What a German soldier of WWII thought of US soldiers.

[RevolverRob]

So, the German soldier in the OP called the American Troops "amateurs", because they used superior weaponry, tactics, and personnel to stop attacks and launch counter attacks? It seems as though our Jerry friend thought it was rather unsporting, eh?

Seems rather glass house, to me. I bet those hauled to concentration camps in cattle cars, who were either slaughtered or tortured, probably didn't think it was very sporting of the Germans to do that.

Fuck that guy.

The fact that he survived the war to bitch and moan about it, tells me when didn't use enough artillery and air power in his area of operations.

[TGS]

So now we get to WWII. The Reich was commanded by Hitler, an Austrian. That difference isn't understood as well as it should be. The Wehrmacht leadership was still largely Prussian in doctrine, but they were told where to go and what to do by Hitler, whose thought process was authoritarian Austrian. That led to all those orders to never retreat, fight to the last man, etc.

That's a good point, as the Austro-Hungarian military was unusually cruel and devoid of competence or even basic logic.

When people talk about incompetent generals in WWI on the Western Front, they obviously haven't looked at what real incompetence is over yonder on the Eastern Front with the Austro-Hungarians, Turks, and Russians. The German, French, and British officers were quite good at their jobs, even if they held some outdated notions that would be paid for in blood. It was a whole'nother level over in the Carpathian Mountains....I never connected that to Hitler and the way he ran Germany.

[Jeep]

Just getting around to this after being without internet for a week and a half.

What part of that report states that the value of strategic bombing is debatable?

The impression I got from it was quite the opposite, especially in the Pacific campaign it seemed especially valuable.

It depends what you are bombing, I suppose. Our railroad campaign against German occupied Europe seemed to make a lot of sense--knock out the Nazis primary means of transport--but it didn't work too well. It turned out that they could repair the rails more easily than we could bomb them. Later on, though, fighter bombers did a great job against German locomotives.

Our strategic bombing campaign against German POL by contrast was highly effective and put a huge crimp on the Germans.

In the Pacific, our strategic bombing campaign ended the war and saved the lives of many GI's. In Vietnam, our "strategic bombing" campaign often involved trying to hit individual trucks and sheds (instead cutting their supply lines by mining harbors and destroying bridges). That didn't work so well either.

The lesson of history on strategic bombing is a lot like other methods of war--search around and find out what most hurts the enemy the most and then hammer them.

But you are correct, when done properly strategic bombing can help win a war, as it did in the Pacific. And for that I'm most grateful. My father was on Okinawa in 1945 prepared to participate in Operation Olympic. Strategic bombing allowed his to live to come home and die in his bed at the age of 96.

[TGS]

It depends what you are bombing, I suppose.

The topic goes back to Post #21, and trailrunner suggesting that the value of strategic bombing of manufacturing is debatable.

[Jeep]

Right now I have shirts made in Viet Nam and they drink Coca-Cola plus host US Navy ships. So what did we fight for? The war was a strategic mistake on every level. What would we have won - another crappy authoritarian regime, that would face repeated insurgents over the years following our 'victory'. Going to occupy the North, that would make Iraq and Afghanistan look like Disney Land.

As far as the Germans, who cares about their opinion about anything. They chose to follow a monster. Yeah, they were so hot stuff and fought so much better, blah, blah. Screw them. They were lucky they gave up before we got the A-bombs up and running.

That's what I think about these issues.

Glen: I agree that it was a strategic and tactical mistake. Once we are in, though, it is best to win the wars we fight. We could have won that one without occupying the North, just like Korea. And the crappy authoritarian regime would have morphed into a tolerably democratic one, like Korea. Moreover, a lot of good Vietnamese, Cambodians, Meo, and Montagnard's who trusted our promises wouldn't have been executed.

I don't think that there was enough of a national interest to fight in Vietnam or Laos. But, once we were in we should have won the war--which despite a lot of armchair civilian pontifications could have been done relatively easily. Cut your enemy off from supply and they collapse, and cutting off North Vietnam from supply was not difficult at all. And failing to win wars because of what the world perceives to be a lack of will just leads to more wars in the future.

Unfortunately, we not only got involved for reasons that remain nebulous, the tactics we used--which were imposed by LBJ and Robert McNamara (at the recommendations of numerous DC grandees)--were brain dead. They were the classic tactics used by mandarins who have a pool of free draftees to use as cannon fodder with no possible risks to themselves.

[Joe in PNG]

It depends what you are bombing, I suppose. Our railroad campaign against German occupied Europe seemed to make a lot of sense--knock out the Nazis primary means of transport--but it didn't work too well. It turned out that they could repair the rails more easily than we could bomb them. Later on, though, fighter bombers did a great job against German locomotives.

Our strategic bombing campaign against German POL by contrast was highly effective and put a huge crimp on the Germans.

In the Pacific, our strategic bombing campaign ended the war and saved the lives of many GI's. In Vietnam, our "strategic bombing" campaign often involved trying to hit individual trucks and sheds (instead cutting their supply lines by mining harbors and destroying bridges). That didn't work so well either.

The lesson of history on strategic bombing is a lot like other methods of war--search around and find out what most hurts the enemy the most and then hammer them.

But you are correct, when done properly strategic bombing can help win a war, as it did in the Pacific. And for that I'm most grateful. My father was on Okinawa in 1945 prepared to participate in Operation Olympic. Strategic bombing allowed his to live to come home and die in his bed at the age of 96.

Different lines of communication as well. The Germans were mostly land based, and the Japanese was mostly sea. The subs of the US Navy were able to stop a lot of resources from getting to and from Japan- and do what the Germans couldn't against England.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I agree that what happened to our allies was a tragedy. I worked with lots of students from refugee families. I just wondered if we could have had a long term win. Converting folks to our ways didn’t work so well in Iraq.

[Jeep]

Different lines of communication as well. The Germans were mostly land based, and the Japanese was mostly sea. The subs of the US Navy were able to stop a lot of resources from getting to and from Japan- and do what the Germans couldn't against England.

Very true. The Japanese lost so many merchant ships that they could not have imported (from Indochina, China and Korea) the food they needed for the winter of 1945-46 if the war had continued. The Naval/Air campaign worked.

Of course, it also not only resulted in widespread hunger in Japan in the summer/fall of 1945, but it meant that our POWs--who were given far less food than most Japanese--were dying of starvation in the summer of 1945.

Had the war continued another year, very few of them would have lived to see the end.

And it was undoubtedly strategic bombing that ended the war.

[Joe in PNG]

And it was undoubtedly strategic bombing that ended the war.

Plus put a damper on total, all in world wars in general.

[MistWolf]

It depends what you are bombing, I suppose. Our railroad campaign against German occupied Europe seemed to make a lot of sense--knock out the Nazis primary means of transport--but it didn't work too well. It turned out that they could repair the rails more easily than we could bomb them. Later on, though, fighter bombers did a great job against German locomotives.

Our strategic bombing campaign against German POL by contrast was highly effective and put a huge crimp on the Germans.

In the Pacific, our strategic bombing campaign ended the war and saved the lives of many GI's. In Vietnam, our "strategic bombing" campaign often involved trying to hit individual trucks and sheds (instead cutting their supply lines by mining harbors and destroying bridges). That didn't work so well either.

The lesson of history on strategic bombing is a lot like other methods of war--search around and find out what most hurts the enemy the most and then hammer them.

But you are correct, when done properly strategic bombing can help win a war, as it did in the Pacific. And for that I'm most grateful. My father was on Okinawa in 1945 prepared to participate in Operation Olympic. Strategic bombing allowed his to live to come home and die in his bed at the age of 96.

The Air Force explained to me that bombing factories, oil refineries, shipyards cities, etc. was strategic. The bombing of convoys, trains, staging areas, fuel & ammo depots, airfields and other military targets was tactical. When I was in, the main components of the USAF was Strategic Air Command (SAC), Tactical Air Command (TAC) and Military Airlift Command (MAC).

During World War II, both strategic and tactical bombing played their role.