One aspect that is missing, because we didn't have the data in 1944 is the metal reinforcement in German concrete. This could vary so substantially as to make two otherwise identical structures completely different in ability to withstand damage. For example, the Berlin FLAK towers have so much steel scrap in them that they are still standing. During the battle of Berlin they were impenetrable by even direct Soviet 152mm rounds. Slated to be destroyed after the war, this destruction proved impractical, as the amount of explosive required to even inflict a couple of inches of damage was excessive. Allied intelligence worked under the assumption that similar structures would have a similar build, but this was not actually the case, as the interior metal reinforcement differed considerably. BTW, you research is most impressive, and you bring to light details in topics that many do not even now exist.
Yep. So, to destroy a single factory (say a ball bearing factory) in a town in Germany (say Schweinfurt) requires... And by the time you factor in the distance, day fighters, flak etc. Then there's the target being obscured. Or high winds.
It has always amazed me at how overly optimistic the U.S. was regarding the effectiveness and accuracy of the heavy bomber was going to be prior to actual combat experience.
@roberthutchins1507 Well it was always a comparison. Either naval gunfire or Army heavy artillery. And the heaviest shells don't compare to the bomb load of a single heavy bomber. On a good day a bomber can put a single bomb VERY near a target, but add in defences, poor weather, nighttime and the debris thrown up by previous attack and even smoke deployed by defenders (remote spotters can be used to keep the gun effective) it can be hard to see the target. And generally it's 'blind bombing' territory in a pre-GPS era.
As one of the slides emphasises, a near-miss can often be more effective than a direct hit. That was the case at the huge rocket site La Coupole near Calais, which was rendered unusable before completion, not so much by direct hits as by a deep-penetrating Tallboy near-miss that undermined and tilted part of the building (still visible), and by other misses that obliterated the roads and rail lines serving the building. The ultimate near-miss weopon was the 10-ton Grand Slam bomb that at last took down the Bielefeld rail viaduct in 1945 when conventional bombing had failed. It fell close to the target, exploding at depth to create an underground void (camouflet) into which the viaduct's foundations and structure tumbled.
The biggest problem in WW2 was just HITTING the target. As you pointed out, the number of bombs needed to even score one good hit was ridiculous. The bomber commands could not even hit submarine pens reliably, let alone a 30 X 30 pillbox. The toughness of the fortifications even made many made their post-war removal uneconomic, which is why their are so many concrete bunkers left in Europe, around the Pacific and even in CONUS. One thing you did not mention was the concussive effects on a human body inside a bunker that is being bombed. Bombing also has a strong effect on many troops' morale. Air attack can also supress or destroy outlying positions, allowing infantry to approach the main structure for direct assault. Bombers are good, but infantry win wars!
Another great presentation with really nice supporting documentation. As always, a very detailed, very comprehensive piece of work. You really bring it! Thank you!!
No surprise at all. I've seen analyses of the attacks on some of the late war sub pens. Totally immune to any chemical bomb that could be carried in WW 2. Maybe, maybe a modern missle could get through, but even that is iffy.
Sobering the number of bombs needed for direct (likely) destruction of concrete fortifications. Thanks for this review, certainly shows the value of having precision guided weapons as opposed to "dumb" bombs.
Thank you for this (and your other excellent videos). It did surprise me how very ineffective was bombing - and the absurdly disproportionate number of aircraft and bombs required (maybe...) to destroy just one pill box; which maybe helps explain how ineffective was the massive pre D-Day bombing of coastal defences. In general, it added to my sense that there was a major strategic error in WWII on the side of the US, and the UK (even more so), in terms of the disproportionately huge human and material resources that were allocated to high level bombing - which was asserted to be the major way that the war would be won. In fact, high level bombing was very limited in terms of what it could achieve - and this became clear to objective analysts (eg in operational research) as the war proceeded. In my opinion, the colossal industrial and human resources that were expended on high level heavy bombing (especially in the UK, where this was a huge proportion of the war effort) would have been much more effectively used elsewhere in the military. However, there was too much momentum in favour of "the war-winning heavy bomber" for this to make much difference to strategy. The analysis was essentially ignored. So the analysts seem to have been reduced to making the best of a bad job. That is what we can see in the analysis you describe here. The real conclusion *should have been* that horizontal heavy bombing is *ineffective* at destroying pill boxes. But the bombers were there, and their crews, and their bombs... so the analysts tried to determine how to make the best use of an ineffective weapon.
I'm sure they had a lot of older staff who wanted to contribute to the war effort but who weren't fit to serve outside of an office building. It seems like they managed to be useful anyway.
When using the Tallboy and the Grand Slam against concrete fortifications, RAF Bomber Command were instructed by Barnes Wallis, the bombs designer, to aim for the dirt close to the edges of the fortifications, not the actual bunkers themselves. This would cause a local earthquake and smash everything inside the bunker, but the outer shell might remain intact. After all a bunker's not much use if the guns don't work, there are no lights and the radios and telephones don't work.
Having been in the peacetime military I've had to impress this on people about what it'd have been like to be a German on the French coast before June 6th 1944; You're living a pretty good assignment, while a good bit of your army is getting crushed on the eastern front and other places you're living a life where probably you spend something like 3 days on duty then 2 off, when you're on duty all you do is look out of the slot of a pillbox all day long scanning the horizon looking for signs of anything or walk around on the grassy heights above the beach, during your 2 days off duty you get to go into the nearest town and chase pretty French girls around or maybe you even have a steady French girlfriend in town, and if you manage to get an extra day off maybe you can even catch a train back into Germany and see your family during the Octoberfest season or see your high school sweetheart girlfriend back home if you have one. All around life is good especially considering what some of the German military is going through in other places like Russia and North Africa, then one morning you wake up and look out the slit of the pillbox you're on duty in and you see the largest armada of ships ever assembled in the history of mankind and it's coming straight at you... On the morning of June 6th 1944 the Germans in those fortifications on Normandy Beach were shitting their pants, make no mistake about that, they went from feeling lucky about their assignment to wishing they were anywhere else.
@@dukecraig2402 Interesting. I don't know when they forbade home visits to prevent soldiers from knowing how bad life was in Germany, but I do know of soldiers who earned leave and had to work to avoid being shanghaied by other military units while in Germany.
@@charliezw3287 That's a bunch of History Channel nonsense, the truth is Neville Chamberlain knew at that point if England had gone to war with Germany they'd have lost, every half assed documentary shows Chamberlain waving around that piece of paper and declaring "Peace in our time" and makes him out as a fool but what they don't talk about is how behind the scenes he was pushing for the production of more Spitfire's and other modern military equipment for a war he knew was inevitable. Chamberlain was the right guy at the right time and he saved the day, had England gone to war with Germany at that point they'd have lost and he knew it, England could barely keep Germany from winning the Battle of Britain 2 years later, which would have led to an invasion had they, and that was a defensive battle in 1940, why does everything think that they'd have defeated Germany 2 years earlier before they built up more modern military equipment? They'd have lost for sure if they'd have declared war when Germany annexed Austria and the Sudetenland in 38.
This tells me you have to park a naval craft with a dual 40mm well inside 7,000 meters from a heavily protected gun and just keep squirting the gun port for the 30 minutes for the first wave to arrive. Won't destroy it but it will distract the crew and maybe kill some.
Using a ww1 era gun emplacement from turkey for your ww2 German gun emplacement video preview picture kinda bugs me however I do enjoy your videos. For those that are curious the gun turret came of the Turkish battleship (German built) Torgud Reis.
Perhaps one of the biggest failures on Omaha Beach was the lack of aerial bombardment on the German fortifications. I’ve read that they didn’t want to give away the intended landing beaches in weeks leading up to DDay by focusing on them too much in advance. Thus, to maintain surprise, Omaha’s defenses wouldn’t receive the attention needed until right before H-Hour. We all know now that clouds obscured the target and the bombs missed. Can anyone elaborate why they didn’t use H2X radar or fly along the axis of the coast? I feel like the coast would be easy to see on a radar scope and a different run-in heading may have lessened accuracy errors; striking something German rather than nothing. It also reduces risk to friendlies coming in on landing craft when you’re releasing perpendicular across them as opposed to over them. B-26s over at Utah were able to get in low and flew along the coast and delivered accurate strikes as did P-47s. More tanks also made it ashore and there were less defensive obstacles. The result? Far less American casualties. Where over at Omaha the infantry practically walked into the teeth of the tiger because those critical pre-assault fires failed to hit the mark. Just wondering why no radar and why the bad run-in headings.
Another great video and as usual your research and sources are outstanding. I have to ask do you work at the USAF archives? Not critizing- it's just that you're doing real archival research and not cutting and pasting from online sources. Wish more UA-cam channels followed your example.
It is possible to gain all this info from the national archives and it’s free. BUT it does take some skill to navigate all these documents and put together a comprehensive presentation.
@724bigal thanks. So this is available online? Even then a helluva task to search and navigate the documents. And he brings a lot of analytical skills to the videos
In his bio, he volunteers at a aviation museum, which probably is why he has easy access to these documents, or at least the experience to navigate the archives.
@@johnned4848 Nathional archives create an account and get creative with your searches, you can even download any of the file footage they have converted to digital.
Shows how strong even a smaller gun position pillbox was: 350 - 3500 bombs in over 160 Bombers per target??? That´s useless. How many of such targets were at Utah beach and how many were rendered useless by bombing?
I was genuinely surprised by the aircraft requirements to get a 90% hit probability -- hundreds of aircraft were required to ensure a single hit on a bunker.
Then add in the deception operation. Operation Fortitude meant that (for every attack BEFORE D-day) there had to be a mirror attack in the opposite candidate landing area. So targets in Normandy and the Pas de Calais had to be targeted in equal amounts. This is one of the reasons that Hitler was fooled and it took him around two weeks to accept that the Normandy landings were not a deception operation.
Do your sources say anything about the effects of a GP bomb on the occupants of a bunker or pillbox? Even if the bomb doesn’t have much penetration does a hit still have a chance to injure or kill anyone inside?
If a large GP bomb hit at an angle that the blast wave.could penetrate the emplacement (think of a "fair ball" with the gun home plate and the edges of the opening defining the foul lines), then yes, it could kill the occupants. Blast waves can compress the air as dense as steel, and that is going to bounce around inside and cause death and TBI. But anybody down below in the ammo/habitat area will be fine if any large apertures to above have blast doors between below and above.
As a child I visited normandy Beaches Atlantic wall battery a long the coast cemetery etc etc but what shocked me the most was the coupole de saint Omer V2 factory . Got the chance to have a tour of that and the muséum in Town but after that I hiked the Hill to the back oh the structure where lauch pad where etc etc One of the stunning things I got to see in my entire life… and by the way very kind people Good food and drinks from their terroirs… I think that somes could really enjoyed! Thx
I you pass by the région I suggest visiting both muséum in Town and the coupole… truly différents that others fortifications Even those at the pointe du hoc wich where raided by ranger climbing a wall direct under this was the océan… traversing barber wire défendre by mg 42 …. Was hard to realyse how They have achived to take it the place was so heavely bombed I remember running in crater 12m deep the terrain was leveled by bombardements and there were megastructure of concrete to house mega antinaval artillery. Also the tour guide screeming af at us to remain on the pathes because They were still inexploded bombs there… 😮 I was shocked by that landscape so thin and fortified still intact but the earth around like a lunar landscape😮
What surprised me the most was the relative ineffectiveness of concrete roofs of 2 foot thickness against common HE bombs. Undoubtedly much better against artillery or medium caliber naval gunfire, but still…
Was napalm delivered by a dive bomber ever considered or tested against reinforced concrete bunkers? The bunkers must have had air vents. What was the results of against Japanese bunkers?
Thank you, as always, for your in-depth analysis. I have always wondered what the efficacy would have been of an Iowa class BB raining 16" shells on these reinforced targets. After viewing this my guess is zero.
@@nickdanger3802 I thought so! I remembered hearing stories about DDs beaching themselves to provide direct fire support during d-day and thought "well, the Iowas wouldn't have much to worry about from 88mm counterbattery and their guns are way more accurate than GP bombs ever were"
I think it was shortsighted to say striking concrete structures wasn’t profitable. If they had just invented GPS JDAMs or at least predicted the introduction of precision guided munitions capable of sub-3 meter circular error probables, they’d probably change their tune. All they had to do was predict the future or wait a couple decades. To declare the entire concept unprofitable I think is clearly not the case today.
rest his soul Barnes Wallis cracked it with his tallboy & grand slam which did not require a direct hit but penetrating adjacent ground & causing a mini earthquake the shock putting pillbox or emplacement out of skew.
What if the allies had dropped thousands of gallons of flammable liquids on the pillboxes, some of which would have sloshed into them, before or while dropping the bombs. Wouldn't this have neutralized many more Germans and their weapons before the shore invasion?
While it nay take a high number of gravity bombs to sufficiently damage a re-enforced concrete bunker. That bunker is also a trap for the troops within it. Without infantry support they are vulnerable to ground forces.
the mg42 had a amazing range of more then 1000yards. i assume they had a few machine gun nests planted around these bunkers to fight of infantry very effectively. so what comes in to mind is that you need heavy ground forces to get close... a tank. but there is this big gun in the bunker that kills enemy tanks. its like a combat triangle or rock paper scissors xD.
Hey Pal, I cannot find a video you made again. It was about a survey of German POWs. As far as I am aware, you basically had to censor it like crazy after it was uploaded. Did you have to take the video down entirely? By the way, posting that video on the discord sever of a certain Hearts of Iron IV mod got me banned there, so I was hoping to offend some more commie
Tried varies methods to find this video, but it seems to be gone for good. Could you perhaps provide me with the link to the source you used, Mr. WWII US Bombers?
One aspect that is missing, because we didn't have the data in 1944 is the metal reinforcement in German concrete.
This could vary so substantially as to make two otherwise identical structures completely different in ability to withstand damage.
For example, the Berlin FLAK towers have so much steel scrap in them that they are still standing.
During the battle of Berlin they were impenetrable by even direct Soviet 152mm rounds.
Slated to be destroyed after the war, this destruction proved impractical, as the amount of explosive required to even inflict a couple of inches of damage was excessive.
Allied intelligence worked under the assumption that similar structures would have a similar build, but this was not actually the case, as the interior metal reinforcement differed considerably.
BTW, you research is most impressive, and you bring to light details in topics that many do not even now exist.
The number of sorties it would take to have a high probability of a kill is staggering. Great vid as always. Love the use of period sources.
Yep.
So, to destroy a single factory (say a ball bearing factory) in a town in Germany (say Schweinfurt) requires...
And by the time you factor in the distance, day fighters, flak etc.
Then there's the target being obscured. Or high winds.
It has always amazed me at how overly optimistic the U.S. was regarding the effectiveness and accuracy of the heavy bomber was going to be prior to actual combat experience.
@roberthutchins1507
Well it was always a comparison. Either naval gunfire or Army heavy artillery. And the heaviest shells don't compare to the bomb load of a single heavy bomber.
On a good day a bomber can put a single bomb VERY near a target, but add in defences, poor weather, nighttime and the debris thrown up by previous attack and even smoke deployed by defenders (remote spotters can be used to keep the gun effective) it can be hard to see the target. And generally it's 'blind bombing' territory in a pre-GPS era.
Brings to light why the defense was still intact , and laying down such withering fire power .
This channel keeps getting better with each subsequent episode. Great work as always!!!
It would be interesting to compare that with naval gunfire.
As one of the slides emphasises, a near-miss can often be more effective than a direct hit. That was the case at the huge rocket site La Coupole near Calais, which was rendered unusable before completion, not so much by direct hits as by a deep-penetrating Tallboy near-miss that undermined and tilted part of the building (still visible), and by other misses that obliterated the roads and rail lines serving the building. The ultimate near-miss weopon was the 10-ton Grand Slam bomb that at last took down the Bielefeld rail viaduct in 1945 when conventional bombing had failed. It fell close to the target, exploding at depth to create an underground void (camouflet) into which the viaduct's foundations and structure tumbled.
The biggest problem in WW2 was just HITTING the target. As you pointed out, the number of bombs needed to even score one good hit was ridiculous. The bomber commands could not even hit submarine pens reliably, let alone a 30 X 30 pillbox. The toughness of the fortifications even made many made their post-war removal uneconomic, which is why their are so many concrete bunkers left in Europe, around the Pacific and even in CONUS. One thing you did not mention was the concussive effects on a human body inside a bunker that is being bombed. Bombing also has a strong effect on many troops' morale. Air attack can also supress or destroy outlying positions, allowing infantry to approach the main structure for direct assault. Bombers are good, but infantry win wars!
Another great presentation with really nice supporting documentation. As always, a very detailed, very comprehensive piece of work. You really bring it! Thank you!!
No surprise at all. I've seen analyses of the attacks on some of the late war sub pens. Totally immune to any chemical bomb that could be carried in WW 2. Maybe, maybe a modern missle could get through, but even that is iffy.
Sobering the number of bombs needed for direct (likely) destruction of concrete fortifications. Thanks for this review, certainly shows the value of having precision guided weapons as opposed to "dumb" bombs.
I'm impressed with the thumbnail! Is that you I see in the picture?
Thank you for this (and your other excellent videos).
It did surprise me how very ineffective was bombing - and the absurdly disproportionate number of aircraft and bombs required (maybe...) to destroy just one pill box; which maybe helps explain how ineffective was the massive pre D-Day bombing of coastal defences.
In general, it added to my sense that there was a major strategic error in WWII on the side of the US, and the UK (even more so), in terms of the disproportionately huge human and material resources that were allocated to high level bombing - which was asserted to be the major way that the war would be won.
In fact, high level bombing was very limited in terms of what it could achieve - and this became clear to objective analysts (eg in operational research) as the war proceeded. In my opinion, the colossal industrial and human resources that were expended on high level heavy bombing (especially in the UK, where this was a huge proportion of the war effort) would have been much more effectively used elsewhere in the military.
However, there was too much momentum in favour of "the war-winning heavy bomber" for this to make much difference to strategy. The analysis was essentially ignored. So the analysts seem to have been reduced to making the best of a bad job. That is what we can see in the analysis you describe here.
The real conclusion *should have been* that horizontal heavy bombing is *ineffective* at destroying pill boxes. But the bombers were there, and their crews, and their bombs... so the analysts tried to determine how to make the best use of an ineffective weapon.
I just love that there is a government report that discusses the profitability of bombing things.
Ikr. It's amazing how much documentation was conducted whilst an actual war was raging away. Have a good day.
I'm sure they had a lot of older staff who wanted to contribute to the war effort but who weren't fit to serve outside of an office building. It seems like they managed to be useful anyway.
When using the Tallboy and the Grand Slam against concrete fortifications, RAF Bomber Command were instructed by Barnes Wallis, the bombs designer, to aim for the dirt close to the edges of the fortifications, not the actual bunkers themselves. This would cause a local earthquake and smash everything inside the bunker, but the outer shell might remain intact. After all a bunker's not much use if the guns don't work, there are no lights and the radios and telephones don't work.
Great video
Wow the French resistance Should receive more credit
Top notch stuff - again!
Whew! Good thing the allies don't have 5,000 ships.
Having been in the peacetime military I've had to impress this on people about what it'd have been like to be a German on the French coast before June 6th 1944;
You're living a pretty good assignment, while a good bit of your army is getting crushed on the eastern front and other places you're living a life where probably you spend something like 3 days on duty then 2 off, when you're on duty all you do is look out of the slot of a pillbox all day long scanning the horizon looking for signs of anything or walk around on the grassy heights above the beach, during your 2 days off duty you get to go into the nearest town and chase pretty French girls around or maybe you even have a steady French girlfriend in town, and if you manage to get an extra day off maybe you can even catch a train back into Germany and see your family during the Octoberfest season or see your high school sweetheart girlfriend back home if you have one.
All around life is good especially considering what some of the German military is going through in other places like Russia and North Africa, then one morning you wake up and look out the slit of the pillbox you're on duty in and you see the largest armada of ships ever assembled in the history of mankind and it's coming straight at you...
On the morning of June 6th 1944 the Germans in those fortifications on Normandy Beach were shitting their pants, make no mistake about that, they went from feeling lucky about their assignment to wishing they were anywhere else.
Yes and I heard Chamberlain made peace with Germany as well
@@charliezw3287
Whew!
Good thing we'll have peace in our time.
@@dukecraig2402 Interesting.
I don't know when they forbade home visits to prevent soldiers from knowing how bad life was in Germany, but I do know of soldiers who earned leave and had to work to avoid being shanghaied by other military units while in Germany.
@@charliezw3287
That's a bunch of History Channel nonsense, the truth is Neville Chamberlain knew at that point if England had gone to war with Germany they'd have lost, every half assed documentary shows Chamberlain waving around that piece of paper and declaring "Peace in our time" and makes him out as a fool but what they don't talk about is how behind the scenes he was pushing for the production of more Spitfire's and other modern military equipment for a war he knew was inevitable.
Chamberlain was the right guy at the right time and he saved the day, had England gone to war with Germany at that point they'd have lost and he knew it, England could barely keep Germany from winning the Battle of Britain 2 years later, which would have led to an invasion had they, and that was a defensive battle in 1940, why does everything think that they'd have defeated Germany 2 years earlier before they built up more modern military equipment? They'd have lost for sure if they'd have declared war when Germany annexed Austria and the Sudetenland in 38.
Thanks for all your work ,great channel.
The intent of this video is to always be better than the last video.
This tells me you have to park a naval craft with a dual 40mm well inside 7,000 meters from a heavily protected gun and just keep squirting the gun port for the 30 minutes for the first wave to arrive. Won't destroy it but it will distract the crew and maybe kill some.
With some smoke so actual aiming is reduced to random spraying bullets.
I would like to hear an analysis of the bombing of Monte Cassino Abbey. My father flew a B26 on those raids.
Using a ww1 era gun emplacement from turkey for your ww2 German gun emplacement video preview picture kinda bugs me however I do enjoy your videos. For those that are curious the gun turret came of the Turkish battleship (German built) Torgud Reis.
Perhaps one of the biggest failures on Omaha Beach was the lack of aerial bombardment on the German fortifications. I’ve read that they didn’t want to give away the intended landing beaches in weeks leading up to DDay by focusing on them too much in advance. Thus, to maintain surprise, Omaha’s defenses wouldn’t receive the attention needed until right before H-Hour. We all know now that clouds obscured the target and the bombs missed. Can anyone elaborate why they didn’t use H2X radar or fly along the axis of the coast? I feel like the coast would be easy to see on a radar scope and a different run-in heading may have lessened accuracy errors; striking something German rather than nothing. It also reduces risk to friendlies coming in on landing craft when you’re releasing perpendicular across them as opposed to over them. B-26s over at Utah were able to get in low and flew along the coast and delivered accurate strikes as did P-47s. More tanks also made it ashore and there were less defensive obstacles. The result? Far less American casualties. Where over at Omaha the infantry practically walked into the teeth of the tiger because those critical pre-assault fires failed to hit the mark. Just wondering why no radar and why the bad run-in headings.
Another great video and as usual your research and sources are outstanding. I have to ask do you work at the USAF archives? Not critizing- it's just that you're doing real archival research and not cutting and pasting from online sources. Wish more UA-cam channels followed your example.
It is possible to gain all this info from the national archives and it’s free. BUT it does take some skill to navigate all these documents and put together a comprehensive presentation.
@724bigal thanks. So this is available online? Even then a helluva task to search and navigate the documents. And he brings a lot of analytical skills to the videos
In his bio, he volunteers at a aviation museum, which probably is why he has easy access to these documents, or at least the experience to navigate the archives.
@@johnned4848 Nathional archives create an account and get creative with your searches, you can even download any of the file footage they have converted to digital.
Top shelf as always.
Shows how strong even a smaller gun position pillbox was: 350 - 3500 bombs in over 160 Bombers per target??? That´s useless. How many of such targets were at Utah beach and how many were rendered useless by bombing?
I was genuinely surprised by the aircraft requirements to get a 90% hit probability -- hundreds of aircraft were required to ensure a single hit on a bunker.
163 of B-17 for a single 50mm gun emplacement. And how many of those 50mm or bigger are there in the Atlantic wall? Oi va.
Then add in the deception operation. Operation Fortitude meant that (for every attack BEFORE D-day) there had to be a mirror attack in the opposite candidate landing area. So targets in Normandy and the Pas de Calais had to be targeted in equal amounts. This is one of the reasons that Hitler was fooled and it took him around two weeks to accept that the Normandy landings were not a deception operation.
Remember the B-17 and B-24 would likely be in formation that would expand the impact zone right there.
I have wondered if using dive bombers for this purpose would have worked.
I've wondered that as well but range to target would prohibit that. As would AAA. Pretty much suicidal.
That concrete was very thick amazing
Do your sources say anything about the effects of a GP bomb on the occupants of a bunker or pillbox? Even if the bomb doesn’t have much penetration does a hit still have a chance to injure or kill anyone inside?
If a large GP bomb hit at an angle that the blast wave.could penetrate the emplacement (think of a "fair ball" with the gun home plate and the edges of the opening defining the foul lines), then yes, it could kill the occupants.
Blast waves can compress the air as dense as steel, and that is going to bounce around inside and cause death and TBI. But anybody down below in the ammo/habitat area will be fine if any large apertures to above have blast doors between below and above.
As a child I visited normandy Beaches Atlantic wall battery a long the coast cemetery etc etc but what shocked me the most was the coupole de saint Omer V2 factory . Got the chance to have a tour of that and the muséum in Town but after that I hiked the Hill to the back oh the structure where lauch pad where etc etc One of the stunning things I got to see in my entire life… and by the way very kind people Good food and drinks from their terroirs… I think that somes could really enjoyed! Thx
I you pass by the région I suggest visiting both muséum in Town and the coupole… truly différents that others fortifications Even those at the pointe du hoc wich where raided by ranger climbing a wall direct under this was the océan… traversing barber wire défendre by mg 42 …. Was hard to realyse how They have achived to take it the place was so heavely bombed I remember running in crater 12m deep the terrain was leveled by bombardements and there were megastructure of concrete to house mega antinaval artillery. Also the tour guide screeming af at us to remain on the pathes because They were still inexploded bombs there… 😮 I was shocked by that landscape so thin and fortified still intact but the earth around like a lunar landscape😮
What surprised me the most was the relative ineffectiveness of concrete roofs of 2 foot thickness against common HE bombs. Undoubtedly much better against artillery or medium caliber naval gunfire, but still…
I wonder what it would have felt like being in a pill box and getting a direct hit from a 1000lb bomb 😵💫
Was napalm delivered by a dive bomber ever considered or tested against reinforced concrete bunkers? The bunkers must have had air vents. What was the results of against Japanese bunkers?
The air vent design was quite ingenious. You should see the built in 'grenade trap'.
As far as I got it Patton let the fortifications of Metz bomb with napalm and other ordonances in late 44. It widthstood all bombs and grenades.
Thank you, as always, for your in-depth analysis. I have always wondered what the efficacy would have been of an Iowa class BB raining 16" shells on these reinforced targets. After viewing this my guess is zero.
I’d guess better, since the ship guns are direct fire weapons that would’ve been firing at immobile targets.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nevada_(BB-36)#D-Day
@@nickdanger3802 I thought so! I remembered hearing stories about DDs beaching themselves to provide direct fire support during d-day and thought "well, the Iowas wouldn't have much to worry about from 88mm counterbattery and their guns are way more accurate than GP bombs ever were"
I think it was shortsighted to say striking concrete structures wasn’t profitable. If they had just invented GPS JDAMs or at least predicted the introduction of precision guided munitions capable of sub-3 meter circular error probables, they’d probably change their tune. All they had to do was predict the future or wait a couple decades. To declare the entire concept unprofitable I think is clearly not the case today.
rest his soul Barnes Wallis cracked it with his tallboy & grand slam which did not require a direct hit but penetrating adjacent ground & causing a mini earthquake the shock putting pillbox or emplacement out of skew.
What if the allies had dropped thousands of gallons of flammable liquids on the pillboxes, some of which would have sloshed into them, before or while dropping the bombs. Wouldn't this have neutralized many more Germans and their weapons before the shore invasion?
👍
While it nay take a high number of gravity bombs to sufficiently damage a re-enforced concrete bunker. That bunker is also a trap for the troops within it. Without infantry support they are vulnerable to ground forces.
the mg42 had a amazing range of more then 1000yards. i assume they had a few machine gun nests planted around these bunkers to fight of infantry very effectively.
so what comes in to mind is that you need heavy ground forces to get close...
a tank. but there is this big gun in the bunker that kills enemy tanks.
its like a combat triangle or rock paper scissors xD.
👍👍👍👍👍👍
I almost wonder if fire and smoke would have caused more disruption. Absence of air is a bad thing, I hear.
So the subsequent napalm vid showed that this didn't work as well.
Lots of bomb for one small target.
Nice to see the taxpayers are getting value .. no bomb unturned. In the quest for improvement 💰💫🧐 ⚰️🙏
These things are not good reminders but they're history. Should they be destroyed?
Hang on, there is a rocket-powered bomb called "Disney" in WW2?
Surreal
@@kiereluurs1243
Google It Yourself???
Hey Pal, I cannot find a video you made again. It was about a survey of German POWs. As far as I am aware, you basically had to censor it like crazy after it was uploaded.
Did you have to take the video down entirely?
By the way, posting that video on the discord sever of a certain Hearts of Iron IV mod got me banned there, so I was hoping to offend some more commie
Tried varies methods to find this video, but it seems to be gone for good. Could you perhaps provide me with the link to the source you used, Mr. WWII US Bombers?