London air space simulated ;-)

http://www.tomscott.com/olympics/

Cheers
Adam

In article
,
Adam Aglionby writes
London air space simulated ;-)

http://www.tomscott.com/olympics/

Fookin brilliant!

Terrorists foiled: 0
Civilians killed: 3080

Play while you can, this will be pulled in no time.
--
fred
it's a ba-na-na . . . .

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 May 2012 04:27:38 -0700 (PDT), Adam Aglionby
wrote:

London air space simulated ;-)

http://www.tomscott.com/olympics/

Use of Olympics infringes copyright.

Many of the V1s shot down by anti aircraft guns fell on houses killing
the occupants.
--
I agree this is not often mentioned, as one who lived on the outskirts of
Maidstone for the whole of the second world war. I speak from experience.
Even with the films of aerial combat you never see a shot down plane crash
into a house.
Robbie
Martin

Adam Aglionby wrote:

London air space simulated ;-)

http://www.tomscott.com/olympics/

Cheers
Adam

Fecking genius

--
Tim Watts

Martin wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2012 04:27:38 -0700 (PDT), Adam Aglionby
wrote:

London air space simulated ;-)

http://www.tomscott.com/olympics/

Use of Olympics infringes copyright.

Many of the V1s shot down by anti aircraft guns fell on houses killing
the occupants.

Unlikely as they normally blew up when they got a proximity fused shell
detonating nearby.

barrage balloons and fighters 'tipping' them were more likely to see
them go bang on the ground.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On 18/05/2012 13:39, Roberts wrote:

Many of the V1s shot down by anti aircraft guns fell on houses killing
the occupants.

I agree this is not often mentioned, as one who lived on the outskirts of
Maidstone for the whole of the second world war. I speak from experience.
Even with the films of aerial combat you never see a shot down plane crash
into a house.
Robbie

I did wonder about that. I also wondered about all the lead bits flying
through the air - where did they go? (down, obviously, but they're never
mentioned).

Clive George wrote:
On 18/05/2012 13:39, Roberts wrote:

Many of the V1s shot down by anti aircraft guns fell on houses killing
the occupants.

I agree this is not often mentioned, as one who lived on the outskirts of
Maidstone for the whole of the second world war. I speak from experience.
Even with the films of aerial combat you never see a shot down plane
crash
into a house.
Robbie

I did wonder about that. I also wondered about all the lead bits flying
through the air - where did they go? (down, obviously, but they're never
mentioned).

well shrapnel obviously did kill people: but no one was counting whose
it was. Blame it on Jerry every time.

Largely planes were NOT engaged over London, but over more rural areas.

statistically the chances of a plane landing on a house are quite slim
BUT of course AA gunnery probably did bring planes down over and into
London, but at night, it might as well have been a german bomb anyway.


You dint tell people 'sorry, your mom got killed by a british/german
aircraft landing on her head as a result of friednly/hostile fire
bringing it down'

Also firing bullets into the air does mean you have no idea where one
ends up. I'd imagine a 303 caliber M/G round is lethal at several miles

But by and large most stuff that blows up aloft comes down fairly slowly.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On 18/05/2012 13:46, Clive George wrote:
On 18/05/2012 13:39, Roberts wrote:

Many of the V1s shot down by anti aircraft guns fell on houses killing
the occupants.

I agree this is not often mentioned, as one who lived on the outskirts of
Maidstone for the whole of the second world war. I speak from experience.
Even with the films of aerial combat you never see a shot down plane
crash
into a house.

It didn't happen that often. If the pilot was alive, he would try to set
down on open ground and even if the aircraft was simply falling from the
sky, even in a densely populated area it would be more likely to hit
open ground than a house. V1s were a different matter, as they carried a
very large warhead and, unlike bombs still in a bomber, it would be
armed when it hit.

In any case, the majority of enemy aircraft were shot down by fighters,
who mostly operated over the Channel and open countryside.

I did wonder about that. I also wondered about all the lead bits flying
through the air - where did they go? (down, obviously, but they're never
mentioned).

Why do you think Air Raid Wardens, Home Guard and Police, who had to be
outside when raids were on, wore steel helmets?

Colin Bignell

On 18/05/2012 13:00, fred wrote:
In article
,
Adam Aglionby writes
London air space simulated ;-)

http://www.tomscott.com/olympics/

Fookin brilliant!

Terrorists foiled: 0
Civilians killed: 3080

Only 3080? You're not trying hard enough.

Colin Bignell

On 18/05/2012 14:15, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
....
statistically the chances of a plane landing on a house are quite slim
BUT of course AA gunnery probably did bring planes down over and into
London, but at night,

Although their main job was not to shoot aircraft down, but to make
accurate bombing difficult and to discourage bombers from entering the
defended zone. A Ministry of Information booklet on air defence claimed
that up to half the bomber force in any attack on London would turn back
before entering the AA zone.

Colin Bignell

On 18/05/2012 15:12, Martin wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2012 13:39:06 +0100, wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 May 2012 04:27:38 -0700 (PDT), Adam Aglionby
wrote:

London air space simulated ;-)

http://www.tomscott.com/olympics/

Use of Olympics infringes copyright.

Many of the V1s shot down by anti aircraft guns fell on houses killing
the occupants.
--
I agree this is not often mentioned, as one who lived on the outskirts of
Maidstone for the whole of the second world war. I speak from experience.
Even with the films of aerial combat you never see a shot down plane crash
into a house.

I found a book, in a binaries e-book group about V1s that is full of
photos of V1s that were shot down, that fell on houses.
They were shot down mainly by mainly by anti aircraft fire. Others
were brought down by barrage balloons.
I didn't know that the V1s were air launched from Heinkel bombers
over the North Sea, after all the launching ramps had been destroyed.

The book is Air Launched Doodlebus, the forgotten campaign, by Peter J
Smith published in 2006.

I was under the impression that the air launched versions were developed
to allow them to attack targets out of range of the land based launchers.

Manned V1s were also built, although never used. The pilot was provided
with an ejector seat, although it probably didn't improve the chances of
survival that much.

Colin Bignell

Nightjar wrote:
On 18/05/2012 13:46, Clive George wrote:
On 18/05/2012 13:39, Roberts wrote:

Many of the V1s shot down by anti aircraft guns fell on houses killing
the occupants.

I agree this is not often mentioned, as one who lived on the
outskirts of
Maidstone for the whole of the second world war. I speak from
experience.
Even with the films of aerial combat you never see a shot down plane
crash
into a house.

It didn't happen that often. If the pilot was alive, he would try to set
down on open ground and even if the aircraft was simply falling from the
sky, even in a densely populated area it would be more likely to hit
open ground than a house. V1s were a different matter, as they carried a
very large warhead and, unlike bombs still in a bomber, it would be
armed when it hit.

In any case, the majority of enemy aircraft were shot down by fighters,
who mostly operated over the Channel and open countryside.

I did wonder about that. I also wondered about all the lead bits flying
through the air - where did they go? (down, obviously, but they're never
mentioned).

Why do you think Air Raid Wardens, Home Guard and Police, who had to be
outside when raids were on, wore steel helmets?


To protect themselves from falling buildings and/or pigeon ****?


Colin Bignell


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Nightjar wrote:
On 18/05/2012 14:15, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...
statistically the chances of a plane landing on a house are quite slim
BUT of course AA gunnery probably did bring planes down over and into
London, but at night,

Although their main job was not to shoot aircraft down, but to make
accurate bombing difficult and to discourage bombers from entering the
defended zone.

What utter ******** you do talk.

A Ministry of Information booklet on air defence claimed
that up to half the bomber force in any attack on London would turn back
before entering the AA zone.


Minstry of propaganda as it was later known...

Colin Bignell


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On 18/05/2012 15:16, Martin wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2012 14:51:46 +0100, Nightjar
wrote:

On 18/05/2012 14:15, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...
statistically the chances of a plane landing on a house are quite slim
BUT of course AA gunnery probably did bring planes down over and into
London, but at night,

Although their main job was not to shoot aircraft down, but to make
accurate bombing difficult and to discourage bombers from entering the
defended zone. A Ministry of Information booklet on air defence claimed
that up to half the bomber force in any attack on London would turn back
before entering the AA zone.

AA was specifically located in "boxes" along the east coast as far
north as Bridlington to bring down V1s. They were very successful at
it.

That was a different and later campaign. Bombers raids on Britain were
mainly in the first couple of years of the war, with casualties of
54,206 in 1940 and 42,722 in 1941, which dropped to 7,387 in 1942 and
5,822 in 1943. The V weapons increased them to 30,499 in 1944.

Colin Bignell

Nightjar wrote:
On 18/05/2012 15:12, Martin wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2012 13:39:06 +0100, wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 May 2012 04:27:38 -0700 (PDT), Adam Aglionby
wrote:

London air space simulated ;-)

http://www.tomscott.com/olympics/

Use of Olympics infringes copyright.

Many of the V1s shot down by anti aircraft guns fell on houses killing
the occupants.
--
I agree this is not often mentioned, as one who lived on the
outskirts of
Maidstone for the whole of the second world war. I speak from
experience.
Even with the films of aerial combat you never see a shot down plane
crash
into a house.

I found a book, in a binaries e-book group about V1s that is full of
photos of V1s that were shot down, that fell on houses.
They were shot down mainly by mainly by anti aircraft fire. Others
were brought down by barrage balloons.
I didn't know that the V1s were air launched from Heinkel bombers
over the North Sea, after all the launching ramps had been destroyed.

The book is Air Launched Doodlebus, the forgotten campaign, by Peter J
Smith published in 2006.

I was under the impression that the air launched versions were developed
to allow them to attack targets out of range of the land based launchers.

Manned V1s were also built, although never used.

At least one was flown IIRC by a female test pilot to help solve
stability issues.

Ah Hannah Reitsch:

"Seventy of the V-1s equipped with cockpits for piloted flight were
ordered, to be built by Fieseler and designated as the Fi-103
Reichenberg. This manned version of the V-1 proved easy to fly but
glided like a brick and was tricky to land on its skid because of its
very high landing speed and tendency to ground-loop.

One factor that caused problems with the V-1 as a cruise missile was
related to vibrations imparted to the airframe by its power plant. The
pulse-jet engine developed thrust through very closely placed machine
gun-like explosions, thus the nickname 'buzz bomb.' In the course of
test flights, Reitsch was able to identify this problem, and she may
also have contributed to improving the V-1's accuracy.

In the Fi-103 test plane, the cockpit was directly in front of the
engine intake. It was assumed that in the event of an emergency during
test flights, the pilot would be able to open the canopy and bail out.
In point of fact, it is more than likely that the exiting pilot could
not survive if the engine was running. Two of the seven Fi-103
instructors were killed, and four were injured. Reitsch was the only one
of the group to survive the test program without injury."


The pilot was provided
with an ejector seat, although it probably didn't improve the chances of
survival that much.



Indeed.



Colin Bignell


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On 18/05/2012 15:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
....
Why do you think Air Raid Wardens, Home Guard and Police, who had to
be outside when raids were on, wore steel helmets?


To protect themselves from falling buildings and/or pigeon ****?

I rather doubt that any helmet is much use against a falling building,
but steel helmets did the same job in WW2 as they were introduced for in
WW1: to protect from shrapnel from air-burst shells, although in WW2 it
was our shells, not the enemy's.

Colin Bignell

On 18/05/2012 15:53, Nightjar wrote:

That was a different and later campaign. Bombers raids on Britain were
mainly in the first couple of years of the war, with casualties of
54,206 in 1940 and 42,722 in 1941, which dropped to 7,387 in 1942 and
5,822 in 1943. The V weapons increased them to 30,499 in 1944.

That's news to me - pretty effective then. Impressed.

On 18/05/2012 15:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 18/05/2012 14:15, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...
statistically the chances of a plane landing on a house are quite slim
BUT of course AA gunnery probably did bring planes down over and into
London, but at night,

Although their main job was not to shoot aircraft down, but to make
accurate bombing difficult and to discourage bombers from entering the
defended zone.

What utter ******** you do talk.

You only need to read a few of the documents from the time to know that
was the job they were expected to do, with shooting down aircraft being
seen as a happy bonus. In September 1940, it took around 20,000 shells
to down one aircraft. Fighters were far more effective at bringing enemy
aircraft down.

Colin Bignell

Roberts wrote:
I agree this is not often mentioned, as one who lived on the outskirts of
Maidstone for the whole of the second world war. I speak from experience.
Even with the films of aerial combat you never see a shot down plane crash
into a house.

There's that missing scene from the end of Return of the Jedi
where bits of burning deathstar plummet out of the sky and
leave Endor a devasted wasteland.

JGH

On 18/05/2012 17:24, Martin wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2012 15:53:47 +0100, Nightjar
wrote:

On 18/05/2012 15:16, Martin wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2012 14:51:46 +0100, Nightjar
wrote:

On 18/05/2012 14:15, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...
statistically the chances of a plane landing on a house are quite slim
BUT of course AA gunnery probably did bring planes down over and into
London, but at night,

Although their main job was not to shoot aircraft down, but to make
accurate bombing difficult and to discourage bombers from entering the
defended zone. A Ministry of Information booklet on air defence claimed
that up to half the bomber force in any attack on London would turn back
before entering the AA zone.

AA was specifically located in "boxes" along the east coast as far
north as Bridlington to bring down V1s. They were very successful at
it.

That was a different and later campaign. Bombers raids on Britain were
mainly in the first couple of years of the war, with casualties of
54,206 in 1940 and 42,722 in 1941, which dropped to 7,387 in 1942 and
5,822 in 1943. The V weapons increased them to 30,499 in 1944.

I started this thread with V1s. I never mentioned bombers.

Did I say you had? Threads develop and change, particularly on this
group, and this one had moved onto aircraft falling on houses, which
would mainly have been a problem in the early part of the war.

Colin Bignell

On 18/05/2012 17:27, Martin wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2012 15:47:40 +0100, Nightjar
wrote:

On 18/05/2012 15:12, Martin wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2012 13:39:06 +0100, wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 May 2012 04:27:38 -0700 (PDT), Adam Aglionby
wrote:

London air space simulated ;-)

http://www.tomscott.com/olympics/

Use of Olympics infringes copyright.

Many of the V1s shot down by anti aircraft guns fell on houses killing
the occupants.
--
I agree this is not often mentioned, as one who lived on the outskirts of
Maidstone for the whole of the second world war. I speak from experience.
Even with the films of aerial combat you never see a shot down plane crash
into a house.

I found a book, in a binaries e-book group about V1s that is full of
photos of V1s that were shot down, that fell on houses.
They were shot down mainly by mainly by anti aircraft fire. Others
were brought down by barrage balloons.
I didn't know that the V1s were air launched from Heinkel bombers
over the North Sea, after all the launching ramps had been destroyed.

The book is Air Launched Doodlebus, the forgotten campaign, by Peter J
Smith published in 2006.

I was under the impression that the air launched versions were developed
to allow them to attack targets out of range of the land based launchers.

Your impression was wrong.

Even though air launched V1s were fired at Manchester, which was about
90 miles beyond the range of any ground launched V1?

Colin Bignell

On 18/05/2012 16:00, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
....
At least one was flown IIRC by a female test pilot to help solve
stability issues.

Ah Hannah Reitsch:...

A remarkable and apparently quite fearless woman. She did a lot of
testing of experimental aircraft and flew a helicopter inside the hall
of the Berlin Motor Show in 1938. She also managed to fly into and out
of Berlin, landing on a road in the Tiergarten, during the Russian
assault on the city.

Colin Bignell

Nightjar wrote:
On 18/05/2012 15:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 18/05/2012 14:15, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...
statistically the chances of a plane landing on a house are quite slim
BUT of course AA gunnery probably did bring planes down over and into
London, but at night,

Although their main job was not to shoot aircraft down, but to make
accurate bombing difficult and to discourage bombers from entering the
defended zone.

What utter ******** you do talk.

You only need to read a few of the documents from the time to know that
was the job they were expected to do, with shooting down aircraft being
seen as a happy bonus. In September 1940, it took around 20,000 shells
to down one aircraft. Fighters were far more effective at bringing enemy
aircraft down.


it had changed a bit by the wars end with proximity fusing and radar
guiding.

Lets face it, if no one DID get shot down by flak it wasn't much of a
deterrent?

Why not look at te numvers of UK bombers lost to flak and see just how
effective German flak was. Yes, by day with radar guidance, fifhters
were more effective.

But at night flak was what brought bombers down.



Colin Bignell




--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

In message , Nightjar
writes
On 18/05/2012 17:24, Martin wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2012 15:53:47 +0100, Nightjar
wrote:

On 18/05/2012 15:16, Martin wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2012 14:51:46 +0100, Nightjar
wrote:

On 18/05/2012 14:15, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...
statistically the chances of a plane landing on a house are quite slim
BUT of course AA gunnery probably did bring planes down over and into
London, but at night,

Although their main job was not to shoot aircraft down, but to make
accurate bombing difficult and to discourage bombers from entering the
defended zone. A Ministry of Information booklet on air defence claimed
that up to half the bomber force in any attack on London would turn back
before entering the AA zone.

AA was specifically located in "boxes" along the east coast as far
north as Bridlington to bring down V1s. They were very successful at
it.

That was a different and later campaign. Bombers raids on Britain were
mainly in the first couple of years of the war, with casualties of
54,206 in 1940 and 42,722 in 1941, which dropped to 7,387 in 1942 and
5,822 in 1943. The V weapons increased them to 30,499 in 1944.

I started this thread with V1s. I never mentioned bombers.

Did I say you had? Threads develop and change, particularly on this
group, and this one had moved onto aircraft falling on houses, which
would mainly have been a problem in the early part of the war.

Speaking of thread development.... the firm I was apprenticed at had a
number of ancient Herbert capstan lathes which were said to have been
supplied for the manufacture of proximity fuses (used against V1's
Martin). How did such fuses actually work?

regards

--
Tim Lamb

On 18/05/2012 18:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 18/05/2012 15:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 18/05/2012 14:15, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...
statistically the chances of a plane landing on a house are quite slim
BUT of course AA gunnery probably did bring planes down over and into
London, but at night,

Although their main job was not to shoot aircraft down, but to make
accurate bombing difficult and to discourage bombers from entering the
defended zone.

What utter ******** you do talk.

You only need to read a few of the documents from the time to know
that was the job they were expected to do, with shooting down aircraft
being seen as a happy bonus. In September 1940, it took around 20,000
shells to down one aircraft. Fighters were far more effective at
bringing enemy aircraft down.


it had changed a bit by the wars end with proximity fusing and radar
guiding.

Indeed, but by then there were a lot fewer German bombers attacking
Britain and the V1s flew low enough to be within range of the quick
firing Bofors guns.

Lets face it, if no one DID get shot down by flak it wasn't much of a
deterrent?

As I said, the view of the AA command was that their job was to disrupt
the bomber's attack, with any kills being a happy side effect. Accurate
bombing required a bomber to fly straight and level for quite a long
time. It took a remarkably steady nerve to do that when flying into a
flak storm and most didn't do it. Some didn't even fly into the target
area if there was a lot of flak. The Allies faced the same problem,
which is photographing the bombing radar when bombs were released was
introduced later in the war.

Why not look at te numvers of UK bombers lost to flak and see just how
effective German flak was.

Flying long distances over enemy held territory was not quite the same
as just nipping across the channel and the Germans diverted a huge
amount of their resources into AA defences. Indeed, some observers think
making them do that was the major contribution of the bombing campaign.

Yes, by day with radar guidance, fifhters
were more effective.

But at night flak was what brought bombers down.

In the very first months, nothing much brought bombers down by night. By
late 1940, we were deploying night fighters with ground controlled
interception and airborne radar, while the AA batteries were still badly
under strength and partly equipped with obsolescent guns.

Colin Bignell

On 18/05/2012 19:33, Tim Lamb wrote:
....
Speaking of thread development.... the firm I was apprenticed at had a
number of ancient Herbert capstan lathes which were said to have been
supplied for the manufacture of proximity fuses (used against V1's
Martin). How did such fuses actually work?

The VT fuse was a British idea for a radar proximity fuse that was
developed and manufactured by the Americans, under an agreed division of
work on radar. Initially they were only used against Kamikaze attacks in
the Pacific and for the anti V1 batteries, to ensure that none could
fall into enemy hands.

Colin Bignell

Nightjar wrote:
On 18/05/2012 19:33, Tim Lamb wrote:
...
Speaking of thread development.... the firm I was apprenticed at had a
number of ancient Herbert capstan lathes which were said to have been
supplied for the manufacture of proximity fuses (used against V1's
Martin). How did such fuses actually work?

The VT fuse was a British idea for a radar proximity fuse that was
developed and manufactured by the Americans, under an agreed division of
work on radar. Initially they were only used against Kamikaze attacks in
the Pacific and for the anti V1 batteries, to ensure that none could
fall into enemy hands.

Its hard to see how a round fired over britain against anything else is
going to fall into enemy hands....

Colin Bignell


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On 18/05/2012 20:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Its hard to see how a round fired over britain against anything else is
going to fall into enemy hands....

That's rather the point of using them in the anti-V1 batteries. And out
over the Pacific Ocean...

For those who are interested there is an FI103 at

http://www.lacoupole-france.com/

Not far from Calais. And it's in the café, so you don't have to go
around the museum if time is short.

Andy

On 18/05/2012 18:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 18/05/2012 15:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 18/05/2012 14:15, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...
statistically the chances of a plane landing on a house are quite slim
BUT of course AA gunnery probably did bring planes down over and into
London, but at night,

Although their main job was not to shoot aircraft down, but to make
accurate bombing difficult and to discourage bombers from entering the
defended zone.

What utter ******** you do talk.

You only need to read a few of the documents from the time to know
that was the job they were expected to do, with shooting down aircraft
being seen as a happy bonus. In September 1940, it took around 20,000
shells to down one aircraft. Fighters were far more effective at
bringing enemy aircraft down.


it had changed a bit by the wars end with proximity fusing and radar
guiding.

Lets face it, if no one DID get shot down by flak it wasn't much of a
deterrent?

Why not look at te numvers of UK bombers lost to flak and see just how
effective German flak was. Yes, by day with radar guidance, fifhters
were more effective.

German AA was particularly effective at the start of the war because
they had developed radar ranging capabilities for their guns. Eventually
our bombers were fitted with electronic countermeasures which made the
system ineffective. Fortunately the Germans apparently never realised
this had happened!


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Nightjar wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote

statistically the chances of a plane landing on a house are quite slim
BUT of course AA gunnery probably did bring planes down over and into
London, but at night,

Although their main job was not to shoot aircraft down, but to make
accurate bombing difficult and to discourage bombers from entering the
defended zone. A Ministry of Information booklet on air defence claimed
that up to half the bomber force in any attack on London would turn back
before entering the AA zone.

And its very far from clear if that claim could be substantiated.

It isnt accurate about our own bombing except for that weasel 'up to' line.

In message , Nightjar
wrote

You only need to read a few of the documents from the time to know that
was the job they were expected to do, with shooting down aircraft being
seen as a happy bonus. In September 1940, it took around 20,000 shells
to down one aircraft. Fighters were far more effective at bringing
enemy aircraft down.

To stop the public asking why despite sending up hundreds of thousands
of shells few aircraft were shot down the Ministry or Propaganda will
have suggested that it was to disrupt bombing.

As all bomber forces in WWII found, accurate bombing was virtually
impossible hence the use of area bombing.
--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 18/05/2012 20:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 18/05/2012 19:33, Tim Lamb wrote:
...
Speaking of thread development.... the firm I was apprenticed at had a
number of ancient Herbert capstan lathes which were said to have been
supplied for the manufacture of proximity fuses (used against V1's
Martin). How did such fuses actually work?

The VT fuse was a British idea for a radar proximity fuse that was
developed and manufactured by the Americans, under an agreed division
of work on radar. Initially they were only used against Kamikaze
attacks in the Pacific and for the anti V1 batteries, to ensure that
none could fall into enemy hands.

Its hard to see how a round fired over britain against anything else is
going to fall into enemy hands....

By the time they were available we were not shooting at much else in the
skies over Britain, but the point is they were not allowed to be used on
the Pacific islands nor after D-Day could they be used on mainland
Europe before the Battle of the Bulge.

Colin Bignell

On 19/05/2012 08:12, Alan wrote:
In message , Nightjar
wrote

You only need to read a few of the documents from the time to know
that was the job they were expected to do, with shooting down aircraft
being seen as a happy bonus. In September 1940, it took around 20,000
shells to down one aircraft. Fighters were far more effective at
bringing enemy aircraft down.

To stop the public asking why despite sending up hundreds of thousands
of shells few aircraft were shot down the Ministry or Propaganda will
have suggested that it was to disrupt bombing.

That does not explain why it was official doctrine in documents that
were not released to the public at the time.

As all bomber forces in WWII found, accurate bombing was virtually
impossible hence the use of area bombing.

Area bombing was, by the end of the war, more a question of philosophy
than need. Despite the evidence that bombing had only strengthened the
resolve of the British, the official view, mostly promoted by Harris,
was that bombing civilian targets would demoralise the population.

The German X-Gerat could place bombs within 100 yards of the guidance
beam and with a spread of only a few hundred yards along it, which made
it more accurate than daylight bombing. Gee would have been similarly
accurate had we been bombing targets just across the Channel, but
positional accuracy over Germany was to within about a mile. Gee-H
improved that to around 120 yards, which was similar to Oboe without its
limitations.

Colin Bignell

In message , Nightjar
wrote

The German X-Gerat could place bombs within 100 yards of the guidance
beam and with a spread of only a few hundred yards along it, which made
it more accurate than daylight bombing. Gee would have been similarly
accurate had we been bombing targets just across the Channel, but
positional accuracy over Germany was to within about a mile. Gee-H
improved that to around 120 yards, which was similar to Oboe without
its limitations.


It still took some skill to bomb the correct target. Many poorly
trained German pilots couldn't use the navigation aids properly. Even on
the allied side the pathfinders could mark the target but often the
following bombers released their load early and just got the hell out of
there!
--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Fri, 18 May 2012 13:46:45 +0100, Clive George wrote:

I did wonder about that. I also wondered about all the lead bits flying
through the air - where did they go? (down, obviously, but they're never
mentioned).

Down as you say, my late father was in Birmingham during the war. He
had tales of having to shelter in terraced housing back entries as
the debris from the ack ack rained down...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 19/05/2012 13:27, Terry Fields wrote:

Nightjar wrote:

Area bombing was, by the end of the war, more a question of philosophy
than need. Despite the evidence that bombing had only strengthened the
resolve of the British, the official view, mostly promoted by Harris,
was that bombing civilian targets would demoralise the population.

Harris had Directives to follow, one of which contained the following:

I don't recall 'I was only following orders' being much of a defence for
any Germans after the war

"Your Primary object will be the progressive destruction and
dislocation of the German military, industrial, and economic system,
and the undermining of the morale of the German people to a point
where their capacity for armed resistance is fatally weakened".

Assuming that the "undermining of the morale of the German people"
equates to the "demoralis[ing of] the population", then Harris was
following the strategy and policy of his superiors, and that only left
the tactics to be determined.

However, the evidence from the Blitz was that bombing civilians had
exactly the opposite effect; it strengthened their resolve.

I've never seen it argued that pin-point raids on targets would
demoralise or undermine the German people.

It might have been enough to weaken fatally their capacity for armed
resistance though, which was the main point of the directive. Had Harris
followed orders and followed up the second American daylight raid on
Schweinfurt with a night attack the German ability to manufacture ball
bearings would almost certainly have been completely destroyed, instead
of merely being badly damaged. Albert Speer, who was quite well placed
to know, was of the opinion that continued bombing of the site could
have stopped all German armament production within four months.

Colin Bignell

In message , Nightjar
wrote

However, the evidence from the Blitz was that bombing civilians had
exactly the opposite effect; it strengthened their resolve.

That view is more to do with propaganda than fact.


--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Fri, 18 May 2012 16:06:55 +0100, Clive George
wrote:

That was a different and later campaign. Bombers raids on Britain were
mainly in the first couple of years of the war, with casualties of
54,206 in 1940 and 42,722 in 1941, which dropped to 7,387 in 1942 and
5,822 in 1943. The V weapons increased them to 30,499 in 1944.

That's news to me - pretty effective then. Impressed.

Indeed; the evil genius of Hitler's weapons makers did go largely
unrecognised. I suspect that post-war relief and weariness just wanted
to shove it to one side, understandably.
I was intrigued to read of a TV-guided wire-linked glider bomb that
actually scored a success in the Bay of Biscay by sinking a merchant
ship in the last year of the war. The device went undeveloped but was
many years ahead of its time; if the war had lasted another year or
two, there was a lot of stuff that would have been of its time,
indeed.

On 19/05/2012 16:37, Alan wrote:
In message , Nightjar
wrote

However, the evidence from the Blitz was that bombing civilians had
exactly the opposite effect; it strengthened their resolve.

That view is more to do with propaganda than fact.

That view has to do with knowing people who were there.

Colin Bignell

Alan wrote:
In message , Nightjar
wrote

However, the evidence from the Blitz was that bombing civilians had
exactly the opposite effect; it strengthened their resolve.

That view is more to do with propaganda than fact.


well see what the Germans at Hamburg & Dresden felt.

Hiroshima caused Japan to capitulate.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.