Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II
|
|
We should probably work something in about his activities in Japan. -Joseph 02:14, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)
| Contents |
Neutrality disputed
Neutrality disputed for obvious cases of bias in the text. Example:
- Curiously, the rhetoric of RAF leaders was not matched by military capability
- a euphemism for simply aiming at entire cities in the hope of killing workers, destroying homes, and breaking civilian morale.
119 02:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree. I think thing that this text must have been taken from somewhere else because of its structure. I have tried to fix the first paragraph. See what you think. Philip Baird Shearer 10:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- If there are no other problems, can we remove the NPOV tag? Oberiko 20:02, 28 Apr 2005(UTC) --taken from history of page PBS
I think that if there is still a problem then perhapse a section not a page NPOV tag would suffice and focus on any addition NPOV problems. BTW The introduction mentions "biological agents". Who used them? Philip Baird Shearer 16:52, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
History of the article
Where has the history of this article gone? Philip Baird Shearer 10:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There was an article called "Strategic Bombing During World War II" which according to the history on that page was moved by User:Oberiko on 04:05, 1 Mar 2005 to "Strategic Bombing during World War II" On 14:50, 8 Mar 2005 User:Rmhermen changed the link to Strategic Bombing, I changed it to Strategic bombing during World War II today (09:18, 10 Mar 2005) assuming that the article had been moved again,(because there is no article not even a redirect at Strategic Bombing during World War II), but the history of this article shows that only one person has edited it before I did today. 21:34, 18 Feb 2005 User:SoLando -- So what has happened? Philip Baird Shearer 10:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, it seems to be happening quite a bit. Edit histories seem to be disapearing. I noticed it when my edit of Pathfinders (military) disapeared with the older edit remaining (check history of it). That, until now, has been the only time I've seen evidence of it (though it did happen a few times last year) SoLando 10:41, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Did you move the article? If not what change did you make to it? Philip Baird Shearer 10:46, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- That's bizzare. Is this likely just a wiki-glitch? Oberiko 13:28, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I never moved the bombing article. I added the text: "indeed, it is widely believed that the bombings had the opposite effect." in the "Gradually, in the face of heavy losses to fighters, anti-aircraft guns, and accidents, the Luftwaffe resorted to night bombing. Targeting had been a problem in daylight; by night it was much more so, and British civilian casualties were heavy. The expected collapse in civilian morale, however, did not eventuate; indeed, it is widely believed that the bombings had the opposite effect." SoLando 11:00, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Daylight targetting
- Actually, targetting was easy in daylight, thats why the Americans did it. The problem is that in daylight a slow bomber is a sitting duck unless heavily armoured and escorted by fighters.
- The american day bombers such as the B17, B25 and B29 had to sacrifice bombload for guns, and had to learn unwieldy formation flying techniques to survive. The English abandoned daylight raids very early on.
- Its true that Harris was blind to the effects on english morale of the Blitz. The Blitz consolidated the Londoners and made there resolve harder. Unfortunately, Harris needed the opposite POV to promote his Area Bombing campaign, and so the blitz morale lesson was simply ignored. The germans reacted in the same way as the Londoners, it just made them more resolved to resist, that and the fact if they had fled there war work the Gestapo would have had something to say about it.
- You have to put this into context. The RAF WANTED german morale to collapse, so that became the official POV.
193.131.115.253 11:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Targeting was easy, hitting the target was not, even with the Norton bombsight which was the best the Allies had, particularly if it was overcast. When overcast by day, night bomb using H2S (H2X) and G-H was just as accurate. It was not the bomber's guns or them learning "unwieldy formation flying techniques to survive", it was the P-51 Mustang which made the difference in the American European strategic daylight bombing campaign. The article on the bombing of Tokyo in World War II argues that the usual wind conditions over Japan made high-level precision strategic bombing impractical. Philip Baird Shearer 15:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not logged in
I made the "General Update" change - for some reason, I wasn't logged in :/ Toby Douglass 11:58, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)