• It seemed to me that you were denouncing the bomber due to conditions (saying it only killed that many people because of x)


  • @Gamerman01:

    Also, I think rjpeters was only conceding that the wind conditions and combustible materials greatly magnified the effectiveness of the bombers.

    Did you not see this, rj?  I think Uncrustable misunderstood your meaning and I tried to help clear it up so you wouldn’t have to light into him


  • @rjpeters70:

    I saw it.  I also saw that he apologized to you, but not to me.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j–tixvta_g

    As president of DP oil i want to say, I’m sorry. :D


  • I have got to tape me some Southpark again….


  • @Gamerman01:

    I have got to tape me some Southpark again….

    Or just stream them

    http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes


  • @Uncrustable:

    Or just stream them

    http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes

    Yeah, that’s better, thanks


  • @Omega1759:

    The tiger tank. Great weapon, but insufficient numbers.

    I also would say the Tiger tank.


  • Grr!
    I am turning in my grave.

    If the crews were untrained, it might have been and that happened late war.

    In most Western battles the cry of “Tiger” would have the Allies quaking and running for cover. Then a MK III with a 50mm L60 trundles past and everyone feels silly!

    I always wonder how Wittmann would have got along with a MkII, if he had survived Normandy.


  • @wittmann:

    I am turning in my grave.

    Does this mean that what I’m quoting above is a post-mortem post?


  • Battleships were grossly overrated, especially by the axis in WWII. (In a losing effort mind you)
    Germans never put anything into aircraft carriers but built the Bismarck class of BB! What a waste :P

    Japanese were doomed from the start as they too put way too much emphasis on outdated naval tactics using BBs instead of CVs. And they built the Yamamota class, a colossal and worthless waste of resources.

    Imagine if the Germans and Japanese both to use every penny they put into the Bismarck and Yamamoto BB classes to aircraft carriers instead!


  • @CWO:

    @wittmann:

    I am turning in my grave.

    Does this mean that what I’m quoting above is a post-mortem post?
    Afternoon Marc . Had you forgotten that I get through life by imagining I am dead people?

  • Customizer

    Guys,

    ––As far as my thoughts on the most overrated WW2 weapon I would have to say the American Norden Bombsite. Although it was very useful and a quantitative leap forward in capabilities,…it was touted as "being able to drop a bomb in a pickle barrel from 30,000 feet.  :-o  It was not nearly that accurate, to say the least.

    “Tall Paul”


  • @Tall:

    I would have to say the American Norden Bombsite. Although it was very useful and a quantitative leap forward in capabilities,…it was touted as "being able to drop a bomb in a pickle barrel from 30,000 feet.  :-o  It was not nearly that accurate, to say the least.

    Very good point.


  • it is wierd how my post, not meant to offend people created a flamewar.

    to try to say what I meant was.

    I think stratigic bombers are overrated BY MODERN PEOPLE. Specificly, people arguing about the war talking about them as if they won the war singlehandedly.

    We live in an age where bombers are more effective in battle than ever and it is natural for people to ekstrapolate and overestimate the importance of that particular weapon.

    For me, strategic bombers are only strategic if used against industrial targets, it is only effective if it really reduces the production. Now, they killed alot of people in japan, but people seem to forget that tokyo was not an industrial center, neither where london, or dresden, these where civilian targets.

    I realise that bringing up 9/11 was perhaps not well thought out. My idea was to give an example as to how bombing civilian targets serves to agitate the population, giving the regime a great propaganda tool to claim it is “us against them” (Please don’t accuse me of saying 9/11 is a propaganda tool, without any merit. I only try to show an example as to how a civilian population and its government react to many civilian deaths created by a clear enemy). There is a great value in total war in having the civilian population united against the enemy, this value offset alot of the value of bombing civilians.

    The perhaps most successful strategic bombing raid in WW2 was the destruction of the rhine dam.


  • Strategic bombers single handily brought an early end to the pacific.
    The outcome may have not changed but it would have drug on for many more months.

    And Again I will say: stating that strategic bombing was overrated because it did not hamper production is fn ignorant. They did not try that was not their plan.
    allied strategic bombing was purposely aimed at civilian population centers they believed that bombing civilians would end the war quickly AND THEY WERE RIGHT. And it I’d

    Saying something is overrated that could and did kill tens of thousands of people dozens of times over in single raids (not even counting the nukes) is retard


  • @Uncrustable:

    Strategic bombers single handily brought an early end to the pacific.
    The outcome may have not changed but it would have drug on for many more months.

    And Again I will say: stating that strategic bombing was overrated because it did not hamper production is fn ignorant. They did not try that was not their plan.
    allied strategic bombing was purposely aimed at civilian population centers they believed that bombing civilians would end the war quickly AND THEY WERE RIGHT. And it I’d

    Saying something is overrated that could and did kill tens of thousands of people dozens of times over in single raids (not even counting the nukes) is retard

    Well, what I think people are saying is bombers can be perceived as overrated in that many times countries believe they can break the will of another country purely by strategic bombing.  We can see this is not the case, with possible exception of the nuclear bombs in Japan- but even that was after a 2-3 years of continual defeats.


  • @Uncrustable:

    Strategic bombers single handily brought an early end to the pacific.
    The outcome may have not changed but it would have drug on for many more months.

    And Again I will say: stating that strategic bombing was overrated because it did not hamper production is fn ignorant. They did not try that was not their plan.
    allied strategic bombing was purposely aimed at civilian population centers they believed that bombing civilians would end the war quickly AND THEY WERE RIGHT. And it I’d

    Saying something is overrated that could and did kill tens of thousands of people dozens of times over in single raids (not even counting the nukes) is retard

    to quote wikipedia;

    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 and public will to wage war rather than destroying its land or naval forces. It is a systematically organized and executed attack from the air which can utilize strategic bombers, long- or medium-range missiles, or nuclear-armed fighter-bomber aircraft to attack targets deemed vital to an enemy’s war-making capacity.

    To say it absolutely clearly, people tend to overrate the value of strategic bombers in achieving these goals, especially their capacity for disrupting production. IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT THEY WHERE EFFECTIVE; THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS THAT PEOPLE THINK THEY WHERE MORE EFFECTIVE THAN THEY ACTUALLY WAS! (this right here is the definition of overrated)

    try to be polite and don’t call people retarded on this forum. there are no trolls in this thread, so don’t behave like that.

    They where also by definition overrated at the time, seeing as the british military analysis suggested that more people would die in paris and london due to strategic bombing the first week than died in total during the entire war.


  • @Kreuzfeld:

    to quote wikipedia;

    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 and public will to wage war rather than destroying its land or naval forces.

    Of course not - look at the definition of strategic bombing according to wikipedia.
    We haven’t been in a situation of total war since WWII


  • Well, you could use some small examples such as the Iran-Iraq war or the Arab-Israeli wars.


  • eh??? dont do strategic bombing?
    what about bombing iraq in 1996?
    bombing of serbia in 1999 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia
    bombing of libya in 86 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_El_Dorado_Canyon
    destruction if iranian oilplatforms in 87 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Nimble_Archer
    attack on training camps in 98 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile_strikes_on_Afghanistan_and_Sudan_(August_1998)

    plus, I assume there is probably many strategic bombings in the war against terror against training camps and other stuff.

    every time the Ho Chi Min trail was bombed it was definitly strategic

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 16
  • 3
  • 41
  • 1
  • 6
  • 12
  • 39
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

38

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts