Talk:Pointblank directive

Downed pilots

Wasnt there something about shooting bailed out pilots in the parachutes or those that managed to crashland in this "directive"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.217.247 (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely. That would go against the Geneva Conventions. It is illegal to fire upon a pilot or other aviator in distress, as one would be while hanging on a parachute, enemy or not, the exception would be if he/she was firing back at you, perhaps with a handgun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.132 (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Transportation systems in general

Mugs2109 you added {{Fact|the cited reference states "military", not "general"|date=December 2007}}

Which source are you referring to? The source used (Hansell p. 158) is the same as point 9 on the page. BUT and we have not qualified that the list is not that of the CBO (which Hansell says was not an official designation 158) but one slightly modified by the British Air Ministry. Hansell goes into further detail on p. 229. --PBS (talk) 10:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit of 12 December 2008

user:Mugs2109 you made an edit in which you asked some questions and have raised some others.

"was the code name for the primary portion" what do you mean by primary portion?

"How could the operation order Harris and Spaatz (the operation wasn't a commander or order)" Of course not Harris and Spaatz were issued with directives and this should be made clear. But it is not clear to me if there was just one strategic directive known Casablanca directive as then a later Pointblank directive as the code name for the Casablanca Conference was POINTBLANK, so the Casablanca directive and a POINTBLANK directive could be one and the same thing (Air Chief Harris, Arthur T. Harris. Despatch on War Operations: 23rd February, 1942, to 8th May, 1945. p. 196)

It is not clear to me why you have added "during Operation Pointblank." to the images and then asked for a citation to prove it.

It is not clear to me why you have replaced the list that was in the article taken from a reliable on line source with a slightly different one (Is it from a British list to an American one?). BTW AFACT the page numbers given for that citation (185, 242) are not correct as neither seems to contain the list listed.

To "The Eighth Air Force gradually increased its strength. Increasing the number of units in action, and testing various strategies of bomber defence." you added "irrelevant? [citation required] and a grammar template" Please explain what you mean.

The Battle of the Ruhr you added "Clarifyme|this implies that the Battle of the Rurh was 'Area Bombardment', but a reference needs identified of that implication|date=December 2007" Surly the link is enough so that there is no doubt about it.

Why did you change the the quote from the Official UAAF history concludes its account of Big Week? It was sourced.

Why did you combine the Notes and References section as the combined section is very messy. What is needed is short citations and full references.

--PBS (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Notes on Harris and the operation

As Sebastian Cox in a prefix to Despatch on War Operations: 23rd February, 1942, to 8th May, 1945 By Air Chief Harris, Arthur T. Harris notes on page xix "Where as the original draft had explicitly directed Bomber Command to aim at the selective attack of the aircraft industry and ball-bearing manufacture, Harris had succeeded in influencing the final version ... the explicit reference to Bomber Command's role stated 'While the forces of the British Bomber Command will be employed in accordance with their main aim in the general disorganisation of German industry their action will be designed as far as is practicable to be complementary to the operations of the Eight Air Force'"

As Bomber Harris understood it "Moral had been dropped and I was now required to proceed with a general 'disorganisation' of German industry giving certain aspects of it such as U-boat building ... and so forth, which gave me a very wide range of choice and allowed me to attack pretty well any German industrial city of 100,000 or above." (Harris Bomber Offensive, Start of Chapter 7, Page 144)

Cox goes on to quote the Official RAF Historian "When later the Air Saff began to complain that Sir Arthur Harris was not taking part in the attack on the German Air Force, the only had themselves to blame, because they could have issued a much clear directive on 10 June [1943]. Cox goes on to say it was not really a black and white fight between Harris and the Staff as Portal was asking in in August when Harris would start the Battle of Berlin and Bottomley thought that limited attacks on Berlin were desirable. It was just that Harris "could justly claim that in fighting the Battle of Berlin he was loyally executing the policy laid down by his superiors."

--PBS (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Edits 24 and 25 June 2009

I reverted the edits to this page today because despite requests to do so user:Mugs2109 keeps making substantial changes to the page without discussing such changes. While there is nothing wrong with a bold edit, one that edit has been reversed discussion should take place on the talk page to agree changes and reach a consensus. --PBS (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on object of Operation

Was the object solely to bomb the means of production of fighters (and their bases) or did it also include drawing the fighter force into combat against bombers and their escorts?GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Oddly negative comments about RAF operations

RAF's unsustainable losses (from 7 to 12% of aircraft committed to the large raids

The US lost approximately 30% of their B-17's in combat. Yet the statements following the one above present an anti-RAF view (IMHO) and largely dismiss US failures, using the post-operation excuses as statements of fact. This needs to be cleaned up, right now I see what appears to be an anti-RAF bent.

Both forces went into operations with specific concepts about bombing and specific aims as to its outcome:

• the USAAF was convinced that the combination of the Norden's accuracy, the defensive armament of the B-17, and the large pack formation would allow their bombers to destroy the German aircraft factories and related industries using self-defended raids.

• the RAF (Harris and his supporters more specifically) felt that accurate bombing was not possible, and the best way to destroy German industry was to destroy the cities that supported the factory's operations.

Both failed to realize those objectives:

• the USAAF quickly found that their bombers could not possibly defend themselves in combat, and that the accuracy of their bombing was about the same as the RAF's nighttime drops.

• the RAF found (and RV Jones notes) that their calculations showing they could destroy whole cities were in error, and that the aim of destroying Germany from the air would take longer than stated.

As a result, both of these forces underwent major reorganizations and changes in tactics:

• Jimmy Dolittle took over the 8th in Feb 44 and immediately changed the entire US operational doctrine. Bombers were no longer tasked with destroying point targets as a primary method of destroying German aircraft capability, instead they were essentially bait for US fighters. This was not Eaker's idea, as the article implies. The bombers themselves moved to area bombardment using the RAF pathfinder concept (bomb-on-lead in US parlance). Fighters weren't even tasked with protecting the bombers, they were directed to attack fighters - a very different concept.

• the RAF, as the article notes, was re-directed to a series of different operations. But generally they continued their strategic anti-city campaign, and many of their more infamous raids took place during this "second period".

This article is, IMHO, in a very poor state. It's disorganized, poorly laid out, and historically misleading. I suggest a top-to-bottom rewrite.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur on rewriting. I note also that this article and other articles (Combined Bomber Offensive, Plan for Completion of Combined Bomber Offensive Transportation Plan) are all related to the strategic bombing during the Second World War and yet in most of them, the day to day operations and practicalities as you have outlined above are glossed over.

and many of their more infamous raids took place during this "second period".". Point Blank is much more of an American than British thing basically the British carries on as before Battle of Berlin (air) et al. The infamous raids (possibly with the exception of Operation Gomorrah July 1943) took place in 1945 not pre-D-Day and Point Blank covered the period before the bombers were taken off the strategic bombing of German to bomb France in the build up to the invasion. -- PBS (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not convinced that a top-to-bottom rewrite is justified unless an outline for such a rewrite is agreed first on this talk page. -- PBS (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Really? This page has less to do with Operation Pointblank as it does with an overview of the entire bombing campaign, both US and British, before, during and after the eponymous Operation. Do you really feel it is ok?! I'm sorry, but no sort of agreement is needed here before starting an improvement effort. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the article is lacking in information on the operations (missions in US terms?) during the period. So far we seem just to have chiefly background and outcome and no middle. A month by month table of number of sorties/tonnage/lossess would be constructive with prose for summary and key points over the period. I think its valid to mention (in the context of the CBO) what the British were doing at the same time over Germany. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Or move the article to "Pointbank directive"(remove all the operations stuff) and develop the Combined Bomber Offensive article for the missions. -- PBS (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Article in Serious Need of Fact Checking and Re-write

There are problems with the dates given and even the initial mission statement, Pointblank was initially much broader in scope than the defeat of the German air force. I did a small rewrite of the introduction, but the article needs serious, sustained work. Perhaps the previous suggestion is the best route, since the Combined Bomber Offensive page is much more well-developed.rpbird (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge and move

Next to nothing has been done to this article since my comment on this page a little over 2 years ago. So I have merged most of the text of this into Combined Bomber Offensive (much of it was a duplicate), removed that text from here and moved this article to Pointblank directive. -- PBS (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pointblank directive. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121013052725/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/r_m_g.varley/Strategic_Air_Offensive.html to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/r_m_g.varley/Strategic_Air_Offensive.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)