Couldn’t agree more SOC – to say “at least 437” is a leap of faith on the data available.
That said, the thing I find concerning in all this is the extraordinary Janus like positioning of the US administration in all this. Since when have “enhanced interrogation techiques” as I think they’re called (the alleged purpose behind these flights, however many there were) been acceptable in a “civilised” Nation fighting terrorism? I struggle to understand the thought processes at work here.
Wow!!! Amazing stuff.
Mark
A few months ago I read an article, in FlyPast I think (just stopped for a moment wondering if it might have been another mag or maybe a FP Special like that “Bombers” one of theirs) anyway IIRC the first B17’s in use in the European theatre were in the hands of the RAF – one squadron, essentially experimental, and they flew them very, very high, in small flights. Didn’t work very well primarily because if the early engines at altitude.
I guess that doesn’t really help you as I assume you’re talking of early USAAF aircraft in the theatre. I must say I didn’t appreciate that C’s and D’s were used. Have you got access to Freeman’s Mighty Eighth War Diaries? Also follow your nose in the link below.
http://paul.rutgers.edu/~mcgrew/wwii/usaf/html/
cheers Don
Good post.
I have this idea/memory/illusion or whatever it is that Harris (arriving on the scene after this time, ie after the survey) came to the conclusion that the only effective way to hit the enemy was area bombing. Accurate, large volume area bombing would have been an oymoron to Harris – when he started. But of course over time Bomber Command became much more proficient at placing all/most of their bombloads more-or-less in one place. Target marking improved, so did the general bombing accuracy, and the sheer volume, and the destructiion. The original rationale for area bombing become less pertinent, but the strategy never wavered.
All through this bear in mind, on all sides of the various theatres, the bomber was a key way of striking the enemy and an object of loathing to the defender. Brave men all, on all sides.
spin & other pseudo doctors
you wanna know what’s REALLY scary – “enhanced interrogation techniques” courtesy of the CIA
spin & other pseudo doctors
you wanna know what’s REALLY scary – “enhanced interrogation techniques” courtesy of the CIA
What book Flood? Context is all 😎
Aside from that – there’s no doubt that bomber crew were generally regarded in Germany, by NAZI party and general populace alike, as “Terrorflieger” and did not Mr Churchill ask “are we beasts?” (on seeing footage of mid-1943 attacks on the heavily populated Ruhr region: this reflection at times ascribed to him as a post-Dresen reaction).
I can understand victims of an “area bombing” raid being ill disposed towards those who carried it out. Similarly I can see how fellow airforce personnel would respect their opponents. It all rather depends on one’s perspective.
Agree with the above and that’s a widely publicised and good quality shot. I always like it when people are able to provide a quick reference to the actual aircraft in a photograph; I don’t have it on me but I’m reasonably sure Martin Middlebrook identifies it in his Bomber Command War Diaries – not at all sure but IIRC it was lost (along with many others) on the Nuremberg raid of 30/31 March 1944 (which in context of a German book was BTW a major success for German defences).
Ay … I do believe you’re right Moggy on both counts … air gunner was an official designation.
actually this is a better link – re. the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary & Artistic Works – gives you further links to all sorts of interesting stuff re. international treaties etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works
Thanks guys for all your contributions to this discussion …
re. Copyright Extension – this from Wikipedia (re. US legislation) says there is no ongoing extension in the USA, merely a one-off from 50 to 70 years (and longer re. corporate authorship) that occured in 1998 – seemingly to harmonise with similar EU one-off extension legislation passed earlier in the 90’s (between 1993 and 1996 it says further down the linked page). There is of course nothing to stop this (one-off extension) being enacted again from time to time.
quote from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 extended copyright terms in the United States by 20 years. Before the act, an author’s copyright would last until fifty years after his death. After the act, an author’s copyright would last until seventy years after his death, while copyrights for works of corporate authorship would last 75 to 95 years. The act also affected copyright terms for copyrighted works published prior to January 1, 1978, increasing their term of protection by 20 years as well. This effectively ‘froze’ the advancement date of the public domain in the United States for works covered by the older fixed term copyright rules. Under this act, no additional works made in 1923 or after, that were still copyrighted in 1998, will enter the public domain until 2019. Unlike copyright extension legislation in the European Union, the Sonny Bono Act did not revive copyrights that had already expired. However, the act did extend the terms of protection set for works that were already copyrighted, and is retroactive in that sense. The act became Public Law 105-298 on October 27, 1998.
lots of spare bicycles in China, Anna … they’re all buying cars … and there’s the rub
lots of spare bicycles in China, Anna … they’re all buying cars … and there’s the rub
Have we arrived at a point of agreement? I think so. No civilian “deserves” to die. Perhaps a few fanatics arguably “deserve” to die – typically the victors conduct trials on this point.
There are a number of similar threads in Historic – the touchpoint there being Dresden. In this one we also discuss the Atomic bombs.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=33973
A number of persons
Have we arrived at a point of agreement? I think so. No civilian “deserves” to die. Perhaps a few fanatics arguably “deserve” to die – typically the victors conduct trials on this point.
There are a number of similar threads in Historic – the touchpoint there being Dresden. In this one we also discuss the Atomic bombs.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=33973
A number of persons