Talk:Schweinfurt–Regensburg mission

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States / World War II C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War II task force

Germany B‑class Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I'd hate to edit a decently structured main article, and I'm certainly not up to the task of Merging, or joining the WWII project. But I do think some mention should be made of the RAF, and recent information.

In the "Daily Mail" (a London tabloid newspaper) of 21 March 2007 there was a letter from D. Robert Burns, a participant in the RAF raid of April 1944. His tale alone is fascinating - he was a navigator in a 106 Squadron Lancaster, and was shot down by a Ju88 piloted by the C.O. of Hitler's personal squadron, taking part in unauthorised combat; Roberts verified this and more after the war, from the enemy flight commander.

But of interest here, I think, is the information Roberts gave which puts "Swinish Schweinfurt" in a wider context. After the war he learned two things:

1. Neutral Sweden (presumably SKF) was supplying Germany with ball bearings right through the war. Britain was paying Sweden not to do this, but Germany paid up to five times the normal price so the supply continued.

2. Albert Speer had already moved much of the German production to other parts of Germany and to occupied countries.

When Roberts visited Schweinfurt in about 2002 he learned that two of the five ball bearing works were still Swedish owned, as they had been through the war.

To my mind it's not just nice to get some extra information, it's wonderful that it comes directly from a participant, who followed up on the ground subsequently. I hope someone can add the Roberts information to the main article, wherever it ends up. Edetic 12:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The RAF fighter support had already gotten mention, but your suggestion is a worthy one. Its role in the diversions and airfield attacks has now been added. The b-b production had not yet moved in August. Speer had been urging it for some time but decentralization did not begin until September 1943, and then only because of the attack, and was still in progress at the time of the second attack in october. The information about Swedish ball bearings isd absolutely correct. I'll see what I can do to work in the source.--Buckboard 11:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Buckboard, for your positive response. This seems to be a case where Wikipedia is getting more authorative than any one published source! Edetic 21:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

opening summary

I reverted the changes to the opening summary and then modified for clarity and greater brevity. The anniversary was not just coincidental, but a milestone. Showing the difference stresses the change in tactics, size, and direction of strategic bombing. The previous changes also implied that being a shuttle mission was related to returning by way of Tunisia--the most important shuttle missions went to the USSR and back in 1944. Also, per wiki, the opening summary should at minimum state a minimum of information relating to the article itself. --Buckboard 02:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Results??????

Anyone even remotely familiar with industrial machinery would find it LUDICROUS that it was damaged by flaming machine oil. This was large scale industrial machinery designed to grind steel. The previous used high explosive bombs may have damaged an individual machine with a direct hit (even with bomb sights an average B-17 bomb was lucky to land within a mile of its target) but the damage caused did not shut down the factory. The "incendiaries" were not the firebombs used to decimate the populations of Dresden and Tokyo, these were small thermite charges designed to take down the roofs of the factory buildings. The incapacitation of the ball bearing machinery was caused by exposure to weather and rusting, not due to direct bomb damage. Shjacks45 (talk) 08:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the steel machinary would not burn, the wiring, tubing, controls, supporting structures, etc. would. Additionally, the roof and walls collapsing on the machinary would damage it. Speer himself reported a reduction in capacity, so clearly the machinary was damaged. Taterbill (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]