Bomber Question

MikeMeech said:

The Battle of Cambrai saw a major use of the 'Fighter Bomber' concept, Orders for I Brigade and Ninth Wing. It mentions at '4 (c)' that two scouts would be 'bombed up' ready to attack when called for throughout the day as would 12 Corps aircraft '4 (d)'. The airfields would be connected to the front telephone network as well as the RFC wireless, Corps aircraft on Counter Attack Patrols could wireless in reports of enemy troops.

Click to expand...

Yes they did, there are plenty of examples of this, across the front, in Belgium as well as France and during the 100 Days' Offensive in 1918 the practise became commonplace. This is a mural on a building in Flanders very close to Polygon Wood, where the Australians and Kiwis had a bit of a rough time against the Germans in 1917, around the same time as the disastrous attack at Passendale.

Great War Tour 161

Also, Wadi Haifa and the Battle of Meggido ranks as a supreme example of the use of air interdiction in 1918, but it remains little known about. Here's a passage from the wiki page:

"On 21 September, the Seventh Army was spotted by aircraft in a defile west of the river. The RAF proceeded to bomb the retreating army and destroyed the entire column. Waves of bombing and strafing aircraft passed over the column every three minutes and although the operation had been intended to last for five hours, the Seventh Army was routed in 60 minutes. The wreckage of the destroyed column stretched over 6 miles (9.7 km). British cavalry later found 87 guns, 55 motor-lorries, 4 motor-cars, 75 carts, 837 four-wheeled wagons, and scores of water-carts and field-kitchens destroyed or abandoned on the road. Many Ottoman soldiers were killed and the survivors were scattered and leaderless. Lawrence later wrote that "the RAF lost four killed. The Turks lost a corps."

From here: Battle of Megiddo (1918) - Wikipedia

pbehn said:

I was purely talking of horsepower and weights. As far as the BoB goes as the day time attacks turned into the night time Blitz in October the LW used Bf 109s to make high altitude attacks, they caused little damage but were hard to stop, it was already established that medium bombers suffered too many losses doing the same. You could make the same point about any of the twin engine designs, to stay in the game the Me110 had to have the same engine development as the 109 did.

Click to expand...

Yes and no, again, although Bf 109s were used as jabos, their actual use wasn't widespread, in fact, it was very infrequent and their use in low-level encounters was largely to protect the Bf 110s. The Germans didn't adopt this practise wholesale - the low-level attacks of this nature were tasked by Kesselring to do so and similar raids by other squadrons were not endorsed wholesale within the other Luftflotten. One target that Bf 109 Jabos attacked repeatedly was against Manston; the Bf 109 Jabo simply didn't have the range to go too much further inland and the fantasy of carrying a bomb to altitude to attack London? Yeah nah, didn't happen.

Bf 110s were the aircraft of choice and as effective as Ebg 210s attacks were, as Mike says, it came at a high cost to the unit. On Adlertag the unit was almost wiped out attacking Kenley when it was bounced by Hurricanes ( I may have gotten a couple of different raids mixed up in my previous post - devoid of my sources so going from memory right now). Bf 109s were in escort but were not employed as bombers. Kesselring later got a smack on the pee pee for attacking "London", even though the target was Kenley airfield.

nuuumannn said:

Yes and no, again, although Bf 109s were used as jabos, their actual use wasn't widespread, in fact, it was very infrequent and their use in low-level encounters was largely to protect the Bf 110s. The Germans didn't adopt this practise wholesale - the low-level attacks of this nature were tasked by Kesselring to do so and similar raids by other squadrons were not endorsed wholesale within the other Luftflotten. One target that Bf 109 Jabos attacked repeatedly was against Manston; the Bf 109 Jabo simply didn't have the range to go too much further inland and the fantasy of carrying a bomb to altitude to attack London? Yeah nah, didn't happen.

Bf 110s were the aircraft of choice and as effective as Ebg 210s attacks were, as Mike says, it came at a high cost to the unit. On Adlertag the unit was almost wiped out attacking Kenley when it was bounced by Hurricanes ( I may have gotten a couple of different raids mixed up in my previous post - devoid of my sources so going from memory right now). Bf 109s were in escort but were not employed as bombers. Kesselring later got a smack on the pee pee for attacking "London", even though the target was Kenley airfield.

Click to expand...

I think you have miss understood what I meant and posted. The Bf 110 used by Epg wasnt a medium bomber which is how this discussion began. I was just talking about horsepower and loads.

As to the point in bold I read it here on this forum, take it up with the author Njako this thread post #303 This Day in the Battle of Britain Quote "The Luftwaffe renewed its persistent raids of bomb-carrying Bf109s on London and selected targets in the southeast throughout the day." I would say it did happen because I have read it elsewhere too. It is just over 100 miles from the Pas de Calais to central London. When you dont have to escort a bomber and fight for 5 minutes you can reach it with a bomb.

From post #306 "From 0800 hours reconnaissance raids were made at regular intervals until just after 1030 hours when radar detected a formation of Bf109s crossing the Channel toward the Kent coast at Deal. Whilst the Spitfires of RAF Nos. 66, 74 and 92 Squadrons were occupied with the raiders, a small section of bomb-carrying Bf109s broke away and successfully bombed targets in central London including Charing Cross bridge. P/O R.R.Hutley flew with RAF No. 213 Squadron. He baled out of his Hurricane I (P2720) off Selsey at 1145 hours. He was picked up but he died later.

But not at altitude as I said - your words were "In October the LW used Bf 109s to make high altitude attacks". From the very same page.

"This was a diversionary feint attack about 20 kilometres from the primary target and we took the opportunity to descend to about 4-500 metres for the attack. It was at this altitude that we struck at the target with bombs and our fixed armament and it was during this low-level attack that I received a hit in the radiator system, presumably from the ground defences."

500 metres is around 1,600 feet - that's not high altitude.

Not once have I said the raids never took place, in fact my very words were (in case you missed it the first time, which you clearly did, otherwise we wouldn't be here)

"although Bf 109s were used as jabos, their actual use wasn't widespread, in fact, it was very infrequent"

...Which it was compared to the use of Bf 110s in the role, which had been happening since July, yet the Bf 109 Jabos weren't used beyond Ebg 210, of which one Staffel was equipped with them, until mid-September. The modification to enable the Bf 109 to carry a single 250 kg bomb was spurred on by Ebg 210's commanding officer Rubensdorfer before he got shot down on 13 August 1940 but their wider use within the Jagdgruppen was subsequently adopted later. On 2 September Goring issued an edict stating that Bf 109s should begin bombing raids and the first of which took place on 15 September, during which time on a midday raid there were 21 fighter bombers used.

A number of air forces planned to use (and did use) light and medium bombers for "grand tactical" bombing.

Definitions change over the years and bit from country to country. I try not to get hung up on definitions of particular words.

"Grand Tactical" often falls into interdiction or low level strategic bombing. The targets of the Medium bombers were not factories but things like bridges and rail lines and docks that could bring supplies/reinforcements to the land battle. In a short campaign this was more effective than bombing factories. Your bombers are not affecting the front line troops directly but are cutting the ammunition, food, fuel supply and thus their ability to fight tomorrow or next week as opposed to weeks or months in future like bombing the factories.

The Germans may well have planned to use their twin engine medium bombers in such a fashion and affect the land battle/campaign but without bombing artillery batteries, tank units, pill boxes, field fortifications. Depending on how well one air force could clear the skies of enemy fighters and depending on the state of the enemies AA guns/defenses the early medium bombers could be brought into play on actual tactical targets. Frontline troops or artillery positions close to the front lines. French army AA guns in 1940 were few and far between and weren't very good in the few models that did see service (prototypes/low production may be different).

British and French attempts to bomb the Bridges over the Muse got some of the flyers medals (posthumously) but didn't stop or slow the Germans. Attempts to bomb German supply lines (trucks or horse drawn wagons) were too few to have much impact.

This area of use is a large grey area between "strategic bombing" or grand strategic (fuel program) and tactical (blowing up specific tanks/pill boxes).

Did the Germans try to bomb French ports to interrupt the flow of supplies from Britain (or elsewhere) ?
Not trying to bomb the entire city as later "strategic bombing" would call for but hit ships/docks.

Some fighters did do long range "bombing" but it is hard to say if it was really worthwhile. Some Hurricanes (IVs) flew missions with either four rockets or a bomb under one wing and drop tank under the other in order to get the needed range. Four planes, four engines and four crewmen to do what a single Do 17 could do if the Hurricane was carrying a 500lb bomb.
P-38s bombed Ploesti with a single bomb each and drop tank under the other wing. Yeah, it was "strategic bombing" but more of a stunt than anything like a devastating blow.

Some of the German fighter bomber raids on England were more in the nature of tip and runs. Fly over England (somewhere) drop bomb and run for home. Hoping to use up more British resources trying to stop the raids than the Germans were using to stage them.

nuuumannn said:

Yes they did, there are plenty of examples of this, across the front, in Belgium as well as France and during the 100 Days' Offensive in 1918 the practise became commonplace. This is a mural on a building in Flanders very close to Polygon Wood, where the Australians and Kiwis had a bit of a rough time against the Germans in 1917, around the same time as the disastrous attack at Passendale.

View attachment 626342Great War Tour 161

Also, Wadi Haifa and the Battle of Meggido ranks as a supreme example of the use of air interdiction in 1918, but it remains little known about. Here's a passage from the wiki page:

"On 21 September, the Seventh Army was spotted by aircraft in a defile west of the river. The RAF proceeded to bomb the retreating army and destroyed the entire column. Waves of bombing and strafing aircraft passed over the column every three minutes and although the operation had been intended to last for five hours, the Seventh Army was routed in 60 minutes. The wreckage of the destroyed column stretched over 6 miles (9.7 km). British cavalry later found 87 guns, 55 motor-lorries, 4 motor-cars, 75 carts, 837 four-wheeled wagons, and scores of water-carts and field-kitchens destroyed or abandoned on the road. Many Ottoman soldiers were killed and the survivors were scattered and leaderless. Lawrence later wrote that "the RAF lost four killed. The Turks lost a corps."

From here: Battle of Megiddo (1918) - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

Hi

Personally it is not 'little known' (but then I do write on the subject of WW1 air support and communications, so a bit of bias), like most history it is known by people who actually read books on WW1 and on air power. It will be little known by members of the 'general public' who probably have no interest in either subject, but it appears in numerous books.
Here is a 'less known' document from the UK National Archives that is a first hand account of actions at the time:




I hope that is of interest.

Mike

nuuumannn said:

Yes they did, there are plenty of examples of this, across the front, in Belgium as well as France and during the 100 Days' Offensive in 1918 the practise became commonplace. This is a mural on a building in Flanders very close to Polygon Wood, where the Australians and Kiwis had a bit of a rough time against the Germans in 1917, around the same time as the disastrous attack at Passendale.

View attachment 626342Great War Tour 161

Also, Wadi Haifa and the Battle of Meggido ranks as a supreme example of the use of air interdiction in 1918, but it remains little known about. Here's a passage from the wiki page:

"On 21 September, the Seventh Army was spotted by aircraft in a defile west of the river. The RAF proceeded to bomb the retreating army and destroyed the entire column. Waves of bombing and strafing aircraft passed over the column every three minutes and although the operation had been intended to last for five hours, the Seventh Army was routed in 60 minutes. The wreckage of the destroyed column stretched over 6 miles (9.7 km). British cavalry later found 87 guns, 55 motor-lorries, 4 motor-cars, 75 carts, 837 four-wheeled wagons, and scores of water-carts and field-kitchens destroyed or abandoned on the road. Many Ottoman soldiers were killed and the survivors were scattered and leaderless. Lawrence later wrote that "the RAF lost four killed. The Turks lost a corps."

From here: Battle of Megiddo (1918) - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

Hi

Of course it was not just Megiddo that this type of action was going on, 'Air Power and Armies' by J C Slessor, OUP 1936, pages 102-103, mentions the Kosturino Pass on the Macedonian front, the Conegliano-Pordonone road on the Italian front as well as Megiddo, as follows:

However, the main focus of Slessor's book is about the Amiens 'air plan' and how it could have been improved. One part of that plan was the attack on bridges, this did not work very well and losses were sustained without destroying the bridges in question. This was in major part due to the weaponry available at that time, the tactic was viable but ahead of the technology. The same ideas, with their associated problems arise during WW2 and this is seen in the air plan of 'D-Day', and is discussed in 'Royal Air Force 1939-45, Volume III, The Fight is Won' by Hilary St. G. Saunders, page 96:

It was not just fighter-bombers that attacked the bridges, as page 128 mentions the use of medium and heavy bombers:

This is an example of air theory that was thought about during WW1 but was not yet really viable due to the level of technology but used more successfully, although not without problems, during WW2. Also the WW2 example shows Fighter-bomber, medium and heavy bombers all being tasked against the same target types.

Mike

nuuumannn said:

Not once have I said the raids never took place, in fact my very words were (in case you missed it the first time, which you clearly did, otherwise we wouldn't be here)

"although Bf 109s were used as jabos, their actual use wasn't widespread, in fact, it was very infrequent"
.

Click to expand...

Actually you did "One target that Bf 109 Jabos attacked repeatedly was against Manston; the Bf 109 Jabo simply didn't have the range to go too much further inland and the fantasy of carrying a bomb to altitude to attack London? Yeah nah, didn't happen.

From here Fighter-bomber attacks on the United Kingdom during World War II - Wikipedia
Later in autumn, the Luftwaffe conducted a series of attacks on London using Bf 109 fighter-bombers.[8] These operations represented the majority of German attacks on Britain in October 1940, and the British defences had difficulty detecting and intercepting the high-flying and fast fighter-bomber formations. Due to their speed British radar stations usually provided less than 20 minutes warning before the aircraft arrived over London.[9] The Luftwaffe conducted 140 attacks involving 2,633 fighter-bomber sorties against London during October. Losses were light, with 29 Bf 109s being destroyed.[10] October marked the peak of fighter-bomber operations in 1940 but attacks continued until late in the year. The rate of effort decreased during November and December as the Bf 109s needed to be used to counter RAF fighter sweeps over France and the onset of winter weather reduced flying opportunities.[11]

There is no advantage in conducting these attacks at low level, it makes the attacker vulnerable to ground fire and gives any defender height advantage intercepting the attacker either on the way there or on the way back.

nuuumannn said:

the role of interdiction went largely forgotten after the Great War despite its use during it, even if it wasn't correctly understood that that was indeed what these aircraft were doing

Click to expand...

I didn't know they had largely abandoned interest in that. I would have figured it would have remained in some way whether it be subsumed under tactical or strategic bombing. Your description of the RAF classifying it as "army cooperation" seems indicative of it being folded under tactical bombing.

You've just assisted in answering my statement in attempting to counter it

Click to expand...

I wasn't exactly trying to counter it, I was just pointing out what appeared to be errors in your statement.

That the USAAC was interested in dive bombers from 1939 did not translate to the acquisition of hardware until mid to late 1940 of the A-24 in paltry numbers, that were, in effect conversions of navy bombers

Click to expand...

Yes, but you said they were interested after Pearl Harbor. The interest started before that, and regarding the planes being classified as Navy Bombers, that kind of goes to the point of attack/bomber being designations that are largely that of semantics.

The USN called it's surface/ground-attack aircraft as follows

• B: Usually a dive-bomber in this case
• TB: Torpedo bomber which, in practice, was also a level-bomber as well. These aircraft ended up increasingly being used for other roles such as anti-submarine warfare, airborne early warning, and even transportation (COD)
• SB: Scout-bomber, which combined scout & dive-bombing together
• BT: Bomber-Torpedo, a dive-bomber that could also be used for torpedo-bombing. The designation was to differentiate it from the torpedo-bomber role.
• TS: Torpedo Scout: A category which combined scout and torpedo/level bombing. This category never was formally used (the one aircraft built to it, far as I know, never entered service)
• P: Maritime Patrol: These aircraft were often designed for long range surveillance of surface ships, but were (either usually/always) capable of carrying bombs as well. Some (IIRC) were employed in anti-submarine warfare roles.
• PB: Patrol Bomber: Apparently a maritime patrol aircraft with more bombs

In 1946: B, TB, SB & BT, were classified as "A" for attack, and the anti-submarine warfare, airborne early warning, and COD roles were eventually reclassified as "S", "E", and "C" respectively, at a later date.

From what I remember, in the 1950's, the PB category was removed in favor of the more simple "P" role.

While the SBD & SB2C were USN designs, they were largely procured because the US Army did not have any suitable dive-bombers of their own, and they wanted them online as soon as possible. The Vultee Vengeance didn't fly until around 1941 if I recall, and the SBD & SB2C were both airborne in 1940 as prototypes, from what I remember (and the SBD was based on the earlier BT, which was built in 1935).

As for the A-20 being the DB-7B, which entered service initially as the DB-7 (the -7B had more powerful engines and a larger tail): From what I recall, the USAAC had already some interest in twin-engined attack-aircraft such as the A-14/A-18, as well as the proposed XA-15 (which was a modified attack variant of the Martin B-10 family)

Actually you did "One target that Bf 109 Jabos attacked repeatedly was against Manston; the Bf 109 Jabo simply didn't have the range to go too much further inland and the fantasy of carrying a bomb to altitude to attack London? Yeah nah, didn't happen.

From here Fighter-bomber attacks on the United Kingdom during World War II - Wikipedia
Later in autumn, the Luftwaffe conducted a series of attacks on London using Bf 109 fighter-bombers.[8] These operations represented the majority of German attacks on Britain in October 1940, and the British defences had difficulty detecting and intercepting the high-flying and fast fighter-bomber formations. Due to their speed British radar stations usually provided less than 20 minutes warning before the aircraft arrived over London.[9] The Luftwaffe conducted 140 attacks involving 2,633 fighter-bomber sorties against London during October. Losses were light, with 29 Bf 109s being destroyed.[10] October marked the peak of fighter-bomber operations in 1940 but attacks continued until late in the year. The rate of effort decreased during November and December as the Bf 109s needed to be used to counter RAF fighter sweeps over France and the onset of winter weather reduced flying opportunities.[11]

There is no advantage in conducting these attacks at low level, it makes the attacker vulnerable to ground fire and gives any defender height advantage intercepting the attacker either on the way there or on the way back.

Click to expand...

Look, I can't be bothered going any further with this. Ok, you win, wikipedia has given you the edge. I surrender...

MikeMeech said:

Personally it is not 'little known' (but then I do write on the subject of WW1 air support and communications, so a bit of bias), like most history it is known by people who actually read books on WW1 and on air power. It will be little known by members of the 'general public' who probably have no interest in either subject, but it appears in numerous books.
Here is a 'less known' document from the UK National Archives that is a first hand account of actions at the time:

Click to expand...

Marvellous. The RFC and RAF's participation in lands held by the Ottoman Empire remain ignored by historians and those with a general interest alike unfortunately and unless like yourself there is a specific interest in the subject it is missed in the clammer for info on the aces and more generic subject matter.

MikeMeech said:

'Air Power and Armies' by J C Slessor,

Click to expand...

I have a copy of this and used it in my studies.

MikeMeech said:

This is an example of air theory that was thought about during WW1 but was not yet really viable due to the level of technology but used more successfully, although not without problems, during WW2.

Click to expand...

Indeed. There were so many ideas that were put into practise during the Great War that couldn't be exercised thoroughly because of the technology of the day. My particular area of interest is in the use of naval aviation in the Dardanelles/Gallipoli campaign, which was considerable, but gets very little, if any recognition of what was done. Its impact wasn't immediately felt, despite discussions held at the Admiralty subsequently. Ground attack was the same; in WW2 naturally it had to evolve beyond preconceived ideas and what was learned had to be relearned because of the inattention paid to the subject between the wars. Innovation such as the FAC role came about as a result of changing circumstances and individuals with vision and it's arguable that such things could have come about sooner had attention been paid to them, but focus was on keeping the peace, not thinking up more ways of winning wars. The same with Korea, when WW2 was just five years hence, yet much work had to be done in cooperation between the armed forces.