[Aircrafty]

Originally Posted by 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?

The British had two main bombsights. The Mark XIV (T1) introduced in August, 1942 with the PFF then issued to other squadrons. And the SABS Mk IIA precision bombsight introduced August, 1943 which was mainly used by 617 Sqd.

The Americans used the Norden and Sperry bombsights.

The Germans were aware of both designs and preferred their Lotfe bombsight.

It's hard to say which was the most accurate bombsight because of political considerations and different usage needs. As well as being rejected by the Germans, the Norden bombsight was rarely used by allied countries. It was found to be over sensitive to vibration, easily damaged and difficult to repair, and required a dedicated autopilot system.

But worst of all, Norden equiped aircraft needed to be flown at the same speed and altitude for some time whilst on a bombrun. Which understandably did not make the Norden popular with those that did not like to waste their crews.

In anycase, the accuracy of a bombsight is very dependant upon who uses it. And there are few that could argue that 617 squadron was not the most accurate squadron of any country. But every flier in WWII seems to think they were in the best squadron, so I could be wrong there

[jim]

Its worth remembering that Harris was not happy with 617s efforts in the early days and was very critical of them. However the squadron improved quickly and mastered the difficulties. By the end of the war they could hit just about anything they wanted to.

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

The British had two main bombsights. The Mark XIV (T1) introduced in August, 1942 with the PFF then issued to other squadrons. And the SABS Mk IIA precision bombsight introduced August, 1943 which was mainly used by 617 Sqd.

The Americans used the Norden and Sperry bombsights.


In anycase, the accuracy of a bombsight is very dependant upon who uses it. And there are few that could argue that 617 squadron was not the most accurate squadron of any country. But every flier in WWII seems to think they were in the best squadron, so I could be wrong there

[chiefs70]

Originally Posted by 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

Oh boy, am I late to come back to this thread, lol. I lost track.

I agree Aircrafty, my poorly stated point on the Norden wasn't that it was an "uber-weapon" rather it was viewed as such by the American's and proved to deliver less than expected results. I have read that it was often thought that only 10% of aircrews actually hit their targets accurately. With this in mind, my opinion is that precision daylight and night bombing was a failure on the "precision" aspect. Based on what I have read the RAF bomber crews were not well-received post 1944 due to the seemingly barbaric nature of their non-precision campaigns which, in the eyes of folks subjected to the propoganda, were not as successful as the American campaigns. In the end, neither method was more effective than the other but it has greatly influenced American military strategy today by implying that "precision" munitions can substitute for boots on the ground.

[Spitfire!]

A very enjoyable read guys. I love true discussions like this where no one takes offense or starts to become abusive. Bring 'em on!!
Oh yeah, I also have to add that I am constantly impressed with the level of knowledge by members of this forum. Well done.
Now where did I put my popcorn?

[Aircrafty]

Originally Posted by chiefs70

Oh boy, am I late to come back to this thread, lol. I lost track.

I agree Aircrafty, my poorly stated point on the Norden wasn't that it was an "uber-weapon" rather it was viewed as such by the American's and proved to deliver less than expected results. I have read that it was often thought that only 10% of aircrews actually hit their targets accurately. With this in mind, my opinion is that precision daylight and night bombing was a failure on the "precision" aspect. Based on what I have read the RAF bomber crews were not well-received post 1944 due to the seemingly barbaric nature of their non-precision campaigns which, in the eyes of folks subjected to the propoganda, were not as successful as the American campaigns. In the end, neither method was more effective than the other but it has greatly influenced American military strategy today by implying that "precision" munitions can substitute for boots on the ground.

I wish there were more people like you that base their opinion on facts rather than fallacies such as that from the entertainment media like the "Memphis Belle" movie and the "Twelve O'Clock High" TV serial

In 1943 the Allies agreed on Operation Pointblank which involved the USAAF and the RAF concentrating their efforts on German aircraft and Oil industry targets rather than urban areas. The only difference being that the USAAF concentrated on daylight raids and the Commonwealth Airforces continued their attacks by night.

Despite this, it is a common held belief by many people that the RAF never shifted from their concentration on German cities. Yet when I checked the 22 combat operations my father completed with 460 Sqd (mainly RAAF) and 156 Sqd (RAF Pathfinder) from late 1944 to wars end. Only six were against 'city' targets such as Berlin. And even then the aiming points were industrial factories rather than random residential areas.

The remainder are 'Oil' targets, such as Leuna/Mersberg, Zeitz, Bottrop, Gelesenkirchen, and other military targets such as troop concentrations and shipping (the 'Admiral Scheer' being capsised and 'Admiral Hipper' and 'Emden' being damaged on one Kiel Canal raid).

[bsmith13]

Originally Posted by chiefs70

Based on what I have read the RAF bomber crews were not well-received post 1944 due to the seemingly barbaric nature of their non-precision campaigns which, in the eyes of folks subjected to the propoganda, were not as successful as the American campaigns.

I will once again protest the use of the word "propaganda", as in my mind, it denotes deliberate twisting of a few facts or outright lies to achieve a political end. I believe that american misconceptions about the nighttime RAF bombings are more unintentional buffoonery rather than malicious smear campaigns. That's just my interpretation of "propaganda", though...

Originally Posted by chiefs70

In the end, neither method was more effective than the other but it has greatly influenced American military strategy today by implying that "precision" munitions can substitute for boots on the ground.

Chief, do I correctly deduce that you don't think the precision munitions can substitute for boots on the ground? I sort of agree with you, but I think the virtues and efficacy of either method actually lie somewhere between the polar opposites preached by evangelists of the two methods.

One of the challenges faced by military air power visionaries from 1920-1950 is that they saw potential where there was not yet any technology to back up their vision. Today's PGM (or precision guided munitions) finally realize the vision of accuracy hoped for by these men. Now we are faced with a situation where we have to play catch-up, and figure out the best way to employ technology that we only ever dreamed about.

Airpower is still a sledge hammer. It's a very accurate sledge hammer, but it is a sledge hammer none the less. Under the right circumstances I believe that airpower, by utilizing PGM, can reduce the number of boots that are required on the ground. However, in order for airpower to be employed in a war-winning role, a few preconditions need to exist.

1. The political will employing the airpower must be united in their goals. This was not the case during the Kosovo Campaign.
2. The military power in command of the air component must understand the capabilities and limitations of airpower.
3. The correct "centers of gravity" need to be identified and targeted. This is much easier in a conventional war than in a guerilla war or a terrorist hunt.

If you ignored all the rest of this and skipped to the end ( ), I think that precision guided munitions, when employed properly, can decrease (but not eliminate) the need for boots on the ground.

Counterpoint?

[chiefs70]

Ugh, I just used the spell check function and it dumped everything I typed. Not that it was a great loss to humanity but... so I'll try to rehash it without mutilating my thoughts.

Firstly, as far as the term propaganda I didn't mean it in the spirit of deliberate mistruth for nefarious purposes rather I meant it more in terms of placing weight on the facts which best support the idea you wish to emphasize. However, I have turned off the English and Philosophy minor part of my addled mind and agree that most folks define it as the dishonest definition so I'll choose another word next time as that is not what I wanted to imply.

I am certainly not as well educated as you on the strategic and tactical mindset of the military today but I would agree completely with your three points. I think today's PGMs are finally at the point where they truly can reduce the number of soldiers needed. However, I think the belief in precision bombing fostered during and just after WW II had the most negative affect on how we fought thereafter. As you stated, it is not well suited to unconventional war and that is type of warfare we have been engaged in since WW II. I think the belief in precision bombing/airpower is most misunderstood by the public at large and has made them believe that all you need is air supremacy and you will win the day. Gulf War I seemed to reinforce that belief and many thought Gulf War II would be the same and it may have added to the elevated expectations the public had that the conflict would be quickly won by overwhelming force and technology and then our troops would all come home quickly.

I don't have a huge disagreement with the idea of precision bombing today but I do believe it was misrepresented - with the best of intentions perhaps -as it pertains to WWII. I was quite amazed at some of what I have read regarding the feelings of the British public towards the Americans vs their own British bomber crews in the late war period. Americans were held in high regard while many felt the British were murderers and committing atrocities by bombing Dresden, etc and even today these men (of bomber command) are not given the credit they are due and prefer to keep a low profile (correct me if I am wrong Aircrafty). To both of their credit, however, the allied troops - as the men doing the real work always seem to do - continued to work together and not point fingers.

My view is skewed towards the ground troops mostly because that is where my family and friends have always served - save my brother who was a crew chief on Chinooks. However, I absolutely agree that it is the proper use of both which leads to success. I simply feel that the media - then and now -focused a lot of attention on airpower which has deluded many into believing that it is the final arbiter of victory. In the end, it is the Queen of the Battlefield that will need to be present in some strength to hold the gains that airpower can help deliver.

I apologize if this was a bit disjointed. I can tell you the bit I wrote before was inspired, poetic and perhaps the greatest op-ed piece ever written on the subject. I was trying to reconstruct my thoughts while "working" but these people keep annoying me with tasks they seem to think I am paid to perform.

Thanks for the great information and helping me learn a bit more every day.

Happy New Year, gents.

[timbo]

Wonderful thread to start the new year - Thanks guys.

[timbo]

Originally Posted by bsmith13

If you ignored all the rest of this and skipped to the end ( ), I think that precision guided munitions, when employed properly, can decrease (but not eliminate) the need for boots on the ground.

Counterpoint?

Hasn't this been pretty much disproved by the execution of the initial invasion in Iraq?? In my humble and laymans view (ie I'm not a professional in this field) we didn't put enough boot on the ground to follow-up and get the job done properly. A Cruse missile or LGB can't followup and secure a valuble location. That can only be done on the ground.

[Martin Baker]

A good read about ww2 bombing is Beam bombers by michael Cumming , witch tell the story of the oboe bombing system
The oboe system used radio beam to mark the target in all weathers
Going by the book oboe was the most accurate way of bombing in WW2