Did the Germans have the Norden bombsight?

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey was quite critical of the
effectiveness of strategic bombing. This in no way reflects on the
courage and sacrifice of the men who flew the missions.

As Art Kramer likes to point out, the US Strategic Bombing Survey authors had
an ax to grind. Their objectivity is somewhat suspect.

Well, Art has an ax to grind, too. What was the Survey's alleged ax?

Is there any *evidence* to support that charge?

Germans held out until the very end and given the tremendous cost in blood and
treasure, obviously the bombing was a big disappointment.

I'm not so sure about that. This thread was about the accuracy of the
Norden sight. But as I've mentioned before and others have agreed,
the bombing may have been primarily to destroy the LW, not to destroy
targets on the ground. Thus the question whether the bombs landed in
a pickle barrel is irrelevant. Even if industrial production
continued, and even grew, we achieved aerial supremacy and were able
to invade Europe. So the bombing was not a "big disappointment."

vince norris

What was the Survey's alleged ax?

Us Bus set out to prove that strategic bombing won the war, in order
to bolster the case for an independent USAF. Or so it is often said.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

So the bombing was not a "big disappointment."

The Bomber Barons promised to win the war without having to invade at all.
When you consider that the RAF had 55,000 KIA, the same number of officers
killed in World War One, it has to be a disappointment. The same thing is true
of the Americans. A lot of effort and relatively little return.

Walt