from a Quora

James Fennell
Conflict and Security Consultant (2013–present)Updated 2y
What was the most demoralizing weapon that the British used during WWII?

Lancaster Mk. II, LL678 “Lily Mars”, 514 Squadron RAF. Shot down by a Me
110 nightfighter over Deventer, Holland, on June 13th 1944. Her aircrew
were British, Australian and Canadian, and only 3 of the 8 man crew
survived as PoWs.

The single largest investment by Britain during WW2 was building a
credible strategic air force. The intention of this force - RAF Bomber
Command - was to win the war by demoralising the enemy. This weapon was
also demoralising in another way, to Britain itself, in that although it
caused devastating damage, it did not succeed in blunting Germany’s will
to fight on.

That said, while Bomber Command could not win the war against Germany on
its own, as its commander Air Marshall ‘Bomber’ Harris claimed, it did
provide one of the most significant tools for ensuring final victory.

While overall German production increased under the Total War dictat
pushed forward by Albert Speer and Josef Goebbels in 1943–44, the
bombing campaign ensured it reached nowhere near the pre-war potential,
and the campaign massively increased the cost of production by tying up
vast amounts of manpower, equipment, raw materials and Luftwaffe, civil
defence, and construction resources that could have been better used
making armaments and fighting the allies.

In 1939 Bomber Command had two small Groups of 70-80 Fairey Battle and
Bristol Blenheim light bombers and three Groups of 40-50 Armstrong
Whitworth Whitley, Vickers Wellington and Handley Page Hampden medium
bombers. A few more light bomber squadrons were stationed in Egypt and
Malaya. A total force of which less than 150 planes had the range to hit
targets in Germany. None of them had any navigation or bombing aids, and
their ability to accurately find, let alone bomb, targets at night was
negligible. When used in daytime they were cut apart by Luftwaffe Jagers.

By 1944, this meagre force had been transformed into a massive air
armada of over 1,500 heavy bombers, each capable of delivering 10 tons
of bombs to the heart of Germany and equipped with airborne H2S bombing
radars and sophisticated navigation aids such as Oboe and Gee; a whole
Group of over 250 night fighters and electronic countermeasures aircraft
to provide escort; and a specialised Pathfinder Group of master bombers
to accurately mark the targets for the main force.

Four engined Short Stirlings, Handley Page Halifax’s and the superlative
Avro Lancasters had replaced the earlier types, while De Havilland
Mosquitos provided night-fighter escorts, and carried out pathfinding
and electronic countermeasures missions. Two more RAF Groups of American
Consolidated B-24 Liberators were based in Italy and India to pummel
targets in Southern Europe and South East Asia.

The creation of this giant terror weapon was a huge drain on Britain’s
resources. Losses were high: 55,573 aircrew were killed out of a total
of 125,000 (a 44.4 percent death rate), and a further 8,403 were wounded
in action and 9,838 became prisoners of war (according to wiki).

Both aircraft production and aircrew training needed to keep up. An
enormous Commonwealth Air Training Scheme was put in place in Canada,
Australia and South Africa, to train both British and allied crews - one
whole Group was entirely manned by the RCAF, although Britain paid for
aircraft and operational costs. Numerous RAAF, RNZAF and SAAF squadrons
were formed, as well as Polish, Czech, Free French and other squadrons
crewed by men from occupied nations.

Aircraft production was ramped up by creating shadow factories to build
the most important types and aero engines, while production of aircraft
and engines was also undertaken on contract in Canada (Lancasters and
Mosquitos) and the USA (B-24s and Packard Merlins). New electronic
devices had to be developed to assist in navigation and bombing
accuracy, and to provide countermeasures to defeat the excellent German
night fighter and flak defences, and new types of bombs were developed
to destroy bridges, cities and dams.

Although Bomber Command did not break German morale, it was a terrifying
and devastating instrument of destruction, and perhaps one of dubious
morality. It was also one which cost Britain dearly to build, operate
and sustain - both in material and RAF aircrew’s lives.

116.5K views572 upvotes15 shares160 comments
15.3K views
View 53 upvotes
View 1 share

George Graham
· Sun
The Germans had to divert hugh resources from the Eastern front to
combat both the American and British bombing campaign. Fighters and
especially 88mm guns were denuded from there at a time they were sorely
needed to combat the red army.

Profile photo for Simon Frank
Simon Frank
· Thu
Hindsight is a wonder resource - total war erodes ‘morality’

Serigo Munroz
· Mar 8
Just an observation, the Lancaster was the British model with the
biggest payload, 8.9 tons, and not ten, and definitely could not go deep
in Germany with that ordnance. The grand slam was almost 10 tons, but
could not be carried by an ordinary Lancaster but for an specially
modified one. It’s now well accepted that the strategic bombing campaign
has little effect till the switch to oil campaign, and the industrial
disruption due to bombing was not sufficient to justify all the losses
experienced for the major part of the campaign. Later in the war, and
specially after the Normandy landing, when the allies air superiority
was total and uncontested even Deep in Germany, the strategic campaign
become more fruitful, with the disruption in communications to add to
the terrible shortage of fuel and then was when the German industrial
output of other assets became severely affected. But till that happened
in mid to late 1944, thousands of crews were lost for almost little
effects and many has suggested that cancelling the strategic campaign
all together and use instead all those resources reinforcing the
tactical air command would have been more cost effective to destroy the
German war machine and win the war.

Profile photo for Michael Clarke
Michael Clarke
· Fri
The Germans in 1944 used over 50% of their total military production
defending German airspace. They clearly did not agree with your
analysis. On D Day 2 German fighters attacked the beaches, where were
the rest?

Profile photo for Huw Jenkins
Huw Jenkins
· Sat
I think you should Google “Battle of the Ruhr” if you think that the
campaign had little effect on German industrial output.

Also, you omit to consider the huge resources that Germany had to devote
to air defence. These resources were not available for other war purposes.

Profile photo for David Perry
David Perry
· Sat
It did carry a 10 ton bomb. Modified or not

Profile photo for Serigo Munroz
Serigo Munroz
· Sat
Wrong, the 10 tons Lancaster b mk I, was the only one able to do it, by
adapting the bay to hold the grand slam, and having many parts of the
plane removed in order to cope with the increase of weight of the bomb.
Only 32 of them were produced. A normal un modified Lancaster carried a
max of 8.9 tons with little range left though.

Profile photo for David Perry
David Perry
· Sat
So it did carry a 10 ton bomb!

Weird

Profile photo for Jaap Koop
Jaap Koop
· 6h
Thanks for sharing this story. One thing to note: the country was (and
is) called The Netherlands, not Holland.

"a425couple" wrote in message news:G0RPL.1021204$MVg8.45875@fx12.iad...

The single largest investment by Britain during WW2 was building a
credible strategic air force. The intention of this force - RAF Bomber
Command - was to win the war by demoralising the enemy. This weapon was
also demoralising in another way, to Britain itself, in that although it
caused devastating damage, it did not succeed in blunting Germany’s will
to fight on.

That said, while Bomber Command could not win the war against Germany on
its own, as its commander Air Marshall ‘Bomber’ Harris claimed, it did
provide one of the most significant tools for ensuring final victory.

------------------------

https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/260/263/coulson2.pdf

"Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> writes:

>That said, while Bomber Command could not win the war against
>Germany on its own, as its commander Air Marshall Bomber Harris
>claimed, it did provide one of the most significant tools for
>ensuring final victory.

Bomber Harris denied Coastal Command et.al. of the B24 long
range variant aircraft needed to neutralize the U-Boat threat,
thus costing the lives of thousand of Allied seafarers.

--
A host is a host from coast to coast...............wb8foz@panix.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

"David Lesher" wrote in message news:tv8msm$92l$1@reader2.panix.com...
"Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> writes:

>That said, while Bomber Command could not win the war against
>Germany on its own, as its commander Air Marshall Bomber Harris
>claimed, it did provide one of the most significant tools for
>ensuring final victory.

Bomber Harris denied Coastal Command et.al. of the B24 long
range variant aircraft needed to neutralize the U-Boat threat,
thus costing the lives of thousand of Allied seafarers.

-------------------

Here is some interesting discussion of that:
https://networks.h-net.org/node/12840/blog/hand-grenade-week/3490845/did-strategic-bombing-lengthen-war

Re the schnorkel, the problem was that when large waves closed the intake
float valve the Diesels rapidly sucked the air out of the boat.

On 20/03/2023 04:19, David Lesher wrote:
> "Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>> That said, while Bomber Command could not win the war against
>> Germany on its own, as its commander Air Marshall Bomber Harris
>> claimed, it did provide one of the most significant tools for
>> ensuring final victory.
>
> Bomber Harris denied Coastal Command et.al. of the B24 long
> range variant aircraft needed to neutralize the U-Boat threat,
> thus costing the lives of thousand of Allied seafarers.
>
>
That's an interesting claim given that of the 1900 or so B-24's
supplied most were used in the Far East and those that ended up in the
UK were in coastal command hunting German submarines !

The Australians got enough to equip 10 Squadrons

The RAF got 26 B24A's in 1941 but as they lacked self sealing fuel tanks
they were used for transport and training

In 1942 they got a first batch of B24C's which operated from North
Africa in the antishipping, ASW and bombing roles attacking axis convoys
in the Med.

Next was the B24D which was very popular with coastal command as they
not only had excellent radar but could carry air launched rockets to hit
U-Boats on the surface at night.

As far as I know the only RAF Liberators used in the bombing role were
bombing the Japanese in Burma. Some were used as electronic warfare
aircraft but that's about it

RAF bomber command were pretty much exclusively using the Short
Stirling, HP Halifax and Lancaster in the heavy bomber role - simply put
they had a smaller crew, didnt need the extended range of the B24 and
carried a heavier bomb load than a B24.

Most of the B24's that ended up in the UK were in Coastal Command where
they replaced the short range Lockheed Hudsons

If we look at how they were allocated by the RAF we see this

RAF Far East - 20 squadrons
RAF Middle East - 10 squadrons
Coastal Command - 10 squadons
Transport Command - 4 Squadrons

Coastal command did ask for Lancasters but were denied as they were not
well suited to the role, equipped with only .303 machine guns and just
one pilot they were judged to be at extreme risk attacking a surfaced
U-Boat. In the end for UK waters that job was assigned to the DH Mosquito.

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message news:tvaecc$3m1uk$1@dont-email.me...

On 20/03/2023 04:19, David Lesher wrote:
> "Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>> That said, while Bomber Command could not win the war against
>> Germany on its own, as its commander Air Marshall Bomber Harris
>> claimed, it did provide one of the most significant tools for
>> ensuring final victory.
>
> Bomber Harris denied Coastal Command et.al. of the B24 long
> range variant aircraft needed to neutralize the U-Boat threat,
> thus costing the lives of thousand of Allied seafarers.
>
>
That's an interesting claim given that of the 1900 or so B-24's
supplied most were used in the Far East and those that ended up in the
UK were in coastal command hunting German submarines !

The Australians got enough to equip 10 Squadrons

The RAF got 26 B24A's in 1941 but as they lacked self sealing fuel tanks
they were used for transport and training

In 1942 they got a first batch of B24C's which operated from North
Africa in the antishipping, ASW and bombing roles attacking axis convoys
in the Med.

Next was the B24D which was very popular with coastal command as they
not only had excellent radar but could carry air launched rockets to hit
U-Boats on the surface at night.

As far as I know the only RAF Liberators used in the bombing role were
bombing the Japanese in Burma. Some were used as electronic warfare
aircraft but that's about it

RAF bomber command were pretty much exclusively using the Short
Stirling, HP Halifax and Lancaster in the heavy bomber role - simply put
they had a smaller crew, didnt need the extended range of the B24 and
carried a heavier bomb load than a B24.

Most of the B24's that ended up in the UK were in Coastal Command where
they replaced the short range Lockheed Hudsons

If we look at how they were allocated by the RAF we see this

RAF Far East - 20 squadrons
RAF Middle East - 10 squadrons
Coastal Command - 10 squadons
Transport Command - 4 Squadrons

Coastal command did ask for Lancasters but were denied as they were not
well suited to the role, equipped with only .303 machine guns and just
one pilot they were judged to be at extreme risk attacking a surfaced
U-Boat. In the end for UK waters that job was assigned to the DH Mosquito.

--------------------------

Britain had the excellent, locally produced Sunderland flying boat which was
a purpose-designed (bespoke?) long range marine patrol plane.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Coastal_Command_during_World_War_II

On 21/03/2023 14:07, Jim Wilkins wrote:

>
> Britain had the excellent, locally produced Sunderland flying boat which
> was a purpose-designed (bespoke?) long range marine patrol plane.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Coastal_Command_during_World_War_II
>

But not enough of them and they lacked the range of the B-24

the RAF also used Catalina's, Lockheed Hudsons, Mosquitos and on D-Day
Hawker Typhoons. In the Med the RN used the Fairey Swordfish equipped
with radar and rockets, As nice a mix of old and new as you could find.
Post war of course the role passed to the Shackleton and Nimrod while
the RCAF used a version of the Avro Lancaster
https://www.bombercommandmuseum.ca/aircraft/post-war-rcaf-lancasters/

Keith Willshaw <keithwillshaw@gmail.com> writes:

> As nice a mix of old and new as you could find.

I'd say the use of Stringbag's from ad-hock carriers against
U-boats, had to be the best old & new mix of the war.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast...............wb8foz@panix.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 11:39:03 +0000, Keith Willshaw wrote:

> On 21/03/2023 14:07, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>
>
>> Britain had the excellent, locally produced Sunderland flying boat
>> which was a purpose-designed (bespoke?) long range marine patrol plane.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Coastal_Command_during_World_War_II
>>
>>
> But not enough of them and they lacked the range of the B-24.
As it turns out, a Catalina pretty much matched the Sunderland for cruise
performance (Cruise speed / Range) Not the same, but close, carried twice
the weapons load, and had better sensors. (Not only the Radar, but MAD as
well. It did it on 2 engines, burning half the fuel.

They also used the Wellington's younger brother the Warwick, but it wasn't
memorable, or an efficient use of resources.

> the RAF also used Catalina's, Lockheed Hudsons, Mosquitos and on D-Day
> Hawker Typhoons. In the Med the RN used the Fairey Swordfish equipped
> with radar and rockets, As nice a mix of old and new as you could find.
> Post war of course the role passed to the Shackleton and Nimrod while
> the RCAF used a version of the Avro Lancaster
> https://www.bombercommandmuseum.ca/aircraft/post-war-rcaf-lancasters/

Both the RAF and the RCAF used the Lockheed Neptune, as well. In Canada,
the Neptunes replaced the Lancs, and were replaced by Canadair Argusus
(Argusi?), which was basically a Bristol Britannia with the turboprops
replaced with Wright R3350 Turbocompounds.

--
Peter Stickney
Java Man knew nothing about coffee

On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 14:39:10 -0000 (UTC), David Lesher wrote:

> Keith Willshaw <keithwillshaw@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> As nice a mix of old and new as you could find.
>
> I'd say the use of Stringbag's from ad-hock carriers against U-boats,
> had to be the best old & new mix of the war.

Basically an ASW Helicopter before it was cool.

--
Peter Stickney
Java Man knew nothing about coffee

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message news:tvepco$js36$1@dont-email.me...

On 21/03/2023 14:07, Jim Wilkins wrote:

>
> Britain had the excellent, locally produced Sunderland flying boat ...

But not enough of them and they lacked the range of the B-24

the RAF also used Catalina's, Lockheed Hudsons, Mosquitos and on D-Day
Hawker Typhoons. In the Med the RN used the Fairey Swordfish equipped
with radar and rockets, As nice a mix of old and new as you could find.
Post war of course the role passed to the Shackleton and Nimrod while
the RCAF used a version of the Avro Lancaster
---------------------

I just read that Sunderlands were prohibited from landing on the open sea to
rescue downed pilots. This describes how a Catalina in the Pacific could
(barely) do it:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/legends-of-an-ocean-crossing-seaplane-180971743/

"Hull structure was overstressed. Leaks spewed from popped-out rivets.
Catalina crews walked around with a pocket full of golf tees, perfectly
sized to plug a hole."