PICTURES OR BOMBS

Greymouth Evening Star, 14 February 1940, Page 9

PICTURES OR BOMBS

TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS LONDON, January 23.' It is one thing to photograph German aerodromes and another to bomb them, says the aeronautical correspondent -of “The Times.” He also refers to the impossibility of preventing civilians being, hit. ... The correspondent, answers the question: “If photographs, why not bombs?” posed by reproduction in the newspapers ,of detailed pictures of German military objectives taken on Royal Air Force reconnaissance flights. “These photographs,” he says, “were often taken from a low altitude. Some, such as the.one of an aerodrome with bombers standing out upon it, have almost a ‘candid camera’ quality. They prove that the Royal Air Force can penetrate to important Germany military bases, but between reaching these bases with a camera and hitting them with bombs there is a large difference. “There is also the fixed Allied war policy of refraining from bombing land targets; “In order to photograph a position, rapid passage above it is all that is necessary. In order to. bomb it aeroplanes must place themselves in a precise position and that process occupies appreciable time. “One reason for the Allied prohibi-' tion against bombing these objectives is that bombs would inevitably kill some women and children, for there are living quarters close at hand, and bombin'" accuracy under war conditions is not so high that fine' distinction could be made on the limits of 'lx-.-la.ret”'