Why did the British embrace Strategic Bombing? feat.

[@MilitaryAviationHistory]

Hey all, KZbin has finally remonetized this video after judging it 'Not suitable for most advertisers'. Better now than never. However, please consider supporting over Patreon to reduce this channels reliance on KZbin verdict on what is, and what is not, advertisable content: www.patreon.com/Bismarck A big thank you also to Flo, Indy, Toni, Julian and TGW team for working with me on this project! Make sure you check out their video!

[@brendaproffitt1011]

Bismarck THANK YOU SO much for everything that you do..I love 💘 💘 💘 💘 💘 💘 💘 this channel too.

[@PitterPatter20]

Bismarck How were you able to coordinate your releases to occur simultaneously? Were they both pre-uploaded and set to releasd at the same minute? If not, that's pretty impressive timing. Idk why I think that's so cool, but I do!

[@sterlingarcher813]

have you tried messing with the title to trick the algorithm? for instance replacing o with ò, a with ä and i with í? one of the youtubers i watch says it works sometimes.

[@_datapoint]

Historically relevant topics are not suitable? The hell you say!

[@brendaproffitt1011]

Matthew Merrell sorry but I don't I understand what you mean can you please explain it to me? ???

[@Pfsif]

Strategic bombing= We can't hit a small factory from 20,000 feet, so we'll hit the cities, we can't miss them.

[@fritzkuhne2055]

commiting a warcrime by doing so ? whatever.. for queen and country!

[@jwadaow]

It used to be normal in war to kill all of the civilians if they didn't surrender. War crime is a modern invention.

[@martimnunesmartinho6788]

Need to destroy bridges and roads to make sure the germans cant counter attack *BOMB ALL APARTMENT BLOCKS IN CANNE*

[@2ndkombat]

Ruhr valley is an industrial city

[@daseladi]

.. only if we could find them.

[@petrameyer1121]

Bismarck has a plan, Bismarck ALWAYS has a plan! ;)

[@robertli3600]

Extra history lol

[@MrRenegadeshinobi]

Petra Meyer Bismarck IS the plan!

[@filthydaemonspawn1206]

Never did I think the day would come that I am upset at the sight of no ads. Bravo, KZbin. Bravo.

[@nicklong4291]

One very important thing I would consider was the RAF's drive to stay an independent force, against the great force of the RN who wanted it's own air service again. This desire to remain independent meant a different way of fighting had to be shown, and strategic bombing was a way of devolping this. Trenchards personal desire to create a "RAF flying spirit" separate from that of the RN meant that not only were the men fighting a in a different service, but in a completely new and different way. I would also question the way that aircraft became more capable to deliver more tonnage of bombs, the post 1925 development of a light, very cheap, bomber force that could outmanoeuvre and outpace any fighters (Hawker Hart and Henley, Fairly Fox, etc) meant that bomb load was about ¼ that of the HP.O400 of 1918 and dwarfed by the 1500. Another important thing was the cost of maintaining a force in the colonies, with Trenchard exclaiming that 25-30 Army Battalions in India could be replaced with just 5 squadrons in India against Mohmand Laskar. In the Palestine, military spending was cut by half from £3.5million by replacing three battalions of infantry and the same of cavalry by a single (No.14) squadron and armoured cars. The great speed of aircraft compared to land units allowed effective control of this area, with a much smaller force. I would very much recommend WC Ian Philpott's work on the topiv.

[@brendaproffitt1011]

Totally awesome and very interesting to see how these were used in yrs..ago from British Navy and bombing Ww1.. You done an excellent job..Thank you so so much for your videos and everything that you do

[@g1ngersnaps149]

I have been looking for that WW1 plane game for so long and the "Visuals: Rise of Flight" thing was so helpful thank you

[@derptank3308]

KZbin is now AdvertiserSafetyTube Decently large channels are safe but god forbid a smaller channel put anything War-like in the title. Edit: I didn’t expect this many likes

[@Slayer_Jesse]

KZbin will be made safe for advertisers at any cost. It'l be so safe, there will be no content creators left.

[@JamLeGull]

Slayer Jesse which wouldn’t bother KZbin very much. They want everyone to use their service like regular tv, because they see that as far more profitable.

[@vanguard6498]

JEWTUBE

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

British Empire >>> PLEASE *DON'T* START....

[@josipvrandecic2472]

Mr.Bismarck...All Kudos !

[@WildBillCox13]

I am here from The Great War, where I heard the plug. I am also subscribed.

[@SwashBuccaneer]

Love watching your videos. You and Sheriff have been great help as someone who just picked up IL2 Battle of Stalingrad as well with your videos for the game.

[@cannonfodder4376]

Another wonderful history lesson. Fantastic as always.

[@tomgjgj]

Yay! Indy! Great collaboration, Bismarck. Thanks.

[@tomgjgj]

@Dragomir Ronilac Uh... what? That's random. Are you ok, buddy? Trump's loss stinging and you need to relieve yourself somehow? You can talk to me, man. I'll listen.

[@wrayday7149]

“Planes were unable to make a concrete impact”..... isn’t that what basic flight school tries to teach pilots to avoid?

[@pRahvi0]

lol

[@FroggyFrog9000]

Very good. There was that Italian strategist that wrote a book on strategic bombing theory and its usefulness. He wrote it in the inter-war period, the Allies followed it, the Axis ignored it to their peril.

[@Teatimeted]

Froggy Frog 9000 yeah, Douhet. Well worth a read up on.

[@Holliday-ji1sk]

Douhet was largely proven incorrect by the outbreak of the Second World War, although to be fair to him, Douhetism wasn't properly tested by any of the major powers during the conflict. The Axis powers also didn't ignore Douhet. The first major test of the theory came when the Italians sieged and bombed Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War and from this experience chose to sideline 'morale bombing'. The Axis powers turned their gaze elsewhere due to their experiences in the Spanish Civil War. Most of the allies were not involved in the War and therefore didn't have any reason to change doctrine. The Civil War was the key.

[@Teatimeted]

My understanding is that the axis powers focused on tactical bombing and close cooperation with the army, which supports the doctrine of blitzkrieg and a fast war of european conquest, not necessarily that they didnt see the use of strategic bombing, just that they were tapped out producing cas aircraft like the stuka and medium bombers. I will have to read some of the literature around the spanish civil war, very interesting.

[@krisrock3975]

grimbles militaryhistoryvisualized made a video on it named "lessons learned in the Spanish Civil War" The Germans tried strategic terror bombing and found it moustly useles, while there tactik attacks had a much greater effect. So whey focused on tactikal bombing.

[@angloempire6935]

0:00 THE oldest

[@jean-francoislemieux5509]

very interesting subject. and well researched as always... you are good!

[@jorgekeys1337]

You deserve more subs.

[@worldcomicsreview354]

Bomber Command by Max Hastings is another useful book, as well as delving into the "behind the scenes" politics, it also looks at the changing technology (mostly in navigation and target-marking and, later, fighter detection) and the human side, too.

[@ryanvalentine4151]

Ha. Now I know my way around your bunker. All I need to do is find it

[@Senor0Droolcup]

Great stuff, thank you!

[@staplafara]

Hey, that was a total surprise, when Indy fom the "Great War" captured your bunker. Schön, dass es so eine gute Verlinkung gibt (ich würde es eher Kameradschaft nennen) zwischen einigen so interessanten KZbinrn. Der "Great War"-Kanal ist wirklich einen Besuch wert. Keep up your good work. Greetings from Solingen

[@daseladi]

Let me offer a possible explanation. The fear has big eyes. Those who were on the receiving end of the new weaponry of the WWI were much more impressed by it, then the ones who used it. It was the Germans who started the aerial bombing of the cities, and the devastating moral effect was very clear to the British, while the difficulties of the build up of the forces necessary and the operations was outside of the British experience ( enormous expenses of airship construction, night navigation, etc.) So in the interwar years it was in Britain that an strategic aerial warfare doctrine has been developed. In a similar manner, the Germans were much impressed by the tank, a terribly looking and seemingly unstoppable British invention. They could not now that it cannot run 5 miles without breaking down. So it was the Germans that developed the tank warfare in the interwar years (after 1933 quite openly, before that, they could find ways). It this 'exchange of inventions', it seems to me, somehow, that the Germans have fared better.

[@coltbolt6193]

When you see bismark and the great war do a video on bombing, you know it is a colab

[@archinquisitornicodemus5672]

Great video. Keep up the good work!

[@kevinbyrne4538]

Great animations ! No mention of Italian air strategist General Giulio Douhet.

[@JPSRose]

The first strategic air raids were started by France - the Zeppelin raids on London didn't officially start until after this date. The Allies dropped way more ordinance on German cities than vice versa - London's only lucky that Germany never decided to use the thermite bombs they had designed. This coming from a British person.

[@xaviersaavedra7442]

See's two videos about strategic bombing in ww1 uploaded at the same time? coincidence? Yes actually.

[@Corey_Brandt]

(x) Doubt

[@TheCasualGerman]

actually no look at the discription

[@Crimethoughtfull]

6:27 Wait...what?? A small artillery piece on a WWI plane?!

[@KineticRhyme]

Bismarck I dare you to make a video about IJAF tactics against B-29 :P

[@SillyMoustache]

2.37 - the Gotha Raid on London - my Grandfather was killed by that raid when a bomb fell through the roof of his office. Many young girls working for him were killed and maimed as well. Many body parts were blown into the street. My father was outside the office with his mother. He was six years old and saw it happen.

[@SheepWaveMeByeBye]

Horrible form of war, really.

[@fritzkuhne2055]

its a warcrime, which wasnt even effective at the end. it made brits even more determined to defend. same in ww2: fighting the evil nazi soldier? nah, just kill all his family and kids in massive bombing raids causing firestorms. this made the last germans who were critical toward the nazis change their mind, the propaganda had easy play now... what a shame the world is not just black and white

[@guidor.4161]

RNAS is the abbreviation for Royal Naval Air Service, not Royal Navy Air Service

[@jerrell1169]

What

[@KamiRecca]

Bismarck and Indy! Whohoo! Now lets just add Lindy and Jingles, and we have a epic youtube smash-up

[@NATESOR]

this cross-over is dank af

[@marksolarz3756]

It was a great way of policing various colony’s. And very economical! Without regular army garrisons.

[@rollindutchy7916]

Hey Bismarck, could you do a video on air interdiction? Love your channel :)

[@johnlansing2902]

Hi, thanks for your work. The fact that the allied powers used their airforce to control large areas in their colonies based on a cost effective ides might be seen as a argument for bombers.

[@TheBespectacledN00b]

Is that a Vickers Vimy in the thumbnail? IIRC one of those was Alcock and Brown's plane.

[@personmcperson9313]

It's funny I watch you on bo's channel and now you were on the great War channel

[@RemusKingOfRome]

Excellent

[@leftcoaster67]

Trenchard in the UK and Mitchell in the US were the advocates of strategic bombing. Odd though that by the start of WWII the UK didn't have four engine strategic bombers, yet the US at least had the B-17.

[@teufeldritch]

Yea! Rise of Flight baby!

[@JamesHarrison008]

The great War posted a vid like this at the same time

[@blownaway9187]

5:23 the moment you screamed alarm i had flashbacks to the guy screaming alarm in Silent Hunter III GW P.S. wasn't that like your follower sound for a while on twitch? IIRC

[@christopherhalim2801]

Bismarck, recently I've been playing WarThunder 1.73 and I found that some of the Russian planes have fuel tanks that is labeled "self-sealing with neutral gas pressurisation system." I only found this on Russian planes and not in any other nation. Perhaps you can make a video of this

[@erictaylor5462]

Is the one that bounced, was it the one that went Boeing?

[@T0x1s1]

I would love to see a video of the zeppelins in ww1 and the airlifts at demyansk and stalingrad in ww2(ju 52 in IL-2 :) )

[@ВячеславСкопюк]

Wasn't it proscription bombing in Middle East that inspired British emphasis on stategic bombings?

[@95spades]

All that enthusiasm in that not-at-all-reading-script-from-paper-part with Indy tho.

[@exploidingwaffle]

Well, Indy was hired by a company to do "The Great War" real time. Of course they're gonna want him to read from a script because they want it to be professional. Borderline History Channel show. I also think Indy is quite excited about his work as he did graduate college with a history degree!

[@exploidingwaffle]

95spades Why am I autustic? Did I hit a nerve replying to your comment? And yes he was hired or asked to volunteer by a company to do the great war project. Your comment made it seem like an insult to The Great War.

[@95spades]

No, what I meant was that you did not in any way, shape or form understand what I said and started going off about it being professional and scripted. Of course it is. No one said anything about that. No one questioned the quality of the great war. No one questioned how Indy is on his channel. Hence your answer was completely inconsequential to what I said. I found his cameo funny for the reason stated above - that's it. Judging from your answer you clearly didn't get that.

[@Hachiae]

i have to admit, i didnt get that from your original comment either

[@flopz_31]

Je me pose la question depuis longtemps, qu’elle jeux utilise-tu pour tes vidéos ??

[@erictaylor5462]

6:10 Did anyone besides me hear "Lloyd George" as "Boy George"? I guess that is just a side effect of growing up in the 80's

[@danny2327]

Could you do a video on the efficiency of gunners on planes in ww2?

[@xaviersaavedra7442]

The great war channel is now cody from alternate history hub

[@dcikaruga]

I'm curious, can you name any incidents where the RAF applied strategic bombing during the inter-war years?

[@TotalRookie_LV]

Two videos with their tumbnails side by side, both talking of British Strategic Bombing on the same day... A coincidence?!

[@benquinney2]

Stuka Whirlwind

[@bondsan]

0:00 what do you mean by "one of the oldest" it IS the oldest!

[@Tankofdarkness]

Lol that one bounced what is this a WoT match

[@junyutan2172]

What was that plane shooting the ships and what gun was it?

[@ant4812]

I don't know what type of aircraft it is but the gun is a Davis gun, a 40mm recoilless gun.

[@ThePepino999]

"Alarm!!!" xDDD

[@kingmichealthefirstofroman2278]

Bismarck i you could fight in ww1 what country would you fight for

[@kieranjones5021]

In WW1 it wasnt RAF it was RFC

[@gareththompson2708]

I see no problem with strategic bombing that is directed against legitimate targets of real tactical, operational, or strategic value (roads, bridges, supply depots, factories (if they produce military equipment or supplies), phone lines, radio stations, and anything that might reasonably contribute to the enemy's war effort). In fact I really do believe that strategic bombing can have enormous value. But terror bombing of civilian populations is absolutely unacceptable (I don't mean when you aim for a legitimate target that is embedded in a populated area and end up hitting civilians on accident, or if the civilian casualties happen to be workers inside the factory you are targeting. I mean when you are intentionally targeting civilians for the purpose of causing terror and civilian casualties). Terror bombing contributes nothing to your war effort, and is nothing more or less than an act of state-sanctioned terrorism. Perhaps in WW1 and WW2 military leaders could use the excuse that they just didn't know any better (although I'm still not inclined to give them a free pass on that). It may still have been reasonable for them to believe that it was an effective way to break the enemy's will to fight. But by now we have enough data to know that just isn't the case, and it probably produces the opposite effect.

[@50043211]

The top view of the bomber is flawed. The hull does not extend to the fuselage.

[@99Hokusai]

Very well thought out and interesting video - so much is determined by institutional inertia and infighting. (I'm currently writing a series on how Brexit resembles the Anglo-Irish Economic War of the 1930s onward. Institutional considerations in Ireland after the Emergency (WWII in official Irish terminology) were crucial in that, too.) I would have welcomed another couple of minutes on how that institutional inertia led to the rise of the psychopath, Bomber Harris, a figure very influential in how WWII and the post War period panned out.

[@Matt_The_Hugenot]

All air forces claimed to target military infrastructure and industry though they knew that, despite the technical accuracy of weapons systems, in practice all bar elite crews were incapable of getting close to hitting. Even at the end of WW2 with total air superiority and advanced analogue computer bomb sights British and American strategic bombers were still dropping bombs on Switzerland when they weren't supposed to fly within fifty miles of the border. If they couldn't hit the right country then there was no chance most of them could hit the right area of a city. It wasn't until the era of ubiquitous PGMs in the last twenty five years that even fifty percent of bombs and missiles have damaged their targets in any conflict.

[@Matt_The_Hugenot]

Blah b The Swiss shot down German aircraft that intruded into their airspace from the very beginning of the war. There is other of misinformation about alleged Swiss collaboration with the Nazis, in fact they sustained armed neutrality despite being entirely surrounded by Axis powers. Swiss industry exported less to Germany than Sweden.

[@fulcrum2951]

Switzerland utterly destroyed both sides air forces each time they flown into swiss territory

[@AcePilot3342]

Bismarck, this is not meant as either an insult or a point of criticism, however in English, you only use "an" preceding a word beginning with a vowel. Such as an eagle, or a bomber.

[@robinchandler4870]

AtomicVectris or history

[@robinchandler4870]

AtomicVectris /historic

[@MDPToaster]

A math problem for children can be solved in an instance by a professor. An English essay should consist of a title, a thesis, a body paragraph, a conclusion. An engineering solution An infection of the facial nerves is thought to bring an intolerable pain. A love of a sport. A fear of cheese onset due to an intolerance of lactose. An irrational fear of cheese since there isn’t a preexisting intolerance of lactose. A dedication to redesigning bed sheets can be assumed to be an unhealthy one. A simple theorem to apply and understand is; “a^2 + b^2 = c^2” also known as Pythagorean’s theorem. An inexcusable lack of knowledge in regards to the proper methods of filling taxes. An extremely indecent attempt at crafting an egg salad sandwich. A great amount of cheese on an egg salad sandwich.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

I like his incorrect use of a and an, it makes the narration sound more German.

[@Orlunu]

Before an h it depends firstly on whether or not the word came from French or German ancestry, and if it is from neither... Well, you should be rote-learing English anyway, nothing else works.

[@leohard1814]

What is this with the crossover episodes

[@migkillerphantom]

Just because air raids didn't cause a moral collapse doesn't mean they were useless. They sure as hell can help cause a cascade systems collapse. German industry was only capable of keeping up its output in the face of continuous heavy bombing due to making sacrifices in many other areas and thus making the whole weaker.

[@f1b0nacc1sequence7]

With all due respect, I believe that your focus on WWI for the origins of the British interest in strategic bombing is misplaced. The principle of attacking the enemy's ability (and willingness, which I suppose is much the same thing) to resist on the battlefield by striking at his assets outside the battlefield has been an essential part of the British way of war for as long as the British have fought external enemies. This isn't too difficult to understand, since Britain is a small island with a limited population. Its army and (after the invention of the airplane) air force were distinctly secondary to its navy both as a means of attack and a method of defense. Avoiding direct conflict with larger and stronger enemy forces was a natural (and intelligent) part of their strategy, and this outlook deeply affected their choices of how to engage in war. The huge success of their blockade against the Germans in WWI was not lost on the Royal Navy, but then again this was hardly new. They had used similar strategies against Napoleon a century earlier, and against Revolutionary France before that. When air power became available, it was an obvious extension of the long British love affair with strategic attacks against the enemy's ability to fight, rather than his actual fighting force. Douhet found great favor among the early leaders of the RAF for exactly this reason (note that the air power as a way to avoid the pointless slaughter of the trenches most certainly played a part as well), but to suggest that he represented a break from existing British strategic thinking rather than a parallel developer of similar ideas would be a mistake. To destroy the enemy's production, transport, and communications, not to mention morale and support for his government in general, rather than a pointless test of strength on the battlefield was nothing new for the British. While WWI was certainly a period where new techniques became available (and in truth, you do a fine job of describing this process), the underlying strategy has roots far deeper than the shallow soil of the Great War.

[@erictaylor5462]

How was the bombing of enemy civilians suppose to raise public anger to the enemy government? It seems to me that this would only strengthen popular support for the war. I can totally agree that raising public anger by the enemy population against the enemy government, after all, just look at the effects North Vietnamese to do that in the United States throughout the 1960's and into the 70's. I'm not sure if this is the most successful use of this tactic in history, but it sure seems that it was the most successful in modern times. And the North Vietnamese did not conduct a single raid against any United States population center. I think the most devastating attack on US civilians in modern time was 9-11, and look how Americans responded to that!

[@julianmhall]

You assume everyone thinks and reacts alike to the same stimuli. That's untrue; British / Germans / US / Italians / Maltese etc all reacted differently so the response was different.

[@Pfsif]

Hi I'm Indie Nadel.

[@Lord.Kiltridge]

That's Royal Naval Air Service not Royal Navy Air Service.

[@michaelmckinnon1591]

Strategic Bombing involves precision strikes aimed at depriving the enemy of the ability to make war (fuel depots ammo depots factories, comms targets, officers and infrastructure) and Tactical Bombing targets civilians, warships, tanks etc.

[@JimFortune]

It seems like the tons of bombs dropped on civilian populations would have had a better effect if dropped on roads, railroads, and bridges needed for supply of the front lines. Also, you'd have shorter distances to fly, and less ability to concentrate anti-aircraft resources where you know the bombers are coming to.

[@julianmhall]

No. Firstly this limits the available targets so the enemy can concentrate their defences, thus increasing your losses. Secondly a concentration on land lines of supply ignores the fact that some supplies came by air and/or sea. Thirdly there is no effect on the enemy's ability to produce supplies. Fourth this ignores the enemy ability to repair damaged infrastructure - which they did with slave labour - so any dip in supply is temporary. Fifth you assume the civilian population didn't work at the railways etc - disrupting them disrupted their work. Sixth you assume bombers of the era could hit what they aimed at - the Butt Report proves such a belief was a fallacy. One historian reports the USAAF reported 'marshalling yards' when that was a euphemism for area bombing. Lastly this ignores the effect on civilian morale; Goebbels is noted to have said after (I think a heavy raid on Frankfurt) 'Another six and we'll have to surrender' as he knew the effect had hit morale badly.

[@gavib4246]

Hi

[@arma3boi486]

What game is this

[@ur43206]

P51 MUSTANG war thunder

[@SymeonPhronema]

I don't think it's War Thunder as War Thunder is very arcadey. That said if you like WW1 aircraft and flight sims, check out Rise of Flight. Awesome game.

[@alekseyibragimov9873]

There is an arcade mode in War Thunder but there is also a quite hardcore sim mode there as well.

[@SymeonPhronema]

Aleksey Ibragimov True but not the same as Rise of Flight. Try the game you'll see what I mean.

[@alekseyibragimov9873]

I've tried it but looks like WWI skies are not my thing. Maybe later. By the way they are going to do a remake of Rise of Flight using the engine of IL-2: Battle of Stalingrad, or so I've heard.

[@bobmetcalfe9640]

Haven't got time to watch all of this, but just in case - the British and American sent teams into Germany after the end of the war to assist damage caused by bombing. They found it was negligible. In fact in one particular case, there was more damage caused by falling anti-aircraft artillery shells than by bombs.

[@georges6324]

Do British escort planes

[@tonyduncan9852]

Political correctness for advertisers. If this trend continues, history will be helped to repeat itself. I'm sorry. I wish I could help.

[@insiainutorrt259]

SATANIUSM!½

[@JobeStroud]

For one. Who care about the French...?