|
|
| Author |
Message |
the flower princess
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 986
|
 Posted: 03/13/03 - 21:56 Post subject: World War II questions
|
|
|
If you are a WWII buff and feel like helping me out you can answer these questions for me.
1.Why did the US and British forces adopt strategic bombing? What purpose did it serve?
2. And evaluate thoroughly the contribution of strategic bombing to the success of the allied war effort.
plz hepl
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
GruntingCod
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 6399
|
|
Posted: 03/13/03 - 21:57 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Explain the questions, at least #1 in more detail. And I can possibly answer them.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
the flower princess
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 986
|
|
Posted: 03/13/03 - 22:02 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Those are the exact questions, this teacher brings f*****g idiot to a new level.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Sabathius
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 2179
Location: San Angelo
|
|
Posted: 03/13/03 - 22:03 Post subject:
|
|
|
#1. At the time it was thought that bombing raids were the only way to stop the German War Machine. Germany had a huge industry, cranking out tanks, planes, etc... The bombing raids were going on before d-day. It served the same purpose as it does today. It was softening up the German Defenses. We bombed ball bearing plants, vehicle plants, plane plants, oil refinerys. We were trying to slow down the manufacture of all those german war machines that were pounding Russia and threatening to pound Britain.
#2 See #1.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Vekril
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 15 Oct 2002
Posts: 2525
Location: Jersey
|
|
Posted: 03/13/03 - 22:05 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
this sounds like a liberal whiny teacher trying to prove how evil and barbaric the US and Allies were in WWII
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
the flower princess
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 986
|
|
Posted: 03/13/03 - 22:10 Post subject:
|
|
|
Every teacher and student but me and 2 other people is a liberal b***h. I am one of 3 republicans and one of 2 pro-bush students.
Also sabathius thank you very much.
Last edited by the flower princess on 03/13/03 - 22:10; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
eqchanter
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 04 Dec 2002
Posts: 1543
Location: tennessee
|
|
Posted: 03/13/03 - 22:10 Post subject:
|
|
|
answer to question 1
Strategic bombing is the bombing of military-industrial targets such as aircraft plants, munition factories and oil refineries. These targets provide the ammunition, fuel and supplies that a modern army needs to conduct operations. Strategic bombing disrupts the flow of war material to the troops in the field. anything else would be considered tactical bombing
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
the flower princess
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 986
|
|
Posted: 03/13/03 - 22:12 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Thank you very much eqchanter also. =D
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
GruntingCod
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 6399
|
|
Posted: 03/13/03 - 22:12 Post subject:
|
|
|
| the flower princess wrote: | | Those are the exact questions, this teacher brings f*****g idiot to a new level. |
f*****g, jesus. Seriously, teachers, school, everything is just lame now adays.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8752
|
|
Posted: 03/13/03 - 22:13 Post subject:
|
|
|
Yeah, I believe in the early 40s they realized the British practice of sending streams of bombers over German cities at night wasn't the most effective strategy. Such bombers could only aim incendiary bombs to fall on the center of a city and were doing only incidental damage. German production was still on the rise while all this was happening. Eventually, the Allies had good enough bombers to accurately pinpoint exact targets (factories, refineries, etc.) and of course, went after them.
From what I heard, the success of strategic bombing during WW2 was debatable. The practice came about around the same time the Allies were able to strike deeper in Germany, and that may have had more of an affect than the strategic bombing itself.
Don't take my word for it, though. I wasn't around then! 
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Paden
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 23 Oct 2002
Posts: 9362
Location: North CAROLINA!
|
|
Posted: 03/13/03 - 22:27 Post subject:
|
|
|
1
The use bombing to mainly stop the mass areas that the germans had big defences over.
Also they did bombing on there factorys to try and stop them from makeing more tanks and other equip.
History channel is your friend.
turn it there now there is prolly a show on ww2 now
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
the flower princess
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 986
|
|
Posted: 03/13/03 - 22:37 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Very good, thanks akronn and paden.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Pags
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3260
|
|
Posted: 03/13/03 - 23:17 Post subject: Re: World War II questions
|
|
|
| the flower princess wrote: | | 2. And evaluate thoroughly the contribution of strategic bombing to the success of the allied war effort. |
Without the strategic bombing of factories and communication buildings the allies would have surely lost the war. The main cause of Germany's downfall (besides the strategic blunder of waging war on two fronts), was they were losing valuable resources and factories in which they were produced.
Unfortunately, early in the war (early American involvement that is), bombers suffered extremely high casualties. The bomber crews were considered to be among the bravest soldiers. Until the mustang (fighter) was developed, the bomber's escort fighters could only fly a maximum of 300 miles before having to return back. The germans knew this, and exploited it. Their fighters would lay in wait, they knew exactly when the fighters would have to abandon their bombers to turn home or risk running out of fuel.
Once the mustang was introduced (Rolls Royce engine), America's new fighter could fly up to 2000 miles from base. Meaning bombers were now being escorted all the way into Berlin. As a result, far less bombers were shot down, and the tide of the war was changed.
Combined British and American bombing on key defensive positions took it's toll on Germany. The Nazi King Tiger Tanks (Hitler's last ditch effort to produce a superior tank), was invulnerable to pretty much anything but allied bombing. Massive bombing strikes on large groups of these tanks proved to be devasting to the German forces.
Little by little, the allied bombings, along with ground attacks, forced the German's back. Eventually, the rate at which factories, resources, and soldiers were being destroyed could not be out produced by the German War Machine.
This help?
My favorite channel is the history channel ^^
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Paqs
Total Newbie
Joined: 13 Mar 2003
Posts: 18
|
|
Posted: 03/13/03 - 23:20 Post subject:
|
|
|
lol, nevermind, don't listen to my above post
my brother logged onto my comp and posted all that without me knowing, it's not true.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
the flower princess
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 986
|
|
Posted: 03/13/03 - 23:25 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
So is the original post b*******t or not?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Paqs
Total Newbie
Joined: 13 Mar 2003
Posts: 18
|
|
Posted: 03/13/03 - 23:27 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Yeah, lol, sorry
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
the flower princess
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 986
|
|
Posted: 03/13/03 - 23:30 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
I want a reply by the original Pags with 999 posts or a person who knows alot about WWII.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Pags
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3260
|
|
Posted: 03/13/03 - 23:37 Post subject:
|
|
|
Flower Princess, ignore Paqs, always ;p, no clue who that is...
But anyway, yeah, the original post is true.
I watch the History Channel all the time, am a huge WW2 buff, to the best of my knowledge, everything I wrote is accurate. It is however, all from memory.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
the flower princess
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 986
|
|
Posted: 03/13/03 - 23:38 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Thanks a ton, I am done now so this thread may now die...RIP.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Pags
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3260
|
|
Posted: 03/13/03 - 23:40 Post subject:
|
|
|
Actually, re-reading through my post, kinda seems the paragraph about the King Tiger Tanks (although true), don't really apply to your question, might want to leave that out, seems kinda out of place to me..
/shrug
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Paco
RealPoor Jedi
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 12939
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
|
Posted: 03/13/03 - 23:49 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Maelstrom
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 4072
Location: Montréal
|
|
Posted: 03/13/03 - 23:54 Post subject:
|
|
|
To short this...
The Germans had much more tanks and armored power so the allies needed to find another way to win the damn war.
Bombing turned out to be a good idea.
If anyone have seen the long movie : Bands of brothers you would have notice how strong tigers/panzers were against allied tanks.
4 allied tanks were NOT enough for a tiger , hell during the movie you see 4 allied tanks get owned by 1 tiger...kind of answer the question about why the bombing.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Maelstrom
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 4072
Location: Montréal
|
|
Posted: 03/13/03 - 23:58 Post subject:
|
|
|
Also to prevent the huge armored Geman army to move it was a good idea to blow up their oil reserve to prevent them from pushing further and thus giving a chance to the allies to gain field advantage.
How good it is to have thousands of tanks if you dont have the fuel/ ammo to support them?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Pags
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3260
|
|
Posted: 03/13/03 - 23:59 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Maelstrom wrote: | To short this...
The Germans had much more tanks and armored power so the allies needed to find another way to win the damn war. |
Not true, by the end of the war America produced approximately 50,000 Sherman tanks. Although obviously inferior to Panzers/Tigers/Any other Nazi tank, their speed and sheer numbers made them effective. We had more tanks, theirs had more power, though.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Maelstrom
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 4072
Location: Montréal
|
|
Posted: 03/14/03 - 00:01 Post subject:
|
|
|
You said it..by the end of the war,
And sorry but they were BS.
The Germans were the absolute field Master.
Did you knew that before ww 1 the US only had 13 tanks while some countries already had hundreds?
Makes you wonder why no one thought about invading the US they prob all thought that it wasnt worth it...not sure that would think the same today lol
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Maelstrom
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 4072
Location: Montréal
|
|
Posted: 03/14/03 - 00:04 Post subject:
|
|
|
But I didnt knew that the US had made so many at the end of the war.
BTW were did the worse armored battles happened?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Pags
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3260
|
|
Posted: 03/14/03 - 00:12 Post subject:
|
|
|
I'm not sure how many we had compared to Germany at the beginning, I'd assume at the rate they were being produced they would have made it to the battlefield farely quickly.
I remember the history channel saying we produced 50,000 Shermans, approximately quadruple the amount of Nazi tanks produced during the war.
As far as the great tank battles, the best were in the Soviet Union. Several times the Soviet T-34 divisions (hundreds and more), would lure the Panzer divisions (of also hundreds of panzers), then flank them and eventually destroy any tank not lucky enough to escape.
I think both the Soviets and the Nazi's lost a great deal of tanks in these battles. I'm pretty sure the Soviets had the advantage, as they began to quickly pushing Germany back.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Maelstrom
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 4072
Location: Montréal
|
|
Posted: 03/14/03 - 00:18 Post subject:
|
|
|
took a while since the germans almost made it to moscu.
Anyone wonder what could have happened if Hitler wouldnt have attacked Russia?
I dont think England would have been able to last very long.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Pags
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3260
|
|
Posted: 03/14/03 - 00:23 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Maelstrom wrote: | took a while since the germans almost made it to moscu.
Anyone wonder what could have happened if Hitler wouldnt have attacked Russia? |
It's highly likely that Germany would have crushed Britain before America got involved, then move on to the Soviets. And being able to focus all their army on 1 front against the Soviets, would have crushed them as well. Assuming that the Soviet Union wasn't wisening up and massively producing war machines to be able to fend off a German attack.
My guess is though that the Nazi's would have taken control of Europe/Africa, and who knows what else.
I'm going to sleep now...
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Bob Dole
Luke Warm
Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Posts: 163
|
|
Posted: 03/14/03 - 00:24 Post subject:
|
|
|
Bob Dole recalls that the world's largest ever tank battle was at Prokhorova, Russia. There we saw 1,500 tanks on the battlefield - and as the dust settled, it was the Germans who licked their wounds.
Addressing Mr. Maelstrom's question: it is a well-known fact that Hitler made a grave error fighting on two fronts at once. His forces would have been defeated regardless, however.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
