Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 8/25/2004 4:05 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
From: "Mike"
Date: 8/25/2004 2:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
From: Robert Briggs UCKET
Date: 8/25/2004 11:24 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Mike Dargan wrote:
ArtKramr wrote:

The tighter the formation you fly the tighter the bomb pattern
on
the ground and the more damage you do to the enemy.

If you're trying to wreck fresh bomb craters, the tighter the
better.

Nicely put, Mike.



Is that that the result of the many missions you flew and your
experience
with
formation variations and the effect on bomb patterns? BTW, how many
missions
did you fly? Could you give us details?



Art, have you never heard of research?

Your individual experience is limited.... one man's view of what
happened.


And you both have it all wrong. I did my research at 10,000 feet over
the
Ruhr
valley.


I have no argument that your experience taught a great deal about
personal discipline, crew cooperation, and the value of formations.

But the best BDA, the statistical analysis of bomb dispersion patterns,
aren't done from 10,000 feet. May I assume, for example, that there was
no photogrammetric analysis gear aboard Willie the Wolf? It may be
unglamorous and not at all warrior-like, but target vulnerability
analysis tends to involve civil engineers and photointerpreters,
straining their eyes over photographs.

Did your research include the decision that blast, fragmentation, or
thermal effect would be most damaging for a target? Instantaneous or
delay fuzing?



Let me set you straight so you don't have to go on assumptions. Every
mission
resulted in photogrametric strike photos that we studied carefully after
the
mission. We saw what happened from the air on the ground then we saw the
strike
photos. You can actually see those photos on my website taken on the
missions I
flew. But afterward recon planes (P-38's) took shots after the smoke
cleared
(see "death of a marshalling yard") so we could see the damage on the
ground. I
think that will give you a good idea of how we went about our attacks..


I think you are missing my point. Did your _flight_ crews select the
target and the munitions to be used? I think not. There were targeting
organizations that had to call on specialized skills, ranging from
vulnerability analysis to detailed photointerpretation to statistical
analysis of weapons effects. Yes, you were at the pointy end, but the
spear also has a staff.

How do you measure Constance Babington-Smith's contribution?