A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

How did the Brits do it?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 10th 04, 03:41 PM
Jim Doyle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
I think back to the war and the RAF heavies on their night missions.

Missions
flown in the winter usually were in atrocioius weather where there was no

view
of the gound and the sky above was overcast. There was no way to shoot at

star
fix or take a dirft reading from the ground. Working dead reckoning from
England deep into Germany and any change in wind dorection or velocity

that
went undetected made dead reckoning navigation a hit and miss

proposition.
Often it was not just miss, it was gross miss. Knowing all this how could

the
RAF ever hope to pull off these winter night missions successfully? What

was
the logic that made them keep flying under these hopeless navigation
conditions? Anyone know?


As I understand it Art, you and your fellow Americans bombed by day, the RAF
by night. This was to concentrate efforts of the two doctrines, precision
and area bombing. The British began unintentional area bombing when they
switched to night attacks, mitigating the heavy losses associated with deep
attacks into Europe with ill defended bombers in airspace without air
supremacy. I guess this was somewhat justifiable to the British Public given
the Blitz on Britain's cities in '40-'41. Yet the USA - which had not been
on the receiving end of a bombing campaign on it's own soil, directed at
it's own civilians - opted for precision daylight attacks.

The biggest advocate of Area Bombing was Lord Cherwell. He devised a very
rudimentary calculation to justify the area bombing principal based on the
anticipated bomber production, average tonnage of HE dropped by a bomber
before being shot down, average number of homes destroyed per ton of HE etc.
Essentially, if 200,000 tons of HE fell on German cities (half of that
expected to be dropped over Germany) 30 million households should be
destroyed. You remove the industrial workforce, you remove the capacity to
produce war materiel. Simple....

.... if only it worked! British tactics against Germany were optimised to the
conditions of the day, with the subsequent development of nav aids, dead
reckoning was superseded and bombing became much more accurate and
aggressive.

In the latter stages of the war, in my opinion, Area Bombing became
unjustifiable before it ceased. Dresden is a prime example, though there are
many who believe this to be a show of strength to the Russians, it just
simply didn't deserve the tremendous volume of bombs metered out.

Something in the region of 55,000 RAF aircrew of Bomber Command were killed
in action in the war. I can't even begin to comprehend that loss, as many
died in six years of Bomber Command as there are currently in the RAF. Sadly
it's both terrible and tragic.

Jim Doyle

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer



  #2  
Old March 10th 04, 05:26 PM
M. J. Powell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message , Jim Doyle
writes

snip

... if only it worked! British tactics against Germany were optimised to the
conditions of the day, with the subsequent development of nav aids, dead
reckoning was superseded and bombing became much more accurate and
aggressive.

In the latter stages of the war, in my opinion, Area Bombing became
unjustifiable before it ceased. Dresden is a prime example, though there are
many who believe this to be a show of strength to the Russians, it just
simply didn't deserve the tremendous volume of bombs metered out.


Letter to the Sunday Telegraph. I forgot to note the date.

As a correspondent pointed out, Dresden was bombed because it was a
military target. (Letters Feb 20). The city's destiny was sealed at the
Yalta conference (on Feb 4 1945) and, as Winston Churchill's
interpreter, I heard and watched Stalin with his deputy Chief of Staff,
General Antonov, urgently ask us to bomb roads and railways to stop
Hitler transferring divisions from the West. Antonov stressed the
importance of Dresden as a vital rail junction, saying there was a

"uzel
svyazi" - literally, "communications knot".

Churchill and Roosevelt had to agree as they were indebted to Stalin

for
relieving pressure on our front during the German Ardennes winter
counter-offensive.


Mike
--
M.J.Powell
  #3  
Old March 10th 04, 08:44 PM
Jim Doyle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"M. J. Powell" wrote in message
...
In message , Jim Doyle
writes

snip

... if only it worked! British tactics against Germany were optimised to

the
conditions of the day, with the subsequent development of nav aids, dead
reckoning was superseded and bombing became much more accurate and
aggressive.

In the latter stages of the war, in my opinion, Area Bombing became
unjustifiable before it ceased. Dresden is a prime example, though there

are
many who believe this to be a show of strength to the Russians, it just
simply didn't deserve the tremendous volume of bombs metered out.


Letter to the Sunday Telegraph. I forgot to note the date.

As a correspondent pointed out, Dresden was bombed because it was a
military target. (Letters Feb 20). The city's destiny was sealed at the
Yalta conference (on Feb 4 1945) and, as Winston Churchill's
interpreter, I heard and watched Stalin with his deputy Chief of Staff,
General Antonov, urgently ask us to bomb roads and railways to stop
Hitler transferring divisions from the West. Antonov stressed the
importance of Dresden as a vital rail junction, saying there was a
"uzel svyazi" - literally, "communications knot".

Churchill and Roosevelt had to agree as they were indebted to Stalin
for relieving pressure on our front during the German Ardennes winter

counter-offensive.

Dresden posed a military threat, granted.

The horrific firestorm created by the incendiaries and napalm killed 100,000
civilians - 1 in 6 of the inhabitants (given there were a large number of
refugees fleeing the advancing Red Army). The message was clear to Stalin,
even if the assault was at his request.


Mike
--
M.J.Powell



  #4  
Old March 10th 04, 11:13 PM
M. J. Powell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message , Jim Doyle
writes

"M. J. Powell" wrote in message
...
In message , Jim Doyle
writes

snip

... if only it worked! British tactics against Germany were optimised to

the
conditions of the day, with the subsequent development of nav aids, dead
reckoning was superseded and bombing became much more accurate and
aggressive.

In the latter stages of the war, in my opinion, Area Bombing became
unjustifiable before it ceased. Dresden is a prime example, though there

are
many who believe this to be a show of strength to the Russians, it just
simply didn't deserve the tremendous volume of bombs metered out.


Letter to the Sunday Telegraph. I forgot to note the date.

As a correspondent pointed out, Dresden was bombed because it was a
military target. (Letters Feb 20). The city's destiny was sealed at the
Yalta conference (on Feb 4 1945) and, as Winston Churchill's
interpreter, I heard and watched Stalin with his deputy Chief of Staff,
General Antonov, urgently ask us to bomb roads and railways to stop
Hitler transferring divisions from the West. Antonov stressed the
importance of Dresden as a vital rail junction, saying there was a
"uzel svyazi" - literally, "communications knot".

Churchill and Roosevelt had to agree as they were indebted to Stalin
for relieving pressure on our front during the German Ardennes winter

counter-offensive.

Dresden posed a military threat, granted.

The horrific firestorm created by the incendiaries and napalm killed 100,000
civilians - 1 in 6 of the inhabitants (given there were a large number of
refugees fleeing the advancing Red Army). The message was clear to Stalin,
even if the assault was at his request.


I think he got the message much earlier, after Hamburg et al.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
About French cowards. Michael Smith Military Aviation 45 October 22nd 03 03:15 PM
Ungrateful Americans Unworthy of the French The Black Monk Military Aviation 62 October 16th 03 08:05 AM
American joke on the Brits ArtKramr Military Aviation 50 September 30th 03 10:52 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.