strategic bombing?

[javiermcabo]

Take a look at the flak towers the Germans built around Berlin It's not simply a matter of moving the guns, it's moving all the support elements, from the supply and administrative elements to the organizations and infrastructure that let the guns shoot effectively. It's analogous with the modern practice of not shipping heavy kit back from overseas deployments; it's cheaper to build new than to ship the old stuff.

OK. I surrender
One question: what happens to AA when the enemy invades a province?

 

[unmerged(6780)]

OK. I surrender
One question: what happens to AA when the enemy invades a province?

It's destroyed, from the friendly point of view, or it should be. That's about the one real flaw in how province AA is handled. It should be reset to 0 when a province is taken and shouldn't rebuild unless the (new) owner decides to spend the ICs. Well, maybe rebuild a point or 2, to represent moving the more mobile higher-level assets in.

 

[vimhawk]

Its difficult to model strategic bombing properly because there is no great consensus about what it actually did! There are plenty of data showing how German industrial output rose until 1944, even during the most intensive strategic bombing campaign the world had known.... but of course there is no data to suggest what German output would have been without strategic bombing! We know that specific factories were rebuilt and returned to production rather quickly, but we also know that vast areas were literally laid waste and thousands killed... which must have had significant effect.

I suppose its how you look at the available facts and in this respect, like most other things, most people have their own beliefs and agendas. We do know that concentration on bombing specific industries does seem to have been more effective, and had this been maintained greater results might have been achieved (aircraft factories or oil plants or ballbearings or whatever). However, should specific targeting be available then of course it would be exploited. Someone would calculate the most effective type of attack against a particular type of target and then this is all that would be bombed... regardless of political constraints and high command squabbles that IRL impared the efficiency of all organisations.

Strangely enough, even if you believe that bombing didn't degrade industrial output as much as some believe, other side-effects may have been just as important, such as bringing the Luftwaffe to battle and shooting down the best pilots and vast numbers of planes, together with the proportion of the armaments industry producing nothing but AA guns and ammunition, plus the crews and organisation to run them.

Incidentally, all those interested in strategic bombing should read "Bomber Command" by Max Hastings. Highly recommended objective reading!

 

[vimhawk]

sorry - this was just a duplicate of the above posting

 

[unmerged(6780)]

Vimhawk, your post just proved that strategic bombing did not have the effect it was hoped/thought to have had German production rose, even during the bombing, which it was not supposed to have done and that alone invalidates the WWII theory of strategic bombing. It did hurt the Germans, yes, but it didn't win the war, nor was it the decisive factor, and that's what the bombing proponents of the day really wanted it to do. As it stands now, strategic bombing in HoI has about the same effect it did historically. It damages industry and reduces the infrastructure and resources available for a little while. What the current model does not do is allow for the historical British and Canadians carpet bombing at night and the US going after specific factories during the day type of campaign, but that's okay, too, since this is supposed to be a strategic game and not a computer version of "Luftwaffe".

 

[Fortium]

A quick article

Here's a quick article that discusses some aspects of Strategic Bombing in WW2, specifically over Germany:

http://www.awm.gov.au/wartime/25/article.asp

The British official historians claim that “in an operational sense the Battle of Berlin was more than a failure, it was a defeat”. This was unequivocally true of Harris’s dream of bombing the German leadership into submission, but it would be wrong to say that it was, in a strategic sense, a wasted effort. Bombing brought the war to Germany at a time when it was difficult to apply pressure anywhere else. The threat of a sustained air campaign that might destroy production and transport infrastructure forced Nazi leaders to adopt a defensive posture and divert huge resources and manpower to the relocation of industry. The construction of underground factories was one example of the vastly expensive solutions forced upon the Germans. Also, active and static defences, such as night-fighters, anti-aircraft guns, airraid shelters, flak towers, radar, searchlights – and the personnel required to produce and operate them – drew important resources from the front line, where they were desperately needed. German defences were so geared to the protection of Berlin and other important towns in Germany that the bombers sent in advance of the D-Day landings conducted some of the most successful raids of the war.

 

[unmerged(29870)]

target selection - power grids

Strategic bombing should be enhanced to allow the selection of specific targets such as Electrical Power Plants. Electrical power plants were dismissed early on by the Allies as primary targest because they assumed that Germany had a highly redundant power grid. In fact, it did not and this was the most vulnerable aspect of the German economy. Most plants could have been put out of action for about 3 months with about 20 tons of bombs(a single B-17 carried 2 tons). Forty tons could have knocked out a plant for up to a year. The larger plants would require more tonnage, but 100 tons would be sufficient. If a hundred plants had been hit hard it would require about 1% of all bombs dropped on Europe and German industry would have collapsed from losing 50% of it's power supply (see my thread on Tech Tree Suggestions - Industry - Redundant Power Grids, for the defenders perspective).

 

[gagenater]

Can we turn this into an advantage?

Its difficult to model strategic bombing properly because there is no great consensus about what it actually did! There are plenty of data showing how German industrial output rose until 1944, even during the most intensive strategic bombing campaign the world had known.... but of course there is no data to suggest what German output would have been without strategic bombing! We know that specific factories were rebuilt and returned to production rather quickly, but we also know that vast areas were literally laid waste and thousands killed... which must have had significant effect.

I suppose its how you look at the available facts and in this respect, like most other things, most people have their own beliefs and agendas. We do know that concentration on bombing specific industries does seem to have been more effective, and had this been maintained greater results might have been achieved (aircraft factories or oil plants or ballbearings or whatever). However, should specific targeting be available then of course it would be exploited. Someone would calculate the most effective type of attack against a particular type of target and then this is all that would be bombed... regardless of political constraints and high command squabbles that IRL impared the efficiency of all organisations.

Strangely enough, even if you believe that bombing didn't degrade industrial output as much as some believe, other side-effects may have been just as important, such as bringing the Luftwaffe to battle and shooting down the best pilots and vast numbers of planes, together with the proportion of the armaments industry producing nothing but AA guns and ammunition, plus the crews and organisation to run them.

Incidentally, all those interested in strategic bombing should read "Bomber Command" by Max Hastings. Highly recommended objective reading!

As you pointed out, it is very unclear exactly what strategic bombing achieved. Maybe the best way to simulate this is to make the effects of strategic bombing somewhat random. Ex. You send the bombers out to damage IC, and they end up damaging infrastructure by accident. Make the odds of hitting the right target depend on the weather, level of AA defenses in the province, and weither or not the bombers get intercepted. This way you can do just what the allies did in real life - Bomb away at all sorts of targets for many different reasons and all over the place in hopes of hitting a critical point. The difference being that we in hindsight may know what the critical points are, but not always be able to hit them.

 

[gagenater]

Strategic bombing should be enhanced to allow the selection of specific targets such as Electrical Power Plants. Electrical power plants were dismissed early on by the Allies as primary targest because they assumed that Germany had a highly redundant power grid. In fact, it did not and this was the most vulnerable aspect of the German economy. Most plants could have been put out of action for about 3 months with about 20 tons of bombs(a single B-17 carried 2 tons). Forty tons could have knocked out a plant for up to a year. The larger plants would require more tonnage, but 100 tons would be sufficient. If a hundred plants had been hit hard it would require about 1% of all bombs dropped on Europe and German industry would have collapsed from losing 50% of it's power supply (see my thread on Tech Tree Suggestions - Industry - Redundant Power Grids, for the defenders perspective).

This is true, but this allows a player to ahistorically target points that the allies in reality had no way of knowing would be good targets. Another good target that the Allies did not hit on until very late in the war was synthetic oil production. The plants were physically very large, and by nature potentially explosive when hit by bombs. The allies however were under the impression that the plants were physically very rugged and durable, and did not think that they could get enough bombs on target to cause significant damage. When the plants were eventually targeted they were put out of action or severely limited quite quickly.
I guess my point being, that on the scale of HOI 2, allowing targeting of individual factories is not appropriate IMHO. The ability of bombers to hit the most valuable targets should increase via docterines and other technologies as the war goes on. If you take a somewhat random effect of strategic bombing as the basic effect (as noted in my previous post) then the effect of more advanced strategic bombing technologies would be to increase the odds that any given attack would a) hit the desired objective and b) cause significant damage.

 

[unmerged(13933)]

If bombing key industries is not strategic level action then what is? I mean you should be able to target at least specific branch of industry. For example energy or oil refining.

I just hope that the strategic bombing will not be abstracted so much that you cant prevent it happening.

Also there should be factories a la viccy, but in limited numbers. These factories could be oil refinery, weapons factories, just for example.

It just bugs me that you have oil produced and it is magically usable straight away. Oil is a raw resource not a finished product. I know that there's got to be some abstractions and I can live without oil refineries but oil usage is just weird in hoi now.

 

[gagenater]

If bombing key industries is not strategic level action then what is? I mean you should be able to target at least specific branch of industry. For example energy or oil refining.

I just hope that the strategic bombing will not be abstracted so much that you cant prevent it happening.

Also there should be factories a la viccy, but in limited numbers. These factories could be oil refinery, weapons factories, just for example.

It just bugs me that you have oil produced and it is magically usable straight away. Oil is a raw resource not a finished product. I know that there's got to be some abstractions and I can live without oil refineries but oil usage is just weird in hoi now.

I guess that would be OK. My only point is that you should not automatically be able to bomb the target of your choice, just because you know that's what you want to hit. As for the usage of oil and other resources, the thing that bugs me the most about it is the way that oil (and other resources) are allocated when there is a shortfall. You should be able to choose for example to use your limited oil production for your armies and let a portion of your I.C. stand idle, or vice versas. Another thing you should be able to do is build up stockpiles of a material that you are producing via conversion. For example, producing 'excess' synthetic rubber while you have good access to sufficient coal and oil reserves in order to build up a new strategic reserve for future hard times.

 

[unmerged(32053)]

Its not so unclear abot strategic bombing campain. I would say that its very well documented.

http://www.angelfire.com/super/ussbs/

But many links had died - so you'll have to go to www.archive.org to find 'em.

Or read the short story at:

http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm

As for urgent information - here is the picture. Its german aviation gasoline production:

As you can see - strat bombing make the difference.

As for suggestions...
Specific target bombing looks great - but we need two missions (at least) - general bombing and precise bombing. First will damage all targets in province but very little (unless you send huge fleet of strat bombers) and very easy to repair. Second will target exact points of interest: marshalling yards, chemical plans etc and this will kill these specific targets (industry or infrastructure) and for long time even if rather small numbers of planes will be used. But for sure we need a cheater protection, so...

Precise strategic bombing mission will be available only after some (not little) research (as doctrine). It will be very dependant of another technical research - lets say computing bombsights, radar navigation, napalm bombs etc. The more you research - the more precise your presicion bombing will become and more bombs will fall on specified target. All other bombs will bring damage as on general strategic bombing mission.

Thats my point.

 

[unmerged(14689)]

If bombing key industries is not strategic level action then what is? I mean you should be able to target at least specific branch of industry. For example energy or oil refining.

I don't think this would be anywhere near historical. Strat bombing as it existed during WWII was highly inaccurate. If you really wanted to hit some specific factory, that usually meant sending waves of bombers and throw out as many bombs as possible, laying waste to a whole area, of which you then hoped the targetted factory was a part. In WWII, quantity definately was a quality of it's own...

 

[unmerged(32053)]

I don't think this would be anywhere near historical. Strat bombing as it existed during WWII was highly inaccurate. If you really wanted to hit some specific factory, that usually meant sending waves of bombers and throw out as many bombs as possible, laying waste to a whole area, of which you then hoped the targetted factory was a part. In WWII, quantity definately was a quality of it's own...

We already have quality and quantity modificators in game. And we want to bomb specific targets as it was historically. Nobody never flown any mission to bomb a province as target. Only to bomb specific targets. Yes, lotsa bomb fell not at target - but not all. And in april '45 8th AF bombers were able to put 85% of their bombs within 600 meters of pre-assigned target. And 59% within 300 meters. Its exactly like big nice german chemical plant.

 

[unmerged(14689)]

We already have quality and quantity modificators in game. And we want to bomb specific targets as it was historically. Nobody never flown any mission to bomb a province as target. Only to bomb specific targets. Yes, lotsa bomb fell not at target - but not all. And in april '45 8th AF bombers were able to put 85% of their bombs within 600 meters of pre-assigned target. And 59% within 300 meters. Its exactly like big nice german chemical plant.

One example. A fluke for all I know. Late in the war. With German air defences down. But whatever. If you think Gulf War-like "smart bombs" are historical... The Allies didn't bomb provs, no, but they also didn't conquer provs. They pushed back the German front. Provs are a necessary "gamey" solution. If you can target factories, the defender should have the possibility to protect those factories. I see micro-management hell getting closer and closer. That's not really what HOI2 should be about IMO.

 

[unmerged(32053)]

First.
Im not talking about single examples - Im talking about statistic. Yes its 1945 - we have 1945 in game. Have you read that I wrote in my previous post ? About doctrins and technologies ? If not - read.

Second.
About german air defence. You can build defence (AAA and interceptors) in game and you can destroy it. So whats the problem ?

Third.
We are not talking about conquering provincies. We are talking about strategic bombing. Stay on topic.

Last.
Im not talking about targeting factories cause I dont know how they will be implemented in game. Im talking about attacking exact productions like it was in HoI number one. Coal, steel etc. If there will be factories then it will be good to be able attack it. Like it was historically. And not be able to lay waste on the whole province. Its possible only with carpet nuke bombing only. And it cant bring more micromanagment because you still have to choose different missions for the aviation. One more one less - nothing changes. So... Its me who is telling about historical accuracy (precision bombing) and you who is telling about ahistorical things (complete province devastation with conventional weaponry).

 

[The historian]

I'd say that the strategic bombing campaign was vitalto the allied succes in the war i think the allies would have lost the war without it .Without the bombing campaign the germans might have been able to make tigers and me 262 in sufficent numbers to blow at leaswt the western allies away consider the fact that the german tanks destroyed 3 times as many tanks as they lost in russia and 5 times as many in the west so if the numbers would have increased somewhat and with the me262 to ensure air superiority the germans would have won.i think strat bombing should be a bit more specific i meanto have options like bombing ic bombing infrastructure etc.

 

[unmerged(32294)]

that doesn't prove anything

The real question is would the production have risen higher if teh bombing had not occured?
Personally, I do not believe strategic bombing is an efficient way to destroy your opponent militarily, but it does make a difference, it just isn't cost effective.
One thing that would be good is to target infrastructure, or a resource, or population on a strategic bombing offensive; this is one reason teh allies prevailed at Normandy (though the credit goes primarily to a few brave small-unit-officers and men on the beaches.

 

[unmerged(11819)]

I wouldn't be opposed to immobile prov-based AA, with some different attributes than slow,mobile AA.
That represents both aspects.

 

[Luka]

The problem that we, as we want to play a game about WW2, are faced with is this: we all know our WW2 history. We know what worked and what didnt work. As someone posted earlier, the allies couldn't really tell if their bombing of a certain target was effective in any way. With hindsight however, we do know, so its a difficult thing to represent in a game, therefore I feel it is neccessary for strategic bombing to be abstracted more than targeting specific factories. For example, I cannot recall the name, but I watched a programme about the strat bombing offensive (though I am taking this programme as gospel - they're usually pretty good). One section of this doccumentary was when the allies switched to the bombing of the oil refineries and snthetic oil plants. There was a gigantic raid and someone in high command said something along the lines of 'two more raids like that and we'll be done for'. Sorry its vauge & not direct quotes, but its definitely something along those lines - i.e. that if the Allies had continued with this course of action, it would have *really* hurt the German war effort so much that their armies would be crippled.
As it turns out the Allies didn't think it was working, so they stopped. Bet they felt sheepish if they ever found out.