During WW 2 the Germans shifted their air defense systems more and more to antiaircraft guns as the war progressed. There are numerous reasons for this shift.
The question is was this a 'best choice' of system or would the Germans and Luftwaffe been better served by ramping up aircraft production and pilot training? Now, they did this to a degree but too late originally to have a real impact. Would taking this route and starting earlier be more effective than relying of flak?

You can't have flak everywhere, even if you have your batteries on rails. Besides you will be able to fly above or around flak. If you concentrate Flak on corridors, new corridors will bw found the next day. You raise a hell of a Flak curtain on Hamburg, we'll erase Lübeck. On the other hand Flak can't be shot down.

Are there any accurate figures we can look at? What would the comparable effectiveness terms be so we wouldn't be comparing peaches to avocados?

__________________

Your question raises more questions such as how much does an 88 cost vs a fighter plane and how long does it take to train a flak crew vs a fighter pilot.

Also through out the whole war how many bombers were lost to flak vs fighters. Impossible to get an answer for that I think.

I may be mistaken but was not the first minister of production a pilot that later shot himself ?
If so that would be an answer for the shift from fighter to flak.

Last but not least, is Za an avocado or a peach ?

__________________
Work Harder ! Millions on welfare are depending on you.

I have no doubt that stepping up fighter production (and pilot training), would have been a better trade off for the Germans than a massive 'AA' defense. If you are talking about the bombing campaign before the allies developed long-range fighter escorts, and started the 'fighter sweeps'.

As Za pointed out, any investment in 'AA' in one area means less in some other (which is where the allies will naturally be concentrating next).

The problems with fighter interception:
1) Short flying times. The German fighters could not stay aloft for hours on end, as the bombers could. The 'Komet' was the ultimate in this respect, I think.
2) Limited firepower. I remember reading about B17's that were mauled by fighters and AA fire and still made it back. The Germans needed a much heavier armament in order to kill 'flying fortresses'. I remember the picture of a radio controlled fighter sitting atop a German bomber, waiting to be crashed into a B17. Talk about desperate!
3) Limited ammunition. Fighters would run out of ammo, and have to land and reload/refuel. This reduced their attrition value.

I have a 'Third Alternative' to either the 'AA' or increased fighters plan.

What the Germans needed was an aircraft that could stay aloft much longer, mounting heavier weapons, and carrying more ammunition than their fighters. The answer would be to build an Anti-Bomber Bomber (ABB). Build a 4 engined plane that carried (at least) a 40mm Bombay/belly mounted turret.

Most common B17 armaments were .50 cal (apx 12.5mm). Having served in the US Army Infantry and gotten a chance to fire the army version of the .50 cal, I remember it not being effective more than 2,000 some odd yards out. This is firing at ground targets basically at same elevation.

If the B17 WWII version had no greater range than this (assuming shooting at targets at same altitude), an ABB flying 6-10,000 feet above the heavily bomb-laden B17's would be pretty much untouchable.

This would solve the problems that the single engined fighters had, as they could score multiple kills per raid and not be subject to return fire from the B17's.

Weather the trade off of far fewer interceptors w/higher survivability and kill potential would be enough to slow the allied bombing campaign, who knows?

[ 08. December 2006, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: Shadow Master ]

__________________
Maskirovka: Show the world one thing...then do another.

http://maskirovka.blogspot.com/

I personally think that the aircraft would be the answer, espcially the Me262, but only if the pilots would be trained enough. otherwise the plane is shot from the sky during the first mission and is less useful than any AA weapon.

I also think the difference between AA usefullness is whether it is used against the strategic bombers or the ground attack planes. In Normandy I recall the 20 mm or bigger AA guns caused great havoc, however against the big bombers the rounds needed to bring down a bomber was thounsads, maybe tens of thousands. So against the bombers, especially night bombers the " Schräge Musik" and daylight bombers the face-to-face armored FW 190´s.

__________________

I hate 'what ifs' but I'll just throw in a couple of observations....

The bomber crews hated flak but the fighters ( day and night ) were the weapon which caused the real slaughter. We all know about 'Schrage Musik', and the only times that the 8th AF were almost 'turned back' ( eg Schweinfurt I/II, Oschersleben, Munster ) was as a direct result of fierce fighter attack, not flak.

It took, on average, 20 x 2 cm hits to bring a B-17 down, 3 x 3cm hits. The Allies were seriously concerned that the Me262 could do extreme harm to bomber formations.

Lastly, the German light flak ( 2 cm, 3.7 cm etc ) was fearsomely effective throughout the war - and was frequently used in a dual role against ground forces.

So, I'd say more fighters and trained pilots against the bombers, less heavy flak, about the same light flak.

And if the Luftwaffe had had the 262 in 1939, they may have won the war ( and if my aunt were a man, she'd be my uncle... )

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

Well, they tried a variety of heavy planes like the Me110, Me 410, Ju88 etc, toting weapons up to 21cm rockets and this didn't exactly cause a bomber massacre. I doubt a totally unmanoeuverable 4-engine plane would, on the other hand it would be a fine target for the escort fighters.

__________________

The only historical work I have read on the bombing of Germany was a book called "big week" or something similar. Dealt with the US daylight raids (with footnotes on British night raids for comparisons), and also on the deployment and tactics employed by the German fighter defenses, and the counters that the allies came up with. Excellent work! I would also like to read any good works that you folks might recommend on the subject.

My knowledge is limited compared to many of the forum posters here!

Za, your absolutely right! A big, 4 engined Anti-Bomber Bomber would be a great target for the allied fighter escorts.

Of course, if these planes were deployed 'earlier' (Translate too: before allies had deep penetration fighter escorts), then I would like to discuss the merits/demerits of such a craft.

I like trying to picture a situation/problem, and then trying to visualize a solution. From reading the book, it left me with the impression that the flak was more feared/hated than the fighters (despite doing less damage), because at least you could shoot back at the fighters.

When I picture a host of huge bombers, heavily armored, armed too the teeth and carrying heavy loads of ordinance. Then I picture tiny, single engined fighters trying to blast them. I read how the fighters had great success, but needed still greater success.

Then I ask myself, why were the fighters more deadly than the AA fire? Comes down to range/aim. Single engined fighters faster and more maneuverable than the bombers, can pick angle of attack, where to aim. Ground based AA is lucky to get a near miss at all, so comes down to volume fire or luck. So fighters take a relatively small armament, and put it in the most advantageous place. But to do so, they become vulnerable to the bombers defensive fire.


When I read about the problems the single engined fighters had and I ask myself, Isn't there a better way? So I start to think, why not mount bigger guns? Carry more ammo? More fuel/longer flight times? If you take an aircraft that has these advantages, does it really need to be far faster and more maneuverable?

All the fighter really does is to bring weapons into range of the bomber. Could not a larger plane bring larger weapons to bear? And thus engage from outside the effective range of the bomber's guns?

I picture B17's flying in formation, trying to be able to protect each other, and therefor flying close together. Instead of relying solely on fighters that can only engage for a few passes because of limited fuel/ammo, why not use both types of aircraft?

The ABB (not carrying bombs nor the heavy armor of the B17's), would have greater speed and ceiling. Coming in from above, they would slow down to the speed of the allied bombers. Unlike the traditional fighters, these aircraft do not have to make 'high speed passes' in which the pilot hopes to escape defensive firepower, dodge tracers, and still line his plane up with his target, all at the same time. With the ability to match course and speed, and having the gunners free to concentrate on the shooting (and not be distracted by flying their plane, nor having to dodge defensive fire) the ABB's gunners will be able to take their time, and walk their fire across the allied formations.

With these tactical advantages, these aircraft would undoubtedly enjoy much higher kills per raid than traditional fighters.

Once the allies break formation (else the allied bombers would be sitting ducks), the 'regular' fighters would strike. By spreading out, the B17's would not present such easy targets to the high flying ABB's, but would now be separated and MORE vulnerable too the traditional fighters. If the allies reform to better defend against the single engined fighters, just repeat the process!

In short, using large aircraft in this way would add a new and more efficient way of fighting the war of attrition. Luckily for us, the Germans never thought of this!

__________________
Maskirovka: Show the world one thing...then do another.

http://maskirovka.blogspot.com/

I don't think Germany's main problem was fighters production output, it was more a problem of trained pilots and fuel availability, and in the latter domains, I doubt the ressources spent in AAA had a very significant impact on manpower and fuel available for the Luftwaffe interceptors.

Against allied bomb raids, the interceptors achieved much better results than the heavy flak, but it is debatable if these results were cost effective when you consider the losses suffered by the Luftwaffe.

At least it diverted part of the US air force to escort duty.

But I agree with TA on the fact Germany would have fared better if they had really rethink and invest into an efficient interception organsation and fleet.

__________________
http://www.costnet.com/images/skyhawk-pic.jpg

a couple of simple thoughts......

first, Ju 88's never attacked with rockets, only cannon arms.

the Luftwaffe was never ready for the US bomber war efforts with streams of B-17's and B-24 formations, as can be seen with so many variances of Luftwaffe changed tactics and weapons systems, to try and achieve the perfect Viermottöter combination. Well they never did as they experimented till the very end. do not forget that even Luftwaffe night fighters were used in the fall of 44 till spring of 44, some of the heavy laden Bf 110G-4's with radar had rockets equipped

How would your large fighter work on RAF night bombers ? They flew in streams not in formation.

Anouther aspect of stopping bombers is to destroy the factorys and destroy fuel supplies which the allies did over time.

Anouther problem of a large fighter is to get it in postion above the bombers so it can make the attack. Interception is complex and you need alot of timing and good luck. Radar early in the war was primitive and large fighters take longer times to get started and climb to alitude and then if the timing is off they will be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

As ZA said the Germans tried ME-110, 210, 410, and JU-88's and they worked good until real fighters arrived.

__________________
Work Harder ! Millions on welfare are depending on you.

Anouther thought I had was if the Germans had not lost their bomber fleets on the eastern front they could have made night raids on allied airfields in the UK and destroyed alot on the ground. The USAAC and RAF could only disperse the bombers so much around the fields but they would still be good targets while refueling and arming. In the Pacific they used parafrags to good effect on Japanese airfields. You don't need to destroy the whole aircraft just keep it down for maintance.

__________________
Work Harder ! Millions on welfare are depending on you.

Ta do some studies on the LUftwaffe NJG's, remember Nürnberg raid, some 100RAF bombers bit the bullet ....

timing is crucial yes, but the Germans had a very adepted ground radar system. did you know that it was so refined even in the fall of 44 that ground systems could pick up the numbers of US heavy bombers starting up their engines at their AF's in England, a very depressing thought as they radio'd in the calls to the day fighter gruppen with the amount of Us heavies ready to take the skies, and with the result that German pilots all wondered if their times was going to be up that day ....

"Of course, if these planes were deployed 'earlier' (Translate too: before allies had deep penetration fighter escorts), then I would like to discuss the merits/demerits of such a craft."

That section was where I was coming from. In the 39-42 time frame interception was still more good luck than good radar. And later in the war, if they still had large medium bomber fleets then they could attack the bombers while on the ground. Their losses would be large but it would have made a bigger impact I think than wasting them in Russia.

__________________
Work Harder ! Millions on welfare are depending on you.

Good points! Thanks. [img]smile.gif[/img]

As far as the British night bombers, they would definitely be at a disadvantage. Also in the case of daylight bombers flying just under the 'cloud bellies'.

Have you had a chance too read "Big Week"? It did a pretty good job describing the German fighter deployments and tactics. Near the periphery, your faster, smaller interceptors would be the first line of defense (where the allies would have fighter escorts initially).

Inside this outer ring is where you would deploy your ABB's. If this second line were 1/2 hour or so flying time (at the speed of an incoming raid) interior to the forward airbases, you would have the time needed. I would favor deploying many small contingents at dispersed airfields over large numbers at fewer fields, both for security and rapid scrambling. Also, as these ABB's would not be as fast as the smaller interceptors, you would want them kinda spread out to maximize their chances to make an intercept. On the plus side, deceptive routing would be less effective against the ABB's force than the shorter ranged single engined fighters.

I would expect the ABB's to have far fewer interceptors total than the traditional fighters, but too enjoy their best returns against the bigger raids. It would definitely be a trade off, and one that would be less and less usable as allied fighter escorts ranges kept increasing later in the war. Until then, the ABB's would force the allies to make some tough choices. A 100 bomber raid being intercepted by 6 regular fighters wouldn't be deterred much (if at all), but 6 ABB's is another matter entirely!

__________________
Maskirovka: Show the world one thing...then do another.

http://maskirovka.blogspot.com/

The Luftwaffe when not foiled by window was always up at the right time. you must think of the RAF diversions of other bomber formations, Mosquitos in the Pathfinder, LSNF force and also intruders/night fighters. the Luftwaffe could not be everywhere at once, and was far to thin even in early war. in 1942 the US bomber formations were still in their infancy working on tactics and suitable routes to take over France and the Reich with the shortest and fastest way homeward to England

by the way Big Week is an outdated book which needs to be overhauled and re-written about those terrible days on both sides flying over Germany ........

Flack guns were cheaper, easier to train operators and did not require as much fuel or materials that were hard to get. If they had developed a radar guidance system that would target accurately, it would have made a serious dent on the RAF and US bombers. However, unless they can stop the replacement of aircraft, it would not have made a significant difference. The same with new German aircraft. Eventually, the allies would come up with a counter and then the shear volume of aircraft would overwhelm the Germans.

The time for Germany to win or declare a truce was long gone by the time things had reached this point. Their only chance had been to take over the British Isles or declare a truce before the US got involved.

__________________
Lord, let me be the person my dog thinks I am.