On 14-07-07 11:21 AM, RussellMc wrote: > On 8 July 2014 02:34, Gordon Williams wrote: > >> There was a lot of talk about precision bombing but that was more about >> politics and funding rather than performance. Throughout the war and >> for many decades later if they could just hit part of the city they were >> doing as well as they could. Trying to hit a factory was just shear >> luck rather than skill. >> > While there is merit in the claim it also does a grave disservice to both > the skill of the best and the results achieved. > There is much written by many > > The successes are always written about, the failures brushed under the=20 carpet ... There were many, many more failures than successes based on post war=20 analysis. There is a difference between dropping something at roof top vs dropping=20 it at 10,000 - 20,000 feet. Have a look at strategic bombing. "In reality, the day bombing was "precision bombing" only in the sense=20 that most bombs fell somewhere near a specific designated target such as=20 a railway yard. Conventionally, the air forces designated as "the target=20 area" a circle having a radius of 1000 feet around the aiming point of=20 attack. While accuracy improved during the war, Survey studies show=20 that, in the over-all, only about 20% of the bombs aimed at precision=20 targets fell within this target area.[152] In the fall of 1944, only=20 seven percent of all bombs dropped by the Eighth Air Force hit within=20 1,000 feet of their aim point." While 7% or 20% actually got inside the circle of 2000 feet, many fewer=20 would do the desired damage. In fact the 80+% that fell outside the=20 target area were very damaging to the allied cause. Navigation was a big problem, but figuring out the bomb trajectory after=20 release with all the variables in play was just as large. Gordon Williams --=20 http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .