Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: First critical element of WW-II fighter plane effectivness?
45-Shooter    1/18/2013 9:22:46 PM
Given that the "typical" WW-II Single engine fighter could be spotted at 1-2 miles, depending on aspect, about half the time, I propose that the smaller the plane, the more effective it will be! Sort of a semi-stealth solution to the "Spotting" problem?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21   NEXT
oldbutnotwise       7/13/2013 4:43:44 PM
Ok before I do please fill in some supporting evidence
  1, how many aircraft were involved in the raid From the pictures,
obviously not enough!
actually 24 for the Power station attack and 75 for the airfield
 
 
2, what type of aircraft
Lancasters.
actually Bostons for Power station and B17 for the airfield
 
3, what bombs were used and what wieght of each type
Standard mixed loads.
Meaningless answer, actually 500lbs 
 
 
4, what weather conditions
European in broad daylight.
Correct, you got this one right, it was a daylight raid by the 2nd TAF and normal for B17
 
5, what level of fire suppression were availiable to the target Standard German for that region.
actually virtually none for the Airfield and medium light for the powerstation
 
6, what was the construction of the target Brick wall, with truss roof spans and typical roofing materials.
wow amazing eye sight, or are you a member of CSI Vegas and can assess such info from 2 pixels
 
  7, where were the targets In Germany!
wrong both targets were actually in France
8, what was the effective damage done rather than observable NONE!
got you, it is impossible to tell from photo evidence
 
Now, based on both what you can see and what you know from the above answers, how would you rate the effects as shown on the BDA Photo above? Just as the RAF would have had to do it during the real war.
 
would show that the US were not particularly effective bombing airfields from 20000ft and that 4x500lbs was not enough to do significant damage to a target like as power station, the 4000lbs block buster mombs were far more effective (also you can see from the photo that no such bombs were used in that raid
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter    Also from the photos...   7/16/2013 12:53:34 AM
I can see that the number of planes you claim can not carry as many bombs as there are craters! It would take four or five times as many planes of the types you state to do the damage shown by the number of craters.

    would show that the US were not particularly effective bombing airfields from 20000ft and that 4x500lbs was not enough to do significant damage to a target like as power station, the 4000lbs block buster mombs were far more effective (also you can see from the photo that no such bombs were used in that raid



 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/16/2013 3:25:04 AM
as pointed out in another post I was wrong and it wasnt the Boston raid that the photo refered to, it was a different raid on the target carried out by the USAAF (and its why its in the US bomb survey) rather than the TAFF which would have been in the British survey.
 
This raid was by Mitchell's (B25) although some reports have B26s involved but not all reports have these aircraft stated.
 
The analysis by the US survey actually has the raid down as a success!
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/16/2013 8:24:06 AM
Well I have been corrected, I had completely the wrong target it seems, the photo is actually of Brux oil refinary and the raid was by the 8th USSAF (mission 568) and was by B17 - 139 of them on August 24 1944
 
photo was as Bomb damage assessment mission flown by Lt John S. Blyth, 14th Squadron, 7th Photo Group,  Mount Farm, UK. This was sortie 3065 and he was flying Spitfire MK XI PA 944. Altitude was approximately 30,000ft. 
 
so was a pure US effort 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/16/2013 8:33:40 AM
just relised I typed 8th af when it may have been the 15th accounts differ but it most likely the 15th due to its location
 
it was the first raid on the plant and they went back another 7 times that year with over 1200 planes involved in the raids, the above raid was escorted by 280 P38 and P51s
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/16/2013 8:35:12 AM
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/16/2013 8:43:39 AM
might as well mention too, the Oil plant at Brux was finially put out of action in January 45 after a raid by the RAF (it never resumed production after this raid) in this raid the RAF lost 1 Lancaster
 
 
so using Shooter "big" number is all that matter method of assessing effectiveness we have Raf 257 aircraft plant out of action till post war
 
USAAF over 1200 aircraft in 8 raids, (loses to follow but at least 90 bombers and 12 fighters) plant only out of service for a total of 3 weeks in the 4 months
 
Quote    Reply

ambush       7/16/2013 2:04:21 PM
With the regards to the whole Belisarius1234/OBNW strategic bombing debate a not reading all the responses I will  throw in my adjusted for inflation  two cents.
 
  The proponents of Strategic bombing on all sides have always overstated their case be it used to bomb cities and industrial bases or in the support of ground operations Normandy and Italy.  The Germans did not bring England to its knees and the Allies did not bring Germany or Japan to its knees by Strategic bombing alone as many proponents claimed it could.  To be fair this  is the case when with many branch /component advocates.  In the Army the advocates of Infantry. Armor, Artillery , Engineers etc. all talk about the supremacy of their fiefdom in the fight over tax payer resources. The Air Force has its Fighter Mafia,  Strategic bombers, Transports and now drones and Space Command turf wars  while the Navy has aviation, surface and sub declaring themselves to be of primary importance. Into this mix you have the Special ops and Intel guys..
 
The Allied bombing of Germany did not really become effective until  it concentrated on oil production.  If I recall reading  about how one American General said he cried after reading  about increased German weapons production after all the lives and planes lost in the strategic bombing raids.
 
Many would argue, myself among them, that the US submarine campaign had more to do with defeat of Japan than Strategic bombing.
 
It could even be said that strategic bombing sapped resources that could have been put to better use at certain times of the war.  Certainly Bomber Command should have turned over more aircraft  to the Fleet Air Arm or dedicate more its long range aircraft to the Battle of the Atlantic during 1940-43. 
 
As far as aircraft the development  goes  sure the B-17 changed from initial  introduction, many aircraft did  the Germans did not finish the war with same model of  Bf-109 or FW-190 they started with. In fact he FW-190 started out with a radial  engine before going to an inline water cooled. 
 
It could be argued that one of the key characteristics of a good airplane it is adaptability and ability to be modified.
 
 
I also think that if the B-29 been developed under peace time conditions it would have been found unsuitable due to its risk of engine fires, accident rates etc.  much like the B-26  would have been.
 
Also what success the B-29 enjoyed as a conventional bomber was due to a change in how it was employed not for what it was designed to do.  It was a high altitude pinpoint bomber armed with a bunch of guns  to defend against enemy fighters. The results in that role  were not good so it was stripped of many of its guns and moved to lower level area fire bombing.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Strategic Bombing   7/16/2013 3:05:51 PM
Ambush, I think you are correct, to a point about Strategic Bombing and over-stated claims or beliefs.  Neither US Army Air Force nor the RAF Bomber Command achieved what they BELIEVED they could, pre-war.  And so its claims and its demands were over-stated.
 
BUT, it did have an effect on Germany, even before Oil.  It:
1) Destroyed weapons, on the Production Line;
2) Delayed Weapons from production, due to damage and repair times;
3) Diverted resources from the combat fronts.
 
600,000 troops and 1,200 A/c were involved in the defense of the Reich, at its height.  That's about 24 Wehrmacht divisions and their supporting troops, and about 3 Panzer/Panzergrenadier Divisions.  Plug in an extra German Army/Army Group and an extra Panzer Korps into any campaign from 1943 on and think about the difference it would have made, at Kursk, during Bagration, in Italy, or in France 1944.
 
Think about the depleted state of Wehrmacht formations from 1943 on and then think, what if they had another 10-15% of their strength; units destroyed or delayed in production due to bombing.
 
So bombing really did help win the war, well before attacks on oil production.  What it did NOT do is defeat the Germans without recourse to major ground combat, which was the hope/claim of folks like Harris, Eaker, Spaatz and the like.
 
As to Japan, yes the Submarine Campaign really defeated Japan, because the real bombing didn't begin until 1945. But, again, they understates an effect.  By August 1945 Japan couldn't produce weapons or food, one because of the loss of materials due to submarine attrition, but ALSO because the facilities for their production were reduced to ash.  I wouldn't discount the effect of the massive fire bombing raids on Japan's ability to continue the war.
 
Quote    Reply

ambush       7/16/2013 3:58:07 PM
With the regards to the whole Belisarius1234/OBNW strategic bombing debate a not reading all the responses I will  throw in my adjusted for inflation  two cents.
 
  The proponents of Strategic bombing on all sides have always overstated their case be it used to bomb cities and industrial bases or in the support of ground operations Normandy and Italy.  The Germans did not bring England to its knees and the Allies did not bring Germany or Japan to its knees by Strategic bombing alone as many proponents claimed it could.  To be fair this  is the case when with many branch /component advocates.  In the Army the advocates of Infantry. Armor, Artillery , Engineers etc. all talk about the supremacy of their fiefdom in the fight over tax payer resources. The Air Force has its Fighter Mafia,  Strategic bombers, Transports and now drones and Space Command turf wars  while the Navy has aviation, surface and sub declaring themselves to be of primary importance. Into this mix you have the Special ops and Intel guys..
 
The Allied bombing of Germany did not really become effective until  it concentrated on oil production.  If I recall reading  about how one American General said he cried after reading  about increased German weapons production after all the lives and planes lost in the strategic bombing raids.
 
Many would argue, myself among them, that the US submarine campaign had more to do with defeat of Japan than Strategic bombing.
 
It could even be said that strategic bombing sapped resources that could have been put to better use at certain times of the war.  Certainly Bomber Command should have turned over more aircraft  to the Fleet Air Arm or dedicate more its long range aircraft to the Battle of the Atlantic during 1940-43. 
 
As far as aircraft the development  goes  sure the B-17 changed from initial  introduction, many aircraft did  the Germans did not finish the war with same model of  Bf-109 or FW-190 they started with. In fact he FW-190 started out with a radial  engine before going to an inline water cooled. 
 
It could be argued that one of the key characteristics of a good airplane it is adaptability and ability to be modified.
 
 
I also think that if the B-29 been developed under peace time conditions it would have been found unsuitable due to its risk of engine fires, accident rates etc.  much like the B-26  would have been.
 
Also what success the B-29 enjoyed as a conventional bomber was due to a change in how it was employed not for what it was designed to do.  It was a high altitude pinpoint bomber armed with a bunch of guns  to defend against enemy fighters. The results in that role  were not good so it was stripped of many of its guns and moved to lower level area fire bombing.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics