75 years since VE Day

British night bombing was for shit. 5% of the bombs landed somewhere near the target. American daylight bombing was far from perfect, but much better - we actually hit the factories and rail yards we were aiming at most of the time. Lancs couldn't have handled daylight bombing, their defensive armament was pitiful. American losses to flak and fighters were tragic, British losses in daylight would have catastrophic.

Not to mention the lack of viable American fighters early on.

Hence the reliance on the RAF to provide escorts.

I've noticed it's very much an American trend, which may well reflect a bias in education, who knows?

I do recall having a conversation in NY with a group of teenagers who swore blind the US won in Vietnam and it was a vet who corrected them. Seems they had been taught extensively about individual engagements and successes yet the outcome had been glossed over leaving them with an overall assumption. I can't help but feel that was in no way a isolated phenomenon.

Maybe those kids had been taught history by a guy in Arkansas?

Also bear in mind the night bombing raids were largely targeting military targets according to a policy of avoiding civilians. The famous paper which so dismayed Churchill referred specifically to bombs hitting and damaging the target, whereas the later Combined Operations sorties were permitted far more leeway with regard to dropping in civilian areas and were judged on a criteria of "hitting" as defined by "landing within 1,000 feet of the target".

Even there peak performance was only 20%.

https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Po...B_0020_SPANGRUD_STRATEGIC_BOMBING_SURVEYS.pdf

It's more than a bias in education. It's an article of faith.

To a very solid majority of Americans, America is never wrong, America has never lost, America can never lose, America is obviously superior to any other country or combination of countries in the world. And any American who thinks otherwise is a traitor.

I had to get out of the country, a long way and for a long time, to realize how thoroughly I had been made to think that without even questioning it. Most Americans don't even think they're being condescending in looking down on every other country, because they think it is such an established fact that everyone on the planet must realize it. "It's not condescending because it's true."

That's why most of them cannot possibly imagine what most of the rest of the world thinks of the USA right now, and if they do hear it they dismiss it either as "fake news" or as proof that other people are ignorant. IOW, not realizing how great America is constitutes proof of inferiority. QED.

Because it's an article of faith.

Lancs were accurate enough to take out the Tirpitz... /shrug
And to be honest, I would think daylight/precision would've been more suited to Mosquitos as the Merlin engine efficiency evolved to be able to handle a round trip to Berlin.
You're right though, without upgrading the defences, they were vulnerable
still, would've been cool to see a DH Vampire against an ME 262.
Either that or we can at least presume some version of Lend/Lease and US/Commonwealth cooperation, especially in the PTO. (Remember, the original goal posts aren't you were unnecessary but rather, you showed up 2/3 of the way through after the game was favorable and you'd gotten your nose bloodied).

Meh. More like just over halfway through. Torch was a little over three years after Poland was invaded.

So you turned up in the interlude when everyone was getting pies and drinks?

With short-range Spits that couldn't go any farther into the Reich than a P-47 without tanks.

In daylight.

Anyway, I was never one to claim anything other than WE beat the Nazis together, so I'm not up for arguing over it.

HA! We Brits knew that tanks would weight our aircraft down. You should always deploy tanks via ships, or just drive them there.

I'm not seeing the downside to this strategy...

Which suggests that American intervention was not the difference between victory and defeat that @TheLonelySquire suggests surely?

If we (collectively, the Allies) were already fighting an offensive war and when US forces joined that pre existing offensive war they were, in strategic terms, initially ineffective it becomes very difficult to support the argument that the war was lost without them.

I'm again not meaning to downplay the importance of that intervention, but rather to avoid hyperbole in claims of decisiveness.

It would be far more accurate to claim the Allies were in a far stronger position to mount large scale offensives with US support than "the war in Europe was lost without it".

"That's why most of them cannot possibly imagine what most of the rest of the world thinks of the USA right now, and if they do hear it they dismiss it either as "fake news" or as proof that other people are ignorant. IOW, not realizing how great America is constitutes proof of inferiority. " - Asynchritus

Or they are not part of the "most people" crowd and think outside the box. Some people don't think that the rest of the world's negative opinion is "fake news" or that other people are necessarily ignorant. Some people just don't give a fuck what the rest of the world thinks about them! Who died and left the rest of the world boss? Asking for a friend!

When do you intend to start?

when you do.

You've stuck a label on me for the sake of convenience, facts notwithstanding. We really should name this one after you:

Well this was ridiculous.

Ridiculous, or "Exhibit A".

I value your opinion! Duly noted.

Thanks for your input to the conversation!