Do you raid?

@Cmdr:

And it was hardly ineffective!  Sure, they might not have hit their targets all the time, with 100% precision and accuracy, but the goal in any war is to get the enemy population so sick of losing they force their leaders to capitulate.  It’s why Sherman was a pioneer (an a**, but a pioneer!) in warfare.

That was the argument of Giulio Douhet, which was thoroughly debunked during WWII and also the Spanish Civil War. Cities could be blown to pieces and the population would still have no intention of capitulation. Germany only surrendered after it was physically occupied by the Allies. No amount of carpet bombing ever broke any nation. Also the Confederate States of America did not surrender because of Sherman, they surrendered because their forces in the field were decisively defeated and they had no means of further prosecution. Terror tactics generally create more resistance rather than extinguish it.

@Lord:

@Cmdr:

And it was hardly ineffective!  Sure, they might not have hit their targets all the time, with 100% precision and accuracy, but the goal in any war is to get the enemy population so sick of losing they force their leaders to capitulate.  It’s why Sherman was a pioneer (an a**, but a pioneer!) in warfare.

That was the argument of Giulio Douhet, which was thoroughly debunked during WWII and also the Spanish Civil War. Cities could be blown to pieces and the population would still have no intention of capitulation. Germany only surrendered after it was physically occupied by the Allies. No amount of carpet bombing ever broke any nation. Also the Confederate States of America did not surrender because of Sherman, they surrendered because their forces in the field were decisively defeated and they had no means of further prosecution. Terror tactics generally create more resistance rather than extinguish it.

I disagree VEHEMENTLY!  Nagasaki and Hiroshima are prime examples of using mass bombing raids to force enemy capitulation.

Sherman is another example, but people prefer to reference Grant instead.  Eh.  I disagree, but it’s really hard to prove either way there.

Oh, and before carpet bombing, it is my personal, educated opinion that seiges were the same thing.  Since they couldn’t bomb the enemy into submission, they used seige equipment and starvation to do the same thing.

Not that I have a Ph.D. in history, so take it as an educated layman’s opinion.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were very different from carpet bombing. Furthermore the UK, USA, and USSR had just beaten Germany into the dirt, and Germany was a much stronger country than Japan. So Japan was at war with those three, as well as France, China, the Netherlands, Australia, Canada etc. with no fleet. They were bound to surrender anyway. I wouldn’t argue that they would have surrendered with or without the bombs, but they couldn’t long resist a landing in Japan itself. All examples of conventional air forces attempting to bomb their enemies into submission have been failures. The Spanish Nationalists could not do it to the Spanish Republicans, the Germans could not to it to the British, and the British and Americans could not do it to the Germans. Other examples would include Vietnam, where the US dropped more bombs than they did on Germany, and they still lost the war. It’s not as decisive as it’s made out to be. As for sieges, that’s a very different operation, where the intention was to take physical possession of a given location, whether it be a proper fortress or a fortified town. In carpet bombing the hope is that you can force a capitulation without needing to occupy the enemy’s territory. Besides, in Medieval Wars objectives were very limited, the entire overthrow of your adversary was practically impossible, so a well conducted siege might get you some small concessions. Carpet bombing would imply you desire the total destruction of your enemy’s war making capacity, which was simply an unattainable goal in previous centuries. Even much later than Medieval times, heck, in the 9 Years War France alone withstood all the other Great Powers of Europe and neither side achieved hardly anything.

Well Grant defeated the main Confederate Army, and his victory at Vicksburg cut the Confederacy in two. A brilliant achievement militarily. Anyhow, the purpose of the Army (defined by Clausewitz, who attributed the idea to Napoleon) is to destroy your enemy’s ability to prosecute war, i.e. defeating them in the field. If they still have an army they will not surrender, no matter how much terror you cause.

I’m saying bombing the civilian population into submission, not specifically firebombing or carpet bombing.

They don’t ever submit. That’s the whole point. I cannot think of single example where this happened besides Japan in WWII. The French used terror tactics (killing civilians in retaliation for French casualties) on the Spanish and that just caused the Spanish to resist even more fiercely. The Germans did that in Russia and in Poland and Czechoslovakia. Resistance was intense in those areas, whereas in Denmark or the Netherlands, where German occupation was relatively benign, there was very little resistance. All the examples in history go against the use of terror on civilians instead of for it.

There should be a sliding bar in Axis and Allies, for each nation, which determines will to fight.

I don’t know how it should work, or what it would take to move the bar up and down lol, but it would be a cool thing to implement, and would have some exciting game effects.

If you can’t repair to full on every facility damaged, then your people give up in whatever territory you couldn’t repair.  All units are replaced with neutrals and the territory is made neutral (true neutral, not leaning.)

To shine a little more light into an obscure time in history:

The Japanese were essentially begging the allies for peace in 1945.  After Germany was finished the Japanese stopped relying on German wonder weapons to end the war. (nukes)  Germany’s capitulation was quickly followed by Russia’s involvement, and this was feared more than the US for the Japanese.  They believed, rightly I might add, that loss of territory to Russia would mean satellite states and potential puppeting of Japan as the Peoples Republic of Japan.  So the question for the Japanese high command was how to surrender to the western allies ASAP.

The War against Japan could have ended without the dropping of atom bombs and a few months earlier had the Allies been a bit more flexible with this whole horrible idea of Unconditional Surrender.  We were like, you gotta give up your god the Emperor.  The Japanese were like, how do you surrender a god?

It was the deification of the Emperor that was the sticking point for Japan, and it was Macarthur’s realization that control of the Emperor meant control of the spiritual aspect of the country and a peaceful occupation, so he back slid and allowed the Emperor’s cult to continue.

I think had Russia not declared war it is possible that Japan would have continued after the Abomb drops.  Had they stuck in for a few more months they would have noticed a severe lack in the A-bomb offensive, cause the US used both its nukes.

Precisely, and it should be remembered that the Home Islands of Japan were overpopulated and unsustainable without imports of food. Just like Britain, except that the US Navy managed to do to Japan what the Germans tried to do to England. The Japanese were being starved, and since they had no fleet they had no further means of effectively resisting. Their troops were scattered and isolated with no way of getting back to Japan and no way of preventing American and British forces from eventually throwing them out. So Japan already knew the gig was up long before the A-Bombs were dropped.

I try and SBR as much as possible with max of 2 interceptors in territories with ICs. Especially Russia with its lack of air power. The Southern Ukraine and Volgograd ICs can both be reached from Greece or Bulgeria with return flight.  Potential 12 IPCs right there. Its awesome.

starting to change my mind.  If I am SBRing, then I can probably afford to lose some fighters and should relish the thought of his scrambling, since I should be getting a fighter or two AND damage on his complex.

@Young:

@Cmdr:

starting to change my mind.  If I am SBRing, then I can probably afford to lose some fighters and should relish the thought of his scrambling, since I should be getting a fighter or two AND damage on his complex.

I hate losing aircraft.

Tht’s exactly why she would do this ;)

i only raid if i don´t need any of my bombers. sometime, even if i do not need them i won´t raid, because i don´t want to loose him to fulfill a very special and important task. after this, no problem with SBR.

but as a stratey it never worked really, did it? is it possible to take down UK, for example, by SBRing it?

rock`n roll

@special:

@Young:

@Cmdr:

starting to change my mind.  If I am SBRing, then I can probably afford to lose some fighters and should relish the thought of his scrambling, since I should be getting a fighter or two AND damage on his complex.

I hate losing aircraft.

Tht’s exactly why she would do this ;)

I don’t LIKE losing aircraft, but if I am going to do so, I feel it is in my best interests to force the enemy to not only lose their aircraft, but also take damage on their complexes!

You dont have strategic bombers for their defensive capabilities, so make the most of what they have offensively. Scorched Earth Policy.

@TheDefinitiveS:

You dont have strategic bombers for their defensive capabilities, so make the most of what they have offensively. Scorched Earth Policy.

Yes, but there is no need to send them needlessly to their death’s either.

Killing enemy units > bombing them (less risk to bombers, generally, more return on investment as well since you can get more than one infantry with your bomber but can only roll one die (+2) against a factory)
Bombing them > not doing anything with them

I’ll trade a German or Japanese fighter for an Australian, British or Russian fighter any day of the week, so if I am SBRing, I’ll gladely fly equal to greater number of fighters as escorts in hopes of an intercept mission against those nations.

Yeah, if you can go with escorts, or even hit some interceptors with the bombers defensive hits, then that is gravy.
A couple of guys and myself came up with another idea for SBRs on another thread about SBRs.  Once you are past the interceptors, it’s down to bombers vs. AA guns of the facility.  The way the rules are now, if the AA gun gets any hits, you lose that bomber immediately with no damage to the factory.  Any surviving strategic bombers roll a die and get that roll +2 in damage.

Here is our idea:  if a strategic bomber is hit by the AA gun, you can STILL roll a die for damage but do NOT add the +2 damage.  The hit bombers just get the die roll worth of damage.  After all, you figure the bombers are dropping their loads WHILE the AA gun is firing at them.  These things happen simultaneously, like the regular combat (which is why defender hits still get to roll).
As for the HIT bombers not getting the +2 damage, you could say they didn’t drop all of their load or accuracy suffered from being hit.
This way you don’t just lose a 12 IPC bomber with no return, you still get some damage to the factory.  Plus the defender gets a little break in the damage by not having to add the +2 for the bomber he/she hit.  This could make SBRs a little more attractive.

@knp7765:

Here is our idea:  if a strategic bomber is hit by the AA gun, you can STILL roll a die for damage but do NOT add the +2 damage.  The hit bombers just get the die roll worth of damage.  After all, you figure the bombers are dropping their loads WHILE the AA gun is firing at them.  These things happen simultaneously, like the regular combat (which is why defender hits still get to roll).
As for the HIT bombers not getting the +2 damage, you could say they didn’t drop all of their load or accuracy suffered from being hit.
This way you don’t just lose a 12 IPC bomber with no return, you still get some damage to the factory.  Plus the defender gets a little break in the damage by not having to add the +2 for the bomber he/she hit.  This could make SBRs a little more attractive.

From a mathematical return on investment point of view, it makes SBR’s less attractive:
You are reducing the average damage done by (5/6)*2 = 1,7.
You are also increasing the average damage done by (1/6) * 3,5 = 0,583

BUT it makes them less dicey, which is good. The inherent problem with SBR’s is the extreme luck dependence. It’s essentailly a high risk - medium reward operation, which is why is it not being used much.