back to article Bombing raids during WWII sent out shockwaves powerful enough to alter the Earth's ionosphere

The volume of bombs dropped by the Allied Forces in the Second World War were powerful enough to send shockwaves that rippled throughout the skies, weakening the Earth’s ionosphere. Earth’s ionosphere extends about 1,000 kilometers (about 621 miles) above its surface and is made up of a shell of ions and electrons that reflect …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    C'mon, we're all anoraks round here

    So let's have an accompanying photograph of a WW2 bomber, rather than a transport.

    1. big_D Silver badge

      Re: C'mon, we're all anoraks round here

      That was my first thought as well. What do old DC3s, or rather C47 Skytrains, have to do with WWII bombing raids?

      1. Vinyl-Junkie
        Headmaster

        Re: C'mon, we're all anoraks round here

        A quick look at the markings will tell you that those are RAF C-47s (and Far East command ones at that) and they are therefore Dakotas, not Skytrains.

    2. OssianScotland

      Re: C'mon, we're all anoraks round here

      I saw the picture and had to check the page URL to make sure I hadn't got onto the Daily Fail by mistake. At least it wasn't captioned "jets"

      1. Steve the Cynic Silver badge

        Re: C'mon, we're all anoraks round here

        At least it wasn't captioned "jets"

        That reminds me of a story in the "Metro" (a free rag distributed on weekdays in Tube and London-bound stations) in about 2007. The story was about a German pilot whose aircraft had been shot down in 1942 and had damaged a church tower or something somewhere in East Anglia, and his subsequent visit there in the days before the story was printed. They attributed this shoot-down to "British jets."

    3. graeme leggett

      Re: C'mon, we're all anoraks round here

      If only the Second World War had provided us with iconic photos of bombers, or even iconic bombers.....

    4. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

      Re: C'mon, we're all anoraks round here

      Fine, fixed - we were concentrating too much on the tech rather than the illustration.

      C.

      1. EastFinchleyite

        Re: C'mon, we're all anoraks round here

        "Fine, fixed"

        Nice to see that the RAF had perfected not only the art of flying the Lancaster in vertical formation, but also managed to synchronise the propellers not only within each plane but also across the whole formation.

        Anoraks ARISE!

  2. Pete 2 Silver badge

    The numbers

    According to Wiki, the RAF dropped nearly a million tons of bombs during WW2. The americans "contributing" a further 600kT.

    Another source puts the total WW2 amount, dropped everywhere. at well over 3 million tons.

    But it doesn't end there! If the researchers wanted to investigate more instances they could look at Vietnam. During operation Rolling Thunder the americans dropped 864,000 tons on the north.

    Amounts so huge, that I simply can't process them.

    1. Ryan 7

      Re: Amounts so huge, that I simply can't process them.

      There is a handy metric for handling such situations, called the "Megaton".

      1. onefang Silver badge

        Re: Amounts so huge, that I simply can't process them.

        I was thinking "Shit-ton" myself.

        1. FozzyBear Silver badge
          Mushroom

          Re: Amounts so huge, that I simply can't process them.

          Or a previous commentard quoted

          F*ton

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Amounts so huge, that I simply can't process them.

        There is a handy metric for handling such situations, called the "Megaton".

        Out of innocent curiosity, may I ask if that's a million American metric tons, or a million Imperial metric tons?

    2. lee harvey osmond

      Re: Amounts so huge, that I simply can't process them.

      3 million tons being approximately 1/17 the yield of the Soviet Tsar Bomba, as tested in 1961, at 50% of selectable yield.

      Think on that; six years of industrial warfare on a global scale, including the first three fission bombs, being a tiny fraction of the yield of a single weapon 20 years later

  3. Rich 11 Silver badge

    Approx

    about 1,000 kilometers (about 621 miles)

    It's OK to say "about 600 miles" rather than reach for the calculator and quote the conversion exactly.

    1. Graham Cunningham

      Re: Approx

      621 miles +/- "about"

      1. Sgt_Oddball Silver badge

        Re: Approx

        108409.2875 lengths of a double decker bus +/-...

        Fixed that for you.

    2. Anonymous Coward Silver badge

      Re: Approx

      Some of us convert regularly enough that we don't need a calculator.

      1. Natalie Gritpants Jr

        Re: Approx

        And some of us know that 1000km is a lomg distance.

        1. big_D Silver badge

          Re: Approx

          1,000KM is about what my Nissan achieves, before I have to start looking for a fuel station to re-fill the tank (47 litres).

          1. Aladdin Sane Silver badge

            Re: Approx

            It's linguine or nothing.

          2. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

            Re: Approx

            But what MPG is that?

            1. defiler Silver badge

              Re: Approx

              But what MPG is that?

              US or Imperial?

              1. Dave 15 Silver badge

                Re: Approx

                The Americans got the size of the gallon wrong not us, so its miles per gallon not miles per mistake

            2. Robert Helpmann?? Silver badge
              Boffin

              Re: Approx

              MPG? Bah! BPF is the correct unit of measure! That's Brontosauruses per Funbag.

            3. big_D Silver badge

              Re: Approx

              50.5 miles per US Gallon, 60.1 miles real gallon

          3. lee harvey osmond

            Re: Approx

            Refill the tank?

            The Bovington people have missed a sponsorship trick with one of their exhibits.

            "Put a tiger in your Tiger tank's tank"

            And at 0.4mpg (Imperial, of God's Own Petrol) I imagine sponsorship would be welcome

          4. Dave 15 Silver badge

            Re: Approx

            1000 what? 1000 multiples of a lump of metal in Paris... who cares, give me proper measurements

            1. Stoneshop Silver badge
              Boffin

              Nope

              1000 multiples of a lump of metal in Paris

              0.003335641 seconds at the speed of light in vacuum, or 0.16680567 seconds at VSheepVac.

              I expect that Nissan to take a little longer.

  4. Korev Silver badge
    Mushroom

    Duke Nukem

    Has anyone looked into seeing what the effect of nuclear weapons is?

    1. big_D Silver badge

      Re: Duke Nukem

      After the wrong picture, that was my second thought on the article.

    2. LesC
      Mushroom

      Re: Duke Nukem

      EMP, ionospheric disruption, fallout, comms disruption, Van Allen detonated a nuke in what was the soon to be discovered Van Allen Belt and disrupted HF comms in the Pacific for days. Get a copy of "Nukes In Space: The Rainbow Bombs Movie" (edit) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ2B8vrqdFw on Youcat. The special effects in Damnation Alley were remarkably close istr - not the giant scorpions but the atmospheric ones!

      1. Korev Silver badge
        Pint

        Re: Duke Nukem

        Cheers LesC

        1. LesC
          Mushroom

          Re: Duke Nukem

          El Reg has touched upon this before too: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/18/atmospheric_nuclear_weapons_tests_caused_space_weather/

          A nuke detonation is at the atomic level (it's a geometric space time device with the elements fissioning, fusing or both to create mindboggling amounts of energy) whilst TNT, Torpex, C4, ANFO, what have you just creates huge amounts of gas very quickly in its bang.

          In an old Top Gear (?) Richard Hammond fried a VW Golf's electronics under that old lightning generator that the CEGB used to run.

          The name of the Van Allen exoatmospheric nuke test was Starfish Prime fortunately all the equipment at the time was still mostly valve (vacuum tube) else Hawaii would have had all of its electronics fried if Uncle Sam tried a stunt like that today. An airburst high over the North Sea would hose electronics in the UK and a big chunk of Europe.

          High energy physics is a fascinating subject especially the effort in getting more bang for your pound.... the Tsar Bomba had more explosive power than all the high explosive used in WW2.

          Damnation Alley is also available on the grumpy cat channel. Complete with gigantic scorps.

          1. Aladdin Sane Silver badge

            Re: Duke Nukem

            And there we have the plot of GoldenEye.

  5. Anonymous Coward Silver badge
    Flame

    Other explosives

    I wonder whether they've done similar studies for things like shuttle & satellite launches - OK, the explosives are directed downwards but there's still a metric shit-ton of force being expelled.

    1. Peter2 Silver badge

      Re: Other explosives

      It shouldn't have the same level of effect.

      With an explosion, you set the entire lot off at once, and there is a huge bang and a shockwave. Individually, the largest weapons dropped apparently caused damage to the aircraft dropping these weapons, which would have been >25,000 feet above the point of detonation. Lest it be forgotten, that these were being dropped as part of air raids numbering in excess of a thousand bombers, so Christ only knows how many bombs were being dropped at a time.

      With rockets, first there is only a single rocket being fired at a time, and not a thousand bombers dropping their payloads. Secondly, it's being lit one end and burned relatively slowly compared to the entire lot exploding in a millisecond so you don't get a shockwave.

      1. Stoneshop Silver badge

        Re: Other explosives

        Individually, the largest weapons dropped apparently caused damage to the aircraft dropping these weapons, which would have been >25,000 feet above the point of detonation.

        We were flying at 6,000 feet which was the minimum height to drop the 4,000 pounder. We dropped it in the middle of town [Koblenz], which gave the aircraft a hell of a belt, lifted it up and blew an escape hatch from out of the top.

        — Jack Murray, pilot of "G for George", reporting on G for George's mission on 17th April 1943.

        The 8klb and 12klb ones would have had a greater minimum safety height, but more like sqrt(2) (8 klb) or sqrt(3) (12 klb) times those 6000ft, if that, because of blast front area. And with a single plane dropping a large explosive load you get to add horizontal speed against time for the bomb dropping to the height where it should explode

        1. Aladdin Sane Silver badge

          Re: Other explosives

          It looks really weird using SI notation with imperial units.

          On a separate note, the 22000lb grand slam was dropped from a great height in order to penetrate deep underground (up to 130ft of earth or 20ft of concreate) before exploding, creating earthquake like effects.

      2. Stoneshop Silver badge
        Boffin

        Re: Other explosives

        With rockets, first there is only a single rocket being fired at a time, and not a thousand bombers dropping their payloads.

        Those (bombing raid) explosions would occur over several minutes, maybe even several tens of minutes, roughly the same time that a rocket would need to reach the upper atmosphere. Where it would then actually punch through the ionosphere, although the disturbance caused by that would be over a much smaller area than the cumulative blast front from a bombing raid once that reached the ionosphere.

        Secondly, it's being lit one end and burned relatively slowly compared to the entire lot exploding in a millisecond so you don't get a shockwave.

        Not always.

        Which also makes me wonder how large an effect Buncefield, Pepcon or Enschede would have had, compared to the average bombing raid

        1. Dave 15 Silver badge

          Re: Other explosives

          With the large raids it wasnt over a few minutes more like an hour or so

        2. Peter2 Silver badge

          Re: Other explosives

          Which also makes me wonder how large an effect Buncefield, Pepcon or Enschede would have had, compared to the average bombing raid

          A Lancaster could drop a total of 14,000 pounds, although in practice when bombing cities they tended to be mostly one big (4000lbs) bomb to blow the roofs off and then 10,000 pounds of incendiaries. There were quite a few thousand bomber raids, to a lazy calculation of every aircraft being a lancaster would give you 14000000 pounds, which is ~6.3 kilotons. Pepcon was about 1 kiloton.

          But this is very large numbers of smallish explosions compared to one bigish one. I suspect the propagation on the blast waves of a bigger explosion has more of an effect.

      3. Mike Ozanne

        Re: Other explosives

        Firstly :

        https://media.juiceonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/11141254/144fb-britishbombs.jpg

        Typical "Area" load

        https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Lancaster_area_bombing_load_IWM_CH_18371.jpg

        The really big stuff Tallboy and Grand Slam were only carried by two squadrons 617 and 9 and used on particular targets not as an area raid.

        Optimal dropping height for a Tallboy was 18000 feet but 15000 was more typical and Grand Slam drops went as low as 12000

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I think I may have met Ten Ton Tess.. she wasn't a bomb though..

    1. 0laf Silver badge
      WTF?

      Locally she's called "The Honey Monster". The effect is much the same.

  7. Tenkaykev

    Ten Ton Tess

    IIRC " Ten Ton Tess " had a younger brother, " Two Ton Ted " I believe he came from the Teddington area and was a Baker by trade.

    1. Alister Silver badge

      Re: Ten Ton Tess

      Yep, he was an evil looking man, apparently.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Ten Ton Tess

        But was he ever sent to prison for murder by the use of a stale pork pie.......

        1. Wellyboot Silver badge
          Happy

          Re: Ten Ton Tess

          >>>But was he ever sent to prison for murder by the use of a stale pork pie.......<<<

          Don't forget the animal cruelty!

          For our puzzled Left Pondians (& younglings) - search for Beny Hill, Ernie song

        2. Dave 15 Silver badge

          Re: Ten Ton Tess

          Not judging by Sues needs and the ghostly gold tops

  8. Wellyboot Silver badge

    300 lightning strikes

    I may be missing something but does the equivalent of 300 strikes in the course of a raid (several hours?) not get lost in the overall background count for the european area? There is always an electrical storm somewhere in europe, the current strike rate is 6/min.

    https://www.lightningmaps.org/

    1. Paul Kinsler

      Re: 300 lightning strikes

      The 300-strike-equivalent bombing was presumably much more localized than a typical thunderstorm..?

      1. Vinyl-Junkie

        Re: 300 lightning strikes

        "The 300-strike-equivalent bombing was presumably much more localized than a typical thunderstorm.."

        In the latter days of the war, once we'd developed precision bombsights, H2S, Oboe, Pathfinders, "Christmas tree" marker flares and so forth then yes. Early days of the war? Not so much!

        1. Wellyboot Silver badge

          Re: 300 lightning strikes

          I was thinking that as the ionosphere above is being measured then the air raids effect had to be taken in the context of a million square miles of sky.

        2. disgruntled yank Silver badge

          Re: 300 lightning strikes

          An American writer who served as a bombardier quoted evaluations by instructors after training runs: well, you missed the Ruhr, but then you still hit Germany.

    2. graeme leggett

      Re: 300 lightning strikes

      Raids could be swift. The concentration of bombers in space and time is what allowed the RAF to overwhelm the Luftwaffe defences.

      In operation Gomorrah, the July 1943 attack on Hamburg, "728 aircraft dropped their bombs in 50 minutes"

      In the 1945 attack on Dresden the first 250 bombers dropped their payload (500 tons of HE and 370 tons incendiaries) in a space of 10 minutes.

      In the second part of that raid, 3 hours later, 500 bombers took 25 minutes to unload 1800 tons of bombs.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: 300 lightning strikes

      I was wondering about the 300 lighting strike equivalent but a quick bit of searching revealed that an average -ve lightning stroke delivers ~500MJ of energy (+ve bolts are more intense but less common ~5%). TNT (as a rough yardstick) yields a little over 4MJ / kg, so it would seem that ~125kg of TNT (a fairly small bomb) ~= 1 average bolt of lighting.

      If we use Pete 2's lowest number for the total weight of bombs dropped, 1 Mt, and multiply it by 2000 (for US tons, to get a lower bound) we get get 2 Glb. Divide this by 2.2 to get 9.09e8 kg.

      Tot energy = 9.09e8 * 4e6 = 3.6e^14 J

      Divide this by 5e8 to give equivalent number of lightning bolts = 7.2e4 = 720,000.

      If we go with 6 bolts per minute then we have 720,000 / 6 = 120,000 minutes = 2,000 hours = 83.3 days.

      But note that if that figure of 6 bolts per min is for the whole of Europe then we really need the average rate just for Germany, which must be considerably lower.

      Corrections welcome for any errors in the maths.

      Of course, another way of looking at it is to remember that bombs did far more damage during the war than lightning ever did.

      1. Wellyboot Silver badge

        Re: 300 lightning strikes

        @LeeE

        The 6/min was the current european level, but even with the global 120/min at the moment the numbers still show the bombing as a big multiple over nature.

        It would take a massive localised storm to swamp the effect and at that level, all the planes would be grounded - who'd want to fly a plane carrying electrically detonated bombs near lightning!

  9. This post has been deleted by its author

  10. Stoneshop Silver badge

    Grand Slam

    "The bombs carried by the Allied Forces’ planes were four times heavier than the ones carried by Germany’s Luftwaffe. One in particular, the Grand Slam bomb carried by the RAF, was a whopping 10,000 kilograms, and was nicknamed the “Ten Ton Tess.”"

    This suggests that Grand Slams were commonly used in bombing raids, but only a hundred or so were made of which 42 were actually dropped in raids against particular hardened targets. Its predecessor, the Tallboy, got up to 850; it too was mainly used against particular 'hard' targets, among them the battleship Tirpitz, U-boat docks and railway bridges and tunnels. Both had the weight and strength to penetrate reinforced concrete bunker domes, or penetrate the ground next to a target and explode underneath it, wrecking the foundations.

    The 4000 to 12000 lb HC "blockbuster" bombs were the ones that were often used in bombing raids, and in numbers totalling about 90.000 (nearly all of that being the 4000 lb type). These were used for their blast wave effect where the Tallboy and Grand Slam were considered 'earthquake' bombs.

    1. Vinyl-Junkie

      Re: Grand Slam

      Also Tallboy and Grand Slam were precision weapons, only dropped by 2 squadrons (617 and 9), and required much training to use effectively. The HC bombs were purely designed for area bombing and did not even have fins or streamlining.

      Tallboys were not considered expendable; crews were under orders to bring them back if they could not drop them on the designated target (which must have made landing interesting!).

      There's a lovely story in Paul Brickhill's The Dambusters. When the first Grand Slam was completed the RAF and Wallis wanted to examine the in-flight stabilisation provided by the fins. It was therefore decided to bury a high-speed film camera on the range, pointing vertically upward, in order to capture the required footage. After much debate it was decided that the safest (if also the most cynical) place to put it was in the centre of the target. Of course, 617 proceeded to release the bomb in precisely the right place, ensuring that with Wallis' superb design the bomb arrowed down, striking the target less than 10' from the centre of the aim point. Bye-bye camera...

    2. lee harvey osmond

      Re: Grand Slam

      Yup. 'Camouflet'. Rearrange the ground under the target, creating a void which then collapses, messing with any structures built above. Streamlined, armour piercing, fancy steel casing .. go to the memoirs to find aircrew saying they were different from other bombs, as they fell they didn't tumble, they just dropped straight down, spinning as they picked up speed.

      The 4000 to 12000 lb HC "blockbuster" bombs on the other hand .... cookies! Unremarkable steel dustbins full of high explosive, often dropped in company with about 1000x 4lb incendiaries. The cookie might knock down lots of buildings, such as an entire street of houses, and the incendiaries would then set fire to the wreckage. Not nice? No. But Bomber Command learned part of its business by looking at bomb sites in the UK.

      1. 0laf Silver badge

        Re: Grand Slam

        As I recall reading these bombs took a long time to make. The casings were large and difficult to make. They had to pour hot Torpex into the case and took a month to cool down before they could move the bomb.

  11. graeme leggett

    "The duo aren’t sure how radio communications were impacted during these raids"

    Given that on later raids, the RAF were flying airborne jamming aircraft within the bomber stream, and using high powered transmitters in the UK for man-in-the-middle-attacks on German radio control of their nightfighters the researchers might find they have some confounding factors to deal with.

  12. Flakk Silver badge
    Pint

    War Is Bad

    We get it. So is the subjugation of an entire continent by a genocidal military dictatorship. It's up to each individual to decide which air they prefer: a disrupted ionosphere or the stench of occupying fascism. I know which I'd choose.

    Cheers and eternal gratitude to the brave men and women of the RAF. They didn't start the war in Europe but they damn well finished it.

    1. disgruntled yank Silver badge

      Re: War Is Bad

      You have read the results of the strategic bombing survey carried out after the war? The tactical air arm made a huge difference, the strategic less so.

      1. graeme leggett

        Re: War Is Bad

        The campaign against oil facilities was fairly effective according to the post war bombing survey.

        The American daylight bombing campaign crippled the Luftwaffe by forcing German day fighters to engage the bombers, the Allied fighter escorts then shooting them down. (The nighttime attacks are credited with drawing resources -eg 88mm guns, ammunition, and gun crews - away from the ground fronts.)

        With the Luftwaffe in the West nowhere to be seen on D-Day and the North West Europe campaign it's not surprising the Allied tactical air forces were particularly effective.

      2. Wellyboot Silver badge

        Re: War Is Bad

        >>>You have read the results of the strategic bombing survey carried out after the war? The tactical air arm made a huge difference, the strategic less so.<<<

        The bombing offensive may had little direct impact on war operations, but keeping about half a million troops & 10,000 88mm guns in Germany and not on the front line pointing at allied ground troops certainly did help.

        After the dams raid in May '43 a lot of effort went into protecting the repaired dams from (never attempted) repeat attack and the repairs themselves (vast amount of concrete & steel) are one reason why the Atlatic wall in Normandy wasn't completed by d-day a year later.

        1. Aladdin Sane Silver badge

          Re: War Is Bad

          Fighter escorts were kind of useless. They were far more effective when they had the range to loiter above German airfields, attacking aircraft whilst taking-off/landing.

          1. graeme leggett

            Re: War Is Bad

            I think you may be getting your anti-Me 262 and anti-night fighter operations confused with the melee between the Mustangs, Thunderbolts and Spitfires and the Me 109s and Fw190s over Europe.

            In "Big Week" February 1944 the Luftwaffe lost 355 fighters and 100 fighter pilots. In March-April 1944 (according to Galland) the Luftwaffe lost 500 aircraft and 400 pilots. In the first half of 1944, Germany lost 2000 pilots while the US had far more pilots to replace their own losses.

          2. ma1010 Silver badge

            Re: War Is Bad

            @Aladdin Sane

            Fighter escorts were kind of useless.

            Sir, I must disagree with you. The daylight bombing raids of 1943 and early '44 were primarily designed to FORCE the Luftwaffe into the air. Hitler HAD to defend the key cities and industrial targets those raids went after. The Luftwaffe was ordered to intercept those bombers at any cost. Early on, the Allies' tactic worked fairly well, but soon the Germans figured out where the fighter escorts (mostly P-47s, which were good fighters, but had limited range) had to turn back and attacked the unescorted bombers. After the P-51s came along, with their "all the way to the target and back" range, the escorts inflicted massive casualties on the Luftwaffe before D-Day. This is what gave the Allies the air superiority without which the Normandy landings wouldn't have been possible.

            Air superiority is critical, and both sides knew it. Goering launched "Operation Eagle Attack" with the aim of achieving air superiority over Blighty. His failure to achieve that air superiority, due to the RAF's heroic efforts in the "Battle of Britain," was a key factor that prevented Hitler from ordering his own "D-Day" attack on Blighty, Operation Sea Lion.

            1. Aladdin Sane Silver badge

              Re: War Is Bad

              Having double checked, it's somewhere between our two points - the long range fighters were no long 'escorting', but were sweeping well ahead of the bomber formation.

              Links here and here.

  13. David 18

    Just the Allies?

    "The volume of bombs dropped by the Allied Forces in the Second World War were powerful enough..."

    Guess the Axis powers' bombs weren't powerful enough?

    1. Aladdin Sane Silver badge

      Re: Just the Allies?

      Per the Ars Technica article, "[A]ccording to Major, German bombings during the famous London "Blitz" were so frequent as to be nearly continuous, making it difficult to distinguish which ionospheric effects were due to the bombings and which could be chalked up to the usual seasonal variation."

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Just the Allies?

      Guess the Axis powers' bombs weren't powerful enough?

      The Axis powers never had any proper four engined heavy bombers that reached service in any numbers, and their twin motors were incapable of carrying a large bombload. So a Heinkel 111 carried about two tonnes of bombs internally, compared to a Lancaster's internal load of 6.4 tonnes, a Halifax's 6 tonnes, or about 3.5-5 tonnes for a Liberator. Not to mention that the Axis powers never had anything like the number of bombers as the Allies.

      Most US bombers carried much lower loads than the RAF's (mainly) night bombers, and the argument was that the greater accuracy of daylight bombing offset the lower loads. I'm not convinced that the evidence really supports either approach. Both night and day bomber took appalling losses, and the fighter escorts were only really effective when the war had dragged on to the point that the Luftwaffe couldn't put up a strong defensive force.

      1. GrumpyKiwi Silver badge

        Re: Just the Allies?

        The US Bombers did carry a smaller load. But on the other hand they were built much tougher than the RAF's bombers and flew much higher (reducing the effectiveness of flak and fighters). There are many photos of B17's coming back to base missing large chunks of wings/tails/body.

        As with all such things there are trade-offs.

    3. Wellyboot Silver badge

      Re: Just the Allies?

      >>>Guess the Axis powers' bombs weren't powerful enough?<<<

      Indeed. They couldn't drop a bomb bigger than their aircraft could lift, and the numbers produced were dwarfed by UK & US production levels.

      The Luftwaffe was designed primarily as a tactical airforce for supporting fast moving blitzkrieg operations, they never really managed to get any bigger designs into production.

    4. Stoneshop Silver badge

      Re: Just the Allies?

      Guess the Axis powers' bombs weren't powerful enough?

      The Luftwaffe had significantly less bombers than the RAF had, and they also had less capacity: their one heavy bomber was the Heinkel 177, 10 ton bomb load, mostly used on the Eastern front and only from by and large 1943. 1170 built (including prototypes and small-run specials). The Heinkel 111, Junker 88 and the Dornier Do 17 were used in the Blitz, were built in larger numbers (5500 Heinkels, 15000 Junkers, 2000 Dorniers), but those had a much smaller bomb load, only up to some 3000kg. Blitz raids were also quite spread out over time; they didn't make for concentrated ionosphere disruptions the way the raids over Germany did.

      By contrast, at the start of the Area Bombing Directive early 1942 the RAF had the Halifax, Stirling and Lancaster, able to carry well over 5000kg (Lancasters had to be adapted to accept the Grand Slam), the lighter Hampden, Wellington, Whitley and the Mosquito, plus what the USAAF brought to the table once they came in. RAF Bomber Command was able to mount a number of "1000 bomber raids" with, in one case, 2000 tons of bombs dropped.

  14. Stevie Silver badge

    Bah!

    "The images of neighbourhoods across Europe reduced to rubble due to wartime air raids are a lasting reminder of the destruction that can be caused by man-made explosions."

    Hmm. A bit "revisionist" for my tastes and doesn't go far enough.

    How about:

    "The images of neighbourhoods across Europe reduced to rubble due to countries making war on their neighbours are a lasting reminder of the destruction that can be caused by bellicose politicians and the racist/jingoist idiots that attend their rallies"".

    Let's put the blame squarely where it belongs. No annexation of the Sudetenland, invasion of Poland, Blitzkrieg in France, no rubble, no explosions and the ionosphere remains placid.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Bah!

      Let's put the blame squarely where it belongs.

      Where will that be? Adolf was a product of his time and the political economy of the time (also Franco, Mussolini and a few others), and arguably the blame then goes back to the Treaty Of Versailles for creating the conditions for them to flourish....but that came after the first big pagga, and who do we blame for that? Serbian hot heads, I presume.

      1. Wellyboot Silver badge

        Re: Bah!

        >>>Where will that be? Adolf was a product of his time and the political economy of the time (also Franco, Mussolini and a few others), and arguably the blame then goes back to the Treaty Of Versailles for creating the conditions for them to flourish....but that came after the first big pagga, and who do we blame for that? Serbian hot heads, I presume.<<<

        The Serbs were annoyed for being badly done to by the Habsburgs....

        Gramps said that climbing down from the trees and walking about on your back legs would lead to trouble!

        1. Stoneshop Silver badge
          Thumb Up

          Re: Bah!

          Gramps said that climbing down from the trees and walking about on your back legs would lead to trouble!

          And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans.

          1. Pedigree-Pete
            Happy

            ...no one should ever have left the oceans.

            @Stoneshop. TBH the Dolphins look pretty happy to me. I'm coming back as one of those. PP :)

      2. Martin Gregorie Silver badge

        Re: Bah!

        Its always seemed to me that in the run-up to WW1 almost all the participating nations' rulers and military were just looking for an excuse to have a go at each other. Any semi-believable excuse would be justification enough, so one hot-headed Serb did very nicely, thank-you.

        Once the war was rolling the various Empires got dragged in along with the Americans.

        Hindsight shows that the Versailles Treaty was vindictive enough to virtually guarantee trouble would erupt a bit later. I've always wondered about its severity: possibly something to do with the pro-war politicians on the winning side distracting attention from their own misdeeds?

  15. Daniel von Asmuth Bronze badge
    Boffin

    Think positive

    After all those negative electrons were blasted from the ionosphere into space, our planet must have gotten positively charged.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019