Anti Aircraft

Are there records of Collateral damage from Anti-Aircraft Fire during the Blitz?

We all know that what goes up must come down, so what about anti-aircraft shells and shrapnel that didn't hit enemy aircraft, not to mention enemy aircraft, that fell on London? Has there been any studies of this damage versus actual bombing?Did fighter command intentially avoid attacking bombers over populated areas?

I have never seen any records of collateral damage during the blitz. However, the British government knew that it existed, and there was plenty of anecdotal evidence of such collateral damage. Did the British government try to avoid it? Not really. After all, they were trying to shoot down enemy planes. When an enemy plane hits the ground, it causes just as much (perhaps more) damage than a bomb. The general view was that the long-term benefits (killing enemy pilots and destroying enemy planes) outweighed the cost of the collateral damage. A meaningful study of the accuracy of this conclusion would be virtually impossible.

Fighter command tried to attack enemy bombers as far away from populated areas as feasible -- usually over the English Channel and North Sea. However, the fighters also followed the bombers into populated areas. Collateral damage was regarded as a necessary cost of destroying the enemy bombers.

---