# Bombing-Accuracy: Cold-War Bombers



## Zipper730 (Dec 17, 2017)

This has to do with bombers on both sides of the Iron Curtain from late 1945 to 1965...

I was curious about how accurate they were in comparison with WWII-era designs owing to different navigational methods (you have to make it to the target to bomb it), and differences in bomb-sights, computational devices, airspeeds, and altitudes


----------



## billrunnels (Dec 17, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> This has to do with bombers on both sides of the Iron Curtain from late 1945 to 1965...
> 
> I was curious about how accurate they were in comparison with WWII-era designs owing to different navigational methods (you have to make it to the target to bomb it), and differences in bomb-sights, computational devices, airspeeds, and altitudes


I am confident the accuracy has improved a lot with the creation of each new device. The equipment we used during WWII was advanced for that period but obsolete by today's standards.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 17, 2017)

Immediately post-war, probably no better than immediately before the end of the war. After the post-war cuts and the military budget increases, probably starting in '47 or '48, the training standards for the bomber crews may have improved* but *with nuclear weapons there was probably a lot of "we've got atomic bombs; we don't need to aim."

I suspect that accuracy didn't start to improve until after Korea and the realization that nuking everything wasn't an option. Even after that, I think that it's somewhat evident that unguided bombs were not that much more accurate in 1965 than 1945: hitting a bridge was still a matter of chance.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 17, 2017)

billrunnels said:


> I am confident the accuracy has improved a lot with the creation of each new device. The equipment we used during WWII was advanced for that period but obsolete by today's standards.


They were also dropping different shaped bombs in a different way. I have seen video of WW2 bombs being dropped out of the bomb bay. Some are corkscrewing down and in general the "stick" of bombs spreads and disperses because they were basically blunt cylinders with a crude flight fixed behind. Later bombs were much more aerodynamic and likely to follow a path that the Norden or other sight programmed for.


----------



## Glider (Dec 17, 2017)

Clearly there were some improvements but in the RAF at least not as much as some believe. The Vulcan raids in the S Atlantic relied on a modified H2s system


----------



## billrunnels (Dec 17, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> Immediately post-war, probably no better than immediately before the end of the war. After the post-war cuts and the military budget increases, probably starting in '47 or '48, the training standards for the bomber crews may have improved* but *with nuclear weapons there was probably a lot of "we've got atomic bombs; we don't need to aim."
> 
> I suspect that accuracy didn't start to improve until after Korea and the realization that nuking everything wasn't an option. Even after that, I think that it's somewhat evident that unguided bombs were not that much more accurate in 1965 than 1945: hitting a bridge was still a matter of chance.


Hitting a bridge from altitude was very difficult. On one mission our target was a railroad bridge and we failed to destroy it. The Montgomery smoke screen had drifted into the area which didn't help but when sighting the bridge the cross hairs in the bombsight were larger than the bridge appeared over the river.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 17, 2017)

This is adapted from an article I found. The original can be found in the following link

http://www.navalofficer.com.au/strangle/

When HMAS _Sydney _is not ignored, data about her operational sortie rates is frequently in error, even in Australian publications. For instance, the number of sorties flown by Sydney in Korea varies from 4,196 according to Eric Grove,9 to 2,366 according to the official RAN historian, Joe Straczek.10 The 2,366 figure is probably closer to the truth, but by the time Sydney’s tour ended, there was considerable internal inconsistency between Sydney’s catapult data, aircraft maintenance books and operations room logs.

The modern website also nearly correctly says that 11 aircraft were lost and 77 damaged while delivering 802 bombs and 6,359 rocket projectiles.

Sydneys operations to thus day remain a chapter more or less ignored in the main histories, and those that do some work in their narratives are more often than not wrong in their accounts.

With rare exceptions, e.g. George Odgers (2000) Australian naval aviation contributions to the Korean War receive short shrift in the British, American and even Australian historical records, e.g. Ben Evans (2000), Cagle and Manson (1957), James Field (1962), Robert Futrell (1983) and Peter Firkins (1983). James Field mentions _Sydney _just twice in parts of six lines in his 457-page official USN history of Korea. Cagle and Manson award _Sydney _two lines in their 555 pages.

Even relatively careful and sympathetic authors like Odgers have been led astray. Although five were destroyed, only one, not four, aircraft were lost overboard from HMAS _Sydney _during Typhoon Ruth. Odgers and many others also neglect an interesting international/interservice RAN-related rescue, discussed later, of the co-pilot of an American B-29 shot down in the Battle of Namsi on 23 October 1951.

In a highly regarded book, BGEN Cyril Barclay either misidentifies his aircraft or the date when he says, in a footnote, that “Royal Navy and South African Air Force planes” contributed to Close Air Support of the Commonwealth Division between 31 October and 26 November 1951. There was no operational RN carrier within a thousand miles of Korea at that time. _Sydney _supplied the aircraft.

Some claims, never made by the aircrew or operating authority concerned, are later exaggerated by others. It is quite untrue that the Sea Fury recorded “many kills” of “Soviet MiG 15 fighters” as stated by Enzo Angelucci. Only one MiG 15 was ever shot down by Sea Furies. Six Sea Furies led by LEUT P. Carmichael, RN, 802 Squadron, HMS _Glory_, shot down a lone MiG 15 on 9 August 1952 off Korea.

All this relates to weighing the efficacy of naval aviation in Korea. Whose data should be used? This is a difficult question.

Early USN claims were reasonably accurate when they were confirmed by hard photographic evidence, e.g. _Valley Forge_ Action Report 16-31 July 1950 but personal experience suggests that later American reports might well be biased, perhaps for political reasons associated with the very survival of USN naval aviation and the attempted takeover of all things air by the USAF. It is dangerous trying to compare one set of “official” biased reports against another set of “official” biased reports.

Beware also of simple sortie number comparisons, even for similar-category aircraft. For instance, the USAF might have flown far more fighter-bomber sorties to the Pusan Perimeter than the USN, USMC and RN, but effect, in terms of weight of high explosive delivered on target on time, is what counts. Many early USAF fighter-bomber Close Support sorties were inappropriate. Jet aircraft with only two small rockets or just .5 machine guns sometimes monopolised the radios, air space and time over the front lines while more capable USN and USMC aircraft were forced to wait or even to jettison their more suitable bombs5

Again, the USAF took great pride in their “daylight precision bombing”, particularly from B-29s. However, the USN cleaned up USAF B-29 failures many times, e.g. Wonsan oil refinery 13 July 1950 and the Seoul rail bridge 19 August 1950. Many argue that the war was brought to a conclusion not because of USAF influence but because of the USN’s shifts to heavy air strikes on strategic targets, particularly power plants, in June-October 1952.

In contrast to some rather bombastic USAF and USN overclaims, RAN aircrew claims were deliberately conservative. For instance, RAN aircrew claimed a North Korean Army divisional headquarters building destroyed in 6 October 1951 raid, but nothing else. An American Army ground-based intelligence source, “Leopard”, credited the same raid with not only destroying that building but also many troops, stores, vehicles, outlying shacks and other booty. RAN aircrew found this very hard to believe and it was never included in any formal RAN damage claims.

Some very high quality photographic data led to Sydney claiming no rail or road bridge standing in the RAN sector on completion of one patrol in late November 1951. That included the important main rail line running south from Pyongyang. Days later, a major USAF intelligence summary reported rail traffic unhindered and operating at normal capacity throughout North Korea. Again, RAN aircrew found this hard to believe, at least for the sector they controlled. Subsequent recon missions showed many of the bridges had been destroyed, but the tireless enemy engineers had built a replacement bridge in a few days or weeks after the successful strike.

It was perhaps no coincidence that about that time that even the USAF Fifth Air Force was trying to convince the CinCFE (GENL Ridgway, who had relieved the sacked GENL MacArthur in April 1951) that it was time to change its costly Operation Strangle strategy.

What was Operation Strangle? Following a similarly-named operation in Italy during WW II, Operation Strangle (Korea) was devised by the USAF Fifth Air Force Vice Commander, BGEN E.J. Timberlake, in May 1951, to interdict enemy road and rail traffic before it could resupply the front lines. Eight north-south routes were identified, 20 to 80 miles north of the foremost troops. There was some overlap, but generally the Fifth Air Force (including aircraft from West Coast carriers such as HMAS _Sydney_) was responsible for the two western routes. TF 77 targeted the two central routes from carriers normally deployed off the East Coast, while the mainly shore-based Marines took care of the three easternmost routes.

The RAN chose Australian Fireflies for bridge-dropping and tunnel-blocking tasks. They usually carried two 500 lb bombs and 240 rounds of 20 mm. After shifting in late October 1951 from a 30-degree dive bomb to a 10-degree anti-submarine glide bomb profile, with 37-second delay fuses, Firefly pilots became expert at dropping bridge spans and blocking tunnels. For armed reconnaissance sorties of the road, rail and waterways networks, RAN Sea Furies typically carried eight three-inch ballistic rockets with 60 lb HE heads, 600 rounds of 20 mm and two 45-gallon drop tanks. Unlike the RAAF, USAF and USN, no RAN aircraft ever carried napalm in Korea.

The USAF’s Far East Air Force (FEAF) allocated about 100 B-26 Douglas Invader medium bombers as night intruders and their entire F-84 Thunderjet fighter-bomber fleet to Operation Strangle. Despite some modest success in its early months, aircraft losses quickly mounted as the North Korean and Chinese displayed unexpected skills at camouflage, bridge repair, logistic flexibility and, particularly, shooting down aircraft with light weapons. Between August 1951 and March 1952 FEAF lost no fewer than 243 fighter bombers and another 290 sustained major damage. This was four times the aircraft replacement rate, if those aircraft with major damage are included. In human terms, 245 airmen were killed or missing and 34 wounded.

_Sydney_‘s losses included three 805 Squadron pilots, 11 aircraft and another 77 damaged while making 2366 sorties and dropping 802 bombs and 6359 three-inch rockets.

Bridges were dropped, tunnels were blocked and virtually no traffic moved by day across the middle of North Korea during Sydney’s watch. Trucks and trains moved at night, but they were difficult to see. Operation Strangle reduced rail traffic to about five percent of its pre-war capacity during its first couple of months, but together with increased night road transport and even human A-frame back-pack porters, that limited capacity was sufficient to support the static enemy front line. Despite targets being sown randomly with up to 24 hours delay-fused bombs, most simple road and rail track cuts were repaired or by-passed within hours. Big bridges over fast-flowing rivers were harder to repair but, given time, nothing seemed to daunt the brilliant enemy engineers and their seemingly endless supply of labour and repair material. The enemy also quickly worked out what the next most likely target might be and redeployed their light anti-aircraft weapons accordingly.

Originally planned to last 45 days, Operation Strangle was extended continuously as it tried to meet its objectives. By December 1951, the Fifth Air Force had concluded that Operation Strangle was not working, but in the absence of an acceptable alternative, General Ridgway insisted that it continue.

Not all of _Sydney_‘s sorties were pure Operation Strangle. There were self defence CAP sorties and two or three times a month a Sea Fury pilot might load up with 500 lb or 1000 lb bombs for pre-briefed strikes, sometimes on the East Coast. At other times _Sydney_‘s aircraft might conduct Naval Gunfire Support shoots (TARCAP) with anything from a battleship to a frigate. Other sorties included Photo Reconnaissance, Close Support, Rescue CAP (RESCAP), RAS convoy CAP (CONCAP) and rare anti-shipping strikes.

The Fireflies carried a pair of 250 lb depth charges on daylight anti-submarine patrols while CAP Sea Furies just had loaded guns. No submarine was ever found by _Sydney_‘s anti-submarine patrols and no enemy aircraft was ever intercepted by Sydney’s CAP.

The carriers operated in an environment that included riding out seasonal typhoons. _Sydney _was hit by a particularly severe Typhoon Ruth on 14-15 October 1951 that killed 500 Japanese ashore. Contrary to Odgers and Catchpole, only one Firefly (but also a motor boat and a forklift) were lost overboard and another four aircraft tied down on the flight deck were seriously damaged. Aircraft damage was caused mainly by double-tied chocks slipping out after failure to batten them with strips of wood. The Hangar Party battened their chocks and their aircraft remained undamaged, despite some heavy stores and equipment coming adrift.

_Sydney _typically spent about 10 days on patrol, with half to one day around the middle being devoted to Replenishment at Sea (RAS). Five to ten days in harbour followed, before repeating the cycle. Her 36 aircraft embarked (plus four spares) flew about 400 offensive sorties a month. A maximum of 89 Sydney sorties were flown in one day and 147 in two consecutive days.

For the data pedants, the approximate accuracy of most of the following Sydney laundry list of claims by her CBALO section:

_Sydney‘s aircraft, in total, killed 1428 troops, destroyed seven vehicles, seven field guns, and dropped 47 rail and four road bridges. Most of these bridges had, of course, been dropped more than once. The aircraft had demolished more than 1000 buildings or troop shelters, sunk 39 junks and 66 sampans or barges and destroyed 234 ox carts. Sixteen ammunition dumps and seven fuel dumps were blown up._

_All this was achieved in 2366 sorties for the cost of three lives and 11 aircraft. Five more aircraft were lost to Typhoon Ruth. Nearly a third of those sorties were self-defensive, in the form of CAP or ASW patrols, or non-offensive (e.g., return from diversion Kimpo to carrier.) Sydney‘s aircraft had been hit by flak 87 times, an average of about once every 18 (operational) sorties._

Because so few action photographs were ever published, it may be assumed by some that _Sydney_‘s aircraft rarely left the ship. Unfortunately, a mentally ill senior photography sailor ditched nearly all of Sydney’s camera gun and other film records into Hong Kong Harbour by after being told to clean up his section for Captain’s Rounds in February 1952. Only private snapshots and those few photographs sent on ahead remain.

The big USN carriers maintained a much higher work rate. They flew a total of about 2827 offensive sorties a month from about 70 aircraft in each of between one and four carriers deployed on station. Their AD Skyraiders carried a much heavier bombload than RAN aircraft: one 1,000 lb plus two 2000 lb bombs or half a dozen variations of rockets and smaller bombs plus four 20 mm guns. The F4U Corsairs also handled a bigger and more versatile bombload than the Sea Fury, but they mounted only the 0.5 inch machine guns (now to all intenses an obsolete weapon). The bigger USN carriers also conducted limited night operations.

The US Marines were Close Support experts and flew their F4U Corsairs from both their own dedicated carriers and ashore. Their intervention in the Pusan Perimeter in July and August 1950, their coverage of the Inchon invasion in September and their protection of the November-December 1950 withdrawal from the Yalu must be considered textbook Close Support. They also invented the forerunner of the aerial command centre. After experiencing severe communications problems with hard-pressed troops in the mountainous terrain around the Chosin Reservoir, they quickly threw a bunch of radio sets into a Douglas DC4 transport in December 1950 and preserved command and control during the withdrawal.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 18, 2017)

billrunnels said:


> Hitting a bridge from altitude was very difficult. On one mission our target was a railroad bridge and we failed to destroy it. The Montgomery smoke screen had drifted into the area which didn't help but when sighting the bridge the cross hairs in the bombsight were larger than the bridge appeared over the river.




From what I've read, even low-altitude or dive bombers had a great deal of trouble hitting bridges, especially since near-misses are unlikely to render a bridge unusable, and this problem was a major factor in the development and deployment of laser-guided bombs. I certainly don't know from first hand; I need a -6 diopter correction to see and get vascular headaches, so not only would no air force would put me in charge of a combat aircraft, I can't even get a private pilot's license..

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Dec 20, 2017)

Vickers Valiant....

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Dec 21, 2017)

How many bombs were dropped by Valiants onto Stanley airbase in 1982? What ordinance was used.


----------



## Graeme (Dec 21, 2017)

parsifal said:


> How many bombs were dropped by Valiants onto Stanley airbase in 1982? What ordinance was used.



You're after the Vulcan Black Buck missions Michael. No Valiants involved - retired many years before. 

Operation Black Buck - Wikipedia


----------



## pbehn (Dec 21, 2017)

There is a down side to randomly picking names beginning with "V" for aircraft. There were many Vulcan pilots involved but none of them had pointed ears or were called Spock.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Dec 21, 2017)

The technology of the Norden sight soldiered on into the 1950s, as did the C-1 autopilot (the AFCE/SBAE automatic flight control equipment/stabilized bombing approach eqipment). Eventually bombers went too fast for it and the advent of thermonuclear weapons made precision irrelevant.

After years of the quest for precision, and at least $1.5 billion spent on various bomb sight projects, 'Dave's Dream' a Norden equipped B-29, aimed a Fatman bomb at the USS Nevada near Bikini atoll in July 1946, in perfect conditions, from 29,000 feet. It missed by 2,130 feet, but with a yield of 20 kilotons it hardly mattered.

The developments in sighting, particularly in radar would, you would think, make bombing more accurate. In May 1956 a B-52 dropped a thermonuclear weapon from 40,000 feet using the latest radar/sighting technology. It missed by 19,000 feet, more than three and a half miles, but in this case a yield of 3.75 megatons again made the need for accuracy moot. This one was blamed on the bombardier!

Dropping 'dumb' bombs from aircraft accurately, even given modern technologies which can accurately position the aircraft and calculate other vital criteria is STILL a hit and miss affair.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 21, 2017)



Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 6, 2018)

Graeme said:


> Vickers Valiant....


The attachment doesn't really display right in quotes, but it basically said

Australia. In contrast to World War 2, when
dedicated aircrews were often 'lost as soon as we left
the airfield', Valiant crews were able to put down
practice bombs from 45,000 ft with an accuracy
of a few metres.​
Which is pretty impressive, to be honest, though I'm not entirely sure what "a few" means

If a woman says she'll be ready in a few minutes, it actually means 30-minutes typically
When I say I'll be off the computer and finished posting my message in a few minutes: Usually 5-15 minutes go by in practice
Provided "a few means"...
3 meters (More than 2 and less than 5)
Mean-Radial: 9'10"; Diameter: 19'8"
CEP: 12'5" - 12'7"; Total Diameter: 24'10" - 25'2"​5 meters
Mean-Radial: 16'5"; Diameter: 32'10"
CEP: 20'8" - 21'; Total Diameter: 41'4" - 42'​10 meters
Mean-Radial: 32'10"; Diameter: 65'7"
CEP: 41'4" - 42'; Total Diameter: 82'8" - 84'​15 meters
Mean Radial: 49'3"; Diameter: 98'5"
CEP: 62' - 63'; Diameter: 124' to 125'​
That's actually pretty good accuracy providing they were flying at typical combat-speeds, and the ballistics of the practice bombs were the same as the real ones (it sounds ridiculous, but it's a legitimate question to ask). At least they were dropping real bombs a lot of the time, we were usually just using radar predictions (which were sometimes off).


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 6, 2018)

stona said:


> The technology of the Norden sight soldiered on into the 1950s, as did the C-1 autopilot (the AFCE/SBAE automatic flight control equipment/stabilized bombing approach eqipment). Eventually bombers went too fast for it and the advent of thermonuclear weapons made precision irrelevant.


I'm curious honestly what they mean by "too fast for it", while I do remember people saying the bomb would fall for several miles from high-altitude, the horizon would be visible (if I recall right) from those distances provided you could aim the scope forward enough to see the horizon: The only obstacle I could think of would be the amount of time to stabilize for the bomb-run (28 seconds for B-24's Sperry Bombsight, and 30 seconds for the Norden), though I would have figured they could have improved that feature, as the Mk.XIV and it's evolutionary descendants formed the heart of the RAF bombing systems throughout the 1950's and early 1960's, and was able to compute an impact point in 10-seconds, factor in for gradual climb and dive, and could take bank angles of up to 60-degrees without tumbling (and considering it used a Sperry gyroscopic system, it might have shared some similarities with the gyros on the USAAF's Sperry bombsight, which would allow it to be either caged, or something similar -- you could turn it off and maneuver the plane; then turn-it back on, spin it up, and resume), and was able to be coupled to a radar-bombing system.

The B-36 used a gyro/radar directed bomb-sight (not sure if it had any optical components), and the B-47B would incorporate a radar site with an optical-site (it was designed so you could overlay visual data over the radar image).


> After years of the quest for precision, and at least $1.5 billion spent on various bomb sight projects, 'Dave's Dream' a Norden equipped B-29, aimed a Fatman bomb at the USS Nevada near Bikini atoll in July 1946, in perfect conditions, from 29,000 feet. It missed by 2,130 feet, but with a yield of 20 kilotons it hardly mattered.


The beauty of dropping a single bomb is that the CEP and mean-radial error are identical.

Honestly, considering all the effort at designing an effective optical site, I'm surprised nobody ever just thought of reverse-engineering the Lotfernohr 7B concept (basically same principle, but adjusted for imperial measurements, with useful improvements as desired).


> The developments in sighting, particularly in radar would, you would think, make bombing more accurate. In May 1956 a B-52 dropped a thermonuclear weapon from 40,000 feet using the latest radar/sighting technology. It missed by 19,000 feet, more than three and a half miles, but in this case a yield of 3.75 megatons again made the need for accuracy moot. This one was blamed on the bombardier!


So the error would be much lower if he didn't screw up so badly?

As for the RAF, it's interesting that they seemed to be willing to adopt high tech as well as primitive low-tech if need be to get bombs on target: The V-bombers used a H2S derivative (primitive), with a sophisticated monopulse radar that acted as a doppler system to determine exact ground-speed and crab angles, as well as used a sextant (periscopically mounted), and calculated fix several times every minute to determine orientation in space (simple).

I'm not sure if the USAF ever used a sextant in this manner (I'm not sure if the B-47 had enough visibility in the nose for it, or any other place for it up top), but there would be developments involving electronic devices that would track stars to maintain a fix; then feed that into a gyroscopic system to update it for drift.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 6, 2018)

Technology wise, the B-29 was a real advance over everything before it, creating a far more comfortable environment for its crews, which made it easier to do their respective jobs. Obviously ground mapping radar and advanced positioning sensors developed toward the end of WW2 aided bomber development considerably and, as a result, accuracy improved (said without benefit of the provision of evidence, but it can be assumed, from what has been said here thus far). When the Soviets built the Tu-4, it introduced a level of complexity they had never experienced and from what I've read, initially they struggled with it, but it wasn't long before crews realised that the electronic gizmos were there to make their jobs easier, thus improving their skillset. Since the B-29 had such a big impact on Soviet technology, aircraft like the Tu-16 were considerably more advanced than what they would have been had the B-29 not been copied, with US technology often 'improved' on by Soviet scientists to suit their needs.

As for Black Buck raids, XM607 dropped its load using H2S, also to find its way to the target area, as well as Delco Carousel inertial navigation sets pilfered from British Airways VC-10s to get from Ascension to the Falklands. The Argentinians used US made TPS-43 search radars and to counter these, the Vulcans were fitted with Dash Ten jamming pods scavenged from Buccaneers on their wing pylons, as well as Black Buck flights flown with Shrike anti-radar missiles loaded onto the Vulcans' underwing pylons. '607 put a bomb right smack bang in the middle of the runway, which effectively halved its useable length, which was the idea. It is worth mentioning that the Vulcan was due for retirement by 1982, so Corporate was something of a reprieve for it, not to mention the fact that none of the crews had done any IFR work and the number of useable airframes was pitifully small since the rest had already been sent to museums or scrapped. Working refuelling probes were scrounged off museum aeroplanes!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 7, 2018)

...On the subject of Valiants, it's worth noting that the type was used during the Suez crisis against Egyptian airfields with uneven success. Bombing was done from 40,000 ft visually at night as the NBS sets had not yet been fitted to the aircraft. Canberras were used for target marking as well as bombing, aiding the Valiants, but post raid recon found that damage to the airfields was only minor, although Egyptian aircraft were put out of action. Only one Valiant was reported as being intercepted, by an Egyptian night fighterwhich fired on the bomber, but was evaded using heavy manoeuvring.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 7, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> View attachment 476566​


Actually, as far as I know the biggest conventional weapon we ever built was the T-12 Cloudmaker: It was 54" in diameter, 338" in length... it could only be carried by the B-36 and a modified B-29.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 7, 2018)

nuuumannn said:


> Technology wise, the B-29 was a real advance over everything before it, creating a far more comfortable environment for its crews, which made it easier to do their respective jobs.


Yeah, pressurized crew-compartments are big.


> Obviously ground mapping radar and advanced positioning sensors developed toward the end of WW2 aided bomber development considerably and, as a result, accuracy improved (said without benefit of the provision of evidence, but it can be assumed, from what has been said here thus far).


The radar mapping and bombing's been something of a source of confusion for me

Some described it as working magnificently and acting like a perfect relief map from the air
Others described it as being terrible and producing lousy accuracy that made bombing accuracy abysmal
Others said it worked well if you had water or lakes nearby; otherwise it was bad



> When the Soviets built the Tu-4, it introduced a level of complexity they had never experienced and from what I've read, initially they struggled with it


I actually never really heard many stories about the pilots who flew the Tu-4's, but it does make sense that they would find many of the features the plane had (periscopic gunsights, a centralized ballistic computer, a radar bombsight) to be extremely difficult to learn how to master compared to what they had before.


> aircraft like the Tu-16 were considerably more advanced than what they would have been had the B-29 not been copied, with US technology often 'improved' on by Soviet scientists to suit their needs.


I know almost nothing on the Tu-16's systems honestly


> As for Black Buck raids, XM607 dropped its load using H2S, also to find its way to the target area, as well as Delco Carousel inertial navigation sets pilfered from British Airways VC-10s to get from Ascension to the Falklands.


The aircraft were that closed to retirement that they didn't have enough spare parts?


> The Argentinians used US made TPS-43 search radars and to counter these


Those are ground-based right?


> Vulcans were fitted with Dash Ten jamming pods scavenged from Buccaneers on their wing pylons, as well as Black Buck flights flown with Shrike anti-radar missiles loaded onto the Vulcans' underwing pylons.


The idea of carrying AGM-45's is a nice idea -- the plane can directly shoot back at radar sources.

Frankly I'm amazed that the USAF didn't fit all the dedicated jamming planes that could carry a Corvus or two (B-57's, B-66's), it would have simplified a lot of things and increased bomber survival (the USAF had looked into a modified drone as a stand-off missile, but it was subsonic and planned on replacing it with something else; the USN's Corvus was available, faster, lighter, and the USAF didn't want the USN to have it as long-ranged weapons were their territory).


> ...On the subject of Valiants, it's worth noting that the type was used during the Suez crisis against Egyptian airfields with uneven success. Bombing was done from 40,000 ft visually at night as the NBS sets had not yet been fitted to the aircraft.


The Valiants were only operational around a year right?

Regarding aircraft altitude, was 40,000 chosen (compared to 45,000 feet in a previous post) because of the lack of the intended bombing computer, or heavier bomb-loads?


> Canberras were used for target marking as well as bombing, aiding the Valiants, but post raid recon found that damage to the airfields was only minor, although Egyptian aircraft were put out of action. Only one Valiant was reported as being intercepted, by an Egyptian night fighterwhich fired on the bomber, but was evaded using heavy manoeuvring.


The Egyptians had the Vampire, MiG-15, MiG-17, and MiG-19 right?


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 7, 2018)

Its.........a........cartoon!!!


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 7, 2018)

pbehn said:


> There is a down side to randomly picking names beginning with "V" for aircraft. There were many Vulcan pilots involved but none of them had pointed ears or were called Spock.



Some probably did limp, though, and a few may have found their wives were with somebody else, as did Vulcan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

