In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
WWII bombing question
smokepole
Member Posts: 34 ✭✭
Sitting here pondering away about the marvelous American technology in Afghanistan and the bombing campaigns of WWII. Much modern study has indicated that by and large, much of the bombing campaign in Europe was not very effective. Lots and lots of targets missed, often by over a mile. It took many, many bombs to get one direct hit. Today--according to the news--they have it down so they can get a direct hit with two bombs; if they don't get it with the first they'll get it with the second. In light of this, would it have been wiser to go with dive bombers in Europe instead of the massive B17's and B24's? Figure that if only one of the 30 bombs the B17 is dropping hits--and that's a rosy estimate--then really the Dauntless might be much more effective. Of course, fuel restrictions would have to be worked out and they would need escorting fighters, but what do you think? Would a precision approach have been better during WWII?
Comments
"...hit your enemy in the belly, and kick him when he is down, and boil his prisoners in oil- if you take any- and torture his women and children. Then people will keep clear of you..." -Admiral of the Fleet Lord Fisher, speaking at the Hague Peace Conference in 1899.
"...hit your enemy in the belly, and kick him when he is down, and boil his prisoners in oil- if you take any- and torture his women and children. Then people will keep clear of you..." -Admiral of the Fleet Lord Fisher, speaking at the Hague Peace Conference in 1899.
I can't come to work today. The voices said, STAY HOME AND CLEAN THE GUNS!