Carpet Bombing
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
What does /k/ think of carpet bombing as a wartime tactic?
Was it effective during Vietnam (Operation Rolling Thunder, Operation Linebacker I/II)? Would it be effective in a future war in the Middle East?
>>29996997
>>29996997
Of course it's effective. Nixon dropped so many bombs on Cambodia that the NVA were forced into the Paris Accords. I wouldn't call it genocide, but carpet bombing is not meant to be precise and everyone understood that the collateral damage to civilians would be great. The same logic brought both Germany and Japan down in ww2.
It's not fancy nowadays mostly due to how wars are fought. Namely, Bush understood that he couldn't keep the media out of the middle east so carpet bombings typically were not the MO, as "targeted strikes" were easier to play off. This is how drones became so popular in the past decade, despite the technology for them existing much longer beforehand.
>>29997037
My point here is that it's effective but the political circumstances have to permit. WW2 was a situation where everyone was actively on board with carpet bombing, Vietnam was so-so (enough to secure peace with honor) and Iraq a no-no.
>>29996997
I disagree with the tactical ruining of carpets. I know my mother would be very upset.
>>29997024
Kek
>>29996997
Terror bombing or Carpet Bombing has historically been extremely ineffective, and often has yielded the opposite result of what was desired.
Terror bombing britain gave no other result than making the british more determined to fight and seek revenge.
Germans still fought fanatically after they were terror bombed.
The Russians did not give up stalingrad after it was terror bombed.
The Vietnameese didn't give up after they were terror bombed.
It's a dumb tactic that usually results in nothing at best or a prolonged insurgency with the people you've been terrorising.
>>29997024
lel
>>29997067
depends what the goal is, if the goal is straight up destruction (ie ww2) then it works. If the goal is pacification (ie vietnam, iraq) then it's strategic usefulness is dubious. It's a matter of a gut check on the aggressor's part, if they're willing to go all the way than carpet bombing is critical in dismantling a nation's ability to do war, but it's also not useful if the goal isn't outright domination
>>29996997
None of those were examples of carpet bombing.
>>29997112
Goal of ww2 wasn't straight up destruction, it was to make the germans surrender faster, something that didn't work at all.
Carpet bombing didn't even reduce the amount of equipment the germans produced, as they increased their production basically every year of world war 2, until 1945.
>>29997159
that statement is thrown out alot but many don't know the context
Hitler wanted the Germans to go to war but not feel the hardship like rationing etc since it's one of the reason they surrendered during the great war so he doesn't put the economy into war
mode
that shit changed after Stalingrad when Goebbels announced that Germany needed to go for total war,the economy went into full war mode and they converted the factories and mobilized all sector of the work force
so saying the bombing didn't do anything to the industry is untrue
>>29997265
Sure it did something to the industry, but not so much it even dented their production numbers.
If you're basing your doctrine on preventing the enemy from producing war material and they increase their imput while you're carrying out your plan, you're plan is clearly not working.
>>29997265
Imagine their production numbers if strategic bombing wasn't used.
>>29997281
shipment of oil from Romania got cut off all when the rail carriages and railways get bombed,this means that most fuel doesn't get to most panzer division,which means most of them got bogged down
Also they were basically running out of heavy metal,which means that steel quality for most war machines dropped heavily
Germany also invested alot of it's manpower and industrial capacity on building AA defense
you can't just base the performance of RAF and USAF bombers just by the output factory produced
>>29997304
I am not saying it didn't do anything, but if the resources that went into extremely ineffective random bombing and murder of civilians had gone into making real ground attack planes and destroying the german front units, several advances could have been made faster and earlier on the western and italian front.
Also bombing the oil in romania stopped it very briefly, taking the actual oil fields in 1944 is what actually hurt the german war machine significantly. Carpet bombing is no substitute for land gains.
>>29997331
>ineffective bombing
it was still an untested method,the allied strategist had no precognition to know and it was a good testing ground to test the capability
i would argue that the gains made by the western allied was magnified by heavy bombing campaigns disrupting the movement of the Wehrmacht along France and the low countries
they also have a degree of success in battles,such an in Tunis and Goodwood for the brits,and in Italy for the American
>>29997377
I am not saying that the people who did it didn't believe in it, but i think the result test was that it wasn't worth it.
What disrupted the movements of wehrmacht troops to france in 1944 was probably more that Army Group Center didn't exist anymore, and Army Group North was cut off, and with two thirds of the eastern front going missing during the invasion of france, they didn't prioritise it very highly at all, and didn't until the end of the war, which has little to do with strategic bombing.
>>29997405
France was taken in less then a year,and they were basically knocking on Germany by October 44,bombing contributed majorly with it since there's very high attrition rate of panzer division moving out,they couldn't get fast enough due to railways being bombed,lines of comms being cut
even Hitler counteroffensive during Ardennes was made specifically during a time where allied air power is hindered
strategic bombing might've not worked for shattering morale but their impact in exacerbating the strategic situation for Germany in the west is quite high and could not be achieved by just usage of ground attack
>>29997472
They had no oil because the soviets took Romania.
In 1945 when western allies were knocking on the door of germany, they had 4.5 million troops vs germany's 1 million, the entire western front had only as many germans as just eastern prussia.
On the first of April the western front had jokes for tanks:
1 Panzer III
3 JagdPanzer IV/70
16 Stug III
32 Hetzer
1 Jagd Tiger
61 Pak-43 guns
169 Pak-40 guns
Army Group Center had hundreds of tanks including 125 Panthers and 108 JagdPanzer IVs.
The americans attacked with more than 20,000 tanks, and outnumbered the enemy with more than 4 to 1.
This is still not because of strategic bombing.
