# Instructional documents on Box Formation flying in the USAAF 8th Airforce?



## JDCAVE (Mar 26, 2021)

I am working on a document on "Gaggle Formations" used by RAF Bomber Command in the last part of 1944 and through 1945, and want to understand the technical differences in Gaggle Formation Flying and Box Formation flying in the USAAF 8th Airforce? The former were kind of "Loosey Goosie" (if you'll pardon the pun) and the latter highly precise. I know the 8th used specially identified aircraft (some garishly painted) on which crews "formated", but I'm sure there was more to it than that. I would be interested in obtaining Instructional documents on Box Formation flying in the USAAF 8th Airforce, if anything exists.

I have a similar series of documents on Gaggles, which according to the 6-Group ORB, were used for the first time in December 1944. A particularly unfortunate failure of the Gaggle navigation occurred on the raid to Hamburg, March 31, 1945, when the navigation of one of the 6-Group Gaggles failed, the gaggle was outside of fighter cover, and 8 aircraft were shot down by Me.262's.

Royal Canadian Air Force operations record book... - Héritage

Jim


----------



## pbehn (Mar 26, 2021)

I found this What was a 'Gaggle' Operation flown in 1945 by Bomber Command after V.E. Day? 
_"This was no ordinary operation, 294 Lancasters from 1 Group plus the usual quota of Mosquitoes from 8 Group. At briefing we were told that as Bomber Command had been venturing into Germany and particularly Happy Valley in daylight, and, unlike the Americans, had not been attacked by large numbers of fighters, there was concern that because of our techniques in Bomber Command, each aircraft making its own way to the target in the Bomber stream, we might be very vulnerable to fighter attack. We could not possibly adopt the American system of flying in mass formations and do some boffin somewhere had come up with the ‘brilliant’ idea that we should indulge in *gaggle flying*. No practice, mind, just – this what you do chaps – get on with it. The idea was that 3 Lancasters would have their tail fins painted bright yellow and would be the leading ‘Vic’ formation. All other aircraft would take off, find another squadron aircraft and formate on it. Each pair would then pack in together behind the leading ‘vic’ and the lead Navigator would do the navigating with the rest of the force following. The route on the flight plan took us across Belgium crossed the Rhine between Duisburg and Dusseldorf then passing Wuppertal and North East into the target area. All went well until we were approaching the Rhine when the lead navigator realised we were two minutes early. It was important not to be early or we would arrive on target before the pathfinders had done their job. The technique for losing two minutes was to do a two minute ‘dog-leg’. When ordered by the lead nav, this involved doing a 45 degrees starboard turn, two minutes flying, 90 degree port turn, 2 minutes flying, 45 degree starboard turn and we were then back on track."_

_and _

A Google search brought up this link which contained the subsequent paragraph:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peo...a2281033.shtml . It's a lengthy story and I had to search hard to find the sentence/paragraph. 

_There was a rule of thumb for low level bombing that allowed one foot of height for every pound of the heaviest bomb carried, and since we always carried a 4000-pounder our' lowest safe' was 4000 feet. Kleve, near the Dutch border, about 10 miles from Nijmegan, was wiped off the map from this height in support of the British Army after operation Market Garden, and was one of the two instances when we flew at other than our usual height. The other occasion was a daylight attack on an oil target at Bremen. When the RAF resumed day bombing to a limited degree after D Day, it was done in the same way as night bombing: every crew did their own thing! However, when you could see where the other aircraft were, the tendency was to tuck in close and join the stream, and so evolved the *Gaggle*. Since everyone was going to follow the leader, the thing to do was to select crews with the best navigators to form a leading Vic. of three to lead the way. On the Bremen Op. mentioned above, we had the doubtful honour of being the starboard element of the leading Vic. It was one of those rare days in Europe when there was not a cloud in the sky, and the force of 104 Lancasters went in at 12000 feet. The reason was that a couple of miles to our left, 19 Lancasters of 617 (Dambuster) sqdn were heading in to attack a railway bridge with some heavy metal._

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


----------



## JDCAVE (Mar 28, 2021)

Thanks P. However, I’m looking for documents on formation flying in the USAAF. I have detailed documents from 6-Group on Gaggle flying.

The Wikipedia article on the “Combat Box” is somewhat informative but is rather lacking in detail. This book seems an interesting source, but I don’t have a copy:

Freeman, Roger A. (1991). _The Mighty Eighth War Manual_, Motorbooks International,

Jim


----------



## pbehn (Mar 28, 2021)

JDCAVE said:


> Thanks J. However, I’m looking for documents on formation flying in the USAAF. I have detailed documents from 6-Group on Gaggle flying.
> 
> The Wikipedia article on the “Combat Box” is somewhat informative but is rather lacking in detail. This book seems an interesting source, but I don’t have a copy:
> 
> ...


Have you seen this? 398th Bomb Group Combat Formations By Wally Blackwell, Pilot 601st Squadron December 2003

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## JDCAVE (Mar 28, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Have you seen this? 398th Bomb Group Combat Formations By Wally Blackwell, Pilot 601st Squadron December 2003



PBehn: Thanks so much! That is exactly what I’m looking for!

Jim


----------



## pbehn (Mar 28, 2021)

JDCAVE said:


> PBehn: Thanks so much! That is exactly what I’m looking for!
> 
> Jim


If you read the wiki page Combat box - Wikipedia you can see it wasn't a constant and B-17s used slightly different formations. Also from what I have read the formation spacing changed on a mission, a tight formation is better for air defence but worse against ground flak.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## aacs45 (Apr 2, 2021)

LeMay talks about the rationale behind the box formation and its implementation in his book Mission With LeMay.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 2, 2021)

pbehn said:


> If you read the wiki page Combat box - Wikipedia you can see it wasn't a constant and B-17s used slightly different formations. Also from what I have read the formation spacing changed on a mission, a tight formation is better for air defence but worse against ground flak.



Indeed, and the combat box would often be loosened near and over the target, to be tightened later, upon egressing the flak zone.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JDCAVE (May 10, 2021)

I have finally found the definitive document I was looking for! I knew it was out there somewhere!

Eighth Air Force tactical development, August 1942 – May 1945. - World War II Operational Documents - Ike Skelton Combined Arms Research Library (CARL) Digital Library (oclc.org) 

Jim

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


----------

