The Battle of the Bulge: The Allies’ Greatest Conflict on the Western Front with Martin King 

With a dumb name like Skyler I think your folks probably were too, ha, ha.

Second Battle of El Alamein UK losses; 13,560 killed, wounded, captured, and missing.

Seemed nice but he kept interrupting his colleague and it frustrated me. Some questions didn’t get answered because of that.

Fortune Zero.. that's a Bullshit thing to say .

It was a British division at Arnhem.

@@petercott1 Oh right. I thought he at least cared for his own people but no, youre right.

'Anyone else, sure throw em at em see what happens.' When did that happen?

@@thevillaaston7811 North Afrika ( i think he fucked over greeks or czechoslovaks by having them advance through a mine field on a flat bit of desert as distraction whilst his tanks went south through hilly terrain) and Arnheim I know of for sure. Ive forgotten most reasons why I dislike the guy. I need to reopen the folder at one point.

You vastly over estimate several things then. First, surface search Radar of the day was not even close to being good enough to do as you suggested. Even today, with modern surface search Radars ground clutter can make target aquisition and recognition difficult in some types of terrain, in December 1944 it was FAR less advanced and nowhere even close to as capable as modern Radar. Second, the RAF, the main proponants of Night Bombing used area bombing for a REASON, even in daylight, with good visibility accurate bombing of ground targets using level bombers and Radar Guidance alongside the best optical bomb aiming sights was lucky to attain an accuracy rate of 10% of bombs landing within a MILE of the target. The Radars were used to guide the bombers to the area of the target, to aquire the target itself, that still had to be done with optical bomb sights. Third, Ground support at low altitude was more accurate, but with one exception Fighter Bombers of the day, like the P-47, Hawker Typhoon and CAS versions of the P-51 and Spitfire were too small to take ground search Radar. The only exception to this was the Fighter Bomber Varient of the Mosquito, and there simply were not enough of them to go around, so they were generally used for specialist missions. While surface search radar was used VERY successfully against U-Boats they had a whole different set of problems when applying the technology to land targets. First U-Boats did not carry a whole lot of anti aircraft weaponry, as a result the bombers could drop to extremely low altitudes with relative safety. Anti U-Boat aircraft rarely flew higher than 6,000 feet, and never attacked above a couple of hundred feet (and usually attacked from far lower altitudes, indeed it was not uncommon for the aircraft to be damaged by the explosion of their depth charges). This ability to operate at extremely low level and the fact the oceans surface throws up a LOT less surface clutter means that target aquisition by Radar at sea was a lot less problematic than doing it on land. Large, cumbersome bombers attacking low and slow (which you needed to do for Radar Guided bombing if you wanted to actually be accurate) were absolute sitting ducks, indeed, it would be close to suicidal. Your argument is based on the assumption that the capabilities of WWII Ground search Radar were similar to more modern sets, they were not, they were still *useful* do not get me wrong, but like tanks in WWI they were a relatively new technology and truly accurate surface search radar that could aquire targets on the ground reliably in most terrains would not enter service until three or four decades after WWII.

alganhar1 The H2S radar on British bombers were a navigation radar. They used it to bomb at night. In addition, the British had reasonably accurate navigation systems.

@@alganhar1 I'm with you. Allies accidentally bombed Switzerland a few times.

@@dermotrooney9584 Sure, Sure, "accidently". Maybe reminding them which side of the war was gonna win.

They were too busy bombing women and children