Leaving the Philippines wasn’t a “strategy” by MacArthur; he was ordered to leave by Roosevelt. It should also be noted that MacArthur’s handling of the opening phases of the Philippines campaign was sloppy; as I recall, he was caught unprepared by the Japanese invasion, even though by the time it started he had already heard about the raid on Pearl Harbor.
Most overrated WWII weapon
-
And the protector of Germany, Italy, etc.
-
@ABWorsham:
For the amount of money spent producing the B-29, it should be an awesome bomber. I’ve read that it was one of the more expensive planes to produce in history.
Cost means little, especially to the USA
The U.S is my country also, sadly you are correct, thats why the U.S has Trillions in debt.
-
I would have to say the Me-110. Some good German pilots were sitting behind the controls of a 110 with Spitfire flying circles around them during the Battle of Britain. The plane had some redemption under the cover of darkness shooting down heavies. However when the war was winnable the weapon system failed.
-
@ABWorsham:
@ABWorsham:
For the amount of money spent producing the B-29, it should be an awesome bomber. I’ve read that it was one of the more expensive planes to produce in history.
Cost means little, especially to the USA
The U.S is my country also, sadly you are correct, thats why the U.S has Trillions in debt.
Without getting into politics, much of that debt is from the last 25 years or so, not from WWII. We did have a lot of debt from WWII as a percentage of GDP, but the postwar boom alleviated that somewhat.
-
-B-29 Superfortress bombing of Tokyo March 9 & 10 1945 destroyed 286,358 buildings (16 square miles), killed roughly a hundred thousand, injured over 120 thousand, and displaced over a million.
-B-29 casualties: 14The first B-29 combat mission was flown on 5 June 1944, with 77 B-29s bombing the railroad shops in Bangkok and Thailand. Five B-29s were lost during the mission, none to hostile fire.
On 15 June 1944, 68 B-29s bombed the Imperial Iron and Steel Works at Yahata Japan. The first B-29 combat losses occurred during this raid, with one B-29 destroyed on the ground by Japanese fighters after an emergency landing in China, one lost to anti-aircraft fire over Yawata.
Postwar, several RAF Bomber Command squadrons were equipped with B-29s loaned from USAF stocks. The aircraft were known as the Washington B.1 in RAF service
In fact the Soviets copied the B-29 design (however backwards) for their own Tupolev Tu-4.
-
I use the definition of overrated as; Thought of as most important by modern people, after the fact.
I am not sure whether I think (german) subs or strategic bombers are most overrated from the war. I will make a case for the bombers.
I also think the strategic bombers did little for the wareffort, at least when it comes in bombing of industry and population.
I think the net sum of moral for the nation being bombed is one of defiance, rather than dispair. Just look at reactions to 9/11, US was “never” more committed to fight the enemy, it united the nation, more than it caused a loss of moral.
the effect on industry is also negligable, at (I have only read about the germans). When russia took silesia in january 1945, it is estimated that it did a bigger damage for the total german war production (that is the production form jan-may 1945), than the all stratigic bombing of germany in WW2 combined.
When it comes to japan, the number for people that got killed is high, and they will be when you drop firebombs on houses made of paper. But most of the dead where civilians, it was also in the later part of the war.
the nuke is more difficult to assess, I know there is legitimate disagreement of whether the russian invasion of manchuria or the bombs or a combination was what made japan surrender.
HOWEVER, bombers have been very valuable after the war, and the dropping of the nukes was probably more valuable for the cold war than WW2.
-
Let’s not forget that in post war years it was learned that the main role of daylight bombing was not to knockout industrial targets as much as it was to wear down the Luftwaffe in plan for an invasion of the West.
-
It is very ignorant to call strategic bombers overrated.
the allied bombing plan starting in 42 was to destroy city crnters and kill/displace as many civilians as possible. And they did this EXTREMELY wellYou might call them overrated in the very early stages of the war, but once they figured it out strategic bombing was awe inspiring destruction
-
On topic I’d say the most overrated weapons system in the war was the battleship.
WWII marked the end of an era on the high seas and the beginning of the new age of aircraft carriers.
Some of the largest and most expensive BBs (Bismarck, Yamamoto) were ineffective and sunk relatively easy by aircraft.One could also make a case for the me-262
-
Bringing up 9/11 here is a huge reach.
There are so many huge, relevant, obvious differences I won’t bother to list them.
I just can’t let that citing of 9/11 sit. I’m restraining myself, here, so I’ll just say apples and oranges
-
Some facts to consider:
The winning side did a lot more bombing than the losing side.
London was ripe for invasion after all the bombing but UK was not invaded at all
USA and UK especially made a concentrated, concerted effort, risking the lives and wellbeing of many, many pilots and a ton of resources in order to carry out bombings. They would not have continued this for years if they were not completely convinced that it was the most effective way to go. You armchair generals think you know better? :lol:Speaking of London, that makes me think…
Try to imagine WWII without any of the bombings from either side -
It is very ignorant to call strategic bombers overrated.
the allied bombing plan starting in 42 was to destroy city crnters and kill/displace as many civilians as possible. And they did this EXTREMELY wellHeavy bombers might have been extremely good at killing civilians. But killing civilians is a very very poor way of bring a war to a close. The bombing of civilians in cities did nothing but galvanize the civilians against the bombing nation!
Gamerman, why do you think the 9/11 comparison is such a reach? If the intent of the 9/11 bombers was to scare off the US from middle east activities I think that goal was a spectacular failure. As was bombing london a failure to bring the British to their knees as was bombing the Germans a failure to bring their citizens to the point of surrender.
You say London was ripe for invasion during the bombing of London? I don’t think so. The people of England were FAR FAR from the point of wanting to surrender. The bombing of London’s purpose was to make the English give up, how did that work for the Nazis? How did the bombing of Dresdon work as far as making the Germans was to surrender?
-
Bombing didn’t reduce industrial production significantly?
“The bombing of Tokyo in World War II cut the city’s industrial productivity in half.”
“Strategic bombing was initially a way of taking the war into Europe while Allied ground forces were no closer to fighting Germans there than North Africa.”
Similarly, how the Germans brought war to London
“Initially, the Luftwaffe raids took place in daylight, then changed to night bombing attacks when losses became unsustainable. The RAF, initially espousing a precision-bombing doctrine, also switched to night bombing, also due to excessive losses.”
One reason for the low percentage of accuracy cited earlier by someone.
What percentage of machine gun bullets miss? Does that make a machine gun ineffective?
Quotes are from wikipedia article on “strategic bombing”
-
Heavy bombers might have been extremely good at killing civilians. But killing civilians is a very very poor way of bring a war to a close. The bombing of civilians in cities did nothing but galvanize the civilians against the bombing nation!
See quote about destroying half of Tokyo’s production
Gamerman, why do you think the 9/11 comparison is such a reach? If the intent of the 9/11 bombers was to scare off the US from middle east activities I think that goal was a spectacular failure.
You’re kidding, right? Of course that wasn’t the intent. The intent was to lash out at the free world (multinational target) and kill Americans and inflict terror and death.
As was bombing london a failure to bring the British to their knees as was bombing the Germans a failure to bring their citizens to the point of surrender.
I admit that’s true. And you guys need to admit the obvious truth that bombing demoralizes a lot of people. A lot of people were afraid and demoralized after 9/11 (since a few of you think that’s a relevant comparison)
As for differences, which are extremely obvious….
9/11 wasn’t bombs dropped from airplanes. Most people really didn’t expect the same thing to happen the next day. And the next. And the next.
The USA was at peace otherwise, and had ample resources to quickly and decisively deal with many threats, and people knew this. All aircraft being grounded immediately was one example. The plane in Pennsylvania never would have made it to Washington - it would have been shot down.
3,000 people or something like that in one terrorist action, compared to constant carpet bombing - death from above? There really is no comparison.Why don’t YOU tell me why they’re the SAME? Other than a big explosion that killed a lot of people, and an attack from a foreign enemy, don’t the similarities end there?
-
@Uncrustable:
It is very ignorant to call strategic bombers overrated.
I’m just going to agree with this, and if some of you have convinced yourselves that bombing is ineffective for some weird PC reason or something, well, I’m not going to waste my time trying to change that ignorance - it’s frustrating to try and convince somebody you don’t know and don’t care about, when they’re already convinced
Let’s just all pray we’re never the target of strategic bombing ourselves - and that includes you weird Canadians :wink: When I say “we” I mean all of us anywhere, not just Americans
-
There’s a reason there is a tech called “heavy bombers” in A&A, and why each bomber could score THREE hits a piece, and destroy all IPC’s of the enemy
Ask Larry if Strategic bombing is overrated! :lol:
-
@rjpeters70:
Bombers weren’t overrated… they were ineffectively utilized till the end of the war is all.
Hmmmm…. bombers were effectively used… at the end of the war…
Possible correlation, causal relationship?
On August 15 the Emperor announced the surrender of Japan, stating:
“Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is indeed incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should We continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects; or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers.”No mention of Manchuria there…
-
Partial list of B-29 missions against Tokyo
24 November 1944: 111 B-29s hit an aircraft factory on the rim of the city.[16][17]
27 November 1944: 81 B-29s[16][18]
29�30 November 1944: two incendiary raids on industrial areas, burning 2,773 structures.[16][18]
19 February 1945: 119 B-29s hit port and urban area
24 February 1945: 229 B-29s plus over 1600 carrier-based planes.[16][19]
25 February 1945: 174 B-29s dropping incendiaries destroy ~28,000 buildings[20]
4 March 1945: 159 B-29s hit urban area[8]
10 March 1945: 334 B-29s dropping incendiaries destroy ~267,000 buildings; ~25% of city[8] (Operation Meetinghouse) killing some 100,000
2 April 1945: >100 B-29s bomb the Nakajima aircraft factory
3 April 1945: 68 B-29s bomb the Koizumi aircraft factory and urban areas in Tokyo
7 April 1945: 101 B-29s bomb the Nakajima aircraft factory.[citation needed]
13 April 1945: 327 B-29s bomb the arsenal area
15 April 1945: 109 B-29s hit urban area[citation needed]
24 May 1945: 520 B-29s bomb urban-industrial area south of the Imperial Palace[citation needed]
26 May 1945: 464 B-29s bomb urban area immediately south of the Imperial Palace[citation needed]
20 July 1945: 1 B-29 drops a Pumpkin bomb (bomb with same ballistics as the Fat Man nuclear bomb) through overcast aiming at but missing the Imperial Palace[21]
8 August 1945: ~60 B-29s bomb the aircraft factory and arsenal
10 August 1945: 70 B-29s bomb the arsenal complexList of bombing against Tokyo only
Seriously, look up “Strategic bombing” in Wikipedia and do some reading.
There is absolutely no comparison between the relatively minor terrorist attacks on 9/11 and the absolutely massive amounts of continuous bombing in WWII.Hundreds and hundreds of B-29’s raining hell on the enemy day after day after incessant day…. (thinking of London - it wasn’t daily on Tokyo as you can see above)
-
You’re reading ME wrong. I was quoting you to further my argument with people who think that bombing is ineffective and strengthens the enemy that you are destroying
There’s another major difference. The cowardly terrorist attacks on 9/11 had absolutely no chance of stopping or crippling the USA. Quite different for WWII bombing
-
The people of England were FAR FAR from the point of wanting to surrender.�
That’s not what I meant by “ripe for invasion”.
The bombing of London’s purpose was to make the English give up, how did that work for the Nazis?
Really? That was THE reason? I really think you’re underestimating Nazi Germany, and this sounds like something from some TV show or opinion piece.�
How did the bombing of Dresdon work as far as making the Germans was to surrender?
I never said strategic bombing will make your enemy want to surrender.
Another thing I was reading about strategic bombing mentioned that it greatly RAISED the morale of the people in the countries SENDING the bombers! That’s significant too, since we’re talking about the effectiveness of strategic bombing.
Suggested Topics
