B-24 ground attack tactics

[kitplane01]

If a B-24 (or similar bomber) wants to attack ground forces, I understand it was a strafing run. Was it common for twin engine bombers to stand off at a distance beyond the range of a soldier with a rifle and let the gunners fire at the enemy ground troops? If one planned ahead, one could have a large pile of ammo on board, and a long loiter time forcing the enemy to keep his head down.

Or (crazy thought) picture a B-17 orbiting an enemy position, turrets firing at ground troops.

I'm quite sure this is a bad idea if the enemy has *any* AA guns, but suppose they didn't in some particular tactical situation.

 

[Shortround6]

If you are beyond rifle range you are beyond visual range of troops on the ground.
Troops on the ground are going to have rifle caliber machine guns even if no proper AA guns.

 

[pinehilljoe]

it sounds like you are describing using a B-24 in the role of a Vietnam era AC-47

 

[Airframes]

Recipe for a big, smoking hole in the ground.
If the target is worth the risk of using a heavy bomber, then it's virtually certain that it will have more than rifles and LMGs in defence.
Instead, use a dedicated ground-attack aircraft - P-47, Typhoon, Mosquito etc etc.

 

[daveT]

I read the B-24 practiced dive-bombing in stateside training. Anyone have info on the actual use of dive-bombing in combat?

 

[gjs238]

In a sense, the B-24 (PB4Y) did end up performing ground attack missions:

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Actually during the Ploesti raid, (operation tidal wave) B-24 gunners squared off against AA batteries.

from Wiki:

With the effects of the 93rd and 376th's runs causing difficulties locating and bombing their primary targets, both Kane and Johnson did not deviate from their intended targets, taking heavy losses in the process. Their low approach even enabled gunners to engage in continued ground suppression of air defense crews from directly above their targets.

 

[kitplane01]

If you are beyond rifle range you are beyond visual range of troops on the ground.
Troops on the ground are going to have rifle caliber machine guns even if no proper AA guns.

Are you sure this is true?

My understanding of Vietnam was the AC-130s would be brought in to attack an area, not to target individual soldiers. And I don't think electro-optics were that great in 1969.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Better to drop a big pile of frags on the target.

 

[Shortround6]

Are you sure this is true?

My understanding of Vietnam was the AC-130s would be brought in to attack an area, not to target individual soldiers. And I don't think electro-optics were that great in 1969.

Pretty sure.

AC-130s often flew at 6-7000ft, they used, as part of the armament, either 7.62 mini-guns or 20mm vulcans, one such gun fires more round per second than all the guns that coule be pointed sideways from a B-24 or B-17 let alone a medium bomber.

It also depends on the target. The Vietnam gunships were often trying to stop large attacks on bases, the target areas were known and communicated to the aircraft. Like the woods/ forest west of the base. Your initial post has the individual gunners trying to fire their weapons at the troops on the ground who are doing what? marching down a road, sheltering in a woods (or town) or conducting a human wave attack across open ground? three different situations for spotting the troops on the ground.

The Missions in Vietnam were mostly at night and while the early AC-130s didn't have great electro-optics compared to what is around now it was a whole lot better than what was available in WW II. The AC-130s had night vision telescopes and FLIR from the start. WW II bombers had just the gunners eyeballs and every gunner had a different field of view and a different field of fire. The AC-47s either dropped flares at night or a second aircraft dropped flares to provid illumination.

So in WW II the bombers would be pretty much daylight only, using a range of sights (ring and bead at 1000 yds?) and anywhere from 3 to 9 .50 cal guns (assuming the B-24 can actually get the nose and tail turrets to fire on the same target at the same time, did they actually have over 180 degrees of traverse?

The limits on range are not the ballistics of the guns but the sighting systems and time of flight of the bullets.

 

[swampyankee]

The gunship concept is also dependent on the targets being unable to shoot back.

 

[Shortround6]

Different armies had different ablities to shoot back. In Vietnam the gunships were often being used to stop attacks of Battalion or Regiment in size and those formations also varied from army to army. In WW II the German army tried to have a platoon or battery of 20mm AA guns per Battalion, (not always achieved?) plus 7.9mm machine guns on AA mounts. The Italians and Japanese were not so liberally supplied. A company of infantry might have only a couple of mgs set up for air defence (or none with AA mounts held in reserve).

This size of the force being attacked also plays a part. A Battalion occupies a certain amount of real estate and regiment 2-3 times more. However a company occupies much less and can either spread out to minimize the effect of strafing or get tight and hope the majority of the bullets miss the area they are in.

 

[Sturzkampfflugzeug]

Better to drop a big pile of frags on the target.

that's just wwi all over again

 

[Greg Boeser]

We are talking about B-24s.

 

[fubar57]

 

[bdefen]

In a sense, the B-24 (PB4Y) did end up performing ground attack missions:
View attachment 583388 View attachment 583389

Used to watch one or both of these PB4Y's on initial approach while flying fire seasons during the 1990s. Those I saw were operating out of the BOI/Gowen Field location of the Boise/National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho, just about a mile and a half south of my house. What a beautiful noise!

 

[MIflyer]

A friend of mine was trained as USAAF gunner in WWII and was told he would be among those manning B-32's to be used for strafing in the invasion of Japan. The atomic bombings prevented that approach from being put into practice.

But note that in an article I posted about B-25's in Burma they were used for strafing, and the gunners fired from waist and tail, not just the nose guns.

 

[fubar57]

Must have driven the top turret gunner crazy, not having time enough to line up a target and let loose

 

[MIflyer]

Well, the top turret gunner was also the flight engineer so he had other things to entertain him. And this was at night and they were mostly firing at Japanese transport columns.

 

[pbehn]

There was an after market accessory attachment for a B-24 model posted here on the forum, some sort of rocket firing structure lowered from the bomb bay. Was that actually used and was it part of some ground attack/straffing strategy?