It may be because I'm more oriented to the 8th AF and the ETO, but I tend to associate train-busting more with P-47's and Hawker Typhoons.
As an aside, the very first 8th AF mission in 1942 to Rouen targeted railroad yards.
CSSHEGEWISCHAs an aside, the very first 8th AF mission in 1942 to Rouen targeted railroad yards.
If I remember correctly, a great many early 8th Air Force missions targeted railroad facilities -- specific targeting of French railroad facilities, trains, and workers being a high stated priority even before the runup and invasion in 1944. Most histories I have read sort of gloss over the human consequences of this. As Wayne says, you do what you must in wartime, and I don't think it can be denied that the war was shortened by repeatedly "interdicting French internal transportation". But a great many French civilian railwaymen caught between the rock of the Nazi occupation and the hard place of targeted air superiority had little reason to love us by the end, if indeed any reason left to them at all.
LOL, I've been busy for a bit and missed the whole, sneaky return of this topic. As my interest is mainly prior to WWII, not much I can add. However, given the interest, maybe Kalmbach will consider a special issue devoted to planes strafing Trains.
Mike
Perhaps we could introduce the topic of ground attack aircraft, bombers and Zeppelins' roles in attacking railway facilities in WWI?
Rail facilities were certainly attacked in WW1 by aircraft, with the exception of Zeppelins, as far as I know. Cities were attacked by Zepps but with marginal success. Just how effective bombing was by conventional aircraft is open to question, but of course tactical and strategic bombing was really in it's infancy. The practitioners were "making it up" as they went along.
The problem is, there's just no dramatic footage of the same like there is with WW2. And of course, the fighter pilots of World War One are the ones who got most of the publicity.
As Bob Withorn will also attest, the problem with dramatic wartime footage is that it hardly conveys the cold reality of the air war.
CSSHEGEWISCHAs Bob Withorn will also attest, the problem with dramatic wartime footage is that it hardly conveys the cold reality of the air war.
War is a three letter word for death. Winners or Losers it makes no difference - death is the result of war.
War is old men playing ego games using young peoples lives as the game pieces.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
More often than not, that has been true. But in the case of WWII, I and most historians don't see that there was any alternative.
charlie hebdoMore often than not, that has been true. But in the case of WWII, I and most historians don't see that there was any alternative.
So Germany and Japan weren't on ego trips with their acts of aggression during the 30's?
The interstate higway system was built in the name of the national defense. Former General, President Eisenhower was a big adovocate of building interstate highways.
Watching footage of how vulnerable railroads were to air attack in WWII may have been on his mind.
Victrola1Watching footage of how vulnerable railroads were to air attack in WWII may have been on his mind.
Vulnerability of railroads as transportation doesn't hold a candle to vulnerability of Todt's Autobahns, which of course are the actual 'model' for the defense highways as built (and the somewhat earlier Pennsylvania Turnpike, built with the suicidal design that has only an Armco barrier between the mutually-opposed fast lanes). There is a pretty good discussion of the difference in Staufer's Thoroughbreds, where he points out that it is much simpler to lay a new track over even substantially cratered ground than to provide even slow-speed mobility for typical wheeled vehicles.
The argument for defense highways involves somewhat improved survival for the individual vehicles, in part under presumed conditions of air superiority. You cannot interdict traffic on a multilane road by blowing up some of the vehicles nearly as easily as you can by shooting up locomotives and leaving trains blocking the line.
In both cases, susceptibility to PGM becomes extreme, but the situation is worse for railroads in that (sort of like the flip side of the argument that trains don't jump out at vehicles) trains can't dodge or jink to avoid fire, and they have enormous inertial mass compared to their braking or acceleration capability. Consequently the firing solution for even long-standoff hits involves relatively little computation or expensive equipment or propellants. If a system like Thor is possible, the situation becomes far worse still.
BaltACD charlie hebdo So Germany and Japan weren't on ego trips with their acts of aggression during the 30's?
charlie hebdo
Churchill made the point that, repeatedly, even minuscule interventions could have shut down the progress of German aggression or substantially reduced or terminated the production of military equipment and supplies. Even after formal declaration of 'war' over the invasion of Poland it took considerable time... and decided isolationist lack of action particularly by the United States... before things got to the point 'there wasn't any alternative'.
In the case of Japan, things are a bit different: had we not provided their industry with so much 'assistance' and then shot our foreign policy in the foot with a total embargo on oil, things might have gone a bit differently. Not too much, though; the British certainly underestimated the Japanese badly, and in the early months of the war so did we (notably in aircraft performance).
Overcoming these effects, and the 'momentum' behind them, is what much if not most of the American dying -- including all the merchant sailors in coastal traffic killed in the first year of the war for us -- involved. As it was, the great enormity of the butcher's bill that would have involved once we decided on an invasion rather than blockade/containment strategy -- operations Olympic and Coronet -- would have dwarfed what we actually experienced.
It's been said that in both theaters, there were people on the allied side who wanted war...
And that they accomplished their goal by ignoring Axis actions.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
BaltACD charlie hebdo More often than not, that has been true. But in the case of WWII, I and most historians don't see that there was any alternative. So Germany and Japan weren't on ego trips with their acts of aggression during the 30's?
charlie hebdo More often than not, that has been true. But in the case of WWII, I and most historians don't see that there was any alternative.
My point was that conflict with the Axis was inevitable
It is questionable, regardless of Churchill's self-serving view and that of his apologists, that intervention against Germany earlier was possible, unless one disregards the context of the period 1933-39. At least that is the view of many actual historians. Of course, disregarding the actual context and having perfect hindsight, anyone can say earlier I tervention should/could have occurred.
charlie hebdoIt is questionable, regardless of Churchill's self-serving view and that of his apologists, that intervention against Germany earlier was possible, unless one disregards the context of the period 1933-39.
There were many potential opportunities to nip the course of German aggression during that period, many of them involving French self-interest. Most of these would have involved action 'short of war', if that's what you mean by 'intervention against Germany', but among other things they would have had the effect of stopping Hitler's 'momentum' as a capable leader with insight about the jaded democracies, etc.
We can safely disregard most of Churchill's ability to influence much of anything in British policy in those years, but I think the many instances he notes where 'action could have been taken' -- admittedly with the benefit of considerable hindsight, but also far from implausible as sensible matters of policy -- do represent areas where a small amount of action could have kept Hitler's government from becoming the danger it was after 1939, and perhaps avoided the chance for war entirely.
On the other hand, the situation could have become far worse in a number of ways than it was, particularly if the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact had persisted several more years, or if Doenitz' plans for U-boat construction had been observed. I had not realized until comparatively recently just how worthless the anti-submarine efforts in 1942 actually were, for example.
Coulda woulda shoulda is the stuff of silly programs on the history channel. Its just 'what if?' speculation, not serious history.
Deleted duplicate
charlie hebdoCoulda woulda shoulda is the stuff of silly programs on the history channel. Its just 'what if?' speculation, not serious history.
Proper alternate history is applying the tools and lessons of serious history to precisely the small accidents or choices that so often determine 'real' history. That is a very different thing from making up some alternate reality according to wishful thinking (Looking Backward being a particularly egregious example of how NOT to do it), which is all too easy a thing to do even in the absence of accurate hindsight.
I happen to enjoy the fictional craft of alternate history, which is sorta in between these two: you set yourself some changes and make the result look as correct and believable by good historiographical standards as you can. One very funny example was a science-fiction story which posited the invention of the heat engine a century or so early and went on to describe the development of fighter aircraft in the American Civil War ... complete with a raft of scholarly 'references' and footnotes to give it that verisimilitudinous flair. Point is that nobody really thinks this is 'history', but it's fun to see if the results follow properly from the premises.
Masquerading 'what if' as serious history: there I agree with you, especially when it's given that 'History Channel' spin to keep the war-porn fans on the edge of their seat for an extended period of ratings time.
Overmod charlie hebdo It is questionable, regardless of Churchill's self-serving view and that of his apologists, that intervention against Germany earlier was possible, unless one disregards the context of the period 1933-39. There were many potential opportunities to nip the course of German aggression during that period, many of them involving French self-interest. Most of these would have involved action 'short of war', if that's what you mean by 'intervention against Germany', but among other things they would have had the effect of stopping Hitler's 'momentum' as a capable leader with insight about the jaded democracies, etc. We can safely disregard most of Churchill's ability to influence much of anything in British policy in those years, but I think the many instances he notes where 'action could have been taken' -- admittedly with the benefit of considerable hindsight, but also far from implausible as sensible matters of policy -- do represent areas where a small amount of action could have kept Hitler's government from becoming the danger it was after 1939, and perhaps avoided the chance for war entirely. On the other hand, the situation could have become far worse in a number of ways than it was, particularly if the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact had persisted several more years, or if Doenitz' plans for U-boat construction had been observed. I had not realized until comparatively recently just how worthless the anti-submarine efforts in 1942 actually were, for example.
charlie hebdo It is questionable, regardless of Churchill's self-serving view and that of his apologists, that intervention against Germany earlier was possible, unless one disregards the context of the period 1933-39.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding Overmod charlie hebdo It is questionable, regardless of Churchill's self-serving view and that of his apologists, that intervention against Germany earlier was possible, unless one disregards the context of the period 1933-39. There were many potential opportunities to nip the course of German aggression during that period, many of them involving French self-interest. Most of these would have involved action 'short of war', if that's what you mean by 'intervention against Germany', but among other things they would have had the effect of stopping Hitler's 'momentum' as a capable leader with insight about the jaded democracies, etc. We can safely disregard most of Churchill's ability to influence much of anything in British policy in those years, but I think the many instances he notes where 'action could have been taken' -- admittedly with the benefit of considerable hindsight, but also far from implausible as sensible matters of policy -- do represent areas where a small amount of action could have kept Hitler's government from becoming the danger it was after 1939, and perhaps avoided the chance for war entirely. On the other hand, the situation could have become far worse in a number of ways than it was, particularly if the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact had persisted several more years, or if Doenitz' plans for U-boat construction had been observed. I had not realized until comparatively recently just how worthless the anti-submarine efforts in 1942 actually were, for example. I *think* it was Goering who was quoted as saying that if France and England had intervened when Germany marched into the Rhineland, German troops would have had to retreat with their tailes between their legs.
I *think* it was Goering who was quoted as saying that if France and England had intervened when Germany marched into the Rhineland, German troops would have had to retreat with their tailes between their legs.
And the French had an Army division standing right there, and did nothing to prevent Hitler from reoccupying the Rhineland.
France had been bled white during the carnage of WW1, and that fact in itself goes a long way in explaining why the French put so much faith in the Maginot Line. It would have been trench warfare with a lot less casualties.
The Third Republic itself was losing a lot of popular support and more than a few people were willing to replace it with an authoritarian regime, probably similar to the Petain government but without the Occupation.
The French will to fight another war just wasn't there.
CSSHEGEWISCH France had been bled white during the carnage of WW1, and that fact in itself goes a long way in explaining why the French put so much faith in the Maginot Line. It would have been trench warfare with a lot less casualties. The Third Republic itself was losing a lot of popular support and more than a few people were willing to replace it with an authoritarian regime, probably similar to the Petain government but without the Occupation. The French will to fight another war just wasn't there.
Excellent point. That is what I meant by the context. This is good historical analysis.
When you watch the WWII videos of straffing trains, notice that the planes normally attacked the locomotive. This disabled the train without endangering the refugees or POW's who may be riding the train. Also note that when the gunfire hit the steam engine boiler it would cause steam to billow from the locomotive. Once the boiler is ruptured, steam pours into the firebox, frying the crew and eventually stopping the train. Steam does escape from the bullet holes but often the bullet makes multiple holes in the interior tubes.
The lesson here is don't drive steam engines in a war.
Yes, the French built the Maginot Line--and the German troops went around the end of it.
Johnny
Did the 50 cal need to hit a steam loco square on go through? Seems an angled shot would bounce off the boiler. . . . See, back to trains.
BOB WITHORN Did the 50 cal need to hit a steam loco square on go through? Seems an angled shot would bounce off the boiler. . . . See, back to trains.
Probably not. The fighters doing the strafing would have had the guns loaded with a mix of armor-piercing and tracer rounds. A .50 cal round hitting the boiler at a shallow angle may have bounced off, but the majority would have penetrated with no problem. And remember those armor-piercing rounds were intended to penetrate light armor, I don't think boiler steel would have been an issue.
I believe I posted a link to a spec sheet on .50 cal rounds earlier on August 9th. You might find it interesting.
Here's an interesting fact. Given the amount of metal on the modern battlefield of the time, even the infantry were issued ammunition in the ratio of 80% armor-piercing, 20% tracer, in the European Theater anyway. "Ball" ammunition was hardly used at all.
War Damage to Italian Railways
This was my introduction to the Schienenwolf/Schwellenpflug, one of the more effective methods of derailing trains. (Apparently invented not in Germany, but in Czechoslovakia in the '30s as a method of track maintenance!)
If you are familiar with the Army studies of 'how not to derail a train' you will recognize the key advantages of this device in the short term.
Its not a war plane but could be since it is supposed to launch space rockets.
https://www.stratolaunch.com/
Interesting. Makes me think of two anteaters out for a stroll.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.