Germany. I have heard that towards the end of the war 1000+ bombers used to target a German city every couple of days. From what I understand a few planes would drop some sort of marker bombs to create a fiery trail towards the targeted city, which the main force of the bombers would follow. Once above the blacked-out city allied planes would carpet bomb the city with high-explosive bombs to rip open the buildings. After this was done, waves of other bombers would drop incendiary bombs to set the destroyed buildings on fire to cause maximum damage. It seems to me that the numerical superior allied bombers, with bigger payloads, better targeting facilities, bigger fuel tanks, better defenses, good fighter escorts and virtual air superiority must have done more damage in one month than the whole German airforce during the whole war. If anybody has any comments on planes, strategies, figures please mail or post. Mike Mayer
pss4@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Paul S Shannon) (05/01/91)
From: pss4@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Paul S Shannon) German bomber and V-weapon attacks caused a total of 147,000 casualties from 1939 through 1945. Note that the Luftwaffe was not prepared for strategic bombing when the war began, concentrating instead on tactical missions to support a land advance. The weapons and numbers of aircraft where not very effective. For instance, the Conventry raid that in part prompted RAF Bomber Command to begin raids on German cities inflicted some 500 casualties. Note also that the RAF totally bought the concept of strategic bombing before the war, and expected the Germans to inflict some 150,000 casualties in the first week, and lose some 600,000 _killed_ in the first 2 months of the war. The RAF, with some public pressure, invested in air defense: radar, fighters, and a way to coordinate all these elements into an effective system. The Battle of Britain was actually won in the late '30s. The allies did not begin effective strategic bombing until mid-1944. Before that, they had a strategic doctrine without the means to carry it out. Note that the allies inflicted such damage from sheer numbers: targetting was certainly not effective (the Norden bombsight worked very well in the clear blue skies of the SW USA; Germany happened to be much cloudier). I don't have the casualty numbers on hand for the allied raids, but there were 80,000 _dead_ in Dresden. The numbers are similiar for the fire raid on Hamburg. I believe there were some 600,000 dead, but am not certain. -- If you happen to fall off the Sears Tower, go limp, so people will think you're a dummy and they'll try to catch you, because, hey, free dummy.
sparap@comp.mscs.mu.edu (Rodney Sparapani) (05/02/91)
From: sparap@comp.mscs.mu.edu (Rodney Sparapani) During WWII, British bombers did most of the night bombing which I think is what you are trying to explain. These night bombings(sometimes called carpet bombing in the papers) used overkill strategy to accommodate for innacurracy and often took out entire cities instead of the target. The day missions were flown mostly by Americans and relied on accuracy. The well-trained Bombadiers with their Norden bombsights could hit what they were aiming at but under air harassment and flak it was not easy. When they first started the bomber campaign, there was little or no fighter support. By the time support reached adequate levels, many German industries went underground and were actually increasing production. -- Rodney Sparapani (sparap@compsys.mu.edu) Marquette U Dept of Math/Stat&CS (414) 289-9193 Milwaukee, Wisconsin DISCLAIMER: The opinions stated here, either real or imagined, do not in any way reflect those of Marquette University, the MSCS Dept. or Voltaire.
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (05/03/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: sparap@comp.mscs.mu.edu (Rodney Sparapani) >... By the time support reached adequate levels, many >German industries went underground and were actually increasing production. Another issue which affected this was destruction of civilian life. One of the airpower enthusiasts' pet notions was destroying industrial effectiveness by destroying workers' housing and (so to speak) life support. It turned out that this backfired. One of a nation's biggest wartime problems is mobilizing the civilian workforce into military industry. Attempts to destroy the civilian infrastructure destroyed vast numbers of small stores and businesses, leaving their workforce unemployed and available for the war industries. The strategic bombing campaigns drove vast numbers of people out of (militarily) unproductive employment and into war support. -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
wag1@cbnewsl.att.com (Doug Wagley) (05/03/91)
From: wag1@cbnewsl.att.com (Doug Wagley) werner@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Werner Uhrig) writes: > > Further more I am very curious as to the number of civilian deaths > > caused by the allied bombardments of Germany > >From 'Deutsche Kulturgeschichte': (a college text) "Rund 1 1/2 Mill. Menschen verloren ihr Leben durch Luftangriffe (600 000 in Deutschland und 360 000 in Japan)". I posted my last msg to soc.culture.german also, and had the above "near instant" follow-up by Doug, which translates: "Approximately 1.5 million people lost their life in air attacks, 600,000 in Germany, 360,000 in Japan" Note, that the quote does not say "Germans" or "civilians" anywhere, though I'd be surprised if battle casualties were included, but expect that men killed while in uniform in the cities were counted. Doug [Further discussion to soc.history, please. --CDR]
d0mof@dtek.chalmers.se (Marcus Gustavsson) (05/04/91)
From: d0mof@dtek.chalmers.se (Marcus Gustavsson)
[1. 28 lines quoting the entire previous article deleted.
2. Don't start paragraphs with From!
3. Followups to soc.history; this one slips through because
there is some technical info not yet mentioned.
--CDR ]
[F]rom what I remember everyone bought the then science fiction ideas about
air war. Every nation put their money into strategic bombers, because the
airforce of the different nations used that type of bombing, as a mean to
justify their own existence as a separate body of arms. I think that the
airforces of the world could pull this off, because of the behaviour of
the British people that got targeted by Zeppelines during WWI. I remember
having read J.C Fuller (name?) and an Italian author (I could check his name),
that wrote one or two books about the devastating effects of strategic
bombing. The idea they had was mainly that, the future war i.e 1935+ would
be won by the side that first could drop bombs on the enemy. They thought
it would be enough with some 200 tons for to ensure victory.
There was even a military doctrine that simply said "The bombers will
always get through." When the allies started their, until mid-1944 tactical
defeat, offensive, they quickly changed that into "Some bombers will make
it back." Note that I don't think that some public pressure is the right
word to use, on why the RAF started to invest in defence. Given the above
doctrine, it is more likely that the only reason that the RAF invested in it,
was because Churchill and some other politicians pushed quite much for it.
--
USENET: d0mof@dtek.chalmers.se
SNAIL: Marcus Gustafsson
Harald Hjarnesgata 2
417 20 Gothenburg SWEDEN