London Blitz -Bomb Strike map

InTheTrees

This site is absolutely fascinating; its a clickable map of every(?) bomb dropped on London between 7th October 1940 to 6th June 1941.

The two maximum zoom levels have clickable Icons for each bomb. I found High Explosive Bombs and Parachute Mines(?) but I haven't found any Incendiaries(?) listed and I thought they were used a lot. I thought one of the hits on St.Pauls was an incendiary.

http://www.bombsight.org

jonniebgood1

Incendiaries were used in the Blitz. Maybe an incendiary is classified as a type of high explosive device.

tac foley

An incendiary bomb is a cluster bomb. First you drop your HE bombs to break down walls and expose the internals of the structure, THEN you drop the incendiary bomb - a light-walled container that opens up at a pre-set height and showers little White Phosphorus bomblets onto the target. That's why the ARP folks had buckets of sand to put them out - water just spreads the flames.

A parachute mine, or aerial mine, is what we would now call a 'daisy-cutter'. It is a large, thin-walled bomb that drops slowly on a parachute and explodes at a pre-determined height above ground and destroys by sheer blast - it is a wall-breaker and building toppler.

tac

tac foley

InTheTrees wrote: »

This site is absolutely fascinating; its a clickable map of every(?) bomb dropped on London between 7th October 1940 to 6th June 1941.

The two maximum zoom levels have clickable Icons for each bomb. I found High Explosive Bombs and Parachute Mines(?) but I haven't found any Incendiaries(?) listed and I thought they were used a lot. I thought one of the hits on St.Pauls was an incendiary.

http://www.bombsight.org

If you look at the HE marker in Baytree Road, South London, that was my parent's house.

They were both out at work at the time.

tac

InTheTrees

tac foley wrote: »

If you look at the HE marker in Baytree Road, South London, that was my parent's house.

They were both out at work at the time.

tac

Well I'm happy they made it. I couldnt find it though, the search function is really bad.

tac foley

InTheTrees wrote: »

Well I'm happy they made it.

Me too.

tac

johnwest288

I thought the blitz was a few bombing raids and a couple of hundred V rockets, wow they really got pounded. Is there any breakdown on things dropped ie
V1 Rockets
V2 Rockets
HE Bombs

tac foley

johnwest288 wrote: »

I thought the blitz was a few bombing raids and a couple of hundred V rockets, wow they really got pounded. Is there any breakdown on things dropped ie
V1 Rockets
V2 Rockets
HE Bombs

Look up the Blitz, which occupied only a comparatively short length of time in 1940 and '41.

London was bombed by the Luftwaffe for 57 consecutive nights. More than one million London houses were destroyed or damaged, and more than 40,000 civilians were killed, almost half of them in London. Ports and industrial centres outside London were also heavily attacked; the major sea port of Liverpool was the most heavily bombes city outside London, suffering nearly 4,000 dead. Other ports including Bristol, Cardiff, Hull, Plymouth, Southampton and Swansea were also targeted, as were the industrial cities of Birmingham, Belfast, Coventry, Glasgow and Manchester. Birmingham and Coventry were heavily targeted because of the Spitfire and tank factories in Birmingham and the many munitions factories in Coventry; the city centre of Coventry was almost completely destroyed.

The V weapons came much later in the war, and caused utter carnage. The V1 could be seen coming, and then, when the engine cut out, it fell to the ground in a steep glide. The V2, on the other hand, arrived vertically at around 3000mph and had a characteristic double boom. The first was the explosion, and the second was the noise of it arriving.....

Because of the shallow arrival angle, the V1 tended to be more destructive than the V2, but both were appalling.

Casualties -

V1 - 9521 fired = 23,000 - mostly civilian in and around London

V2 - 3000 fired = 7250 dead - injured not listed, but over 12,000 slave labourers died in the subsequent bombing of the factories building them.

Most V2 were fired at the port of Antwerpen, in an attempt to stop the Allies logistic train.

tac

InTheTrees

I remember driving around London with my parents in the 60's and listening to them talk about various bomb sites and the more notable bombs.

My mums side of the family were all there. My mum was a student nurse, my grandma was a volunteer nurse and my grandpa (ww1 vet) was a firespotter.

jonniebgood1

I have looked for a comparison table of tonnage of bombs dropped on different cities to see how the blitz compares given that it is generally accepted that the level of bombing later in the war was a step up in destructivity but did not yet find this sort of comparison.
There is a list of some of the more destructive raids here http://www.onlinemilitaryeducation.org/posts/10-most-devastating-bombing-campaigns-of-wwii/ and a response from 1981 to a PBS broadcast on the Blitz from someone who was in one of the bombed cities in Europe. I quote some of it below as it is quite descriptive of the damage inflicted. It is from alternative POV.

Air Marshal Sir Arthur Harris shows in his Bomber Offensive (Macmillan, New York, 1947) 23 German cities had more than 60 percent of their built-up area destroyed; 46 had half of it destroyed. 31 communities had more than 500 acres obliterated: Berlin, 6427 acres: Hamburg, 6200 acres; Duesseldorf, 2003; Cologne (through air attack), 1994. By contrast, the three favorite targets of the Luftwaffe: London, Plymouth and Coventry, had 600 acres, 400, and just over 100 acres destroyed.
...
Anglo-American strategic bombers, according to official sources of the West German government in 1962, dropped 2,690,000 metric tons of bombs on Continental Europe; 1,350,000 tons were dropped on Germany within its 1937 boundaries; 180,000 tons on Austria and the Balkans; 590,000 tons on France; 370,000 tons on Italy; and 200,000 tons on miscellaneous targets such as Bohemia, Slovakia and Poland. By contrast, Germany dropped a total of 74,172 tons of bombs as well as V-1 and V-2 rockets and "buzz bombs" on Britain -- five percent of what the Anglo-Saxons rained down on Germany. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v02/v02p381_Wesserle.html

InTheTrees

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

By contrast, Germany dropped a total of 74,172 tons of bombs as well as V-1 and V-2 rockets and "buzz bombs" on Britain -- five percent of what the Anglo-Saxons rained down on Germany.

Which no doubt would help explain why the germans lost.

But It makes you wonder what a similar map of Dresden might look like? Just one large red dot no doubt.

Or a map of Guernica.

Fratton Fred

InTheTrees wrote: »

I remember driving around London with my parents in the 60's and listening to them talk about various bomb sites and the more notable bombs.

My mums side of the family were all there. My mum was a student nurse, my grandma was a volunteer nurse and my grandpa (ww1 vet) was a firespotter.

the Bomb Sites was almost a geographical term in Portsmouth when I was growing up. There was a few rows of houses that for some reason were almost completely destroyed, so were eventually demolished and remained so until the late 70s.

10th January 1941 was considered the worst month for Portsmouth. I always find personal accounts are the most interesting http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/91/a2716391.shtml

Fratton Fred

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I have looked for a comparison table of tonnage of bombs dropped on different cities to see how the blitz compares given that it is generally accepted that the level of bombing later in the war was a step up in destructivity but did not yet find this sort of comparison.
There is a list of some of the more destructive raids here http://www.onlinemilitaryeducation.org/posts/10-most-devastating-bombing-campaigns-of-wwii/ and a response from 1981 to a PBS broadcast on the Blitz from someone who was in one of the bombed cities in Europe. I quote some of it below as it is quite descriptive of the damage inflicted. It is from alternative POV.

that is just whataboutery to be honest. why does every thread about the raids on London always end up as "Yeah, but what about Dresden?"

InTheTrees

Fratton Fred wrote: »

that is just whataboutery to be honest. why does every thread about the raids on London always end up as "Yeah, but what about Dresden?"

Yup. We should mourn all the loss.

But...

They are the country that developed the concept of "terror bombing" by practicing on the Spanish during their civil war.

That the whole concept came back at them is somehow fitting.

jonniebgood1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

why does every thread about the raids on London always end up as "Yeah, but what about Dresden?"

Because people are not one eyed.

Perhaps you would understand the answer to your own question better if you tried to justify why other WWII raids should not be compared with londons bombing?

...

tac foley

Anglo-Saxons, eh?

I guess that excludes the members of Bomber Command and 8AAF who were, variously - Maori, Fijian, Tongan, Hawaiian, native American of one tribe or another, Inuit, Sikh, Hindu, Neisei, or any of the dozens of other racial groups represented in the two forces.

I seem to recall also that one particular US 8AAF bomber heavy bombardment group was made up entirely of second or third generation ethnic Germans, as a look at the German-names on the casualty lists would testify.

And what about us Jews? There were THOUSANDS of us in 8AAF, and WE are not 'Anglo-Saxon'.

In any case, just where does the author think the Saxons came from?

Just sayin'.

tac

Fratton Fred

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Because people are not one eyed.

Perhaps you would understand the answer to your own question better if you tried to justify why other WWII raids should not be compared with londons bombing?

...

Well, its off topic for starters, maybe you could start a thread about Bomber command and Arthur Harris, rather than turn this thread in to one.

Oh, you did.

ejmaztec

This thread's extremely enlightening, I always used to think that the Nazis were the enemy, and now it seems that the real culprits were the British Anglo-Saxons. :eek:

jonniebgood1

tac foley wrote: »

Anglo-Saxons, eh?
.....

In any case, just where does the author think the Saxons came from?

Just sayin'.

tac

ejmaztec wrote: »

This thread's extremely enlightening, I always used to think that the Nazis were the enemy, and now it seems that the real culprits were the British Anglo-Saxons. :eek:

Get over your hyper sensitivity lads- The thread is about bombing (london). I posted an alternative opinion (not mine by the way), you may not have noticed that it was an alternative opininon although I thought it was quite clear. >>>post 10>>>

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

It is from alternative POV.

Unless you live in an alternative reality where everyone in WWII was on the same side I suggest less sensitivity to the fact that there is an alternative view on these matters. The alternative was written in response to a TV programme on the london Blitz by a survivor from a European city and is absolutely 100% relevant to the discussion whether we agree with the view expressed or not.

jonniebgood1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Well, its off topic for starters, maybe you could start a thread about Bomber command and Arthur Harris, rather than turn this thread in to one.

The thread OP shows location of bomb sites from the London Blitz.
The link I gave is a response to a TV programme on the London Blitz from a man who experienced city bombing. I disagree that it is off topic.

ejmaztec

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Get over your hyper sensitivity lads- The thread is about bombing (london). I posted an alternative opinion (not mine by the way), you may not have noticed that it was an alternative opininon although I thought it was quite clear. >>>post 10>>>

Unless you live in an alternative reality where everyone in WWII was on the same side I suggest less sensitivity to the fact that there is an alternative view on these matters. The alternative was written in response to a TV programme on the london Blitz by a survivor from a European city and is absolutely 100% relevant to the discussion whether we agree with the view expressed or not.

I don't think that in any alternative reality, there would have been a WW2 had everyone been on the same side.

I don't consider that anyone is being hyper-sensitive, and my honest opinion is that there is a certain amount of bias being displayed, and it's not by those you consider to be hyper-sensitive.

jonniebgood1

ejmaztec wrote: »

I
I don't consider that anyone is being hyper-sensitive, and my honest opinion is that there is a certain amount of bias being displayed, and it's not by those you consider to be hyper-sensitive.

Thats fair enough. The quote that you seem displeased with was published in the "The Journal of Historical Review" in winter 1981. Its not intended to be unbiased when you read the full letter http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v02/v02p381_Wesserle.html

Fratton Fred

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Thats fair enough. The quote that you seem displeased with was published in the "The Journal of Historical Review" in winter 1981. Its not intended to be unbiased when you read the full letter http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v02/v02p381_Wesserle.html

that must be good, my firewall blocked it because it contains hate/racism and or violence:eek:

tac foley

Like my mom said, who was born in England, but had an Irish father and an Anglo-French mom - 'They [the Nazi Germans] shouldn't have bloody-well started it in the first place.'

'Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind'

tac

ejmaztec

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Thats fair enough. The quote that you seem displeased with was published in the "The Journal of Historical Review" in winter 1981. Its not intended to be unbiased when you read the full letter http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v02/v02p381_Wesserle.html

I'm not displeased with the letter, but it seems that you like discounting the air attacks on Britain as akin to a small firework display, and insist on telling us that everywhere else in Europe, especially Germany, had it a lot worse, with special mention of Bomber Harris thrown in for good measure.

Of course the germans had it a lot worse, as did the string of nations that they bombed into submission on the way to the ultimate defeat of the Nazis.

Rascasse

Fratton Fred wrote: »

that must be good, my firewall blocked it because it contains hate/racism and or violence:eek:

That would be because if you google the letters author, (I did as he name didn't look Czech) Dr Andreas Wesserle, you'll see he is a holocaust denier and had a podcast on reasonradionetwork.com which is a site for racists.

Quite the "alternative POV".

InTheTrees

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I posted an alternative opinion (not mine by the way), you may not have noticed that it was an alternative opininon although I thought it was quite clear. >>>post 10>>>

Unless you live in an alternative reality where everyone in WWII was on the same side I suggest less sensitivity to the fact that there is an alternative view on these matters. The alternative was written in response to a TV programme on the london Blitz by a survivor from a European city and is absolutely 100% relevant to the discussion whether we agree with the view expressed or not.

To clear this up, I think you really mean "additional" dont you? Instead of the word "alternative"? And of course additional bombing info on other cities is totally relevant. I am fascinated about the allies response as well.

But its hard to have an "alternative" view to a map isnt it?

jonniebgood1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

that must be good, my firewall blocked it because it contains hate/racism and or violence:eek:

That explains your responses then!

ejmaztec wrote: »

I'm not displeased with the letter, but it seems that you like discounting the air attacks on Britain as akin to a small firework display, and insist on telling us that everywhere else in Europe, especially Germany, had it a lot worse, with special mention of Bomber Harris thrown in for good measure.
.

One questioning viewpoint does all this. As I already said I feel that is over sensitive. I have not even expressed my own view on the comparison thus far so it is strange that you think I have insisted (implies repeated expression of my opinion) on telling you something. Feel free to show (quote) where I have insisted on this.

Rascasse wrote: »

That would be because if you google the letters author, (I did as he name didn't look Czech) Dr Andreas Wesserle, you'll see he is a holocaust denier and had a podcast on reasonradionetwork.com which is a site for racists.

Quite the "alternative POV".

Indeed, did you expect it to be agreeable:

Definition of alternative

adjective

1 [attributive] (of one or more things) available as another possibility or choice: the various alternative methods for resolving disputes

•
(of two things) mutually exclusive: the facts fit two alternative scenarios


2of or relating to activities that depart from or challenge traditional norms: an alternative lifestyle
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/alternative

InTheTrees wrote: »

To clear this up, I think you really mean "additional" dont you? Instead of the word "alternative"? And of course additional bombing info on other cities is totally relevant. I am fascinated about the allies response as well.

But its hard to have an "alternative" view to a map isnt it?

Can't argue much with that!

ejmaztec

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

One questioning viewpoint does all this. As I already said I feel that is over sensitive. I have not even expressed my own view on the comparison thus far so it is strange that you think I have insisted (implies repeated expression of my opinion) on telling you something. Feel free to show (quote) where I have insisted on this.

What does the bold bit actually mean, it seems rather ambiguous?

I think that your inclusion of the quote speaks for itself. You've already brought up the comparison the Bomber Harris thread. I made a comment on your comparison there, and it wasn't answered. I have to assume that you share the same opinion as that shown in a quote, unless you specifically state that you disagree with it.

I used the word "insist" in the "habitual" sense, because you "habitually" include comparisons with other bombings, especially Dresden, even in this case when it isn't necessary.

jonniebgood1

ejmaztec wrote: »

I have to assume that you share the same opinion as that shown in a quote, unless you specifically state that you disagree with it.
.

You don't 'have to assume' anything. You could ask if I agreed with the quote (in which case you would realise that I strongly disagree)

ejmaztec wrote: »

I used the word "insist" in the "habitual" sense, because you "habitually" include comparisons with other bombings, especially Dresden, even in this case when it isn't necessary.

It is better to move this discussion on a bit.

Why do you feel that a comparison with other bombings is unnessesary when considering the Blitz? I would consider it utterly relevant in a contextual manner.

Rebelheart

InTheTrees wrote: »

This site is absolutely fascinating; its a clickable map of every(?) bomb dropped on London between 7th October 1940 to 6th June 1941.

The two maximum zoom levels have clickable Icons for each bomb. I found High Explosive Bombs and Parachute Mines(?) but I haven't found any Incendiaries(?) listed and I thought they were used a lot.

Thanks be to God 20million odd Russians weren't killed in WW2. If they were, of course, all the rabid British nationalists would change their red poppy into an internationally accepted symbol, rather than one just for British Commonwealth countries?

Oops!

Let's tell the historical truth here for once: the sacrifice of erstwhile Nazi collaborators (like the Royal British Legion in 1938) and the 20 million-odd Russian resistance are, in reality, incomparable. Why don't our British nationalists seek recognition for these Russians?