Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Precision is a statistical term that can be quantified, either absolutely from data, or relatively as in "this method was more precise than that method".
Jim
So how did you like Middlebrook on this subject? I believe his books are the Gold Standard to which all historians should ascribe to attain.
Jim
I can understand that. I'd thought PFF operated on a visual basis, but definitely open to correction given my paucity of knowledge on their ops.
I can understand that. I'd thought PFF operated on a visual basis, but definitely open to correction given my paucity of knowledge on their ops.
So addressing the points made above, it wasn't entirely accurate, but it was damaging.
The book The Science of Bombing — Operational Research in RAF Bomber Command by Randall T. Wakelam (University of Toronto Press, 2009) might be worth a look. It explores the role which scientific examination played in shaping the tactics and techniques of bombing during the war. If you search for the title on Google Books, you should find a preview which shows a reasonable amount of the book, allowing any prospective buyer to get a good sense of what it contains.
Bomber Command used a variety of attack methods, some which required the target be sited visually, some not. The glossary of the book mentioned above offers definitions of the terms used for such methods (p.239–248). The examples reproduced below might be helpful
Shaker — Target identification technique using flares dropped by Gee-equipped aircraft and followed by a small force bombing by visual sighting which would drop incendiaries in order to mark the target with fires for the following main force.
Musical Paramatta — Target-marking technique. Method of groundmarking using coloured target indicators dropped blindly using Oboe.
H2S Paramatta — Target-marking technique. Similar to Musical Paramatta, but using H2S rather than Oboe. As such more primary markers could be dropped and these were used by backers up who aimed at the M[ean] P[oint of] I[mpact]. The Main Force then bombed the backers up marking and not the primary T[arget] I[ndicator]s.
Newhaven — Target-marking technique. Method of groundmarking using flares dropped blindly using H2S followed, when possible, by visual identification using coloured target indicators.
Musical Newhaven — Same as Newhaven but with initial proximity marking done by Oboe.
Wanganui — Target-marking technique; also called H2S skymarking. Similar to Oboe Skymarking (Musical Wanganui).
Musical Wanganui — Target-marking technique. Method of skymarking using coloured markers dropped blindly using Oboe.
G-H Formation — Daylight attack procedure where aircraft attacked in formation. Leading aircraft bombed using G-H and followers released bombs when the leaders' bombs were seen falling. Aircraft usually flew in elements of three with each leader using G-H. There was no requirement to see ground.
Oboe Formation — Daylight attack procedure where aircraft attacked in formation. Leading aircraft bombed using Oboe control and followers (usually not more than a dozen) released bombs when the leader's bombs were seen falling. No requirement to see ground.
8 Group Visual — Target-marking technique. Similar to controlled Oboe. Master bomber usually assessed Oboe marking and remarked the A[iming] P[oint] visually.
5 Group Visual — Target-marking technique. Flares and proximity marking followed by visual dive marking. These markers were offset by several hundred yards so that they were not obscured by smoke and dust; Main Force crews were given settings for their sights to allow for this.
Master Bomber — A technique first developed in 5 Group in which a designated officer would orbit the target area and issue, via radio telephone, adjustments to the raid order or specific corrections to arriving crews so that the bombing was as accurate as possible. Deputy master bombers were also assigned so that this control could be generally assured in case of the loss of the primary master bomber.
Controlled Oboe — Oboe-placed target markers were assessed by a master bomber who then directed the main force by radio and sometimes backed up the best-placed TIs with additional TIs of a different colour.
That statement can be applied to a lot of the strategic bombing operations during the war.
True, but what aspect of any war isn't? What is war if not bloody and full of death and destruction?The whole Allied bombing campaign is a long and bloody tale.
Hi,True, but what aspect of any war isn't? What is war if not bloody and full of death and destruction?
BTW, I'm not trying to be a dick to you, just making an observation.
Cheers.
If you watched the video in the first post, you would discover that the "somewhat pathetic title" to the post, is a quote from the video.Perhaps, as a counter to a somewhat pathetic title
Who said I didn't watch it?If you watched the video in the first post, you would discover that the "somewhat pathetic title" to the post, is a quote from the video.
To each their own - I found the context of the video's author legitimate and the title of the OP appropiate, since that was the core question of the video.Who said I didn't watch it?
It is a pathetic title. Just my opinion, of course.
Eng
It originally had the word "coward" pointing to the RAF crew member, changed quickly to a question mark. This is what masquerades as an "historian" now.As one of our Forum members mentioned, it's a click bait title. I personally think it's a stupid one.
There were 16 synthetic oil plants as well as refineries for crude oil in Germany. Bombing had been an on and off affair untilMy understanding is that Germany's aviation fuel in 1944 came mostly from its synthetic fuel refineries.
Uhmm i would like to see that in paper.Yes, but if you look at fuel consumption of a Kettenkrad and a ME262 you will see that fuel used to move the plane from bomb shelter to the runway was neglectable!
As one of our Forum members mentioned, it's a click bait title. I personally think it's a stupid one.
Jesus wept, the thread title is quoted from the video - watching from 0:00 to 3:22 leads up to that question with a contextual introduction, FFS.
Right, I'm not criticizing the thread's author or the video's producer, but rather the verbiage quoted in the video itself.
As in the YouTube comments to which the video was a response?