B-17, B-24, or Lancaster

syscom3 · Jul 7, 2006

Read it again.

On the occasions the bombardiers had visual sighting, the accuracy went up to 25%.

There are other numerous incidents cited in the survey where production was disrupted by damage to the power, water and sewer systems surrounding the plants. In this case, if the RAF hit a key piece of machinery with one of the big bombs, then that component was destroyed and out of commision for quite some time. But if the 8th/15th AF didnt destroy the eqmt even with direct hits, then there still would have been interuptions in production from one reason or another.

It looks like that most of the refineries were out of commision for extended (multi-week) periods in only a few instances.

After reading a lot of the survey, I'm of the opinion if the RAF and AAF went to bombing the oil plants early in 1944 rather than waste time bombing the aircraft plants and airfields, then the German economy might have collapsed even sooner.

FLYBOYJ · Jul 7, 2006

syscom3 said:
Read it again.

On the occasions the bombardiers had visual sighting, the accuracy went up to 25%.

There are other numerous incidents cited in the survey where production was disrupted by damage to the power, water and sewer systems surrounding the plants. In this case, if the RAF hit a key piece of machinery with one of the big bombs, then that component was destroyed and out of commision for quite some time. But if the 8th/15th AF didnt destroy the eqmt even with direct hits, then there still would have been interuptions in production from one reason or another.

It looks like that most of the refineries were out of commision for extended (multi-week) periods in only a few instances.

After reading a lot of the survey, I'm of the opinion if the RAF and AAF went to bombing the oil plants early in 1944 rather than waste time bombing the aircraft plants and airfields, then the German economy might have collapsed even sooner.

Weather.............

syscom3 · Jul 7, 2006

Weather what?

FLYBOYJ · Jul 7, 2006

syscom3 said:
Weather what?

The winters of 1943-44 and 44-45 were brutal - there was discussion about this last year. Someone pointed out that the bombing of oil refineries seemed to be sparatic during the winter months and almost came to a stop in Dec. 1944 into Jan, 1945. That winter was one of the most severe winters to that date and I would bet dollars to donuts that this was al least half the reason why it seems refineries were not consistantly bombed during this period....

syscom3 · Jul 7, 2006

There were plenty of bomber missions in early 1944 (Feb 1944 - April 1944). I say that instead of hitting the airfields and Berlin, start a concerted bombing campaign against the refineries.

FLYBOYJ · Jul 7, 2006

syscom3 said:
There were plenty of bomber missions in early 1944 (Feb 1944 - April 1944). I say that instead of hitting the airfields and Berlin, start a concerted bombing campaign against the refineries.

I think the 8AF brass thought it was more important to take the Luftwafle out so the bombers could strike with little interference.....

Berlin was more a propaganda thing.....

Feb/ March 1944 the weather started clearing. Dec - Feb., 1945 the weather was horrible and mission days averages were about half of what they were during the spring and summer months. I think by the time the 8AF figured out the importance of taking out the refineries, it was the winter months....

syscom3 · Jul 7, 2006

It looks like the refinery offensive began in earnest in May and June 1944.

As for the target selection for earlier in the year, Im surprised noone in the "target selection commitee" pushed for hitting the refineries early on and the frequently. It didnt take to much imagination to see the impact to the economy.

FLYBOYJ · Jul 7, 2006

syscom3 said:
It looks like the refinery offensive began in earnest in May and June 1944.

and it just about came to a halt later in the year

syscom3 said:
As for the target selection for earlier in the year, Im surprised noone in the "target selection commitee" pushed for hitting the refineries early on and the frequently. It didnt take to much imagination to see the impact to the economy.

Doolittle didn't have an imgaination for stuff like that!

syscom3 · Jul 7, 2006

FLYBOYJ said:
Doolittle didn't have an imgaination for stuff like that!

Because he was busy figuring out how to make the B25's carrier capable?

FLYBOYJ · Jul 7, 2006

syscom3 said:
Because he was busy figuring out how to make the B25's carrier capable?

Glider · Jul 7, 2006

syscom3 said:
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.

As I said, I agree with you. You can drop the 1000lb bombs from a B17/B24 and go back again. Or a 4000lb and knock it out.
Also worth remembering that the Halifax and Lanc could also carry a number of 1000lb bombs with the 4000lb to distrupt all the support utilities at the same time.

syscom3 · Jul 7, 2006

I'd want the Lancs and Hali's to carry the heaviest bombs possible and not worry about the small bombs. Let the AAF carry the smaller bombs dropped all over the place to disrupt the utilities.

If 500-600 Lancs all carried 4000LBs bombs (or even heavier) and dropped them on a refinery complex, that would do the trick in messing something up permanently. Anything the AAF added afterwards is for a bonus.

Erich · Jul 7, 2006

it would be nice if our two US air vets could read this and make comment..........b-17sam and jhor

syscom3 · Jul 7, 2006

Erich said:
it would be nice if our two US air vets could read this and make comment..........b-17sam and jhor

Yes it would.

the lancaster kicks ass · Jul 13, 2006

why not just send all lancs? it cuts out the lack of communication between the forces issue and the lancs could carry 8,000lbers plus the 1,000lbers you want, what's the sence in sending the extra american bombers?

FLYBOYJ · Jul 13, 2006

the lancaster kicks *** said:
why not just send all lancs? it cuts out the lack of communication between the forces issue and the lancs could carry 8,000lbers plus the 1,000lbers you want, what's the sence in sending the extra american bombers?

A number of reasons....

1. Crew rest if it's a continual campaign
2. Enhanced availability of mission capable aircraft
3. Continual aircraft over target
4. Split tactics

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jul 13, 2006

How about this. Forget the B-17s, forget the Lancasters, forget the B-24s. Just send B-29s for the day and the night bombing. It would do the job better and more efficient than any of the 3 mentioned here.

mosquitoman · Jul 13, 2006

good idea for 44 and 45, not so good an idea for 42 and 43

Hop · Jul 13, 2006

How about this. Forget the B-17s, forget the Lancasters, forget the B-24s. Just send B-29s for the day and the night bombing. It would do the job better and more efficient than any of the 3 mentioned here.

I'm not sure about the more efficient part.

The price the US government paid for a B-17 in 1944 was $204,000. The B-24 cost $214,000. The Lancaster cost the British government about $140,000 each.

The B-29 cost over $600,000 each.

With more than 4 Lancasters for the price of a B-29, (and lower fuel costs too) the B-29 would have to drop a lot more bombs to be as efficient as the Lanc.

The bombers built for Bomber Command cost about £1.3 billion, roughly half the total cost of the entire BC offensive (bombs, crew, fuel etc).

So if you replaced just the heavy bombers in BC with B-29s, the cost of BC would go from £2.7 billion to £4.4 billion, even assuming operating costs were not higher.

syscom3 · Jul 13, 2006

The B29 was far more capable than the Lanc and its foolish to even think the Lanc could have performed the same role's. The -29 flew further, had a higher payload, could carry atomic weapons, was better defended and had a far higher ceiling.

There is absolutley no way Lancs based 1600 miles from Japan could begin to mount a bombing campaign that ammounted to anything.

You're mixing apples and oranges here. The B29 was a generational leap over the Lanc/B17/B24.

B-17, B-24, or Lancaster

Pacific Historian

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Pacific Historian

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Pacific Historian

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Pacific Historian

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Pacific Historian

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Captain

Pacific Historian

the old Sage

Pacific Historian

Major General

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Master Sergeant

Senior Airman

Pacific Historian

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads