Dauntless review historical inaccuracies

[oldbear 33]

I enjoyed David Wilson-Okamura's review of the Vertigo Studios SBD Dauntless (17 July), but disagree with his statement in his introduction that there was "no such thing as precision bombing". It is correct that RAF Bomber Command's navigation and bombing accuracy was extremely poor in the early war period. However, technology and target marking techniques improved dramatically as the war went on, so that by 1944 Bomber Command's heavy bombers had the capability to hit targets such as oil refineries, canals and railyards very accurately at night, usually more so than the 8th USAAF was generally capable of in daylight. No. 5 Group in particular became very adept. During strikes on rail targets in France in the run-up to D-Day, the majority of aircraft were dropping their payloads within 700yds of the aiming point. This average was later reduced to 300yds. The Gnome Rhone aero-engine factory in Limoges was knocked out surgically by 11 Lancasters dropping 12,000 bombs from 10,000 feet, after the CO of No. 617 Squadron - Leonard Cheshire - placed his markers on the plant at rooftop height. It didn't get much more precise than that! And of course, the Mosquito force delivered many very precise attacks on specific high value targets from 1942 onwards. Btw. the B-17's usual operational bomb-load was 4,000lb. Not 18,000lbIan

[Chock 17,769]

Yup, I noticed that on the B-17 reference too. Theoretically it was possible for a Flying Fortress to carry that load if it had external racks fitted, but it would have to be a target not much further away than the other side of the airfield, 'cause it would then not be able to carry very much fuel at all LOL. Carrying such loads was actually done a few times after D-Day when 17s could take off from France and had massive fighter cover, but as you correctly say, it certainly wasn't a typical bomb load, with 4,000lbs be a much more typical load for the B-17.With regard to accuracy in the pre-D-Day raids for the RAF, that accuracy level for later in the war is indeed true, particularly with Mickey-equipped aircraft on the raid, however, on such occasions, they were often bombing from much lower altitudes than on night-time city raids with Pathfinder marking, and thus not having to worry about too much German fighter cover because the raids did not penetrate very far and had very comprehensive Allied fighter cover too. A slight caveat to the improved accuracy however, is that because they were going for targets such as bridges much of the time, in preparation for making enemy access to the upcoming D-Day beachheads tricky, getting within 300 yards was often not accurate enough, as they tended to need pretty much a direct hit to take out a bridge. They absolutely needed a direct hit if it was an open framework steel bridge they were trying to destroy, since a nearby blast wave usually just passes through the open framework of a steel bridge without causing major damage. The USAF found that out the hard way over North Vietnam with guided bombs, where it took them a lot of raids to take out the open frame Paul Doumier Bridge despite having guided munitions.If you read Jack Currie's excellent 'Lancaster Target' and 'Mosquito Victory' books, there is a lot of interesting stuff about that kind of thing, and as much as I find Leonard Cheshire's 'Bomber Pilot' book interesting, Currie's books are in my opinion, much more enlightening on that score, although having met Cheshire a few years ago, there is no doubt he was a very special and talented pilot, as indeed was Currie.With that in mind, I think what David was really alluding to was the fact that these days, we are used to seeing guidance camera footage of LGBs detonating right on the point where the laser designator crosshair is pointing. These debating points aside, of which people will always tend to have differing opinions on, I thought the review itself was very good indeed, and the points you mention didn't really detract from the review.Al

[oldbear 33]

Good points.In the rail campaign it wasn't just the bridges they were going for, but the rail intersections and yards. Take a look at the famous before and after snaps of Juvisy! This is what really isolated the battlefield. The attentions of the tactical air forces also stopped much of the road traffic too. Later of course they applied the same techniques to the German rail and canal system, with similar success. But you're right about the difficulty in hitting bridges (and viaducts) - that's why they took to using Tallboys and eventually Grand Slams to literally shake them down!My point was that people tend to assume the RAF just carpet-bombed cities. Which they did of course, but fortunately by 1944 they were also able to hit the sorts of strategically vital targets they'd always been trying to hit, but couldn't, much earlier in the war. When the RAF and USAAF really got down to systematically attacking the German transport infrastructure and synthetic oil-plants, the game was up for the German war machine. Too late, they'd found the right targets and had the means to destroy them. But by then the Allied armies were on German soil and no-one was going to believe the air forces could have done it alone!Sorry to ramble on, completely off topic...! :( Btw Al, have you read my book? http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bomber-Command-193...r/dp/0711026998Ian

[Chock 17,769]

Yup, read that one. I think it's one of the better books on the subject, along with the ones from Max Hastings and Stephen Bungay. Through Blue Skies to Hell by Edward M Sion is a good one on B-17s, as indeed is On a Wing and A Prayer by Harry H Crosby.If you are into the subject of the accuracy and indeed the morality of bombing, which you clearly are, I'd recommend The First of the Many by Alan Morris, which is about the Independent Force in WW1 and the problems of accuracy versus hitting civilians when a bomber force was being created, using the HP heavies and stuff like the DH4. The IAF were actually pretty accurate on occasion even back then, which that book confirms. But it also has a lot about the positive and negative effects of hitting civilian population centres, including the fact that it was unofficially condoned by Britain's politicians in WW1, before they realised that it could actually stiffen the resolve of people, rather than demoralise them, as happened in both Germany and the UK during WW2. An interesting read.You can find it here: http://www.amazon.com/FIRST-MANY-ALAN-MORR...4146&sr=1-8Al

[oldbear 33]

Yup, read that one. I think it's one of the better books on the subject....Al

Well thank you very much Al. You've made my day!! :( Ian

[mgh 89]

I enjoyed David Wilson-Okamura's review of the Vertigo Studios SBD Dauntless (17 July), but disagree with his statement in his introduction that there was "no such thing as precision bombing".

While there were some remarkable feats by a few highly trained units, there really was no such thing as precision bombing overall in World War Two.The United States Strategy Bombing surveys show that the airforce '...designated as "the target area" a 'circle having a radius of 1000 feet around the aiming point of attack. While accuracy improved during the war, Survey studies show that, in the over-all, only about 20% of the bombs aimed at precision targets fell within this target area.'http://aupress.au.af.mil/Books/USSBS/USSBS.pdfThe official British Bombing survey shows that in 1941 the RAF only dropped only about 20% of its bombs within 15,000 ft (3 miles) of the aiming point. By the end of the war this had risen to 90%.British Bombing Survey Unit, The Strategic Air War Against Germany, 1939-1945: The Official Report of the British Bombing Survey Unit, ed. Sebastian Cox (London: Frank Cass, 1998)Neither seem very precise.