Comments on: Are Skyscrapers Bombproof? (May, 1941)

By: Tracy B.

Tracy B. — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 23:13:29 +0000

well it’s been proven the skyscrapers are not airplane proof.

By: Mike Gutman

Mike Gutman — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:23:24 +0000

That and the fact that the AA shells that missed often fell on the the places that they were tryng to defend often caused civilian casualties. In addition if they got one of ‘em the stricken bomber would cause even more damage if it fell on the city. However, I believe that the officials felt that it was worth it from a morale perspective in that it felt like they were doing something. It also may have encouraged the people to go to the shelters!

By: StanFlouride

StanFlouride — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:00:50 +0000

Of course having 3,000 miles of ocean between your enemy’s aircraft and their targets helps too.
I read a long time ago that the British dismissed the idea of roof top AA batteries as being to complicated to be worth the effort. Re-arming, re-enforcing the roof top, vibration on the structure, etc. just to gain a few dozen or even a few hundred feet of elevation when you’re shooting at something that is more than 10,000 feet high is a huge waste of time and resources.

Interesting to note though the concern over gas at that point in the war.