Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Thankfully Harris respected Operational Research and didnt implement his preference.From his book on the subject, Arthur Harris. 1947. Bomber Offensive.
"The Lancaster was so far the best aircraft we had that I continually pressed for its production and at the expense of other types; I was even willing to lose nearly a year's industrial production from the Halifax factories while these were being converted to produce Lancasters."
Page 103.
Jim
Thankfully Harris respected Operational Research and didnt implement his preference.
Admittedly this decision was not as critical as him deciding not to follow the directives against Oil and Transport that could have ended the war 4 to 6 weeks early
For some reason, there is an oft repeated statement that Harris did not attack oil targets. Nothing can be further from the truth and in fact attacked these targets as he could do so. I'm not going to go through the evidence in this short post but I intend to do so in the coming days, probably in a separate thread, because the oil targets that Harris actually attacked can easily be summarized. I will lay out my argument for this in a forth coming post.
Admittedly this decision was not as critical as him deciding not to follow the directives against Oil and Transport that could have ended the war 4 to 6 weeks early
I bet it really depended on where a -24 was hit. An 88 in the wing would stand a good chance of being fatal. In the fuselage, possible but less-likely (especially after bombs had been dropped).
This may have been a consideration by the USAAF. As I have said I am quite unfamiliar with this command. What I stressed was, I have never seen any wartime documents that relate to this being a consideration in RAF Bomber Command. As I have said I have examined many of the documents from the Bomber Command "Operations Research Section" and have not come across any discussion of vapor trails being in consideration when detailing routes. You need to examine the wartime documents, as you can easily be misled with assumptions and errors express by other authors.
Jim
I've read both versions, flak hit or bomb drop. I'll take a good look at that now that I have the tech to pause the the film.
The oil plan was one of many, as was transportation. There were all issues to do with the battle of the Atlantic which took priority. There was support for D-Day support of the breakout from Normandy. Attacks against V weapons. Laying of mines, pretending to lay mines to trigger Enigma signals. Glider towing, destroying dams battleships ports engine factories, steel plants. Harris didnt run the RAF, there were people above him giving him a never ending list of high priority targets.
You're right.Go frame by frame. The bombs can clearly be seen passing behind the bomber. At normal speed it's hard to spot.
For some reason, there is an oft repeated statement that Harris did not attack oil targets. Nothing can be further from the truth and in fact attacked these targets as he could do so. I'm not going to go through the evidence in this short post but I intend to do so in the coming days, probably in a separate thread, because the oil targets that Harris actually attacked can easily be summarized. I will lay out my argument for this in a forth coming post.
jim
Ok, I should say Harris did attack the directed targets but not in the intensity that he should have done.
When BC attacked the oil and transport targets it was very effective having larger bombs than the US and the low level marking worked really well.
The irony was that when BC had become a precision force for D Day targets, Harris wasted those skills by returning to his obsession of area bombing effectively disobeying orders.
Didn't their met briefings also include expected heights for vapour trails...? :/
The narration also says to land along the waves in high seas, but doesn't say why. I suspect that having the waves not smash into the bomb bay was a factor.
There is famous newsreel footage of a B-24 in the PTO being hit by flak during a raid.. It was struck in the left wing near the wing root. It immediately bursts into flame and the wing buckles. It looks on first viewing that the aircraft was struck by bombs dropped from above it, but if one watches carefully that was not the case.
B-24 Liberator Bomber Shot Down In Carolines Raid In WWII (1945)
I've seen that footage, it's in so many doccos about strategic bombing. The speed at which the wing fails catastrophically is stunning.
I'd imagine that lower wing-loading would help the wing be more resilient (due to less forces operating upon it), but mind all, I'm not an engineer of any sort and my opinion must be qualified by that ignorance.
It's all tradeoffs. To lower wing loading, they needed to reduce the weight (payload) or make the wings bigger, and for an airplane designed for long range, that means longer, so the plane would have been even less maneuverable. They could have made the wings stronger, but that would have meant more of the weight would go into the airplane and less into the payload.
There's a good discussion of wing aspect ratio and the tradeoffs in this article.