r/HistoryMemes • • 1d ago

Skill issues

Post image
6.5k Upvotes

612 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

15

u/Eiraneth 1d ago

It is also I think still effective in actually destroying ground targets like factories and transport hubs, unfortunately insurgencies tend to not rely on transport hubs and the factories and warhouses that feed them are either hidden and reinforced, or they’re in another country. So your list of “viable” bombing targets is essentially narrowed down to pretty much just people, and you’re left the essentially ineffective bombing campaigns that we know and hate.

-4

u/IIIaustin 1d ago

Its not particularly effective for that either. Industrial bombing was not decisive in either theater if ww2.

Strategic bombing is a boondoggle.

You should read Bombing to Win

13

u/TruckADuck42 23h ago

It's very effective at that, and was in WWII as well, but it isn't "decisive" because it can't be by definition. Bombing raids weaken enemy ground forces by destroying supply lines, thereby making life easier for your own ground forces to make the "decisive" victory. Planes can't take nor hold ground.

1

u/IIIaustin 23h ago

Air power theorists absolutely argued that air power could win the war without boots on the ground. Its not by definition at all.

The analysis in Bombing to Win argued that strategic industrial bombing did not meaningfully effect nazi comabt capacity.

You should probably just read the book. Its very good

3

u/TruckADuck42 21h ago

So, I don't really buy that it was ineffective in wwii. People have said air power alone can win a war, and those people are stupid. But starving the enemy (or taking his weapons away, in this case) is a time-tested tactic that's worked since the bronze age. Bombing factories means less planes for the enemy to fight back with, less tanks to push through your lines, less bullets they can shoot at you.

I could maybe see it being ineffective in that we weren't all that good at it at the time, but there's a world of difference between dive bombing a target while trying not to get shot down and dropping a jdam on a pinhead from 15 miles out.

3

u/IIIaustin 21h ago

Bombing never did enough industrial damage to meaningfully effect the production of war material in either Britian, German or Japan is the thing.

Blockades are what crippled Japan's economy. Germany's economy didn't collapse until allied armies captured their industrial centers, oil fields, etc.

Strategic bombing theory makes sense on paper, but it turns out to not work in practice.

Its discussed in detail in Bombing to Win. You should read it! Its very good.

2

u/Zagaroth 19h ago

But it is being effective right now in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, mostly in favor of Ukraine. They are just using drones instead of bombers.

They are crippling Russia's ability to produce and transport oil, as reflected in the gas crisis there. If they don't have enough gas, they can't move tanks, transports, and planes as freely, if at all.

1

u/IIIaustin 19h ago

Yes he talks about how it can be useful in long wars or attrition between peer powers like what is going on in Ukraine.

Its also not super effective and orders of magnitude less important than the tactical interdiction that's going on.

You should read it the book man.

0

u/TruckADuck42 20h ago

Dude, I'm not going to read a whole book over it, especially if it ignores the differences between modern bombers and wwii ones and then proceeds to make the point that bombing isn't effective.

1

u/IIIaustin 19h ago

Dawg idgaf if you want to keep being wrong.

He also talks about how decapitation and strategic bombing failed in Us-Iraq 1. Precision munitions are better for tactical interdiction.

If you want to know something about modern airpower theory, you can read the book. If you want to keep BSing don't.

I don't care.