WW2 bombing

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?

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



--
Should the government be responsible for individual's stupidity?

30th observation of Bernard

"Bernardz" wrote in message
news:MPG.1a6d2554f613933989840@news...
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?

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


The problem is the effects are highly dependent on the city and when
in WW2 this was to happen. Consider the differences between the
raids on Hamburg and Cologne with those on Berlin. Hamburg
and Cologne were both easier to find at night and the buildings
more densely packed than Berlin. The technique for destroying a
city was to smash open buildings with HE and then set them alight
with incendiaries. The greater densities meant a higher fuel load
per surface area which was what was needed to start a fire storm.

A number of studies on this subject were done post war, see

U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, Physical Damage Division,
Effects of Incendiary Bomb Attacks on Japan, a Report on Eight Cities
(n.p., April 1947)

On Hamburg, see Postol, "Possible Fatalities from Superfires,"
and "The Fire Attacks on German Cities," by Horatio Bond as well as
Fire and the Air War (Boston: National Fire Protection Association, 1946)

Keith

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
--
M.J.Powell

In article ,
says...

"Bernardz" wrote in message
news:MPG.1a6d2554f613933989840@news...
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?

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


The problem is the effects are highly dependent on the city and when
in WW2 this was to happen. Consider the differences between the
raids on Hamburg and Cologne with those on Berlin. Hamburg
and Cologne were both easier to find at night and the buildings
more densely packed than Berlin. The technique for destroying a
city was to smash open buildings with HE and then set them alight
with incendiaries. The greater densities meant a higher fuel load
per surface area which was what was needed to start a fire storm.

A number of studies on this subject were done post war, see

U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, Physical Damage Division,
Effects of Incendiary Bomb Attacks on Japan, a Report on Eight Cities
(n.p., April 1947)

On Hamburg, see Postol, "Possible Fatalities from Superfires,"
and "The Fire Attacks on German Cities," by Horatio Bond as well as
Fire and the Air War (Boston: National Fire Protection Association, 1946)

Keith








This is with a high volume of bombs. I was thinking of much lower rate
of fire.

In 1944 scientist calculated that to achieve a 50% devastation in a city
area of one square mile with a 600 yards aiming error required 250 tones
of bombs. 80% required 600 tones.

Any guess how big a bomb each would be, that they were referring too?

Basically is there anyway of calculating the size of the blast and
devastation knowing the power of a bomb in a typical city.


--
Should the government be responsible for individual's stupidity?

30th observation of Bernard

"Bernardz" wrote in message
news:MPG.1a6e8750246e2a66989846@news...
In article ,
says...



This is with a high volume of bombs. I was thinking of much lower rate
of fire.

In 1944 scientist calculated that to achieve a 50% devastation in a city
area of one square mile with a 600 yards aiming error required 250 tones
of bombs. 80% required 600 tones.


I'd suggest this was overly optimistic

Any guess how big a bomb each would be, that they were referring too?


How could I , not having seen the article ?

Basically is there anyway of calculating the size of the blast and
devastation knowing the power of a bomb in a typical city.


I doubt it as there are too many variables. Consider the
very different damage patterns for Hiroshima and Nagasaki
as an example.

I suggest you follow up the references I gave you as they are based
on post war surveys they are likley to be more accurate than anything
published in war time.

Keith

"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

robert arndt wrote:

"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.


But as their nuclear programme wasn't worth diddly-squat, it would
likely have been a US bomb dropped on them first, wouldn't you say?

John

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
robert arndt wrote:




But as their nuclear programme wasn't worth diddly-squat, it would
likely have been a US bomb dropped on them first, wouldn't you say?


It would have been an interesting race between the Red Army
knocking on the bunker door or Mr Fat Man rapping on the
ceiling


Keith

Sorry, Robert; the clock was running too fast by the summer of 1944.
POL shortages (from bombing), inability to adequately train
replacement pilots, the 'experten' going down one by one as they were
outnumbered every day, Allied fighters camping over the fighter
recovery bases, lack of the major infrastructure required to make an
atomic bomb, and then the Grand Slam bomb was capable of penetrating
even the sub pens . . . good thing it ended when it did.
Walt BJ

robert arndt wrote in message

During WW2 Germany was hit by 1.3MT of bombs, devastating 85% of its
major cities (some of which were population targets).

Air Chief Marshal Harris in his despatch on operations has an
acreage table the damage done, mainly by the RAF, to 70 German
cities. Of the 102,745 acres of built up area the cities are listed as
having 50,327 are listed as destroyed, or 49%.

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.

This no doubt totally explains the drops in German production in
late 1944 and into 1945. As opposed to the loss of oil products
hurting the military and the loss of transport hurting the economy.

If moving underground and dispersal was so easy the lack of working
underground or dispersed refineries in April1945 needs to be explained.

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.

The figures I have indicate Hamburg was more deadly than Dresden.
Since the fire raid at Hamburg killed over 40,000.

See Telling Lies About Hitler, The Holocaust, History and the Irving
Trial by Richard Evans, one of the historians who did the research
to prove truth as a defence against David Irving. One section goes
through the various documents giving the casualties for the Dresden
attack.

It appears the East German official toll was 35,000, and someone
added a 1 to the front. Dresden itself reported 18,375 confirmed
dead by 10th March 1945, 20,204 dead by 22nd March with an
expected death toll of around 25,000 (this report became known as
TB47, a forgery was issued adding a zero to the numbers). Some
1,858 bodies were recovered between 8 May 1945 and 1966. Note
the fire raid at Hamburg killed around 3.3% of the population, 25,000
represents around 3 to 4% of the estimated Dresden population,
567,000 down from 630,000 pre war plus refugees, around 100,000
official refugees plus any unofficial ones. There were some 31,102
death cards issued and 21,271 burials registered.

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.

There is a difference between the delivery of an average of 5,000
tons per day of bombs, which is what the allied air forces were
doing in September 1944, to the total of 10,492 V1s and 1,403
V2s launched against all of England for the war, basically the
effort represented 2 days of allied bombing. About 71% of the
V1s and 79% of the V2s made it to England or "off-shore", of
the 7,488 V1s observed by the defences 3,957 were shot down,
leaving 3,531, of which 2,419 exploded in the London Civil Defence
Area. So all up the V weapons did less than a day's allied bombing
in September 1944 over the period 12 June 1944 to 29 March 1945.
See The Defence of the United Kingdom by Basil Collier.

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.

Ah the proof of hundreds of raids based on one incident,

On 21 January 1944 2 Halifaxes, each with a 2,000 pound bomb
and 874 4 pound incendiaries took on the Lignose Sprengstoff
Werke Schoenbeck explosives plant. Both 2,000 pound bombs
scored direct hits on buildings and then the incendiaries went to
work. The TNT plant suffered 50% permanent damage, that is not
rebuilt, the electric fuse plant took 10 months to return to full production.

If the bad guys still control the area than can salvage and rebuild.

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.

This is quite funny really, the obvious thing to do was use the western
European economy better but invest in things like more fuel production,
ensuring the Luftwaffe had enough for proper pilot training, and ensure
the updating of the conventional fighters occurred earlier, the Bf109G-10
and Fw190D in service in early 1944 for example. Also no raiding the
training system for transport operations.

Diverting the manpower to the expensive task of underground factories
would help the allies, after all one of the reasons the Germans were able
to hold production up was a surplus of machine tools and factory space,
building more factory space would be a good move for the allies. The
most successful campaign against the German economy was the
destruction of the transport links between the factories which were mainly
above ground.

As for the ICBM dream in March 1944 of 57 V2 tests, 26 launched
and 4 made the target area. The fact that Germany was behind
England in nuclear research.


All of this ignores the Red Army, the Nazi policy of subsidising
extra manpower pre war to hide the unemployment problem, which
carried over into the war, the Nazi divide and rule policy when it
came to running Germany, the military continually demanding small
changes which slowed production and German government
indebtedness. In the first year of the war, September 1939 to
August 1940, the Reich spent 38.04 million marks on the military
and 31.95 on debt repayment, from then on for the rest of the
war the Government spent more on debt repayment than the war,
in the September 1943 to August 1944 period the ratio was 3
to 1 in favour of debt repayment. See Germany and the Second
World War volume V table II.VI.7, page 678 (English language
edition).

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.