Greatest Strategic Air Missions?

What are some of the greatest strategic air missions?

Some candidates

Yamamoto shootdown
Hiroshima
Paul Doumer bridge LGB
Dambusters
Tirpitz
Norwegian heavy water
Midway
Doolittle raid

"Leadfoot" wrote in message
news:KYBVc.118201$sh.114795@fed1read06...
What are some of the greatest strategic air missions?

Some candidates

Yamamoto shootdown
Hiroshima
Paul Doumer bridge LGB
Dambusters
Tirpitz
Norwegian heavy water
Midway
Doolittle raid



Not taking on the Soviet Union. Winners.

While there will be those who fixate completely on large raids by large
bombers, how about ...

Taranto. Eliminated the Italian navy's influence in the Mediterranean
theatre.

Pearl Harbor. Flawed in many ways (didn't eliminate ship repair facilities
or oil storage, nor did it catch the carriers in port AND didn't anticipate
US population's reaction), but certainly accomplished Yamamoto's goal to
allow him to "run wild" in the Pacific for 6-12 months (well, 5 months and 4
weeks actually). In terms of tactical execution (strike force performing as
the script required), absolutely brilliant.

Incendiary attacks on Japan. Switch from high altitude bombing to fire
raids quickly decimated Japan's small manufacturing base and its ability to
supply armaments factories with the subassemblies for its weapons of war.

Israeli raid on Osirak nuclear facility.

Linebacker 2. Brought North Vietnam back to the table to negotiate the
alleged end of the Vietnam war.

The difficulty in reviewing "great" strategic air missions is that what
seemed like a good idea at the time turns out to be not so good, or too
expensive or results in an unintended consequence (Pearl Harbor). While the
need for the nuclear attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki seemed overwhelming
to the national command authority at the time, with the clear perspective of
hindsight they contributed little to the defeat of Japan and certainly
opened up Pandora's box for the postwar world. Similarly, the urgency to
strike the Norwegian heavy water facilities seemed an imperative, but
there's little doubt that Germany's nuclear program was not (and could not
be) supported adequately to produce a weapon in time for use.

A lot of ink is thrown at the 8th Air Force's campaign against Germany.
Certainly valor was in overwhelming supply as the crews hurled themselves at
a well-integrated defense in broad daylight with little escort (to start).
OTOH, the strategy looks remarkably similar to that British Expeditionary
force in the battle of the Somme, 1916: "Here we come, try and stop us."
Fortunately, by late 1944, they couldn't. But it was an expensive effort.

Yamamoto shootdown

Brilliant tactical execution. Strategic consequences? After all, Yamamoto
brought the Japanese the flawed Midway campaign (and overlooked some
important strategic targets at Pearl Harbor). Would his leadership have had
an impact on Philippine Sea or Leyte campaigns?

Hiroshima

See above

Paul Doumer bridge LGB

That and the Thahn Hoa raids introduced precision weapons to the tactical
air power game, but did either raid accomplish significant alterations in
the strategic picture?

Dambusters

One of my favorites.

Tirpitz

Freed RN for other duty. But considering Tirpitz never did anything in her
service life, kind of a non-event.

Norwegian heavy water

See above

Midway

In terms of fleet placement and combat orders, I'd have to agree. Tactical
execution defined "luck" for the dive bombers (Luck = when preparation meets
opportunity). When gamed by the Naval War College, the US loses Midway just
about every time.

Doolittle raid

Amen! Any time you can influence the enemy to change his game plan in your
favor, it's a good thing.

"John Carrier" wrote in message
...
While there will be those who fixate completely on large raids by large
bombers, how about ...

Taranto. Eliminated the Italian navy's influence in the Mediterranean
theatre.

Pearl Harbor. Flawed in many ways (didn't eliminate ship repair
facilities
or oil storage, nor did it catch the carriers in port AND didn't
anticipate
US population's reaction), but certainly accomplished Yamamoto's goal to
allow him to "run wild" in the Pacific for 6-12 months (well, 5 months and
4
weeks actually). In terms of tactical execution (strike force performing
as
the script required), absolutely brilliant.

Incendiary attacks on Japan. Switch from high altitude bombing to fire
raids quickly decimated Japan's small manufacturing base and its ability
to
supply armaments factories with the subassemblies for its weapons of war.

Israeli raid on Osirak nuclear facility.

Linebacker 2. Brought North Vietnam back to the table to negotiate the
alleged end of the Vietnam war.

The difficulty in reviewing "great" strategic air missions is that what
seemed like a good idea at the time turns out to be not so good, or too
expensive or results in an unintended consequence (Pearl Harbor). While
the
need for the nuclear attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki seemed
overwhelming
to the national command authority at the time, with the clear perspective
of
hindsight they contributed little to the defeat of Japan and certainly
opened up Pandora's box for the postwar world.

Actually I believe that if we hadn't used Atomic weapons at Hiroshima and
Nagasaki then they would have been used at some point in past history most
likely with far greater death and destruction. Hiroshima and Nagasaki
taught the world how horrible atomic weapons are.


Similarly, the urgency to
strike the Norwegian heavy water facilities seemed an imperative, but
there's little doubt that Germany's nuclear program was not (and could not
be) supported adequately to produce a weapon in time for use.

Not something known at the time of the attack


A lot of ink is thrown at the 8th Air Force's campaign against Germany.
Certainly valor was in overwhelming supply as the crews hurled themselves
at
a well-integrated defense in broad daylight with little escort (to start).
OTOH, the strategy looks remarkably similar to that British Expeditionary
force in the battle of the Somme, 1916: "Here we come, try and stop us."
Fortunately, by late 1944, they couldn't. But it was an expensive effort.

Yamamoto shootdown

Brilliant tactical execution. Strategic consequences? After all,
Yamamoto
brought the Japanese the flawed Midway campaign (and overlooked some
important strategic targets at Pearl Harbor). Would his leadership have
had
an impact on Philippine Sea or Leyte campaigns?

See answer to Emmanuel Gustin post


Hiroshima

See above

Paul Doumer bridge LGB

That and the Thahn Hoa raids introduced precision weapons to the tactical
air power game, but did either raid accomplish significant alterations in
the strategic picture?

How long were the bridges out of action compared to previous missions?


Dambusters

One of my favorites.

Tirpitz

Freed RN for other duty. But considering Tirpitz never did anything in
her
service life, kind of a non-event.

Norwegian heavy water

See above

Midway

In terms of fleet placement and combat orders, I'd have to agree.
Tactical
execution defined "luck" for the dive bombers (Luck = when preparation
meets
opportunity). When gamed by the Naval War College, the US loses Midway
just
about every time.

I thought you said "Yamamoto brought the flawed Midway campaign?" ;-)


Doolittle raid

Amen! Any time you can influence the enemy to change his game plan in
your
favor, it's a good thing.

Some snipping ...

Actually I believe that if we hadn't used Atomic weapons at Hiroshima and
Nagasaki then they would have been used at some point in past history most
likely with far greater death and destruction. Hiroshima and Nagasaki
taught the world how horrible atomic weapons are.

A good point worthy of debate. It can be speculated that had the two
weapons not been employed, a more grisly later scenario might have
developed. Or, perhaps the cold war might have never progressed beyond a
mild detente. At any rate, the brink was seriously approached in October
1962. (There were several folks in high places that would happily have gone
to defcon 1.)

Post WWII we launched ouselves into a nuclear-centric defense policy at the
expense of conventional forces. There were high human costs associated with
that decision.

I wonder how many destroyed cities Stalin would have considered
unacceptable? I know the answer for the United States: ZERO. So did we
really need 2500 bombers to create a sufficient deterrent? Perhaps if we
needed to assure ourselves the rubble would bounce ... many times over.

Perhaps the world DID learn how horrible nuclear weapons are. OTOH, the US
and Soviet Union deployed several 10's of thousands of the things. And a
number of folks who hardly need them for their national security have
deployed them or are working hard to develope/acquire them.

Similarly, the urgency to
strike the Norwegian heavy water facilities seemed an imperative, but
there's little doubt that Germany's nuclear program was not (and could
not
be) supported adequately to produce a weapon in time for use.

Not something known at the time of the attack

"Seemed an imperative" is the operative phrase. Yes it was not known at the
time. The tricky part of the original question is the definition of
greatness. The war did not turn on this. Had Germany thrown all its
resources at a nuclear weapons program, it might have been more significant
(albeit heavy water was hardly a key ingredient to the Manhattan project).

Paul Doumer bridge LGB

That and the Thahn Hoa raids introduced precision weapons to the
tactical
air power game, but did either raid accomplish significant alterations
in
the strategic picture?

How long were the bridges out of action compared to previous missions?


Much longer for sure, but how important were they to the overall war
strategy? Perhaps the best answer is, "What strategy?" The military
leadership was never allowed to implement a meaningful winning strategy.

Midway

In terms of fleet placement and combat orders, I'd have to agree.
Tactical
execution defined "luck" for the dive bombers (Luck = when preparation
meets
opportunity). When gamed by the Naval War College, the US loses Midway
just
about every time.

I thought you said "Yamamoto brought the flawed Midway campaign?" ;-)

By subdividing his force into four separate entities, three of which were
beyond his tactical control (because of radio silence requirements), he
created a scenario which made it barely possible for a US success. Given
that scenario, it still gamed in favor of the Japanese, but there was this
seam in his plan which could be exploited ...

A little less subtlety (AKA concentration of combat forces) plus elimination
of the meaningless Alutian feint, and he would have truly been unstoppable.
Oh yes, and don't give your (perhaps indecisive) CarGru commander
conflicting orders: Attack Midway and OBTW draw out and kill the US fleet.

The point is that while Yamamoto was regarded as the resident genius within
the Japanese Navy, he made key mistakes in at least two campaigns. At Pearl
Harbor, he was so fixated upon the US Fleet, he overlooked the value of the
SRF and oil storage facilities. (Yet he readily admitted any success would
be short lived as "the sleeping giant" awoke. Prioritizing Pearl's logistic
capability vice its combat capability would have had more permanent impact
vis a vis Japan's interests in securing its defensive perimeter around the
Greater East Asia Coprosperity Sphere.)

R / John

Leadfoot wrote:

What are some of the greatest strategic air missions?

Some candidates

Yamamoto shootdown
Hiroshima
Paul Doumer bridge LGB
Dambusters
Tirpitz
Norwegian heavy water
Midway
Doolittle raid

How about the Korean War Dam busting campaign? Only real strategic air mission
of the war, but it worked better than most believed.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
Leadfoot wrote:

What are some of the greatest strategic air missions?

Some candidates

Yamamoto shootdown
Hiroshima
Paul Doumer bridge LGB
Dambusters
Tirpitz
Norwegian heavy water
Midway
Doolittle raid

How about the Korean War Dam busting campaign? Only real strategic air
mission
of the war, but it worked better than most believed.

They don't call Korea "the forgotton war" for nothing do they? Thanks!!!

Is there a good link on this?



BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Leadfoot wrote:

Is there a good link on this?

Here's a brief one on the Air War in Korea:

http://www.afa.org/magazine/july2003/0703korea.asp

Another quick blurb about it he

http://www.afa.org/magazine/june2000/0600korea.asp

There's a whole chapter dedicated to the Dam campaign in "The United States Air
Force in Korea" by Robert F. Futrell


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:23:23 -0700, "Leadfoot"
wrote:

What are some of the greatest strategic air missions?

Some candidates

Yamamoto shootdown

A tactical mission with strategic implications.

Hiroshima

Most assuredly strategic and resoundingly decisive. Changed the view
of airpower and war forever.

Paul Doumer bridge LGB

The Doumer LGB mission in May of '72 was only one of a long series of
Doumer Bridge missions dating back to Jan. '67. Immortalized in a
great Keith Ferris painting!

Clearly, in terms of "strategic" mission the North Vietnam war doesn't
offer many good examples. One could suggest that the 29-30 June '66
Hanoi oil raids were strategic, with significant destruction of POL
supplies and crippling of POL infrastructure.

Arguably the introduction of technological advances rather than
specific missions could be the strategic milestones. Anti-radiation
missiles, Wild Weasels, airborne command/control systems, ECM
self-protection, non-cooperative target ID, and precision guided
munition introductions to name a few.

Biggest strategic campaign, of course, would be Linebacker II.

Doolittle raid

Tactical mission, but politically strategic.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Doolittle raid

Tactical mission, but politically strategic.

Was there not a change in the deployment of Japan's air forces as a
result? If so, would it not fall into the strategic realm?
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)