Best Bomber of WW2 (continued)

cheddar cheese · Feb 25, 2005

the lancaster kicks ass said:
hell lancs were used in the low level pathfinder role aswell..............

Yep, ive seen clips of em 8)

Anonymous · Feb 25, 2005

mosquitoman said:
MkIII Halifaxes could bomb at 29,000 feet if I remember correctly

Perhaps, I'm not that up on British bombers other than the Lancaster. But the point remains that British night bomber missions were almost always carried out at bombing altitudes below 20,000 feet.

=S=

Lunatic

Anonymous · Feb 25, 2005

the lancaster kicks ass said:
exactly so it wasn't a huge problem, we always stayed ahead of the Germans, and the rest of the world...............

Actually it was a problem, since each system was very expensive and several months passed between updates when the RAF bombing was not very effective (except for terror bombing of cities).

Also, the British radar bombing systems were very specific for use against Germany. They were of no use against Japan.

=S=

Lunatic

reddragon · Feb 25, 2005

I'm under the impression that night bombing was pretty much ineffective. I can't remember where I saw it but I saw something along the lines that less than 5 percent of the bombs dropped at night hit within 5 miles of the target.

I'm impressed by the B-29.

KraziKanuK · Feb 25, 2005

American bombing was not that impressive either, in the ETO. They did their own share of terror bombing.

One case I remember reading about was an attack on some target in France, in daylight. Not one bomb landed within miles of the intended target.

Anonymous · Feb 25, 2005

KraziKanuK said:
American bombing was not that impressive either, in the ETO. They did their own share of terror bombing.

One case I remember reading about was an attack on some target in France, in daylight. Not one bomb landed within miles of the intended target.

That is not really true. American daylight bombing devastated German oil and aircraft production, and wiped out their communications centers (such as rail yards), grinding much of the rest of their industry to an effective halt. By late 1944, it was very common for the Germans to have everything necessary to assemble a plane or tank or whatever, but they were unable to bring the parts together in the same place.

The mission to which you refer probably involved a target obscured by clouds - a common problem for daylight bombing.

=S=

Lunatic

trackend · Feb 26, 2005

re: Bomber accuracy
I'm Quoting this not to upset anyone only because it was a common saying in the war. I just wonder what was behind it perhaps a few too many friendly fire incidents ?

" When the British bomb the Germans duck.
When the Germans Bomb the British duck.
When the Americans Bomb everybody ducks"

KraziKanuK · Feb 26, 2005

trackend said:
re: Bomber accuracy
I'm Quoting this not to upset anyone only because it was a common saying in the war. I just wonder what was behind it perhaps a few too many friendly fire incidents ?

" When the British bomb the Germans duck.
When the Germans Bomb the British duck.
When the Americans Bomb everybody ducks"

They even killed one of their own generals because they were so accurate.

"Perhaps the best example is the scandal of COBRA, the code-name for the immense bombing operation of July 24 and 25, 1944, designed to assist the break-out of the ground forces from the Normandy beachhead near Saint-Lo. The plan was for some 1800 bombers to pulverise the German defenders, after which the Americans were to press forward with, it was hoped, considerable ease. The bombing attack was to occur on July 25, but through a communications blunder many planes dropped their bombs the day before, and so inaccurately that 25 American soldiers were killed and 131 wounded. "Some enraged American units," says Max Hastings, "opened fire on their own aircraft, a not uncommon practice among all the armies in Normandy when suffering at the hands of their own pilots.

But worse was to come next day, when the operation was re-mounted.

This time the American line was secretly withdrawn thousands of yards to avoid its being bombed a second time, and this time the bombing was even more incontinent, the bombs now failing on the American line to the tune of 111 killed, including Lt. General Lesley McNair, observing from a forward position, and almost five hundred wounded. Men were torn apart, tanks were tossed around like toys, and troops were driven insane."

Another example of the precion bombing.

"Weeks before, on D-Day, 480 B-24s had dropped 1,285 tons of bombs before the landings on Omaha Beach.
This performance had been, as Bradley notes, "completely ineffective," the 13,000 bombs falling well inland to kill only French civilians and their livestock."

It should be noted that there was very little opposition unlike what would be found over Germany.

mosquitoman · Feb 26, 2005

If I remember correctly, distress flares were lit by the troops under the bombing by their own planes but it was the same colour as the target markers being used that day.

cheddar cheese · Feb 26, 2005

trackend said:
re: Bomber accuracy
I'm Quoting this not to upset anyone only because it was a common saying in the war. I just wonder what was behind it perhaps a few too many friendly fire incidents ?

" When the British bomb the Germans duck.
When the Germans Bomb the British duck.
When the Americans Bomb everybody ducks"

Anonymous · Feb 26, 2005

Please - don't confuse communications errors which told the bombers to bomb the wrong places with "inaccuracy".

Also, weather had a lot to do with some of the bad bombing near the coast.

And besided, the British also participated in this bombing, with similar results.

=S=

Lunatic

trackend · Feb 26, 2005

It was only an observation Loony thats why it was in the form of a question I'm sure you are right personally I believe a lot of the problems the British had was due to poor communications when my father was in hospital not long after d-day he recounted being laid up along side a tank commander whom had suffered server burns (as was the norm for Sherman crews) they had been bombed in a woods by US planes because the chain of command was so long that by the time a message had reach the US flight control via British HQ etc ,etc that the objective had already been taken and it was too late to stop the raid taking place but of course to the lads who got shit on from a great height it was the end result that was all that concerned them to-wit "the Yanks bombed the crap out of us" possible this is why in modern warfare direct ground to air communications are the norm thats not to say friendly fire still doesn't happen (gulf war 90-91 for example)

MP-Willow · Feb 26, 2005

Bombing over the coarse of the war was not that great. Radio or flare communication was at times very shoddy.

As for friendly fire, saddly it did and will continue to plage war.

Now this being about the best bomber, may I say the B-24

the lancaster kicks ass · Feb 26, 2005

dude the americans "terror bombed" just as much as us, and remember we were bombing by night, it's allot harder............

cheddar cheese · Feb 26, 2005

I wouldnt say it was very much harder...judging by the loss rates of American bombers and British bombers id say day bombing was harder to get a successful mission...

the lancaster kicks ass · Feb 26, 2005

but we're talking accuracy not mission success rates, there's a difference, and finding the target by day is much easier than it is by night.........

MP-Willow · Feb 26, 2005

CC, when it was available the Day bombing was held for military targets. But there was always targets of Oprotunity and of coarse if yu bomb out the house you break the spirit, or well what the USAAC thought. But Germany and Britten both had cities flattened and production not greatly hurt.

Anonymous · Feb 26, 2005

the lancaster kicks ass said:
dude the americans "terror bombed" just as much as us, and remember we were bombing by night, it's allot harder............

That's true - vs. Japan. Not against Germany.

cheddar cheese · Feb 26, 2005

the lancaster kicks ass said:
but we're talking accuracy not mission success rates, there's a difference, and finding the target by day is much easier than it is by night.........

We wasnt talking about accuracy, nor mission success rates...But I will agree with that. However By day fog and heavy cloud cover can cause problems.

Anonymous · Feb 26, 2005

the lancaster kicks ass said:
but we're talking accuracy not mission success rates, there's a difference, and finding the target by day is much easier than it is by night.........

That's only partially true. As you know European skies tend to have a lot of clouds. Quite often it was impossible for the USAAF bombers to visually locate their actual IP's, and this effected average "accuracy" tremendously, since they dropped the bombs at that point as best they could. When the weather was clear, US bombing was generally much more accurate than RAF night bombing. RAF night radar bombing was not much effected by clouds, and they flew lower too.

In general, the British considered they'd hit the target if they put a bomb within the city targeted, the US considered they'd hit the target if they put a bomb within about 500 meters of the structure targeted. Different standards entirely!

=S=

Lunatic

Best Bomber of WW2 (continued)

Major General

Anonymous

Guest

Anonymous

Guest

Airman 1st Class

Banned

Anonymous

Guest

Chief Master Sergeant

Banned

Master Sergeant

Major General

Anonymous

Guest

Chief Master Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Major General

Major General

Major General

Staff Sergeant

Anonymous

Guest

Major General

Anonymous

Guest

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads