Bomber offensive vs. Gemany: you are in charge

[tomo pauk]

If the light flak was not in 'loop' with the radar, that flak is not radar directed. Ie. if the gunner receives data about the target, but still must make a visual aiming at a correct target, during the night, he is unlikely to hit anything. More so if the target is approaching at 200-300 ft of altitude.
Take it from a trained AAA gunner with 11 months of training - it was damn hard to score hits by manualy-operated AAA in broad daylight.

 

[davebender]

Smog may be the deciding factor for bomber altitude in the Ruhr Valley. From what I've read it was pretty bad back when everyone burned coal. Bombers must dive low enough so they can target individual factory buildings through the smog.

Try not to hit factory chimneys when they suddenly appear out of the haze.

 

[wuzak]

Smog may be the deciding factor for bomber altitude in the Ruhr Valley. From what I've read it was pretty bad back when everyone burned coal. Bombers must dive low enough so they can target individual factory buildings through the smog.

Try not to hit factory chimneys when they suddenly appear out of the haze.

Low level Mosquito attacks were measured inhundreds of feet, and could be as low as 50 ft.

When they attacked the Philips factory in 1942 they had to climb over the city walls/buildings.

 

[davebender]

That's great for weapons delivery accuracy but you will be flying through your own bomb shrapnel.

 

[tyrodtom]

There are bomb fuses with delays for low level missions, but if they hit something very hard, it'll crush the fuse and go off on contact anyway.

 

[Siegfried]

When Mrs Thatcher ( I must say that I cordially detest the woman) decided that 'we' were going to get the Falklands back from the Argies I was amazed at the general publics reaction. John

I was in Australia at the time and it is quite possible from there to see the mood in Britain through the media and newspaper articles and opinion pieces. It is clear to me that the British (mostly in cooperation with the US) intelligence opperates very effectively through the planting of news stories etc. Usually this takes the form of plausible atrocity stories or dodgy intelligence. We saw that with the Gulf War 1 "baby incubator scandal" where 300 Kuwatti babies were supposedly litterally thrown out in order to take the incubators back to Iraq.

During the Malvinas/Falklands war I recall seeing all sorts of nasty propaganda getting through about the character of Argentinians that extended well beyond the character of the "junta" including the fact that Argentinians were supposed to prefer Sodomy with their prostitutes. Published in a left leaning broadsheet called the Sydney Morning Herald. Atrocity propaganda is the key. Some of this comes out through another British element of culture/character; the obsession with orderly adherance to the law. Witness the trouble Tony Blair got into for his very silly dossier about Weapons of Mass destruction. Misleading parliament is of course a very serious matter in the Westminister system in the UK as well as Australia and resignations will occur. Of course when such things have been exposed they press move on due to some other distraction and all we end up with is a resignation or two but no more. It is followed by a thick ghost written memoir and about a million dollars income in the US lecture circuit.

Humans are a hierachial social animal, inherantly co-operative as well as competitive. They have no problems organising themselves into a war like status if they feel threatened or think something untoward is happening. Massacres of Irish in the 16th century happened as a result of rumours of them commiting atrocities on English/Scottish settlers etc.

It's clear that Britain in the 1970s/1980s was in a state of severe economic decline. The exact causes I can't really discern but one problem was was the industrial relations system and I would say a class warfare memmory (not without reason). Doing work in Britain was extremely difficult by some standards due to demarcation disputes and a lot of silly rules. I can recount some stories if you like contrasting how difficult it could be in the UK to get work done effiently. I'm not saying the UK was impossible; skill levels were there and there was no corruption and a friendly crate of beer could often get things done.

Thatcher had a funny hybrid liberarian conservative ideology. I certainly sorted out the silly union issues but it would seem she laid waste to too many other things in the country. Witness her destruction of academoc tenure, which in effect destroyed more conservative tensureships (the real threatened academic) than supposed left ones.

Faced with a sense of loss of pride and place thrashing the dreadfull Argies would have been affirming.

 

[Readie]

Thatcher had a funny hybrid liberarian conservative ideology. I certainly sorted out the silly union issues but it would seem she laid waste to too many other things in the country. Faced with a sense of loss of pride and place thrashing the dreadfull Argies would have been affirming.

A lot of truth in your post Siegfried.
Mrs T the unions were on a collision course and, much that it grieves me to admit it, she won.
Its taken 30 years but, the Union movement is finding its feet again and our expectations are more realistic in today's economy.
However,Thatcher's calculated destruction of long standing industry and turning South Wales, the north the midlands of England into a wasteland was the act of a social criminal.
Why would anyone in their right mind shut industry that you did not need to, lay off 1000's of workers and not offer to replace the old industry with new ones?
Embracing the 'dog eat dog' yuppie culture was very Thatcher, very '80's greedy corrupt.
In the end it was a bubble that burst as it was based on nothing.

The British have always reacted strongly to disobedience, look at the Empire in India for examples. I would be less than honest if I pretended that we behaved well
As you say, 'thrashing the Argies' made Thatcher feel like Churchill.....
Now we have that wet behind the ears Cameron strutting his stuff as well.

As for Blair. He lied in Parliament, plain and simple. He is doomed to the bin of history as a fraud. His 'special relationship' with G W Bush is another bone of contention. Maybe the British are less forgiving than the Australians.

What is the matter with these people?

John

 

[michaelmaltby]

".... Witness her destruction of academic tenure, which in effect destroyed more conservative tenureships (the real threatened academic) than supposed left ones.

Faced with a sense of loss of pride and place thrashing the dreadful Argies would have been affirming."

A great post, Siegfried , and an honest reply, John, .. though as an 'outsider in '70's Britain' like Sig, I found the whole country unworkable (constantly paralyzed in one sector or another). And Mrs. Thatcher went after the 'unworkability' of Britain like a mad woman spring cleaning. I skipped though those years visiting-working in GB purely by accident. And found myself re-doing working UK visits after Mrs. Thatcher was gone (but John Major was PM). It was clear to my eyes that GB had undergone a REVOLUTION. It was more American (in the best and the worst sense of the word .... . There was energy in the people I was exposed to at work but there was also an awful cynicism - and - John you're right - greed.

Having said that, I think my feelings may be closer to Siegfried's on this.

British and American societies are great - and have persevered in staying great- because they maintain the capacity to turn themselves around from time to time - as needed. Britain's History has thrown up some pretty 'catalytic' leaders -- Elizabeth I, Oliver Cromwell, Henry VIII, King Wm of Orange .... and ... Margaret Thatcher's regime was just such a transformational incident in British History as any of the above. Babies get thrown out with bathwater in such times.

But the opposite - at extreme - was the UK before Mrs. Thatcher. The Tools Down ...socialist ... "I'm entitled to my entitlements" schtick that turns a right minded, motivated, hard working human being into a 'hive' creature with a 'contract'.

I go north to the bush every weekend, year 'round, because I like to watch 'nature' at work ... . And the more I watch and the older I get, the more I am convinced that nature's way is best - over the long run. And human-kind with our organization, and our 'beliefs' ..... the more human-kind strays from the natural .. the more neurotic we become as a species. Look around ... twitter indeed.

Siegfried .... you referenced the Anglo-Alliance's capacity for 'propaganda' .... the well-placed story . 'Truthiness'. In WW2 the BBC was the voice of 'truth' to occupied Europe and the Free World. The BBC (and the government of the time) knew that (1) their broadcasts had to be 'truthful' or those on the ground in Nazis Land wouldn't listen; and (2) never believe your own propaganda.

It's a formula that works .... unfortunately with today's media-social-media-mass media .... society has lost sight of number (2). Save the polar bears! Save the seals! Global warming! We all going to die ....!

Indeed.

Chairs,

MM

 

[Readie]

greed[/I].
MM

The cynicism level is at an all time high here Michael.

Ones view of Thatcher tends to be generational and she certaintly is a 'love hate' character.
The unions attitude is grounded in generations of poor pay, conditions, appalling H&S, lay offs and ill treatment. The British unions are no different to USA unions in that respect.
The sullen workforce that Thatcher took on has gone and no one wants a return to the strike bound society of the 1970's.
Having said that, Cameron has taken everyone on everyone with cuts, a reduction in the standard of living and blackmailing the youngsters into jobs that pay little more than the 'job seekers allowance' while the older ones now work till they are 68.
All I say to Cameron is that Thatcher came unstuck with her Poll Tax and Cameron will come unstuck with his NHS 'reforms'.
Blair came unstuck with Iraq.

The one thing that bedevils the USA and Britain is that everyone hates their benefactors in the end.
Gratitude is a myth.

Its interesting to have an honest debate with people abroad about their perceptions of Britain.

John

 

[Hop]

However,Thatcher's calculated destruction of long standing industry and turning South Wales, the north the midlands of England into a wasteland was the act of a social criminal.
Why would anyone in their right mind shut industry that you did not need to, lay off 1000's of workers and not offer to replace the old industry with new ones?

Thatcher didn't.

What Thatcher did was end the Labour practice of borrowing huge amounts of money to prop up employment in state owned industries. That practice was good for Labour, because it allowed them to claim they were keeping unemployment down. It was good for workers in the short term, because it kept them in work. It was a disaster for the country in the long term because it destroyed vast areas of British industry which weren't allowed to modernise and compete internationally.

By 1979 British Leyland required twice as many man hours to build a car as Volkswagen or Ford Europe. British Steel required twice the man hours to produce a ton of steel as the German producers. BEcause it was forced to buy British coal to support the coal industry, the CEGB charged British people the highest electricity prices in western Europe.

British industry had suffered a lost 15 years since 1964. Where other countries modernised and improved, Britain stood still. The best selling car built by a British company in 1964 was the Mini. In 1979, with other countries producing much more modern cars, the Mini was still BL's best seller. There hadn't been the investment in modern designs that would enable BL to compete in the 80s.

When Thatcher gradually removed the support for those industries they were simply too far behind the opposition to survive without radical restructuring. In some cases that worked. British Steel, for example, shed a large part of the work force but modernised and kept production at a similar level. Brand led companises, like the car industry, were simply too far behind to compete.

As to replacing old failed industry with new ones, that's exactly what happened. UK car production was 1,500,000 in 1973, by 1979 it had declined to 1,050,000, but by 1990 it was up to 1,300,000 and by 1997 1,650,000. Sadly manufacturing actually declined under the last Labour government, even before the recession hit. Production was down to 1,500,000 in 2007, it fell below 1 million in 2009.

UK manufacturing output as a whole actually rose rapidly between 1979 and 1997. From an index level of 83 in 1979 to 92 in 1990, 96 in 1997, despite 2 world recessions in the same period. Under the last Labour government manufacturing production flatlined, it reached a peak of 101 in 2007, then fell in the recession to 87.

So the Tories saw a rise in output of 16% in 17 years despite 2 world recessions, and despite inheriting an extremely outdated manufacturing sector reliant on state aid to survive. Labour saw a decline in output of 6.25% in 13 years, with only 1 recession during that period (all figures inflation adjusted, of course).

In the end it was a bubble that burst as it was based on nothing.

On the contrary. In 1997 the British economy was doing extremely well. It was admired internationally. When Gordon Brown entered the Treasury in 1997 he was briefed by a civil servant on the state of the economy. The civil servant told him he had inherited "fantastically good" figures from his predecessor. When Labour left government in 2010 the chief secretary to the Treasury, Liam Byrne, left behind a short note to his successor: "Dear chief secretary, I'm afraid to tell you there's no money left"

Do not confuse the economic success of the Tory years (including manufacturing) with the abject failure of the last government, who's greatest "achievement" was to borrow vast amounts of money to spend on public services we could not even afford at the height of the boom.

Labour in the 60s and 70s borrowed money to prop up employment in state owned industries. Labour in the noughties borrowed money to prop up employment in public services. Both caused vast damage to the country, both left behind a debt legacy, damaged industry and a country that has to make massive cuts simply to get back to stability.

But the opposite - at extreme - was the UK before Mrs. Thatcher. The Tools Down ...socialist ... "I'm entitled to my entitlements" schtick that turns a right minded, motivated, hard working human being into a 'hive' creature with a 'contract'.

Sadly the last bout of Labour government has brought that back. One of the big stories of the last couple of weeks in Britain has been about unemployed people being "forced" to do short work experience placements with companies. If they don't stick it out for the few weeks of the placement they risked losing benefits. This, according to some of the people involved and the left who organised a massive campaign, is completely wrong. They are outraged that people may be forced to work in return for benefits they are "entitled" to.

There has been another huge campaign against a new government policy of limiting housing benefit payments to a maximum of £400 per week (about $700). There are currently people living in houses costing more than £1 million, with the state paying their rent. The left have argued bitterly that these people will have to move, and their children may even be forced to move school. They believe they are entitled to have thousands of pounds a week in state benefits to enable them to live in houses very few taxpayers could afford to live in themselves.

 

[pbfoot]

Its kinda funny a lot of union activists in the 60-80s in Canada were Brits ,
moving along the Brit unions were god awful ...no welded armour because the riveteers union were worried about their jobs , there were more stikes in IIRC 43 44 then in 37 38 . In 1940 the UK had over a million unemployed ! How can that be when you are supposedly fighting for survival in Canada it was under 1% . Interesting fact were you aware that the foreign office and ministry of warproduction did not even open for business until 11am in 1940 , I giess they didn't know there was a war on

 

[Readie]

Thatcher didn't.

What Thatcher did was end the Labour practice of borrowing huge amounts of money to prop up employment in state owned industries. That practice was good for Labour, because it allowed them to claim they were keeping unemployment down. It was good for workers in the short term, because it kept them in work. It was a disaster for the country in the long term because it destroyed vast areas of British industry which weren't allowed to modernise and compete internationally.

By 1979 British Leyland required twice as many man hours to build a car as Volkswagen or Ford Europe. British Steel required twice the man hours to produce a ton of steel as the German producers. BEcause it was forced to buy British coal to support the coal industry, the CEGB charged British people the highest electricity prices in western Europe.

Thatcher did Hop,
Any responsible government will support and develop the countries industry not just destroy it. There is more at stake than political dogma.
BL was a clever engineering firm that made better cars than Ford's cynically recycled white bread motors. I admit that industrial relations were poor but, it would be wrong to totally blame the unions.The working conditions were unacceptable.
The French have kept there car industry close to their chests and the French tend to drive French cars by and large. Who benefits? The French. Who benefitted from BL's dismantling and closure? The French, Germans, Koreans and so on. Not the British.
The British motorcycle industry reappeared like a Phoenix and how Triumph have gone from strength to strength. BL could have done the same given the opportunity.
Thatcher shut the coal mines, why? How does the importation of foreign coal help us? Thatcher laid waste to our industry and caused untold damage to the areas that relied on them. Some area's still have not recovered all these years later. I do not subscribe to the CEGB charges theory.
Thatcher shut down British Steel. A disgrace as Sheffield steel was renown world wide.Again with no reason other than to make her point.
Thatcher shut our ship building industry. Belfast the Clyde are still wastelands and monuments to political idiocy.
I could go on...
Modernisation was needed of course, most of our infrastructure was knackered after two world wars and in desperate need of renewal.
Now we have the situation where our tube trains are built in Germany, we go to Korea for ships, the 'scrappage scheme' only benefitted the Koreans and China makes everything else.
Thatcher took us as near to civil war as we have been since the Norman conquest.
I would hope that Cameron has learnt something but, somehow I doubt it.
John

 

[Readie]

Its kinda funny a lot of union activists in the 60-80s in Canada were Brits ,
moving along the Brit unions were god awful ...no welded armour because the riveteers union were worried about their jobs , there were more stikes in IIRC 43 44 then in 37 38 . In 1940 the UK had over a million unemployed ! How can that be when you are supposedly fighting for survival in Canada it was under 1% . Interesting fact were you aware that the foreign office and ministry of warproduction did not even open for business until 11am in 1940 , I giess they didn't know there was a war on

The British Unions were products of circumstances here, especially the inter war depression years. The Canadians must have wanted their expertise other wise why would they have allowed settlement?

John

 

[pbfoot]

A disgrace as Sheffield steel was renown world wide.Again with no reason other than to make her point.

Did it improve post war ?in fact you imported more steel then you made and the armour you did produce was of low grade no where near as good as the Germans

 

[pbfoot]

The British Unions were products of circumstances here, especially the inter war depression years. The Canadians must have wanted their expertise other wise why would they have allowed settlement?

John

Cuz we let everyone in , you can be blind with one arm and aids and we would've taken you back then

 

[Readie]

Cuz we let everyone in , you can be blind with one arm and aids and we would've taken you back then

Bit like GB in 2012 then Neil
John

 

[Readie]

Did it improve post war ?in fact you imported more steel then you made and the armour you did produce was of low grade no where near as good as the Germans

I was thinking of things more productive than armour.
We have always imported steel and combined with our own production was the best balance
John

 

[Siegfried]

There are bomb fuses with delays for low level missions, but if they hit something very hard, it'll crush the fuse and go off on contact anyway.

Not really, it's likely that in a ligh case bomb that the explosives will spill out and the detonation fail or be severely weakened.

 

[Siegfried]

First time I heard of any Mossies converted to metal. Details please.

A metal Mossie would be heavier than a wood one.

Well sort of aluminium mosquito but I wager it would've worked apart from the R-1830 engines:

I.Ae. 24 Calquin

 

[tyrodtom]

You're out of your area of knowledge Siegfried. I was a munitions speacialist for 5 of the 8 years I was in the Army and USAF.
In allied munitions , one of the two fuses was in the front, ( not all bombs, but most) If they hit very hard objects, such as a very large rock, bridge abutment, etc. a delayed action bomb, or even a unarmed fused bomb could detonate instantly, because it crushes the fuse and bypasses the delay, or safety, before the bomb casing itself would experience the streeses of a hard impact. Delay fuses were common in WW2, but only used when absolutly necessary, and only on preplanned low level missions, But they weren't generally preferred because of their known problems and the fact that they would be deep underground when they exploded and maybe not inflict the damage needed.

A better system for low level attacks is delayed fall bombs, with high drag pop-out tail sections, or parachutes. Something only tried with smaller bombs in WW2, but in modern weapons about any size drop munitions has a slow fall option.