B-17 Gunners vs. Luftwaffe

[dry gulched]

Sorry to make you write an essay to prove wrong my 40 word comment on the B17. Everything in said essay is common knowledge (even to me). I've seen it mentioned elsewhere about the "mobile fortress" thing and I only offered my aside because it's not something you see everywhere. Like I said, I've seen it mentioned elsewhere so it must have some validity. As for the reporter coining that phrase perhaps he did, but like all history unless you were there who knows what happened. One can find different reasons the B24 was called the "Flying Coffin", all of them vald.

 

[DevilDog0302]

the cost of in both lives and materials has made the bombing campaign a topic of much debate. In the early days of the war, US bomber (and crew) losses were as high as 90%. Later operation improved that number, but the average US bomber losses throughout the WW II bombing campaign was 71%. Not good odds. Add civilian deaths (in the hundreds of thousands) and one has to ask if there might have been a better way. A debate that rages even today. I am of the opinion that this was something that had to be done. It consumed Germany's resources, sowed disarray, shaped military tactics, and demoralized the population. Without it, Hitler may have developed his jets, and other weapons (including the Atomic bomb) earlier in the war, and that could have changed the out come.

John Kenneth Galbraith worked on the Strategic Bombing Survey after the war, which was used to justify creation of a separate Air Force. He was not impressed with the overall effectiveness of strategic bombing. Here's the Wikipedia article on the Survey, which errs in stating that Japan had decided to surrender prior to the dropping of the atomic bombs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Strategic_Bombing_Survey