Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me
  • Page:
  • 1

TOPIC: Nuremberg

Nuremberg 12 Apr 2019 12:45 #1

  • canberra
  • canberra's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 5080
  • Thank you received: 85
I realised the other day that weve just had the 75th anniversary of this infamous raid. I read John Nicols book about the raid and I believe it was something like a 10% loss rate.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Nuremberg 13 Apr 2019 13:01 #2

  • Carnaby
  • Carnaby's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 4676
  • Thank you received: 329
Comments from Middlebrook and Everitt's 'Bomber Command War Diaries'

795 aircraft despatched
German controller ignored all the diversions and assembled the fighters at two beacons which straddled the path to Nuremberg
First attacks near Belgian border - 82 bombers lost on outward route
95 bombers lost in total 11.9 percent. Biggest loss in the war.
The raid itself was a failure due to thick cloud, fierce crosswind and erroneous marking by the Pathfinders. Litle damage was caused in Nuremberg itself.
120 aircraft accidentally bombed Schweinfurt 50 miles away, again due to Pathfinder error. Even that bombing was mainly in countryside well outside the town.

Martin Middlebrook also wrote an excellent book on Nuremberg
Plan A is always more effective when the problem you are working on understands that Plan B will involve the use of dynamite :twisted:

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Last edit: by Carnaby. Reason: typo

Nuremberg 13 Apr 2019 16:19 #3

  • Peter Kirk
  • Peter Kirk's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 10351
  • Thank you received: 524
I'm sure I read a book about the raid last century but always thought it was Middlebrook however, I notice the published date was 2000 via Amazon!
01010000 01100101 01110100 01100101 01110010 00100000 01001011 01101001 01110010 01101011

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Nuremberg 13 Apr 2019 23:06 #4

  • Carnaby
  • Carnaby's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 4676
  • Thank you received: 329

Peter Kirk wrote: I notice the published date was 2000 via Amazon!

Strange, just yesterday I looked up a book and thought the Amazon quoted date was very wrong.
Nuremberg is too. Just found my copy of Middlebrook and the date inside is 1973.
Now I'll find myself reading the book again !
Plan A is always more effective when the problem you are working on understands that Plan B will involve the use of dynamite :twisted:

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Nuremberg 14 Apr 2019 08:09 #5

  • Peter Kirk
  • Peter Kirk's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 10351
  • Thank you received: 524
That's a relief, I did think it was in the seventies when I read it.
01010000 01100101 01110100 01100101 01110010 00100000 01001011 01101001 01110010 01101011

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Nuremberg 14 Apr 2019 08:45 #6

  • Tony H
  • Tony H's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 1216
  • Thank you received: 295
From memory, whilst the losses due to enemy action totalled 95, I think the final total loss (113 or 115??) was even higher due to additional losses sustained back in the UK due to poor weather and potential battle damage / low fuel / injured crew etc.

Four of these that immediately come to mind are; the 578 Sqn Halifax piloted Cy Barton VC at Ryhope, A 51 Sqn Halifax lost at Cowleaze Wood on the Bucks/Ox border, another 578 Sqn Halifax lost at Silverstone and a 101 Sqn Lancaster lost at Welford . . . .

In simple (staggering) terms, the RAF lost more aircrew on this one Op than were lost during the entire "official" period for the Battle of Britain

Tony

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Nuremberg 14 Apr 2019 10:25 #7

  • canberra
  • canberra's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 5080
  • Thank you received: 85
I read John Nicols books and he mentions a few things that went wrong. These include the main force arriving early, before the pathfinders had marked. He says that the main force arrived early due to being in the jetstream, something that wasnt known about at the tme. Because they were early they orbitted, and he also states that it was a clear night with a full moon. Of course normally they didnt operate on a full moon, because of the fighters. He aslo states that this was the last raid before bomber command went on to targets in France in the build up to OVERLORD.

I have to ask if the weather recce flight at Wyton was formed after this?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Nuremberg 16 Apr 2019 15:09 #8

  • Tony H
  • Tony H's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 1216
  • Thank you received: 295
Hi Canberra

1409 (Met) Flt were formed on 01 April 1943 - almost a year before the raid in question. The jetstream winds did play havoc with the stream and as you say it was not passed on / or completely missed. No raid up to that point or after had such a long "direct track" leg included (regardless of its proximity to the two Nacht- Jagd Beacons) Finally you are also correct in that was the last main raid before the Command switched to Ops in support of the Transportation Plan ahead of Op OVERLORD

Hope this is of use/interest?

Kind Regards

Tony
The following user(s) said Thank You: canberra

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Last edit: by Tony H.
  • Page:
  • 1
Time to create page: 0.331 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum

We use cookies to improve our website and your experience when using it. Cookies used for the essential operation of this site have already been set. By continuing to use this site you are agreeing to this. To find out more about the cookies we use and how to delete them, see our privacy policy.

  
EU Cookie Directive Module Information