Simviation Forums

I was fliping through my history book, (dam first day and we already have homework!) and I came apon this page at the beggining of the WWII chapter that had two things that really disturbed me





1. First what aircraft is that?

so far I think its a Heinkel He-111 but Im no expert

2. of all the caption says "Radar tells the pilot where to drop bombs, but at 10,000 feet he cannot see the casualties they will cause"

RADAR? I don't think aircraft had radar back then did they? I know there were radar bases on the ground but did aircraft really have radar?

Yeah I know they are two minor things but they will keep bugging me till I get an answer( )

Thanks in advance

That is most defintely a He 111.  Very famous picture.

That's why I never trust school textbooks.  Aircraft were capable of carrying RADAR sets, however the aircraft required special adjustments to do so.  You could not simply slap a RADAR set into a Spitfire.  Entire aircraft were built to accomadate RADAR (P-61).  In most cases, it was usually only used for night figheters, as the equipment was so cumbersome.  To my knowledge, all/most strtegic ordnance in World War II was dropped with bombsights.

Also note the text box "One plane-load of bombs...".  A quick run through CFS3 will prove that wrong.  However, an entire wing, or pehaps even a formation, now that's a different story.

I think I recognise that text book from a few years back.  Notice later on, in the quick blurb it provides on the BoB, it credits RADAR as the pivotal factor.  In most discussions here, it's been roughly boiled down to the fact the Luftwaffe switched it's attention to bombing the populace, rather than finishing off the RAF.

I think the RADAR mentioned here is the radio guidance system used by the Luftwaffe during the BoB & "Blitz". http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/alexandrapalace/war.asp

There were 2 systems named "Knickebein" (crooked leg) & X-Gerat (Wotan I). These involved transmitting Lorenz type radio signals (beams) on different frequencies from two separate locations. These signals were picked up by special receivers on the aircraft. When the 2 beams crossed the bomber was directly over the target & dropped its bombs. Providing the signals were aimed correctly & not jammed it could be very accurate but would not be suitable for precision bombing. The destruction of the city of Coventry in 1940 was an early demonstration of how effective it could be.

These systems would not generally be fitted to all aircraft. The lead bombers would use them to mark the target for the others. This was later developed into the special Pathfinder units used by both sides in WWII.

The Allies later used the GEE & OBOE navigation systems which were basically similar to the navaids in common use today.

High level bombing was never that accurate during WWII. The only way to knock out that bomb factory in your photo while causing minimum civilian casualties would be a low-level raid by highly trained crews.

The book obviously oversimplifies technology THEN, with technology NOW.  Even then, "collateral damage", or undesired damage/casualties is practically unavoidable even with precision bombing, if the target is located within a non-military populated area.

"..the only way to win the game is not to play at all.."

Whoa, I got that exact same book, and don't worry, there are alot more things in there that are more disturbing than that................

Hmm didn't know about the radar system Hangar. Did the allies use these to precision bomb too?

The germans seemed so advanced, swept wing fighters, Radar bombing, next thing you know BMW is tring to build a Flying sauser.

oops spoke too soon
http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/BMW-Fv1/BMW-V1.htm

Whoa, I got that exact same book, and don't worry, there are alot more things in there that are more disturbing than that................

yeah like the inca mumy in the beggining. I ussually don't have dreams, but I swear I had a nighmare about that thing... its creepy!

Is this revisionist history?

Having read David Irving's technically accurate but politically horrible (Nazi sympathizer) "Destruction of Dresden" I think this is a trick question, i.e., do you use your horribly inaccurate radar (such as it was) or or trust the bombardier?

The revisionists would like you to think that radar was horribly inaccurate (which it probably was) but that radar was the only targeting system available.  In fact it wasn't.

Allied bombers used a combination of Pathfinder radar (already explained) and "spotter planes" which flew low and dropped target flares.  The high altitude bombers followed the primitive "radar" and looked for the target flares.

Would I have bombed this target?  I can't see what the bombardier saw so I can't say.  That's why I think it's a trick "revisionist history" question.

Hmm didn't know about the radar system Hangar. Did the allies use these to precision bomb too?

Yes. The British had concentrated on defensive RADAR which was developed just in time for the BoB. After lagging behind in radio navigation they developed their own system. This gives a brief explanation of GEE & OBOE I mentioned. http://histru.bournemouth.ac.uk/Oral_History/Talking_About_Technology/radar_research/a_guided_bombing_system-oboe.html
These systems worked well enough but in wartime were subject to jamming or interference. Another more accurate system was code-named H2S. This involved signals being transmitted from the aircraft. One problem with this being that these signals could be used by the enemy to track the aircraft. As with any top-secret equipment it was not used as early as it might have been for fear of it falling into enemy hands. It was used successfully on D-Day. I've recently been re-reading a very interesting book entitled "Most Secret War" by R.V Jones (the man who bent the beams). This gives the history behind these & other secret developments during WWII, including the Enigma codebreakers at Bletchley Park. http://www.naval-military-press.com/books/details/2574.htm

Is this revisionist history?

I have to agree with you there Jim. Makes me wonder who chooses the history books these days.

really interesting stuff, I never knew about the flares.


these things only scratch the surface because sadly most people nowadays really don't care much about it, and will probably take everything it says as true. So they are kindof forced to take a pro-american view, a view that is healthy without any further justification, so I would agree in a way it is in a way

When I referred to revisionist history I meant a pro-German slant.  Your illustration also has a clear anti-war slant.

It is true that bombers in 1944 had less accuracy than those of today.  No one would dispute that.

It is untrue, however, that WW2 bombing was so innacurate that civilian centers could not be distinguished from industrial sites.

Luftwaffe pilots and bombardiers were professional soldiers, not Nazi murderers.  As I stated in an earlier post, you would have to see what the bombardier saw in order to make a decision.  There was, however, an overwhelming political pressure (firing squad) on bombardiers to drop their loads.

Imagine you are an RAF pilot/bombardier in a Lancaster bomber.  You have flown for 10 hours at 30,000 feet in a freezing, unpressurized cockpit.  Are you going to go home without dropping your load on anything?

Now let's add the fact that Germans (and Allies, it's standard procedure) intentionally placed factories in residential areas.  Makes your decision a little tougher, doesn't it?

If you can think for yourself I suggest you go to your library and get a copy of David Irving's "Destruction of Dresden".  Irving is a Nazi sympathizer and the politics are all screwed up (we were the bad guys for bombing Dresden) but if you can see through the BS you will get a great technical picture of an actual bombing event.

Or just watch Slaughterhouse Five - not as technical but a good movie.

Hagar,

Do you have the ISBN number for that book, I went to the site in your link, but the ISBN number wasn't listed.

Regards,
Stratobat

Luftwaffe pilots and bombardiers were professional soldiers, not Nazi murderers.

Nice! you'd be surpirsed how many people think the Luftwaffe are the same thing as the "SS". These kids think "Germans --> Bad" but never actually care to really learn more about them. And then theres the Crazy kids who run around with the "iron cross" thinking its something else then it really is. Man we live in a messed up country

[quote]
If you can think for yourself I suggest you go to your library and get a copy of David Irving's "Destruction of Dresden".

I have read some of "Mein Kampf" - for the same reasons you want to.  It was a piece of gibberish and I couldn't wade through more than a couple of chapters.

I read "Moby Dick" (another piece of garbage), "Paradise Lost" (several times) and most of Charles Dickens' novels without being required to, so I have a pretty high level of tolerance.  But "Mein Kampf"?  Let me know when you finish it (then you  might want to hit "Das Kapital").

Guess its not a good book, still havent gotten it yet but I'll probably still get it. as to Das Kapital by Karl Marx I heard its boring but i'll probably still buy it.

Man too many books to read not enough time... I'll get there.... eventually

Don't go too far out of your way to get Destruction of Dresden.  I have the paperback and it's not worth more than a couple of dollars.