# Tactical Strikes of World War II



## plan_D (Jul 22, 2006)

I have started this thread because I have noticed that some members, especially syscom, cannot grasp the idea between a tactical target and a strategic target. Nor can some members understand that it's better to send in smaller, faster bombers to destroy smaller tactical targets. 

It all started with me describing a Ar 234 attack on the Liége railyards. 

_"It performed the worlds first jet bomber raid on 24 December when nine Ar-234B-2s attacked the rail yards at Liége. Each armed with a single SC 500 (1,100 lb) bomb the Arado bombers all attacked, and reported success without loss."_

I don't like picking up on single people, but syscom has provided the best amount of quotes to show a lack of understanding. Or maybe you're just trying to be right, rather than actually trying to learn. 

Here they are: 

_"Nine jet bombers carrying nine bombs total. Not much of a payload to be considered usefull, is it."_

_"I'd take a mosquito or *a Lanc* over a -234 any day."_

::Bold added by me:: 

_"But its trading payload for speed, and that means the larger targets it would eventually need to attack would require hundreds of them to accomplish anything."_

I will come back to this, as it's said as a point against the Ar 234. Yet later, syscom states that all Allied bombers required hundreds to attack these targets. Making his original assault on the Ar 234 null and void. When ask what these larger targets were:

_"Airfields, troop concentrations, bridges, supply depots, harbors, blah blah blah."_

_"Stop the presses!!!!! OMG..... the Luftwaffe was so good that it only took a few -234's carrying a few bombs to put out of commision tactical targets that required hundreds of allied bombers to do. Oh yeah, and that includes the -88's and other German bombers that needed hundreds of planes to do the same on the Allies."_

_"By the way, hordes of B26's and -47's and -38's would attack a single target (and I suppose the RAF did the same). And they were just as accurate as the -234. In fact probably more accurate because high speed often means introduces new errors."_

_"The B26's attacked in wing strength, involving 3 groups or more per target. Thats about 100 - 300 B26's per mission. The fighter bombers would go out a few at a time or send out a whole group. But they are fighters, not bombers."_

I would like to be informed what targets these B-26s were attacking. Now, I see that you suppose the RAF did the same. You are claiming that the RAF attack tactical targets with hundreds of light and medium bombers. Okay. 


Let's use syscom's template for tactical targets:

Airfields. 
Troop Concentrations. 
Bridges. 
Supply Depots. 
Harbours. 

Anyone can add more, or disagree with syscoms list. Fine by me. These targets, according to syscom, would take hundreds of Ar 234s to attack. 
Or, as he states, 'hordes' of B-26s. And he assumes the RAF would do the same. These targets would be very specific and precise. Attacks on these targets with fighter escort would be called a 'Ramrod' by the RAF. 

13 June, 1943, 12 Venturas of 464 Sqdn. raid St. Brieuc airfield. 

4 July, 1943, 12 Mitchells of 2 Group raid Amiens. 

15 July, 1943, 12 107 Sqdn. Bostons raid Poix. 

26 July, 1943, 9 Bostons raid Courtrai.

8 August, 1943, 2 Group squadrons, 88, 107 and 342 send 40 Bostons to raid Naval stores at Rennes. Described as a "fairly heavy raid". 

16 August, 1943, 88, 107 and 342 Sqdn. send 37 Bostons to raid armament and steel works at Denain. (More like a strategic attack to me)

27 August, 1943, 107 Sqdn. send 6 Bostons to raid Gosnay power station. 

22 October, 1943, 72 B-26s raided Evreux. 

25 Octorber, 1943, 24 Mitchells of 98 and 320 Sqdn. raided Brest/Lanveoc airfield. 

3 October, 1943, 464 and 487 Sqdn. send 12 Mosqutioes each to Guerledon and Pont Chateau power stations. 12 Bostons of 107 Sqdn. attack Orleans power station, 11 Bostons of 342 Sqdn. attack Chevilly-la-Rue, and 14 Bostons of 88 Sqdn. attack Distre. 

It appears to me that the RAF didn't attack tactical targets with hundreds of bombers. Because they knew that would be a waste of resources. It would be better to send in smaller bombers, flying lower and faster to hit with precision. 

So, syscoms claim that the RAF attacked with hundreds (100 - 300) of bombers against airfields, supply dumps and other tactical targets is false. Any discussion, or addition is welcome. Or any question on the 2nd TAF operations is also welcome.


----------



## Wildcat (Jul 22, 2006)

I agree with you D, I've just finished reading an excellent book titled "The Gestapo Hunters" about 464 sqn RAAF who, as you know, were part of 2TAF. The book lists every operation the squadron flew in both Ventura's and Mossies and the number of a/c used. I can back you up by saying that they definetly did NOT use hundreds of aircraft.

For Example
4 Apr43 - Docks, Rotterdam - 12a/c
2 May43 - Steel works, Ijumuiden,Holland - 12a/c
31May43- Coke ovens,Zeebrugge,Holland- 12a/c
10Jul43 - Luftwaffe assembly sheds,St Omar - 12a/c
3Feb44 - V1 sites,Beaumont Le Hareng - 8a/c
4Feb44 - V1 sites, Beaulieu - 7a/c
5Feb44 - V1 sites, Bois Megle -8a/c

And the list goes on and on (464sqn flew 3053 operational sorties)

Probably the most notable raid was:-
Operation Jericho (Amiens prison raid) on 18Feb44 - 487sqnRNZAF - 6a/c
464sqnRAAF - 6a/c
21sqnRAF -6a/c
plus 1 FPU mossie

Of the 19 a/c that took part 8 did not attack!
If you want any more info on the squadron give me a yell, and I'll see what I can dig up.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 22, 2006)

plan_D said:


> I have started this thread because I have noticed that some members, especially syscom, cannot grasp the idea between a tactical target and a strategic target. Nor can some members understand that it's better to send in smaller, faster bombers to destroy smaller tactical targets.



You seem not to grasp the concept that putting an aircraft and aircrew at risk to carry a single 1000 pound bomb which is not a war or battle winner but more of a stunt.



> I don't like picking up on single people, but syscom has provided the best amount of quotes to show a lack of understanding. Or maybe you're just trying to be right, rather than actually trying to learn.



Of all the people in this forum, youre the one guy I hope that chokes on his food and noone bothers to help you.

Did you stop taking your meds by any chance? 



> Here they are: .........
> 
> I will come back to this, as it's said as a point against the Ar 234. Yet later, syscom states that all Allied bombers required hundreds to attack these targets. Making his original assault on the Ar 234 null and void. When ask what these larger targets were.



What part dont you understand that a few planes carrying a small number of bombs isnt going to do squat. Doesnt matter if its the allies, the Russians, the Germans, the Japanese. Did you know that an SBD dive bomber could carry a 1000 pounder just like the -234. Even though it was slower, at tree top level, it had some protection.



> "Airfields, troop concentrations, bridges, supply depots, harbors, blah blah blah."
> I would like to be informed what targets these B-26s were attacking. Now, I see that you suppose the RAF did the same. You are claiming that the RAF attack tactical targets with hundreds of light and medium bombers. Okay.



My sources show that the 9th AF up to about spring 1944, concentrated on airfields in France and the low countries. Often air cover was given by the RAF as all available AAF fighters were busy with the 8th AF. Prior to D-day and then untill the end of the war, they bombed anything of importance that the ground troops wanted hit. Among them were bridges, railyards, road junctions, troop concentrations, river crossings, ammo dumps, petro dumps, supply dumps, blah blah blah.

The 12 AF was supporting the ground troops from nearly day one and bombed the same.

The 9th AF had eight B26 groups and three A20 groups.
The 12 AF had 3 B26 groups, three B25 groups and a single A20 group.

Thats a lot of aircraft that just werent exactly sitting around looking pretty.

If the RAF didnt have any medium bombers, my mistake. And it just shows you that the US dominated the airwar.



> It appears to me that the RAF didn't attack tactical targets with hundreds of bombers. Because they knew that would be a waste of resources. It would be better to send in smaller bombers, flying lower and faster to hit with precision.
> 
> So, syscoms claim that the RAF attacked with hundreds (100 - 300) of bombers against airfields, supply dumps and other tactical targets is false. Any discussion, or addition is welcome. Or any question on the 2nd TAF operations is also welcome.



I aplogize for thinking the RAF had enough aircraft to mount these raids. Good thing the AAF had the capacity to do it. And obviously the small targets were given to the RAF and big ones given to the AAF.

I would sum it up this way. just because the RAF didnt have the resources necessary to launch raids involving 200 or so medium bombers, didnt mean the AAF couldnt do it.

Now think about how many tons of bombs are needed to take out an airfield 1 square kilometer. It would take lots, and the 9th and 12th air forces had the planes and aircrews to do it.

The concept of one aircraft with one single bomb destroying its target didnt happen untill late in the Vietnam war. Untill that time, it was many aircraft needing lots of bombs to have a chance at destroying its target.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 22, 2006)

> The concept of one aircraft with one single bomb destroying its target didnt happen untill late in the Vietnam war. Untill that time, it was many aircraft needing lots of bombs to have a chance at destroying its target.


I cant let that one go by sys.... There are many instances where a single Lancaster dropped a single Grand Slam and the target was destroyed....

Heres two pics to back it up.... Bielefeld Viaduct... On March 14th 1945, Squadron Leader Calder in Lancaster S-Sugar attacked Bielefeld Viaduct in Germany with the first of the 22,000lb Grand Slams, and completely shattered the target.... Bielefeld Viaduct carried the main railway line from Hamm to Hanover and had survived 3,000 tons of bombs in previous attacks....


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 22, 2006)

And it was one heck of a huge bomb that did it.

But yes, you are right. 

But like you said, untill this bomb was dropped, 3000 tons of bombs didnt do the trick, did it?

It wasnt untill the advent of the "smart" bombs in 1972 that a single aircraft had a pretty good chance of destroying its target with a normal sized bomb.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 22, 2006)

Thank you, Wildcat. And I'm sure I will ask for information. At the moment, I have a day by day account of the 2nd TAF from June 1943 - June 1944. And I will probably be interested in more detailed information later on. 

Syscom:

_"You seem not to grasp the concept that putting an aircraft and aircrew at risk to carry a single 1000 pound bomb which is not a war or battle winner but more of a stunt."_

There is not one single raid in World War II where a single plane, carrying a single 1,000 lb bomb was sent up to destroy a target such as an airfield. I seem to be grasping the concepts of air warfare a lot better than you. 

_"Of all the people in this forum, youre the one guy I hope that chokes on his food and noone bothers to help you. Did you stop taking your meds by any chance?"_

You tell me that like I would care. I'll try to avoid bringing this down to a slanging match. After all, I am interested in the facts of tactical bombing. I was hoping some of our more esteemed, and intelligent, members could provide information on the US 9th Air Force. 

_"What part dont you understand that a few planes carrying a small number of bombs isnt going to do squat. Doesnt matter if its the allies, the Russians, the Germans, the Japanese. Did you know that an SBD dive bomber could carry a 1000 pounder just like the -234. Even though it was slower, at tree top level, it had some protection."_

Syscom, did you even read mine and Wildcat's sortie listings? Most of those operations were a complete success, destroying their target completely. A small number of planes, with a small number of bombs did a lot. 
This thread isn't about the Ar 234. I'll start a thread on the Ar 234 if you wish, syscom. But we're not discussing it here. This thread is for tactical bombing. 

_"If the RAF didnt have any medium bombers, my mistake. And it just shows you that the US dominated the airwar."_

Where do you get the idea that the RAF didn't have medium bombers? What do you think a Mitchell or Wellington is? And if the U.S dominated the air war, why did the 9th Air Force need the RAF to cover them, as you state. 

_"Now think about how many tons of bombs are needed to take out an airfield 1 square kilometer. It would take lots, and the 9th and 12th air forces had the planes and aircrews to do it."_

No, you think for once. We're not after creating one large crater that is one square kilometer. Attacking an airfield aims to do three things; crater the runway, destroy control buildings and destroy communication. That could be done by less than twenty planes carrying a combined load of 10,000 lbs. 

_"Thats a lot of aircraft that just werent exactly sitting around looking pretty."_

Just because they were there, it doesn't mean you use them all on one target. The USAAF would have attacked several targets on one day, just like the RAF did. 

_"The 9th AF had eight B26 groups and three A20 groups."_

Yes they did, you're right. I have the whole order of battle on 5th June, 1944, for the 2nd TAF, ADGB 10 11 Groups and US Ninth Air Force. But what you need to provide is a list of 9th Air Force sorties. 

Because I've already demonstrated that the RAF didn't need to attack with large numbers. Maybe the RAF pilots were better...


----------



## Glider (Jul 22, 2006)

If I could make a couple of observations. 

1 Some of the most damaging attacks carried out by the Germans on airfields and specific factories during the BOB, were carried out by fairly small raids often 20-25 planes with specially trained crews. This tactical bombing apprach wasn't a 1943-4 Allied idea.

2 I believe the USA had more faith in the lead bomber concept were when the lead bombaimer dropped their bombs the rest of the unit dropped at the same time. By its nature this would introduce a scatter effect caused by size of the formation. If the Lead bomber was accurate the results could be and often were very impressive, but if he was off, then everyone was off.
The RAF tended to let each plane drop their bombs individually. The RAF Master Bomber was a different concept normally used in large raids. In this case the bombers still aimed their bombs individually but the Master Bomber would advise incomming bombers how to adjust their aim in relation to the marker dropped by the master bomber or more frequently the pathfinder.

When attacking small targets (Amien Prison for instance) I believe this difference in training would be a significant problem for the USAF.

3 The Aircraft
The RAF tended to use the Mossie. By its nature it isn't a formation aircraft. Compared to the B25/B26 its smaller faster more agile, doesn't need to fly in formation for its defence and can carry the 4000lb bomb that can really hurt the target. 
4 Tactics
The RAF flew in formation for the transit but for the attack would often split up and use tactics to confuse the defence. One favourite used in Mossies to Lancs was to attack at the same time from different directions and heights to split the AA fire. This couldn't be done using the normal USAF approach.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 22, 2006)

I have to agree with plan_D what he is getting across.

Gotta talk to you about some things though syscom:



syscom3 said:


> You seem not to grasp the concept that putting an aircraft and aircrew at risk to carry a single 1000 pound bomb which is not a war or battle winner but more of a stunt.



Got news for you syscom, but anyone with real war experience and Les will back me up with this, believe it or not but the small little things like the tactical bombings that plan_D are talking about greatly help win a war. Infact over time they are what wears the enemy down and what defeats them.



syscom3 said:


> Of all the people in this forum, youre the one guy I hope that chokes on his food and noone bothers to help you.



Alright syscom that was uncalled for. If you were meaning that in a joking manner that is cool, but I doubt you were.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jul 22, 2006)

The RAF tended to use the Mosquito in lots of long-range, tactical, pinpoint strikes. 

They would often send out small groups of Mosquitos (from as little as two aircraft up to 2 squadrons worth) for low level, precision strikes against designated targets like important buildings, airfields (particularly N/F fields), radar and AAA installations, HQs, storage depots and even rail tunnels (they would fly down the rail tracks and lob a 4000lb cookie into the mouth of the tunnel  )

The fundamental difference here is PRECISION and ACCURACY. A Mosquito, Ar-234, Stuka, A-36 ect required very few bombs, placed accurately from low level, to have the same effect on a designated target, as a massed fleet of bombers did.

Now obviously you can't use a half a dozen Mosquito to put a port, marshalling yard or factory complex out of action, or to smother a front line in 750,000 lbs of bombs. That requires large amounts of HE delivered en masse from Heavy bombers. But at the same time there is very little chance that a B-17 or B-24 could of done the sort of precision ops that the Mosquito did: flying down roads in towns to hit Gestapo buildings, lobbing bombs into tunnels, dive bombing radar guided AAA positions on night raids, skip bombing freighters in Norwegian harbours without hitting the nearby towns. Even the vaunted dambusters raids weren't as precise.


During the combined late 1943- early 1944 'Crossbow' campaign against German missle installations, the RAF found that to effectively destroy a V1 site the Mosquito needed around 1/4 of the bomb tonnage that a heavy or medium bomber did to do the same job: same effect but only 1/4 of the tonnage required.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 22, 2006)

A few -234's streaking along at a high speed with a single 1000 pounder is going to do nothing.

A squadron of them flying at middle altitudes with several thousand pounds of bombs each could do some damage.

And theres no evidence of these small raids of several planes hitting tiny targets did anything to shorten the war or help things out.

That Mosquito raid on the Gestapo HQ, while deservadly an excellenty planned and executed raid, did nothing. Although the people in the jail probably think it was the most importannt bombing raid in history.

What made the tactical bombing effective and helped the ground troops were mass raids plastering the sinews of war and wearing down the Germans from lack of loguistics.


----------



## Tony Williams (Jul 22, 2006)

This debate reminds me of something I was told when I was a schoolboy in the 1960s. My French teacher had French friends and often went to stay with them when on holiday. He recounted the tale told in their village about an incident which occurred around the time of D-day.

There was a bridge nearby which the Allies had obviously decided needed 'taking out'. So one day a fleet of heavy bombers arrived at altitude and flattened the area for half a mile around, but missed the bridge. After a pause of a couple of days, a much bigger fleet arrived and flattened the area for a mile around, but still missed the bridge. After another pause, a single Mosquito arrived at low altitude, dropped one bomb and took out the bridge...

There are two separate issues in this debate: strategic and tactical _targets_, and strategic and tactical _bombing techniques_. The anecdote above illustrates the difference between the latter very well. It is also worth noting that strategic bomber forces were used in tactical roles in support of the Allied armies in France. Sometimes this worked very well - I forget the location of one incident but I do recall that a massed force of Lancasters bombed a Panzer unit and caused havoc. However, such bombing was usually too inaccurate to be useful and led to many 'friendly fire' casualties.

Having said that, there was in practice a 'grey area' between strategic and tactical, and the air force planners wouldn't have thought in those clear-cut terms: they would just assess each target, estimate the bomb tonnage needed to destroy it, find out what bomber forces were available and send out what they thought was needed (or whatever they could manage).

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


----------



## Aggie08 (Jul 23, 2006)

"And theres no evidence of these small raids of several planes hitting tiny targets did anything to shorten the war or help things out."

Just because we usually hear about the humongous B-17 raids over Germany and not the the smaller raids doesn't mean they didn't help. Like Tony says above, imagine how many small bridges and buildings needed "taking out." Imagine how hard it makes troop and equipment movement when several hundred bridges across the countryside are taken out. So there may not be any documented and written studies that say yes, in fact, the small raids helped us tremendously. But everyone on this board knows enough about the War to know that only large, inaccurate, costly raids (though effective) did not win the War alone.

Not trying to pick on syscom, just taking a statement and putting in my two cents. But I would have to agree with the others' opinions on this one.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 23, 2006)

> If the RAF didnt have any medium bombers, my mistake. And it just shows you that the US dominated the airwar.





> I aplogize for thinking the RAF had enough aircraft to mount these raids. Good thing the AAF had the capacity to do it



now hold on a minute, if it wasn't for the RAF there wouldn't be a war for you to join  and i'm not just talking about the BoB, the RAF was a large and very capable fighting force, you learnt a great deal from us as it was but obviously not enough as you stilled relied on numbers, due to our smaller size we developed better tactics and it's often said we had better training, as numerous tactical strikes have proved, heck we even had enough aircraft to operate a cab-rank system, in the heat of battle the infantry knew they could call in the RAF and within minutes them two 88mms that've been pinning them down for the last half hour will be completely destroyed by a fighter-bomber, even if they're only a few hundred yards from the enemy, that's not really a tactical strike it's more air support, but scale that up to a squadron level attacking a railway station, each mosquito at 50ft each cookie's gonna do some serious damage, putting that station out of action possibly perminately, that wa sa center of transportation how will the reserve troops get to the normandy beaches now? many tactical strikes stopped troop movements and communications around D-Day, imagine how many troops were prevented from coming up to the front line, and these raids start to look more important, now imagine these small raids taking place all over france and they start to look more significant, obviously they're not going to win the war on their own but the only weapon that's ever managed that were the atom bombs, the RAF were up there bombing just like you were so don't get any ideas about how much better than us you were 



> Even the vaunted dambusters raids weren't as precise



let's not be too hasty here  (it was a tactical raid so i'm allowed to plug it  ) we're talking about a 4 engined heavy bomber weighing around 70,000lbs (i'll have to look that one up... i'm bugged i can't remember it...) having to fly at exactily 60ft, and 230kts (i think), having to release the bomb at exactily the right point, the point being decided by two nails in a peice of wood, the window of time they had to release the bomb was measured in fractions of a second and the approach run was often a steep dive over a cliff before she could be lined up, and all of this in a four engined heavy bomber? you most cirtainly couldn't do that in a B-17! the window for this raid was much smaller than most raids and the fact it was done in heavy bombers makes it one of the most remarkable peices of flying of the war.........


----------



## leitch (Jul 23, 2006)

You know SYScom from reading this post and many others you have taken part in, I feel you have very little respect for the RAF, a typical American ideology.
For your information, the Americans did not win the war as many Film makers would want you to believe.

I may digress from the point here a few times, but when someone like SYSCOM decides to blast the RAF I get REALLY upset.

There are a few points to make here, 
1. The RAF had European civilians the think about, why send in the AAF to destroy a bridge when they would have taken out every town nearby too, full of French civilians. 

2. Why send in the AAF to destroy an Airfield when a couple of aircraft with the right bomb load could stop that field working for a good long time.

3. I would like to see how the USA would have handled the BOB is it was them instead of the British.

4. Now if I remember correctly the 1000 lb bomb has a blast radius of around 300 yards, (kill Zone) I maybe wrong, but I don't think the pilot of that single aircraft has to be on the nail head to do the trick.

5. Six aircraft coming low are going to get in before the enemy can respond, forcing them to keep up a CAP which tires pilots and uses resources. 200 coming in high, gives the enemy time for lunch before intercepting.

Sorry if I upset any Americans here, but some people need to quit believing this countries propergander(?).

On a side note, I went to the library to get a copy of the Dambusters, the book was filed under the children's section.


----------



## Gnomey (Jul 23, 2006)

I have to agree with pD here syscom. Some of the most effective (and so damaging) raids of the war were precision tactical strikes by a few bombers carrying 1 large bomb or a couple of small ones. To name some examples: the Amiens Prison Raid, the final Tirpitz raid, the raid on the Copenhagan Gestapo HQ, Bielefeld Viaduct and the many other small raids (the one on the Italian tunnel) that are little known about. These generally occumplised things that the heavy bombers had failed to do (see les's pics of Bielefeld Viaduct), so you can't deny the fact they were effective if they managed to achieve what 100's of heavies had failed to do (even if it was small targets). Precision tactical strikes are really useful for taking small target with minimal collateral damage (see Tony's example).


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 23, 2006)

No RAF tactical bombers?
Syscom, what roles do you think the Maryland, Battle, Hampden, Mossie, Ventura, Wellington, Blenheim, Mitchell and Hampden were?
Granted, the AAF had the 9th AF but we British had the 2nd TAF aswell. 
Tactical bombing prevents transport to the front, it takes out factories and military HQs miles behind the front line preventing communication and is less of a knock out blow- more of a death by a thousand paper cuts bleeding the enemy dry.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 23, 2006)

I believe the same conditions apply today in 1991 the Brits used the same lo level missions to mess up Iraqs runways in the initial assault. The RAF is one of the premier lo level air forces and I have no qualms in stating its much better then the the USAF I justify this statement through personal experiences having worked at the NATO lo level range in Goose Bay for several years . This is a old quip but valid a USAF pilot after coming off the range stated "jeez thats dangerous flying that lo" to which the RAF pilot stated "yes its very dangerous you could've dropped your weapons right on top of us"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 23, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> *A few -234's streaking along at a high speed with a single 1000 pounder is going to do nothing.*
> 
> A squadron of them flying at middle altitudes with several thousand pounds of bombs each could do some damage.
> 
> ...



And this post here, just proves to me and probably everyone else here that you have no clue about warfare (I highlighted the most important parts that prove this). I will leave it at that.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 23, 2006)

According to syscom, these small tactical raids did nothing to shorten the war. The attacks on bridges, supply dumps, HQs, airfields and transport networks did nothing for the war effort. This explains a lot. 

Beyond the famous Mosquito raids, the RAF used all their medium and light bombers with great effect in the tactical role. Groups of planes numbering less than twenty were often sent against airfields, and would put them out of action for days, weeks or even months. 
We all recognise these raids weren't always successful. But, more often than not, the tactical raids would have a higher target destruction percentage than the massive strategic bomber raids. 

I have to thank Tony, as his anecdote on the French bridge provided the best example of small, light bombers, carrying small payloads being more useful in certain circumstances. 

While I have discovered the USAAF did generally use more bombers against a target than the RAF, it was still not in the region of 100 - 300 bombers on a single airfield. Glider's description of tactics explains the higher numbers of bombers used. 

US 9th AF sorties:

22 October, 1943, seventy-two (72) B-26s raid Evreux. *Earlier I mentioned this in the 2nd TAF sorties, this was because 11 Group provided escort on this mission. 

24 October, 1943, seventy-two (72) B-26s escorted by 403 and 421 Sqdn. are attacked by twenty (20) Bf 109s of I./JG 3. *I'm not aware of the target for the 9th AF B-26s as I'm getting the information from the 2nd TAF records. 

 29 November, 1943, seventy-two (72) B-26s raid Chievres airfield. 

1 December, 1943, seventy-two (72) B-26s are escorted by 126 Airfield Spitfires on another raid. *126 Airfield is a Mobile HQ

It seems the US 9th AF generally sent seventy-two B-26s on a raid, which I assume to be airfields.


----------



## Glider (Jul 23, 2006)

Syscom
Once again you seem to be playing your game of comming up with a statement / position whatever without any support and letting others go to a lot of trouble actually doing the research.
Can I ask what evidence you have to support your statement. e.g numbers of bombers used by the USAF in particular missions, periods of time these targets were knocked out of action. Comparing these to the smaller RAF raids on similar targets.
Your statment that these smaller missions were nothing but stunts, I take it you can support that statement. 
Personally I always thought the knocking out of a Headquarters was always a prime target. Just knocking out its communications during a battle I always considered to be a significant achievement. 
Destroying or even removing the ability for a stores depot to distribute its fuel and food was always a main aim of airpower, has been from WW1 to the modern day
I am happy to be proved wrong on the above, but await the proof from yourself with interest.
How


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 23, 2006)

mosquitoman said:


> No RAF tactical bombers?
> Syscom, what roles do you think the Maryland, Battle, Hampden, Mossie, Ventura, Wellington, Blenheim, Mitchell and Hampden were?
> Granted, the AAF had the 9th AF but we British had the 2nd TAF aswell.
> Tactical bombing prevents transport to the front, it takes out factories and military HQs miles behind the front line preventing communication and is less of a knock out blow- more of a death by a thousand paper cuts bleeding the enemy dry.



Read my previous posts before you misquote me.

I said the RAF had similar medium groups like the 9th and 12 AF's and they attacked the same targets with the same numbers of aircraft.


----------



## Glider (Jul 23, 2006)

May I suggest you follow your own advice. 

PD's first posting listed a number of raids and all bar one was a small raid and most used B25, B26, Ventura and A20 bombers. This has been backed up by other postings.

PD's second posting listed a number of USAF raids all of with 72 planes.

Can I ask for your evidence to back up your statements, because all the evidence is against you.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 23, 2006)

plan_D said:


> According to syscom, these small tactical raids did nothing to shorten the war. The attacks on bridges, supply dumps, HQs, airfields and transport networks did nothing for the war effort. This explains a lot.



The large raids were the effective ones, the small raids didnt do much.



> Beyond the famous Mosquito raids, the RAF used all their medium and light bombers with great effect in the tactical role. Groups of planes numbering less than twenty were often sent against airfields, and would put them out of action for days, weeks or even months.
> We all recognise these raids weren't always successful. But, more often than not, the tactical raids would have a higher target destruction percentage than the massive strategic bomber raids.



The massed strategic raids when they went after the transportation targets often blew the railyards to pieces. When they bombed the airfields, they would pput so many craters all over the place, the airfield was often out of action for a couple of days.

Your theory about a couple of well placed bombs on some targets like railyards and airfields that would knock them out as destroyed doesnt hold water as its simple to repair. Lots of holes = lots of dirt needing to be moved.



> I have to thank Tony, as his anecdote on the French bridge provided the best example of small, light bombers, carrying small payloads being more useful in certain circumstances.



Hes correct. But sometimes you also want to hit the material piled up on the sides of the bridge. Thats where lots of bombs are needed.

And the fighter bombers did eventually have more success against the smaller bridges than any of the bombers, the -234 included.



> While I have discovered the USAAF did generally use more bombers against a target than the RAF, it was still not in the region of 100 - 300 bombers on a single airfield. Glider's description of tactics explains the higher numbers of bombers used.



......

It seems the US 9th AF generally sent seventy-two B-26s on a raid, which I assume to be airfields.[/QUOTE]

Agree'd, and I looked at some of my sources too, and that looks like the 1943 standard for airfield attacks.

Im still looking for middle and late 1944 tallys.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 23, 2006)

Glider said:


> Syscom
> Once again you seem to be playing your game of comming up with a statement / position whatever without any support and letting others go to a lot of trouble actually doing the research.
> Can I ask what evidence you have to support your statement. e.g numbers of bombers used by the USAF in particular missions, periods of time these targets were knocked out of action. Comparing these to the smaller RAF raids on similar targets.
> Your statment that these smaller missions were nothing but stunts, I take it you can support that statement.
> ...




blah blah blah.

Ive been trying to say that that precision bombing did not exist in WW2. It happened in a few raids by very well trained crews but as a rule for everyone, those raids were very far and few between, and often didnt have any impact on the course of the war or battle.

It was the massed groups of bombers dropping lots of bombs plastering everything around the aiming point is what did damage and did effect the battles.

72 B26's hitting an airfield will do more lasting damage with hundreds of bombs hitting all over the place, than a few bombers could. And that goes for a lot of other targets too.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 23, 2006)

plan_D said:


> US 9th AF sorties:
> 
> 22 October, 1943, seventy-two (72) B-26s raid Evreux. *Earlier I mentioned this in the 2nd TAF sorties, this was because 11 Group provided escort on this mission.
> 
> ...



Where did you get the info on the raids. I would be interested in seeing more of that stuff. I have found info like that in books but it seems youve got more info than I have. Would be interesting to have it as well.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 23, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> blah blah blah.



Do not blah blah blah him. Both pD and gnomey have given you substantial evidence that disproves you and proves you have no concept of how large scale wars are one. As he said you have not backed up your arguements with anything but the same old statements over and over again.

God forbid, think about the infantry grunts that died in small skirmishes against the German infantry because they died for no cause what so ever at all based off of your arguements. Think about it.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 23, 2006)

> Ive been trying to say that that precision bombing did not exist in WW2.





> It happened in a few raids by very well trained crews


Ummm, sys, which is it??? Did it happen or not, cause I think ur in over ur head here pal... Small raids did change the course of the war, and in some instance killed as many of the enemy as did the large scale carpet bombing missions....

If the argument is which was more effective at grinding Germany to a halt, it would be the large 100+ bombing raids... But that is not whats at issue here.... U said basically that small unit bombing missions were useless, and its been proven not to be true....

U do know that many large bombing missions sometimes missed their marks by up to several miles???


----------



## plan_D (Jul 23, 2006)

_"The large raids were the effective ones, the small raids didnt do much."_

Why do you believe this? Have you got evidence to back this up? 

_"The massed strategic raids when they went after the transportation targets often blew the railyards to pieces. When they bombed the airfields, they would pput so many craters all over the place, the airfield was often out of action for a couple of days."_

If a large percentage of the bombers hit the target it would completely destroy the marshalling yards, I cannot disagree. But this does not mean that a smaller raid would not destroy the exact same target. There certainly would be less craters around the target, but it doesn't mean there would be less on the target. 

When heavy bombers attacked airfields they did manage to crater a very large area, if they went near the target. From 15,000 - 30,000 feet airfields are a hard target to hit precisely. But hitting the fields around the runway don't do anything, they don't need to be filled in and don't affect the managing of the airfield. 
A smaller raid by tactical bombers attacking individual targets would provide a far greater hinderance to the enemy. Attacking the control tower, Sqdn. HQ buildings, hangars and cratering the runway is much more efficient. 

_"Your theory about a couple of well placed bombs on some targets like railyards and airfields that would knock them out as destroyed doesnt hold water as its simple to repair. Lots of holes = lots of dirt needing to be moved."_

Lots of holes, not all on important areas. Hangars, buildings and planes are not easily repaired when collapsed, gutted and destroyed. My 'theory' is sound, as it was practised during World War II, and it's still practised to this day. 

_"Hes correct. But sometimes you also want to hit the material piled up on the sides of the bridge. Thats where lots of bombs are needed.

And the fighter bombers did eventually have more success against the smaller bridges than any of the bombers, the -234 included."_

If you wish to hit the "material" around the bridge, a few more bombers could be used. While some attack the bridge itself, the other bombers attack around the bridge. 

Fighter-Bombers became extremely useful in the tactical strikes. And these are just an addition to my evidence that you do not need a lot of heavy bombers to destroy large targets. Fighter-Bombers are even smaller than the B-25, B-26 or Mosquito and they did, sometimes, just a good of a job. 

The Ar 234 was just as capable, if not more, than any other medium bomber of the war. I never said it's bombing accuracy was special. This whole discussion is about tactical bombers and their usage, "the -234 included."

_"Agree'd, and I looked at some of my sources too, and that looks like the 1943 standard for airfield attacks.

Im still looking for middle and late 1944 tallys."_

What exactly are your sources, syscom? Can you provide us with some US 9th AF raids in 1943? 

_" It was the massed groups of bombers dropping lots of bombs plastering everything around the aiming point is what did damage and did effect the battles."_

So, the destruction of all those bridges, rail lines, locomotives, HQs, supply depots, railyards, power stations, rocket sites, roads, airfields and various other targets by small tactical bombers, or fighter bombers was a waste of time?

_"72 B26's hitting an airfield will do more lasting damage with hundreds of bombs hitting all over the place, than a few bombers could. And that goes for a lot of other targets too."_

They would do no more damage because most of the bombs would drop harmlessly on the grass around the airfield. 

Since we can't expect to have syscom find some Ninth Air Force raids from 1944;

7 March, 1944, 401 Sqdn. escorted one-hundred and eight ( 108 ) B-26s to Creil Marshalling Yards. 

15 March, 1944, 72 B-26s attack Aulnoy marshalling yards. 

I assume that the Creil marshalling yards were splattered with bombs, and put out of action. Right syscom? What do your sources say? 

Chris, my information comes from 2nd Tactical Air Force - Spartan to Normandy by Christopher Shores Chris Thomas. It's a day by day account of the 2nd TAF. Not all raids are reported, by each day of operations lists claims and losses.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 23, 2006)

Fighter bombers provided the direct support to the troops, with the FAC calling them in. 

Multi engined bombers had pre briefed targets that were hit and in no way were the targets changed once they were in the air. Do you have evidence that the medium bombers of the RAF or AAF providing that service?

And so what if the strategic bombers occasionally missed by a few miles. Sometimes the medium bombers and fighter bombers missed by a couple hundred yards with the same result. A miss is as good as a mile.

Now tell me what small raids changed the course of the war or battle? Not the fighter bomber ones, but the medium bomber missions.


----------



## Gnomey (Jul 23, 2006)

Supporting the troop isn't the only kind of tactical bombing. There is also the attacking of small infrastructure targets such as bridges, canals, tunnels etc to disrupt enemy supply lines.

There are no medium bomber raids that changed the course of the war in themselves (same with the heavy bomber raids) but as whole the damage the did helped to bring the German transport infrastucture (particularly the railways to a halt). As for battles look at the Normandy campaign, the transportation plan where the heavy and medium bombers went after all of the railway infrastructure. Trains dropped from 100% of capacity to around 30% or less by early June, dramatically hampering the German supply situation. The heavies went after the railyards whereas the medium bombers went on tactical raid on the bridges and tunnels (as have been mentioned in previous posts) as well as airfields. Without this you could say the Allies would of lost the Battle of the buildup, and probably lost the beachhead.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 23, 2006)

Without the 2nd Tactical Air Force and US 9th Air Force tactical bombing raids, Operation _Overlord_ would have been a failure.


----------



## Glider (Jul 23, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> blah blah blah.
> 
> Ive been trying to say that that precision bombing did not exist in WW2. It happened in a few raids by very well trained crews but as a rule for everyone, those raids were very far and few between, and often didnt have any impact on the course of the war or battle.
> 
> ...



I think we can say that we are still waiting for your evidence. All you seem to be supporting is the Bomber Cammand Area bombing approach.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 23, 2006)

plan_D said:


> Without the 2nd Tactical Air Force and US 9th Air Force tactical bombing raids, Operation _Overlord_ would have been a failure.



I never claimed it wouldnt. On the contrary, the medium bomber campaign ensured victory and hastened the collapse of Nazi Germany.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 23, 2006)

You will have to wait untill tomorrow.

I found website of all the missions of a B26 group in the 12th AF.

Its on my work PC, so you will just have to wait.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 24, 2006)

Syscom:

_"Now tell me what small raids changed the course of the war or battle? Not the fighter bomber ones, but the medium bomber missions."_

Me : 

_"Without the 2nd Tactical Air Force and US 9th Air Force tactical bombing raids, Operation Overlord would have been a failure."_

Syscom:

_"I never claimed it wouldnt. On the contrary, the medium bomber campaign ensured victory and hastened the collapse of Nazi Germany."_

So, you assault the tactical air force small raids as being useless. Yet, these raids combined with each other secured the victory of _Overlord_. To which you now agree. Correct? The battle that medium bomber raids won, was _Overlord_.

I am waiting. Although I requested the 9th AF B-26 raids, I would be interested in the 12th AF as well, I suppose. Despite the fact these raids were in North Africa and MTO, not ETO.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 24, 2006)

The 12 AF had the same doctrine as the 9th AF.

Same targets, pretty much the same number of bomb groups.

Of course you remember that several 12th AF groups ended up in France after operation dragoon. Or did you not know that.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 24, 2006)

I think syscom has finally come to the conclusion that he is clueless at how warfare is won. 

Les you hit the nail when you called him out on it.

pD you have been hitting the nail the whole time. Syscom just can not admit that he does not know something.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 24, 2006)

Notice how sys didnt comment on pD's last post concerning Overlord???

Hmmmmmmmmmmm...


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 24, 2006)

plan_D said:


> .....
> _"Without the 2nd Tactical Air Force and US 9th Air Force tactical bombing raids, Operation Overlord would have been a failure."_
> 
> Syscom:
> ...



Les, look closer, I responded to it already.


----------



## Tony Williams (Jul 24, 2006)

I really don't see what the argument is about. Nazi Germany was defeated by a wide range of different measures, none of which was decisive by itself but the cumulative effect did the job. These included the following, in the last couple of years of the war:

- naval and air anti-submarine efforts to keep the Atlantic clear enough to amass enough troops and supplies for Overlord

- Overlord itself and the campaign resulting from that

- the campaign in Italy stretching German resources

- close support by fighter bombers

- interdiction by medium bombers

- strategic destruction by heavy bombers

- and, above all, the overwhelming ground campaign by our Soviet Allies.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 24, 2006)

320th Bomb Group webpage:
320th Bomb Group and B-26 Marauder

Mission list:
B-26 320th Bomb Group Missions

Number of aircraft per mission varied considerbly, although on numerous occasions, more than 30 aircraft were sortied, with 54 being the most (Mission 462, to Offenburg Marshalling Yards (Germany), Feb 15 1945. http://320thbg.org/mission_pdfs/mission_472.pdf). whats interesting about this is a couple of B26's also taregtted and dropped fragmentation bombs on a nearby flak battery.

Untill I see more group mission lists and see what they were attacking on the same day, its conjecture on what targets warrented more than two groups attacking at the same time.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 24, 2006)

You still have not shown any proof that the tactical bombing had no effect on the war. You have to prove it syscom. Everyone here knows what it takes to win a war, you obviously dont, so prove your case. 

Having said that:

Until you do, I think the general concensus here is that you dont know what the hell you are talking about. You have realized it and are trying to talk your way out of it.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jul 24, 2006)

Not to jump on the band wagon, but I 110% agree that Tactical air strikes have a large impact on WW2 and any battle / war.

Sorry syscom3 I think you have a huge job to convince anyone otherwise.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 24, 2006)

Someone quote me back me where I said tactical airstrikes did not help to win the battles.
And I dont mean tactical targets like what the FAC's would call in for the fighter bombers to destroy. I'm talking tactical targets the multi engined bombers went after. 

I have all along said that a few aircraft carrying small payloads are not going to destroy big targets as precision bombing was a near impossibility in WW2 (the rare exception, not the rule). And the tactical targets that were important, needed lots of bombs to damage or destroy it.


----------



## Glider (Jul 24, 2006)

I believe the phrase you used was a stunt.

_You seem not to grasp the concept that putting an aircraft and aircrew at risk to carry a single 1000 pound bomb which is not a war or battle winner but more of a stunt._

How many raids on your evidence were 200a/c
_I would sum it up this way. just because the RAF didnt have the resources necessary to launch raids involving 200 or so medium bombers, didnt mean the AAF couldnt do it.

Now think about how many tons of bombs are needed to take out an airfield 1 square kilometer. It would take lots, and the 9th and 12th air forces had the planes and aircrews to do it._

Some more examples from your postings
_And theres no evidence of these small raids of several planes hitting tiny targets did anything to shorten the war or help things out.

That Mosquito raid on the Gestapo HQ, while deservadly an excellenty planned and executed raid, did nothing. Although the people in the jail probably think it was the most importannt bombing raid in history.

What made the tactical bombing effective and helped the ground troops were mass raids plastering the sinews of war and wearing down the Germans from lack of loguistics._


----------



## Glider (Jul 24, 2006)

A few more of your postings
_The large raids were the effective ones, the small raids didnt do much_

How many of your raids were 72 planes?
_72 B26's hitting an airfield will do more lasting damage with hundreds of bombs hitting all over the place, than a few bombers could. And that goes for a lot of other targets too_.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 24, 2006)

_"Of course you remember that several 12th AF groups ended up in France after operation dragoon. Or did you not know that."_

No, I wasn't aware that US 12th Air Force sent some it's groups to France. Care to enlighten me on which ones these were? 

_"Les, look closer, I responded to it already."_

Dan was refering to my last post comparing your answer to your original question. Basically, Dan was pointing out how you have contradicted yourself and not noticed. Then chosen to ignore it when shown to your face. 

_"Number of aircraft per mission varied considerbly, although on numerous occasions, more than 30 aircraft were sortied, with 54 being the most (Mission 462, to Offenburg Marshalling Yards (Germany), Feb 15 1945."_

What happened to your original numbers? You claimed that the USAAF attacked tactical targets with 100 - 300 B-26s. Yet, I've had to provide evidence that has produced greater numbers of B-26s than you have. It seems obvious to me, and everyone else, that 100 - 300 B-26s was not the general number of bombers against a tactical target. Even your own evidence proves it. 
I'm waiting for your information on the US 9th Air Force that you have. As you said your sources state the same as mine in that the US 9th Air Force generally used 72 bombers against airfields. Evidence? Or, your sources even?

_"Untill I see more group mission lists and see what they were attacking on the same day, its conjecture on what targets warrented more than two groups attacking at the same time."_

You have started the discussion by telling me I was wrong to assume the RAF and USAAF didn't use more than 100 bombers against a tactical target. And you argued, and argued, and even tried to insult me. But you haven't even got the evidence to back up your case. 

_"I have all along said that a few aircraft carrying small payloads are not going to destroy big targets as precision bombing was a near impossibility in WW2 (the rare exception, not the rule). And the tactical targets that were important, needed lots of bombs to damage or destroy it."_

No. This all started when you said Ar 234s carrying a total of 9,900 lbs together wasn't useful. You never said anything about big targets to start with. Then you said that it would take hundreds of Ar 234s to attack big targets. Then you said it took the USAAF sending 100 - 300 B-26s to attack big targets. And then ... well, you've been on a downward spiral ever since. There's been no evidence from your side that has backed up your argument. 

Just admit it, syscom, you're wrong. I can produce US 9th Air Force raids and 2nd Tactical Air Force raids that show less than one hundred bombers on a tactical raid. I have found a single US raid over one hundred, which was against marshalling yards. Which had to be attacked again 16 days later by another 72 bombers. I have provided more evidence to your cause than you have ! One single raid above one hundred bombers, a mighty 108.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 24, 2006)

> You seem not to grasp the concept that putting an aircraft and aircrew at risk to carry a single 1000 pound bomb which is not a war or battle winner but more of a stunt.



I stand by that. except for fighter bombers, the number of light bombers needed to put enough bombs on target can be huge and a waste of resources. If you have bombers that can only lug around small payloads, then get rid of them and use F-B's. In fact, amazingly, thats what the AAF eventually did. 



> would sum it up this way. just because the RAF didnt have the resources necessary to launch raids involving 200 or so medium bombers, didnt mean the AAF couldnt do it.



That was sacrasm directed at Plan_D since he didnt seem to know that the 9th and 12th AF's had several groups among them each. More groups = more aircraft = more potential bombers per target. I already knew the RAF had a number of tactical bombers and STATED that they attacked tagets in probably similar numbers, which he said no. His logic is if the RAF needs fewer, then the AAF used the same numbers, which was incorrect.



> Now think about how many tons of bombs are needed to take out an airfield 1 square kilometer. It would take lots, and the 9th and 12th air forces had the planes and aircrews to do it.



Are you saying that an airfield would only take a few bombers to take out? Would you say only a few bombers would be needed to bomb an area where only a general idea of your target is located? 



> And theres no evidence of these small raids of several planes hitting tiny targets did anything to shorten the war or help things out.
> 
> That Mosquito raid on the Gestapo HQ, while deservadly an excellenty planned and executed raid, did nothing. Although the people in the jail probably think it was the most importannt bombing raid in history.
> 
> What made the tactical bombing effective and helped the ground troops were mass raids plastering the sinews of war and wearing down the Germans from lack of loguistics.



Do you have any evidence that those small raids did produce proportional results? There's also no evidence the gestapo raid shortened the war one iota. 



> The large raids were the effective ones, the small raids didnt do much



And your point is what? Are you saying small raids are as damaging as large raids?



> 72 B26's hitting an airfield will do more lasting damage with hundreds of bombs hitting all over the place, than a few bombers could. And that goes for a lot of other targets too.



And your point is what? 72 aircraft seems to be a normal sized raid on an airfield in the ETO for summer 43. 



Nowhere did I say that tactical bombing was not important. REMEMBER..... I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT FIGHTER BOMBERS, BUT TWIN ENGINE MEDIUM AND LIGHT BOMBERS ATTACKING PRE BREIFED TARGETS.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 24, 2006)

> No, I wasn't aware that US 12th Air Force sent some it's groups to France. Care to enlighten me on which ones these were?



I will happy to look that up for everyone. I wasnt even aware of that untill now.



> What happened to your original numbers? You claimed that the USAAF attacked tactical targets with 100 - 300 B-26s. Yet, I've had to provide evidence that has produced greater numbers of B-26s than you have. It seems obvious to me, and everyone else, that 100 - 300 B-26s was not the general number of bombers against a tactical target. Even your own evidence proves it.
> I'm waiting for your information on the US 9th Air Force that you have. As you said your sources state the same as mine in that the US 9th Air Force generally used 72 bombers against airfields. Evidence? Or, your sources even?



YOURE RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOURE RIGHT!!!! YOURE RIGHT!!!!!! ONLY 72 BOMBERS SEEMS TO BE THE NORMAL NUMBERS ON THE HIGH END!!!!!! TWO GROUPS OF MEDIUMS MEANS ABOUT 72!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My source book was Ridger Freemans 8th AF book. Did you know that the B26's were part of the 8th AF untill autumn 1943? 72, thats still quite a bit isnt it! Just imagine, the 9th AF could attack five airfields each with 72 aircraft at the same time.



> You have started the discussion by telling me I was wrong to assume the RAF and USAAF didn't use more than 100 bombers against a tactical target. And you argued, and argued, and even tried to insult me. But you haven't even got the evidence to back up your case.



First of all, youre the one who began the insults. Not me. And guess what, youre right, so far it doesnt look like, there were as a rule, more than a hundred medium bombers attacking a target. But YOU didnt know that either. .

And I also clearly said you were right about that number. What more do you want?




> No. This all started when you said Ar 234s carrying a total of 9,900 lbs together wasn't useful. You never said anything about big targets to start with. Then you said that it would take hundreds of Ar 234s to attack big targets. Then you said it took the USAAF sending 100 - 300 B-26s to attack big targets. And then ... well, you've been on a downward spiral ever since. There's been no evidence from your side that has backed up your argument.



And it still is a waste of resources. Nine -234's didnt destroy that railyard. They damaged it for a short period. And all of those -234's didnt bring down the Remagan bridge untill it was irrelevant. And since 72 planes is just 28 off of 100, I was pretty close in a guess. Considering that the 9th and 12th AF's had a few hundred medium bombers to send on missions is still a lot of planes.



> Just admit it, syscom, you're wrong. I can produce US 9th Air Force raids and 2nd Tactical Air Force raids that show less than one hundred bombers on a tactical raid. I have found a single US raid over one hundred, which was against marshalling yards. Which had to be attacked again 16 days later by another 72 bombers. I have provided more evidence to your cause than you have ! One single raid above one hundred bombers, a mighty 108.



So there was a raid of more than 100 planes? wow........ I'd say that it proves my point!!!!!!! And of course we havent even delved into the 12AF. But I even admit that was the unusual and not the rule. By the way, what raid was that? I listed 320th BG raid numbers, so why dont you enlighten us about the details.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 24, 2006)

_"I stand by that. except for fighter bombers, the number of light bombers needed to put enough bombs on target can be huge and a waste of resources. If you have bombers that can only lug around small payloads, then get rid of them and use F-B's. In fact, amazingly, thats what the AAF eventually did."_

The bombers would carry more than 1,000 lbs of bombs to target if required. We are talking about Bostons, Mitchells and Marauders which can carry up to 6,000 lbs of bombs. 
You stated that small aircraft carrying a small payload was useless. You never defined between fighter-bomber and light or medium bombers. This whole thread is about tactical strikes, which fighter-bombers took part in alongside the larger bombers. 

_"That was sacrasm directed at Plan_D since he didnt seem to know that the 9th and 12th AF's had several groups among them each. More groups = more aircraft = more potential bombers per target. I already knew the RAF had a number of tactical bombers and STATED that they attacked tagets in probably similar numbers, which he said no. His logic is if the RAF needs fewer, then the AAF used the same numbers, which was incorrect."_

syscom, I have the order of battle for the US 9th Air Force on 5 June, 1944. I know exactly what groups it had. You were attempting to inform me that the USAAF attacked tactical targets with 100 - 300 bombers because it could. There's no sarcasm at all there. 

My logic has never been that, syscom. Quote my words where I state the USAAF use the same numbers as the RAF. I have pointed out that the USAAF used less than 100 bombers against tactical targets, which is correct. 
You claimed the RAF attacked in similar numbers to the USAAF, which you incorrectly claimed was a 100 - 300 figure per tactical target. I right so said "no", as this was proven by myself and Wildcat to be absolutely wrong. 

I have to admit, through my recent studies, I have discovered the USAAF attacked with larger numbers than I expected. This discovery was in no way helped by you, as you were wrong all along. And the explanation for these larger numbers in the attack was explained by Glider, not you. As your theory was that the USAAF had more planes, so it would send more planes is false. And would be a sound waste of resources. 

_"Are you saying that an airfield would only take a few bombers to take out? Would you say only a few bombers would be needed to bomb an area where only a general idea of your target is located?"_

I know it would only take a few bombers to destroy an airfield, and the RAF agreed. The RAF attacked in a completely different way to the USAAF, as Glider pointed out in the first page of this thread. They would go in individually on the target to attack precise targets, rather than the airfield as a whole. This provides a far greater degree of accuracy and freedom in the attack. 

_"Do you have any evidence that those small raids did produce proportional results? There's also no evidence the gestapo raid shortened the war one iota."_

Syscom, you have already admitted that the medium bomber campaign was a large factor in the successful conclusion of _Overlord_. This would be a combination of all the 2nd TAF and US Ninth Air Force raids. 99.9% of which were below 100 bombers. 

There's no evidence from you, full stop. You don't even know what you're getting at anymore. I've never seen so much back pedalling, and you never answer a question, or reply directly. You should be a politician!

_"And your point is what? Are you saying small raids are as damaging as large raids?"_

Glider's point is obvious to all with eyes and a fully-functioning brain. He's pointing out that you claim "small raids didn't do much". Which makes you wrong. Because these small raids did a lot, and could well be as damaging as larger raids. Just because more tonnage is dropped, it doesn't mean more damage will be done.

_"And your point is what? 72 aircraft seems to be a normal sized raid on an airfield in the ETO for summer 43."_

How would you know, syscom? The only mention of these 72 plane raids comes from me, and in only one of those was a direct mention of an airfield. I am waiting for your evidence, and sortie listing, that backs up your "agreement" on my numbers. 

_"Nowhere did I say that tactical bombing was not important. REMEMBER..... I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT FIGHTER BOMBERS, BUT TWIN ENGINE MEDIUM AND LIGHT BOMBERS ATTACKING PRE BREIFED TARGETS."_

Make up your mind. In the first instance, you never defined between fighter-bomber or medium bomber. It was simply nine planes, carrying 9,900 lbs of bombs was a useless raid. Now you're not including fighter-bombers. Which is silly because you're making out as if fighter-bombers didn't have pre-set targets. Do you want me to provide with sortie listings that prove that assumption wrong too?


----------



## plan_D (Jul 24, 2006)

_"I will happy to look that up for everyone. I wasnt even aware of that untill now."_

You weren't aware of that until now? Then why attempt to show me up as if everyone knows it. This quote from you:

_"Of course you remember that several 12th AF groups ended up in France after operation dragoon. *Or did you not know that.*"_

Well, I couldn't remember something I never knew. But obviously nor could you. The bold, especially, shows that you attempted to belittle me. And I will be looking forward to the information, although I'm not expecting it anytime soon. 

_"YOURE RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOURE RIGHT!!!! YOURE RIGHT!!!!!! ONLY 72 BOMBERS SEEMS TO BE THE NORMAL NUMBERS ON THE HIGH END!!!!!! TWO GROUPS OF MEDIUMS MEANS ABOUT 72!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My source book was Ridger Freemans 8th AF book. Did you know that the B26's were part of the 8th AF untill autumn 1943? 72, thats still quite a bit isnt it! Just imagine, the 9th AF could attack five airfields each with 72 aircraft at the same time."_

I'm impressed, syscom, you have finally admitted your mistake. No I didn't the B-26s were a part of the US Eighth Air Force until Autumn 1943. I haven't got around to reading about US strategical bombing in detail. I'm more interested in the tactical and operational side of air power. 

For a tactical target, I agree that seventy-two is quite a few bombers. But compared to the strategical attacks that went up to, even over, 1,000 bombers on one raid it's quite small. 

The US Ninth Air Force could attack several targets in one day, and so could the 2nd Tactical Air Force. Which is a sensible thing to be doing, instead of wasting a lot of bombers on one target. 

_"First of all, youre the one who began the insults. Not me. And guess what, youre right, so far it doesnt look like, there were as a rule, more than a hundred medium bombers attacking a target. But YOU didnt know that either. .

And I also clearly said you were right about that number. What more do you want?"_

Where did I begin with the insults? 

Syscom, I knew full well that the rule was under one hundred bombers per target. As I knew that it would be a waste of resources sending several hundred bombers against a bridge, or supply depot. I argued because I knew I was right. So I certainly did know. What I want from you is to listen in future, and then, if you think I'm wrong get the evidence together and prove me wrong. 

_"And it still is a waste of resources. Nine -234's didnt destroy that railyard. They damaged it for a short period. And all of those -234's didnt bring down the Remagan bridge untill it was irrelevant. And since 72 planes is just 28 off of 100, I was pretty close in a guess. Considering that the 9th and 12th AF's had a few hundred medium bombers to send on missions is still a lot of planes."_

Have you got evidence of the results of that raid, syscom? 

Your guess wasn't just 100. It was 100 - 300, which is completely wrong. The US Ninth and Twelfth Air Forces did have a lot of bombers, much more than the 1st and 2nd Tactical Air Forces, I never denied that. My point, from the start, was the USAAF and RAF generally sent less than 100 bombers to a tactical target. And it seems now, the RAF generally sent less than 30 because of a different tactical approach.

_"So there was a raid of more than 100 planes? wow........ I'd say that it proves my point!!!!!!! And of course we havent even delved into the 12AF. But I even admit that was the unusual and not the rule. By the way, what raid was that? I listed 320th BG raid numbers, so why dont you enlighten us about the details."_

I thought you might claim that your point has been proven. Although it quite clearly hasn't, as the one raid over all the others is an anomaly. I find it quite sad that you've relied on my evidence all this time. 

I am glad you asked for details. Because the results bring a smile to my face. You have claimed all along that a small raid is worthless alongside a larger raid that peppers the whole area with bombs. Read the next two sorties, and you'll realise why they make me smile:

7 March 1944: Spitfire IXs of 401 Squadron escort 108 B-26s to Creil marshalling yards. 

(I'm not aware of the groups involved as I get these from the day accounts of the 2nd TAF. Anymore information on the raid from a 2nd TAF stand-point, I will gladly answer.)

23 March 1944: 126 Airfield Spitfires escort 72 B-26s to Creil marshalling yards. 

Seems the large formation of bombers peppering the area with bombs did no better than a smaller formation hitting low, and with more precision.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 24, 2006)

I seem to be getting a sense that syscom believes I don't, or didn't, know what the US Ninth Air Force had. Well, I do and did so here's the bomber wings he's talking about:

*98th Bomber Wing*

323rd Bomb Group based at Earls Colne
387th Bomb Group based at Chipping Ongar
394th Bomb Group based at Boreham
397th Bomb Group based at Rivenhall

*99th Bomber Wing*

322nd Bomb Group based at Andrews Field
344th Bomb Group based at Stansted
386th Bomb Group based at Great Dunmow
391st Bomb Group based at Matching

There was also the 1st Pathfinder Squadron (Provisional) which operated B-26 Marauder and was based at Great Saling. All above mentioned groups operated the B-26, and came under the IX Bomber Command. Also under the command was 97th Bomb Wing which operated three groups of A-20 Havocs, these were 409th, 410th and 416th Bomb Groups and were based at Little Walden, Gosfield and Wethersfield respectively. 

There was also the IX Fighter Command, IX Tactical Air Command, XIX Tactical Air Command and IX Troop Carrier Command under the US Ninth Air Force. I will give more information on the wings, groups and aircraft operated if wanted.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 24, 2006)

Plan D, keep on posting. When youre on a roll, dont stop.

Dont forget some 9th AF units converted to A26's.


----------



## Glider (Jul 24, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Someone quote me back me where I said tactical airstrikes did not help to win the battles.
> And I dont mean tactical targets like what the FAC's would call in for the fighter bombers to destroy. I'm talking tactical targets the multi engined bombers went after.
> 
> I have all along said that a few aircraft carrying small payloads are not going to destroy big targets as precision bombing was a near impossibility in WW2 (the rare exception, not the rule). And the tactical targets that were important, needed lots of bombs to damage or destroy it.



All I was doing was supplying the quotes that you asked for. In this case where you said that tactical strikes did not help win battles.

If you want to argue against your posts feel free to go ahead.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 25, 2006)

Glider said:


> I believe the phrase you used was a stunt.
> 
> _You seem not to grasp the concept that putting an aircraft and aircrew at risk to carry a single 1000 pound bomb which is not a war or battle winner but more of a stunt._
> 
> ...



Thankyou for looking all that up for me. He has posted that many times over and over in other words that tactical bombing was worthless.

Syscom small tactical raids by 9 bombers each does help win a war. Have you actually in person seen the destructive power of a 1000lb bomb? I have and 9 of them will tear up a rail yard and put it out of commision.

9 bombers attacking a runway and hangers takes out the enemies ability to launch fighters and bombers of there own.

They help shorten the war, you just dont understand the science of warfare.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 25, 2006)

_"Plan D, keep on posting. When youre on a roll, dont stop."_

No reply, syscom? Aren't you going to answer the questions? 

_"Dont forget some 9th AF units converted to A26's."_

Well, I can't forget. I never knew that. Which groups converted to the A-26, and at what date?


----------



## Jank (Jul 25, 2006)

For an interesting read on the use of smaller group bombing tactics, see:

Ploesti Oil Raid Operation Tidal Wave


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 25, 2006)

9th AF bomb groups that converted to A26's were:
386th, 391st, 409th, 410th (partial) and 416th.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 25, 2006)

plan_D said:


> No reply, syscom? Aren't you going to answer the questions?



And what questions were that?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 25, 2006)

Have you even been reading what others have been saying to you or are you just posting garble?


----------



## Smokey (Jul 25, 2006)

Isn't the Charnwood raid on Caen an example of what is being discussed?



> Charnwood included the use of heavy bombers to shock and destroy German defenders, clear obstacles and boost the morale of the hard-pressed British Infantry. It started at 9:50 p.m. on July 7, 1944 when 467 Allied aircraft dropped 2,300 tons of bombs on the city. In forty minutes, the medieval city was reduced to rubble. This was the first time Bomber Command used heavy bombers tactically. The attack front was 4,000 yards wide. Naval gunfire was also used in the operation.
> 
> The major effects of the bombing were counterproductive. Because the bombs were dropped on an urban area, many French civilians were killed. The shock value was ineffective because the bombing was not followed by an immediate assault, while the defenders were stunned. Instead the ground attack started the following morning at 4:30 a.m. July 8th. Finally, the bombers used very heavy bombs (500 and 1,000 pounders) which created huge piles of rubble. This actually had the effect of delaying Allied tank movement into the city. After the capture of the city, a survey to determine the bombing's effectiveness found that there was virtually no sign of enemy gun positions, tanks, or German dead in the target.



I believe that during this raid some Allied soldiers, including a general, were killed by the heavy bombers

Operation Charnwood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By contrast, fighter-bombers proved more suited to attacking pin-point targets such as tanks, convoys, and trains, although many fighter-bombers were lost in these operations due to the experience and numbers of flak crews.

Heavily escorted high alitude heavy bomberes were more suited to attacking targets heavily defended by fighters and flak, for example airfields, ports and factories.
Due to the relatively high number of flak posts, airfield attacks were particulary dangerous for fighter-bombers. I read an account by Pierre Clostermann which stated that in less than thirty seconds, his squadron lost eight tempests in an attack on an airfield.

Here's a definition of tactics and strategy:

Tactic (method) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

* defines the tactical level as

the level of war at which battles and engagements are planned and executed to accomplish military objectives assigned to tactical units or task forces. Activities at this level focus on the ordered arrangement and maneuver of combat elements in relation to each other and to the enemy to achieve combat objectives.

* Strategy is the overall plan.

An example of the difference:

* The overall goal is to win a war against another country.
* The strategy is to undermine the other nation's ability to wage war by annihilating their military.
* The tactics (told to the combatants) are to do very specific things in a specific place.

Michel de Certeau writes of the differences in The Practice of Everyday Life. Like strategy, tactics operate in space. However, unlike a strategy which creates its own autonomous space, “a tactic is a calculated action determined by the absence of a proper locus. … The space of a tactic is the space of the other” (ibid., 36-37). A tactic is deployed “on and with a terrain imposed on it and organized by the law of a foreign power.” One who deploys a tactic “must vigilantly make use of the cracks that particular conjunctions open in the surveillance of the proprietary powers. It poaches in them. It creates surprises in them” (ibid. 37). Tactics, then, are isolated actions or events that take advantage of opportunities offered by the gaps within a given strategic system yet the tactician never holds onto these advantages. Tactics cut across a strategic field, exploiting gaps in it to generate novel and inventive outcomes.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 25, 2006)

Not really. Syscom was telling us that small tactical raids did not help win the war but he can not prove it because he is wrong.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 25, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Have you even been reading what others have been saying to you or are you just posting garble?



To many questions, so how can I answer him if I dont know what hes asking?


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 25, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> T......
> Syscom small tactical raids by 9 bombers each does help win a war. Have you actually in person seen the destructive power of a 1000lb bomb? I have and 9 of them will tear up a rail yard and put it out of commision.
> 
> 9 bombers attacking a runway and hangers takes out the enemies ability to launch fighters and bombers of there own.
> ...



Nine bombs on the Liege railyards would create nine holes in the yard which were very easily filled and repaired. It would damage or destroy the rolling stock there, but there wasnt much to begin with.

Even when the heavy bombers put a few hundred bombs on the big rail yards, the German repair crews found that they could get the rails back into place and start limited operations again after several hours. So to say nine bombs is going to destroy a railyard, woukld be stretching things.

And nine bombs on the runways? big deal. Fill them in without effort, or if it was a grass field, just plant a few flags for the pilots to know where they are and advoid them.


----------



## Smokey (Jul 25, 2006)

Blitzkrieg used close air support from Stukas, Ju 88s, He 111s and Do 17s, all medium/short range pinpoint attackers.

Thankfully Hitler then delayed operation barbarossa and turned away from Moscow, dooming him to defeat. If he had long range bombers he could have tried to bomb soviet factories at long range but that was not an option. All military leaders want a quick victory and his chance had gone.

The Allied bombing raids helped to weaken industry in germany and accelerated Hitlers defeat.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 26, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Nine bombs on the Liege railyards would create nine holes in the yard which were very easily filled and repaired. It would damage or destroy the rolling stock there, but there wasnt much to begin with.
> 
> Even when the heavy bombers put a few hundred bombs on the big rail yards, the German repair crews found that they could get the rails back into place and start limited operations again after several hours. So to say nine bombs is going to destroy a railyard, woukld be stretching things.
> 
> And nine bombs on the runways? big deal. Fill them in without effort, or if it was a grass field, just plant a few flags for the pilots to know where they are and advoid them.



I never said that 9 bombers were going to take out the Liege railyards. Some targets require large formations of heavy bombers, however some require small tactical bombers.

Your assumption that small tactical bombers carrying 1000lb bombs each does not help the war effort and does nothing to the enemy is absured and shows that you lack common knowledge in warfare.


----------



## delcyros (Jul 26, 2006)

It could be interesting to note here that US pacific carrier strike forces used bomber solely in the tactical role (either bomb or torpedoe shipping or to bomb and strafe ground forces) with a very comparable payload at all. I regard those SBD-Dauntless, Kates and Avengers as effective tactical planes.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 26, 2006)

The questions I asked are plain and clear, syscom. Go back a page and read through the posts, you will find them. 

_"And nine bombs on the runways? big deal. Fill them in without effort, or if it was a grass field, just plant a few flags for the pilots to know where they are and advoid them"_

Why would you drop the whole payload on the runway? Two planes drop a 1,000 lbs bomb each on the runway, while the rest aim for the control towers, HQs, hangars, and planes on the ground.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 26, 2006)

There are so many questions.

You go back and tell me which ones I didnt answer for you.

"Why would you drop the whole payload on the runway? Two planes drop a 1,000 lbs bomb each on the runway, while the rest aim for the control towers, HQs, hangars, and planes on the ground."

Two holes on the runway, easily repaired.
The other seven bombs take out the buildings but hardly impact operations.

I bet a raid like that put the airfield out of commision for an hour or so, untill the holes in the runway are filled in.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 26, 2006)

How do you suppose the airfield organises the missions, or is warned about approaching aircraft if the squadron HQs, communications and hangars are destroyed?


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 26, 2006)

Ummm, lets see, telephone service is repaired quickly as its only a simpleton type setup, radio gear is still working, ops can work in buildings still standing (or are there only seven buildings total)? Or, they can work out of tents. Heck, set everything up in the back of a truck and youre back in business.

Hanger Destroyed? Oh well, guess the mechanics will have to work on the planes in the open like they did most of the time. And with all the damged buildings around, they can easily find some timber to hang their tarps on. (by the way, since in the PTO, rare was the airfield that had a hangar. So did that mean the planes couldnt be kept operating? Didnt Guadalcanal have a tiny shack that operated as an ops and an HQ?

I fail to see how the loss of the buildings is going to impact the operations to any degree.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 26, 2006)

Ever thought that the hangars have planes in? Destroyed. 

Telephone service repaired? Within hours? When the whole communication and board is destroyed? Don't think so. 

Radio? Probably would, but often unreliable. As they found out in all theatres of war. 

Ops can work in tents, as the 2nd TAF did. But what if the ops team was in the building at the time? You can't rebuild people. 

You could only ever hope to knock out an airfield for a few days at the most, unless you kept on the pressure. But tactical bombers can go in small numbers and hit the precise targets, the HQs, the planes, the hangars, the little shack! Instead of planting a tonnage that represents nothing but a bunch of holes around the airfield, and a couple inside it.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 26, 2006)

Are you saying all of the airplanes on the base will be destroyed by only a couple of biombs? Even the ones that are dispersed will suffer losses? Hmmmmmm.

"precision bombing"... in WW2...... heheheheh, keep dreaming.

You mean if a telephone cable is broken it cant be fixed? Even the telepgraph? :O

And radios never worked? :O

Funny how many airbases kept operating even after large raids. And that goes for everyone.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 26, 2006)

_"Are you saying all of the airplanes on the base will be destroyed by only a couple of biombs? Even the ones that are dispersed will suffer losses? Hmmmmmm."_

What posts are you reading? They can't be mine, I never said that all the planes would be destroyed. But since I've read a few 2nd TAF that have caught plenty of German planes on the ground, I know that these bombers caused a lot of damage. 

_""precision bombing"... in WW2...... heheheheh, keep dreaming."_

Of course, because managing to drop bombs down tunnels, or blowing up a single wall of a compound, or destroying a building while only smashing one window of a building nearby is not precision. When it came to tactical bombing in World War II, you couldn't get more precise than the RAF. 

_"You mean if a telephone cable is broken it cant be fixed? Even the telepgraph? :O"_

I never said only the cable was going to be cut. I mentioned the board, you know where the cable goes in? And then gets sent around the airbase? The cable doesn't just run to a single telephone. 

_"And radios never worked?"_

Where did I say that? Can anyone point out where I said radios NEVER worked? Anyone? 

_"Funny how many airbases kept operating even after large raids. And that goes for everyone."_

Not funny at all really. Because I've mentioned earlier that the best you're going to hope to achieve is knocking out for a few days. The sole reason to attack an airbase is to delay it's use, and destroy the planes on the ground. Which really throws your "mass bombers destroy everything" bollocks out of the window.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 27, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Are you saying all of the airplanes on the base will be destroyed by only a couple of biombs? Even the ones that are dispersed will suffer losses? Hmmmmmm.
> 
> "precision bombing"... in WW2...... heheheheh, keep dreaming.
> 
> ...



And it still disrupts the German war effort. It still helps shorten the war. 

Please tell me again syscom that small raids like that do not help the war effort. Please tell me that again, so I can laugh at your face because you dont know anything about warfare!

You really dont. Again I am not going to try and prove anything because you have not given me anything to counter yet.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 27, 2006)

This thread officially sucks.... Syscom, ur being more stubborn than ever before here, and honestly ur embarrasssing urself to no end.... This argument is a lost cause for u, so just roll over and say, "yea, tactical bombing did have an effect.." and thats the end of it.. Jesus Christ man, there are dozens of exaples to prove u wrong here and u skip right over and ignore them...

How do u replace veteran combat leaders who've earned the Knights Cross in 1945??? With some student pilot that has 10 hours of stick time???? It made a difference.. PERIOD...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 27, 2006)

Agreed Les.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jul 27, 2006)

Agreed, syscom just stop.


----------



## Bullockracing (Jul 27, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Two holes on the runway, easily repaired.
> The other seven bombs take out the buildings but hardly impact operations.
> 
> I bet a raid like that put the airfield out of commision for an hour or so, untill the holes in the runway are filled in.




Now you're in my territory. I have done RRR (Rapid Runway Repair) in the AF using modern equipment, like folded fiberglass mat and steel mat, which is by far superior to the PSP used in WWII. The AF record for RRR is barely over an hour to have a MOS (50' x 5000'), and I was on the team that did it. The heavy equipment available in the forties and the materials used could not support that type of RRR. You could patch a dirt field maybe, but not an actual runway. As an aside, you get a lot more than a crater from a bomb. You get upheaval, destabilized base material, and numerous spalls in the surface.

If you think an airbase needs no buildings, you need to convince the DoD they are wasting money on the bare base concept. Buildings? Who needs buildings?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 28, 2006)

Bullockracing when did you repair runways? We are talking about WW2 here. The techonology and tools have changed.


----------



## Bullockracing (Jul 28, 2006)

Bullockracing said:


> The heavy equipment available in the forties and the materials used could not support that type of RRR. You could patch a dirt field maybe, but not an actual runway.



Roger that Adler. I was addressing that the estimated time frame to repair a runway in the forties would be significantly greater than a couple of hours, since the record time using modern tools and techniques is just over an hour. 

I was (and still hold my 3E271 skill level) a Heavy Equipment Operator in USAF Civil Engineering for over ten years before retraining into computers. RRR is the primary wartime job of USAF Civil Engineering.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 28, 2006)

Thats cool. Maybe you can give syscom some info on that, but he will not believe you.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 28, 2006)

Lots of airfields in WW2 were dirt.


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 28, 2006)

Looking at things from another angle. Say a tactical strike hit a rail yard, it might be partly operational again in six hours. Which is reasonable in most cases but may only be one track. If that delay (not to mention a slower speed and a bottle neck at that point) kept reinforcements, supplies and or equipment from getting to the front or to a beach head, it could be the deciding factor in a battle, invasion or campain.

During the invasion of Normandy the delay from lack of rail transport and downed bridges, both taken out with Tac air, delayed the full German response as much as 48 hours (over and above Hitlers contabution). The German response was also piecemeal because the temporary repairs were limited in there capacity to move people or equipment. It was enough to assure the success of the landings.

Another thing tac-air does is that each time it knocks out a rail yard, bridge etc it delays materials which stops factories and interupts the operations all up and down the line. It also ties up material and manpower - the guy thats laying rail is not shooting at you! He's also not building fighters. tanks, bombs or shells.

I haven't even mentioned tac-air in relation to troops in contact with a larger force or trapped. Finally there is a record of a P-47 group that captured a German division by harassing them until they surrendered!

Tac-air has a profound effect on the outcome of any war that has aircraft in it.

wmaxt


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 28, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> Looking at things from another angle. Say a tactical strike hit a rail yard, it might be partly operational again in six hours. Which is reasonable in most cases but may only be one track. If that delay (not to mention a slower speed and a bottle neck at that point) kept reinforcements, supplies and or equipment from getting to the front or to a beach head, it could be the deciding factor in a battle, invasion or campain.



The railyards near the front wouldnt see many trains to begin with. And a slower speed to go through a 1/2 mile long railyard is not going to upset many timetables.



> During the invasion of Normandy the delay from lack of rail transport and downed bridges, both taken out with Tac air, delayed the full German response as much as 48 hours (over and above Hitlers contabution). The German response was also piecemeal because the temporary repairs were limited in there capacity to move people or equipment. It was enough to assure the success of the landings.



Thats because a concetrated effort by large numbers of medium and heavy bombers hit many vital communications targets, continuoulsy and with lots of "tons on target". Loys of bombs on target means lots of damage. a few bombs on target is not going to accomplish much because the damage will be minimal.



> Another thing tac-air does is that each time it knocks out a rail yard, bridge etc it delays materials which stops factories and interupts the operations all up and down the line. It also ties up material and manpower - the guy thats laying rail is not shooting at you! He's also not building fighters. tanks, bombs or shells.



The Germans never were short of manpower to do the repair work. And the guys in the back doing the logistics work took cover when the planes came, and then went to work when the all clear was sounded.



> I haven't even mentioned tac-air in relation to troops in contact with a larger force or trapped. Finally there is a record of a P-47 group that captured a German division by harassing them until they surrendered!



Have any evidence for that?



> Tac-air has a profound effect on the outcome of any war that has aircraft in it.



Agreed. But aircraft carrying light payloads in few numbers attacking large targets are not going to do much if anything.

Thats the reason the A20's went away without fanfare.


----------



## Bullockracing (Jul 28, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> And nine bombs on the runways? big deal. Fill them in without effort, or if it was a grass field, just plant a few flags for the pilots to know where they are and advoid them.



I am 100% sure I have more time actually doing Rapid Runway Repair than you have even researching this subject. I have personally repaired grass, concrete and asphalt runways. A grass runway would take about 30 - 45 minutes per hole (using modern equipment), and yes, you don't have to fix it all, just enough for a MOS (Minimum Operating Strip). Again, each hole in concrete or asphalt would take over an hour using modern equipment.

As far as using '40s equipment, I'll post some pics for you. Here's your track-loader:






Here's your tractors (you'll need both):









Here's your scraper (pulled with one of your tractors):





Here's your grader (pulled with the other tractor):





Here's your roller:





And here's your paver:


----------



## Bullockracing (Jul 28, 2006)

And this is what it looks like these days:


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 28, 2006)

Sys, your ignoring the facts.

1. Tac-air destroyed almost all the rail heads and bridges in Normandy.
2. Large bomber formations were regretted in almost every task they had in conjunction with the D-Day landings. There are reports of large formations of bombers in WWII in which only 3 bombs actually hit the target! Thats why the went back so often to a previously hit target. 
3. The lack of rail traffic at the front was directly due to tac-air and its affects up stream to both trains and to the rail infrastructure.
4 No I don't have further documentation I saw it on a documentry complete with photos of the actual surrender.
5 the A-20 slipped away because it was replaced by better bombers Mossies, B-25 and B-26 bombers. BTW the B-26s were still being used for tac-air in 1966.
6. The immediate dissruption may be minor the effects are not.
7. Plenty of manpower? is that why new German pilots had 10hrs when they went into combat? Is that why 15 and 70 year olds were being drafted?

Just a side note: I have had direct experiance with track work and railroad capabilities and scheduling. I've also had direct experiance with manufacturing facilities and processes, even a few minutes delay can have very large effects on production lines.

wmaxt


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 28, 2006)

> 1. Tac-air destroyed almost all the rail heads and bridges in Normandy.



I never said it didnt. I said that the light bombers carrying small payloads were next to useless. And I dont count the fighter bombers as light bombers.



> 2. Large bomber formations were regretted in almost every task they had in conjunction with the D-Day landings. There are reports of large formations of bombers in WWII in which only 3 bombs actually hit the target! Thats why the went back so often to a previously hit target.



Very true. They were most effective in hitting the large targets way in back, where a lot of bombs were needed because of the area it needed.



> 3. The lack of rail traffic at the front was directly due to tac-air and its affects up stream to both trains and to the rail infrastructure.



I know that. reread my prior statments. Medium bombers and heavy bombers did the most damage. light bombers only put the targets out of commision for a very short period.



> 4 No I don't have further documentation I saw it on a documentry complete with photos of the actual surrender.



I seriously doubt this happened.



> 5 the A-20 slipped away because it was replaced by better bombers Mossies, B-25 and B-26 bombers. BTW the B-26s were still being used for tac-air in 1966.



The mosquito was a specialized aircraft that could have been a great light bomber, but was never ddeployed in large enough numbers to work the role. By the way, the B26 used in 1966 was for counter insurgency warfare and it was the A26. The Marauder had been retired right after the war ended.




> 6. The immediate dissruption may be minor the effects are not.



depends on what was attacked, how vital it was and how long it was out of commision. 



> 7. Plenty of manpower? is that why new German pilots had 10hrs when they went into combat? Is that why 15 and 70 year olds were being drafted?



Im not talking about pilots, but the ground ponders and forced labororers



> Just a side note: I have had direct experiance with track work and railroad capabilities and scheduling. I've also had direct experiance with manufacturing facilities and processes, even a few minutes delay can have very large effects on production lines.



Thats why the germans production potential was crimped. The industrial dispertion added to the strain on the transportatioon links.
The #1 way to stop the railroads from working was to destroy the engines. Putting in even a small hole in a steam boiler meant it was out of service for some bit untill repaired. 2nd best was the destruction of the rolling stock. 3rd best was taking out key bridges and tunnels, but that was a rare event due to the limit of bombing technologies at the time. Of course, the closer the bridge or tunnel is to the front, the more the possibilities of actually delaying trains because the number of by pass routes decreases. The worst way of disrupting the trains was to destroy the tracks. Those were always easy to repair. Unless the rails were actually blown into water and unrecoverable, then track gangs could bend misshapen rail back into place. Now of course blown tracks near the front have more effect, as large groups of men working on them could attract attention from patroling fighter bombers.


----------



## Glider (Jul 28, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Ummm, lets see, telephone service is repaired quickly as its only a simpleton type setup, radio gear is still working, ops can work in buildings still standing (or are there only seven buildings total)? Or, they can work out of tents. Heck, set everything up in the back of a truck and youre back in business.
> 
> Hanger Destroyed? Oh well, guess the mechanics will have to work on the planes in the open like they did most of the time. And with all the damged buildings around, they can easily find some timber to hang their tarps on. (by the way, since in the PTO, rare was the airfield that had a hangar. So did that mean the planes couldnt be kept operating? Didnt Guadalcanal have a tiny shack that operated as an ops and an HQ?
> 
> I fail to see how the loss of the buildings is going to impact the operations to any degree.



During the BOB one of the command centers was destroyed (by a small German raid) and like syscom said they were able to move to temporary buildings, rig up new telephone lines, install new radio's and recommence operations.

The bit he would probably forget to remember, is the bit where they could only direct one squadron instead of an entire wing. This was (and I bet its no suprise) because temporary lash ups no matter how good, are never as good as the purpose built buildings. 

Syscom, I don't suppose there is an outside chance that you can supply some evidence to either
a) Support your contentions that small raids did no damage
b) That my evidence and many others are wrong.

Go on give some examples.

Quote from the RAF Biggin Hill Site to support above
The size of the raid
_a small formation of less than a dozen bombers at low level reduced Biggin Hill to a shambles with 1,000 lb. bombs. Workshops, stores, barracks, W.A.A.F. quarters and a hangar were wrecked._

_Again, on September lst there were two attacks, the second of which by Dornier Do 17s, hit runways and the Sector Operations Room_. 

Impact on operations
_For one week however the damage was so severe that only one squadron could operate from it_.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 28, 2006)

syscom said:


> The Germans never were short of manpower to do the repair work.


Yea right, and thats why they sent the majority of their ground personnel to the front and replaced the black men with WOMEN.....


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 28, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> Yea right, and thats why they sent the majority of their ground personnel to the front and replaced the black men with WOMEN.....



black men? The Germans had large numbers of blacks?


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 28, 2006)

Glider said:


> During the BOB one of the command centers was destroyed (by a small German raid) and like syscom said they were able to move to temporary buildings, rig up new telephone lines, install new radio's and recommence operations.
> 
> The bit he would probably forget to remember, is the bit where they could only direct one squadron instead of an entire wing. This was (and I bet its no suprise) because temporary lash ups no matter how good, are never as good as the purpose built buildings.
> 
> ...



Now see if that raid in 1943 or 1944 would accomplish the same thing.

A couple years of bombing taught everyone what needed to have ready spares available, and what needed to be fixed quickly to get things back operating.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 28, 2006)

> black men? The Germans had large numbers of blacks?


Dude, u know as well as I do what that means, so dont skirt the point made...


----------



## plan_D (Jul 29, 2006)

Well, syscom, you've been proven wrong on another point. You claim that repairing runways was easy, and could be done within hours. Well, we have to thank Bullockracing for soundly proving you wrong there.


----------



## Glider (Jul 29, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Now see if that raid in 1943 or 1944 would accomplish the same thing.
> 
> A couple years of bombing taught everyone what needed to have ready spares available, and what needed to be fixed quickly to get things back operating.



This might come as a suprise to you, but we had been at war for over a year at this stage and had a pretty good idea as to what was important or not.

The UK had the best infrastructure in the world at the time for repair work be it repairing aircraft, airfields, radar stations, communications etc.

A nice little well documented, well known example, that proves that everything that you say is wrong. The best you can do is imply that the UK wasn't trying, in the one battle that everyone acknowledges was critical to our survival.

Once again you have a total lack of evidence although I admit this doesn't surprise me, or I suspect anyone else.

Your ignorance in this is pretty astonishing.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 29, 2006)

I'm still waiting, albeit passively, for his sources that provide him with the information so he can "agree" with my aircraft numbers for US Ninth Air Force raids in 1943.

Syscom: 

_"Now tell me what small raids changed the course of the war or battle? Not the fighter bomber ones, but the medium bomber missions."_

Ever heard about the 'Dinner' Raid? It happened on the 10th June, 1944. It used 42 Typhoons and 71 Mitchells (113 bombers and fighter-bombers) with 33 Spitfires in escort. 

Research it, syscom, and tell us all what happened on the 'Dinner' Raid. You do some research for once. And don't try and lie, because I've got the whole story right here.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 29, 2006)

Oh boy come on now syscom, how much more of this are we going to be forced to take!


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 29, 2006)

plan_D said:


> Well, syscom, you've been proven wrong on another point. You claim that repairing runways was easy, and could be done within hours. Well, we have to thank Bullockracing for soundly proving you wrong there.



Runways in the Pacific tended to be crushed coral and or plain old dirt. And yes, some of them even had PSP plates. Even the Japanese repaired their airfields quickly (at least in the early part of the war before their logistical system collapsed).

Many runways in the ETO in the ETO also were dirt fields.

Dirt runways are easy to fix.
PSP covered runways are easy to fix too.
Concrete is tougher to fix, but that wasnt a show stopper.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 29, 2006)

plan_D said:


> I'm still waiting, albeit passively, for his sources that provide him with the information so he can "agree" with my aircraft numbers for US Ninth Air Force raids in 1943.
> 
> Syscom:
> 
> ...




Ahhh, but you will note the following:
1) 113 medium and fighter bombers is not a small raid.
2) B25's carry a usefull payload and are not lugging a single small bomb.
3) The Typhoons are not soley a light bomber, as once they drop their load, they become fighters. Plus they can strafe things on the way back if they want.

So what is your point.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 29, 2006)

Glider said:


> This might come as a suprise to you, but we had been at war for over a year at this stage and had a pretty good idea as to what was important or not.
> 
> The UK had the best infrastructure in the world at the time for repair work be it repairing aircraft, airfields, radar stations, communications etc.
> 
> ...




In 1942, the US maintained Henderson field with practically zero logistical help and maintained operations from a single small hut. Now does that mean the Marines who maintained the field were superior to the Brits? Or does it mean most airfields are not that difficult to keep in operation.



> Your ignorance in this is pretty astonishing.



Actually the converse is true


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 29, 2006)

plan_D said:


> I'm still waiting, albeit passively, for his sources that provide him with the information so he can "agree" with my aircraft numbers for US Ninth Air Force raids in 1943.



What makes you think I disagree with your numbers for the 9th AF?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 29, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Runways in the Pacific tended to be crushed coral and or plain old dirt. And yes, some of them even had PSP plates. Even the Japanese repaired their airfields quickly (at least in the early part of the war before their logistical system collapsed).
> 
> Many runways in the ETO in the ETO also were dirt fields.
> 
> ...



It would still take more than an hour to fix those runways in WW2. Even if it only took an hour, that is one whole hour that German aircraft are not in the air from that field. One whole hour that they are not attacking ground troops or tank formations. One hour that they are not up attacking bomber formations.

Yeah syscom that is not helping the war effort! 

Thank god you dont run our military because we would be ****ed


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 29, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Or does it mean most airfields are not that difficult to keep in operation.



Well that shows you dont know what the hell you are talking about even more. I can tell you as someone that works on an airfield and flies from one everyday, that they are not simple to operate as you make it seem to be.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 29, 2006)

There is more to an airfield than a concrete strip for planes to land and take off from and a building to run operations from.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 29, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It would still take more than an hour to fix those runways in WW2. Even if it only took an hour, that is one whole hour that German aircraft are not in the air from that field. One whole hour that they are not attacking ground troops or tank formations. One hour that they are not up attacking bomber formations.
> 
> Yeah syscom that is not helping the war effort!
> 
> Thank god you dont run our military because we would be ****ed



The German fighters could take off from dirt fields.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 29, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Well that shows you dont know what the hell you are talking about even more. I can tell you as someone that works on an airfield and flies from one everyday, that they are not simple to operate as you make it seem to be.



WW2 airfields tended to be simple affairs, as compared to modern ones.

And WW2 aircraft tended to be simpler to maintain therefore they didnt eneds as many specialized "trades" keeping the airplanes in the air.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 29, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The German fighters could take off from dirt fields.



No **** shirlock! My comment about the concrete strip, was a generic statement because you obviously have no clue.

I never said they could not, what I said was that aircraft not taking off from an airfield because operations are disrupted even if for only an hour is helping the war effort.

You in turn are skirting even more around the facts, trying to distract people from knowing that you are cluless.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 29, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> WW2 airfields tended to be simple affairs, as compared to modern ones.



No **** meatball! You forget I work at a former WW2 german airfield that had a grass strip as a runway!

Even though they were simpler in WW2 does not mean that it was a grass strip, maybe a hanger and a ops building that could be destroyed to disrupt operations.

You have your POL section, your FARP section, etc...

You take out any one of the combinations and you are disrupting operations.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 29, 2006)

Operations and other admin chores can easily be performed in the back of a truck, a basement, a tent in the forest, practically anywhere.

Fuel can easily be brought to the aircraft in tankers, or even in oil barrels on the back of a truck.

And dirt is easily filled back into holes. In fact, the japanese discovered that they could take unused oil barrels, prefill them with dirt or rock and then roll them into the bomb crater and it would work like ballest.

My point is the only way to knock an airfield out of commision for a period of time is to put a LOT of bombs on it whether by heavy bombers or medium bombers and just work the odd's that a few bombs will land on eqmt that was stashed away far from the obvious targets. Precision bombing the airfields and hoping youre going to knock it out was a pipedream.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 29, 2006)

So you are still saying that small time tactical bombing did not help the war effort?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 29, 2006)

And that the airmen that died on these small time tactical bombing raids died in vein because it was nothing more than a stunt? This is what you are still saying correct?


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 29, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> So you are still saying that small time tactical bombing did not help the war effort?



Tactical bombing by the light bombers did not help. It was a waste of resources.

Fighter bombers were a far more efficient method of delivering ordinance onto target.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 29, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And that the airmen that died on these small time tactical bombing raids died in vein because it was nothing more than a stunt? This is what you are still saying correct?



Unfortunatly for them, yes. The conceptions about the use of light bombers was dated. In the 30's when the doctrine was formulated, noone could have guessed that fighters would be used that had 2000HP engines.

But in war, you never know what really works. And when you do, someone had to pay a price for it.

general Sherman wasnt kidding when he said "war is hell".


----------



## plan_D (Jul 30, 2006)

Have you got a memory, syscom?

_"Ahhh, but you will note the following:
1) 113 medium and fighter bombers is not a small raid.
2) B25's carry a usefull payload and are not lugging a single small bomb.
3) The Typhoons are not soley a light bomber, as once they drop their load, they become fighters. Plus they can strafe things on the way back if they want.

So what is your point."_

You asked for a medium bomber raid that an effect on the war effort. I just gave you one. And a raid with 113 bombers involved is a small raid compared to the heavy bomber raids that you love so much. That's my point.

_"What makes you think I disagree with your numbers for the 9th AF?"_

I never said you would disagree. You said your sources agree with my numbers. What are your sources!? Where are the sorties that you have information on? You haven't provided them. You haven't even provided the Ninth Air Force sorties for 1944 which you said you would.

Why do you even bother when you haven't even got any evidence to produce? No sorties? No sources? 

_"My point is the only way to knock an airfield out of commision for a period of time is to put a LOT of bombs on it whether by heavy bombers or medium bombers and just work the odd's that a few bombs will land on eqmt that was stashed away far from the obvious targets. Precision bombing the airfields and hoping youre going to knock it out was a pipedream."_

Is that why a dozen Ju-88 carrying a single 1,000 lb bomb each, knocked the operation of Biggin Hill down to a squadron rather than a wing. No one ever thought that they could knock out an airfield for good, but they hamper the operations. 

And fighter-bombers carry less of a payload than light bombers. You made the original argument against the payloads, not the aircraft involved.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 30, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Tactical bombing by the light bombers did not help. It was a waste of resources.
> 
> Fighter bombers were a far more efficient method of delivering ordinance onto target.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 30, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Unfortunatly for them, yes. The conceptions about the use of light bombers was dated. In the 30's when the doctrine was formulated, noone could have guessed that fighters would be used that had 2000HP engines.
> 
> But in war, you never know what really works. And when you do, someone had to pay a price for it.
> 
> general Sherman wasnt kidding when he said "war is hell".


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 30, 2006)

plan_D said:


> Is that why a dozen Ju-88 carrying a single 1,000 lb bomb each, knocked the operation of Biggin Hill down to a squadron rather than a wing. No one ever thought that they could knock out an airfield for good, but they hamper the operations.
> 
> And fighter-bombers carry less of a payload than light bombers. You made the original argument against the payloads, not the aircraft involved.



pD it is not worth it man. Syscom is clueless. How much more of this are you going to put yourself through.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 30, 2006)

I ain't bothered by him. He's just showing himself up more and more. And it's giving me a cheap laugh.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 30, 2006)

That is true, I have laughed quite a bit with this.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 30, 2006)

plan_D said:


> I ain't bothered by him. He's just showing himself up more and more. And it's giving me a cheap laugh.



And jangling keys in front of your face also amuses you too


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 30, 2006)

plan_D said:


> ......
> You asked for a medium bomber raid that an effect on the war effort. I just gave you one. And a raid with 113 bombers involved is a small raid compared to the heavy bomber raids that you love so much. That's my point.



I was reffering to small light bomber raid. And the 8th AF list shows about the same numbers of heavy bombers would attack an airfield as this raid.



> I never said you would disagree. You said your sources agree with my numbers. What are your sources!? Where are the sorties that you have information on? You haven't provided them. You haven't even provided the Ninth Air Force sorties for 1944 which you said you would.
> 
> Why do you even bother when you haven't even got any evidence to produce? No sorties? No sources?



I'm still searching around for them. 




> Is that why a dozen Ju-88 carrying a single 1,000 lb bomb each, knocked the operation of Biggin Hill down to a squadron rather than a wing. No one ever thought that they could knock out an airfield for good, but they hamper the operations.



I can interpret that to the RAF being totally unprepared for the attack. And I bet it was the last time something like that happened.



> And fighter-bombers carry less of a payload than light bombers. You made the original argument against the payloads, not the aircraft involved.



You overlook the fact that fighter bombers are also fighters, and are cheaper to build and use than light bombers. Plus they frequently bombed things "on the fly", or directed by the ground troops to where to attack. Plus they could strafe things on the way home, blah, blah blah. Light bombers couldnt do that, thats why they were a waste.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 30, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> And jangling keys in front of your face also amuses you too



 

But at the same time that was funny too.


----------



## k9kiwi (Jul 30, 2006)

Thanks for the great laughs.

Albert Speer (heard of him SysCon) stated that over 700,000 able bodied men were involved in manning anti aircraft batteries throughout Europe, from 20mm upwards in 1944

Also stated was that over 300,000 were involved in repairing infrastructure from damage *of all types* from air strikes.

Further, that 20,000 (one third of all production) of the 88mm cannon was involved in anti aircraft defence, when they would have been better employed in the anti tank role on the russian front.

So 20,000 88mm, over 1,000,000 combat capable men are negated from the OOB for the German army.

Let alone the number of 20mm Vierling and 37mm guns needed to defend against low level, Both of which the Germans had a great penchance for using in the ground role against troops etc.

Also, raids by medium bombers served as double edged swords, sending 12 different raiding strikes against different locations at the same time as your bomber streams are reaching for 2 or 3 main targets has a slight dispersal effect upon the enemies resources.

If you now configure things with window strips, ECM etc so that the effect is to confuse or delay the realisation by ground control of where the main strike is to occur, you further weaken the defenders chances.

If you time strikes against a number of airfields while the planes are up in the air, and destroy their capacity to handle aircraft for, oh lets say 4 hours, Where do the aircraft land?

(They could stay up their only so long)

If they now have to fly 150 miles to the nearest airfield, how much is their combat time and effectiveness reduced?

Now you have repaired the holes in the dirt in 4 hours, but we have a *little* problem, the piddly little 1,000 pound bomb just took out or POL resources, and that tiny 500 pounder nailed the armoury.

The other one didn't cause structural damage to the airfield, but we sure are going to miss those mechanics that were in that bunker (read BIG HOLE) cause we need to fix the planes.

Also we are having a slight problem because of the 12 RAF planes that sneaked in and made a small mess at the local power station, so we are running limited resources on local generators.

Starting to get the picture. If you take a more "Holistic" view, every strike was tacticaly and Strategicaly important for the domino effect to occur.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 30, 2006)

Very good post K9Kiwi but it will do no good, syscom is stubborn and will not admit that he is wrong.


----------



## k9kiwi (Jul 30, 2006)

Cheers for the advice, after 9 pages I had kind of figured that. 

I merely posted this to see what sort of response it gets.

As an Ex RNZAF Military Police Dog Handler, I am used to dealing with stubborn beasts.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 30, 2006)

LMFAO, and with that, kiwi has hit the nail on the head...

You should take a read on the Beer thread kiwi...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 30, 2006)

Oh boy that thread was painful!


----------



## k9kiwi (Jul 30, 2006)

Good Eavens!

Did someone say *BEER*.  

I am on the way.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 30, 2006)

We sat there for days trying to convince sys that real beer wasnt spelled BUD and didnt taste like piss...

But alas to no avail...

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/what-best-beer-world-poll-2392.html?highlight=beer


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 30, 2006)

Upon a little researching, I found syscoms first post.... Was he just posturing over the Budweiser to get our panties in a bunch???

One has to wonder....


> 10-11-2005, 10:37 AM #7
> syscom3
> Senior Member
> Join Date: Jun 2005
> ...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 30, 2006)




----------



## syscom3 (Jul 30, 2006)

k9kiwi said:


> Thanks for the great laughs.
> 
> Albert Speer (heard of him SysCon) stated that over 700,000 able bodied men were involved in manning anti aircraft batteries throughout Europe, from 20mm upwards in 1944
> 
> ...



Youre mixing up the large strategic bombing raids witht he smaller tactical raids


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 30, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> Upon a little researching, I found syscoms first post.... Was he just posturing over the Budweiser to get our panties in a bunch???
> 
> One has to wonder....



I can find budweiser anywhere in the world.


----------



## k9kiwi (Jul 30, 2006)

> Youre mixing up the large strategic bombing raids witht he smaller tactical raids



Well done Rocket Scientist.

Thats what the Allies did too.

PS. Apparently it worked, as Les' replies are in ENGLISH.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 30, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Youre mixing up the large strategic bombing raids witht he smaller tactical raids



Thats not the point of his post. Besides if you read what he said and not just what you wanted to read you would see that he was talking about small groups taking out small things at an airfield. Like a small group of planes taking out the POL or the mechanics or what not.

But again you only read what you want to read because that is how blind you are.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 30, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I can find budweiser anywhere in the world.



And I can find real and good beer anywhere in the world as well, and no matter where you find your Bud in the world it is crap!


----------



## k9kiwi (Jul 30, 2006)

Beer.

Is said as *SPEIGHTS* with a reverent tone to the voice in decent kiwi households.

www.speights.co.nz

Try walking into most liquor outlets in New Zealand and asking for a "Bud".

Your most common response will be. "Sorry mate, we sell Beer here."


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 30, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And I can find real and good beer anywhere in the world as well, and no matter where you find your Bud in the world it is crap!



Youre so emotional about it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 30, 2006)

No I just have a real taste for beer, you are ignorant to the matter.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 30, 2006)

Anyhow this is not the beer thread so lets get off that topic in here.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 31, 2006)

_"I was reffering to small light bomber raid. And the 8th AF list shows about the same numbers of heavy bombers would attack an airfield as this raid."_

No you weren't. As the quote from you below clearly shows, you said medium bomber missions. You've got the memory of a goldfish. And the 'Dinner' raid wasn't against an airfield, so why bring the 8th Air Force attacks on an airfield into this? 

_"Now tell me what small raids changed the course of the war or battle? Not the fighter bomber ones, but the medium bomber missions."_


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 31, 2006)

He just keeps on digging, deeper and deeper.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 31, 2006)

k9kiwi said:


> Well done Rocket Scientist.
> 
> Thats what the Allies did too.
> 
> PS. Apparently it worked, as Les' replies are in ENGLISH.



You dont need to be a rocket scientist to know that there were no medium bomber raids east of the Rhine untill 1945 (maybe in late 1944).

And that goes for the light bombers.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 31, 2006)

plan_D said:


> _"I was reffering to small light bomber raid. And the 8th AF list shows about the same numbers of heavy bombers would attack an airfield as this raid."_
> 
> No you weren't. As the quote from you below clearly shows, you said medium bomber missions. You've got the memory of a goldfish. And the 'Dinner' raid wasn't against an airfield, so why bring the 8th Air Force attacks on an airfield into this?
> 
> _"Now tell me what small raids changed the course of the war or battle? Not the fighter bomber ones, but the medium bomber missions."_



8th AF records show that airfields were attacked with about the same number of aircraft in your list, depending on whether you want to count the fighter bombers as bombers only.

Once they dropped their bombs, they became fighters. B17's, B24's, B26's never reverted to another role after they dropped their ordinance.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 31, 2006)

_"You dont need to be a rocket scientist to know that there were no medium bomber raids east of the Rhine untill 1945 (maybe in late 1944).

And that goes for the light bombers."_

3 September, 1939. The first RAF plane across the German frontier was a 139 Sqdn. Blenheim from RAF Wyton. It's mission was to reconnoitre the German fleet at Wilhelmshaven. Flying at 24,000 feet FO McPherson took 75 pictures of the fleet and recorded the wars first in the ORB. 

On the same date, 83 Sqdn. Hampdens fly off to conduct a raid on the fleet anchored at Wilhelmshaven. FO Guy Gibson led a flight of six Hampdens to target. The cloud cover was 10/10 at 100 feet, so all Hampdens turned back without attacking. 

Throughout the war, light and medium bombers attacked Germany. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that. 

8th US Air Force raids on airfields don't have anything to do with the 'Dinner' Raid. Unless you are implying that raid is large because the US 8th Air Force used those numbers sometimes. But carried a lot more tonnage to target with the same numbers!


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 31, 2006)

k9kiwi said:


> Thanks for the great laughs.



yes, you gave me a chuckle too.



> Albert Speer (heard of him SysCon) stated that over 700,000 able bodied men were involved in manning anti aircraft batteries throughout Europe, from 20mm upwards in 1944



Many of those workers were not of draft quality or were not capable for front line duty, such as too old or too young.




> Further, that 20,000 (one third of all production) of the 88mm cannon was involved in anti aircraft defence, when they would have been better employed in the anti tank role on the russian front.



yes, and what does that have to do with light bomber raids?




> Let alone the number of 20mm Vierling and 37mm guns needed to defend against low level, Both of which the Germans had a great penchance for using in the ground role against troops etc.



Thats why the medium bombers stayed up at 10,000 feet or so.



> Also, raids by medium bombers served as double edged swords, sending 12 different raiding strikes against different locations at the same time as your bomber streams are reaching for 2 or 3 main targets has a slight dispersal effect upon the enemies resources.



Unless you put enough bombs on your target to destroy it, then why bother?



> If you now configure things with window strips, ECM etc so that the effect is to confuse or delay the realisation by ground control of where the main strike is to occur, you further weaken the defenders chances.



The heavy bombers rarely confused the Germans. Medium bombers rarely surprised their targets since they were only at 10,000 feet and quite noisey.



> If you time strikes against a number of airfields while the planes are up in the air, and destroy their capacity to handle aircraft for, oh lets say 4 hours, Where do the aircraft land?





> (They could stay up their only so long)
> 
> If they now have to fly 150 miles to the nearest airfield, how much is their combat time and effectiveness reduced?



Airfields to land at was never an issue for the Luftwaffe. There were hundreds of them, and most were open at any given time.



> Now you have repaired the holes in the dirt in 4 hours, but we have a *little* problem, the piddly little 1,000 pound bomb just took out or POL resources, and that tiny 500 pounder nailed the armoury.



Well, thats a shame that you couldnt refuel your airplanes through oil barrels on the back of a truck, didnt properly disperse your POL and bombs. I think youre making a case for the RAF being totally unprepared for an air attack.



> The other one didn't cause structural damage to the airfield, but we sure are going to miss those mechanics that were in that bunker (read BIG HOLE) cause we need to fix the planes.



Lucky hit, it happens in war doesnt it. Now how often did that happen?



> Also we are having a slight problem because of the 12 RAF planes that sneaked in and made a small mess at the local power station, so we are running limited resources on local generators.



So you have to do some load shedding. Big deal.



> Starting to get the picture. If you take a more "Holistic" view, every strike was tacticaly and Strategicaly important for the domino effect to occur.



Youre right. The heavy bombers, the medium bombers and the fighter bombers all made contributions, but the light attack bombers didnt contribute much.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 31, 2006)

plan_D said:


> 3 September, 1939. The first RAF plane across the German frontier was a 139 Sqdn. Blenheim from RAF Wyton. It's mission was to reconnoitre the German fleet at Wilhelmshaven. Flying at 24,000 feet FO McPherson took 75 pictures of the fleet and recorded the wars first in the ORB.
> 
> On the same date, 83 Sqdn. Hampdens fly off to conduct a raid on the fleet anchored at Wilhelmshaven. FO Guy Gibson led a flight of six Hampdens to target. The cloud cover was 10/10 at 100 feet, so all Hampdens turned back without attacking.
> 
> Throughout the war, light and medium bombers attacked Germany. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that.



sept 1939 is far removed from summer of 1943 when the Luftwaffe would have butchered any medium or light bomber getting to deep into germany.

All you just proved is a port area was photographed at high altitude on the 2nd day of the war.

Now show me an RAF tactical raid into central germany in 1942, 1943 and 1944.



> 8th US Air Force raids on airfields don't have anything to do with the 'Dinner' Raid. Unless you are implying that raid is large because the US 8th Air Force used those numbers sometimes. But carried a lot more tonnage to target with the same numbers!



The AAF was loath to split groups and air divisions up on missions. So if a target was attacked, in theory it would be done by three groups.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 31, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> You dont need to be a rocket scientist to know that there were no medium bomber raids east of the Rhine untill 1945 (maybe in late 1944).



Absolutely wrong agin syscom and I can prove it to you.

Remember the war was allready going on before the Americans entered. The British were fighting (*yes syscom WW2 started before Dec. 7, 1941*).

The British were using Mosquitos in small numbers to bomb Germany as early as 1942.

The first raid was by 5 Mosquitos to Koeln Germany on 31 May 1942. This raid accomplished nothing but keep the Germans off there guard but it was still a raid.

19 Sept 1942: 6 Mosquitos attacked Berlin

Those are just two example, do you care to retract your statement syscom?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 31, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Now show me an RAF tactical raid into central germany in 1942, 1943 and 1944.



Just did numbnuts!


----------



## plan_D (Jul 31, 2006)

Syscom, you just stated that no light or medium bombers raided across the Rhine. Wilhelmshaven is a long way east of the Rhine. I apologise, I assumed that showing you the two sorties to Wilhelmshaven on 3rd September would show you the RAF was willing to send medium and light bombers to Germany. Obviously you're not intelligent enough to catch on to that. 
Once again though, you're back pedalling. It's clear to everyone that you stated no light or medium bombers raided across the Rhine until 1944 or 1945. I've proven that they did so in 1939. So, now, 1939 doesn't count. And only 1942, 1943 and early 1944 count? Well, Adler just provided some. 


I still don't have a clue what you're trying to get at while talking about the US 8th Air Force.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 31, 2006)

He has no clue what he is talking about pD. He is stalling time, hoping that people will jump on someone else in another thread and forget that he is clueless.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 31, 2006)

I know. It's sad, but amusing.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 31, 2006)

Yeap I really do find it funny. 

A tactical bomber pilot from the RAF could come online and tell him how effective there small unit tactical raids were during the war even the ones that he flew on in 1941, and syscom would argue with him because syscom knows more about than he does. It really is funny. Syscom would argue with a barndoor because he can accept that he does not know something.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 31, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Absolutely wrong agin syscom and I can prove it to you.
> 
> Remember the war was allready going on before the Americans entered. The British were fighting (*yes syscom WW2 started before Dec. 7, 1941*).
> 
> ...



the Mosquito's couldnt be considered as light bombers as they performed more like fighter bombers.

Now show me an A20 attack into the Rhur that didnt get slaughtered.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 31, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Just did numbnuts!



show me what?


----------



## plan_D (Jul 31, 2006)

So, now, we have no medium or light bombers attacking across the Rhine until late 1944 or 1945. Then it changed to 1939-1941 don't count. And now we have to show an A-20 raid before from 1942 to early 1944.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 31, 2006)

plan_D said:


> Syscom, you just stated that no light or medium bombers raided across the Rhine. Wilhelmshaven is a long way east of the Rhine. I apologise, I assumed that showing you the two sorties to Wilhelmshaven on 3rd September would show you the RAF was willing to send medium and light bombers to Germany. Obviously you're not intelligent enough to catch on to that.
> Once again though, you're back pedalling. It's clear to everyone that you stated no light or medium bombers raided across the Rhine until 1944 or 1945. I've proven that they did so in 1939. So, now, 1939 doesn't count. And only 1942, 1943 and early 1944 count? Well, Adler just provided some.
> 
> 
> I still don't have a clue what you're trying to get at while talking about the US 8th Air Force.



Youre absolutley right about Wilhemshaven being to the east of the Rhine. 

And considering how poorly germany was defended in 1939, anyone could have attacked with light bombers. But when the defenses went into place, then it was suicide for any medium or light bombers to attack. And thats what the 8th AF learned with the B26 and A20 raids early in 1943 (even after the RAF told them not to).

Now show me where they attacked Germany far from the coasts?


----------



## Gnomey (Jul 31, 2006)

Just an extract from the bomber command diary for July 1942:



> 2/3 July 1942
> 
> Bremen
> 
> ...


(RAF History - Bomber Command 60th Anniversary)

There you can see light/medium bombers raiding east of the Rhine (albeit with heavy bombers), the Blenheim mission in particular you claim would be suicide yet they returned without loss. The same could be said for the unarmed Mosquito bombers (you can't call the unarmed ones fighter bombers) which are also light bombers and raided beyond the Rhine on most days of the war during from 1942 onwards during both the day and the night and they had some of the lowest losses in bomber command...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 31, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> the Mosquito's couldnt be considered as light bombers as they performed more like fighter bombers.



Wrong! Read up on your history of Mosquito *(I know it is not a US built aircraft but it did still exist)*, and you might know that. There were Mosquitos that were under [/b]Fighter Command[/b] and there Mosquitos that were under *Bomber Command*. The ones that fell under Fighter Command acted as fighter bombers, the ones under Bomber Command acted as full Bobmers carrying 2000 to 4000 pounds of bombs.

Now you are getting desperate syscom. Give it the hell up!



syscom3 said:


> Now show me an A20 attack into the Rhur that didnt get slaughtered.



If they went in as a strategic strike, yes they would be slaughterd, but as small tactical strikes (which you would not really do in the Ruhr area anyhow, because you would use large formations of strategic heavy bombers to bomb the industry there) then yes the A-20 would be successful.

Tell me syscom if the A-20 was slaughtered so much, then why the USAAF continue to use it.

Your argument carries no wieght again. When will you see this.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 31, 2006)

Gnomey, that doesn't count. Because they're not A-20 raids! The only way, at the moment, to prove him wrong is to provide an A-20 raid after 1941 but before 1944. Far from the coast in Germany. Duh!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 31, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> show me what?



Proved you wrong, but you are so blind to it as usual...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 31, 2006)

Okay here is an A-20 raid.

07 April 1942. 12 A-20s (6 from the 15th USAAF group and 6 from RAF 226 Squadron) attacked German airfields.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 31, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> Just an extract from the bomber command diary for July 1942:
> 
> (RAF History - Bomber Command 60th Anniversary)
> 
> There you can see light/medium bombers raiding east of the Rhine (albeit with heavy bombers), the Blenheim mission in particular you claim would be suicide yet they returned without loss. The same could be said for the unarmed Mosquito bombers (you can't call the unarmed ones fighter bombers) which are also light bombers and raided beyond the Rhine on most days of the war during from 1942 onwards during both the day and the night and they had some of the lowest losses in bomber command...



isnt Breman a port city? and didnt they bomb this city at night?

Now quote me an actuall raid into central germany east of the rhur where medium or light bombers were used during daylight.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 31, 2006)

plan_D said:


> So, now, we have no medium or light bombers attacking across the Rhine until late 1944 or 1945. Then it changed to 1939-1941 don't count. And now we have to show an A-20 raid before from 1942 to early 1944.



Youre cherry picking the attack on port cities where the bombers can approach with near impunity.

raids in 1939-1941 dont count as defenses havent been built up in germany yet.

now show me a light bomber raid into germany proper, during 1943 and most of 1944 when the Luftwaffe would have been in strength


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 31, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Wrong! Read up on your history of Mosquito *(I know it is not a US built aircraft but it did still exist)*, and you might know that. There were Mosquitos that were under [/b]Fighter Command[/b] and there Mosquitos that were under *Bomber Command*. The ones that fell under Fighter Command acted as fighter bombers, the ones under Bomber Command acted as full Bobmers carrying 2000 to 4000 pounds of bombs.



The performance of the mosquito was such, it was more a fighter bomber. Once it dropped its load, it could get out with good speed. and its load carrying was adaquate. Plus it was maneuverable enough still carrying its payload that it could "jink" and complicate the flak guns aiming.



> Now you are getting desperate syscom. Give it the hell up!



I'm not french and have no desire to give it up.




> If they went in as a strategic strike, yes they would be slaughterd, but as small tactical strikes (which you would not really do in the Ruhr area anyhow, because you would use large formations of strategic heavy bombers to bomb the industry there) then yes the A-20 would be successful.



No A20's ventured far into the occupied countries, let alone go penetrate german airspace, even with heavy fighter escort.

B26's didnt even penetrate german airspace untill after airfields were established in France and the luftwaffe destroyed. even then, they maintained their bombing altitudes of about 9000 ft or higher.

and it wouldnt have been any different for the RAF light bombers (except for the mosquito's)
Tell me syscom if the A-20 was slaughtered so much, then why the USAAF continue to use it.



> Your argument carries no wieght again. When will you see this.



Exactly what I say about you


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 31, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Okay here is an A-20 raid.
> 
> 07 April 1942. 12 A-20s (6 from the 15th USAAF group and 6 from RAF 226 Squadron) attacked German airfields.



And what german field was that?

Sounds like it was A20's attacking german airfields in occupied France.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 31, 2006)

_"Youre cherry picking the attack on port cities where the bombers can approach with near impunity.

raids in 1939-1941 dont count as defenses havent been built up in germany yet.

now show me a light bomber raid into germany proper, during 1943 and most of 1944 when the Luftwaffe would have been in strength"_

How was I cherry picking, syscom? I was merely pointing you to be incorrect in your statement that no medium or light bombers attacked east of the Rhine before late 1944. I wouldn't want someone coming on here and getting the wrong idea. 

You are the one back pedalling and changing everything. Now the Mosquito doesn't count as a light bomber. 1939-1941 don't count. Only B-26s and A-20s count. 

Syscom, be serious for a moment. Provide the evidence for your cause. Provide a solid statement that you won't change and alter to suit your needs. For once, syscom, act like an adult and try to learn something. All it is with you is winning the argument, not discussing the facts or learning. Instead of me spending money on a book containing all of the US 9th Air Force raids ... how about you provide some evidence, somewhere?

I am currently reading through three volumes of 2nd Tactical Air Force. That span from June 1943 - May 1945. It's a very handy series of books, and I can gladly provide information on the 2nd TAF raids through it's service. If I find a raid on Germany before August 1944 by something other than a Mosquito , or heavy bomber, or fighter-bomber ('Cos Mustang IIIs of 2nd TAF raided German airfields IN Germany before moving to the continent) then I'll produce it. But at least I'm attempting to find something. And even if I don't, it won't make any difference to this "discussion" because all you're trying to do is be right ... but you've deviated so far from your original point, on so many statements it is continually laughable. Everyone who's read this thread is LAUGHING at you syscom. And I don't blame them.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 31, 2006)

I have just ordered *2 Group RAF : A Complete History 1936 - 1945*, *Ninth Air Force in World War II* and *US Ninth Air Force in Colour: UK and Continent - World War II*.

So, it should provide a lot of sortie listings.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 31, 2006)

plan_D said:


> [
> You are the one back pedalling and changing everything. Now the Mosquito doesn't count as a light bomber. 1939-1941 don't count. Only B-26s and A-20s count.



No I'm not. The Mosquito had the speed and capability of a fighter bomber, not a light attack bomber. Big difference. And I would include the B25's in the equation, but the AAF didnt fly them out of England.



> Syscom, be serious for a moment. Provide the evidence for your cause. Provide a solid statement that you won't change and alter to suit your needs. For once, syscom, act like an adult and try to learn something. All it is with you is winning the argument, not discussing the facts or learning. Instead of me spending money on a book containing all of the US 9th Air Force raids ... how about you provide some evidence, somewhere?



I didnt know I had that much influence over you. Maybe I can find some other things to argue over so YOU can spend the money.



> I am currently reading through three volumes of 2nd Tactical Air Force. That span from June 1943 - May 1945. It's a very handy series of books, and I can gladly provide information on the 2nd TAF raids through it's service. If I find a raid on Germany before August 1944 by something other than a Mosquito , or heavy bomber, or fighter-bomber ('Cos Mustang IIIs of 2nd TAF raided German airfields IN Germany before moving to the continent) then I'll produce it. But at least I'm attempting to find something. And even if I don't, it won't make any difference to this "discussion" because all you're trying to do is be right ... but you've deviated so far from your original point, on so many statements it is continually laughable. Everyone who's read this thread is LAUGHING at you syscom. And I don't blame them.



Mustang III's are single engined fighters.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 31, 2006)

You haven't got any influence, syscom. I've been looking into tactical bomber raids for months, they interest me more than strategic bomber raids. Now I have the entire operational history of 2nd Tactical Air Force. And since I'll eventually have to look into both the US Ninth and Twelfth Air Forces, I may as well do it now. You really are all the way up your own arse, syscom. 

The Mosquito had the speed and capability of a fighter-bomber? Even the ones without guns, dipsh*t? Mustang Mk.IIIs carrying bombs, fighter-bombers. 

You've proved your use on this forum, absolutely none. You won't research anything yourself. You are unwilling to learn. You just exist to irritate people, and in that attempt everyone is laughing at you.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jul 31, 2006)

PlanD,

I have to commend you in your handling of syscom in the "tactical airstrikes thread". You have been patient with a person who will just not admit when he is wrong. Well done PlanD for not turning this into a name calling thread. And proving your point beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Syscom,

Everyone and everything points to syscom being wrong, being wrong is not that bad syscom, just admit you were wrong. Give it to PlanD, tell him he is right and end this discussion. Syscom you are a smart guy but refusing to admit when you are wrong makes you look bad. Read my sig. I tell this to people all the time at work, making a mistake is not the end of the world. Some people fear making a mistake or admitting when they are wrong.Every person here thinks you are wrong, if you were right then do you think you are smarter than ever single USAF General ( not to mention every single General in WW2 and since then the present date) who decided to use tactical airstrikes? Thats a pretty big ego if you think that.


Well done PlanD, not sure if I would of been so patient. Thumbs up for you.

IMHO,

Hunter368


----------



## k9kiwi (Jul 31, 2006)

> the Mosquito's couldnt be considered as light bombers as they performed more like fighter bombers.



Said repeatedly by SysCon with variations.

The Mosquito Bomber version *HAD NO GUNS* it had a nose blister for the navigator to use when on the bomb run. It relied on its speed for survival.

Pretty much up to the introduction of the ME262 there were no axis planes that could catch it in a staight line race.

PRU units used the Mosquito for exactly that reason and the altitudes it could reach

In fact the Mosi was produced in 43 variants, only beaten in numbers of variants by the JU88. 

Of the 43 variants only *9* were equiped as FB models, and 11 as NF models. So of 43 variants only 20 carried weapons, under 1/2 the variants made.

A Mosi could happily (in the bomber configuration) carry a 4,000 pound cookie or other bomb load to Berlin or other targets.

Your vaunted b-17 would normally load out with LESS than a single Mosi for a Berlin raid. Bit of a waste of two engines and 9 crew that would appear to be.

Perchance you should have just built shed loads of Mosi's and swarmed all over the germans.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 31, 2006)

According to syscom, even the bomber variants of the Mosquito are fighter-bombers!  Or they just won't count 'cos the Mosquito has proven him wrong on another point.

And thank you, Hunter. I've shocked myself with how calm I've been.


----------



## k9kiwi (Jul 31, 2006)

As to some raid dates here ya go.

13/14 April 43
6 Mosquitos of No 105 Squadron, carried out nuisance raids to Bremen, Hamburg and Wilhelmshaven

20/21 April 43
11 Mosquitos carried out a raid to Berlin as a diversion for the forces attacking Stettin and Rostock

13/14 May 43
12 Mosquitos to Berlin

15/16 May 43
3 Mosquitos to Berlin

16/17 May 43
9 Mosquitos to Berlin. Note this was the same night as the "Dam Buster" mission

19/20 May 43
6 Mosquitos to Berlin

The list goes on and on.

Syscon, if you want to actually learn something here is the reference site you may want to poke your snout into.
RAF History - Bomber Command 60th Anniversary

Note that this is the RAF's very own official web site, and the page is the Bomber Command page, showing every mission, dates and aircraft involved, where they went to etc.

Now if someone wanted to be ACCURATE with their statements, this might be a place to start.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jul 31, 2006)

plan_D said:


> According to syscom, even the bomber variants of the Mosquito are fighter-bombers!  Or they just won't count 'cos the Mosquito has proven him wrong on another point.
> 
> And thank you, Hunter. I've shocked myself with how calm I've been.




He just keeps telling you that you can't use that example you can't use that one either etc, ahhhhhhh. Or you can only use the years from 42-before 44!!!! Well why does he not norrow the parameters soooo small until you can't prove your point!! Frustrating.

But I have always found it most fulfilling to prove someone wrong and have them admit it than just telling they are or are being a jackazz.

I am not trying to put words into PlanD mouth here but I am impressed PlanD with your patiences and information gathering skills.

PlanD you might just have to give it up, I don't think syscom will ever admit what is plain to everyone else to see. Syscom is a smart guy but he never admits when he is wrong. How does that saying go......you can't argue with a .... 

I think you know how it goes.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 31, 2006)

plan_D said:


> You've proved your use on this forum, absolutely none. You won't research anything yourself. You are unwilling to learn. You just exist to irritate people, and in that attempt everyone is laughing at you.



If the admins think Im no use to this site, they are more than happy to kick me off.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 31, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> He just keeps telling you that you can't use that example you can't use that one either etc, ahhhhhhh. Or you can only use the years from 42-before 44!!!! Well why does he not norrow the parameters soooo small until you can't prove your point!! Frustrating.



Vaste differences occured between 1939 to 1942 and then 1943 throught he end of the war. 

Once the Luftwaffe was up to speed in defense, the light attack bombers were proven to be useless.



> But I have always found it most fulfilling to prove someone wrong and have them admit it than just telling they are or are being a jackazz.



Yes, you guys sometimes are a pain the butt, but I can handle it.



> I am not trying to put words into PlanD mouth here but I am impressed PlanD with your patiences and information gathering skills.



yes he has some good facts at his disposal. but not all of them. 



> PlanD you might just have to give it up, I don't think syscom will ever admit what is plain to everyone else to see. Syscom is a smart guy but he never admits when he is wrong. How does that saying go......you can't argue with a .... .



Ive admitted Ive been wrong before.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 31, 2006)

k9kiwi said:


> Said repeatedly by SysCon with variations.
> 
> The Mosquito Bomber version *HAD NO GUNS* it had a nose blister for the navigator to use when on the bomb run. It relied on its speed for survival.



It sure had fighter-bomber performance charteristics. Speed and good payload. Plus maneuverabilty. just add guns



> PRU units used the Mosquito for exactly that reason and the altitudes it could reach
> 
> In fact the Mosi was produced in 43 variants, only beaten in numbers of variants by the JU88.
> 
> Of the 43 variants only *9* were equiped as FB models, and 11 as NF models. So of 43 variants only 20 carried weapons, under 1/2 the variants made.



yes, a very good airplane indeed. By the way, did I ever say the Mosquito WASNT a usefull plane?



> A Mosi could happily (in the bomber configuration) carry a 4,000 pound cookie or other bomb load to Berlin or other targets.
> 
> Your vaunted b-17 would normally load out with LESS than a single Mosi for a Berlin raid. Bit of a waste of two engines and 9 crew that would appear to be.



Most B17's loaded out around 6000 pounds and carried it over a considerable distance. And you do know it was four engines and 11 crewman.

But are you trying to say that the mosquito was a better fighter bomber or the B17 a better strategic bomber?



> Perchance you should have just built shed loads of Mosi's and swarmed all over the germans.



The B17 did many things the Mosquito couldnt do, and the Mosquito did things the B17 couldnt do.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 31, 2006)

k9kiwi said:


> As to some raid dates here ya go.
> 
> 13/14 April 43
> 6 Mosquitos of No 105 Squadron, carried out nuisance raids to Bremen, Hamburg and Wilhelmshaven
> ...




Excellent. We know Mosquito's went to Berlin, probably at night.

Now did any Mosquito's (carrying bombs at low altitude of course), A20's, B25's or B26's go to Berlin during the day?


----------



## plan_D (Jul 31, 2006)

_"It sure had fighter-bomber performance charteristics. Speed and good payload. Plus maneuverabilty. just add guns"_

Hahahahahaha ! So what syscom? It didn't have guns! It was a pure light bomber! No fighter-bomber there at all. My god! You've been proven wrong in your statement that medium or light bombers raided across the Rhine before 1944, and you've been proven wrong that no light bombers raid deep in Germany between 1942 and 1944. Just give that point up too. The Mosquito was a freakin' light bomber, alright !? I have many more facts than you, 'cos you have none. 

Of course the Mosquito went to Berlin during the day, it was the first Allied bomber to raid Berlin in daylight!

---_"He just keeps telling you that you can't use that example you can't use that one either etc, ahhhhhhh. Or you can only use the years from 42-before 44!!!! Well why does he not norrow the parameters soooo small until you can't prove your point!! Frustrating."_

It would be frustrating and I probably would have gone off on one like I used to only a few months ago. But I'm more relaxed these days, and I'm finding it sad and a good laugh more than anything now. Plus, I have to say while I have more of an interest in tactical air power (because of it's attachment to supporting of armies), I haven't been so keen to spend money and time researching it in great detail until this thread. 

_"I am not trying to put words into PlanD mouth here but I am impressed PlanD with your patiences and information gathering skills."_

Thank you. It's taking a lot of work, and a little bit of money. But I've been after the books for a while anyway. By the end of the week, I'll have the histories on 2 Group, 2nd TAF and US Ninth Air Force. Practically in full. 

_"PlanD you might just have to give it up, I don't think syscom will ever admit what is plain to everyone else to see. Syscom is a smart guy but he never admits when he is wrong."_

I've already given up trying to make him admit his mistakes. Because I know he will not. But everytime a comment is made by him that I can soundly prove wrong I can reply with laughter. And also, my research has a place to be shared with everyone else on the board. At least I hope people reading this thread have learnt a few things about the 2nd TAF and tactical raids.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jul 31, 2006)

First syscom did I actually call "you" a jackazz? no

I have refrained from entering this thread b/c PlanD is more than able to handle it himself. It has been frustrating to watch and read but I have tried to say as little as possable. But now you have me looped me into this thread with your comments.

But before I waste days and days looking up information that you will just discount as invalid. I want to hear from you exactly what it will take to prove to you tactical airstrikes are highly valuable.

List what you need to hear or see to prove to you. What is it? 

Confirmation from Vets in the field?

Missions that were completed successfully?

What is it that will finally prove to our point?

What years do you want to see?

How many planes involved do you want to see?

List for me what you want to see, be detailed.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 31, 2006)

This is getting sadder and sadder as it goes along....


----------



## plan_D (Jul 31, 2006)

When he provides that list, Hunter. I will gladly research it. But the list will be so pathetic to prove his "point" - that it won't prove anything at all.


----------



## k9kiwi (Jul 31, 2006)

Now I am confused.

You mean he had a point?


----------



## plan_D (Jul 31, 2006)

I ... don't know. I just enjoy researching tactical raids and passing the information on. Syscom is merely being ...well, I don't know. A reason for me to pass the information on?


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 31, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> First syscom did I actually call "you" a jackazz? no
> 
> I have refrained from entering this thread b/c PlanD is more than able to handle it himself. It has been frustrating to watch and read but I have tried to say as little as possable. But now you have me looped me into this thread with your comments.
> 
> ...




I didnt call you a jacka***. Go look what i said.

My point is the light bombers such as the A20 were worthless. Better to spend the effort on more medium bombers. Heck, even more Mosquito's, but not on light attack bombers.

And the Mosquito is more a fighter bomber than a light attack bomber. And all plan_D has proven is a few mosquito's flew to Berlin, (at night no doubt) but never did they go in a mass raid on a worthwhile tactical target east of the Rhine. (Sorry Plan_D, coastal targets dont cut it, it has to be welll within german borders).

I looked at some 9th AF mission lists from 1943 and 1944, and they were all within France and the Low countries. Only untill late 1945, did they begin to wander into German airspace.


----------



## Gnomey (Jul 31, 2006)

Mosquitos flew over Germany during both night and day (to Berlin as well). Somehwere back in this thread is the story of the Mosquito raid on Berlin to coinside with the speaches being made by Goebbels and Goering (one in the morning the other in the afternoon). Both speaches were disrupted by Mosquito raids in the middle of the day, I'm not sure of the losses to the Mosquito's but they were few.



syscom3 said:


> My point is the light bombers such as the A20 were worthless. Better to spend the effort on more medium bombers. Heck, even more Mosquito's, but not on light attack bombers.


I still don't see how you can class a plane which carries only bombs and has NO GUNS as a fighter bomber. Yes there were fighter versions of the Mosquito but those with bombs had no guns and therefore could not attack fighters and therefore be a fighter which makes it an unarmed fast light/medium attack bomber...


----------



## k9kiwi (Jul 31, 2006)

Gnomey

It is apparent he has not read a single damn thing posted that has Truth slapped all over it.

Just remember "Never wrestle with a Pig, you get dirty, and the Pig enjoys it".

Now Syscom.

I think Mosquito anti shipping raids at night time would be a tad hairy to say the least. Yet raids were consistently carried out in Norway and other regions that were as far in distance and further than Berlin.

Often these would include 1 or two Strike Wings of a large number of Aircraft.

Can you find *One supporting document* that states the Mosquito was solely a Fighter Bomber.

Please post said document and its source please.

If not, admit it. You was WRONG.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 31, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> My point is the light bombers such as the A20 were worthless.





syscom3 said:


> I looked at some 9th AF mission lists from 1943 and 1944, and they were all within France and the Low countries. Only untill late 1945, did they begin to wander into German airspace.



USAAF Light bombers fulfilled a pure Tactical Role after D Day taking out rail yards, factories and infrastructure. Their lack of range kept them from venturing far into Germany, but that 's not what they were there for. Some thing you're missing - although the Mossie and other "fighter Bombers" could carry a close or comperable ordnance load, light bombers carried more navigational and electronic equipment (in WW2 a good radio set could take up a small closet, so this was ideal for a light bomber) than fighter bombers, and with a multi man crew, took some of the work load off the pilot. Light bombers were far from worthless and filled a great tactitcal role.

Here's something to chew on...

"Simply stated, this is a brief history on the 410th Bombardment Group. The 410th Bomb Group was indeed a unique unit, flying both day and night missions, and established one of the best bombing records of World War II.






This chart shows bombing accuracy data published by the Operational Research Section of the 9th Bombardment Division. It shows percent of bombs plotted to withing 500 feet of aiming points.
In April 1945 the 410th record was the best ever. A total of 65 superior or excellent bombing ratings were attained. Another first was for this unit was that it was the only combat Bomb group in the USAAF during WWII, fully trained, equipped with modified aircraft,and manned to fly both day and night missions, using precision bombing techniques. Another remarkable record is that of 9,648 combat sorties flown, only 185 mechanical failures occurred.


Officially, the 410th flew 262 combat missions and 241 combat sorties. (To be credited with a combat sortie, the aircraft had to fly over the target. In 21 cases, the group was recalled or did not fly over the target due to adverse weather, no fighter cover or by higher headquarters directive) 

The 410th Bomb Group was active in most of the major battles in Europe... Air Offensive, Europe; Normandy; Northern France; Rhineland; Ardennes-Alsace; and Central Europe. They received the Distinguished Unit Citation for the effectiveness of its bombing in the Ardennes, 23-25 December 1944, when the group made numerous attacks on enemy lines of communications.

The 410th Bomb Group was made up of 4 bomb squadrons. The 644th (call letters 5D), 645th (7X), 646th (8U), and the 647th (6Q). They flew out of Birch and Gosfield airfields in Essex County England, and Coulommiers, Juvincourt, and Beaumont-sur-Oise, all in France. 


Air Force Assigned to: 9th AF (March '44 - end WWII) 

Stations flown from: Birch, England (April '44) 
Gosfield, England (April '44 - Sept. '44) 
Coulommiers, France (Sept. '44 - Feb. '45) 
Juvincourt, France (Feb '45 - May '45) 
Beaumont-sur-Oise, Belgium (May '45 - end WWII) 

Campaigns: Air Offensive, Europe 
Normandy 
Northern France 
Rhineland 
Arnennes-Alsace 
Central Europe 

Decorations: Distinguished Unit Citation: Germany, 23-25 Dec '44 "

Web-Birds: Warbirds on the 'Web - The WWII Gallery

Here's info on the 410th BG
http://www.web-birds.com/9th/409/409th_missions.html

Some more to chew on....

"TUESDAY, 3 APRIL 1945

AIRBORNE OPERATIONS (IX Troop Carrier Command): The 23d, 313th and 314th Troop Carrier Squadrons, 349th Troop Carrier Group, arrive at Barkston, England from the US with C-47s.

STRATEGIC OPERATIONS (Eighth Air Force): 2 missions are flown. 

Mission 924: 752 B-17s and 569 P-51s are dispatched to hit U-boat yards at Kiel; they claim 1-0-0 Luftwaffe aircraft; 2 bombers and 4 fighters are lost: 
1. 693 of 752 B-17s hit the Deutsche U-boat yard and 24 hit the Howardts U-boat yard; 2 B-17s hit Flensburg Airfield a target of opportunity; 2 B-17s are lost and 121 damaged; 1 airman is WIA and 20 MIA. Escorting are 517 of 569 P-51s; they claim 1-0-0 aircraft; 2 P-51s are lost and 2 damaged beyond repair.

2. 98 of 100 P-51s fly a sweep of the Kiel area; 1 is damaged beyond repair.

3. 4 P-51s escort 1 F-5 on a photo reconnaissance mission over Germany.

4. 17 of 18 P-51s fly a scouting mission; 2 P-51s are lost.

Mission 925: 1 B-17 and 10 B-24s are dispatched to drop leaflets in the Netherlands, France and Germany during the night; 1 returns to base.


*TACTICAL OPERATIONS: First Tactical Air Force (Provisional): *Unit moves in France: 10th Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron, 69th Tactical Reconnaissance Group, from Nancy to Haguenau with F-6s (first mission is 17 Apr); 34th Photographic Reconnaissance Group, XII Tactical Air Command (attached to Provisional Reconnaissance Group), form Azelot to Haguenau with F-5s.

Ninth Air Force: In Germany, about 230 B-26s, A-20s and A-26s attack Holzminden and Hameln marshalling yards, the town of Gottingen, 2 targets of opportunity, and fly a leaflet mission; fighters fly escort, fly patrols and armed reconnaissance, support the US 9th Armored Division in the Warburg area, the XX Corps E of the Werra River toward Muhlhausen and in the Kassel area, the XII Corps in the Gotha and Suhl areas, and the 2d and 8th Armored Divisions in the Teutoburger Forest and Neuhaus; unit moves: HQ XXIX Tactical Air Command (Provisional) to Haltern; HQ 84th and 303d Fighter Wings from Munchen-Gladbach to Haltern; 14th Liaison Squadron, XIX Tactical Air Command (attached to Twelfth Army Group), from Oberstein to Berkersheim with L-5s; 15th Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron, 10th Photographic Group (Reconnaissance), from Trier to Ober Olm with F-6s; 507th and 508th Fighter Squadrons, 404th Fighter Group, from St Trond, Belgium to Keltz with P-47s."

USAAF Chronology:

Far from useless!


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 31, 2006)

If they were usefull why were the A20 units converting to A26's as they became available?

Because the AAF saw they didnt add value to the air force as compared to the medium bombers or fighter bombers.

A group of B26's (or A26's) were far more usefull than A20's. And I'd even say a P47, P38 or Typhoon that could roam at will looking for targets was more usefull than the A20's.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 31, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> If they were usefull why were the A20 units converting to A26's as they became available?


Because it was a newer faster aircraft designed to replace the A-20, that simple. BTW the A-20 stayed around till the end of the war.


syscom3 said:


> Because the AAF saw they didnt add value to the air force as compared to the medium bombers or fighter bombers.


WRONG!!!The 409th and 410th bomb group stayed active right till the end of the war basically following the movment of ground troops and deployed where and when needed, they did an outstanding job during the Battle of the Bulge. There were at least 12 "Light Bomber" squadrons highly active right up to the end of the war. If they were that ineffective they would of never landed on the European Continent...


syscom3 said:


> A group of B26's (or A26's) were far more usefull than A20's. And I'd even say a P47, P38 or Typhoon that could roam at will looking for targets was more usefull than the A20's.


The A-26 was considered a light bomber and was equipping light bomber squadrons. B-26 fulfilled a similar role. The A-20 was still effective and many of the pilots who flew all 3 considered the A-20 a better flying aircraft. These aircraft were able to aviate, navigate and deliver their ordnance over specific targets and did so with the same or better effectiveness that single engine aircraft as now they were operating within their minimum rage with full bomb load, you were getting more bang for the buck in compared to single engine fighter bombers - and yes, the single engine fighters were mainly left to take care of targets of opportunity - Tactical Air Warfare at it's finest...


----------



## Hunter368 (Jul 31, 2006)

plan_D said:


> When he provides that list, Hunter. I will gladly research it. But the list will be so pathetic to prove his "point" - that it won't prove anything at all.




Ok PlanD I will stay out of this thread the best I can. 


Syscom I will say this and I say it again, you have not answered my questions. If you want PlanD and now Joe to prove to you that tactical airstrikes were of value answer my list:

List what you need to hear or see to prove to you. What is it? 

Confirmation from Vets in the field?

Missions that were completed successfully?

What is it that will finally prove to our point?

What years do you want to see?

How many planes involved do you want to see?

Why limit this to only USA and UK planes? To prove that tactical air strikes were of value we should be able to provide tactical airstrikes from all nations to prove our point. Why are we being limited to USA or UK planes, were are proving that tactical airstrikes were of value here nothing else. Lets give Axis tactical airstrikes also as examples.

List for us what you want to see, be detailed. Answer these questions plz.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 31, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Because it was a newer faster aircraft designed to replace the A-20, that simple. BTW the A-20 stayed around till the end of the war.



Of course it stayed on till the end of the war. The A26 wasnt in a production rate to replace all of the A20/B25/B26 groups right away


> The A-26 was considered a light bomber and was equipping light bomber squadrons. B-26 fulfilled a similar role. The A-20 was still effective and many of the pilots who flew all 3 considered the A-20 a better flying aircraft. These aircraft were able to aviate, navigate and deliver their ordnance over specific targets and did so with the same or better effectiveness that single engine aircraft as now they were operating within their minimum rage with full bomb load, you were getting more bang for the buck in compared to single engine fighter bombers -



The A26 had a payload that was in the medium bomber specifications. It was considered an attack bomber, not a light bomber. Regardless of the designation, it was going to follow the B26 tactics of medium altitude attacks.



> and yes, the single engine fighters were mainly left to take care of targets of opportunity - Tactical Air Warfare at it's finest...



Agree'd


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 31, 2006)

> Syscom I will say this and I say it again, you have not answered my questions. If you want PlanD and now Joe to prove to you that tactical airstrikes were of value answer my list:



Ive been saying tactical airstrikes by multi engined light bombers were ineffective and a waste of resources. If you read my posts, i have been continually saying that medium bombers and fighter bombers were usefull



> Why limit this to only USA and UK planes? To prove that tactical air strikes were of value we should be able to provide tactical airstrikes from all nations to prove our point. Why are we being limited to USA or UK planes, were are proving that tactical airstrikes were of value here nothing else. Lets give Axis tactical airstrikes also as examples.



And that goes for axis planes as well. A JU-88 carrying several bombs was more usefull than a single -234 carry one bomb.

And furthermore, most of the tactical targets as designated for attack by bombers, like airfields and railyards, needed lots of bombs to knock them out. Either you can do it with several heavy bombers, or a couple of groups of mediums. But light bombers needed lots of aircraft to deliver the same number of "bombs per target", and if thats the case, do away with the light bombers and stock up on more medium bombers.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 31, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The A26 had a payload that was in the medium bomber specifications. It was considered an attack bomber, not a light bomber. Regardless of the designation, it was going to follow the B26 tactics of medium altitude attacks.


And it did where it replaced other "medium bombers." Where it replaced the A-20 it fulfilled the same role as the A-20...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 31, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Ive been saying tactical airstrikes by multi engined light bombers were ineffective and a waste of resources.


And why were there 3 Bomb groups and 11 bomb squadrons of light bombers in the 9th AF?


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 31, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And it did where it replaced other "medium bombers." Where it replaced the A-20 it fulfilled the same role as the A-20...



the A26's did exactly what the B26's had been doing since they joined combat in 1943. And thats to stay up at 10,000 ft. Go in fast, dump your load and get out.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 31, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And why were there 3 Bomb groups and 11 bomb squadrons of light bombers in the 9th AF?



You have to fly with what youve got. The A20 groups in the 9th and 12th AF were being converted to A26's when the war ended. If the wat had gone on for a few more months, there would have been zero A20 groups.

Quite simply, in the ETO, the A20 didnt have the payload to make things worthwhile.

B25 = good
B26 = good
A26 = good
A20 = mediocre (at best)
P38 = good
P47 = good


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 31, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> You have to fly with what youve got. The A20 groups in the 9th and 12th AF were being converted to A26's when the war ended. If the wat had gone on for a few more months, there would have been zero A20 groups.


There were plenty of other aircraft readily availble. If 9th AF brass had anything against the A-20 it would of been gone prior to D Day, it would of got dumped the same way the P-38 was taken out of service. BTW the A-26 was designed to replace the A-20, this taking place when Edward Heinemann and Robert Donovan came up with an unsolicited proposal in 1941 for a replacement for not only the A-20, but the B-25 and the B-26.


syscom3 said:


> Quite simply, in the ETO, the A20 didnt have the payload to make things worthwhile.


The plan was to replace the A-20 long before and was actually instigated by Douglas. The 9th AF continued to operate the A-20 because it was effective, a good flying airplane and it fulfilled its mission - just ask the guys at Bastonge when A-20s of the 410th BG helped flatten convoys in and around the Ardennes during the Battle of the Bulge, the 410th BG got a Distinguished Unit Citation for its participation. BTW the A-20 bomb groups of the 9th AF were one of the only (and probably the only) US bomb group to perform their mission at night... By far the A-20 didn't win the war in Europe but to say they were ineffective is nonsense.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 31, 2006)

> By far the A-20 didn't win the war in Europe but to say they were ineffective is nonsense.


Agreed 100%.... Syscom will not admit he is wrong about any of this.... Its rather disturbing actually...


----------



## k9kiwi (Aug 1, 2006)

Getting back to the original premise of this thread.

Syscom

Could you please provide the difference between a Tactical and a Strategic target, in your own words, longer than one syllable.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 1, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> There were plenty of other aircraft readily availble. If 9th AF brass had anything against the A-20 it would of been gone prior to D Day, it would of got dumped the same way the P-38 was taken out of service. BTW the A-26 was designed to replace the A-20, this taking place when Edward Heinemann and Robert Donovan came up with an unsolicited proposal in 1941 for a replacement for not only the A-20, but the B-25 and the B-26.



The 9th wanted any plane it could get. In this case they got a good plane that was the designed for a doctrine that was no longer valid. The A20 was a fine plane, it just didnt have a role for it.



> The plan was to replace the A-20 long before and was actually instigated by Douglas. The 9th AF continued to operate the A-20 because it was effective, a good flying airplane and it fulfilled its mission - just ask the guys at Bastonge when A-20s of the 410th BG helped flatten convoys in and around the Ardennes during the Battle of the Bulge, the 410th BG got a Distinguished Unit Citation for its participation. BTW the A-20 bomb groups of the 9th AF were one of the only (and probably the only) US bomb group to perform their mission at night... By far the A-20 didn't win the war in Europe but to say they were ineffective is nonsense.



Good for the 410th. Too bad they didnt have A26's as they could have done even more. And the 9th would have replaced its final A20 group with A26's had the war gone on for a bit longer. Think of that, 3 A20 groups to start and the 9th thought so highly of it, they converted 2 groups to A26's.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 1, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> Agreed 100%.... Syscom will not admit he is wrong about any of this.... Its rather disturbing actually...



I look at the bottom line. It was among the first to be replaced by A26's. 

If the A20's were so effective, why didnt the 9th and 12th relace their b26's first?


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 1, 2006)

k9kiwi said:


> Getting back to the original premise of this thread.
> 
> Syscom
> 
> Could you please provide the difference between a Tactical and a Strategic target, in your own words, longer than one syllable.



I will tomorrow. Im going to bed. (that is seven words and 25 letters)


----------



## plan_D (Aug 1, 2006)

_"And the Mosquito is more a fighter bomber than a light attack bomber. And all plan_D has proven is a few mosquito's flew to Berlin, (at night no doubt) but never did they go in a mass raid on a worthwhile tactical target east of the Rhine. (Sorry Plan_D, coastal targets dont cut it, it has to be welll within german borders)."_

How is a Mosquito with no guns a fighter-bomber? 

You stated that no medium bomber or light bomber raided east of the Rhine before late 1944. The Mosquito did. You never mentioned what targets were supposed to be attacked. And since I mentioned the Mosquito was the first to raid Berlin by daylight, it wasn't always at night. And Berlin couldn't be much further into German borders! 

So, syscom, from the original statement of no medium or light bombers crossed the Rhine before late 1944 it has changed to no medium or light bombers crossed between 1941 - 1943 by daylight, the Mosquito doesn't count, and nor does Berlin or coastal targets. 

Basically everyone, when syscom said no light or medium bombers crossed the Rhine before late 1944 he meant: "No US 9th Air Force A-20s or B-26s bombed Nurnberg on 19th August, 1943" And this proves his point that A-20s were useless.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 1, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I'm not french and have no desire to give it up.








syscom3 said:


> Exactly what I say about you



Its not worth argueing over with you anymore anyhow.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 1, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> And what german field was that?
> 
> Sounds like it was A20's attacking german airfields in occupied France.



Dont know, I dont have any other info on that.

Basically what I am saying is this:

There are more to tactical bombing than bombing airfields and rail yards. Tactical bombing includes attacking strategic targets such as damns, docks, tank formations, bunkers, etc....

Tactical bombing by light bombers and medium bombers successfully helped win the war. No matter how you put it and no matter how much you disagree, you are wrong.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 1, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> yes he has some good facts at his disposal. but not all of them.



And neither do you, atleast you have not shown any in this thread. 





syscom3 said:


> Ive admitted Ive been wrong before.



Except in this one. 

Thats okay I am tired of looking up facts that you just discredit because they disprove your ideas.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 1, 2006)

plan_D said:


> Of course the Mosquito went to Berlin during the day, it was the first Allied bomber to raid Berlin in daylight!



Yeap I gave him one source. He obviously did not read it as most things that others post. The raid by the mosquitos that I posted to Berlin for the Nazi party rally was during a Nazi party rally during the day and was timed for when Goering was to give his speech.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 1, 2006)

Basically syscom knows he is wrong. He has no idea what tactical warfare is. He has been proven wrong on all accounts by everyone in this thread but he will not waiver. I will give him that, he is as stubborn as an ox!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 1, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Good for the 410th. Too bad they didnt have A26's as they could have done even more..


And if they flew B-29s that would of been better?!?!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 1, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I look at the bottom line. It was among the first to be replaced by A26's.
> 
> If the A20's were so effective, why didnt the 9th and 12th relace their b26's first?


Because the the A-26 was earmarked to first replace A-20, not only by the AAF, but the manufacturer, that was a selling point of the A-26 which Douglas supported.

No ones denying the A-26 was a better aircraft than the A-20. I think whats missing here is your understanding of the role of a light bomber in a tactical role.

"Ninth Air Force began official operations in November 1942, when, at the height of the campaign to defend Egypt and the Suez Canal, it was decided to consolidate all of the aircraft in theatre under one command. Equipped with P-40s, B-17s and B-24s, the new air forces supported allied operations in North Africa, Sicily, and Italy before relocating to England. Reactivating in England in October 1943, 9th Air Force took over medium bomber units from 8th Air Force and added P-38, P-47 and troop carrier groups. On D-Day, June 6, 1944, 9th Air Force provided tactical air support for the Normandy landings, flying some 3,500 aircraft. At this time, 9th Air Force was the largest tactical air force ever assembled.

Providing air cover for the advance of the Third Army sweep through France into Germany, one of its key missions was the defense of allied forces during the Battle of the Bulge. During this time, 9th Air Force flew 5,291 sorties to help blunt the German attack besieging the town of Bastogne."

Ninth Air Force

Here some more to chew on....

"History 
Constituted as 409th Bombardment Group (Light) on 1 Jun 1943 and activated the same day. Used A-20's in preparing for duty overseas. Moved to England, Feb-Mar 1944, and assigned to Ninth AF. Bombed coastal defenses, V-weapon sites, airdromes, and other targets in France, Apr-Jun 1944, in preparation for the invasion of Normandy. Supported ground forces during the Normandy campaign by hitting gun batteries, rail lines, bridges, communications, and other objectives. During Jul 1944, aided the Allied offensive at Caen and the breakthrough at St Lo with attacks on enemy troops, flak positions, fortified villages, and supply dumps. Supported Third Army's advance toward Germany, Aug-Nov 1944, operating from bases in France beginning in Sep. Converted to A-26 aircraft in Dec and participated in the Battle of the Bulge (Dec 1944-Jan 1945) by attacking lines of communication and supply. Continued to operate against targets in Germany until May 1945. Flew last mission on 3 May, attacking an ammunition dump in Czechoslovakia. Returned to the US, Jun-Aug 1945. Inactivated on 7 Nov 1945. 


History 
Constituted as 410th Bombardment Group (Light) on 16 Jun 1943. Activated on 1 Jul 1943. Trained with A-20's. Moved to England, Mar-Apr 1944, and assigned to Ninth AF. Entered combat in May 1944 and helped to prepare for the invasion of Normandy by assaulting coastal defenses, airfields, and V-weapon sites in France, and marshalling yards in France and Belgium. Supported the invasion in Jun by bombing gun positions and railway choke points. Assisted ground forces at Caen and St Lo in Jul and at Brest in Aug and Sep by attacking bridges, vehicles, fuel and ammunition dumps, and rail lines. Moved to France in Sep, and through mid-Dec struck defended villages, railroad bridges and overpasses, marshalling yards, military camps, and communications centers to support the Allied assault on the Siegfried Line. Participated in the Battle of the Bulge, Dec 1944-Jan 1945, by pounding marshalling yards, railheads, bridges, and vehicles in the battle area. Received a DUC for the effectiveness of its bombing in the Ardennes, 23-25 Dec 1944, when the group made numerous attacks on enemy lines of communications. Flew several night missions in Feb 1945, using B-26's as flare planes, an A-26 for target marking, *and A-20's to bomb the objectives*. Continued to fly support and interdictory missions, aiding the drive across the Rhine and into Germany, Feb-Apr 1945. Converted to A-26 aircraft, but the war ended before the group was ready to fly them in combat. Returned to the US, Jun-Aug 1945. Inactivated on 7 Nov 1945." 

Army Air Forces:410th*Bombardment (Light)

BTW as a reminder, the 410th BG was one of most effectives bomb groups in the whole ETO AAF, again I quote...

"In April 1945 the 410th record was the best ever. A total of 65 superior or excellent bombing ratings were attained. Another first was for this unit was that it was the only combat Bomb group in the USAAF during WWII, fully trained, equipped with modified aircraft,and manned to fly both day and night missions, using precision bombing techniques. *Another remarkable record is that of 9,648 combat sorties flown, only 185 mechanical failures occurred." *
They has a 45% target hit rate - a tribute to the men AND THE AIRCRAFT! Again far from ineffective....


----------



## plan_D (Aug 1, 2006)

Crews in the 2nd TAF enjoyed flying the Boston because it handled well, and was faster than the Mitchell. It was a perfect plane for the RAFs tactics of individually picking out targets in the area. The Boston was often used like a dive bomber, or fighter-bomber at target.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 1, 2006)

No Way pD! That can not be true or work because light and medium bombers were 100% worthless in WW2!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 1, 2006)

More for the fire....

"The 9th AF with medium and *light bombers *and fighters conducted *tactical *bombing against the enemies war machine: Combat troops, acft, tanks, guns, rail, and road transportation, airfields, fuel and ordnance dumps, etc. 

The 9th AF was actiivated in 1942 in North Africa and reformed in UK in OCT. 1943. Its mission was given 3 priorities: 

1-- To gain and maintain air superiorty. 

2--To disrupt enemy lines of Transportation and communication. 

3--To destroy enemy troops and material in cooperation with ground forces. 

The 9th AF was also charged with providing troop carrier, recon and photo acft as well as air defense protection of all areas except forward battle lines. 

Last but not least the 9th AF combat engineers constructed or rehabilitated air- fields required in both rear and forward areas. 

The command structure to accomplish this awesome task was: 

11 grps. of B-26, A-20, A-26 bombers--Each grp. had approx. 70 acft. 

18 grps. of P-47, P-38 and P-51 fighters 

2 grps. of F-5, F-6 recon acft. 

14 grps. of C-47, C-46 troop carrier supply acft.along with Horsa gliders. 

4 Regiments of Combat Engineers. 

5 AAA Air Defense Battalions plus airwarning groups. 

To give you a perspective on the size of the 9th AF--over 30,000 acft. were dispatched during the month of June 1944. On D-DAY over 3,000 acft. dropped almost 2 million pds. of bombs on enemy targets. 

Thru-out the war the 9th averaged over 2,000 sorties or single acft. strikes per day."


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 1, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And if they flew B-29s that would of been better?!?!



No. The B29 was a strategic bomber. Too many resources would have been expended to fly them to bomb low value targets.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 1, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Because the the A-26 was earmarked to first replace A-20, not only by the AAF, but the manufacturer, that was a selling point of the A-26 which Douglas supported.
> 
> No ones denying the A-26 was a better aircraft than the A-20. I think whats missing here is your understanding of the role of a light bomber in a tactical role.
> 
> ...




All that proves is they flew A20's, bombed their targets. And they could have been even more effective by using B26's (or B25's)


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 1, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> More for the fire....
> 
> "The 9th AF with medium and *light bombers *and fighters conducted *tactical *bombing against the enemies war machine: Combat troops, acft, tanks, guns, rail, and road transportation, airfields, fuel and ordnance dumps, etc.
> 
> ...



I never said the 9th AF was useless. Where did you get that idea?

The 9th could have converted those three A20 groups to B26's, or one of the fighter bombers, and been far better than what the A20's were.

When the decision to convert to A26's was made, the 9th and 12th looked at what airplaneswere underperforming and the light bombers were it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 1, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I never said the 9th AF was useless. Where did you get that idea?


 I never said you said that. We're talkng A-20 here....


syscom3 said:


> The 9thcould have converted those three A20 groups to B26's, or one of the fighter bombers AND BEEN EVEN MORE EFFECTIVE!


That's you're opinion. Based on the numbers and data shown the B-26 did not have the bombing accuracy or the reliability of the A-20. 


syscom3 said:


> When the decision to convert to A26's was made, the 9th and 12th looked at what airplaneswere underperforming and the light bombers were it.


Again, your opinion and it seems you have nothing to back it up with. Show us documentation that the 9th AF was dis-satisfied with the A-20!!! I've provided data to show the opposite. The only reason why the A-20 was being replaced was Douglas had the A-26 planned as an A-20 replacement in 1941 and during it's whole development that was its target. There in no denying the fact that the A-26 was a better aircraft, it was designed to perform better than the A-20 from the outset! You're ignoring the fact that based on it's 9th AF combat record the A-20 was far from "underperforming" and with the 410BG it sported the most accurate bombing ability in the whole 9th AF and possibly in the whole USAAF ETO!!! Even as the 9th AF were getting A-26s operational I shown that operationally they used all 3 for specific requirements.

Again you've shown nothing to indicate that operationally the A-20 was "underperforming," in fact the opposite is turning out to be the truth!!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 1, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Too many resources would have been expended to fly them to bomb low value targets.


And that's precisely why the A-20 was utilized. A twin engine light bomber that was fast, accurate and easy to maintain, it fit it's role perfectly and its apparent it accomplish it "above expectations."


----------



## plan_D (Aug 1, 2006)

Thank you, Joe, for providing the first piece of extensive information on the US Ninth Air Force on this thread. I've been waiting for it from the start. If I were at home I could back up the usage of the Boston in 2nd TAF service. And I will do as soon as the oppurtunity arises, and I get home and research further into my books.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 1, 2006)

plan_D said:


> Thank you, Joe, for providing the first piece of extensive information on the US Ninth Air Force on this thread. I've been waiting for it from the start. If I were at home I could back up the usage of the Boston in 2nd TAF service. And I will do as soon as the oppurtunity arises, and I get home and research further into my books.


My pleasure! It seems the 409th and 410th BGs were sh*t hot and did their job extremely well. There seems to be no indication that the 9th AF command was dis-satisfied with the A-20s performance, even as they awaited the arrival of the A-26. I'd like to see 2nd TAF data on the A-20 (Boston) as it compares to the 9th AF....


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 1, 2006)

Good information Joe


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 1, 2006)

Of all the bomb groups in the 9th and 12th AF''s, seems like the A20's were chosen to be converted faster than the other groups.

And of course, after WW2, the multi-engined light bomber concept dissapeared from the AF.

The P38's and P47's were inherintly better than the A20's as they were multi-role, could dive bomb for better accuracy and carried a fair sized payload.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 1, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Of all the bomb groups in the 9th and 12th AF''s, seems like the A20's were chosen to be converted faster than the other groups.


Becuase that was the plan from the get go....


syscom3 said:


> And of course, after WW2, the multi-engined light bomber concept dissapeared from the AF.


Yes it did, along with other WW2 air combat doctrine that would no longer be valid in the jet age.


syscom3 said:


> The P38's and P47's were inherintly better than the A20's as they were multi-role, could dive bomb for better accuracy and carried a fair sized payload.


But you have nothing to prove that with! I've already shown that the 410th BG was probably the most accurate BG in the whole ETO! Neither the P-47 or the P-38 accomplished their mission at night, had the capability of carrying extra radio, radar or navigation equipment without major modification and only the P-38 could offer the twin engine safety factor of its lay out but then again the A-20 had recips in lieu of in-line engines, an argument you brought up before about the Lanc and B-24!!! I also see you're skirting the issue, you once again CANNOT prove that anyone wasn't satisfied with the A-20 or that it was "underperforming."


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 1, 2006)

From Wikipedia....

"When DB-7 series production finally ended on September 20, 1944, a total of 7,098 had been built by Douglas and a further 380 by Boeing. It had an excellent reputation due to its high speed and good manoeuvrability, and ex-pilots often consider it their favorite aircraft of the War. Many consider its only weakness to be its limited range.

*Some military historians consider it the third most important twin-engined aircraft of World War II, behind the Ju-88 and Mosquito.* This is probably due to its extensive use by the Soviets, yet the DB-7 remains largely unknown."

UNDERPERFORMING?!?!?


----------



## Glider (Aug 1, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Of all the bomb groups in the 9th and 12th AF''s, seems like the A20's were chosen to be converted faster than the other groups.
> 
> And of course, after WW2, the multi-engined light bomber concept dissapeared from the AF.
> 
> The P38's and P47's were inherintly better than the A20's as they were multi-role, could dive bomb for better accuracy and carried a fair sized payload.



The P38 and P47 were inherrently worse for the role undertaken by the Boston, in that they lacked the payload/range. They were different animals for different roles


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 1, 2006)

> The 9thcould have converted those three A20 groups to B26's, or one of the fighter bombers AND BEEN EVEN MORE EFFECTIVE!


Well well, syscom finally admitted it!!!

Whoo Hoo!!!!!!!

By saying they could be even MORE effective, he's implying they WERE effective.... I knew u would finally come to ur senses sys....


----------



## k9kiwi (Aug 1, 2006)

Just a little test for Syscom

Have alook at these 7th PRG target photos and decide which are Strategic and which would be Tactical targets.

v8th OPS S2 Intelligence Section: v7th PhotoRecon Gp, v14th Tac PhotoRecon Sqdn

Also note the size of the airfields, sure as heck not hard to crack a few of those out of service with 3 or 4, Dare I say it, ooohhhhh..

*A-20's*


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 1, 2006)

Those are CGI's arent they?


----------



## k9kiwi (Aug 2, 2006)

At the top of the page it states



> All graphics and images used at this website created for or from the game:
> 
> "B17 - Flying Fortress, The Mighty 8th"



It was worth a laugh.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 2, 2006)

For Joe:

On 1 June, 1943, RAF 2 Group transferred from Bomber Command to Fighter Command. This group controlled all light and medium bombers in Great Britain. This effectively began the re-organisation that would create the 2nd Tactical Air Force. Commanded by Air-Vice Marshal Basil Embry, 2 Group contained ten squadrons of twin-engined bombers. 

The order of battle on 1 June, 1943, was:

98 Sqdn. and 180 Sqdn. operating the Mitchell Mk.II from Foulsham.
320 (Dutch) Sqdn. operating the Mitchell Mk.II from Attlebridge.
226 Sqdn. re-equipping with Mitchell Mk.II at Swanton Morley. 
88 Sqdn. operating Boston Mk.IIIA from Swanton Morley.
107 Sqdn. operating Boston Mk.IIIA from Great Massingham.
342 (Free French) Sqdn. operating Boston Mk.IIIA from Sculthorpe.
21 Sqdn. operating Ventura Mk.I from Oulton.
464 (RAAF) Sqdn. and 487 (RNZAF) Sqdn. operating Ventura Mk.I from Methwold.

The Ventura was deemed unfit for front-line service and an early re-equipment was planned. 464 (RAAF) and 487 (RNZAF) squadrons moved to Sculthorpe in July where they re-equipped with the Mosquito FB.VI. 
While the Boston IIIA carried less of a payload (often 1,000 lbs, maximum 2,000 lbs), the faster speed and improved handling over the Mitchell made it more useful as an attack aircraft. 

10 June, 1943, 107 squadron send twelve Bostons to Gosnay power station in Belgium. Considerable damage was achieved with no loss to the raiding Bostons. 

8 August, 1943, 2 Group sent forty Bostons from 88, 107 and 342 (Free French) squadrons to attack naval stores at Rennes. The raid was deemed a success. Although 88 and 107 squadrons both lost a Boston to FlaK when leaving the target area. While two more crash landed in Britain after suffering FlaK damage. 

16 August, 1943, 2 Group Bostons went out for another low-level attack. 88, 107 and 342 (Free French) squadrons sent out thirty-seven Bostons between them to attack armament and steel works at Denain, France. Sweeping in low the Bostons reported complete success in destruction of their target. This was confirmed by a Film Production Unit Mosquito that followed the raid. 
JG 2 and JG 26 attacked the raiders as they left the target area. One Boston was seen hit a high-tension electricity cable pylon and crash, while another was seen to hit a tree while trying to evade. Four others were brought down, for a total of six Bostons failing to return. FlaK was believed to be the cause, however JG 2 claimed four Bostons and 11./JG 26 claimed another two. The latter claims were made at 30 feet! 

27 August, 1943, 107 squadron send six Bostons to attack Gosnay power station. Over target F/O Allison's Boston is hit by FlaK, on the way out this plane collided with F/O Rankin's plane causing both to crash near Lilliers. Another Boston (Pilot: F/O W.W Locke - KIA) failed to return after Fw 190s attacked the formation. 

I'll try and find some pilot accounts, I have all three volumes on 2nd TAF so I might get something. 88 and 342 (Free French) operated the Boston IIIA and IV right until the end of the war.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 2, 2006)

Great info D! From what I have found it seems the A-20 had the best safety record in the ETO for twin engine aircraft until late in the war when the B-26 overtook her after having its share of problems. It seems the A-20s would come in low and fast with limited numbers, taking out the specific target(s). It seems the RAF and USAAF used the same tactics when deploying them.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 2, 2006)

Yea Joe, the A-20 tactics are right on the money.... We sure are proving that the A-20 wasnt useless, and that it accomplished its job effectively, accuratly and safely....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 2, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> Yea Joe, the A-20 tactics are right on the money.... We sure are proving that the A-20 wasnt useless, and that it accomplished its job effectively, accuratly and safely....


YEP!! As I posted earlier, 9th AF A-20s flew several night missions in Feb 1945, using B-26's as flare planes, an A-26 for target marking, and the A-20s to bomb the objectives. And this aircraft was supposed to be underperforming?? HA!


----------



## plan_D (Aug 2, 2006)

The major point was the 107 squadron raids on Gosnay power station. The first raid of twelve planes must have achieved something near complete destruction. Because they didn't need to return for two months, and when they returned it was only with six planes. The power station was obviously not fully running again but the RAF wanted to keep it out of action. 

I haven't been keeping a keen eye out but I haven't found any other sortie to Gosnay power station. 

I have a few raids on a power station in Langebrugge, it seems like it was a tough target. Because it was raided by Mitchells and Bostons on several occasions, very close together. I'll get the details together for that one.


----------



## k9kiwi (Aug 2, 2006)

Tactical strikes by Mosquitos.

As Described by Eileen Younghusband, a WAAF RADAR Filter Officer.



> However, the excitement of the work we were doing made up for a lot. The days were divided into four watches with two of us on each, working together with two WAAF sergeants. As the sightings from the RADAR units came in, we plotted the information and had to calculate and extrapolate the trajectory of the rocket's path back to its launching sight. Speed was of the essence. We had to do it in less than five minutes. The mark 4 rockets were launched from mobile launch pads, two at a time. From the moment of launch, it took only ten minutes before the launch vehicles were ready to move off to another location. This allowed us up to 5 minutes to work out the estimated launch site and have it analysed. We didn't have the luxury of calculators, let alone computers - only pencils and paper and slide rules. The information was passed on to the Mosquito aircraft. They were equipped with torpedo type bombs and patrolled in sections constantly over the likely launch areas in NE Holland. Given the possible location, they were able to target and destroy the launchers.
> 
> Not all the RADAR information or our calculations were completely accurate but the operation was a great success. By the end of the following March most of the launching vehicles had been destroyed and there were no replacements. Hitler's forces had many more warheads available but no more vehicles to launch them.



From
The Wartime Memories Project- The Women's Auxilliary Air Force, WAAF

So Tactical strikes apparently have their place.


----------



## Glider (Aug 2, 2006)

Syscom. Is this a good time to remind you of accusing us who used slide rules for serious work of Fudging the results!!!

Excellent quote K9kiwi


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 3, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I also see you're skirting the issue, you once again CANNOT prove that anyone wasn't satisfied with the A-20 or that it was "underperforming."



FBJ Thanks for the info. It will do no good, because he has been skirting the issue from the beginning. I gave up after the 1st or 2nd page to try and argue with him.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 3, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> YEP!! As I posted earlier, 9th AF A-20s flew several night missions in Feb 1945, using B-26's as flare planes, an A-26 for target marking, and the A-20s to bomb the objectives. And this aircraft was supposed to be underperforming?? HA!



Come on guys, give him a break. He is the all knowing being remember!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 3, 2006)

I think this all showed that a capable light bomber with a limited bomb load was more than capable of performing precision tactical strikes and the A-20 was probably one og the best of them...


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 3, 2006)

Nah, the A-20 and tactical strikes by light bombers were useless....

Right syscom???


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 3, 2006)

They were a waste of time and effort (light bombers)

Better to have a fighter bomber or a medium bomber.


----------



## k9kiwi (Aug 3, 2006)

Syscom

help yourself.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 3, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> They were a waste of time and effort (light bombers)
> 
> Better to have a fighter bomber or a medium bomber.



Yep tell that to these guys...(see below)

I bet if you were on the Titanic you'd grab snowshoes!


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 3, 2006)

OMG I can't believe this thread is still going on.  

Joe you building up calluses on your finger tips from providing so much information / proof to syscom???

Syscom don't you ever get tired of beating the same dead horse??? Just drop it already. 

God I can't believe syscom that you won't just drop it. Syscom why can't you just say ok PlanD / Joe your are right or at the very least say ok lets agree to disagree. Syscom do you work for a living? How do you spend so much time on this forum arguing about this subject! You have more spare time to spend on this thread than I have to spend doing anything on my computer. You seem to have the life.  

Syscom wakes up at 7am signs on to WW2aircraft.net and then spends the next 15 hours typing or thinking what to say on this thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

Ok now I will say sorry to all for my little rant about this thread and subject. I'm going to shove a pen in my eye now so I stop thinking about this thread. At this rate I am going to be totally bald from pulling my hair b/c of reading syscom's posts!!!!  

No offense meant syscom, but my wife is asking you to stop posting on this thread b/c she likes and wants me to keep my hair. Stop already.


----------



## k9kiwi (Aug 3, 2006)

> "Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?"



"Copilot to pilot..... Thats not a goat, its syscom3 looking for a better angle."


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 4, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think this all showed that a capable light bomber with a limited bomb load was more than capable of performing precision tactical strikes and the A-20 was probably one og the best of them...



Yeap and everyone who knows anything and has done some research and reading about WW2 tactical operations knows that.

Thanks anyhow for all the info that you put.

For me this case is closed, syscom can keep dwelling in his little world of dillusion.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 4, 2006)

Hunter please make your siggy smaller. That is way too big.


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 4, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Hunter please make your siggy smaller. That is way too big.




Ask and you shall receive.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 4, 2006)

Thankyou


----------



## plan_D (Aug 6, 2006)

Now, it's plain for all to see that syscom is wrong on his assumption that light bombers are "useless". 

I have recently received the only full history of the US Ninth Air Force in World War II. *The 9th Air Force in World War II* by Kenn C. Rust (1967 - Aero Publishers Inc.) I've only read up to the the Ninth operations in the North African desert in support of the British 8th Army. 

The story of the U.S Ninth began when twenty-three B-24D Liberators landed in the Middle-East. These planes belonged to Halverson Detachment (CO Col. Harry A. Halverson) which was on it's way to China with the plan to attack Japan from airfields there. 
The planes were held-up in the Middle-East by an order to attack the Ploesti oil refineries in Romania, the largest supplier of oil to the Axis war machine. On 11 June thirteen Liberators took off from Fayid, Egypt arriving individually over target at dawn on the 12th. Ten bombers the Astra Romana Refinery at Ploesti, one attacked the port at Constanta and two dropped bombs on other unidentified targets. This was the first mission of planes that would become part of the US Ninth Air Force later in the year. 

HALPRO (Codename for Halverson Detachment) was then ordered to stay in the Middle-East as the only force capable of striking the Afrika Korps supply line at it's head. They attacked the supply ships in open sea, and in the ports of Tobruk and Benghazi throughout June. 

On 28 June, they attacked motor transport and tanks on the Sollum-Matrah Road. The emergency of the situation was so great, these heavy bombers were at times thrown into the tactical role. On the same day seven B-17E bombers arrived at Fayid, these were from the 9th Bomb Squadron, 7th Bomb Group. The squadron had arrived from the India where it had been fighting the Japanese. The commanding officer, Major-General Lewis H. Brereton, was placed in command of the United States Army Middle-East Air Force (USAMEAF). 

Both the B-17s and B-24s joined up starting in July to continue their attacks on the Axis shipping. On the 5th, five more B-17Es arrived from 9th Bomb Squadron and 436th Bomb Squadron. On 20 July, 1942, the heavy bomber forces in the Middle-East were formed into the First Provisional Group based at Lydda, Palestine. This consisted of the Halverson (B-24Ds) and Brereton (B-17Es) squadrons. This group and RAF 160 Squadron (with Liberators) were the only heavy bombers in the theatre. 

During July three new groups began moving toward the Middle-East, these were 98th Bomb Group (Heavy), 57th Fighter Group and 12th Bomb Group (Medium) equipped with B-24D, P-40F and B-25C respectively. The first mission by any of these groups was on 1 August, 1942 when seven B-24s from 344th Bomb Squadron (98th BG) attacked Mersa Matruh. 

The 98th BG had fully deployed by 20 August, and had brought 34 B-24s to the theatre (35 were sent, but one was lost on route with it's crew). 

57th FG arrived in full on 17 August, but had started operations before then. It had brought 72 P-40F Warhawks to the Mid-East, which were mostly brought across aboard USS Ranger. 

The 12th BG arrived last, fully forming on 18 August but flew it's first mission on the 16th. This group brought 57 B-25C Mitchells to the Mid-East. 

This expansion was just the start of the Ninth Air Force, which was officially named on 12 November, 1942. I will continue the history tomorrow or later, as I have to go. Next - how the RAF taught the AAF in the desert...


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 6, 2006)

BTW, k9Kiwi, 







THAT was some funny sh*t man....


----------



## Wildcat (Aug 6, 2006)

Great info D.


----------



## Gnomey (Aug 6, 2006)

Good stuff D!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 7, 2006)

Yeap good stuff D.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 14, 2007)

I've finally finished reading the U.S Ninth Air Force by Kenn C. Rust, and am dedicating extensive time to reading the history of 2 Group '36 - '45 by Micheal Bowyer...

I thought I would revive this thread, but not just for tactical strikes, but the tactical operations of all the air forces...

In case no one is aware, 2 Group was the tactical arm of the RAF ... it was the core of 2nd TAF, but was in combat from day one, penertrating German airspace on 3rd Sept. and making the first RAF bombing raid against _Admiral Scheer_ on 4th Sept. 1939. I've just finished reading the 2 Group operations in support of the B.E.F and French forces from 10th May - 17th June, 1940... very interesting.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 19, 2007)

We always hear about what the Luftwaffe was doing with her tactical bombers, but what about Bomber Command...? Before the Battle of France 2 Group was out mostly doing recon over Germany or attacking German warships in Wilhelmshaven or Brunsbuttel... with the odd attack on Danish airfields. They'd fly out with their Blenheim IVs (mix thoughts on these from the pilots) from East Anglia on long flights up to 4 hours ...where cold was the worst enemy, and the Luftwaffe made a few shows. 

When Germany invaded France the stakes were high and 2 Group suffered. The first sorties of 10th May were from two Blenheims of 40 Sqdn. flown by Sqn. Ldr. Paddon and Flg. Off. Burns. They took off from RAF Wyton at 09.05 hours for a reconnaissance of the Hague area... they found much of the Luftwaffe and drove off a Ju 88. Burns failed to return and as Paddon touched down his Blenheims' damaged engine burst into flames. 

The second mission of the day took off at 14.15 hours, it was XV Sqn. from RAF Wyton dispatching nine Blenheims to bomb Waalhaven, a Dutch airfield held by Fallschirmjager. Starting from 3000 feet the Blenheims began a shallow diving attack, they claimed hits on a dozen aircraft. Hangars were bombed and seven Ju 52s left ablaze. They also bombed a line of German AA _already_ in action! All returned, but with damage. 

Sqn. Ldr. then led 12 Blenheims from 40 Sqn. against Ypenburg airfield, craters were all over the airfield and a hangar left ablaze. Two crews failed to return. 

110 Sqn. dispatched 12 Blenheim IVs from RAF Wattisham led by Sqn. Ldr. Sabine to destroy Ju 52s on a beach north of The Hague. The flight was escorted by six Blenheim IF fighters of 600 Sqn. They attacked the beach as planned and one Ju 52 was lifted off the beach from the explosions!

Finally an evening recon by two aircraft of 21 Sqn. over the Nijmegen-Rhein-Munster-Verhlk area showed the German advance to be fluid and fast. 

*11 May* - the BEF have made line on the River Dyle and are digging in.

11 Blenheims are dispatched by 21 Sqn. at 15.10 to halt German movement toward Maastricht. They'd been at readiness since 04.30 hours but intelligence was poor as the German advance was so fast. They attacked the main bridge but only damaged it. 

_"...led by Scottie Pryde who chose to circle a before leading us in, with the result that when we did start running in we were in the middle of the biggest barrage I could possibly imagine. I do not know to this day how some of us ever got through it for there didn't seem an inch of sky that was not cover with flak."_ - Peter Sarll.

Only one Blenheim returned unscathed, one went down burning and another fell into German hands - with two of its crew becoming POWs and the third dying.

110 Sqn. also operated 11 Blenheims that day, led by Flt. Lt. Gratton who was shot down over Maastricht along with another Blenheim piloted by Sgt. Bennett. Three Blenheims returned unharmed.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 19, 2007)

Sorry for interrupting gentlemen. Still learning and all that. BUT, would they sometime use tactical bombraids to take out several airfields, to keep field and aircrews with their aircratfs grounded and busy with repairs? All this before the strategic bombers passed over somewhat safer?
As I said still learning after a few years absence....
So I guess that the bombings of those Gestapo HQ's in Norway, Denmark and was it Holland, the Phillps factory and the Amiens prisons all classifies as tactical then?


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 19, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And I can find real and good beer anywhere in the world as well, and no matter where you find your Bud in the world it is crap!



Extra Cold Guinness is GOOD beer.....!


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 19, 2007)

Plan_D, dont forget my ongoing thread on "this day in the war".

If you see something worth posting, please do.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 23, 2007)

All those you mention are tactical strikes, Lucky. Any attack on a HQ is certainly a tactical attack. I'm not sure if any raids were made by the tactical forces against airfields to clear the sky for the strategic bombers; however there were diversions and 2 Group was used for sometime to divert the JagdWaffe back to German homeland...but that was a strategic call.
In the _Channel Stop_ operations, the RAF dispatched Blenheims, Hurricane IIC and Spitfires to attack shipping...

The Hurricane IICs would attack the FlaK ships to keep the AA low while the Blenheims attacked the main targets and Spitfires flew top cover; the Hurricanes were IIC because they were cannon armed and more deadly. One thing that is very rarely mentioned is the RAF assault on German shipping during 1941-1942 ... the Germans were feeling it, and were trying frantically to find ways to stop it. The cost was high for 2 Group, however...and eventually it was all handed over to Fighter and Coastal Commands. I will continue with my French "adventure" for 2 Group later...I'm in college now, just in finished my assignment on AC single phase circuits ... and I will add anythin' syscom, when if I find it.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 26, 2007)

*12th May, 1940* - 08.10 Hours, Wg. Cdr. B. E. Embry leads twelve Blenheims of 107 Sqdn. to the bridges at Maastricht. The Wehrmacht were already pouring over them, and bridges over Albert Canal had also been seized by aerial assault. Heavy flak was encountered fifteen miles from target; eleven aircraft were hit and Plt. Off. Thornton was shot down. 
The formation then broke formation under the intense barrage and were pounced by Bf 109s that were laying in wait. Flg. Off. Rotherham was engaged and had to set down in Belgium. Flg. Off. Edwards and Plt. Off. Keedwell were shot down before the formation closed again for mutual protection. Two enemy fighters were claimed as probables, and the bridge damaged. 

Next twelve aircraft of XV Sqdn. assault Maastricht to block the roads and destroy bridges over the Albert Canal. Hurricanes circled the target for protection but as the Blenheims closed on target at 09.15 they came under heavy fire and broke formation. Once again Bf 109s dived upon the formation of Hurricanes and Blenheims with deadly effect; six Blenheims were damaged and six were shot down; only two of those damaged were servicable - XV Sqdn. was practically wiped out. 

110 Sqdn. were next; claiming damage to a bridge and one enemy fighter destroyed for two Blenheims destroyed, and eight damaged. 

82 Sqdn. took off at 19.30 Hours to crater the road running along Albert Canal, all bombers returned and the road was damaged. 

A.A.S.F Battles were also busy during the day against two bridges; but were halted by flak and fighters on all attempts. 

The final raid of the day was from 21 Sqdn. Nine Blenheims bombed the road in Tongres at 20.40 hours, the target was hit but flak destroyed the tail section of Flt. Lt. Watsons' Blenheim (L8739) which crashed into the ground. The rest landed at RAF Wyton at 23.00 hours. 

The day had cost 2 Group 12 Blenheims destroyed and many others unservicable.

*13th May, 1940* - 2 Group flew no sorties, weather was unfavourable. The Wehrmacht crossed the Meuse at Dinant and Sedan; the French Army fell back under heavy bombardment from the Luftwaffe.


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2007)

*14th May, 1940*

The day started with an Advanced Air Striking Force assault on the Meuse crossing at Sedan. This was followed by a request from the French to attack across the fifteen mile wide front at the Meuse; it led to disaster. 40 AASF machines were destroyed out of 71 despatched, the Luftwaffe fighters had a field day. 

2 Group started the day despatching 82 Sqdn. in aid of the French 7th Army. They attacked the east road of Breda and railway leading to Tilburg. Flak upset their aim but the Blenheims hit crossroads and fell houses. 

Next up was 21, 107 and 110 Sqdns. to attack Sedan after the disaster by the AASF. 28 crews were despatched with fighter escort. Six Blenheims of 107 Sqdn. attacked first at low level, all were hit by flak but survived. Then twelve of 110 Sqdn. attacked but were broken up by the flak, as they split the Luftwaffe piled in to shoot down five. 21 Sqdn. then went in to attack, after bombing the squadron was bounced by Bf 109s and a Blenheim was soon going down. As the Blenheims tried to reform; the Bf 109s kept pressure on and another Blenheim was soon tumbling down. 
The final two Blenheims were still under attack, and the lead went down below the clouds (it did return to England suffering extensive damage, a lot said for the ruggedness of the Blenheim). The final Blenheim was piloted by Flg. Off. Sarll. 

The gunner, Lightfoot, had an explosive shell in his shoulder. The hydraulics were shot away and the Blenheim was only running on 1.5 engines. The enemy fighters turned away; and the Blenheim made a self-confessed bad landing;

_"How I returned to base I shall never know, but with a 109 to Lightfoot's credit, a very bad landing to mine, we made it to the green fields of Norfolk again."_

The French forces were withdrawing in the Gembloux gap now, and the BEF had to withdraw to the west of the river Dyle; destroying its bridges. The British line had held throughout the day and the withdrawal was simply to maintain the line that had collapsed in the south.


----------

