# Bomber Question



## Zipper730 (May 26, 2021)

Was the term "light bomber" used informally or formally by the allied side? I'm curious because I've heard the Airco DH.4 referred to as a day-bomber & general purpose aircraft and, while I'm not sure if it was referred to informally or formally as a light-bomber, it was sometimes described as such post-war at the minimum.


----------



## Glider (May 26, 2021)

I don't think the terminology had settled down in WW1. A DH4 and DH9 carried quite a heavy bombload for WW1 so I would be surprised to see them referred to as light bombers . It didn't match the HP 0400 or the German Gotha's which would be the heavy bombers of the period.

A lot of aircraft in the RFC/RAF got by with a varied selection of 20pd bombs. 

Soon after the war technology continued to improve and I can see the DH4/DH9 being called light bombers but not during WW1

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (May 28, 2021)

G
 Glider


About what point would they have been called light-bombers formally or informally by either the US or UK?


----------



## pbehn (May 28, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> G
> Glider
> 
> 
> About what point would they have been called light-bombers formally or informally by either the US or UK?


The only plane I know referred to as a "light bomber" in the WW2 period is the Mosquito, but I dont know if that was actually documented as such. It was light because it was much less than a Wellington, and it was a bomber because it had no defensive armament and no aggressive armament. In the same period as the Mosquito was introduced the Do-17 was classed as a medium bomber and the Typhoon was a fighter bomber although they all had similar bomb loads. 


Edit By the same token the Lancaster and Halifax were medium bombers and the Stirling was the UKs only official "Heavy Bomber". In terms of tonnage the Mosquito as a developed light bomber could drop twice the tonnage of explosives (maybe not bombs) on Berlin, simply because it could do two trips in one night.


----------



## Zipper730 (May 28, 2021)

pbehn said:


> The only plane I know referred to as a "light bomber" in the WW2 period is the Mosquito


I was talking about WWI, and extended it to the period between WWI & WWII in the US & UK


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 28, 2021)

I've never read of "light bomber" being used in WWI terminology.


----------



## pbehn (May 28, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> I was talking about WWI, and extended it to the period between WWI & WWII in the US & UK


In principle it is the same. The WW1 Gotha bomber carried 350KG of bombs the Vickers Vimy carried 1,123Kg but they were both late WW1 "heavy bombers"


----------



## Glider (May 28, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> G
> Glider
> 
> 
> About what point would they have been called light-bombers formally or informally by either the US or UK?



This is a guess but I would say when twin engine bombers came upon the scene. I can see that single engine bombers could then be defined as light bombers. Later on these early twin engine bombers such as the Blenheim became light bombers as the capability of twin engine bombers improved.


----------



## pbehn (May 28, 2021)

Glider said:


> This is a guess but I would say when twin engine bombers came upon the scene. I can see that single engine bombers could then be defined as light bombers. Later on these early twin engine bombers such as the Blenheim became light bombers as the capability of twin engine bombers improved.


There were always twin engined bombers from WW1 era. When you stop counting just engines, a Typhoon with either rockets or bombs could carry more offensive fire power than a Do-17, but it had more horsepower and less crew too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (May 28, 2021)

pbehn said:


> There were always twin engined bombers from WW1 era. When you stop counting just engines, a Typhoon with either rockets or bombs could carry more offensive fire power than a Do-17, but it had more horsepower and less crew too.


True, but when the the Do17 and Hampden were in service in the first couple of years of the war the Battle and Stuka were light bombers. Things developed quickly and by the time the Typhoon and P47 were in service they had to a large degree usurped the Do17, Hampden and Blenheim which in turn were replaced by the Ju88, B25 and B26

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (May 28, 2021)

Terminology was all over the place during the Great War, often without equivalent between each country. This was what was called a 'fighter' in 1915-1916: a two-or-more seat armed reconnaissance aircraft.





RAFM 47

That's why this was called the Bristol Fighter, not because it was used as a fighter, but because it was a two-seater scout reconnaissance aircraft that could also be used as a bomber.




Bristol F.2b ground-1

This is what was our modern understanding of a fighter, but it was called a 'scout'. The US called them 'Pursuits', terminology that stuck around, as we know.




RAFM 49

The French were the first to employ aircraft in units that we regard today as 'fighter' and 'bomber' squadrons. In 1915 they established the first Groupes de Chasse with the sole purpose of seeking German reconnaissance aircraft over their lines and shooting them down. No one else did that until the French began to. The same as their Groupes de Bombardement, equipped with aircraft for offensive operations as opposed to reconnaissance aircraft that could carry bombs, which is what everyone else was doing.




Knights of the Sky 31

The DH.4 fitted into this ethos. The RFC went to war with a mixed bag of aircraft and not very much inspiration of what to do with them. Bombing/close support became a necessity and the DH.4 fit this, but its units weren't strictly speaking 'bomber' squadrons, but their tactical use in support of ground objectives was obvious since it was army controlled.




DH-4

Even with the big twin-engined HP O/100s in use by the Royal Naval Air Service didn't change the specifics; DH.4s and DH.9s were tactical bombers but also served as recon platforms. The RNAS had a more strategic role and used small bombers such as the Sopwith Strutter and the big ones such as the O/100s and these were used to attack strategic targets, such as railway junctions, airship sheds, airfields and factories etc, the role of the 'bomber' as we know it, as opposed to close support with the RFC. The RFC did adopt bombers for more strategic roles, but that came about from necessity. The O/400 never saw frontline service with the RFC before it became the RAF in 1918, but the navy had big bombers beforehand and flew bombing operations against Germany.

The Axis countries' forces were similar in that bombers were derived from reconnaissance aircraft and were initially dual role, and strategic operations was initially a navy activity with airships until late 1916/early 1917, when bigger aeroplanes became available to the army air force, such as the Gothas and AEGs, and eventually the Riesenflugzeugen.




Gatow 145

Single engined bombers close to the front were employed in support of ground movements and were, as mentioned above, initially dual role reconnaissance bombers.




LVG C VI

Although we think of the Jastas as typical of German aerial war plans, they were a late war thing and grew from necessity, as well as the intent of the French in deliberately setting out to attack German reconnaissance aircraft. German plans were defensive in nature and from 1915 to around 1917, when better Allied aircraft began to emerge over the frontlines, were designed to hold the line; not venture into enemy territory and especially not to venture forth hunting enemy aircraft. They were designed to shoot down enemy aircraft over German territory - they invented the standing patrol. The concept of hunting units, the 'Flying Circuses' in 1917 changed that, of course. The Germans were playing the long game. They took territory and intended on holding onto it, so that defined how they used their equipment.




Fok Dr I-2

So, differentiating between roles was not always clear cut in terms of the type of aircraft used, but in terms of role of the unit and relationship to the forces being engaged, definitely. 'Light' and 'heavy bombers' were not a thing, even though that's how we might refer to them today, but there were bomber squadrons, reconnaissance squadrons, bomber reconnaissance squadrons etc depending on what time during the war we are talking about.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
3 | Like Like:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (May 29, 2021)

Wonderful post!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (May 29, 2021)

nuuumannn




> 'Light' and 'heavy bombers' were not a thing, even though that's how we might refer to them today, but there were bomber squadrons, reconnaissance squadrons, bomber reconnaissance squadrons etc depending on what time during the war we are talking about.


So that came after the first World War? That's a good starting point, since it appears to be after WWI, and definitely between WWI & WWII.

The post was really fascinating, particularly how the French were the first to pursue squadrons explicitly for aerial combat and aerial bombardment.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 29, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> nuuumannn
> 
> 
> So that came after the first World War? That's a good starting point, since it appears to be after WWI, and definitely between WWI & WWII.
> ...


Please bear in mind that the conflict was in France, they had a serious interest in the outcome.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (May 29, 2021)

pbehn said:


> There were always twin engined bombers from WW1 era. When you stop counting just engines, a Typhoon with either rockets or bombs could carry more offensive fire power than a Do-17, but it had more horsepower and less crew too.




The Typhoon just didn't fly as far as the Do-17, not that the Do-17 was a long range aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MikeMeech (May 30, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> Was the term "light bomber" used informally or formally by the allied side? I'm curious because I've heard the Airco DH.4 referred to as a day-bomber & general purpose aircraft and, while I'm not sure if it was referred to informally or formally as a light-bomber, it was sometimes described as such post-war at the minimum.



Hi

Air-Britain's publication 'The British Aircraft Specification File' gives some detail of the 'formal' terminology, page 15 gives the Air Board's official specification for both the RFC and RNAS as from April 1917:




With the formation of the RAF (page 20) the following specifications are issued:




In both the term Heavy, Medium or Light Bomber is not used, mentions of day, night and the range is. A 'Memorandum on Bomber Operations' dated 17th January, 1918 and sent by CIGS War Office to General Sir H Wilson, British Military Representative, Supreme War Council, also mentions night, day and references to range:




The Specifications book has the first mention of 'Heavy' in 1927 (page 115) in relation to Spec. 8/27 Heavy Night Bomber, which is referring to "Vickers Virginia VII Production".
The first mention of 'Medium' is in 1929 (page 139) with Spec. 10/29 Medium Day Bomber, which is referring to the "Boulton Paul P.29 Sidstrand".
The first mention of 'Light' is in 1934 (page 187) with Spec. P.4/34E Light Day Bomber, which is referring to the "Fairey P.4/34" and "Hawker Henley".

I hope that answers some of the question.

Mike

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (May 30, 2021)

Thanks guys. 

Brilliant, Mike, note how the aircraft are defined by their use late by that time in the war, 1917/1918 and the use of the word 'fighter' has become standard in the RAF. Note the difference between 'short distance' and 'long distance' bombers, which effectively equates to light and heavy bombers, but as Mike pointed out, were not defined as 'light', 'medium' and 'heavy' until the 20s and 30s. Note also how ill-defined RFC and RNAS aircraft were role-wise a year earlier.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 30, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> The Typhoon just didn't fly as far as the Do-17, not that the Do-17 was a long range aircraft.



The Do 17 was actually not very capable of an aircraft, although it was reasonably fast for its time and equipped with cameras the Do 17E was an excellent long-range reconnaissance platform. The Do 17Z could carry a maximum bomb load of 1,000 kgs over 600 kilometres range, or 500 kgs over twice that, so as a bomber there needed to be more of them to deliver a given load compared to other types in the German inventory.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 30, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> The Do 17 was actually not very capable of an aircraft, although it was reasonably fast for its time and equipped with cameras the Do 17E was an excellent long-range reconnaissance platform. The Do 17Z could carry a maximum bomb load of 1,000 kgs over 600 kilometres range, or 500 kgs over twice that, so as a bomber there needed to be more of them to deliver a given load compared to other types in the German inventory.



Thank you. I just get a bit tired of the Typhoon being trotted out as some sort of single engine medium bomber. 
It took quite a while to get the pair of 1000lb bombs with several modifications, like using a long span (tempest?) tail plane and different tyres (especially tail wheel) before carrying the 100lbs bombs was common. The pair of 500lb bombs was a lot earlier and need little if any modification aside form the bomb racks? 

Most fighter bombers being rather short ranged they were not really in same class or ability as medium bombers (even small ones or borderline light bombers).

The Typhoons and their pilots did a lot of good work and faced one of the best AA defenses in the world at the time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 30, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Thank you. I just get a bit tired of the Typhoon being trotted out as some sort of single engine medium bomber.
> It took quite a while to get the pair of 1000lb bombs with several modifications, like using a long span (tempest?) tail plane and different tyres (especially tail wheel) before carrying the 100lbs bombs was common. The pair of 500lb bombs was a lot earlier and need little if any modification aside form the bomb racks?
> 
> Most fighter bombers being rather short ranged they were not really in same class or ability as medium bombers (even small ones or borderline light bombers).
> ...


I was just trotting it out because it is a fact. I dont think the Typhoon was a great aircraft but in terms of air support for ground troops it had more horse power and fire power than the Do-17 and just one crew, plus a much better chance of getting away. The Do-17 is called a medium bomber, it was used in much the same roles as the Typhoon for its short lived life as a front line combat plane. To me it is just an illustration of how things had moved on between 1940 and 1943

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (May 30, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> I just get a bit tired of the Typhoon being trotted out as some sort of single engine medium bomber.



Yeah, I scratch my head at that as well. The Typhoon was a fighter employed for ground attack/close support. When at its most effective as a weapon, during Overlord and afterwards, for example, it was a close support aircraft operated by the Tactical Air Forces. During the North African Campaign, Arthur 'Mary' Coningham first employed the idea of what we know today as Forward Air Control, where radio-equipped aircraft or personnel on the ground directed attack aircraft against enemy targets. This was effectively employed during Overlord, with the American 'Pete' Quesada also extolling the virtues of the concept, using the Typhoon and P-47 respectively for their own air forces. The Do 17 was never used in this fashion, and the Typhoon was never used as a strategic bomber, which, the Do 17 effectively was.



pbehn said:


> The Do-17 is called a medium bomber, it was used in much the same roles as the Typhoon for its short lived life as a front line combat plane.



The Do 17 might be what we would consider a 'medium bomber' but it was one of the Luftwaffe's key strategic bombers/offensive aircraft in conjunction and operation alongside the He 111 and Ju 88 and was considered in the Luftwaffe as their equal role-wise despite its poorer performance and smaller useful warload. It was not an attack/close support aircraft, nor was it used in such a tactical role. The Bf 110 and Bf 109 were effectively used as close support and fast low-level attack aircraft during the Battle of Britain, in the same vein as Typhoons were following Overlord (but without the use of FAC).

Two very different aircraft carrying out two very different roles.


----------



## pbehn (May 30, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> The Do 17 might be what we would consider a 'medium bomber' but it was one of the Luftwaffe's key strategic bombers/offensive aircraft in conjunction and operation alongside the He 111 and Ju 88 and was considered in the Luftwaffe as their equal role-wise despite its poorer performance and smaller useful warload. It was not an attack/close support aircraft, nor was it used as such. The Bf 110 and Bf 109 were effectively used as close support and fast low-level attack aircraft during the Battle of Britain, in the same vein as Typhoons were following Overlord (but without the use of FAC).


It did its job upto the Battle of Britain after which it was phased out, same for the He 111 which lasted until the end of Barbarossa. If the Do 17 and He 111 werent used as attack and close support aircraft what were they used for? Up to the fall of France?


----------



## nuuumannn (May 30, 2021)

pbehn said:


> It did its job upto the Battle of Britain after which it was phased out, same for the He 111 which lasted until the end of Barbarossa. If the Do 17 and He 111 werent used as attack and close support aircraft what were they used for? Up to the fall of France?



They were strategic bombers. Pure and simple. Their role was to attack the enemy _behind_ the front lines. They did not serve in a tactical role. Yes, the Luftwaffe was a largely tactical air force, but its bombers were used in a _strategic_ role to achieve the German army's tactical aims. They were not attacking French tanks or British troop concentrations on the front line at low or medium altitude. They were bombing airfields, cities, ships in harbours, fortifications at medium to high altitude. This is _strategic bombing_. The Typhoon was a close support aircraft attacking tanks, German troop concentrations etc at the direction of the troops on the ground, _tactical strike_. The Germans did not use their 'bombers' in that fashion. They did use their Stukas in that fashion, and their Bf 109s and '110s, but not their He 111s, Do 17s and Ju 88s in 1939 and 1940.

The distinction is in the names of the units. The He 111s, Do 17s and Ju 88s belonged to Kampfgeschwader, the Ju 87s were Stukageschwader, the Bf 110s in Zerstorergeschwader ('Zerstorer' isn't just long-range fighter, but ground attack and reconnaissance too).

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


----------



## Graeme (May 30, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> DH.4 referred to as a day-bomber



Jane's reliability is debatable, and it is early post-war - but I see the 1919 edition does mention day-bomber...


----------



## pbehn (May 30, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> They were strategic bombers. Pure and simple. Their role was to attack the enemy _behind_ the front lines. They did not serve in a tactical role. Yes, the Luftwaffe was a largely tactical air force, but its bombers were used in a _strategic_ role to achieve the German army's tactical aims. They were not attacking French tanks or British troop concentrations on the front line at low or medium altitude. They were bombing airfields, cities, ships in harbours, fortifications at medium to high altitude. This is _strategic bombing_. The Typhoon was a close support aircraft attacking tanks, German troop concentrations etc at the direction of the troops on the ground, _tactical strike_. The Germans did not use their 'bombers' in that fashion. They did use their Stukas in that fashion, and their Bf 109s and '110s, but not their He 111s, Do 17s and Ju 88s in 1939 and 1940.


Which strategic target was attacked by Do-17s or He 111s in the Battle of France? What you describe are called tactical targets when the allied forces were attacking, which city or industry was attacked in the 10 weeks of the France campaign. The only way you can call attacking British of French airfields as "strategic bombing" is if that is your strategy. Attacking German airfields was part of USA strategic bombing to wear down the L/W but the airfields were not the strategic targets.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 30, 2021)

pbehn said:


> The only way you can call attacking British of French airfields as "strategic bombing" is if that is your strategy.



Nope. look up the definition of strategic bombing.

"*Strategic bombing*, approach to aerial bombardment designed to destroy a country’s ability to wage war by demoralizing civilians and targeting features of an enemy’s infrastructure—such as factories, railways, and refineries—that are essential for the production and supply of war materials. Some definitions of strategic bombing, however, also include roles for supporting ground troops in combat operations. Strategic bombing is a facet of total war, the enlistment of a society’s entire resources to aid in a conflict."

From here: Strategic bombing | military tactic | Britannica

Now look at this definition.

*"Attack aircraft*, also called *Ground Attack Aircraft*, or *Close Support Aircraft*, type of military aircraft that supports ground troops by making strafing and low-level bombing attacks on enemy ground forces, tanks and other armoured vehicles, and installations. Attack aircraft are typically slower and less maneuverable than air-combat fighters but carry a large and varied load of weapons (automatic cannons, machine guns, rockets, guided missiles, and bombs) and have the ability to fly close to the ground."

From the same source.

Note the difference in target. The German Kampfgeschwader were used for strategic bombing, _regardless_ of the tactical intention.


----------



## pbehn (May 30, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Nope. look up the definition of strategic bombing.
> 
> "*Strategic bombing*, approach to aerial bombardment designed to destroy a country’s ability to wage war by demoralizing civilians and targeting features of an enemy’s infrastructure—such as factories, railways, and refineries—that are essential for the production and supply of war materials. Some definitions of strategic bombing, however, also include roles for supporting ground troops in combat operations. Strategic bombing is a facet of total war, the enlistment of a society’s entire resources to aid in a conflict."
> 
> ...


According your quote an airfield is an airfield, not a factory or a railway or a refinery. I would like an instance of of the Do-17 attacking French industry or cities that werent actually in the front line of the ground attack to illustrate your point.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (May 30, 2021)

Here is a paper written by noted military historian Richard Overy. It explains that despite the Luftwaffe's emphasis out of necessity to build medium bombers, their role was strategic and a large potion of their activity was strategic in nature and that the intent was always to have a strategic bombing force. It also describes the reasons why Germany built 'medium bombers', for those interested.

From ‘uralbomber’ to ‘amerikabomber’: The Luftwaffe and strategic bombing (massey.ac.nz)


----------



## pbehn (May 30, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Here is a paper written by noted military historian Richard Overy. It explains that despite the Luftwaffe's emphasis out of necessity to build medium bombers, their role was strategic and a large potion of their activity was strategic in nature and that the intent was always to have a strategic bombing force. It also describes the reasons why Germany built 'medium bombers', for those interested.
> 
> From ‘uralbomber’ to ‘amerikabomber’: The Luftwaffe and strategic bombing (massey.ac.nz)


But I am actually looking for examples of the Do-17 used as a strategic bomber up to the fall of France. The fall of France was completely based on what happened on land and 10 weeks is far too short for any strategic bombing to have an effect.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (May 30, 2021)

pbehn said:


> According your quote an airfield is an airfield, not a factory or a railway or a refinery.



Ahh, no, actually, that's not what I'm saying at all. Please don't deliberately misconstrue what I'm saying and claim that it is in fact what I'm saying.



pbehn said:


> I would like an instance of of the Do-17 attacking French industry or cities that werent actually in the front line of the ground attack to illustrate your point.



why should I? The Do 17 was used to attacks airfields in France in the van of the Wehrmacht's advance. airfields are considered strategic targets. French shipping was attacked, French fortifications were attacked. Not only will I give you examples of Do 17s being used to attack airfields, I'll show you a photograph of damage done by a Do 17 at an airfield. Do 17s did this at RAF Eastchurch on the Isle of Sheppey. Eastchurch was attacked on numerous occasions, a couple of times specifically by Do 17s. sure, not in France, but a strategic target nonetheless.




2107 Isle of Sheppey Eastchurch Station wall



pbehn said:


> The fall of France was completely based on what happened on land and 10 weeks is far too short for any strategic bombing to have an effect.



On the day of the beginning of the invasion of France, 10 May 1940, the Do 17 squadrons KG 2, KG 3, KG 76, KG 77 and KGr 606 were sent forth to attack French airfields, communications facilities and troop concentrations.

I don't think you are grasping the difference between strategic and tactical warfare. The Typhoon and Do 17 were NOT the same and DID NOT carry out the same role despite doing roughly similar things. Despite attacking airfields, troop concentrations etc in France, they were done _in advance _of the advancing line of Wehrmacht troops, not _in the midst_ of the actual fighting the troops were doing. The Wehrmacht didn't specifically set out to attack the airfields, their role was to invade France, to deter and destroy the French army. It was the strategic bombers that took out the airfields and aircraft troops etc _before_ they could reach the front line. That's _strategic bombing _even when it looks like ground attack. The difference is in WHEN the attack takes place, NOT how.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 30, 2021)

Here's an example. In advance of Overlord invasion, British and US medium bombers attacked airfields, railway junctions, etc to prevent German troop movements against the invasion. During and subsequent to the invasion the troops on the ground, the advancing armies called up Typhoons and P-47s when they were under attack by German tanks and artillery. The Mitchells, Bostons, Marauders etc were _not_ being used as ground-attack aircraft, whereas the Typhoons and P-47s were. The twin-engined bombers were being used in a_ strategic _role.


----------



## pbehn (May 30, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> On the day of the beginning of the invasion of France, 10 May 1940, the Do 17 squadrons KG 2, KG 3, KG 76, KG 77 and KGr 606 were sent forth to attack French airfields, communications facilities and troop concentrations.
> 
> I don't think you are grasping the difference between strategic and tactical warfare. The Typhoon and Do 17 were NOT the same and DID NOT carry out the same role despite doing roughly similar things. Despite attacking airfields, troop concentrations etc in France, they were done _in advance _of the attack by the Wehrmacht, not _during_ the attack.


So what did Typhoon and P-47 squadrons attack? Attacking airfields and local troop concentrations is tactical bombing as far as your link says. I am still waiting for you to show where and when the Do-17 was used to attack French Industry and major cities. Paris was hardly attacked at all the whole strategy was a rapid advance over land threatening the capital which fell. Germany captured less than a quarter of France in 10 weeks and forced a surrender, they didnt rely on the destruction of French Industry or the capitulation of French morale by bombing to do it, Blitzkreig was a completely different strategy.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 30, 2021)

pbehn said:


> am still waiting for you to show where and when the Do-17 was used to attack French Industry and major cities.



Again, why should I? You are completely ignoring the difference between tactical and strategic attacks. So the definition says that bombing cities and factories is strategic bombing, it _doesn't _say that attacking airfields in advance of an invasion isn't.

The difference is _when_, man, WHEN the attack takes place. Not the specific target, not how far away from the action etc, but WHEN.

The Germans didn't expect the invasion of France to go as quickly or as efficiently in their favour as it did. They were taken as much by surprise as everyone else. As you said, there was no time to attack cities, factories etc. The French collapse was immediate. The Germans didn't plan it that way and I'd like to see you prove that the Germans were _not_ going to attack French factories, cities etc, had the invasion become a long drawn out affair.

They did so against Holland in the attack on Rotterdam. They did so in the invasion of Poland against Warsaw and in the attempted invasion of Britain, London and other British cities were targetted. It was demonstrably part of German strategy. Because they didn't do it is simply down to the rapidity of the advance through France.


----------



## pbehn (May 30, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Again, why should I? You are completely ignoring the difference between tactical and strategic attacks. So the definition says that bombing cities and factories is strategic bombing, it _doesn't _say that attacking airfields in advance of an invasion isn't.


I think you are saying that whatever the Do-17 did was strategic or tactical up to 1940 depending on how people feel about it, and despite the fact that many later single engined aircraft could and did do exactly the same job it remains a strategic bomber while the others are tactical.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 30, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I think you are saying that whatever the Do-17 did was strategic or tactical up to 1940 depending on how people feel about it, and despite the fact that many later single engined aircraft could and did do exactly the same job it remains a strategic bomber while the others are tactical.



Is there a banging a head against the wall emoji?


----------



## nuuumannn (May 30, 2021)

pbehn said:


> So what did Typhoon and P-47 squadrons attack? Attacking airfields and local troop concentrations is tactical bombing as far as your link says.



Read this. Again.

"In advance of Overlord invasion, British and US medium bombers attacked airfields, railway junctions, etc to prevent German troop movements against the invasion. During and subsequent to the invasion the troops on the ground, the advancing armies called up Typhoons and P-47s when they were under attack by German tanks and artillery. The Mitchells, Bostons, Marauders etc were _not_ being used as ground-attack aircraft, whereas the Typhoons and P-47s were. The twin-engined bombers were being used in a_ strategic _role."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 30, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Is there a banging a head against the wall emoji?


Read your own posts , specifically about what is and what isnt strategic bombing and your support of the Do-17 as a strategic bomber. I cant figure out what point you are making, or why Typhoons and P-47 couldnt do the same job, because they actually did.


----------



## pbehn (May 30, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Read this. Again.
> 
> "In advance of Overlord invasion, British and US medium bombers attacked airfields, railway junctions, etc to prevent German troop movements against the invasion. During and subsequent to the invasion the troops on the ground, the advancing armies called up Typhoons and P-47s when they were under attack by German tanks and artillery. The Mitchells, Bostons, Marauders etc were _not_ being used as ground-attack aircraft, whereas the Typhoons and P-47s were. The twin-engined bombers were being used in a_ strategic _role."


So a Mitchell and Marauder are the same as a Do-17 then, and Typhoons and P-47 were not used against airfields? All "medium" bombers were used to try to break the defensive tank line around Caen and so were the heavies. When the strategy is to break out from Normandy everything to achieve that is strategic, which is not in line with your link about strategic bombing.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 30, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I cant figure out what point you are making, or why Typhoons and P-47 couldnt do the same job, because they actually did.



That's your problem. I've made my point pretty clear. An airfield is both a strategic _and_ tactical target. The difference is WHEN the airfield is attacked and under what circumstances. Do you understand that? Again, I'll repeat myself.

The Do 17 was a bomber employed by the Kampfgeshwader. It was used in the invasion of France and the Battle of Britain for attacking _strategic _targets, eg airfields, troop concentrations, railway yards, factories, population centres etc.

The Hawker Typhoon was a fighter impressed as a ground attack aircraft and used by the Tactical Air Forces. It was used in a _tactical _ground-attack role against troop concentrations, railway yards, airfields etc.

Note that the two definitions have the same targets. As I have said before the timing of the attack is crucial in the definition.

Go do some reading on the differences between strategic and tactical attack.


----------



## pbehn (May 30, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> That's your problem. I've made my point pretty clear. An airfield is both a strategic _and_ tactical target. The difference is WHEN the airfield is attacked and under what circumstances. Do you understand that? Again, I'll repeat myself.
> 
> The Do 17 was a bomber employed by the Kampfgeshwader. It was used in the invasion of France and the Battle of Britain for attacking _strategic _targets, eg airfields, troop concentrations, railway yards, factories, population centres etc.
> 
> ...


I did, I read what you previously posted about the definitions of strategic and tactical bombing which isnt the same as the post above. Basically you are just saying what I am saying, the war had moved on. It doesnt matter at all whether the one ton of bombs dropped is by a twin engined aircraft with three men on board or a single engined aircraft with a single pilot.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 30, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I did, I read what you previously posted about the definitions of strategic and tactical bombing which isnt the same as the post above. Basically you are just saying what I am saying, the war had moved on. It doesnt matter at all whether the one ton of bombs dropped is by a twin engined aircraft with three men on board or a single engined aircraft with a single pilot.



That's not what I'm saying at all. You are just being obtuse. What I have said at least three times now is pretty clear. the word WHEN keeps getting mentioned, but you're ignoring it because you are deliberately pointing out the flaws in my argument without acknowledging my point.

As I've said before, go do some reading.


----------



## pbehn (May 30, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> That's not what I'm saying at all. You are just being obtuse. What I have said at least three times now is pretty clear. the word WHEN keeps getting mentioned, but you're ignoring it because you are deliberately pointing out the flaws in my argument without acknowledging my point.
> 
> As I've said before, go do some reading.


Well I tried reading your post which defined strategic and tactical bombing, your argument doesnt support that in any way and doesnt even state what you are saying. Strategic bombing was not based on bombers attacking airfields from 25,000 ft and the US strategic campaign wasn't based on that either, The Do17 was not used to degrade French industry or the morale of the French living in big cities. The Allied strategic bombing campaign didnt attack targets that the Do17 did but would have no use for the Do17 because it was too light and too short ranged.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 30, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> [...] and I'd like to see you prove that the Germans were _not_ going to attack French factories, cities etc, had the invasion become a long drawn out affair.



Are you shifting the burden of evidence here?


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 30, 2021)

Also, I just want to say I appreciate the back-and-forth here. There's lots of stuff to chew on.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (May 31, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Are you shifting the burden of evidence here?



Trying to get him to think beyond using my evidence against me, after all, his argument is based entirely on ignoring the points I've raised in answer to his questions and attempting to derail my argument by focussing on one slightly oblique point that neither confirms nor denies my point in mine. In short, he's being obtuse.

After all, he asked me to provide evidence of the use of the Do 17 in attacking French factories etc prior to the invasion. I answered with the above, submitting the same response he did in that the capitulation of France was too rapid to be able to launch a proper strategic bombing campaign, as the Germans had used their bombers in the examples I provided.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 31, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Well I tried reading your post which defined strategic and tactical bombing, your argument doesnt support that in any way and doesnt even state what you are saying.



Yup, it does. You are focussing on derailing my argument for the sake of doing so because you are being obtuse. What I posted in support isn't even registering with you. I've suggested you go and read up on the subject, I've stated why the Do 17 and the Typhoon are different and within which scenario they would be used, I even answered your question on why the Germans didn't launch a bombing campaign against French industry in advance of their invasion, but STILL you refuse to acknowledge it. Your debate does nothing to help your own cause, because you are just being deliberately difficult.

Why don't you prove to me why the Typhoon and Do 17 are interchangeable instead of just refusing to go beyond your stumbling point.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (May 31, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Trying to get him to think beyond using my evidence against me, after all, his argument is ignoring the points I've raised in answer to his questions and attempting to derail my argument by focussing on one slightly oblique point that neither confirms nor denies my point.



I'm following the conversation, but that just jumped out at me.

My own opinion is that the Mossie filled a niche between the single-engined F-Bs of both AFs and the heavier twins favored by USAAF, and that comparisons do none of the airplanes favors, because they each excelled in particular regimes.

I think the Germans used their twins more on an ad-hoc basis, tactical here, operational there, and strategic when needed, because they had to.

All the same, I'm learning an awful lot here, and as noted above, that is definitely appreciated.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (May 31, 2021)

Let's play a game, people. let's say we have in our air force Do 17s and Typhoons. we are going to invade another country, let's say our countries share a similar border. Now, we want to attack troop concentrations, airfields, communications etc at around the same time as our armies move into the enemy country we are invading. which aircraft do we use and why?

The Typhoon? Could do, but perhaps it doesn't have the range to reach the targets on the other side of the country, and it only has a small bomb load, so to drop a given bomb load it has to fly more sorties, which could result in a greater than necessary accident rate (during the Battle of Britain, the Germans and British suffered accordingly due to accidents and operations were scrubbed because squadrons had too few operational aircraft).

The answer in this scenario is the Dornier because it has a larger bomb load and greater range. This is a first strike after all.

So, our invasion is going well, our troops are moving rapidly through the country, but are being held up by enemy armour at a crucial choke point and we need to clear that in a hurry. So, what do we use?

Now we could use the Dornier because it has a bigger bomb load than the Typhoon, but we want precision and a rapid response. The Dornier is slow, also at altitude, it is less accurate than a low-level high-speed attack and although attacking tanks from high altitude can be done through saturation bombing (it was done following Overlord), but we want accuracy, and speed to evade enemy fighters because we've kicked a hornet's nest by invading.

In this scenario, we use the Typhoon.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 31, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> My own opinion is that the Mossie filled a niche between the single-engined F-Bs of both AFs and the heavier twins favored by USAAF, and that comparisons do none of the airplanes favors, because they each excelled in particular regimes.
> 
> I think the Germans used their twins more on an ad-hoc basis, tactical here, operational there, and strategic when needed, because they had to.



Yup, the Mosquito (thread cross over here) was used both as a tactical strike and strategic bomber, but not both at the same time or the same model type. The Mossie bomber squadrons were equipped with a different variant of the Mosquito compared to the fighter-bomber units. The bomber variants needed altitude and a big bomb bay, with a glased nose section for bomb aiming. The fighter bombers had a small bomb bay, with half of the bay occupied by 20 mm cannon and the engines were optimised for low altitude and had solid noses with machine guns in them. There is a distinct difference between them.

As for the Germans, the means of defining their role, or intent is in their designation, as I pointed out earlier, the bomber squadrons were Kampfgeschwader. Sure, attacking airfields in the van of an invading force sure looks like tactical bombing, but consider how it's done and the aim of doing so, not to mention the scenarios in the previous post. The attack on the airfield is done to prevent enemy fighters from attacking both aerial assets and the invading force. The Dorniers did it from medium altitude, where accuracy is not such an issue, also it is being used as a first-strike weapon. It's launching in support of the forthcoming invading army, granted, but the army hasn't reached the airfield. It might not go anywhere near the airfield. It's still battling the enemy tanks. The aim of the Dornier attack is to prevent the enemy air support from getting airborne. That's a strategic objective. Shooting down the enemy fighters as they attack your armies is a tactical one.

During the Battle of Britain the Luftwaffe began operations with Erpobungsgruppe 210, so named in advance of the Me 210 entering service, but devoid of those aircraft was equipped with Bf 110s. It was extraordinarily effective at disabling airfields and other targets. These attacks usually were sent simultaneously to the long-range bomber raids and, achieved what the bomber squadrons had been attempting to do more effectively and with fewer resources. Now, you could argue they were strategic in that they were disabling radar sites, airfields etc, but they were tactical attacks in disabling the targets _in conjunction_ with the bomber raids (but not always). They were conducted at low level and high speed and were often unstoppable. The Brits had little counter to them because they were launched simultaneously to the bombers so the defences would head for the bombers and not worry too much about the small force that broke off and proceeded at high speed to put a hole in the radar screen.

Now, operationally the definition between strategic and tactical aims gets blurred here, but common sense has to enter the debate. The Dornier was too slow and unmanoeuvrable for the kind of work that EkGr 210 carried out, so the fighters were used, the Bf 109 and Bf 110. Conversely, you wouldn't use the Bf 110 as a high altitude bomber, even though it can carry a useful bomb load.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 31, 2021)

Which brings us conveniently to the original premise, whether the Typhoon and Do 17 did comparable jobs, so could the Typhoon be considered a medium bomber and the Dornier a ground attack aircraft?

Well, you wouldn't nominally use a Typhoon as a medium bomber and the Dornier as a ground attack aircraft. It's situational based on what you are trying to achieve and when you are trying to achieve it. Yes, the lines between strategic and tactical objectives get blurred but the intent behind each aircraft and its usage is obvious and planners would take that into consideration.

The war changed previously perceived ideas behind how aircraft were to be used. Before WW2 a heavy bomber was a heavy bomber, there wasn't really a category of low altitude high-speed strike aircraft in support of armies. It didn't exist. Air forces around the world were equipped with single or twin-engined 'light' bombers, which flew at medium to low altitude to drop bombs on bridges and stuff like the RAF Fairey Battle units in France. They were used in direct support of the army but in hindsight was a foolish way of doing so. The British called tactical air support Army Co-operation and used these:





Lysander-1

The use of the Stuka in direct support of the invading army was groundbreaking; that wasn't how other air forces did bombers in support of their armies. Conditions dictated that things changed and the Germans, wanting to avoid the stalemates of the Western Front in the Great War saw the practical application of airpower in support of a rapidly advancing mechanised army and practised it in Spain. This didn't mean the Germans didn't need strategic bombers, but because they had chosen smaller, easier to build twin-engined bombers they could also be used in direct support of an invasion. Their offensive role was obvious though, terror raids on cities, attacking airfields to stop enemy fighters and ground attack aircraft, attacking shipping, all strategic objectives. Let's not forget the He 177 was designed to replace the He 111 and Do 17 as Germany's frontline bomber. Despite the dive-bombing requirement, meant for _accuracy_, not specifically as direct army support, the He 177 was a strategic bomber, like its predecessor.




Gatow 164

In WW2, co-operation between armies and air forces grew in a fashion that had not existed before, thus the likes of the Tactical Air Forces were born. Guys like Coningham (RAF) and Quesada (USAAF) were advocates for effective close support and it became a totally different and _new_ way of providing support to an advancing army, beyond what the Germans were doing, but building on their ideas. We look at this as normal, but it wasn't before that. Before the war, air forces devoted hardly any resources to direct army support, but it changed due to necessity and co-operation between the branches of the forces was key to its success. It's interesting to note that at the outbreak of WW2 (for the Americans, i.e. 1941) the USAAF didn't have a dedicated close support/tactical strike aircraft (the Navy did). There was the Vultee Vengeance but these were being built for British requirements. Following Pearl, the USAAF became interested in their use and the primary close support aircraft were converted bombers and fighters (the A-36 included, converted from an RAF fighter, no less!).




P-47-3

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MikeMeech (May 31, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Thanks guys.
> 
> Brilliant, Mike, note how the aircraft are defined by their use late by that time in the war, 1917/1918 and the use of the word 'fighter' has become standard in the RAF. Note the difference between 'short distance' and 'long distance' bombers, which effectively equates to light and heavy bombers, but as Mike pointed out, were not defined as 'light', 'medium' and 'heavy' until the 20s and 30s. Note also how ill-defined RFC and RNAS aircraft were role-wise a year earlier.



Hi

The Air-Britain book has the specifications for military aircraft for February 1914, so pre-war:






In the documentation of the WW 1 period they also mention the terms 'working' and 'fighting' aircraft, the former generally the 'Corps' types.

Types of aircraft became more specialised as the war progressed, however, the tasks performed by different types did overlap (as they did in WW2), note the air plan for the 1915 Battle of Loos (from OH):





Also from the OH, are the orders (25th July, 1917) for the use of the air weapon during the start of the Battles of Ypres. Note the different types attacking the same type of targets:




























By the Battle of Cambrai later in 1917, the 'fighters' are dropping bombs as well so become 'Fighter-Bombers' using more modern terminology.

Mike

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (May 31, 2021)

We often forget that every doctrinal role for air power was developed during the First World War: offensive/defensive counter-air; suppression of enemy air defences; close air support (including a rudimentary forward air control capability with ground personnel talking direct to a formation lead via radio); strategic bombing; intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (including photographic reconnaissance); anti-shipping (including air-launched torpedoes)...the list goes on and on.

For all the "stick and string" nature of those early aerial fighting machines, the men who flew them proved a foresighted and adaptive bunch.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 31, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Let's play a game, people. let's say we have in our air force Do 17s and Typhoons. we are going to invade another country, let's say our countries share a similar border. Now, we want to attack troop concentrations, airfields, communications etc at around the same time as our armies move into the enemy country we are invading. which aircraft do we use and why?
> 
> The Typhoon? Could do, but perhaps it doesn't have the range to reach the targets on the other side of the country, and it only has a small bomb load, so to drop a given bomb load it has to fly more sorties, which could result in a greater than necessary accident rate (during the Battle of Britain, the Germans and British suffered accordingly due to accidents and operations were scrubbed because squadrons had too few operational aircraft).
> 
> ...


I originally said this "There were always twin engined bombers from WW1 era. When you stop counting just engines, a Typhoon with either rockets or bombs could carry more offensive fire power than a Do-17, but it had more horsepower and less crew too."
I didnt call it a medium bomber, the consensus of history calls the Do-17 a medium bomber and the Blenheim a light bomber. But in terms of your game lets go. The LW stopped using the Do-17 and others attacking London in daylight, they switched to strapping bombs on Bf109s and tossing them out on London, would they have used a Typhoon for that? In my opinion Yes. The LW then started tip and run raids with Fw190s, would they have used a Typhoon for that? Again the answer in my opinion is yes. After D-Day what use would a Do17 be, it is just too slow and light and every German in Normandy has a rifle or machine gun at least as powerful as it has. Within days of the D-Day landings airstrips were being constructed there, because even that 100 miles across the channel seriously affects what you ca do i a day.


By the time the Typhoon was being introduced as a fighter bomber, the B-25 and B-26 were what medium bombers had moved on to. On the British side the Lancaster and Halifax should have been twin engined medium bombers. They were (or would have been) heavier bomb load, more defensive and offensive firepower and were faster than a Do-17. 

That was my point.


----------



## MikeMeech (May 31, 2021)

Hi

The Battle of Cambrai saw a major use of the 'Fighter Bomber' concept, Orders for I Brigade and Ninth Wing. It mentions at '4 (c)' that two scouts would be 'bombed up' ready to attack when called for throughout the day as would 12 Corps aircraft '4 (d)'. The airfields would be connected to the front telephone network as well as the RFC wireless, Corps aircraft on Counter Attack Patrols could wireless in reports of enemy troops.












The III Brigade Orders have Camels attacking airfields, RE.8 and AW FK.8s attacking HQs, also DH.4 aircraft attacking railway stations.













Mike

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 1, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> The war changed previously perceived ideas behind how aircraft were to be used. Before WW2 a heavy bomber was a heavy bomber, there wasn't really a category of low altitude high-speed strike aircraft in support of armies. It didn't exist.


That's not entirely true, in WWI, most air-to-ground operations were in support of ground forces, then interdiction, and some behind the line raids aimed at populations, hubs of transport and production, and airfields.

In the post-war period, the army-support/CAS role was filled either by some light-bombers (RAF: Fairey Battle; USAAF: A-20 & A-26; Soviet Air Force: Il-2), occasionally some mediums (Luftwaffe: Ju-88; Soviet Air Force: Pe-2 & Tu-2), and specialized dive-bombers (RAF: Vultee Vengeance; Luftwaffe: Ju-87; USN: SBD & SB2C; USAAF: A-24 & A-36); The USAAF had an attack category, which included the A-20 & A-26, which were level bombers with a little extra agility, and the A-24 & A-36, which were dive-bombers.


> Following Pearl, the USAAF became interested in their use and the primary close support aircraft were converted bombers and fighters (the A-36 included, converted from an RAF fighter, no less!).


Technically, there was an interest in dive-bombers starting in 1939 with the USAAC because they saw how effectively the Luftwaffe was able to blast and pave it's way across Europe. Once they saw that, and realized that they couldn't do that with their current front-line attack planes (A-20): They started buying SBD's and SB2C's. Around 1943, they started to have less concerns about that because they figured fighters could carry out the shorter range tactical missions that required greater agility and speed, and the A-26 would carry out the longer range missions that required heavier loads.

The fact is the USAAF loved payload & range over maneuverability even in their tactical aircraft, so it didn't take much to get them to give up the single-engined planes in favor of fighters.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 4, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> That's not entirely true, in WWI, most air-to-ground operations were in support of ground forces, then interdiction, and some behind the line raids aimed at populations, hubs of transport and production, and airfields.



Actually it is true, re-read my post, it specifically references heavy bombers. As you already know since it was me who pointed out the use of bombers over the front during the Great War, but before World War Two the role of heavy bomber was well defined, even during the Great War the strategic bomber, whilst not specifically referred to as such was employed for raids against strategic targets, such as railway yards, factories, cities etc. Between the wars, theorists such as Trenchard, Douhet and Mitchell defined ideas behind aerial warfare and the use of bombers, which became hard and fast, but the role of interdiction went largely forgotten _after _the Great War despite its use during it, even if it wasn't correctly understood that that was indeed what these aircraft were doing, it was forsaken for single-engined level bombers, such as the DH.9A, Westland Wapiti etc in RAF service and employed for 'Army Co-operation'.



Zipper730 said:


> n the post-war period, the army-support/CAS role was filled either by some light-bombers (RAF: Fairey Battle; USAAF: A-20 & A-26; Soviet Air Force: Il-2), occasionally some mediums (Luftwaffe: Ju-88; Soviet Air Force: Pe-2 & Tu-2), and specialized dive-bombers (RAF: Vultee Vengeance; Luftwaffe: Ju-87; USN: SBD & SB2C; USAAF: A-24 & A-36); The USAAF had an attack category, which included the A-20 & A-26, which were level bombers with a little extra agility, and the A-24 & A-36, which were dive-bombers.



Not before WW2 however. Of the aircraft mentioned here, only the Fairey Battle and Ju 87 were in service before World War Two and, as mentioned in my post, the former represented the above and the latter was singular in its use. You've just assisted in answering my statement in attempting to counter it.



Zipper730 said:


> Technically, there was an interest in dive-bombers starting in 1939 with the USAAC because they saw how effectively the Luftwaffe was able to blast and pave it's way across Europe. Once they saw that, and realized that they couldn't do that with their current front-line attack planes (A-20): They started buying SBDs and SB2Cs.



That the USAAC was interested in dive bombers from 1939 did not translate to the acquisition of hardware until mid to late 1940 of the A-24 in paltry numbers, that were, in effect _conversions of navy bombers_, just as I mentioned, but the Vengeance was the first attack aircraft the USAAF acquired that was purpose-built as a land-based dive bomber, not a conversion of anything else. Let's also not forget that the A-20 first entered service as the DB-7 with the Armee de L'Air _before_ it entered USAAF service, and consequently saw action in Europe _before_ it did in USAAF service.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 5, 2021)

pbehn said:


> That was my point.



I got ya, in fact, if you put it like that I kinda agree with you to a point, but there is no way the Typhoon could have replaced the Do 17 in its role as it was employed during the Battle of Britain, which brings me to this...



pbehn said:


> The LW stopped using the Do-17 and others attacking London in daylight, they switched to strapping bombs on Bf109s and tossing them out on London, would they have used a Typhoon for that? In my opinion Yes. The LW then started tip and run raids with Fw190s, would they have used a Typhoon for that? Again the answer in my opinion is yes.



Actually no. As you know the Germans did carry out low-level strike raids using ground attack aircraft, during the Battle of Britain Erpobungsgruppe 210 employed Bf 110s and the various Jagdgruppen used Bf 109s for the task, but these were for striking specific targets, such as radar installations and airfields - Manston was hit a few times by Ebg 210 because of its location, but let's be clear, "London" was not the target these aircraft were used against. RAF Kenley and RAF Croydon just down the road from each other _in_ London were attacked by this unit, successfully knocking out the former for the day one afternoon, but not the _City of London_. Why waste low-level fast strike aircraft against a large ill-defined area when you have big bombers carrying a larger load per aircraft to do that? Your small strike aircraft are there to enable the big bombers to do exactly that. Sorry, but I just can't agree with you on this point.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 5, 2021)

In saying that however, Ebg 210 was extremely effective and the Germans were, typically, often unaware of just how much damage the unit's aircraft actually achieved. On one afternoon, the unit struck a radar site (can't remember off the top of my head which one) but the attack severed the main power lines from the adjacent sector control station to the radar sites, which meant that for a period, a whole sector of the British defences was completely blind (but for the Observer Corps, a vital but unsung link in the chain), but the Germans didn't know about it and therefore couldn't take advantage of the massive hole they had just created in the radar chain! It took a day or two to fix if memory serves.

The unit, as effective as it was suffered high losses when mixed in with other operations however, during the raids against Kenley and Croydon, the Bf 110s were unfortunate enough to stumble across Spitfires that were vectored toward an attacking bomber force and the unit was almost wiped out, the stragglers returning to France missing their commanding officer.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 5, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> I got ya, in fact, if you put it like that I kinda agree with you to a point, but there is no way the Typhoon could have replaced the Do 17 in its role as it was employed during the Battle of Britain, which brings me to this...
> Actually no. As you know the Germans did carry out low-level strike raids using ground attack aircraft, during the Battle of Britain Erpobungsgruppe 210 employed Bf 110s and the various Jagdgruppen used Bf 109s for the task, but these were for striking specific targets, such as radar installations and airfields - Manston was hit a few times by Ebg 210 because of its location, but let's be clear, "London" was not the target these aircraft were used against. RAF Kenley and RAF Croydon just down the road from each other _in_ London were attacked by this unit, successfully knocking out the former for the day one afternoon, but not the _City of London_. Why waste low-level fast strike aircraft against a large ill-defined area when you have big bombers carrying a larger load per aircraft to do that? Your small strike aircraft are there to enable the big bombers to do exactly that. Sorry, but I just can't agree with you on this point.


I was purely talking of horsepower and weights. As far as the BoB goes as the day time attacks turned into the night time Blitz in October the LW used Bf 109s to make high altitude attacks, they caused little damage but were hard to stop, it was already established that medium bombers suffered too many losses doing the same. You could make the same point about any of the twin engine designs, to stay in the game the Me110 had to have the same engine development as the 109 did.


----------



## MikeMeech (Jun 5, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> In saying that however, Ebg 210 was extremely effective and the Germans were, typically, often unaware of just how much damage the unit's aircraft actually achieved. On one afternoon, the unit struck a radar site (can't remember off the top of my head which one) but the attack severed the main power lines from the adjacent sector control station to the radar sites, which meant that for a period, a whole sector of the British defences was completely blind (but for the Observer Corps, a vital but unsung link in the chain), but the Germans didn't know about it and therefore couldn't take advantage of the massive hole they had just created in the radar chain! It took a day or two to fix if memory serves.
> 
> The unit, as effective as it was suffered high losses when mixed in with other operations however, during the raids against Kenley and Croydon, the Bf 110s were unfortunate enough to stumble across Spitfires that were vectored toward an attacking bomber force and the unit was almost wiped out, the stragglers returning to France missing their commanding officer.



Hi

This appears to describe the 12 August, 1940 raid on RDF stations at Dover, Pevensey and Rye, which took place between 0930 and 1000 hours. Pevensey was the worst damaged, Martin Lutz hit the power supply cables with 500-kilo bombs, it was out of action the rest of the day. The other stations began to operate not long after the attack, probably at reduced effectiveness, but appear to have been all in operation the following day. More effective was the attack on Ventnor RDF station by 15 of KG.51 JU88s, this was put out of action for three days. This did cause a gap but it was at least partially filled by the Naval air search radars, Type 79, near Portsmouth, one at Fort Wallington on Portsdown Hill, used mainly for training but connected to the RAF RDF system. Another was at Eastney Fort East used usually for development but also could provide information.
Another attack on RDF stations by Erpr. Gr 210 took place on the afternoon of the 31st August, with attacks on the stations in Kent and Sussex, however, they were all back on the air by the end of the day.

Certainly they made some effective strikes but also suffering a quite high casualty rate, for example on Bristol aircraft factories on 27th September when they lost four aircraft (20% of the formation) including Martin Lutz. This was a raid in conjunction with other German formations.

Mike

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 5, 2021)

MikeMeech said:


> The Battle of Cambrai saw a major use of the 'Fighter Bomber' concept, Orders for I Brigade and Ninth Wing. It mentions at '4 (c)' that two scouts would be 'bombed up' ready to attack when called for throughout the day as would 12 Corps aircraft '4 (d)'. The airfields would be connected to the front telephone network as well as the RFC wireless, Corps aircraft on Counter Attack Patrols could wireless in reports of enemy troops.



Yes they did, there are plenty of examples of this, across the front, in Belgium as well as France and during the 100 Days' Offensive in 1918 the practise became commonplace. This is a mural on a building in Flanders very close to Polygon Wood, where the Australians and Kiwis had a bit of a rough time against the Germans in 1917, around the same time as the disastrous attack at Passendale.





Great War Tour 161

Also, Wadi Haifa and the Battle of Meggido ranks as a supreme example of the use of air interdiction in 1918, but it remains little known about. Here's a passage from the wiki page:

"On 21 September, the Seventh Army was spotted by aircraft in a defile west of the river. The RAF proceeded to bomb the retreating army and destroyed the entire column. Waves of bombing and strafing aircraft passed over the column every three minutes and although the operation had been intended to last for five hours, the Seventh Army was routed in 60 minutes. The wreckage of the destroyed column stretched over 6 miles (9.7 km). British cavalry later found 87 guns, 55 motor-lorries, 4 motor-cars, 75 carts, 837 four-wheeled wagons, and scores of water-carts and field-kitchens destroyed or abandoned on the road. Many Ottoman soldiers were killed and the survivors were scattered and leaderless. Lawrence later wrote that "the RAF lost four killed. The Turks lost a corps."

From here: Battle of Megiddo (1918) - Wikipedia

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 5, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I was purely talking of horsepower and weights. As far as the BoB goes as the day time attacks turned into the night time Blitz in October the LW used Bf 109s to make high altitude attacks, they caused little damage but were hard to stop, it was already established that medium bombers suffered too many losses doing the same. You could make the same point about any of the twin engine designs, to stay in the game the Me110 had to have the same engine development as the 109 did.



Yes and no, again, although Bf 109s were used as jabos, their actual use wasn't widespread, in fact, it was very infrequent and their use in low-level encounters was largely to protect the Bf 110s. The Germans didn't adopt this practise wholesale - the low-level attacks of this nature were tasked by Kesselring to do so and similar raids by other squadrons were not endorsed wholesale within the other Luftflotten. One target that Bf 109 Jabos attacked repeatedly was against Manston; the Bf 109 Jabo simply didn't have the range to go too much further inland and the fantasy of carrying a bomb to altitude to attack London? Yeah nah, didn't happen.

Bf 110s were the aircraft of choice and as effective as Ebg 210s attacks were, as Mike says, it came at a high cost to the unit. On Adlertag the unit was almost wiped out attacking Kenley when it was bounced by Hurricanes ( I may have gotten a couple of different raids mixed up in my previous post - devoid of my sources so going from memory right now). Bf 109s were in escort but were not employed as bombers. Kesselring later got a smack on the pee pee for attacking "London", even though the target was Kenley airfield.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 5, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Yes and no, again, although Bf 109s were used as jabos, their actual use wasn't widespread, in fact, it was very infrequent and their use in low-level encounters was largely to protect the Bf 110s. The Germans didn't adopt this practise wholesale - the low-level attacks of this nature were tasked by Kesselring to do so and similar raids by other squadrons were not endorsed wholesale within the other Luftflotten. *One target that Bf 109 Jabos attacked repeatedly was against Manston; the Bf 109 Jabo simply didn't have the range to go too much further inland and the fantasy of carrying a bomb to altitude to attack London? Yeah nah, didn't happen.*
> 
> Bf 110s were the aircraft of choice and as effective as Ebg 210s attacks were, as Mike says, it came at a high cost to the unit. On Adlertag the unit was almost wiped out attacking Kenley when it was bounced by Hurricanes ( I may have gotten a couple of different raids mixed up in my previous post - devoid of my sources so going from memory right now). Bf 109s were in escort but were not employed as bombers. Kesselring later got a smack on the pee pee for attacking "London", even though the target was Kenley airfield.


I think you have miss understood what I meant and posted. The Bf 110 used by Epg wasnt a medium bomber which is how this discussion began. I was just talking about horsepower and loads. 

As to the point in bold I read it here on this forum, take it up with the author Njako this thread post #303 This Day in the Battle of Britain Quote "*The Luftwaffe renewed its persistent raids of bomb-carrying Bf109s on London and selected targets in the southeast throughout the day." *I would say it did happen because I have read it elsewhere too. It is just over 100 miles from the Pas de Calais to central London. When you dont have to escort a bomber and fight for 5 minutes you can reach it with a bomb.

From post #306 "From 0800 hours reconnaissance raids were made at regular intervals until just after 1030 hours when radar detected a formation of Bf109s crossing the Channel toward the Kent coast at Deal. Whilst the Spitfires of RAF Nos. 66, 74 and 92 Squadrons were occupied with the raiders, *a small section of bomb-carrying Bf109s broke away and successfully bombed targets in central London including Charing Cross bridge*. P/O R.R.Hutley flew with RAF No. 213 Squadron. He baled out of his Hurricane I (P2720) off Selsey at 1145 hours. He was picked up but he died later.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 5, 2021)

But not at altitude as I said - your words were "In October the LW used Bf 109s to make high altitude attacks". From the very same page.

_"This was a diversionary feint attack about 20 kilometres from the primary target and *we took the opportunity to descend to about 4-500 metres for the attack. *It was at this altitude that we struck at the target with bombs and our fixed armament and it was during this low-level attack that I received a hit in the radiator system, presumably from the ground defences."_

500 metres is around 1,600 feet - that's not high altitude.

Not once have I said the raids never took place, in fact my very words were (in case you missed it the first time, which you clearly did, otherwise we wouldn't be here)

"although Bf 109s were used as jabos, their actual use wasn't widespread, in fact, it was very infrequent"

...Which it was compared to the use of Bf 110s in the role, which had been happening since July, yet the Bf 109 Jabos weren't used beyond Ebg 210, of which one Staffel was equipped with them, _until mid-September_. The modification to enable the Bf 109 to carry a single 250 kg bomb was spurred on by Ebg 210's commanding officer Rubensdorfer before he got shot down on 13 August 1940 but their wider use within the Jagdgruppen was subsequently adopted later. On 2 September Goring issued an edict stating that Bf 109s should begin bombing raids and the first of which took place on 15 September, during which time on a midday raid there were 21 fighter bombers used.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 6, 2021)

A number of air forces planned to use (and did use) light and medium bombers for "grand tactical" bombing. 

Definitions change over the years and bit from country to country. I try not to get hung up on definitions of particular words. 

"Grand Tactical" often falls into interdiction or low level strategic bombing. The targets of the Medium bombers were not factories but things like bridges and rail lines and docks that could bring supplies/reinforcements to the land battle. In a short campaign this was more effective than bombing factories. Your bombers are not affecting the front line troops directly but are cutting the ammunition, food, fuel supply and thus their ability to fight tomorrow or next week as opposed to weeks or months in future like bombing the factories. 

The Germans may well have planned to use their twin engine medium bombers in such a fashion and affect the land battle/campaign but without bombing artillery batteries, tank units, pill boxes, field fortifications. Depending on how well one air force could clear the skies of enemy fighters and depending on the state of the enemies AA guns/defenses the early medium bombers could be brought into play on actual tactical targets. Frontline troops or artillery positions close to the front lines. French army AA guns in 1940 were few and far between and weren't very good in the few models that did see service (prototypes/low production may be different).

British and French attempts to bomb the Bridges over the Muse got some of the flyers medals (posthumously) but didn't stop or slow the Germans. Attempts to bomb German supply lines (trucks or horse drawn wagons) were too few to have much impact. 

This area of use is a large grey area between "strategic bombing" or grand strategic (fuel program) and tactical (blowing up specific tanks/pill boxes). 

Did the Germans try to bomb French ports to interrupt the flow of supplies from Britain (or elsewhere) ? 
Not trying to bomb the entire city as later "strategic bombing" would call for but hit ships/docks. 

Some fighters did do long range "bombing" but it is hard to say if it was really worthwhile. Some Hurricanes (IVs) flew missions with either four rockets or a bomb under one wing and drop tank under the other in order to get the needed range. Four planes, four engines and four crewmen to do what a single Do 17 could do if the Hurricane was carrying a 500lb bomb. 
P-38s bombed Ploesti with a single bomb each and drop tank under the other wing. Yeah, it was "strategic bombing" but more of a stunt than anything like a devastating blow. 

Some of the German fighter bomber raids on England were more in the nature of tip and runs. Fly over England (somewhere) drop bomb and run for home. Hoping to use up more British resources trying to stop the raids than the Germans were using to stage them.


----------



## MikeMeech (Jun 6, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Yes they did, there are plenty of examples of this, across the front, in Belgium as well as France and during the 100 Days' Offensive in 1918 the practise became commonplace. This is a mural on a building in Flanders very close to Polygon Wood, where the Australians and Kiwis had a bit of a rough time against the Germans in 1917, around the same time as the disastrous attack at Passendale.
> 
> View attachment 626342
> Great War Tour 161
> ...



Hi

Personally it is not 'little known' (but then I do write on the subject of WW1 air support and communications, so a bit of bias), like most history it is known by people who actually read books on WW1 and on air power. It will be little known by members of the 'general public' who probably have no interest in either subject, but it appears in numerous books.
Here is a 'less known' document from the UK National Archives that is a first hand account of actions at the time:













I hope that is of interest.

Mike

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


----------



## MikeMeech (Jun 6, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Yes they did, there are plenty of examples of this, across the front, in Belgium as well as France and during the 100 Days' Offensive in 1918 the practise became commonplace. This is a mural on a building in Flanders very close to Polygon Wood, where the Australians and Kiwis had a bit of a rough time against the Germans in 1917, around the same time as the disastrous attack at Passendale.
> 
> View attachment 626342
> Great War Tour 161
> ...



Hi

Of course it was not just Megiddo that this type of action was going on, 'Air Power and Armies' by J C Slessor, OUP 1936, pages 102-103, mentions the Kosturino Pass on the Macedonian front, the Conegliano-Pordonone road on the Italian front as well as Megiddo, as follows:




However, the main focus of Slessor's book is about the Amiens 'air plan' and how it could have been improved. One part of that plan was the attack on bridges, this did not work very well and losses were sustained without destroying the bridges in question. This was in major part due to the weaponry available at that time, the tactic was viable but ahead of the technology. The same ideas, with their associated problems arise during WW2 and this is seen in the air plan of 'D-Day', and is discussed in 'Royal Air Force 1939-45, Volume III, The Fight is Won' by Hilary St. G. Saunders, page 96:




It was not just fighter-bombers that attacked the bridges, as page 128 mentions the use of medium and heavy bombers:




This is an example of air theory that was thought about during WW1 but was not yet really viable due to the level of technology but used more successfully, although not without problems, during WW2. Also the WW2 example shows Fighter-bomber, medium and heavy bombers all being tasked against the same target types.

Mike

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


----------



## pbehn (Jun 6, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> *Not once have I said the raids never took place, *in fact my very words were (in case you missed it the first time, which you clearly did, otherwise we wouldn't be here)
> 
> "although Bf 109s were used as jabos, their actual use wasn't widespread, in fact, it was very infrequent"
> .


Actually you did "One target that Bf 109 Jabos attacked repeatedly was against Manston; the Bf 109 Jabo simply didn't have the range to go too much further inland and the fantasy of carrying a bomb to altitude to attack London? *Yeah nah, didn't happen.*

From here Fighter-bomber attacks on the United Kingdom during World War II - Wikipedia 
Later in autumn, the _Luftwaffe_ conducted a series of attacks on London using Bf 109 fighter-bombers.[8] These operations represented the majority of German attacks on Britain in October 1940, and the British defences had difficulty detecting and intercepting the high-flying and fast fighter-bomber formations. Due to their speed British radar stations usually provided less than 20 minutes warning before the aircraft arrived over London.[9] The _Luftwaffe_ conducted 140 attacks involving 2,633 fighter-bomber sorties against London during October. Losses were light, with 29 Bf 109s being destroyed.[10] October marked the peak of fighter-bomber operations in 1940 but attacks continued until late in the year. The rate of effort decreased during November and December as the Bf 109s needed to be used to counter RAF fighter sweeps over France and the onset of winter weather reduced flying opportunities.[11]

There is no advantage in conducting these attacks at low level, it makes the attacker vulnerable to ground fire and gives any defender height advantage intercepting the attacker either on the way there or on the way back.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 6, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> the role of interdiction went largely forgotten _after _the Great War despite its use during it, even if it wasn't correctly understood that that was indeed what these aircraft were doing


I didn't know they had largely abandoned interest in that. I would have figured it would have remained in some way whether it be subsumed under tactical or strategic bombing. Your description of the RAF classifying it as "army cooperation" seems indicative of it being folded under tactical bombing.


> You've just assisted in answering my statement in attempting to counter it


I wasn't exactly trying to counter it, I was just pointing out what appeared to be errors in your statement.


> That the USAAC was interested in dive bombers from 1939 did not translate to the acquisition of hardware until mid to late 1940 of the A-24 in paltry numbers, that were, in effect _conversions of navy bombers_


Yes, but you said they were interested after Pearl Harbor. The interest started before that, and regarding the planes being classified as Navy Bombers, that kind of goes to the point of attack/bomber being designations that are largely that of semantics.

The USN called it's surface/ground-attack aircraft as follows

B: Usually a dive-bomber in this case
TB: Torpedo bomber which, in practice, was also a level-bomber as well. These aircraft ended up increasingly being used for other roles such as anti-submarine warfare, airborne early warning, and even transportation (COD)
SB: Scout-bomber, which combined scout & dive-bombing together
BT: Bomber-Torpedo, a dive-bomber that could also be used for torpedo-bombing. The designation was to differentiate it from the torpedo-bomber role.
TS: Torpedo Scout: A category which combined scout and torpedo/level bombing. This category never was formally used (the one aircraft built to it, far as I know, never entered service)
P: Maritime Patrol: These aircraft were often designed for long range surveillance of surface ships, but were (either usually/always) capable of carrying bombs as well. Some (IIRC) were employed in anti-submarine warfare roles.
PB: Patrol Bomber: Apparently a maritime patrol aircraft with more bombs
In 1946: B, TB, SB & BT, were classified as "A" for attack, and the anti-submarine warfare, airborne early warning, and COD roles were eventually reclassified as "S", "E", and "C" respectively, at a later date.

From what I remember, in the 1950's, the PB category was removed in favor of the more simple "P" role.

While the SBD & SB2C were USN designs, they were largely procured because the US Army did not have any suitable dive-bombers of their own, and they wanted them online as soon as possible. The Vultee Vengeance didn't fly until around 1941 if I recall, and the SBD & SB2C were both airborne in 1940 as prototypes, from what I remember (and the SBD was based on the earlier BT, which was built in 1935).

As for the A-20 being the DB-7B, which entered service initially as the DB-7 (the -7B had more powerful engines and a larger tail): From what I recall, the USAAC had already some interest in twin-engined attack-aircraft such as the A-14/A-18, as well as the proposed XA-15 (which was a modified attack variant of the Martin B-10 family)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 7, 2021)

> Actually you did "One target that Bf 109 Jabos attacked repeatedly was against Manston; the Bf 109 Jabo simply didn't have the range to go too much further inland and the fantasy of carrying a bomb to altitude to attack London? *Yeah nah, didn't happen.*
> 
> From here Fighter-bomber attacks on the United Kingdom during World War II - Wikipedia
> Later in autumn, the _Luftwaffe_ conducted a series of attacks on London using Bf 109 fighter-bombers.[8] These operations represented the majority of German attacks on Britain in October 1940, and the British defences had difficulty detecting and intercepting the high-flying and fast fighter-bomber formations. Due to their speed British radar stations usually provided less than 20 minutes warning before the aircraft arrived over London.[9] The _Luftwaffe_ conducted 140 attacks involving 2,633 fighter-bomber sorties against London during October. Losses were light, with 29 Bf 109s being destroyed.[10] October marked the peak of fighter-bomber operations in 1940 but attacks continued until late in the year. The rate of effort decreased during November and December as the Bf 109s needed to be used to counter RAF fighter sweeps over France and the onset of winter weather reduced flying opportunities.[11]
> ...





Look, I can't be bothered going any further with this. Ok, you win, wikipedia has given you the edge. I surrender...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 7, 2021)

MikeMeech said:


> Personally it is not 'little known' (but then I do write on the subject of WW1 air support and communications, so a bit of bias), like most history it is known by people who actually read books on WW1 and on air power. It will be little known by members of the 'general public' who probably have no interest in either subject, but it appears in numerous books.
> Here is a 'less known' document from the UK National Archives that is a first hand account of actions at the time:



Marvellous. The RFC and RAF's participation in lands held by the Ottoman Empire remain ignored by historians and those with a general interest alike unfortunately and unless like yourself there is a specific interest in the subject it is missed in the clammer for info on the aces and more generic subject matter. 



MikeMeech said:


> 'Air Power and Armies' by J C Slessor,



I have a copy of this and used it in my studies.



MikeMeech said:


> This is an example of air theory that was thought about during WW1 but was not yet really viable due to the level of technology but used more successfully, although not without problems, during WW2.



Indeed. There were so many ideas that were put into practise during the Great War that couldn't be exercised thoroughly because of the technology of the day. My particular area of interest is in the use of naval aviation in the Dardanelles/Gallipoli campaign, which was considerable, but gets very little, if any recognition of what was done. Its impact wasn't immediately felt, despite discussions held at the Admiralty subsequently. Ground attack was the same; in WW2 naturally it had to evolve beyond preconceived ideas and what was learned had to be relearned because of the inattention paid to the subject between the wars. Innovation such as the FAC role came about as a result of changing circumstances and individuals with vision and it's arguable that such things could have come about sooner had attention been paid to them, but focus was on keeping the peace, not thinking up more ways of winning wars. The same with Korea, when WW2 was just five years hence, yet much work had to be done in cooperation between the armed forces.


----------

