Blitz Street

Fratton Fred

Did anyone watch any of this? http://www.channel4.com/programmes/blitz-street

it gave some excellent insight into the effects of the various types of bombs dropped on London, including the V1 and V2 rockets.

Morlar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Did anyone watch any of this? http://www.channel4.com/programmes/blitz-street

it gave some excellent insight into the effects of the various types of bombs dropped on London, including the V1 and V2 rockets.

I watched some of it, It was also on a few weeks ago too unless I am mistaken I had seen the later parts of the programme then.

Tbh last night after the part with the ominous music/ sinister slow-mo images and dramatic voice over along the lines of

'Werner von braun who was an SS Officer !!!!then worked in Nasa !!!'

part I changed channel.

1971

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Did anyone watch any of this? http://www.channel4.com/programmes/blitz-street

it gave some excellent insight into the effects of the various types of bombs dropped on London, including the V1 and V2 rockets.

I wonder what is was like in Hamburg.Berlin with a thousand bomber raid, considering that fact that the Germans only had twin engine bombers.

getz

as a young child in manchester ,i remember going out with other children in the mornings and playing in newly bombed out buildings the timbers still smoking

OS119

i had higher hopes for it - despite it being a Tony-unsociable fatherless-Robinson vehicle. sadly however, all the tripe and some very dodgy methodology got in the way.

the fundamental problem with it is that they are only 'testing' 1/3rd of the physical effects of an air-dropped munition - the blast effect and heat. they, because of reasonable fears about knocking down houses in Hexham, completely miss out the effect of the bomb casing (possibly 500kg of steel in a 1000kg bomb) being turned into super-heated razor blades travelling at warp speed in all directions, and the 'knocking effect' and ground heave of a 2 ton hump of metal hitting the ground at just shy of mach 1 50 yards from a row of houses.

sadly mince.

testicle

Morlar wrote: »

'Werner von braun who was an SS Officer !!!!then worked in Nasa !!!'

Well, umm, he was, and he did!

gizmo555

testicle wrote: »

Morlar wrote: »

Tbh last night after the part with the ominous music/ sinister slow-mo images and dramatic voice over along the lines of

'Werner von braun who was an SS Officer !!!!then worked in Nasa !!!'

part I changed channel.

Well, umm, he was, and he did!

Hardly news, though:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVPjuiABp_E

Fratton Fred

1971 wrote: »

I wonder what is was like in Hamburg.Berlin with a thousand bomber raid, considering that fact that the Germans only had twin engine bombers.

maybe you could watch German TV for us and see if they are doing similar documentaries, that way we could find out.

Fratton Fred

OS119 wrote: »

i had higher hopes for it - despite it being a Tony-unsociable fatherless-Robinson vehicle. sadly however, all the tripe and some very dodgy methodology got in the way.

the fundamental problem with it is that they are only 'testing' 1/3rd of the physical effects of an air-dropped munition - the blast effect and heat. they, because of reasonable fears about knocking down houses in Hexham, completely miss out the effect of the bomb casing (possibly 500kg of steel in a 1000kg bomb) being turned into super-heated razor blades travelling at warp speed in all directions, and the 'knocking effect' and ground heave of a 2 ton hump of metal hitting the ground at just shy of mach 1 50 yards from a row of houses.

sadly mince.

you obviously viewed it from a far more technical point than I

I liked a lot of the eyewitness accounts, particularly about people being "Blasted" to death. I wasn't really aware that this caused so many deaths.

1971

Fratton Fred wrote: »

maybe you could watch German TV for us and see if they are doing similar documentaries, that way we could find out.

Maybe you could read bomber command by" Hastings", and this will help you under stand the level of bombing carried out on German cities.23,000 on one night alone in hamburg died, compare that to the total of 90,000 killed in British cities.

I am not been anti British but the level of bombing by the allies was far greater to the civilian population of Germany.

gizmo555

WG Sebald's On the Natural History of Destruction is very good too.

Sebald, a German, was mainly concerned with post-war German public silence in the face of the enormous destruction wrought, but his dispassionate and detailed description of the firebombing of Hamburg, in particular, is harrowing.

Nonetheless, when comparing numbers, one has to recall that Germany invented this type of warfare, with the Zeppelins and Gothas of WW I and refined it from Guernica onwards. I'm no admirer of Bomber Harris, but one's bound to admit he was only stating the obvious with his well known remarks:

The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.

As Sebald put it in his work:

. . . the real pioneering achievements in bomb warfare - Guernica, Warsaw, Belgrade, Rotterdam - were the work of the Germans. And when we think of the nights when fires raged in Cologne, and Hamburg and Dresden, we ought to remember that as early as August 1942, when the vanguard of the Sixth Army had reached the Volga and not a few were dreaming of settling down after the war in the cherry orchards beside the quiet Don, the city of Stalingrad, then swollen (like Dresden later) by an influx of refugees, was under assault from 1,200 bombers, and that during that raid alone, which caused elation among the German troops stationed on the opposite bank, 40,000 people lost their lives.

1971

gizmo555 wrote: »

WG Sebald's On the Natural History of Destruction is very good too.

Sebald, a German, was mainly concerned with post-war German public silence in the face of the enormous destruction wrought, but his dispassionate and detailed description of the firebombing of Hamburg, in particular, is harrowing.

Nonetheless, when comparing numbers, one has to recall that Germany invented this type of warfare, with the Zeppelins and Gothas of WW I and refined it from Guernica onwards. I'm no admirer of Bomber Harris, but one's bound to admit he was only stating the obvious with his well known remarks:

The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.

As Sebald put it in his work:

. . . the real pioneering achievements in bomb warfare - Guernica, Warsaw, Belgrade, Rotterdam - were the work of the Germans. And when we think of the nights when fires raged in Cologne, and Hamburg and Dresden, we ought to remember that as early as August 1942, when the vanguard of the Sixth Army had reached the Volga and not a few were dreaming of settling down after the war in the cherry orchards beside the quiet Don, the city of Stalingrad, then swollen (like Dresden later) by an influx of refugees, was under assault from 1,200 bombers, and that during that raid alone, which caused elation among the German troops stationed on the opposite bank, 40,000 people lost their lives.

Darnstadt why bomb this town??

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

Fratton Fred

1971 wrote: »

Maybe you could read bomber command by" Hastings", and this will help you under stand the level of bombing carried out on German cities.23,000 on one night alone in hamburg died, compare that to the total of 90,000 killed in British cities.

I am not been anti British but the level of bombing by the allies was far greater to the civilian population of Germany.

great, thanks for the info. I am well aware of the scale of bombing that Germany endured.

what you are effectively saying though, is that the people of Britain cant complain, because the Germans suffered more.

gizmo555

1971 wrote: »

Darnstadt why bomb this town??

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

Once again as Harris said,

gizmo555 wrote: »

They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.

If you go round bombing other countries' cities, what can you expect but more of the same in return?

To be clear, I'm not saying it was justified and indeed it is especially difficult to see a lot of the bombing of Germany which the Allies did towards the end of the war as anything other than a collective punishment of the Germans and an awful warning of what they might expect if they were ever foolish enough to start another war.

1971

Fratton Fred wrote: »

great, thanks for the info. I am well aware of the scale of bombing that Germany endured.

sound!!

what you are effectively saying though, is that the people of Britain cant complain, because the Germans suffered more.

They just seem to always talk about the blitz, is it not time to move on ,yes German civilian suffered more than their British counterparts.

Mahatma coat

on the topic of Arthur Harris, this quote is why a lot of people think he was a C*nt

harris wrote:

The aim of the Combined Bomber Offensive and the part which Bomber Command is required by agreed British-US strategy to play in it, should be unambiguously and publicly stated. That aim is the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers and the disruption of civilised community life throughout Germany.

It should be emphasised that the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives, the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale, and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing, are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories

gizmo555

Mahatma coat wrote: »

on the topic of Arthur Harris, this quote is why a lot of people think he was a C*nt

Well, you know, although Harris was a c*nt, he was a a bluntly honest one. Others at very senior levels in Britain, up to and including Churchill persisted with the public pretence that all bombing was aimed at clear military targets instead of admitting the truth, as Harris did.

There's no difference between what he stated as the aims of the bombing and paragraph 1 of the Casablanca Directive to British and US air force commanders, issued by the Allied Combined Chiefs of Staff in February 1943:

Your Primary object will be the progressive destruction and dislocation of the German military, industrial, and economic system, and the undermining of the morale of the German people to a point where their capacity for armed resistance is fatally weakened.

Fratton Fred

1971 wrote: »

They just seem to always talk about the blitz, is it not time to move on ,yes German civilian suffered more than their British counterparts.

no disrespect or anything, but advising people they should move on, on a board discussing history......

anyway, the people of stalingrad suffered more than anyone else, so why do people constantly go on about Dresden etc...maybe they should move on.

1971

Fratton Fred wrote: »

no disrespect or anything, but advising people they should move on, on a board discussing history......

No disrespect taken, but i was referring to the British public when I said "move on"

anyway, the people of stalingrad suffered more than anyone else, so why do people constantly go on about Dresden etc...maybe they should move on.

I must agree with you on the facts that Russia suffered a lot in the War, and Stalingrad is a very good example

Tony EH

1971 wrote: »

Maybe you could read bomber command by" Hastings", and this will help you under stand the level of bombing carried out on German cities.23,000 on one night alone in hamburg died, compare that to the total of 90,000 killed in British cities.

I am not been anti British but the level of bombing by the allies was far greater to the civilian population of Germany.

Actually, the death toll for Hamburg is somewhat higher, closer to 40,000 on the worst night and the death toll for British cities is somewhat lower, just under 60,000 for the entire war.

Tony EH

1971 wrote: »

Darnstadt why bomb this town??

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

Not only that, but...

. . . the real pioneering achievements in bomb warfare - Guernica, Warsaw, Belgrade, Rotterdam - were the work of the Germans. And when we think of the nights when fires raged in Cologne, and Hamburg and Dresden, we ought to remember that as early as August 1942, when the vanguard of the Sixth Army had reached the Volga and not a few were dreaming of settling down after the war in the cherry orchards beside the quiet Don, the city of Stalingrad, then swollen (like Dresden later) by an influx of refugees, was under assault from 1,200 bombers, and that during that raid alone, which caused elation among the German troops stationed on the opposite bank, 40,000 people lost their lives.

...contains not only little fact, but outright falsehoods too. Guernica was a mickey mouse attack that's been blown completely out of proportion since the event occured in 1938. Likewise, Warsaw, Belgrade and Stalingrad were attacked becasue the enemy armies had GARRISONED THEMSELVES THERE. The Luftwaffe was used in it's primary role, as flying artillery to support the land attacks. Besides, Yugoslavia wouldn't been touched if it wasn't for a British backed coup that ousted the previously neutral government. As for Rotterdam, this is another highly exaggerated raid. Churchill blow the death toll out of all proportion for this one, claiming, incredibly, that the Germans had killed 30,000+ people. Quite remarkable when you consider that only about 60 He111's of KG54 actually attacked the docks because they failed to hear the recall signal given to the bombers. The subsequent fires, caused by the material (food stores) hit on the docks, came as much as a shock to the Germans as it did to the Dutch as a total of only 90 tons of bombs were actually dropped. In addition, the allies bombed Rotterdam several times during the war and they caused MUCH wider damage and loss of life. And finally, concerning Stalingrad...there is ZERO proof that anywhere near 40,000 civilians were killed (at least not by bombing alone) during the attacks there on the 23rd Aug '42. That is an absolute falsehood and was first spread by Soviet propaganda during the war itself. Joel Hayward in his book 'Stopped at Stalingrad' suggests that perhaps up to 25,000 COULD have been killed. But, I would say that this is way too high as well. Especially when one considers that the majority of attacks were carried out by Fiebig's Stukas. A machine that was completely impractical for carpet bombing. as it was designed to attack a pin point target, not an area...such as the Lancaster. Perhaps 40,000 civilans were killed in the battle, but NOT on one day and not by bombing alone. The Luftwaffe simply didn't have the capability. In fact, just a month later Luftflotte IV was down to just 500 aircraft, over a hundred of which were for recon purposes and only a percentage of that 500 planes were actually serviceable.

Tony EH

BTW...wasn't too impressed with Blitz Street.

1971

Tony EH wrote: »

Actually, the death toll for Hamburg is somewhat higher, closer to 40,000 on the worst night and the death toll for British cities is somewhat lower, just under 60,000 for the entire war.

I was in the parliament ( Rathaus) , in the main lobby of the building there is a picture of the devastation to commemorate the 34,000 people who lost their lives on one night.

I will agree with you on the silly program Blitz street, any way i do not like tony Robinson drool voice.It's very hard to take the like of him serious after black adder

Tony EH

Numbers are generally bunkum anyway. You'll always have fluctuations. Does the Rathaus figure of 34.000 take into account the missing and never found?

Either way, I've seen figures as low as 20.000 being put forward. At the end of the day, it'll come down to what it always comes down to and that's what one chooses to believe.

I actually like Tony Robinson. He's made some decent programs. The 'Worst Jobs in history' was great.

gizmo555

Tony EH wrote: »

Guernica was a mickey mouse attack that's been blown completely out of proportion since the event occured in 1938.

....

And finally, concerning Stalingrad...there is ZERO proof that anywhere near 40,000 civilians were killed (at least not by bombing alone) during the attacks there on the 23rd Aug '42. That is an absolute falsehood and was first spread by Soviet propaganda during the war itself. Joel Hayward in his book 'Stopped at Stalingrad' suggests that perhaps up to 25,000 COULD have been killed. But, I would say that this is way too high as well. Especially when one considers that the majority of attacks were carried out by Fiebig's Stukas. A machine that was completely impractical for carpet bombing. as it was designed to attack a pin point target, not an area...such as the Lancaster. Perhaps 40,000 civilans were killed in the battle, but NOT on one day and not by bombing alone. The Luftwaffe simply didn't have the capability. In fact, just a month later Luftflotte IV was down to just 500 aircraft, over a hundred of which were for recon purposes and only a percentage of that 500 planes were actually serviceable.

In the afternoon, the panzer crews looked up, squinting against the sunlight, to see waves of Junkers 88 and Heinkel 111 bombers, as well as squadrons of Stukas in 'tightly packed groups', flying towards Stalingrad.

. . .

Richthofen's aircraft began to carpet bomb in relays, 'not just industrial targets, but everything', said one student present that day.

. . .

Descriptions of scenes in the city make it hard to imagine anyone surviving outside a cellar.

. . .

The aerial assault on Stalingrad, the most concentrated on the Ostfront, represented the natural culmination of Richthofen's career since Guernica. Fourth Air Fleet aircraft flew a total of 1,600 sorties that day and dropped 1,000 tons of bombs for the loss of only three machines. According to some estimates, there had been nearly 600,000 people in Stalingrad, and 40,000 were killed during the first week of bombardment.

Beevor, Stalingrad, pp. 104-106

Tony EH

In the afternoon, the panzer crews looked up, squinting against the sunlight, to see waves of Junkers 88 and Heinkel 111 bombers, as well as squadrons of Stukas in 'tightly packed groups', flying towards Stalingrad.

So what?

Richthofen's aircraft began to carpet bomb in relays, 'not just industrial targets, but everything', said one student present that day.

The vast majority of Luftflotte IV's aircraft was incapable of "carpet bombing" anything. I couldn't care less what "one student" says.

Descriptions of scenes in the city make it hard to imagine anyone surviving outside a cellar.

Meaningless.

The aerial assault on Stalingrad, the most concentrated on the Ostfront, represented the natural culmination of Richthofen's career since Guernica. Fourth Air Fleet aircraft flew a total of 1,600 sorties that day and dropped 1,000 tons of bombs for the loss of only three machines. According to some estimates, there had been nearly 600,000 people in Stalingrad, and 40,000 were killed during the first week of bombardment.

In a week, perhaps, but not by bombing alone, especially when one considers the payload, type and targeting priority of the airforce concerned. In any case, the claim by Sebald (and others) is 40,000 killed in a day. Aug 23rd. And it still remains bunkum.

If you're really interested on the Luftwaffe's role over Stalingrad, I suggest that you read Joel Hayward's 'Stopped at Stalingrad'. It focuses entirely on the German air ops. In it, it's listed the specific targets that that were assigned for bombing.

It becomes pretty clear that it wasn't "everything".

The Kampfgeshwader and Stukageschwader had particular targets assigned and made great efforts to hit them, including dangerous low alt bombing runs. They simply couldn't afford to waste ordnance on blind indiscriminate attacks on "everything" as that would have been tactically useless. The bombers of the Luftwaffe were set up as flying artillery. They were a tactical force, not a strategic one al la Bomber Command. So they way the German airforce was employed was very different. The prime directive for the Luftwaffe was to clear the way for the land forces. This meant that specific targets had to be hit. Simply dumping tons of bombs on "everything" would have achieved nothing. The most targeted and hit point in the city was the Red October factory areas to the east. They were churning out T-34's that were being thrown into battle straight away. Putting that out of action made tactical sense.

Bombing "everything" wouldn't have.

gizmo555

Unresolvable arguments about how many were killed in a day (for example, does someone wounded on day one and who died a week later count?), or whether the Luftwaffe's attack met the strict definition of carpet bombing (reading accounts of the destruction wrought, even if precision targeting was intended, that was certainly not the outcome) are ultimately sterile and anyway miss the overall point.

Sebald may err in detail (he was a literary author, not a professional historian), but on the overall point he makes, that Germany pioneered this type of warfare - not just technically, but far more importantly making the widespread and indiscriminate bombing of cities an acceptable part of the usages of war - he is entirely correct.

As for Guernica being "Mickey Mouse", it was certainly minor compared to some of the horrors to be unleashed in WW II, but it is hardly possible to overstate the shock it caused at the time, or its influence in convincing other countries that Germany intended to employ similar methods in any future conflict. And as Sebald and Beevor both note, what Richthofen learned in Spain where he commanded the Condor Legion, he applied to vastly greater and more devastating effect in the East.

Tony EH

Unresolvable arguments about how many were killed in a day (for example, does someone wounded on day one and who died a week later count?), or whether the Luftwaffe's attack met the strict definition of carpet bombing (reading accounts of the destruction wrought, even if precision targeting was intended, that was certainly not the outcome) are ultimately sterile and anyway miss the overall point.

Depends what the overall point is.

Besides, I was correcting the quote from Seabald, which as I said, not only contains errors, but outright falsehoods too.

In addition, the destruction wrought upon Stalingrad did not come from the results of airial bombing alone. The place was a battlefield for months. Images of destruction within Stalingrad that one sees should not be put into the simple brackets of "Luftwaffe bombing". There were numerous causes and not just from the Germans either.

Sebald may err in detail (he was a literary author, not a professional historian), but on the overall point he makes, that Germany pioneered this type of warfare - not just technically, but far more importantly making the widespread and indiscriminate bombing of cities an acceptable part of the usages of war - he is entirely correct.

No, it's not. The German's didn't "pioneer" anything of the sort. The Luftwaffe as a whole was set up for a completely different purpose. It was a tactical battlefield airforce, not a strategic airforce. It's aircraft and doctrine were designed to produce immediate effects on the battlefield. It's one of the failings of the Luftwaffe that they didn't follow the British ideas of producing heavy bombers for the purpose of area bombing.

The theoretical applications of area bombing had been advanced by the British and the Italians long before the Luftwaffe was even a potent force. The Germans were way behind on that matter. In fact, they never even got off the ground in that respect. The programs for four engined strategic bomber airforce never became a reality, whereas Bomber Command's evolution is very clear.

The Luftwaffe rejected Douhet's theory of "terror bombing" outright, saying that it was a "counter-productive" idea. That's not to say that, at times, they didn't engage in such actions, especially later in the war and even then the results were miniscule compared to Bomber Command's efforts.

As for Guernica being "Mickey Mouse", it was certainly minor compared to some of the horrors to be unleashed in WW II, but it is hardly possible to overstate the shock it caused at the time, or its influence in convincing other countries that Germany intended to employ similar methods in any future conflict. And as Sebald and Beevor both note, what Richthofen learned in Spain where he commanded the Condor Legion, he applied to vastly greater and more devastating effect in the East.

And that's the point. Guernica was in fact nothing that new. By 1937, towns had been bombed before and with greater loss of life too. In fact, more people had been killed in crossfire within towns and villages than died at Guernica. Less than a 200 people (including Republican military forces) were killed, some say it was less. Much different than the 2000 suggested at the time. What's entirely different about Guernica was the propaganda usage the Republican forces (and others) got out of it. Propaganda that colours perception to this day, I may add.

And as for method, most of the aircraft employed in the Guernica raid by the Condor Legion were JU-52's. Hardly the bomber aircraft of choice, due to the very small bombload. Likewise, the He-51 bi-planes employed carried an even smaller load.

Seabald and Beevor's hyperbole notwithstanding, what Von Richthofen "learnt" in Spain was to hone the German bomber force into a pricise tool for the support of ground troops. A function it excelled at throughout most of the war.

drakshug

I doubt if you could say that the Germans didn't adhere to terror bombing.
The bombing of Warsaw and Rotterdam were done to provoke terror and extinguish resistance. Baedeker raids were there to destroy culture and therefore sap moral.
The Germans reaped the wind and got it back thousandfold. It is fine to us with the benefit of hindsight to go on about the allied bombings but for the British in Coventry, Clydebank and Lodon and Liverpool it was apt that the Germans were being Coventrized.

Tony EH

The bombing of Warsaw and Rotterdam were done to provoke terror and extinguish resistance

Not true. Warsaw was bombed not as an act of terror, but because the Polish military was garrisoned there. No army is going to send in it's land forces with an armed and dug defence waiting for them, that hasn't been softened up. That contravenes basic military logic. That civilians died during the bombing is a fact, but the targeting of civilians wasn't reason for the Luftwaffe's employment. Warsaw was a fortified city with and active military presence and it's attack was well within the established rules of a targeted bombardment.

Likewise, the bombing of Rotterdam focused on the port and was limited to a very small tonnage. This is in no way a "terror bombing" and that moniker only comes from the allied propaganda used at the time. But, I have already gone into this.

While ALL nations engaged in bombing civilians at one point or another during the war, the ONLY nation to do so as an expressed policy was Britain.

gizmo555

Tony EH wrote: »

Warsaw was bombed not as an act of terror

Terror, like beauty, is very much in the eye of the beholder.

Tony EH wrote: »

Likewise, the bombing of Rotterdam focused on the port and was limited to a very small tonnage. This is in no way a "terror bombing" and that moniker only comes from the allied propaganda used at the time.

It may have "focussed" on the port, but a square mile of the city centre was razed to the ground. That's a fact, not propaganda.



Imagine a square mile of Dublin centred on O'Connell Bridge flattened and tell me with a straight face that wouldn't be "terror bombing".

Tony EH wrote: »

While ALL nations engaged in bombing civilians at one point or another during the war, the ONLY nation to do so as an expressed policy was Britain.

On the basis that one is assumed to intend the reasonably foreseeable consequences of one's actions, Germany intended to bomb civilians just as much as anyone. Arguably, in fact, whether or not you agree with what they did, the British were more honest and straight up about their intentions.