B-17, B-24, or Lancaster

[plan_D]

The USAAF did 'area bombing' just as the RAF did. The RAF did 'precision bombing' just as the USAAF did. And all your attempts on making the USAAF out to be more important than the RAF, still doesn't change the fact that the Lancaster brought more ordnance to target.

It also doesn't change the fact that Bomber Command dropped more tonnage on oil facilities than the U.S 8th Air Force. They're quite precision.

 

[Erich]

do not forget large cities such as Berlin, Essen, Würzburg, Nürnberg and do I say it ? .............. Dresden and others. Both the US/RAF plastered these cities in an all out attempt to destroy industry as well as civilian population centres, it was inevitable

 

[Hop]

Area bombing (especially at night) was a tactic invented by and used with considerable frequency by Bomber Command.

Bomber Command copied the tactic from the Luftwaffe, who invented it. They pioneered all the techniques the RAF adopted, radio navigation beams to guide pathfinders to the target, pathfinders dropping incendiaires to mark the target, the main force bombers dropping large numbers of blast bombs and incendiaries.

The 8th and 15th bombed by day at smaller targets.

And they also bombed larger targets by day.

The RAF frequently bombed large cities.

And they also bombed smaller targets.

It's equally valid to say "The RAF bombed lots of precise military targets in Europe, the USAAF frequently area bombed German cities".

That's as valid as what you are claiming, but like your claims, gives a distorted picture.

Now the key is, if the target is a whole city, then how could you miss. If the target is an itarget away from a city, then hitting the target is tougher. So bombs on small targets is what counts.

If this is just a way of comparing accuracy, the USSBS gave a good example, attacks on 3 large German oil refineries, totaling 30,000 tons (ie a fair sized sample)

The USAAF achieved very good results in perfect weather, getting just over 25% of it's bombs inside the plant fences, iirc. However, that dropped to less than 10% using radar bombing methods when weather or smoke obscured the targets.

The RAF, bombing at night, averaged over 15% of their bombs inside the plant fences.

The average for both the USAAF and RAF was 12.8%, ie the USAAF average was considerably lower than the RAF average. And that's using precisely the same measure of accuracy.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Intersting stuff. I had never seen figures on percentages of bombs. Where did you find that info at?

 

[Hop]

It's part of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey, second report. Sadly only the first, much shorter, report is fully available online. It's only a summary, and published in Sept 1945, so doesn't have much detail.

The page with the sample of the 3 refineries I quoted above is online:
U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey: Oil Division Final Report

Some of the rest of the report is there as well, but some of the links aren't working.

The figures I quoted above were slightly out, as I was working from memory. The full table is:

Air Force - Percentage of Hits Within the Plants
8th AF visual aiming 26.8
8th AF, part visual aiming and part instrument 12.4
8th AF, full instrument 5.4
RAF, night Pathfinder technique 15.8
Weighted average 12.6

As you can see, the RAF average was well above the overall average, which means the USAAF average must have been below the overall figure, possibly as low as single digits.

This is only a sample, of course, but it's a fairly large sample, and one chosen by the USSBS team themselves.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Cool thanks for the link.

 

[syscom3]

I read this in link

"Unexploded Bombs Mean Wasted Missions
Unexploded bombs bespeak wasted missions and lives of fliers risked in vain. In two plants surveyed, unexploded bombs amounted to 24 and 31 percent of those landing within the fence lines. The average for 13 plants was 16 percent (see Table 46). A study of unexploded bombs found throughout Germany indicated that frequently the bombs had landed flat because the tail fins had become detached or had broken off during descent; other bombs still had the arming wires intact in their fuzes when they were found; in others the fuzes had broken off. Seven 500-lb bombs dropped in a single raid struck the reactor house of the Fischer-Tropsch plant at Castrop-Rauxel, a sufficient number to have demolished it completely. None of them detonated,and the reactor house was intact on V-E Day."

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

That means 24 to 31 percent of the ones that landed in the fences did not detonate, not 24 to 31 percent additional ones did not detonate on top of the ones that did.

They are actually still finding them all over Germany even today! When I was in Highschool they were building the post clinic next to our school and they had to evacuate us because they found a couple of unexploded bombs from WW2.

 

[syscom3]

I was reading more in the reports.

It said that the larger RAF bombs were needed to destroy the heavy eqmt. The US 1000 pounders couldnt do the job.

It also said that the destruction of the utlities surrounding the plants were a major cause of production disruption. Repairable, but damage non the less.

If I planned a raid, I would send in the RAF with the heavy bombs to target the plant, and then the B17's and -24's to plaster the area to damage the pipes and cabling.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree with that, with how you would plan that I think. That report is really interesting actually.

 

[Glider]

Dare I say give the USAAF Halifax's and Lancs so they can carry the bombs that do the damage

 

[syscom3]

Dare I say give the USAAF Halifax's and Lancs so they can carry the bombs that do the damage

Actually no, because the flak at these sites was bad enough at 30,000 feet and would be undoubtably worse at the middle altitudes the Lanc and Hali's would need to fly at.

Plus, at least the fighters had a chance to attack the Luftwaffe when they came up to defend these high value targets.

 

[plan_D]

617 Sqdn. proved that 'normal' munitions of the day were inadequete for a lot of jobs. On 22 March, 1945, they attacked Nienburg Bridge with four Lancasters (one with a 'Grand Slam') and destroyed the bridge. A raid on the same day with 102 aircraft of No.5 Group attacked the Bremen bridges, and their 'normal' bombs had no effect. The Bremen railway bridge was then attacked by 617 Sqdn. the next day and destroyed.

No need for the USAAF on the attack. Just use 617 Sqdn. to attack the plant and another squadron to attack it's surroundings. The 'Grand Slams' and 'Tallboys' wouldn't all be a direct hit and would shatter the foundations of the area, while the hits would collapse the plant.
Or you could just raid the area with a mix of Lancaster's carrying 'block busters' and 1,000 lb GP bombs.

It seems to me that the smaller Lancaster raids seem to be written off by people as one-offs to the Lancaster's ability as a bomber. Many raids consisted of less than twenty bombers all in broad daylight, which often achieved success. And not all in a time when air superiority had been achieved.

17th April, 1942, twelve Lancasters take off at 1400 from RAF Woodhall Spa and RAF Waddington to attack the MAN Diesel Engine factory at Augsburg in Bavaria, Germany. The target was one building the sized of a football ('soccer') pitch. Four were lost to fighters 300 miles from target, two were lost over target and another went down from damage. Each bomber carried four 1,000 lbs GP bombs
Over target, the Lancasters left had 24 bombs to drop on target. 17 went straight into the plant, but only 12 exploded. The plant had suffered severe damage.

 

[syscom3]

In March 1945, the Luftwaffe didnt exist. In 1942, the Luftwaffe was quite dangerous but hardly at the level that existed throughout 1943 and most of 1944.

Point is, the Lancaster performed admirably as a night time bomber, but would have been severly mauled by any type of sustained daylight raids deep into Germany, in 1943 and 1944.

Now reading about the results of using bombs of greater than 4000 lbs, this is definatley an advantage that the Lanc had over the -17 and -24.

 

[mosquitoman]

Any unescorted bomber would have been mincemeat against the Luftwaffe in 1942 with the exceptions of the B-29 (too heavily armed) and the Mossie (too fast and high for them)

 

[syscom3]

Any unescorted bomber would have been mincemeat against the Luftwaffe in 1942 with the exceptions of the B-29 (too heavily armed) and the Mossie (too fast and high for them)

B29's werent flying yet.

And the Mosquito's werent what you would call a heavy bomber

 

[mosquitoman]

I said bomber, not heavy bomber and I was talking about ANY WW2 bomber

 

[mosquitoman]

Besides, A Mossie could take the same as a B17

 

[syscom3]

Besides, A Mossie could take the same as a B17

Take the same what? Payload vs range? Punishment? Defensive armourment?

The Mossie isnt a strategic bomber anymore than the B17 a speedy attack bomber.

 

[Glider]

Actually no, because the flak at these sites was bad enough at 30,000 feet and would be undoubtably worse at the middle altitudes the Lanc and Hali's would need to fly at.

Plus, at least the fighters had a chance to attack the Luftwaffe when they came up to defend these high value targets.

If I read the article correctly, You can use the B17/B24 to carry a fraction of the bombs that will miss more frequently than the RAF and those that hit, do little lasting damage. As a result you have to go back again

or

Use the Lanc and the Halifax to carry more bombs that are more accurate and wipe the target out.

I will take the second option.

Remember that earlier in the thread it was noted that the loss ratio of the B24 and Lanc in daylight raids was as close to identical as you were going to get. So the difference to AA fire was minimal at best.