“There are a lot of people who say that bombing can never win a war. Well, my answer to that is that it has never been tried yet, and we shall see.”
– Royal Air Force general Sir Arthur Harris (a.k.a. “Bomber” Harris), in a speech given in 1942 (during World War Two)
In 1903, the Wright brothers showed the world that “man really can fly” (to paraphrase Dieter F. Uchtdorf). As Wikipedia puts it, Orville and Wilbur Wright made “the first controlled, sustained flight of a powered, heavier-than-air aircraft with the Wright Flyer on December 17, 1903, four miles (6 km) south of Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, at what is now known as Kill Devil Hills.” (see source) Planes have since been used for scientific and commercial reasons, but they have also been an important part of warfare for more than a century now. They have altered the way that warfare has been fought, on both the land and the sea. The history of military aviation is one of conflict between carrier and battleship theories, between heavy bombing and close air support theories, and other changes in military strategy and tactics. I freely confess that I’m no expert on any kind of aviation, but my paternal grandfather was well-versed in the subject, and taught me some of what he knew about it. This post will thus focus on aviation in the two massive World Wars, particularly as used by the United States. This was my grandfather’s biggest area of historical expertise.
German biplane shot down by the Americans in the Argonne, 1918 (during World War One)
Background on the (somewhat limited) role of air power in the First World War
The First World War was the first major conflict involving aircraft. It gives us the first romantic image of the “dogfight,” with flyers like the Red Baron. But the reality was somewhat grimmer than its depiction in the Snoopy cartoons. Like every other part of the First World War, it was a war, and one that produced casualties at that. For both sides, aircraft played an important role in reconnaissance at that time, and getting information on enemy troop movements behind the opposing lines. But the famous dogfights were more the exception than the rule, and military aviation was more often involved in the strafing of ground positions. For my own generation, it might be helpful to define the word “strafe” here. As the website of Princeton University puts it, it means to “attack with machine guns or cannon fire from a low-flying plane.” (see source) In other words, it usually means aerial attacks by means other than strategic bombing. In a military context, it usually means close air support of ground positions, which is what happened here. The era’s biplanes were used to strafe the trenches of the Western Front, although the Germans also used them to bomb Britain at that time. We tend to associate the bombing of Britain with the Second World War, but some amount of it also happened in the first one, with attacks on London itself. Americans were actually involved on a limited scale, even before their country had officially gotten involved. This was because European squadrons, especially the French, welcomed many foreign flyers into their air forces. Eddie Rickenbacker was a famous American name to be associated with all of this, and he was an “ace” in that war – who was much idolized by the American press. (Incidentally, the earliest predecessors of our own air force go back to 1907, although they would not become the separate “United States Air Force” until 1947.) But air power in the First World War had little effect besides reconnaissance. The bombing raids on Britain did very little damage at that time, and the aerial strafing of ground positions was likewise limited in its effectiveness. Some even dismissed the airplane as an “expensive toy,” to paraphrase a movie about that time. It was not until the Second World War that the airplane began to turn into a more serious weapons system.
A German bomber from the First World War, 1917
Debates over air power in the Second World War, and British experience with bombing
Aircraft carriers actually go back to the First World War. But carriers became a more serious weapons system, by the time that the Second World War began. Both the American and Japanese navies had major debates about whether to stick to the older battleships, or to adopt the new aircraft carriers. In both nations, aircraft carriers thus became a significant part of their navies, by the time that the Pacific War began in 1941. The British did some limited work with aircraft carriers, but the relevant technology never really caught on much in Germany. Rather, the German navy mostly stuck to using battleships – and, of course, U-boats (as I describe here). However, the Germans did make effective use of their air power in many land campaigns, striking terror into the Allied nations of World War Two. This included bombing of many European nations, from Poland to England. The Second World War bombing of the British Isles is more often remembered (albeit with some sorrow), as the German Luftwaffe was turned back by RAF fighter pilots in the Battle of Britain. But German bombings continued there despite this, especially after the introduction of V-1 flying bombs in 1944. This is why the British took to bombing Germany (and certain places controlled by it), even as early as the Battle of Britain back in 1940. Many have criticized the Royal Air Force for their chosen strategy of night bombing, which may have been somewhat less accurate than the later American daylight bombing. But, in their defense, I would point to two relevant factors. One of them was that daylight bombing was somewhat more dangerous, and thus harder for a comparatively small air force like the British RAF. The other (even more important) factor was that the British had been bombed extensively, in a way that America never was. They were tired of being the ones to be bombed, and wanted to deliver some bombing to the villainous Nazis instead – understandably so, since the Nazis had been doing it to nearly everyone else in Europe.
American bomber attacking the Astra Romana refinery in Ploesti, Romania (1943)
American daylight bombing, and both sides’ air support for ground operations everywhere
Nonetheless, I am glad that America instead chose to do “daylight precision bombing,” to undertake more precise attacks upon German industry. I believe that they were indeed more precise than the night bombing, but not by much – as many have pointed out. The Allies attacked a number of industries, including munitions and ball-bearings. But the most damaging raids were upon the Ploesti oil fields in Romania – the biggest bottleneck industry of all. These hurt the Nazis by interfering with their fuel supplies. Nonetheless, it seems safe to say that the bombing attacks from the British, the Canadians, the Americans, and other nations did much to disrupt German industry, including (somewhat sadly) in their occupied territories – such as France. For example, German transportation was disrupted by the bombing of the local railroads. Air power was also used in support of ground operations by both sides, from Africa and the Middle East to Italy and Western France. But for smaller targets (and even for the largest ships), strafing and dive-bombing by fighter-bombers proved to be more effective than the heavy bombing, and had become more deadly since the First World War. Air power was also used in other theatres of World War Two – from the Balkans, Eastern Europe, and Russia to continental Asia and the Pacific islands. It was also used by the Australians and New Zealanders, who had air forces of their own. The Japanese had used air power against various Allied targets in the East. Air power was also used by both sides at Pearl Harbor and Midway, and in other major carrier battles of the Pacific War. (Incidentally, aircraft carriers could only launch smaller planes, and could not launch heavy bombers.) But bombing Japan proved to be a bit more difficult. The Doolittle Raid had hit Japan back in 1942 – increasing American morale, and terrifying the Japanese at the same time. And it may have had more strategic effect than people give it credit for, since it forced the Japanese to keep more forces back in Japan for a possible defense of the home islands. But the actual damage of the raid itself was still somewhat small, compared to what eventually followed. It was the island-hopping strategy that brought American land-based bombers within range of Japan itself. Battles had to be won on the ground, before this undertaking could even become possible in the first place.
P-51 Mustangs, 1944 – the first fighter that could go far enough to escort bombers to Germany
Conventional bombing and firebombing of Japan, and dropping of the atomic bombs
When it happened, though, the bombing of Japan was as ferocious as its more prominent European counterpart. It involved conventional bombing like that seen in Europe, but it also involved firebombing like that seen in Hamburg and Dresden (in which the Americans had participated, along with the British). By some estimates, the firebombing raids on Tokyo (one in particular) were even more destructive than the later atomic bombs. But still, the Japanese refused the terms of “unconditional surrender.” For those who have argued that the subsequent Japanese surrender was “conditional,” I offer evidence that it was actually unconditional at this link. Suffice it to say here that the Japanese did not agree to these “unconditional surrender” terms until the bombs fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. If the Japanese decision to surrender was ever based on the simultaneous Soviet invasion of Manchuria, we know only that Emperor Hirohito did not mention reasons of this kind in his “Jewel Voice” broadcast. Rather, he mentioned a “most cruel bomb” in those arguments for the surrender (as I show in this post). Thus, the Japanese finally surrendered in 1945, with the surrender being formalized aboard the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay. Air power had been used to deliver the final blow, from the Marianas airbases and the skies over Japan.
The partially incinerated remains of Japanese civilians in Tokyo, 1945
Air power didn’t win the war all by itself, but it certainly did play a role in the victory
In Britain, Sir Arthur Harris had once argued that air power could win a war all by itself, without the need for ground actions. To those who argued that this strategy was unworkable, he responded that this had “never been tried.” In fairness, he was right that the experiment had not yet been tried, but he was wrong to dismiss the invasion of Normandy as an “unnecessary boating expedition” (as he had one called it at the time). It was good that the American, Canadian, and British air forces had been involved in support of ground actions near the end of the war, rather than continuing to bomb German industry as they had done before. But air power had still proved decisive in the Second World War, in a way that had never really happened in warfare before. The end of the Second World War had even seen jet fighters from various Western nations (including Germany), and from Soviet Russia and Imperial Japan. But jet fighters would not become important until the later Korean War, which saw some high-profile dogfights between the American fighters and the Russian MIGs.
A B-29 Superfortress during a Korean War bombing run
Epilogue about air power in Korea and Vietnam, and in various conflicts since this time
The debate over air power continued into the Korean War, in which the United States Army and Marine Corps found jet planes to be “ineffective” in support of ground operations. Heavy bombers were likewise found to be rather ineffective for this purpose. Thus, the techniques for strafing and dive-bombing of ground positions (which, by then, were well-established) continued to be used in Korea. To effectively support ground troops, planes had to be able to stay in one place for somewhat longer. This was why helicopters eventually proved far more effective for this particular purpose. Helicopters were technically used as early as the Korean War, but they did not become very prominent until the later Vietnam War. Obviously, the Vietnam War ended in disaster for the United States, but the Korean War went somewhat better – as did the two aforementioned World Wars. And air power played a key role in every conflict from World War Two onward. Air power had also been used by all of these enemies, to undermine our own war efforts (and those of our allies). But American industry proved better able to produce this air power, and all of the other equipment necessary for military victory. I don’t wish to take anything away from our various Allies, who had also used air power effectively – and who had produced it in mass quantities to support their own war efforts. But all of them depended upon equipment and supplies from the United States during this war, including airplanes and the aviation fuel that they so rapidly consumed (and still do consume today). Air power will continue to be used by both friend and foe alike, and will continue to play a role in how wars are fought, won, and (at times) lost. They will thus remain an important part of warfare for years to come.
“The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.”
– Royal Air Force general Sir Arthur Harris (a.k.a. “Bomber Harris”), in a speech given in 1942 (during World War Two)
See also this Hollywood movie about the history of aviation:
See also these Hollywood movies about Second World War aviation:
If you liked this post, you might also like:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment