RAF Bomber crews remembered. Better late than never.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Watched every bit of it twice over last night. The documentary 'Who betrayed the Bomber Boys?' was also a very refreshing and truthful perspective on the reasons why we still have to defend them and their leader to this day.

A superb evening's TV which even made the Mrs weep. Me I just blamed the beer going up my nose.....

But the memorial itself is perfect in my view. In keeping with the surroundings, classically styled but incorporating appropriate design features which signify the period, and the postures of the figures themselves are perfect.

They may have waited sixty-odd years, but that memorial looks pretty permanent to me, and deservedly so.

[Katana1000S]

Thanks again Sammi.

Almost half of the 125,000 Bomber Command lost their lives

Crikey!, but with all due respect, lets remember fallen men from both bomber sides ... from all sides, they were just pawns.

Bless them all.

Time to reflect.

[Sternjaeger II]

I'm gutted I missed the documentary, was it really good then?

[Katana1000S]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I'm gutted I missed the documentary, was it really good then?

What do you think?

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Katana1000S

What do you think?

it was just a question to know more about it, was the sarcasm necessary?

[seaeye]

Is it going to be repeated anytime soon? I missed it, the documentary that is.

[brando]

Still available to watch on BBC iPlayer
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...omber_Command/

[Ze-Jamz]

Stern you can watch it here mate:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...omber_Command/

EDIT: sry already posted above

[Blackdog_kt]

Let's keep this civil guys.

I think these guys were neither 100% heroes nor 100% murderers, both terms get tossed around with too much ease nowadays. They were soldiers whose capabilities were used in a totally wrong and inefficient way by their commanders. Essentially, that is where the blame should go.

I once read a very interesting article on a quarterly aviation magazine (international air power review) about the Lancaster bomber. It concluded that post-war studies showed the bomber command campaign to be largely ineffective due to wrong priorities and assumptions.

It turned out that targeting civilians didn't really harm morale any more than it solidified their willpower to stand against what they perceived as a direct threat to their lives at any cost (the "rally around the flag" effect, if you are personally targeted you don't care that much about who runs your country but about surviving). It also resulted in loads of casualties (civilians and aircrews alike) for very small gains in terms of real operational factors. For example, German industrial production actually improved at some point during 43 or 44, in the midst of heavy bombings.

The article then described that bomber command's mistake was essentially using the right tools for the job, but a wrong job. Expensive 4-engined heavy bombers with crews of 7-10 men, who were vulnerable to flak and night fighters while lacking both the ability for precision night bombing and the defensive armament and durability for daylight raids (not to mention the lack of long range RAF escorts).

The final conclusion got me thinking, because it was a very obvious one but i hadn't really thought of it until that point. The RAF had a perfectly capable and highly versatile bomber that was precise (especially when using radio navigation equipment), fast, had long range and was much cheaper than the heavies, because it only had two engines and a crew of 2-3. The Mosquito which, along with the Ju88, probably ranks as the most versatile aircraft of WWII and one of the first truly multi-role designs.

If the industrial and human resources went towards building a fleet of Mosquitoes (it could carry as much as a B-17 by the way, so nothing to scoff at), the RAF would have probably twice or more the number of bombers than it actually had. Most of all, these bombers would be capable of accurately hitting industrial and military targets instead of leveling towns and killing civilians en masse, while at the same time if one went down the RAF was only 2 engines, some balsa wood and 2 men short, probably captured instead of dead thanks to it's docile handling.

In contrast, the Lancaster was designed with the sole aim of carrying as much as possible and was notorious for its abysmal crew survivability rates in the event of an emergency landing.

In the closing statement of the article, it was stated that the Lancaster was an indiscriminate bludgeon, while the Mosquito was a precision fencing sword.
It sure was one of the most interesting articles i've read in a while, i might go dig it up and reread it

[Al Schlageter]

Blackdog_kt, the only time the Mossie carried a bomb load the size of the B-17s was when it was carrying the 4000lb cookie. This was an inaccurate indiscriminate demolition bomb.

Even though Nazi German production of war material increased late in the war, one high up Nazi leader said the SBC reduced overall production by ~30%. The SBC also diverted resources that could have been better used on the front lines and increasing production even more.

Heavy bombing didn't begin until 1944.

1943 - 157,457 ton
1944 - 525,518 ton

As for BC losses - 8,655 (2.58%)