Map of London with blitz-hit overlay

[Other Means]

See where the bombs fell.

London only - other cities miraculously unharmed.

[JonS]

That's really interesting. The first thing that struck me is that there doesn't seem to be any obvious patterns - no strings of bombs (which is probably due to the way each incident was reported and recorded), and no particular area(s) of concentration. It's like the GAF just flew over London dumping bombs at random.

It's a shame the folk who created that map didn't colour code the markers in various ways - by date, or size, or sumfink.

Thanks Mr Means.

[Sublime]

When you zoom out it's staggering. And it's only with 1940 bombing tech. I wonder what a similar map of say Berlin would look like, if you could even see the map under the red dots..

[Affentitten]

That's really interesting. The first thing that struck me is that there doesn't seem to be any obvious patterns - no strings of bombs (which is probably due to the way each incident was reported and recorded), and no particular area(s) of concentration. It's like the GAF just flew over London dumping bombs at random.

Well they really were dropping them at random. They didn't have much in the way of bombsight tech, pathfinding tactics etc. It was get over there in the dark in a fairly dispersed box and drop. Nothing like the science the Brits made of it by 1944. Plus weren't they really trying to break morale rather than destroy specific targets?

You can see a bit of clustering along the docks out towards Greenwich. Just imagine how many are lying at the bottom of the Thames!

[JonS]

Yeah. True. I guess I expected /some/ evidence of specific aim points and a coherent targetting policy. But, I forgot we're talking about the German Air Force.

[Pak_43]

In 1940 the same would have been true of the RAF also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butt_Report

"Any examination of night photographs taken during night bombing in June and July points to the following conclusions:

1. Of those aircraft recorded as attacking their target, only one in three got within 5 miles [(8 kilometres)].

2. Over the French ports, the proportion was two in three; over Germany as a whole, the proportion was one in four; over the Ruhr it was only one in ten.

3. In the full moon, the proportion was two in five; in the new moon it was only one in fifteen. ...

4. All these figures relate only to aircraft recorded as attacking the target; the proportion of the total sorties which reached within 5 miles is less than one-third. ...

The conclusion seems to follow that only about one-third of aircraft claiming to reach their target actually reached it.[4]"

[Other Means]

In 1941 yes, hence Affentitten saying 1944.

[Spinoza]

Somebody said the other day that Starbucks had bigger impact on London landscape than Luftwaffe.

[Affentitten]

Also if you think about the bomb bay of something like the Heinkel, the bombs are stored vertically, tailfin downwards. When they drop (and there is footage of that) they start tumbling and dispersing the stick almost straight away. Total shotgun effect.

[Pak_43]

"In 1941 yes, hence Affentitten saying 1944." Agreed, I was actually replying to JonS in that it wasn't just the German air force that would have given the impression of a random targetting policy and no specific aim points. Perhaps I missed some subtlety in JonS' post? Always possible...

[Wodin]

WOW brings it into perspective..good find.

[sburke]

Somebody said the other day that Starbucks had bigger impact on London landscape than Luftwaffe.

rotflmao - Starbucks is a WMD.

My favorite is across the street from my company's office in Shanghai. This is the old French quarter and was off limits to the nationalist police. So the Chinese Communist party's first congress was held there. Go figure, the location of the first Chinese Communist Party Congress is now... a Starbucks (or close anyway)

[John Kettler]

Other Means,

Blame the British! They screwed up EVERY navigation & bombing aid system the Germans fielded and later used one, British name Oboe, I believe, to pulverize Germany. This Wiki succinctly covers the Battle of the Beams and clearly shows the havoc the Germans could and did wreak when their systems were allowed to operate unhindered. I've read both the referenced R.V. Jones book and the Alfred Price book. Both are excellent and essential reads on this topic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Beams

There were also considerable measures taken to frustrate optical bomb aiming. See, for example, Starfish, NOT Starfish Prime.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Other Means]

That's interesting John. I knew of it but not the detail - thanks.

[John Kettler]

Other Means,

You're most welcome!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Affentitten]

Here is a similar attempt with Bristol.

This one is a bit different because it plots the impacts of a single raid. You can see the stick patterns in some cases, but in general it shows how randomly bombs dispersed once they left the aircraft.

[Sublime]

For some reason I seem to recall the Dorniers or maybe Heinkels released the bombs funny, one after the other like the planes dropping eggs, instead of in vertical sticks like most bombers of the time. Would that contribute? Perhaps they had an option how the bombs were released a la ripple fire?

[Affentitten]

For some reason I seem to recall the Dorniers or maybe Heinkels released the bombs funny, one after the other like the planes dropping eggs, instead of in vertical sticks like most bombers of the time. Would that contribute? Perhaps they had an option how the bombs were released a la ripple fire?

See my post higher up about Heinkel bomb bays.

[Michael Emrys]

Also if you think about the bomb bay of something like the Heinkel, the bombs are stored vertically, tailfin downwards. When they drop (and there is footage of that) they start tumbling and dispersing the stick almost straight away. Total shotgun effect.

I've often wondered just why they did that. Were they trying to maximize dispersion? That would seem counterintuitive in a tactical bomber, but... Or was it done for structural reasons, like to keep the bomb bay as short as possible? Did any other nation design bombers with vertical bomb stowage?

Michael

[Affentitten]

I think it's mainly airframe design and layout. Those medium German bombers were a big wing spar with a cockpit strapped to the front. Being inter-war designs, they were also built with smaller bombs (like the 50kg ones) and smaller ranges in mind. The bigger 250kg bombs they wanted to use in 1940 meant retro-fitting other rack mechanisms. The bomb loads of these guys were really small at that point. Eg. a DO-17 could carry just four 250 kg bombs and that was at a real range penalty. The He-111 could carry bigger bombs externally, but the hardpoints blocked the internal bomb doors, so it was one or the other.

The B-17 suffered similarly though from that short but tall bomb bay. Compare to the Lancaster's ability to carry just about any shaped load.

[dieseltaylor]

Bristol is a city I know weel so it was wierd looking at the hits. As for London I see three within 200 metres of my house!

[Sublime]

Affentitten - yes I saw, only after I posted. Sorry!

[hoolaman]

This link about V2 hits is also pretty cool. The impact of a V2 was so huge that the demolition of a whole block of pre-war buildings still shows up pretty clearly on the landscape. There is something odd about most of the spots marked, a modern building, a carpark etc among the old terraces.