Talk:Strategic bombing/Archive 1

Archive 1

Page one

From the article:

For instance, the Stratgic bombing survey? conducted by the United States after World War II determined that German industrial production had risen every year of the war despite strategic bombing. Although designed to "break the enemy's will", the opposite often happens.

I'd really like to see some backup of this claim. -- ansible

see Richard Parker's biography of John Kenneth Galbraith.

see James Carroll's "House of War" DEddy 19:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I wrote this short piece while working on Dr. Strangelove. Of course, it is considerably more complicated than that. It appears that German production went up every year of the war until late 1944-45 despite strategic bombing. In part, this was because the Germans did not seriously ramp up production until 1942, or so. That is, they were well under capacity until after the invasion of Russia. Still, production in most sectors continued to rise. There was a great deal of difference from industry to industry. The collapse in 1945 was so total that it is difficult to know what portion to attribute to the bombing and what to other factors. I will edit the piece a little to reflect this further research, and also link the survey itself.

The stuff about morale holds up pretty well.

Even when I beef up the article a little, this will still be only a stub, which is all I intended to provide. Others are welcome to continue. Ortolan88 19:22 Aug 6, 2002 (PDT)

Of course, I've got to wonder what would have happened to German production figures if there had been no strategic bombing at all during WWII. Would it have gone up even higher? The Allies won the war by vastly out-producing the Axis countries. Consider tank warfare in the European theater.

The German Tiger was quite superior to the American Sherman and the USSR T-34 tanks. I've seen 5 to 1 kill ratios vs. the Sherman quoted a couple times. The thing was that the the Allies were producing 10x as many tanks by 1944. If the Germans had something close to parity in numbers, they would have pushed the Allies back out of continental Europe.

These are not exact figures, BTW, don't quote me on it.

At any rate, this article is going to need to address such points, namely that there isn't as much scientific evidence as we'd like.

I happen to agree with you on the morale bit, however.

Just wanted to give y'all something to chew on. - 2002/9/11, Ansible

I think the more important question is not whether strategic bombing is more effective than doing nothing, but whether it is more effective in hastening the end of a given war or reducing loss of life than if the same resources (pilots, bombs, planes, etc.) had been applied to more tactical ends. But apart from that there probably is some morale boost to your population if you bomb the enemy strategically in retaliation for the same kind of attack on you- even if you know it isn't strictly as good as doing something else, the average member of the public may not know or care. Wsacul 02:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The low rate of German production up to 1942 is probably more meaningful than any growth after 1942. How weird is it that they really didn't seem to take the war seriously, even after their dopey invasion of the Soviet Union?

Adding these links here for convenience of me and Ansible and anyone else interested:

• Strategic bombing survey -- umbrella stub
• Strategic bombing survey (Europe) -- pretensions of being more than a stub
• Strategic bombing survey (Pacific War) -- stub
• Strategic bombing survey (Atomic attacks) -- stub
• Bombing of Dresden in World War II -- includes stuff about David Irving's lying inflation of casualty figures and Kurt Vonnegut's personal involvement.

Obviously plenty remains to be done. Ortolan88 16:11 Sep 12, 2002 (UTC)

"I think the more important question is not whether strategic bombing is more effective than doing nothing" It's not as if "nothing" was the only other choice, tho opponents to strategic bombing often (usually) imply so (if not saying it outright, & probably believe it). It's nothing like so simple. (Is it ever?) To begin with, there was the option of attacks on rail transport, or on canals. Or on fuel/oil refining. Or a switch to mining (viz canal attack), which, in RAF experience over Europe, was nearly zero casualties & (relatively) hi effectiveness (cf Terraine, The Right of the Line). (Extremely hi, measured against #KIA.) Attacking canals & mining rivers might conceivably inhibit, or stop, delivery of coal (Germany's main powerplant fuel), & thus stop industrial production without bombing plants or devestating cities (which, note, would have to be rebuilt postwar, tho there were some who'd have been happy to see Germany turned back to pasture entire). Then there's politics: could Winston stop Harris without risking a political backlash, from Parliament, or public opinion, or Stalin? And there are moral issues. Was it moral to continue to send airmen against targets known to be heavily defended, where the enemy knows they will return (cities certainly weren't going anywhere), and where defences will be increasingly strong? (If we lambaste Haig for doing much the same, we should lambaste Harris for it.) "Strategic bombing or nothing"? Not really. Trekphiler 08:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

---

The following period is grammatically difficult: "Because of the controversial nature of deliberating [deliberately?] bombing civilian targets, the United States military has in more recent wars attempted to minimize the negative publicity associate [associated?] with such bombing campaigns."
S.

The edit I just did is a little sloppy: I must try to get back to it and replace broad assertions with the exact figures (e.g., the actual proportion of British bombs that fell outside the five mile "on target" limit), and also tighten it up a little, probably cutting the length of the section I added a little. But not tonight.

On the Gulf War, I removed "although in fact civilian casualties were high during the bombing campaign of that war". Before this statement goes back in it needs to say "high" by what standard of comparison. Tannin

Excuse me while I bend the rule about "no debate" a little to respond to some comments in this talk page. Ansible doubts that German industrial production rose despite strategic bombing. This is an abundantly well-established fact: sources are leigon. Second, the suggestion that "the Allies won the war by vastly out-producing the Axis". Well, if you ignore the Soviet Union, perhaps so. It would be equally true (and equally misleading) to say that "The Soviet Union won the war by replacing casualties faster than the Axis", or "The Alies won the war by developing better technology than the Axis" (Radar, the Mustang, the Lancaster, the proximity fuse, and so on) or "Hitler lost the war by failing to organise his scientific and industrial effort effectively". And so on. Single explanations are rarely very useful. And on tanks, the German tanks were indeed superior to the Sherman and the Churchill, but were by no means superior to the rugged, effective, powerful T-34 and the IS1/IS2.

---

Some military strategists believe that strategic bombing has become more effective and less likely to cause civilian casualties with the advent of precision guided munitions. The effectiveness of strategic bombing is without question -- it was used in Kosovo to force the capitulation of the Serbian army (without using any ground forces). Chadloder 11:57 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, Chadloder. Kosovo seems to me to have signalled an entirely new period in air warfare, and (for the first time in history) strategic bombing has more-or-less entirely lived up to the claims of its proponents. Tannin

I added quite a large expansion/re-write just now. I need to come back and relate it more directly to the topic, and flesh out more stuff, esp the American role in WW2, the Asian campaigns in the mid 20th century (Malaya, Vietnam), other prominent pre-war theorists like Mitchell and Douhet. Lots of work still to do! But I'm going to take a break from it for a few hours. If anyone feels like taking any of this on in the meantime, or just adding links and tidying up my new text, go right ahead! Tannin 00:07 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

---

I like what you've added, although I think the original 1st paragraph was a little bit more concise. "Strategic bombing is a ..." is better than "Strategic bombing aims to ...". I just finished "Waging Modern War" by Gen. Wesley Clark, he talks a lot about the process of waging (and justifying) the Kosovo strategic bombing campaign, including why certain decisions were made and what the results were. I also want to read about the other side of the conflict, I hear that Kosovo: War and Revenge by Tim Judah is a good place to start. Chadloder 01:15 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

Tim Judah hardly represents the 'other side', for one he supported the bombing. Maybe you should try "Strategy of Deception" by Paul Virilio. --Igor 3:45, Sep 22, 2003 (UTC)

Yes. I had huge difficulties writing that opening para, and I'm not happy with it either. The original one, however, had its own problems. It said, essentially, "strategic bombing is a strategy of bombing". Not much help. The trouble is, there are two conficting goals here. On the one hand, we are supposed to put "strategic bombing" on the first line of the entry. On the other hand, SB is a difficult concept to understand at the best of times, and it really only makes sense to define it in terms of what it is not - i.e., strategic bombing is bombing that is not tactical bombing, and (arguably) not bombing that is just mindless city destruction either - that last is not so much a strategy as it is an admission that all our strategies have failed and we don't know what else to do. Maybe it's time to try a dictionary definition instead?

On the Kosovo lessons, Chadloder, it sounds as though you are the best equipped among us to write that up. I mostly just try to get my mind around the period 1789 to 1945 and am weak on modern history/current events. I gather that Blimpguy is going to do a little bit on the Zepplin raids in WW1 (the first true strategic bombing). It looks as though this entry is going to get rather too long and will need to be spilt up eventually. Worry about that when the time comes, I guess. Tannin

---

The article is much improved over my skimpy beginning (which still lurks here and there in the new article), but the paragraphs are way too long but quite easy to break up. I just did so, but got tromped by an edit conflict and retreated. If they remain long as they are, great oceans of type being hard on the reader, I will break them up later. Ortolan88

OK, I'm going to get tromped on this one, so I won't put up a fight, but just for the record, I firmly believe that paragraphs should contain meaning - "one thought, one paragraph".

Yes, it is acceptable to break really long paras up to provide the eye with some rest, but this modern madness for ultra-short paras makes it very difficult to follow any but the simplest of discussions. Paragraph breaks provide text with structure. Having too many is just as bad as not having any - either way, the reader is left with no typographical hints to help her organise the message in her mind.

A much better way to make text readable (which doesn't work on paper but works great here) is to sprinkle links here and there through it. Provided they are not so overdone as to be distracting, the visual anchor points of coloured links help the reader keep her place or flick back to double-check on a previous point - which is also easier to find, both because the links help make each paragraph look distinctive, and because without all those space-hogging paragraph breaks there is a good deal more text on the screen and she doesn't have to go scrolling around looking for things.

But that's just for the record. I'm fully aware that in this semi-illiterate TV network age, few of the people who can still read agree with me. (I don't call being able to decipher a tabloid headline "reading", by the way.) Just hand me my walking frame and my slippers, officer, and I'll come quietly. Tannin

Why not wait until I ruin it to complain? All I did, and will do again, is read along in a paragraph until I found a second topic sentence and inserted two cr/lfs. Nothing more. Books can have long paragraphs. Newspaper articles should have very short ones. Online encyclopedias fall somewhere in between, but it is a matter of eye fatigue, visual span, support of page scanning, etc., and not the simplemindedness of the reader or the wickedness of the age. Another thing that helps in this regard is regular crossheads. Ortolan88

Fair enough. Tannin

"Although designed to "break the enemy's will", the opposite often happens. The British did not crumble under the German Blitz and other air raids early in the war. German workers continued to work throughout the war and food and other basic supplies were available throughout."

Shouldn't that be "British workers continued..." ? Omegatron 06:43, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It should probably be made more clear, but it is probably referring instead to German workers during the Allied day-and-night bombing campaign of Germany throughout the war.--Raguleader 15:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was never about the workers, any more than in the American Civil War. The public at large didn't (& don't) decide war policy (as Larry Niven perceptively noted). What was at issue was, could bombing bring the German public to revolution, as it nearly had (or seemed to have) in Britain, or as war & blockaded seemed to have in Germany, in WW1. Trekphiler (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you cite a few instances where or when this revolution or near-revolution occurred you seem to be referring to in Britain? At what stage did the British resolve crumble or seem to crumble leave alone lead to revolution? Surely not during the Blitz? That would be news to quite a few Brits. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"in WW1". I was thinking of the panicky response to Zep bombing, which was nothing like as effective as the reaction would lead you to think. Longmate suggests Brit morale nearly broke under V-2 attack late in '44, with no way to defend or hit back. Trekphiler (talk) 00:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I must say, I wasn't aware of that. This is Norman Longmate? Dieter Simon (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, Hitler's Rockets IIRC. I may be stretching his point slightly (I don't have it in front of me), but he says it was a big deal, especially the inability to do anything. (Typical Brits, tho, they started joking about "another gas main" going up, the cover story for V-2 hits.) Trekphiler (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

" .. Longmate suggests Brit morale nearly broke under V-2 attack late in '44, with no way to defend or hit back." - well he is wrong. The V2 rockets were secret and none of the British public were even aware of these weapon's existence until after the war. V2 impacts were explained in the press as gas explosions caused by leaking gas mains. As for a counter-measure, the RAF just concentrated on finding and bombing the rockets before they were launched. The limited range of the V2 was one of the reasons for the Battle of the Scheldt as taking this area from the Germans pushed the available V2 launching areas out of range of London. Thus the V2 attacks on London were stopped completely.

The V weapons although feared in anticipation turned out to be no more than a nuisance. Each carried a one ton warhead. Three or four nights a week the RAF was dropping around two thousand tons of bombs - the equivalent of the same number of V1's or V2's - a night on German cities, and they had been doing that since 1943. In one 24-hour period the RAF dropped ten thousand tons on two German cities. The total Luftwaffe bomb tonnage dropped on the UK during the entire war was around 70,000 tons. By 1944 the RAF could drop that much on Germany in two weeks. If the British had been that worried about the V2 they would have dropped this tonnage instead on the V2 launching areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Tactical and Strategic Bombing

There seems to be some amount of confusion in this article between tactical and strategic bombing. If someone else wants to go through it, they're welcome to, but the article needs to be cleaned up and better definied. Stargoat 12:12, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the tactical bombing references belong here. All we need is a line that says that tactical bombing came before strategic bombing, and the first strategic bombing was carried out using tactical aircraft. Leave the tactical stuff in the tactical page. DavidBofinger 05:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:TrangBang.jpg

I don't think we can make a case for fair use for the Pulitzer Prize winning photo by Nick Ut with AP of Kim Phuc running from bombs. Ut's life was on the line and AP paid to have him there. They are entitled to whatever royalties they can get unless they have released the photo to the public domain. Further, [1] says VNAF did the bombing, not the U.S. -- ke4roh 17:44, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

This photograph is obviously fair use. It's all over the Internet, hosted by multiple news agencies and universities. Furthermore, if you were to read the article, you would see if doesn't say that the US did the bombing. The photograph alone was enough the point. Stargoat 21:29, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please see follow-up at Image_talk:TrangBang.jpg.

Or rather Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Image:TrangBang.jpg -Joseph 20:01, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to delete the image as it doesn't really belong in the article. The image itself is the aftermath of a close air support mission and not strategic bombing. Htra0497 15:15, 6 November 2006 (AEST)

I've put it back but added the context about it being close air support as it was one of the iconic images that probably did more than most to solidify opposition to the bombing campaign, even as you point out it wasn't actually the result of strategic bombing.--ElvisThePrince 14:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Israeli strategic bombing during six day war and yom kippur war

Neither this article nor any of the referenced articles seem to contain information on this. Can somebody please add a reference of some sort. I would be interested in learning more about this. --Jsolinsky 20:37, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Thats because whoever added that is talking nonsense. To say that bombing of specific factories, airfields etc is the equivalent of 'strategic' bombing because it has some strategic impact....sounds like someone with a POV on Israel.

Cruise missiles and Scud missiles

"Cruise missiles and Scud missiles have replaced strategic bombers to an extent." Can you give us some idea to what extent this has happened, as it is slightly nebulous. Don't forget, the same applies to more tactical ordnance, such as artillery. Though it stands to reason that it must have happened, it would be nice to have sources cited to put the extent as to how much strategic bomber commands the world over have cut back on their numbers of bombers, for example. (;-) Dieter Simon 22:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Tactical bombing

Also includes road and railway bridges and railway marshaling yards. Trekphiler 18:35, 18 September 2005

I think this article is mistaken about when the first aerial bombardment in history took place

In the section of this article entitled "History and Origins" it claims "The first ever aerial bombardment was on October 16, 1912 by a Bulgarian military airplane during the Balkan Wars, 1912-13." I find this odd because other sources claim that the first time one nation bombed another was during the "Italo-Turkish War." I will give two sources considering this matter, both from Wikipedia articles. The first one is from Wikipedia's Article on "Aerial Warfare(http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Air_power)." In the section of the Article called "Before World War I" it says the following: "The first use of aeroplanes in an actual war was in the Italo-Turkish War of 1911-12, when the Italians carried out a few reconnaissance and bombing missions." The next example is from Wikipedia's Article on "Italo-Turkish War(http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Italo-Turkish_War)." A sentence in the 5th paragraph states "On October 23, 1911, an Italian pilot flew over Turkish lines on a reconnaissance mission, and on November 1, the first ever bomb dropped from the air landed on Turkish troops in Libya." I hope this will be enough to convince you to edit the article, or if not, i'd like to know why it wouldn't be. Thank's for listening to my case. --ColonelWright 08:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Effectiveness of carpet bombing

Sorry, but carpet bombing wasn't just terrible to view, it would have been quite deadly. If you were a witness to an actual attack you would have almost certainly been a victim as well, with very little chance of determining the later decision making, as to whether it would have been effective or not. People who were at the receiving end of carpet bombing , even if they survived, would not have been consulted in whether it was effective or not but swallowed up in the propaganda machinery and hailed as heroic sufferers of "terror" attacks, whatever the local definition.

Any result at all, that might have influenced later decision making, mainly came about from witnesses to the aftermath of such attacks, people who visited the places bombed, war photographers and reporters, rescuers, sometimes independent such as the Red Cross, who might have carried the message to the world outside. After all, even after the attacks on Hamburg and Dresden, to say that they shortened the war is even now hard to assess. And the Blitz on London made the rest of the country more determined than ever to carry on. Dieter Simon 23:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ordnance v. ordinance

The correct usage for cannon or any other type of artillery is ordnance, as well as other weapons and military supplies, although it is sometimes spelled ordinance. However, rather than seeking out the unusual, we in Wikipedia should perhaps apply the usage and spelling met with in the far greater number of official publications which is ordnance. Dieter Simon 00:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

In English 'Ordnance' relates to a military, usually artillery, guns, etc, as in Ordnance Survey. 'Ordinance' relates to a decree or order, proclamation, etc,. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.255 (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Soviet strategic raids in WWII?

There is a common agreement among historians that the Soviet Air Forces were more inclined to massive tactical aerial support of their troops rather than to bombing campaings over German industrial centers. However, there were some pinpointed raids, some of them very heavy, conducted against Germany and its allies (Finland, Romania, Hungary) and the occupied countries, such as Poland and Estonia. Even the neutral Sweden (by mistake), and the Danish island of Bornholm, in the last days of war, suffered air attacks from the USSR. I think that stuff must be included in this article. DagosNavy 17:26, 22 september 2006 (UTC)

Then you should do it, DagosNavy. If you can cite the sources of these facts, yes, add the full details in the article. If it is part of "strategic bombing", it should go in. As a Wikipedian you can do it yourself. Dieter Simon 22:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Air Raid redirect?

Should Air Raid necessarily redirect to Strategic Bombing? Some of the more notable air raids in history (Taranto, Pearl Harbor, the RAF Mosquito raids) were arguably tactical in nature rather than strategic (ie: The Japanese Navy was targeting US Army and Navy installations, aircraft, and ships, not the city of Honolulu). Of course, any article about air raids would include reference to strategic bombing and a link to this article, since strategic bombing attacks like the ones at Schweinfurt were also raids.--Raguleader 15:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Redundancies

Isn't there a lot of overlap between the articles Strategic bombing and Area bombardment? --Pjacobi 23:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times before (here is a selection):

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 18#Aerial bombing.
• Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II#Title
• Talk:Aerial bombing of cities#Merging of Aerial bombing of cities and Terror bombing

It really needs someone to take the articles and come up with a plan to sort them out. It should probably involve the Military aviation task force (and for some parts the World War II task force). I suggested this a year ago (see Military aviation task force: Aerial bombing) but to date no one has taken it on --Philip Baird Shearer 11:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh crap! I see. So the list of articles to be merged and split alongside better divisions than now also inlcude:

• Strategic bombing during World War II
• Aerial bombing of cities
• Terror bombing

Any more?

Pjacobi 16:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Korean war?

Shouldn't it at least be mentioned in an article about strategic bombing?

No. There wasn't any. Trekphiler (talk) 05:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Not true! A force of 150 B-29s was active in Korea from 1950-1953. They flew around 1,000 sorties, firebombed five North Korean cities, and lost 107 bombers in the process. This was in addition to Close Air Support and Interdiction missions. I would refer readers to "Reversing the Decay of American Air Power" Col. Robert Dilger (USAAF, retd). America's Defense Meltdown, 2008. p.144-145. This used to be online as a free pdf, but I think they charge for it now. 206.132.235.3 (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

What about Beirut?

In 1982, Beirut was BOMBED in order to push the PLO out of it (and surely kill civilians). Robin Hood 1212 15:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

article doesn't conform to wikipedia guidelines - cleanup tag explanation

First no references.

Second way too many claims like "x is generally preffered", "x can be likened to" . This article is not written in an encyclopedic style and violates basic wikipedia principles. It probably wouldn't be to hard to clean it up for someone who had sources they could site.

Third - the see also refs should be worked into the article if they are relevant. Things like air raid shelters, etc. are only tangentially relevant. If they appear in the article then the links are fine, but they are out of place in the see also list per wikipedias style guidelines.

I can't speak to the content. For all I know it's 100% accurate, etc. But in it's present format it doesn't conform to guidelines for wikipedia articles. No big deal. Just something to work on as the article develops.

Tbyrnestl 22:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)tbyrnestl

Going operational

I deleted:

"Operational bombing uses strategic air assets to support major military ground operations, such as the isolation of Normandy through the bombing of transportation hubs throughout northern France in support of the D-Day invasion, or the carpet bombing of the Axis front lines west of St. Lo in support of COBRA. Finally, tactical bombing is used to attack specific individual targets, such as troop concentrations, command and control facilities, airfields, ammunition dumps, down to attacking individual armored vehicles."

and:

"Tactical and close support types are generally relatively smaller. However, the distinction does not lie in the aircraft type used, or necessarily the assigned target, but in the purpose of the attack. Tactical bombing aims to defeat specific enemy military forces. Operational bombing aims to further the overall success of military operations in defeating enemy forces in the field. "

as irrelevant to the article. Also, where did "operational" bombing come from? I've never heard it. Trekphiler (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Operational bombing is still in this article:

"While the distinction between tactical, operational, and strategic bombing can be blurred, they are distinct methodologies generally used for different purposes. Strategic bombing is a methodology distinct from both tactical bombing and the use of strategic air assets in an operational capacity."

I've never heard of it before... Should operational bombing be deleted? 66.99.96.10 (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Me, neither. Cut it. Trekphiler (talk) 13:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Say what?

I deleted:

"and resulted in the Nazi effort resembling terror bombing far more than strategic bombing."

because, AFAIK, German bombing never was truly strategic; it was tactical or terror, and

" perhaps with exception of Darwin in Australia"

because it was a pinprick, not sustained enough to be really considered strategic, either. Trekphiler (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Complain, complain

In light of the recent controversy with the Canadian War Museum, see the debate here about a possible "war crimes" page. Trekphiler (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Redirects from 'Air raid' changed to disambiguation page

I just got done changing a few redirects that targeted this article but which didn't seem to make much sense. The redirects were Air raid, Air Raid, Air-raid and Air raids. They now target Air raid (disambiguation). My reasoning was that an air raid doesn't necessarily have anything to do with strategic goals and may not involve bombs. There seemed no good reason why "air raid" would be aimed at "Strategic bombing". Also, kids looking for a video game or Transformer characters were ending up here. Really, there ought to be an honest article about the military concept of "air raid" but the new dab page will have to do for now... Binksternet (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#air raid or airstrike --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

See above #Redundancies and Talk:Area bombardment#Rewrite, Talk:Terror bombing#Rewrite --PBS (talk) 11:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Terror bombing

I have rewritten the article on Terror bombing shifting the emphasis from yet another article on aerial bombardment to focus on the use of the term. For those of you developing this article there may be some useful sections or sources contained with the terror bombing article before I reworked it. Terror bombing (at 16:23, 16 May 2009) --PBS (talk) 10:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That rework has now been added as a section to this article and the terror bombing article is now a redirect to this section. --PBS (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

user:Colonel Warden, I have a problem with this sentence "When such attacks were tried in the 1930s — in the Spanish Civil War and the Second Sino-Japanese War — they were found to be ineffective. Commentators observed the failure of these theories and modern airforces such as the Luftwaffe concentrated their efforts upon more direct support of the fighting."

This document on page 3.12.4 rather contradicts the statement

"During the interwar years, the theories of the classic air power thinkers were put into practice with varing degrees of success in China ... Ethiopia ... Spain at Guernica ... Although these attacks had strategic effects the could not really be regarded as fully developed strategic bombing offensives. Indeed te results from each campaign were inconclusive with regards to the contemporary claims being made for air power."

Or in the words of Bomber Harris in 1942 "There are a lot of people who say that bombing cannot win the war. My reply to that is that it has never been tried. . . and we shall see." And it does not explain the use of modern air forces during WWII to attack cities not only to destroy civilian infrastructure which directly supported the war effort but also the targeting of indirect targets, such as workers house, as described in the dehousing paper.

One other point why emphasise Giulio Douhet in this paragraph instead of the Tranchard doctrine which expounded the morale issue as early as July 1922?[2][3] -- PBS (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• The sentence above is intended to represent the state of thinking in the thirties. Bomber Harris' comment comes from a later period after Britain and Germany found that they were unable to defeat other by precision day bombing and so turned to more indiscriminate night bombing for lack of any better strategy. Bomber Harris is not an especially reliable source for the efficacy of this as he was an advocate for his service and generally oversold it. It seems to me that WW2 confirmed that conventional terror bombing was ineffective as a means of breaking the will to resist of large countries like UK and Germany. This only changed when nuclear weapons were used - these had a more novel and terrifying effect which enabled Japan's peace faction to triumph over the die-hards.

"This only changed when nuclear weapons were used - these had a more novel and terrifying effect which enabled Japan's peace faction to triumph over the die-hards." - According to Stimson's Strategic Bombing Survey (Pacific War section p. 26, can be found at http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm at present), this actually had very little to do with it: "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." It's commonly believed that the atomic bombs magically scared the Japanese into surrendering (they didn't) or that our only alternative was to invade Japan and get millions killed on both sides (it wasn't). Even if we'd stayed with exactly what we were doing up until August 5th, Japan would've given it up some time in the next three months. They knew they were beaten, it was simply a matter of the politicians coming to appreciate the inevitable. StiltMonster (talk) 04:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Douhet is mentioned specifically as his name appears in one of the sources cited.

There's lots more to say about this but I don't have time right now. My main purpose was to show that the concept and term terror bombing was in use earlier than our article previously stated. As you indicate, the general idea of terrifying populations from the air was commonplace in the twenties and thirties.

Colonel Warden (talk) 12:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Calling Dr. Bomb Bay

Having not read it (like just about everybody citing it ;p), did Douhet base his expectation of civilian morale collapse on British experience in WW1? It seems the Brits held forces from Normandy fearing just that, & (IIRC) Longmate's book on the V2 suggests the Germans came pretty close with it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Caption of picture "Victims of a September 1944 raid on Berlin" is incorrect

According to recent investigation it turns out that the picture wasn't taken in Berlin, Germany but in Nijmegen, Netherlands. See this article for more information. http://www.gelderlander.nl/voorpagina/nijmegen/6271749/Museum-hield-Nijmeegse-doden-voor-Duitsers.ece 213.236.112.126 (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Conflating terror bombing and strategic bombing is impossible

Where else but in Wikipedia do you find phrases like this: "Strategic bombing of 'uncivilized tribes' during the British mandate of Iraq"? That sentence indicates and is a product of the conflation problem. It would be better to think of these two terms -- 'terror bombing' and 'strategic bombing' -- as having considerable and controversial overlap. In fact, 'strategic bombing' seems to have been a euphemism for one _sub-category_ of 'terror bombing'. Anyway, in the case of the British bombing the Iraqis in the 1920s, although such bombing clearly wasn't strategic as defined here -- "a military strategy used in a total war with the goal of defeating an enemy nation-state by destroying its economic ability to wage war rather than destroying its land or naval forces" -- that doesn't make it 'terror bombing'. Instead it might make it 'alleged terror bombing' or something else again. I don't know what should be done. I don't think the title of this article should be changed, but instead an article on 'alleged terror bombing' is (re)needed. Of course, since some or much strategic bombing is alleged to be terror bombing in many definitions, a small section on strategic bombing would be included in such an article.Haberstr (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The RAF's 'bombing' in rural Iraq during the 1920s consisted of first dropping leaflets stating the alleged offence committed by the men of the village - almost always committed against the occupants of another nearby village of a different tribe, often because of a feud - together with a stated day and time the said offending village would be bombed. The leaflets (printed in several of the Iraqi languages) would be collected by the villagers and given to the head man, who if necessary, would summon someone who could read the message and the head man could then order the evacuation of the village on the stated date and time. The now-empty village would then be bombed by Airco DH.9A's, Westland Wapiti's, or Hawker Hardy's. The occupants of the village would then return after the bombing and be too pre-occupied with re-building their houses, etc., to cause further trouble. It was very effective, and caused few Iraqi casualties.

Some information on the RFC's and RAF's early days in Mesopotamia (Iraq) here: [4] - for the above see page 61-62.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.255 (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

POV definition

"Strategic bombing is a military strategy used in a total war with the goal of defeating an enemy nation-state by destroying its economic ability to wage war . . ." In fact, the British, who invented the term, included among the primary, definitional goals of strategic bombing the one of destroying enemy civilian morale. Why is that part of the usual original definition not included?Haberstr (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Some improvements/additions to correct the problem have been made in paragraph 2. Great!Haberstr (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

One reason is that the view over what is the role of strategic bombing today, may not be the same as it was in First World War. In recent conflicts attacking static targets has been limited to communications infrastructure (both physical and electronic), and command and control centres. Not since the end of the Cold War and the end of the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction, have civilian populations been targeted to break the will of their leaders to wage war. -- PBS (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The British invented the euphemism in WWII, and they were explicit about the dual roles, to devastate war-making capacity _and_ enemy morale, mentioning 'de-housing' to the latter effect. And it is POV and confused to state (categorically) that "[n]ot since the end of the Cold War . . . have civilian populations been targeted to break the will of their leaders to wage war." Confused part: one of strategic bombing's purposes is to attack the war-fighting morale of the citizens, rather than "to break the will of their leaders." POV part: Clinton's war on Yugoslavia seemed to have, explicitly so more or less, the dual purposes of devastating war-making capacity and destroying enemy civilians' morale. And yet, we never heard aerial attacks on the Milosevic regime referred to as strategic bombardment. That is because when most people hear the term they picture attacks like the British 'carpet bombing' of German industrial cities.Haberstr (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually 'carpet bombing' is a technique developed for use near to friendly ground troops, the bomb line 'unrolling' from near to the troops position steadily over the ground in the direction the ground troops are to advance rather like a carpet being unrolled - hence the name. As the bombing advances the ground troops continue their advance over the bombed area which continuously moves forward.

It had nothing to do with the British area bombing of German cities, although IIRC it was used by RAF BC at the Battle for Caen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.255 (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Your take on the subject is not supported so widely in the sources. Most authors equate carpet bombing with area bombing. See these sources:Encyclopedia of United States National Security, p. 146, The Law of Air Warfare: Contemporary Issues, p. 87, The Real History of World War II: A New Look at the Past, p. 301. The rolling barrage was the first progressive bombing effort, to aide ground troops in the attack, and it was not done with aircraft. Carpet bombing is not necessarily a rolling or progressive attack. Binksternet (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

A statement this strong needs a citation

" The fear of aerial attack on such a scale was one of the fundamental driving forces of British appeasement in the 1930s."

This can't be left in without a citation attached.

Douhet. Giulio Douhet.

Contrary to the view of Srnec, pinprick raids, incomplete projects, & predictions do not make "strategic bombing", no matter what their objectives were. They do form part of the history of aerial bombing. Bombing by Zeps barely makes it, IMO. Unless there's demonstrable effect on the enemy, which none of the "prehistory" shows, it fails the test. (It wouldn't be "prehistory", either, which implies "before writing"...) Hence my 2d rv. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

According to this, "prehistory" can also mean "the circumstances or developments leading up to or surrounding a situation, event, or development". That is what I meant. The prehistory of strategic bombing is not strategic bombing. It's the events leading up to strategic bombing. And since strategic bombing is only a species of aerial bombing, if they form part of the history of the latter, there is no reason they couldn't form part of the history of the former, if they were "strategic" in their nature. I'm curious to know what you mean by "Bombing by Zeps barely makes it"? Are you saying that such bombing isn't aerial, or can't be strategic? I don't see how either makes any sense, but maybe I don't know what you're trying to say. Srnec (talk) 05:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

♠Then they're using "prehistory" more loosely than I would. :(

♠IMO, the Zep raids, like all the WW1 raids, are mere pinpricks with no discernable impact on enemy strategy. (I exclude the trench strafing & the like, which had very important effects, including the rise of trench stalemate...)

♠Regardless of that view, tho, none of the rv'd rise even to actual attacks, only intentions, & intentions don't make for "strategic bombing". That they're interesting, I agree, & if they were on an air bombing page, mentioned as precursors to Douhet, I'd cheer them. Especially if they influenced the Hague Convention on air bombing, & the impact can be shown! (And cited, naturally...tho for myself, just knowing would be enough. ;p) Otherwise, IMO, it's trivia here.

♠I'm taking a view (perhaps a narrow one) of "strategic bombing" where actual, substantive effort trumps ideas. What I'm seeing from the balloon bombing is a novelty, not a serious threat. The Zeps, like all WW1 "strategic" ops, were little more than a nuisance, but it was now possible to put bombs on (or, at least, remotely near) the desired target, with some hope of reliability. Absent that, you don't have strategic bombing, you have an explosive hazard.

♠I'll grant one thing: the idea of using Zeps. Did anybody but Graf von Zeppelin raise the issue? Anybody in the Luftstreitkräfte? RFC? AAC? Aéronautique Militaire? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

List of references

This edit on 26 January seems to have deleted some of the long references used by short citations eg "Longmate, Norman (1983)."

There needs to be a distinction between long references and further reading so that mistakes like this do not happen and so that readers can easily see an alphabetic list of references. The further reading should be kept to a few books. -- PBS (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Strategic bombing events

currently this section

Strategic bombing events

Among the controversial instances of strategic bombing (and it should be noted that there is still significant controversy over whether all of these events even constitute strategic bombing, as opposed to other forms, such as terror bombing or tactical bombing) are:

seems to be a random list list with no sources justifying the list. Further it makes a dichotomy between strategic bombing and terror bombing when often they are labels for the same thing and usually the sources in the military academic field are clear on whether an attack is strategic or tactical. So I suggest that the section is removed unless a sources can be found that list significant/notable strategic bombing attacks/campaigns. -- PBS (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello PBS from the past. Fancy seeing you here. I completely agree with this comment. Since it has sat here for three years without anyone disagreeing, I'm going to go ahead and say it should probably be deleted. That is, unless someone has a suggestion to save it. Most of the examples seem to already be covered in small or large part in prose. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 03:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Aerial bombardment and international law

I have made this revert for the reasons explained in the editorial comment "See Aerial bombardment and international law the primary source text included was from a treaty never adopted in legally binding form". See also the sentence and source in this article:

These restraints on aerial warfare are covered by the general laws of war, because unlike war on land and at sea—which are specifically covered by rules such as the Hague Regulations and Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions, which contain pertinent restrictions, prohibitions and guidelines—there are no treaties specific to aerial warfare

— Francisco Javier Guisández Gómez, a colonel of the Spanish Air Force, ICRC: "The Law of Air Warfare" International Review of the Red Cross no 323, p. 347–363.

-- PBS (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree, & add quoting the text verbatim seems POV to me. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Trenchard school

From my tail page:

You said that there were several theorists but what you're describing is more like a group or place rather than a person. Here is this sentence: Some leading theorists of strategic air warfare, during this period were the Italian Giulio Douhet, the Trenchard school in Great Britain, and General Billy Mitchell in the United States. Every rational person could see it doesn't make any sense whatsoever and you're still not giving me explicit explanation why you wanted to keep the Trenchard school. The keyword here is "theorists" and the definition of a theorists are "persons concerned with the theoretical aspects of a subject; theoreticians." You said that there were several theorists that proposed the same idea then why can you name them instead of naming something like a place of group. I need some source to this information. So far, all i see is Sir Huge Trenchard, not the Trechard School. That's not grammatically sense and doesn't fit with the sentence structure.XXzoonamiXX (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Your posting to my talk page implies that I added the wording "Trechard School" to this article recently. I did not I only replaced it when you deleted it.

The point is that in the UK it was not just Trenchard who were proponents of strategic bombing. The raison d'être for the RAF to continue to exist intebellum as a separate armed force was because of the general acceptance if strategic bombing (both offensively and defensively). This is very different from the Italian Giulio Douhet, who was not head of an organisation who's continued existence was based on the premise of strategic bombing. There were others in Britain at the time we are referring to developing and implementing the concepts of an independent air arm which could and did operate independently of the two other armed forces. If you think the wording is clunky I have no objections to you improving it, but I think the term Trenchard School should be retained. -- PBS (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

School does not necessarily mean a physical structure. It can also mean a school of thought. See here:

• Ash, Lieutenant-Colonel Eric (2012). Sir Frederick Sykes and the Air Revolution 1912-1918. pp. 17, 45. ISBN 9781136315237.

The "Trenchard School" has dominated the story of of early British air power, while Sykes has been labeled both insignificant and a "scheming intriguer", driven by personal ambition to maneuver his way into positions of leadership (page 17).

In August 1918 Bonar Law wrote to the King, praising Sykes and pushing for a promotion for him "...There are members of the Air Council who can best be described as of the 'Trenchard School' who are opposed, as Trenchard was, to the principles of the Independent Air Force and, one of them quite openly expresses the home that Sykes will be downed'. ..." (page 45).

-- PBS (talk) 10:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

World War II targets

From the history of the article:

• 04:39, 21 February 2014‎ Rjensen (→‎top: example)
• 10:53, 21 February 2014‎ PBS (copy edit the last edit. Removed the "major targets included factory" as that is the old USAAF argument, not that of the RAF or the German use of the V weapons)
• 10:56, 21 February 2014‎ Rjensen ("targets deemed vital" is too vague & needs actual examples)

Removed the "major targets included factory" as that is the old USAAF argument, not that of the RAF or the German use of the V weapons, or as Bomber Harris would say panacea targets. -- PBS (talk) 11:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

we need a list of the main strategic tArgets deemed vital--what is your list? Rjensen (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

We do not need that in the lead particularly as there is a difference between what the USAAF said for public consumption and what they did. If the weather was clear they tried to precision bomb, but if it was not then they area bombed. For example the mix of bombs to high explosives used when the USAAF bombed Dresden was simialr to the RAF mix used for area bombing because they expected the target (the marshalling yards close to the city centre) to be obscured by cloud and smoke --for precision bombing the USAAF used a much higher explosive mix. With the area bombing the RAF employed they intend to destroy all types of infrastructure that might be of military use to an enemy and demoralise the population, there was no particular specific target.

Bomber Harris and RAF policy while he was in charge was to area bomb German cities and by 1945 they were very good at it. To quote from the Bombing of Dresden article (which is based on Taylor's account):

The first bombs [of the first raid of the night] were released at 22:14, the Lancasters flying in low at 8,000 feet (2,400 m), with all but one Lancaster's bombs released within two minutes, and the last one releasing at 22:22. The fan-shaped area that was bombed was 1.25 miles (2.01 km) long, and at its extreme about 1.75 miles (2.82 km) wide. The shape and total devastation of the area was created by [254] bombers of No. 5 Group flying over the head of the fan (Ostragehege stadium) on prearranged compass bearings and releasing their bombs at different prearranged times.

Likewise The German V programme targeted London, it was not precision bombing aimed at factories etc.

-- PBS (talk) 12:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Rjensen I am disappointed that you are not willing to abide by WP:BRD but instead are making changes when the change is still under discussion. As to your last edit.Strategic nuclear weapons are not designed to destroy "munitions factories and their ability to move munitions to the front as by railways." Their only legitimate use to prevent a state being destroyed --which was the finding of the World Court. Now it may be that some think they have other uses but independently targeted MRVed ICBM are not designed to destroy "munitions factories and their ability to move munitions to the front as by railways." -- PBS (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

the problem is that the article mixes history over the last century with nuclear weapons & 21st century electronics. That is a formula for confusion and that's what we get here. For example strategic bombing has indeed been used against RR and factories, but has never been used to " prevent a state being destroyed". Rjensen (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

There are two issues here.

• The first is your deliberate breach of WP:BRD to force in a change for which you do not have consensus. I think you should revert you edit until you can show that there is a consensus for such a change.
• The second is that as World War II was the last time that industrial powers fought a major war there has been little to no bombing the civilian military industrial complex since that war, and independently targeted MRVed ICBM are not designed to destroy "munitions factories and their ability to move munitions to the front as by railways." I think you are confusing two things. The first is the difference between tactical bombing and strategic bombing as most interdiction of supply routes is tactical. In which war since the end of World War II do you think that strategic bombing was carried to attack the military industrial complex of a country stop it building its own weapons rather than importing them from one of the major arms suppliers? The problem here is that statistic bombing is the hand maiden of total war and since World War II there has not been a total war. The use to which strategic bombing is put depends on the war objectives and to imply that it is only to bomb precision targets such as munitions factories at the end of the sentence which includes the mention of strategic missiles and nukes, I think misleading in the extreme. -- PBS (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Two almost entirely unsourced sections

I'm moving this here for discussion. It has a single source in its entirety, and reads a heckuva lot like original research and personal essay. Thoughts or opinions? TimothyJosephWood 19:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Removed sections
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
{{talkquote| Definition While the distinction between tactical, operational, and strategic bombing can be blurred, they are distinct methodologies generally used for different purposes. Strategic bombing is a methodology distinct from both tactical bombing and the use of strategic air assets in an operational capacity. Such a strategy usually involves sustained attacks over a period of time on targets that affect an enemy state's overall war-making capability, such as factories, railroads, oil refineries, and other resources. Less frequently, individual strategic attacks are made against 'point' targets, such as Britain's RAF Bomber Command attacks against the Ruhr dams by means of the bouncing bomb designed by Barnes Wallis in May 1943. As strategic bombing aims to undermine an enemy state's ability to wage war, strategic bombers need to be able to reach targets throughout most or all of that state, and so have tended to be larger, longer-ranged aircraft. Strategic bombers have also been used to support major military ground operations, such as the isolation of Normandy through the bombing of transportation hubs throughout northern France in support of the D-Day invasion, or the carpet bombing of the Axis front lines west of Saint-Lô in support of Operation Cobra.