[chiefs70]

A well-reasoned argument on this post... great fun.

As for my $.02 - I don't feel the definition of precision bombing relies on radar signals etc. I interpret said innovations as navigational aides. The "precision" aspect of the American bomber offensive relies on the Norden bombsight which was developed and closely guarded for this purpose. In my humble opinion, using triangulation via radar signals is no more a tool of precision bombing, and perhaps less, than using barometric variations to direct counter-battery fire in today's artillery units. Can we really call this "precision" bombing? After all, is it truly a great technological leap from the Mosquitos and Lancs dropping incendiaries? To me, the failed, yes I mean FAILED because it did not deliver as anticipated, attempt to precision bomb German industry by the Americans was a different strategy due to the fact the German radar signals and British Pathfinders tried to guide a formation to a particular location while the Americans tried to focus on a granular target via the bombsight. Both the Americans and British air forces tried to accomplish the same mission through different means - the British tried to saturate the target area to destroy the workforce and industry while the Americans tried to pinpoint the industry (not to spare humanity but to be more efficient - fact, not opinon. Neither is more humane than the other because war is anything but civilized regardless of the motivation.

As I mentioned in my earlier post the book Tail-End Charlies is a great place to start in your examination of the subject. Both the Brits and the Yanks had ideas which had merit and drawbacks to prosecuting the airwar and, in the end, broke the back of the Luftwaffe. We stretched their resources and composed the 1 - 2 punch that knocked them out when it mattered. Today the legacy is still seen in American doctrine and provides a lesson to be scrutinized closely.

Thank you for starting the thread Bsmith. I am grabbing my cover and digging in for return fire.

Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah - or otherwise - to all of you. I truly appreciate the great conversation you all bring to the forum.
Eric

[bsmith13]

Hi Aircrafty,

Interesting to hear my professional military education called "propaganda", especially when my instructors have told me that I too easily see both sides of things. I know that I am long-winded, but I seem to lack the talent to say what I mean in this instance.

I have never said that Germany did not possess any precision-bombing capability. What I have tried to express is that Germany had no coherent leadership aparatus (leadership or doctrine) for employing aerial bombing in a way that would directly attack allied infrastructure. The attack of infrastructure is what I have, in all my previous posts, referred to as "Strategic Bombing". Precision bombing has perforce been dragged into the conversation because the two have become closer as technology has improved.

I completely agree that Germans had superior equipment, and not just radar. Their airplanes, tanks, submarines etc ad infinitum ad nauseum were very technologically advanced over most of the things that the Allies could field. What Germany lacked was the ability to close the deal by matching an outstanding weapon system with the most efficient way to use it. From an Allied point of view, this was a godsend. Hitler's compulsion to influence practically every aspect of the war prevented his "Chiefs of Staff" (I forget the german term) from developing useful doctrine for these amazing weapons.

[Aircrafty]

Brace yourself Chief

The Norden Bombsight was designed before the war and the Germans had the design but did not bother to use it. The main problem being that it was designed to operate at the slow speeds of naval aircraft such as the Catalina and at mid to low altitudes. There were adjustments made in an attempt to counteract these shortcomings for high altitude use but these were largely ineffective. It not being insulated from the aircrafts movement did not help.

The Norden Bombsight was by the late 1940's covered under one of the lowest official security classifications. And it was only the hype, and dare I say BS, from the Norden people that made it the legend it became. Thus it came to overshadow the Sperry A5 bombsight which was far superior and actually was covered by an official 'Top Secret' designation

[Aircrafty]

Originally Posted by bsmith13

Hi Aircrafty,

Interesting to hear my professional military education called "propaganda", especially when my instructors have told me that I too easily see both sides of things. I know that I am long-winded, but I seem to lack the talent to say what I mean in this instance.

I have never said that Germany did not possess any precision-bombing capability. What I have tried to express is that Germany had no coherent leadership aparatus (leadership or doctrine) for employing aerial bombing in a way that would directly attack allied infrastructure. The attack of infrastructure is what I have, in all my previous posts, referred to as "Strategic Bombing". Precision bombing has perforce been dragged into the conversation because the two have become closer as technology has improved.

I completely agree that Germans had superior equipment, and not just radar. Their airplanes, tanks, submarines etc ad infinitum ad nauseum were very technologically advanced over most of the things that the Allies could field. What Germany lacked was the ability to close the deal by matching an outstanding weapon system with the most efficient way to use it. From an Allied point of view, this was a godsend. Hitler's compulsion to influence practically every aspect of the war prevented his "Chiefs of Staff" (I forget the german term) from developing useful doctrine for these amazing weapons.

I agree, we are very lucky that despite the German people having a reputation for organisation their military research during WWII was very splintered and results were closely guarded by the hundreds of different scientists and rarely shared with others - so lets drink to that

In hindsight my use of the term propaganda is best replaced by 'somewhat biased', and I'm pleased you like to see both sides as I feel the British scientists made good use of that idea during the war

[jim]

[flyXwire]

Originally Posted by jim

My exact sentiments on the subject.

[Hoverbug]

Originally Posted by chiefs70

A well-reasoned argument on this post... great fun.

As for my $.02 - I don't feel the definition of precision bombing relies on radar signals etc. I interpret said innovations as navigational aides. The "precision" aspect of the American bomber offensive relies on the Norden bombsight which was developed and closely guarded for this purpose. In my humble opinion, using triangulation via radar signals is no more a tool of precision bombing, and perhaps less, than using barometric variations to direct counter-battery fire in today's artillery units. Can we really call this "precision" bombing? After all, is it truly a great technological leap from the Mosquitos and Lancs dropping incendiaries? To me, the failed, yes I mean FAILED because it did not deliver as anticipated, attempt to precision bomb German industry by the Americans was a different strategy due to the fact the German radar signals and British Pathfinders tried to guide a formation to a particular location while the Americans tried to focus on a granular target via the bombsight. Both the Americans and British air forces tried to accomplish the same mission through different means - the British tried to saturate the target area to destroy the workforce and industry while the Americans tried to pinpoint the industry (not to spare humanity but to be more efficient - fact, not opinon. Neither is more humane than the other because war is anything but civilized regardless of the motivation.

As I mentioned in my earlier post the book Tail-End Charlies is a great place to start in your examination of the subject. Both the Brits and the Yanks had ideas which had merit and drawbacks to prosecuting the airwar and, in the end, broke the back of the Luftwaffe. We stretched their resources and composed the 1 - 2 punch that knocked them out when it mattered. Today the legacy is still seen in American doctrine and provides a lesson to be scrutinized closely.

Thank you for starting the thread Bsmith. I am grabbing my cover and digging in for return fire.

Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah - or otherwise - to all of you. I truly appreciate the great conversation you all bring to the forum.
Eric

Radar bombing during WWII is often misunderstood. The previous commentary on the profeciency of German systems did not apply to this field. Whereas, Germany largely kept pace in the field of fire control and airborne intercept radar, in the field of navigational and bombing radar it was far behind.

It is fair to say that for much of the war, radar was indeed a navigational rather than blind bombing system. However, by the last months of 1944 this had changed. Though the 8th AF was encountering some of the worst operational conditions it had yet encountered as far as weather, its accuracy, bombs dropped, and rate of aborts all improved. Why? The answer is improvements in blind bombing technology. Though the 8th was still using the same H2X (AN/APS-15) radar systems, it was now using them in conjunction with ranging beacon systems known as Gee-H and Micro-H. This dropped the CEP from about a mile on radar (about three times as bad as bombing visually) to less than half a mile and put radar bombing on the same plane (so to speak) as visual bombing as far as precision went. This allowed extensive operations, even in the horrendous weather of December 1944 that was giving cover to German operations in the Ardennes.

The last months of saw deployment of even more sophisticated bombing systems to Japan, such as the APQ-23 and "Eagle" which in just a very short period of operational use, nearly eliminated Japan's remianing petroleum reserves and refining capacity. SHORAN, which was used extensively in Korea for blind bombing was also available and would have been critical in an invasion of Japan.

Would not having bombing radars changed the course of the war? No, but it unquestionably allowed the operational tempo to be maintained in at crticical points in the war. Rather than giving the Germans a breather during the "Bulge" we were able to keep the pressuere on lines of communication and strategic targets. In Japan, it allowed a sustained escalation, so that Japan's internal lines of communication and strategic reserves were useless.

[Captain Eddie]

I heartily agree with flyXwire and jim! Great posts all!Enjoying the reading of them.

[Aircrafty]

British bombers also had fancy bombsights but of course optical sighting is somewhat limited at night and in overcast conditions. Therefore it could be argued that the extensive use of radar by the British-Commonwealth forces was influenced by the reduced visibility resulting from their mainly night time bombing.

[bsmith13]

Thanks to all of you for your suggestions for reading material - now I have someplace to spend my Christmas mad money (though the diecast collection will suffer because of it).



I read recently about the bomb site used by 617 Squadron for delivery of Grand Slams. It was gyro based and extremely accurate (accurate enough to hit a stationary battleship, anyway!). Can any of you RAF Bombing experts tell me how it was different than the standard RAF bomb site?