Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
People are funny things, the most scientific of people will make assumptions with no factual base to make them. If the people designing the Norden bomb sight considered what the worlds weather actually is at 25-30,000 ft everywhere in the world, not just the bombing ranges where US bombers were tried out, history may have been different. The world had known about high altitude air currents since Krakatoa exploded in1883 but not everyone was paying attention to what it meant.We need an insightfull award. I never would have thought of the B-29 performing the role of a "Big, Fast Mosquito". You're right.
I cant say it happens all the time, but some times I can look up and the clouds at low level go in one direction while those at high level go in another sometimes completely opposite direction, its hard to believe no one in UK took this into account, or thought it stopped at night for some "Harry Potter" type reason, but they did.Need another insightful.
Looks like Carl Rossby was paying attention to this:I cant say it happens all the time, but some times I can look up and the clouds at low level go in one direction while those at high level go in another sometimes completely opposite direction, its hard to believe no one in UK took this into account, or thought it stopped at night for some "Harry Potter" type reason, but they did.
An interesting and informative link. It is no surprise to me that he was born in Sweden, not on the North American continent. From the link, things started to happen in academia in 1940, but it takes time for academic research to get embedded in common thought. I was only half joking about the Americans developing a British obsession with the weather in post #275 in Europe it has to be an obsession, one use that wasn't foreseen in 1940 military thinking wasLooks like Carl Rossby was paying attention to this:
The World War II-era Chicago school of meteorology that decoded weather forecasting.
It was American meteorologist James Stagg observing in Canada, Greenland, and Iceland who predicted the D-Day June 6 opening, the Germans did not think the weather would break and went to bed.An interesting and informative link. It is no surprise to me that he was born in Sweden, not on the North American continent. From the link, things started to happen in academia in 1940, but it takes time for academic research to get embedded in common thought. I was only half joking about the Americans developing a British obsession with the weather in post #275 in Europe it has to be an obsession, one use that wasn't foreseen in 1940 military thinking was
meteorological measurement, possibly the most boring aspect of a military group but absolutely vital.
Was James Stagg American through drinking Budweiser or eating Big Macs? James Stagg - Wikipedia He was as British as Connery playing James Bond.It was American meteorologist James Stagg observing in Canada, Greenland, and Iceland who predicted the D-Day June 6 opening, the Germans did not think the weather would break and went to bed.
The Weather Forecast That Saved D-Day
SHAEFWas James Stagg American through drinking Budweiser or eating Big Macs? James Stagg - Wikipedia He was as British as Connery playing James Bond.
If you post a link you should at least read it yourself, your link specifically states he is British, how did you, as an historian and teacher ever think he wasn't?SHAEF
One thing a teacher always encourages, even rewards, is for students to correct errors immediately.If you post a link you should at least read it yourself, your link specifically states he is British, how did you, as an historian and teacher ever think he wasn't?
The American meteorologists, relying on a differing forecasting method based on historic weather maps, instead believed that a wedge of high pressure would deflect the advancing storm front and provide clear, sunny skies over the English Channel.
View attachment 623259
Group Captain James Stagg
In the early hours of June 4, Stagg believed foul weather was only hours away. He sided with his fellow British colleagues and recommended a postponement. Knowing that the weather held the potential to be an even fiercer foe than the Nazis, a reluctant Eisenhower agreed in the early hours of June 4 to delay D-Day by 24 hours."
My bold
If I`ve interpreted you correctly, I`m not very sure about your first point, there were debates in the British Parliament during the war itself on the whole topic of if it was morally tenable to bomb civilian areas, this is not a new area of debate which was only explored by modern novelists and anti-war activists. Some of those very much against the whole idea on a logical basis included Sir Henry Tizard, Churchills chief scientific advisor. (his main argument was more orientated towards the fact he believed such bombing didn't achieve the results that the resources put into it justified, in these discussions Tizard (with a level of irony off the charts) was opposed by Lindemann, who was a friend of Churchill - who was born in Baden-Baden, Germany- of all places...).
Some details of this are available to read about here:
When Does Personality Make a Difference? Lord Cherwell and the Area Bombing of Germany on JSTOR
"Frederick Lindemann", somewhat amusingly, was 'redesignated' as "Lord Cherwell" in 1941. Sucessfully obfuscating his birth history, (oops did I say that?)
Much of what you posted here has not been heretofore available to me, steeped on Caidin and Jablonski as I am. But I do maintain part of my argument is still valid, that which suggests that decisions made then on who and what to bomb yet reverberate as our procurement procedures which are heavily criticized. My objective is to make at least part of this process accessible to students and you don't do that by suggesting they search archives. They have to have motivation, and an unresolved argument that may apply to a current political reality just might do that.Hi Donald,
One last try before I give up on you.
Please, as a teacher, you must understand the differences between secondary sources and primary research.
Second, stop confusing strategic bombing with tactical bombing. You talk about Mosquito bombers taking out Crossbow sites - NO MOSQUITO BOMBERS ATTACKED V-1 SITES! The aircraft were Mosquito fighter bombers, which trained for and excelled at tactical missions. More FB.VIs were built than any other variant. However, FB.VIs didn't attack strategic targets.
The Eighth Air Force did a terrible job against tactical targets - they concentrated on, and trained for, strategic objectives. Their record against tactical targets was so poor that Eisenhower took away their tactical aircraft (A-20s and B-26s) and created the Ninth Air Force to improve tactical support prior to Overlord. And the B-25s were all RAF aircraft - again, none of the tactical bombers performed long-range daylight strategic missions.
You have a point of view, an opinion, that you'd like us to recognize and accept. But your point of view is not based on a solid study of the evidence - you shouldn't be surprised that so many disagree with you. Sit down with Craven and Cate for a month and get a better, albeit secondary, understanding of the AAF's air war from 1941-45.
Cheers,
Dana
The entire reason to study this or any other historical topic is to analyze human behavior and that of those we allow to control us. This morality play looms large in the current Israeli-Palestinian conflagration as civilian casualties are inevitable from Israeli air strikes. Does the bombing actually reduce the threat or is it merely a punishment for those who dare test Israeli authority? Can decision-making of this nature be traced directly to an authoritarian (British) tradition?That was fascinating - thanks for digging that up. Knowing more of the back story is a big help to understanding why decisions were made.
In light of that, I acknowledge that there was a debate about area bombing back then, but the pro-area bombing side still won the debate for several years. That debate would never happen today - there would be no question that bombing civilians would be immoral. Now we know that it didn't destroy morale (far from it) and didn't bring industrial production to a halt - and it might never have, no matter how it was conducted. About the only thing that area bombing accomplished was to force the German fighters into the skies, where they could be shot down, preventing them from being used to defend against the ground campaign. Now we can debate whether that was worth the civilian lives lost, whether there was another way of gutting the Luftwaffe, or whether those responsible for the strategy would be heroes or criminals today - but our judgement is suspect, since we're not being bombed, our way of life is not being threatened, and a generation of our young men and women is not being called up to be sent off to war.
The bombing did cripple the German's ability to wage war. Many completed fighters never made it to the front (countless more were destroyed on the assembly line), fuel and rubber production was disrupted to the point that the Luftwaffe had to limit pilot training, further degrading their quality as well as crippling Luftwaffe CAP flights, transport of critical materials and so on.and didn't bring industrial production to a halt
Please refrain from this subject matter, especially now - the form rules prohibits political discussions.This morality play looms large in the current Israeli-Palestinian conflagration as civilian casualties are inevitable from Israeli air strikes. Does the bombing actually reduce the threat or is it merely a punishment for those who dare test Israeli authority?
Okay, but I'm not making the argument, only pointing out how it relates.Please refrain from this subject matter, especially now - the form rules prohibits political discussions.
all goodOkay, but I'm not making the argument, only pointing out how it relates.
The USAAF requested the use of OBOE and GEE-H, so it can't have all been bad!
View attachment 623187
That was provided to me by the late Edgar Brooks some years ago.
These were mostly used for target marking by Mosquitoes. The main bomber force would then aim for, or between, those markers.
As I understand it, OBOE and GEE-H had accuracy comparable to daylight visual aiming.
The limitation with these systems vs visual aiming was range. Though the British did experiment with a repeater aircraft to extend the range.
The external tanks normally used were 50UKG.
The calculations I made years ago were based on a Mk.IV with 4 x 500lb bombs.
At 6,000ft the Mk.IV was capable of 340mph at 9psi boost, 95% of maximum load, fitted with ejector exhausts but without wing tanks.
I don't have enough information to answer that, other than it was at least to Berlin - around 600 miles radius.
I don't have any performance numbers for the B.XVI, but the B.IX was similar had had a speed of around 345mph @ 5,000ft with two 500lb bombs under the wing at 95% of take-off weight, with +18psi boost. With +21 psi boost the top speed jumps to 365mph.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/lr495-b-level.jpg
If a low altitude mission was deemed the best, the high altitude 70 series Merlins could have been replaced by the mid-altitude Merlin 66s, equivalent to the V-1650-7.