WW2 bombing

"M. J. Powell" wrote in message ...
In message MPG.1a6d2554f613933989840@news, Bernardz
writes
Say I dropped 1000 tones over a long period of time in a city in the
region 50 square kilometers.

Does anyone know of any tables or formulas that can tell me how
effective in WW2 air bombing of a city would reasonably be?

The V1 and V2 carried IIRC 1 ton of HE. Each killed one person and
injured 5, IIRC.

Also any information on the effect of over hitting would be appreciated.

It redistributes the rubble.

Mike


During WW2 Germany was hit by 1.3MT of bombs, devastating 85% of its
major cities (some of which were population targets). Didn't matter,
the Germans were in the process of simply moving underground and over
to dispersal areas in the forests off the autobahn when the war ended.
So while the USAAF and RAF repeat raids were quite effective in
destroying German cities, the number of people killed in the raids
wasn't overly devastating- with the exception of Dresden. In Britain
too both the Blitz and Robot attacks did damage but the people in
those targeted cities continued on, constantly sifting through the
rubble and rebuilding/repairing what they could.
Conventional bombing doesn't seem to have all that effect, even today.
Look at all the bombs dropped in both Gulf Wars. One target alone,
Saddam's German Q4 bunker was hit reportedly by 85 tons of bombs
including ground-penetrating bunker busters. Direct hits. No effect.
I suppose if Hitler had put the Germany economy on full war production
in 1939 instead of 1943 and managed to construct the huge underground
bunker facilities before the end of 1944 then Germany could have
actually fought the war for years on introducing SAMs, better jet
fighters, and either a free-fall atomic bomb or one mounted on an
A-9/A-10 ICBM bound for Moscow, London, or NY.

Rob