3 ms·
Well, giving the accuracy of the bombings at the time it wasn't simply possible. Objectives (such as bridges) were often missed by hundreds of meters.
by jaclaz 5y ago
Well, giving the accuracy of the bombings at the time it wasn't simply possible.
Objectives (such as bridges) were often missed by hundreds of meters.
- rad_gruchalski 5y agoI agree. Hence the scale of the bombings in WW2. But the camp operated multiple years. Maybe there was a price to pay but in the long run, maybe it would have been worth taking a chance. We will never now, it’s a maybe game.
- Someone 5y agoOptimist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butt_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butt_Report: “Of those aircraft recorded as attacking their target, only one in three got within 5 mi (8.0 km).” https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/worldwar2/theatres-of-war/western-europe/investigation/hamburg/sources/docs/7/ https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/worldwar2/thea... has data for later years. It got better, but stayed bad. https://www.airforcemag.com/article/1008daylight/ https://www.airforcemag.com/article/1008daylight/: “Bombing accuracy was terrible. The average circular error in 1943 was 1,200 feet, meaning that only 16 percent of the bombs fell within 1,000 feet of the aiming point”
- kevinmchugh 5y agoWe're Monday morning quarterbacking, but I wonder if destroying the railroad lines into the camps would've been effective. Less chance for a missed bomb to kill camp prisoners, lots of opportunity to hit the tracks. I think the same trains or tracks that carried prisoners carried the (paltry) food for the camps, so I guess it's a trolley problem still.
- thrill 5y agoDestroying rail lines is even harder and generally temporary. They're fairly easily repaired within a few days, given material and labor.