Dugald wrote:Roxburgh wrote:
Firstly, there was no real experience of mass bombing of civilian targets and it is hard to make contingency plans for the unknown.
HH, I think Roxburgh is quite correct in his statement here. The bombing during 1917-18 which we're told took 1413 lives, did not stem from what was known as "mass bombing". Many of the casualties from aerial bombing in the Great War were from a single airship and/or single or a few planes, hardly "mass bombing.". I'd guess the raids referred to by Roxburgh, were by great air armadas. A perfect example of "mass bombing" is the RAF's bombing of Hamburg by about 800 heavy bombers in July 1943. It was the fear of bombings of this magnitude and how to cope with them that made contingency plans so difficult. Armaments and aircraft had changed a great deal since the 17 planes dropped two tons of bombs on London... some of the Hamburg bombs weighed more than 2000 lb each ..
Yes, Dugald, but it's worth noting that the Clydebank raids took place in 1941, that being the case, it's hard to see how Glasgow could have learned any lessons from the bombing of Hamburg in 1943.
Dugald wrote: I don't think the WW I bombing experience would constitute "Lesson enough".
Ten ton of bombs dropping on the centre of any city would be 'Lesson enough' for most folk I would have thought.
Dugald wrote:In your apparent questioning of the "the universal spirit after the bombings" you show:
"there was a distressing tardiness on the part of some employers to contribute to the efforts of their workers."
We might note first of all that this applied to only "some employers". At this time, 1941, it was still very much an era of the "piece in the pocket 'n tea can" lunch-time dining, so perhaps Browns' lacked the facilities to provide hot meals, I don't know. When the meals were promptly provided thereafter, I wonder who picked up the tab, Browns or the Treasury. It's rather awkward being in a position that looks like I'm defending Browns, when in fact it is the "the universal spirit after the bombings" I am defending.
My 'apparent questioning' is neither here nor there, the facts speak for themselves. I suspect that John Brown's, one of the greatest shipbuilders the world has ever known would have found no great difficulty in establishing a canteen & providing hot food for the workers who were travelling great distances to get there. Further to this, I imagine that the procurement of hot food at any time of the day would have been rather difficult for many members of the 'local' workforce too. It seems to me that logistics was not the core problem in John Brown's failure to provide basic facilities, I believe that it had more to do with the 'attitude' of the employer.
Dugald wrote:Anyway HH, it's an enjoyable novelty receiving a contribution from you on this topic.
Aye, Dugald, I'm well known for giving good value in the novelty stakes.