Author Topic: British Night bombing  (Read 4462 times)

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
British Night bombing
« Reply #90 on: June 27, 2005, 08:28:56 AM »
The RAF got their jettison order after the LW was already carpeting London, AFAIK, as I have mentioned. I have not seen any proof that it was otherwise. Note that the first Terror bombings of WW2 were not just Warshaw, but all over Poland.
The first nasty bit in size was probably the small and crowded town of Sulejow, totally undefended and bombed into rubble, with thousands (5000?) civilians dead.
Since the air defence was in shambles, there was also a lot of strafing. This was well known to the British, not only through Ultra, but also some little odds like this one, found on another forum (axishistory)
"The experience of the American Ambassador to Poland Biddle is interesting. He left Warsaw to try and reach Rumania and reported that his car was bombed 15 times and machine gunned 4 times forcing him to hide in ditches. He had tied a large stars and stripes to his cars roof but realised that it was attracting the attention of the German planes so took it off. On the 12 September he was in a village called Krzemieniec when the market place was bombed killing about 50 civillians.

On September 4 the British Embassey in Warsaw sent Captain Davies to Lithuania and from there back to Britain to give a first hand account of the bombing and strafing of Warsaw that he had witnessed from the roof of the British Embassy."

So, that's just the first cakebits from 1939. The bottom line was, that although Hitler had some hope to bring the British to peace, they had already seen through his pokerface. And it was to prove itself as correct many times again before the BoB.

I'll dig up the dates, - have them nearby.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Wotan

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7201
British Night bombing
« Reply #91 on: June 27, 2005, 08:33:32 AM »
Quote
Why did Spaatz?


The difference was that the USAAF strategy wasn't to target civilians but industry. Even though the bombing campaign in general never lived up to what was expected in terms of destroying a nations war economy the clear intent of the targets are of a military nature.

It says nothing about fire bombing apartment blocks.

Quote
It's quoted in American Bombardment Policy Against Germany, by Richard G Davis, who sums up the policy:

"Almost every city or town in Germany with a population exceeding 50,000, and a few below that figure, met the foregoing criteria. This policy made it open season for bombing Germany’s major cities in any weather."

The USAAF was doing it's share of area bombing cities in Europe in 1944 and 1945, they just didn't like to admit it


Of course the US did not only in Germany but a better comparison to BC would be with 20th AF over Japan. But I wonder why the diversion into US actions? More moral relativism? They did  it to so that makes it ok for us?

This thread is about British night bombing.

Quote
Harris pushed to end the war as quickly as possible.

He knew that would be hard on his crews, but he also knew that their losses were light in comparison to normal military losses.


Harris only saw 'enemies' and he never saw an enemy he didn't wish to firebomb.

Harris stuck to his strategy of targeting population centers despite all else. Not only did he put his crews at unnecessary risk he killed thousands of civilians needlessly (ie Dresden).

Quote
I'm not making moral comparisons. I see nothing immoral in attacking the enemy, providing the results of such attacks are not disproportionate to the harm the enemy is causing.


Sure you are.

They did it, he did it, she did it, the midget down the street did it so its ok for me...

Even in this thread you point the finger at the US.

Quote
I state there was no such policy, any more (or less) than Luftwaffe attacks on British morale (and food supplies) in 1940 were attacks on civilians, or any more (or less) than USAAF attacks on Japanese and German cities were attacks on civilians.


Yes we all see your denial. However, what BC did is documented not only on official paper but is documented by many Historians. The fact that you are in denial is evidence of nothing but your own ability to put your hand in the sand.

Quote
Am I? I don't think so.

I am making a case Britain had no more effective method. And to support that claim I pointed out the British followed the same progression the other major strategic forces did, from precision attacks to area bombing.

There must be some reason why the Luftwaffe, RAF and USAAF all ended up doing the same thing, area bombing (amongst others, of course)


Yes you are.

Here again you use the justification that they did it to so it must be ok. However the facts are only BC built their  main strategy through out the war on the indiscriminate bombing of civilians.

Quote
Be aware that Churchill's memorandum was withdrawn, and Churchill actually complains that Germany would be so damaged the allies wouldn't be able to seize anything worthwhile in reparations.


I am aware. On 1 April Churchill resubmitted a more carefully worded memorandum:

Quote
…it seems to me that the moment has come when the question of the so-called "area bombing" of German cities should be reviewed from the point of view of our own interests. If we come into control of an entirely ruined land, there will be a great shortage of accommodations for ourselves and our allies: and we shall be unable to get housing materials out of Germany for our own needs because some temporary provision would have to be made for the German’s themselves. We must see to it that attacks do not do more harm to ourselves in the long run then they do to the enemy's war effort. Pray let me have your views.


The first memo may have undermined the British publics confidence in the 'righteousness' of the British war effort. British propaganda was as vital and as effective as any other. If a memo got out in which the PM implies that the bombing Germany cities was nothing more then terrorism not only will raise questions in Britain but would play right into the propaganda espoused by the Nazi.
 
Quote
I'm not comparing them. There is no comparison whatsoever between attacking your enemy and rounding up and murdering civilians who have already surrendered to you.


You are comparing them. You are the only one who brings up up other nations in this discussion about Britain and BC.

Even in this thread you did.

Quote where I said that:

Quote
There is no comparison whatsoever between attacking your enemy and rounding up and murdering civilians who have already surrendered to you.


You are a liar but that is typical of you where folks don't agree with you. Not only on this forum but others.

Quote
Not strictly true. On the 24th the Luftwaffe launched extensive bombing raids over Britain, some mistakenly hit London. On the 25th they did the same thing again, as the RAF was bombing select targets in Berlin.

But the entire "escalation" had been underway long before then. The Luftwaffe had killed over a thousand British civilians by the time they "accidentally" dropped their first bombs on London.

Whilst Hitler might have considered only London to be important, I don't think the British viewed those 1,000 dead as any less important because they weren't Londoners.

And the full scale attack on London was simply the German attempt to bomb their way to victory. Planned for weeks by the German staff, something Kesselring had been pinninghis hopes on.


Quote
On 24 Aug '40, German planes bombed central London due to a navigational error. This is for the most part is in agreement with a good portion of Historians. During the next 2 nights the Brits launched raids on Berlin.

From their everything escalated.


What I said is 100% accurate and is the prevailing view shared view by many. No amount of wiggling and word games will change that.

Quote
So you would want to throw the entire bombing campaign out of the window?

Yes, the fighter bombers had sufficient range to contest air space over France, and destroy the Luftwaffe that way.

But the allies would be facing a Germany armed with far more tanks, far more artillery, far more fuel, far more soldiers.

Because the fighter bombers wouldn't be destroying German oil refineries, factories, cities, transport, and there wouldn't be a third of German artillery production going on AA weapons over Germany, with all the manpower associated with that.


The bombing campaigns main contribution to the war effort was being an anvil to smash the LW fighter corp. However, I think this could have been achieved with  the massive build up of fighters and fighter bombers.

I think the resources put into the 4 engine bombers and into the bombing campaign in general were a wasted effort.

Most of the 'extra' weapons the Germans would have produced would have been spent in the east. Those that weren't would have been ground to death in the west by Allied fighter bombers etc..

As an example the Soviets didn't develop a strategic bomber or strategy. Neither did the Germans. Both were successful by winning the war on the ground. Ultimately it was the western allies contribution on the ground that had the greater impact on the German collapse.

To land troops in western Europe a large force of fighter bombers and fighters could have paved the way for invasion.

Quote
Right. So what happens against Britain? They couldn't use ground troops, because there was a bit of water in the way.

So they switched to bombing.


As I explained above the British, along with the Americans could have opened up a front in the west with fighter bombers.

Battlefield interdiction and close air support were constant 'winning' strategies in all theaters.

Quote
They were tasked with making sure Britain gave up the war against Germany. That's victory by anyone's definition (apart from yours, it seems).


Coming to terms with an enemy doesn't necessarily mean 'giving up'. Whether or not Hitler could have been believed aside he made several offers to the British that were rejected.

Unless he could show them that the threat of invasion was real he would never have gotten a deal. He needed to destroy the RAF to help convince them.

The British knew that an invasion was improbable and put up a winning defense in the air.

The LW goal during BoB wasn't to bomb population centers until the British morale broke and they gave up. It was to destroy the RAF which would have made the threat of invasion more 'real'.

Quote
The best he could hope for was to destroy the RAF and bomb Britain into submission. That's what he set out to do.


That's what I saids all along? Are you playing games? You claimed that the LW was tasked with defeating (victory) Britain by bombing their cities.

Quote
Did you? Do you deny they did it, or do you claim they carried on the bombing for some obscure reason, rather than the obvious one fo trying to defeat Britain?


I said the shift of strategy (night bombing of British cities) was in retaliation for the British targeting of German cities.

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
British Night bombing
« Reply #92 on: June 27, 2005, 09:16:03 AM »
Hmmm, Wotan:
"I said the shift of strategy (night bombing of British cities) was in retaliation for the British targeting of German cities."

Disagree.

1. The LW was quicker to it.
2. The shift to night bombing came after very high losses in the day raids.
3. There were area bombings at day before night bombings.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Wotan

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7201
British Night bombing
« Reply #93 on: June 27, 2005, 09:26:52 AM »
Quote
Then we're in agreement. I've never claimed there was anything fundamentally different between the RAF, Luftwaffe and USAAF tactics and methods, although there was clearly a difference of scale.


It had nothing to do with difference in scale or strategy. It simply wasn't 'illegal' according to the IMT and previous treatise.

Quote
Yes, you should have.

But the whole point is besides the point. I never made any claims that what the Luftwaffe did was a war crime (in regards to bombing, anyway).


I didn't expect some one to use an example of a "Titoist' court as evidence of something.

Who would?

Quote
Well, Britain declared war on Germany after Germany invaded Poland, so I don't really think it was a war Britain wanted.

And Britain didn't target German civilians. I would argue at any point during the war, but if you believe that targeting a city is targeting civilians, then Britain did not do this either until after Germany had, repeatedly.

Again, by the end of 1940 less than 1,000 Germans had been killed by British bombing, 20,000 British had been killed by German bombing.



Britain was in a position where it needed to stop Germany. Appeasement had failed. Along with the French they state openly that an attack on Poland would mean war. They expected (or maybe hoped) that this threat would force Hitler to think twice.

Hitler new that Britain and France weren't ready to fight a war over Poland (in terms of deployment, equipment, troops etc...).

Hitler made a deal with Stalin and attacked.

Britain declared war. Much like the guarrantees they made to Poland Britain wasn't ready to fight a war.

The expectation being that they could build up in France. Well it didn't work out that way.

Britain bares responsibility for its own actions in making guarrantees (who knows with out these guarrantess to Poland maybe the Poles would have excepted Hitler's deal on the 'Polish Corridor..?) and then for declaring war.

Britain and Frances began (started) a war they weren't prepared (at the time of declaration) to win.

As an opposite the US didn't enter WW2 until it had to. Stalin didn't enter war until he had to.

This has nothing to do with who is in the right or the wrong.

Quote
Well, you're exact quote was :

"You all started a war with Germany".

It seems to me that they all (Germany) started a war with the allies. After all, Britain made a public guarantee to Poland, and backed it up in no uncertain terms to the Germans in private.

Perhaps it should rather be that Germany shouldn't have started a war they weren't ready for


Germany had been preparing for war all along. They were prepared. They defeated Poland, Norway, France and you Brits in record time.

This action was forced by the French and British declarations. Had France and Britain actually prepared to fight rather they just resorting to rhetoric and 'unbacked up' threats of force Hitler may have been contained (even if in the short term).

Quote
Well, they clearly were prepared to fight, which is why Britain declared war, rather than backing down.

But going to the aid of someone under attack isn't aggression, and I hope that if saw a weaker person under attack by a thug, I'd step in to help as well.


Once they were beaten out of Europe their prestige and pride wouldn't allow a deal.

If Britain had been in France's situation and not protected by the channel they would have folded as easily.

Quote
Sorry, you haven't finished that sentence. Am I going to blame the decision of the British government to declare war on Germany on what?

Blame Germany for it? Of course. Germany violated international law and treaty obligations to declare war on Poland, Britain had made it abundantly clear that if Germany did so (again) then Britain would go to war.


Britain did little more then make idle threats. Had they been in a position to back up those threats or if they had not forced war at that time their response to German aggression would been more credible.

They gave a false sense of security to the Poles who then stood up to a bully expecting help. They were then beaten down and Britain ran back across the channel.

Quote
Rationality?

After all, millions of Germans voted for him. They must have thought he was rational, surely?


Whats more rational? To make idle threats? Or to strike first in response to perceived aggression (declaration of war)?

Quote
That's obvious. Equally obvious is your sympathy for Nazi Germany.


Quote my sympathy for the Nazi's?

Again you lie.

Quote
Yes, that's what I said. (My "Nonsense" comment was merely in reply to yours) You claimed to have original source material that showed Rotterdam was bombed to restrict allied resupply efforts, though. Was that another "paraphrase"?


No you said that the city was targeted to help support paratroopers:

Quote
Nonsense, the people of Rotterdam, Warsaw, London, Coventry, Leningrad, etc were the targets.


Quote
actually the target at Rotterdam was support for German paras fighting in the city, so I don't exactly trust your claim.

But the Luftwaffe bombed cities for exactly the same reasons the RAF did, and it's only your prejudices that prevent you realising (or admitting) that.


More lies from you.

You brought Rotterdam into this discussion as an example of the LW purposeful targeting of civilians. What I said was:

Quote
The targets at Rotterdam were the ports not civilians. I have target maps, orders OOB etc for the raid on Rotterdam.


At the north end of the Maas and in the center of the target (triangle area in the images I posted above) is a port with slips and docks and facilities. In the long series of quotations I posted you find this:

Quote
Understandably the German high command could equally press for a swift conclusion of the operation. It wanted Holland "cleaned up" as soon as possible in order to free forces for the main thrust through Belgium into northern France. Furthermore the 18th Army, as it attacked Holland on May 13th, feared that British landings were imminent. Thus at 18.45 General von Kuechler gave the order "to break the resistance at Rotterdam by every means".


There was a fear that the defenders would be re-supplied and re-enforced. Only 57 He-111s of KG 54 dropped standard HE bombs into this area.

Regardless, the targets weren't civilians and the raid was not in support of 'paratroopers'.

Quote
Never said they did (again, exluding my "nonsense" in reply to your "nonsense")


Yes you did:

Quote
Nonsense, the people of Rotterdam, Warsaw, London, Coventry, Leningrad, etc were the targets.


Why lie?

Quote
Exactly. What Wotan is trying to do is argue that every Luftwaffe bombing attack was purely aimed at military targets, until the RAF started bombing German civilians.


Why use Angus' fiction about Ju-52's shoveling out incendiaries over Warsaw?

Warsaw was a valid military target. The targets selected were not the civilians but the defenders and military that fell back into the city. Warsaw was invested and had refused to surrender.

That doesn't represent a fixed un-yielding strategy to de-house all of Poland's population centers in the same fashion as BC planned to do with Germany. The Nazi's didn't need the LW for that.

Here once again you bring in some other causation or at the very least some other excuse that does nothing to disprove my point or to prove your own.

Offline Tilt

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
      • FullTilt
British Night bombing
« Reply #94 on: June 27, 2005, 09:52:25 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Wotan

If Britain had been in France's situation and not protected by the channel they would have folded as easily.


If it were up to Churchill I doubt this..... whether it would have been wise to do so is a matter of debate......... whether Halifax would have held sway is another..........

I think even without the channel Churchill would have fought until the end (no matter the cost) and even then he wanted to "return" wiuth a Commonwealth army.
Ludere Vincere

Offline Seeker

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2653
British Night bombing
« Reply #95 on: June 27, 2005, 11:02:10 AM »
How come Guernica is forgotten amidst all this claiming and counter claiming?

Offline Wotan

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7201
British Night bombing
« Reply #96 on: June 27, 2005, 11:17:37 AM »
Quote
originally posted by Squire:[/i]

It wasnt a deal it was an ultimatum, and Hitler never thought the Poles would agree to it. Its hard to call it "deal making" when you tell the other guy "agree or we will send our panzer divisions over your border". Thats not serious diplomacy. Thats just a raw threat.


There were several offers not just one. Hitler offered to to extend League of Nations protection to the Danzig Corridor much like Danzig itself.

Danzig was a Free City under League of Nations protection and one of the many offers that Hitler made was an extension of this protection to the corridor.

It was rejected. France and Britain gave Poland the rather opened ended Agreement of Mutual Assistance Between the United Kingdom and Poland.-London

Quote
ARTICLE 2.
(1) The provisions of Article I will also apply in the event of any action by a European Power which clearly threatened, directly or indirectly, the independence of one of the Contracting Parties, and was of such a nature that the Party in question considered it vital to resist it with its armed forces.


That European Power obviously only meant Germany given the fact no action was taken by the UK or France against the Soviets.

This amounted to a "blank cheque" for Poland. The terms were that if Poland considered that it needed to use its armed forces against another country to preserve its territorial integrity, then Britain would come to its aid.

Poland at this point had no interest in coming to terms with Hitler given the guarantees it had from Franc e and Britain.

Had Poland known that France and Britain really offered nothing more then rhetoric then who knows what would have happened.

Poland was emboldened by this guarantee. So much so that they had made preparations to send troops into Danzig should the the Danzig Senate vote for a unilateral declaration of reunion with the Reich.

In fact when Germany invaded Poland was preparing for precisely the above scenario. It had assembled a large force in the Polish Corridor, preparing to intervene in Danzig. When German forces attacked on 1 September, the Polish Danzig Intervention Force was trapped and annihilated, thereby contributing in a major way to Poland's rapid military defeat.

There's no doubt that Hitler manufactured the invasion of Poland but that doesn't change the fact that Britain is responsible for its declaration of war.

The final ultimatum Hitler issued to Poland was nothing more then a show and the invasion was already decided upon.


EDIT:

I guess he deleted his post
« Last Edit: June 27, 2005, 11:29:22 AM by Wotan »

Offline Wotan

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7201
British Night bombing
« Reply #97 on: June 27, 2005, 11:27:49 AM »
Quote
If it were up to Churchill I doubt this..... whether it would have been wise to do so is a matter of debate......... whether Halifax would have held sway is another..........

I think even without the channel Churchill would have fought until the end (no matter the cost) and even then he wanted to "return" wiuth a Commonwealth army.


I agree...

Churchill would have never capitualted even if Britain were invaded.

Quote
How come Guernica is forgotten amidst all this claiming and counter claiming?


Its not forgotten, its just not part of the discusssion. Its also not the same as BC's strategy built on the indiscriminate bombing of civilians.

Guernica, much like those other cities Nashwan claimed:

Quote
Nonsense, the people of Rotterdam, Warsaw, London, Coventry, Leningrad, etc were the targets.


wasn't to kill civilains.

I will concede Leningrad and throw in Stalingrad and we may have something to discuss...

But this thread is so far off topic and almost impossible to follow that I won't contribute to topics that move the discussion even further away from the original post.

Offline Squire

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7683
British Night bombing
« Reply #98 on: June 27, 2005, 12:00:27 PM »
Was rewording it slightly.

"Along with the French they state openly that an attack on Poland would mean war."

So Germany had a clear choice to make. Stay within its own borders or war.

"Britain bares responsibility for its own actions in making guarrantees (who knows with out these guarrantess to Poland maybe the Poles would have excepted Hitler's deal on the 'Polish Corridor..?) and then for declaring war."

It wasnt a deal it was an ultimatum, and Hitler never thought the Poles would agree to it. Its hard to call it "deal making" when you tell the other guy "agree or we will send our panzer divisions over your border". Thats not serious diplomacy. Thats just a raw threat.

Sort of like taking out a club, approaching an elderly lady in a dark alley, while you casually swing it around and say "can I borrow 20 dollars?". "I can, cool, thanks."  "Gee officer, it wasnt robbery, I asked for a loan, and she obliged". I doubt it will prove a usefull defence in court.

"Germany had been preparing for war all along"

Your words. I agree however.

As for the bombing of civilians, its been debated ad nasuem on this BBS, I wont get into that again. Suffice to say, finding morality in total war (which is what WW2 was) is a difficult prospect.
Warloc
Friday Squad Ops CM Team
1841 Squadron Fleet Air Arm
Aces High since Tour 24

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6865
British Night bombing
« Reply #99 on: June 27, 2005, 12:14:35 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Wotan Its not forgotten, its just not part of the discusssion. Its also not the same as BC's strategy built on the indiscriminate bombing of civilians.

wasn't to kill civilains.


Sure, whatever you say Wotan. The Kondor Legion did not even hit the target, the stone bridge, that they claimed they were after.

Other Spanish cities experienced, what Guernica did, as well from the KL.

Yup, the LW was a bunch of angels, for sure.

Offline Squire

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7683
British Night bombing
« Reply #100 on: June 27, 2005, 12:15:45 PM »
Btw...

I just finished "Overlord" and "Armageddon" by Max Hastings, both very interesting books. A good read for anybody thats into WW2 history. Not so much nationalism (anybodys), and more hard research than many.

He wrote one on Bomber Command as well, I will have to find it.
Warloc
Friday Squad Ops CM Team
1841 Squadron Fleet Air Arm
Aces High since Tour 24

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6865
British Night bombing
« Reply #101 on: June 27, 2005, 12:42:32 PM »
here is a review of Death From On High

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v01/v01p247_Lutton.html

Offline Wotan

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7201
British Night bombing
« Reply #102 on: June 27, 2005, 12:45:54 PM »
Losses in Guernica according to a few different sources:

1,654 killed and 889 wounded

Antony Beevor - "The Spanish Civil War", also Ian Westwell - "Condor Legion"

Approximately 2,000 killed

Roger James Bender - "Legion Condor"

The original figure of 1,600 dead proved to be greatly exaggerated; following the capture of the city official sources revealed a figure of just over 300 dead among the civilian population.

Karl Ries & Hans Ring - "The Legion Condor"

George Steer wrote a book called A Tree in Guernika which dealt with the subject.

The 1600 dead figure may have originated with him. He was a leftist political activist who during WW2 worked in British propaganda.

Madrid,  Barcelona,  Valencia and others were bombed by both the LC and the Italians but none were specifically targeted at the civilians.

Guernica was on an important road to Bilbao.

The targets were the Renteria Bridge over the river Oca and the railway station at the side of the town.

At 4 PM bombers (Do 17 and He 111 from VB/88 ) attacked the station from low altitude using 250 and 50 kg bombs.

At 4.25 the bridge was attacked by 3 Italian bombers (Savoia S.79 from 205a Squadriglia) from altitude of 3600 m with 36 /50 kg bombs.

Due to the inherent inaccuracies of 'bombing' added to the claims of strong winds most bombs fell on the town. This created a lot of smoke.

Between 5.15 and 5.45 several German bombers (Ju-52 from K/88 ) dropped their bombs "into the smoke" without aiming.

The returning pilots reported that finding the target was impossible but the commanders of K/88 sent the bombers from VB/88 out once again.

The bridge was the only one within miles along the river and it was the bottleneck in the path of retreat for the Republican forces in the area. It was a viable target.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2005, 12:49:00 PM by Wotan »

Offline Squire

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7683
British Night bombing
« Reply #103 on: June 27, 2005, 12:51:10 PM »
Copy that, thanks, I will order it with my next batch. Had to rebuild my Hondas engine so I have been poor lately :), but its payday Friday.

I have all but given up on "book stores" nothing but crap, I get almost everything now via mail order.
Warloc
Friday Squad Ops CM Team
1841 Squadron Fleet Air Arm
Aces High since Tour 24

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6865
British Night bombing
« Reply #104 on: June 27, 2005, 01:18:27 PM »
"The bridge was the only one within miles along the river and it was the bottleneck in the path of retreat for the Republican forces in the area. It was a viable target."

Who saying it was not a viable target? Only problem, dispite your excuses, they could not hit the stone bridge with their 50kg bombs.

Sound like the problem the Brits had, and the Yanks, only the Brits were doing it at night, NOT in broad daylight.