Legitimate Bombing Targets

[Dolphin]

Obviously - but was anything achieved by the bombers - did they hit anything?

According to Franks, Guest and Bailey's Bloody April . . . Black September, the raid didn't cause Kronprinz Rupprecht [a possible Jacobite Pretender to the British throne] any personal problems, so it seems that the bombers didn't cause much, if any, damage to the chateau.

Gareth

[andypepper]

A distant cousin, suffering from the effects of gas, died when the hospital complex at Etaples was bombed in May 1918.

There was outrage at home and talk of prosecuting the crew of one of the German aircraft which had been shot down nearby. According to documents at the NA (sorry no file numbers to hand) the fuss cooled a bit when the Intelligence Service complicated the issue by asserting that whenever we tried to bomb the river bridge at Metz we hit the town hospital immediately next to it, and the Germans never made a fuss because they acknowledged that it was not a good idea to use a hospital next to a strategic target.

andyp

[centurion]

There was a catch 22 type problem. It wasn't a good idea to site a hospital by a strategic target but there was a policy of minimising distances seriously wounded traveled by road which meant in most cases using rail as much as possible which meant that hospital perforce had to be located near rail heads and junctions which were strategic targets.

[truthergw]

In the end it would be a numbers game. Hospitals would be supplied from the nearby railheads, every day, all day. They were liable to be hit if and when there was an air raid on the station. Costs were exceeded by the benefits. Similar to the calculation that if the men following a barrage were not suffering casualties to it, they weren't close enough to derive the full benefit.

[PhilB]

which meant that hospital perforce had to be located near rail heads and junctions which were strategic targets.

Did they have to be near railheads and junctions? A short spur could be taken off anywhere.

[centurion]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Jan 30 2009, 09:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did they have to be near railheads and junctions? A short spur could be taken off anywhere.

I think it would be a lot more complex than a simple spur. After a major battle there would be a lot of trains which would have to unload and be turned round very quickly. You'd have to build lots of sidings, platforms, loops and other infrastrcture etc

[per ardua per mare per terram]

You'd have to build lots of sidings, platforms, loops and other infrastrcture etc

All of which takes time and resources Phil. Better to use the existing network.

[PhilB]

Since hospital trains would have to stop for lengthy periods, it would have to be in a siding and, as trains would have to turn, there would have to be facilities for either turning the train or taking the engine round. Are there any maps to show the railway arrangements for typical hospitals or casualty clearing stations?

[centurion]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Jan 31 2009, 03:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Since hospital trains would have to stop for lengthy periods,

They would be seeking as fast a turn round (no pun intended) as possible as during a battle there would be a lot of trains needing to unload (and return for another load?) so I don't think it would be a lengthy period. It wasn't the NHS where patients get parked in ambulances to make the A&E stats look good!

[per ardua per mare per terram]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Jan 31 2009, 03:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Since hospital trains would have to stop for lengthy periods, it would have to be in a siding and, as trains would have to turn, there would have to be facilities for either turning the train or taking the engine round.

All of which could be provided by a standard rail head.

[Bill M.]

Would the death of any general and his staff have altered the course of the war? I think that takes the Big Man theory of histry too far.

Good question. I do think that in some cases yes. Yamamoto during the Second World War is a good example. I think that the general or in this case an admiral would need to be a, for lack of a better word, symbol of the national spirit. Yamamoto certainly filled this criterion.

Cheers

[PhilB]

Though most commanders would be replaceable, the killing of one just before or during a battle would presumably cause some difficulties?

[centurion]

Good question. I do think that in some cases yes. Yamamoto during the Second World War is a good example. I think that the general or in this case an admiral would need to be a, for lack of a better word, symbol of the national spirit. Yamamoto certainly filled this criterion.

I fear that this is for lack of a better word tosh, Yamamoto was a brilliant tactician and strategist that Japan could ill aford to loose - national spirit had nothing to do with it (in fact he was out of tune with the militarists around him). Now Kitchener might have been said to have represented the national zeitgeist but loosing him had little effect

[Bill M.]

I fear that this is for lack of a better word tosh, Yamamoto was a brilliant tactician and strategist that Japan could ill aford to loose - national spirit had nothing to do with it (in fact he was out of tune with the militarists around him). Now Kitchener might have been said to have represented the national zeitgeist but loosing him had little effect

"tosh"? Define please? I am from the other side of the pond.

Cheers

[centurion]

"tosh"? Define please? I am from the other side of the pond.

Tosh

[truthergw]

We are wandering a bit far afield here, we'll have the mods grumbling if we are not careful. As far as Britain in the Great War was concerned, many senior commanders were moved to different theatres at some time or other. Even Plumer, who had a very good record was sent to Italy for a while without the campaign on the Western Front suffering irretrievably. If the war had gone into 1919, I believe even Haig would have been replaced. So killing any particular General probably would not have caused irreparable damage. Whether the upset and chaos of an air raid on a senior HQ would have outweighed the damage caused by a raid on resources is always going to be a matter of opinion. Mine is that the bombs would have done more damage on a railway station or supplies dump.

[centurion]

Hqs were certainly legit targets as far as the RFC were concerned HQ Whether they were always regarded as worthwhile targets is another matter

[per ardua per mare per terram]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Feb 18 2009, 03:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Though most commanders would be replaceable, the killing of one just before or during a battle would presumably cause some difficulties?

It was depend on how much his subordinates were apprised of the plans.

[PhilB]

Even if fully apprised, a subordinate would have to replace him and so on down the line? Suppose Haig had been killed on .... Well, which would have been the worst day for him to be killed? 21/3/18? Would it have made much difference? I suspect it might have made more difference in a defensive battle where the commander had to think on his feet rather than a set piece offensive where the plans are all laid.

[truthergw]

Senior commanders had understudies. The possibility of death or illness had not gone unnoticed.

[PhilB]

Sounds reasonable, Thomas, but I`m not aware that anyone was designated Understudy C in C or Deputy C in C? Was there someone who knew he had been nominated to take over in the C in C`s place in case of emergency (& was therefore effectively Deputy C in C)?

[per ardua per mare per terram]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Feb 18 2009, 05:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, which would have been the worst day for him to be killed? 21/3/18?

Would his death then have made a difference on the ground? Do you think that one man was so indispensable?

[truthergw]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Feb 18 2009, 05:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sounds reasonable, Thomas, but I`m not aware that anyone was designated Understudy C in C or Deputy C in C? Was there someone who knew he had been nominated to take over in the C in C`s place in case of emergency (& was therefore effectively Deputy C in C)?

Haig had one and I am blowed if I can recall where I saw it mentioned. I'll have a think and a scratch around to try to jog the few remaining grey cells out of the normal state of torpor.

[Bill M.]

Tosh

While I would strongly debate the tactical/strategic genius of Yamamoto we will just have to leave it for another forum. In any case thank you for clueing me in on "Tosh". Now back on topic.

Cheers

[George Armstrong Custer]

I don't recall seeing a reference to a C-in-C having been designated in advance in the event of Haig's sudden death, Tom. I'd imagine that if one had been appointed then Douggie would certainly have made some comment on the choice in his diary! As to GHQ being a German bombing target, it was and there are accounts of raids. Here is one from Frederick Oliver, who was a guest at Haig's GHQ at Beaurepaire, describing a raid during lunch with the C-in-C and his staff on 30 September 1917 which was not allowed to disrupt the meal:

[D]uring which meal we were enlivened by a brisk little air raid; what they call the 'Archies' kept up a vigorous fusillade for some minutes. It makes rather a difference WHERE you are raided how you feel about it. You can measure your emotions to some extent by your appetite. I have dined in London during a heavy air raid, when the house shook and the debris of shells rattled on the roofs, and I have lunched in France under somewhat similar circumstances. I frankly confess that in the former case my appetite was to some extent affected by the worse, while in France it didn't make a speckle of difference. Nerves are of course contagious. If you are living in a crowded centre where everybody, more or less, is distubed, so are you. If you are living in a place where nobody gives a damn, neither do you."