Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Heavy Bombers

Discussion in 'Aircraft' started by GunSlinger86, Mar 11, 2017.

  1. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    45
    Before I get to the main point, I'll lay out some background.

    The strategic bombing campaign waged by the Allies used two different methods: Daylight precision bombing by the USAAF and night carpet bombing by the RAF. In the Allies view, they waged a separate air war using their air forces as a separate strategic offensive weapon, viewed in the same way as an army group ground campaign, as opposed to the Axis who used their air forces as more of a tactical strike force playing a supporting role to ground offensive operations. The Allies relied on the heavy four-engine bombers compared to its Axis counterparts, for reasons of doctrine, lack of materiel and resources, stuck to twin-engine bombers.

    In the ETO, the USAAF employed the B-17 and B-24 for daylight precision raids. The RAF heavy bombers- Lancaster, Halifax, Stirling were employed for the night-time raids.

    My question is, what differentiated a night-time bomber for a daylight raider? Could the American planes have been used for carpet raids at night? Did it have to do with more crew members and more guns/ammo in the USAAF bombers? Did the British have some type of night-time radar device that the Americans just didn't have? Did less armament and less men in the British bombers play a role?
     
  2. CAC

    CAC Ace of Spades

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    9,470
    Likes Received:
    3,025
    Bomber losses were unacceptable to RAF...so deal was struck that the US would take on more dangerous daytime roll...
     
  3. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    452
    "The strategic bombing campaign waged by the Allies used two different methods: Daylight precision bombing by the USAAF and night carpet bombing by the RAF"

    Nope. A better description would be "daylight random bombing" by the USAAF and "night terror bombing by the RAF" there is no way you can describe raids that hit the wrong town or even the wrong country as "precision".

    IIRC the tem "carpet bombing" was used to describe the tactical use of the heavy bombers during the Normandy campaign, not for strategic raids.

    The .303 defensive armament of most British bombers was inadequate for daylight use, on the other hand they carried a heavier bomb load than their US counterparts that dedicated a lot of the payload to guns, armor and armo, so you could say each county's planes were "optimized" for the sort of use they got.. There is no reason the US planes could not be used at night given adequate pilot training, the final part of the bombing campaign against Japan was RAF style night bombing using mostly incendiaries and IIRC the removed a couple of defensive turrets from the B29s to improve bombload and range.
     
  4. belasar

    belasar Court Jester

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,515
    Likes Received:
    1,176
    I think that might be overstating it somewhat. In truth the USAAF would have insisted upon a daylight role even over any RAF BC objection and I believe they initially thought the USAAF approach was too costly in manpower and material and another 'typical' example of naive American military thinking.

    US bomber doctrine well before the war held that mass daylight raids were the preferred method for coming to grips with the enemy and their aircraft (B-17/B-24) were optimized for this role (as many defensive MG's as could reasonably be carried) and flight crew were trained from the start to fly in tightly knit 'box's' that allowed for the maximum possible co-ordinated defensive fire. Arguably, even USAAF Medium Bomber aircraft (B-25/B-26) reflected this design philosophy even though they where used as much in the tactical role as they were in the strategic.

    The whole Day/Night system in many ways turned into a happy accident that worked to the Allies advantage. Flying conditions over England, and NW Europe as a whole, were daunting much of the time, limiting the number of days raids could be executed (you could have good weather over the UK and crappy over Germany or the reverse, or crappy over both). This was not helped by the fact that considerable air space was needed to organize these vast bomber groups before sending them into Germany. The USAAF and RAF BC simply could not operate over the same area at the same time and limiting them selves to only day or night raids greatly reduced the number that could be carried out over a given period of time.

    This forced Germany to respect and fight both a daylight and nighttime threat while the USAAF/RAF BC only had to worry about keeping up with their half of the bomber offensive. A classic example of both divide and conquer, and economy of force that helped to push Germany to the breaking point. Even though Soviet sources have and will never acknowledge it as such, The Combined Bomber Offensive was every bit a 'Second Front' on a par equal to, if not exceeding that of the landings in Italy.
     
    Shooter2018 likes this.
  5. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    45
    I agree, it was another front. The amount of resources Germany used in men and materiel on the home front to fend off the bomber offensive pretty much gave air superiority to Russia.

    If England's heavy bombers upgraded their guns to higher caliber and used more of them with a larger crew, then they could have been used during the day to the degree of the B-17/B-24?
     
    Shooter2018 likes this.
  6. Owen

    Owen O

    Joined:
    May 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,765
    Likes Received:
    760
    Why would they want to do that?
    Bigger guns , ammo & crew take away from the bomb payload.
     
    Shooter2018 likes this.
  7. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    45
    Its not why would they want to, I'm asking was it possible? Was it possible to arm the British bombers with heavier/more guns and more crew to fight during the day, and for the US bombers to have guns/ammo crew taken away to make them lighter. And what differentiated a night bomber from a day raider?
     
    Shooter2018 likes this.
  8. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    45
    Could the American four-engine bombers have had the same radar and finding devices installed that the British had so they could be used at night in Europe?
     
  9. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,773
    Likes Received:
    568
    Location:
    London UK
    You need to re
    Both the RAF and USAAF started their WW2 believing in daylight precision bombing. After the first clashes with the Luftwaffe in September 1939 RAF realised their their un-escorted bombers could not fight their way in daylight and they switched to night bombing. It took until; 1941 to realise that their standards of navigation and bomb aiming meant they were lucky to hit the nearest city. Bomber command developed a strategy around what was possible and introduced navigation and bombing aids and increasingly destructive techniques to kill German workers. The RAF did continue daylight raids with escorted medium and light bombers and occasional unescorted low level raids using the fast Mosquito, and sometimes the not so fast Lancaster. by 1944 the RAF had developed impressive precision bombing capabilities at night and day, and a range of specialist munitions - tallboys, Grand slam upkeep.

    By mid war Bomber Command comprised aircraft optimised for night bombing with limited defensive armament and carrying the heaviest bomb load they could.

    The USAAF came in with a doctrine of daylight precision bombing, but with much more heavily armed bombers than the RAF started the war with or used in mid war. The consquence was that they carried only a fraction of the bomb load of the RAF Bombers. The B17 carried a bomb load of 4,500lb for long range missions, little more than the RAF's twin engined Mosquito BIV over similar distances. No US aircraft of WW2 carried a heavier bomb than the 22,000 lb Grand Slam. The USAQAF solution was to develop long range escort fighters, and enopugh of them to win the air battle over Germany. This solution diod not occur to the RAF in the early war years as they ddio not beleive that a long range escort could have the same performance as an interceptor.

    The distinction between US Precision bombing and RAF area bombing isn't clear cut. US Bombers usually dropped their bombs on a signal from the formation leader, so "precision" was only as close as the bomber formation. This could be in the same grid square rather than all on the same football pitch, If the weather was cloudly - as it often is over Europe, then bombing would be effectivley area bombing. I have tried to look at the effectiveness of USAAF bombing on D Day and as far as I can see, the 8th Air Force did a good job. Aerial photos taklen later in the day show the bombs roughly where they should have been according to the orders. .

    No one really knows how effective the strategic bombing campaign really was. It was certaionly effective enough for the Germans to expend huge efforts on their air day and night air defences, which is perhaps an indication that both campaigns hurt the Germans.
     
    Shooter2018 and belasar like this.
  10. Poppy

    Poppy grasshopper

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Messages:
    7,740
    Likes Received:
    820
    Read the above. Not sure there was any mention of the Norden bomb site.
    The Norden was a daylight bombsite?...Maybe that is why the US took on the daylight raids, combined with their confidence in their defensive armament/box formation.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2017
    Shooter2018 and belasar like this.
  11. belasar

    belasar Court Jester

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,515
    Likes Received:
    1,176
    Didn't really mean to like Poppy's post, new-fangled kerjiggeer, but what the heck I'm feeling generous :)
     
  12. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    45
    What's the difference between an escort fighter and an interceptor fighter? Escorts take out other fighters and interceptors take out bombers?
     
  13. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    10,103
    Likes Received:
    2,574
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Of course, this glosses over the fact that the theory of the improved accuracy of daylight bombing would put more bombs on target. Therefore, the daylight bombers would not need as heavy a bomb load, which would be traded off for heavier bomber defenses. Whereas the implied loss of accuracy with night bombing would require more bombs to be dropped in the hopes of actually hitting the target.


    I would disagree, the distinction of theory is fairly clear-cut, however, putting theory into practice under combat conditions would blur said distinction. While precision bombing was all well and good on some bombing range, under ideal conditions, in the continental US. The reality of precision bombing under combat conditions over Germany was quite different. To cope with this, the idea of "pattern bombing"(aka carpet bombing or saturation bombing) came into use, in the hopes that a tight formation of daylight bombers would increase the chances of, at least, being able to at least get some bombs on target.

    Still, the distinction would remain clear even with pattern bombing, as the lead bombardier was still expected to drop his bombs with a fair amount of precision.

    However, less clear would be when US daylight bombers had to drop on a socked-in target using only radar as guidance.

    Not necessarily, that was why US bombers had Secondary Targets, and lastly Targets of Opportunity - 3 chances at finding a window in the clouds. Still, radar was used, and, at first, it was wildly inaccurate, due to inexperienced operators and poor radar. However, accuracy would improve with training and better radar sets, but would still be called "blind bombing."



    Yes...But, I would add that the box formations were both defensive and offensive, as they allowed tighter bomb patterns - which is why use of the combat box continued well after long-range fighters came on the scene.
     
  14. CAC

    CAC Ace of Spades

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    9,470
    Likes Received:
    3,025
    As has been discussed a number of times already, an interceptor is an aircraft with a lot of power, low weight, so can climb quickly and actually intercept a target. It typically loses manuverability for straight line speed. Heavy weapons for bombers are secondary (it could be intercepting spotter planes or V1s for example) its getting height and straight speed that makes an interceptor...any fighter in theory could be powered up or simply lightened for the role in the field (as in Darwin for example).
    An escort fighter is rarely purpose built, instead drop tanks or otherwise "extra fuel" added to carry it the distance needed to follow their "big buddies"...many aircraft simply cannot carry more fuel due to design restrictions, so not any fighter can successfully carry out this role.
     
    Poppy likes this.
  15. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    45
    So an interceptor gets good straight line speed, but not as maneuverable when its going fast in a straight line?

    Escort fighters purpose is to take out other fighters, so speed and maneuverability are key?
     
  16. CAC

    CAC Ace of Spades

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    9,470
    Likes Received:
    3,025
    Not as manuverable in terms of twists and turns...dog fighting.
    The escort fighter drops its tanks, reducing drag and weight, increasing performance.
     
  17. mcoffee

    mcoffee Son-of-a-Gun(ner)

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,224
    Likes Received:
    435
    The AAF did have basically the same equipment as the British. The AAF used H2X radar sets developed from the British H2S system. The primary difference between the two was that the H2X operated on a shorter wave length X band frequency which gave better resolution. H2S was subsequently updated to use X band.

    Ship #39 shows the ball turret replaced by the H2X radar dome.

    #39 Mickey.jpg
     
    Poppy and belasar like this.
  18. freebird

    freebird Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    690
    Likes Received:
    55
    The RAF actually did a fair number of daylight missions as well, the attacks on Tirpitz being an example
     
  19. Poppy

    Poppy grasshopper

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Messages:
    7,740
    Likes Received:
    820
    #11- Thank you sir Bella...No like was received, either in this thread or my personal page...Just happy to be here.
     
    Shooter2018 likes this.
  20. Shooter2018

    Shooter2018 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2018
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    7
    If you look at some of the pic from some of the raids where the target was not obscured by cloud cover, the results look great, everything they could have hoped for.
    The two planes that start all the arguments were similar enough to bear comparison. In general terms below;
    The B-17 had a lower EEW than the Lanc. Both had the same MTO, and close wing span. That means that the Boeing had a few hundred, to 1,000? extra pounds available for fuel, ammo, crew and bombs. The Lanc's bomb bay was long narrow and shallow. The -17s was short, wide and tall. The Lanc could load up to 18X1,000 pound modified short fin bombs, but typically used 14 or less spaces. The B-17 could load 34X440 pound incendiary cluster bombs on it's 34 internal racks. (14,960 pounds, or 18X 1,000 pound AP bombs, 8X2,000 pound GP bombs, or 12X1,600 pound AP bombs but mostly only carried about 6-8,000 pounds of bombs and several hundred gallons of extra gas.
    The B-17 was faster on less power, indicating it had the "Cleaner" air frame. It also had about 15,000 ' more service ceiling than the Lanc at any all up weight. Caused by the turbo-charged engines. Both of these facts go to the -17 being the more aerodynamic aircraft. As such it could carry more weight to any given range at a higher ceiling than the Lanc. Political choices differing aside, the missions for each plane had little to do with it's aerodynamics and everything to do with National will. The Lanc operated at night and at lower altitude to minimize losses and maximize damage. We chose to operate at higher altitude to minimize casualties. We lost fewer planes than the RAF because the flack was less effective the higher you flew. If the Lanc was required to operate at higher altitudes, like the -17, it would have carried less bombs to a shorter range and at a lower altitude because it's engines were not high blown. If it had to operate in broad day light, it would have had to carry more guns, ammo, armor and crewmen to work them, further limiting it's bomb load, range and altitude. Thus flack would have caused more casualties and they would have dropped fewer bombs.
    So as we look more into it, we find that the two planes are not really similar, except in the vaguest sense.
    Either the bombs, or the Lanc plane had to be modified to carry more weight. If you divide the weight of bombs by the number of missions, you find the Lanc has a higher average bomb load than the B-17. If you were to modify the -17 to carry larger "Short fin" bombs, the weight of bombs would easily exceed the weight to range at altitude trade off. So either the Lanc trades load for range and altitude, but still flies lower than the B-17, or the B-17 flies at the same altitude as the Lanc, but carries more bombs, to a longer range at a slightly higher altitude, due to it's better aerodynamics.

    Now that I have stirred up this Hornets nest, I think I'll pause for the night.
     

Share This Page