Bomber vs fighter

BiffF15 · Apr 2, 2014

Gents,

Looking at the diagram of the B-17 field of fire, and sticking to the one v one scenario I would attack it from either the pure vertical (least amount of weapons that can be brought to bear) or from head on. Reading on it seems that the Japanese did exactly the same thing (as did the Germans at least from the front). If I had a longer ranged weapons than the bomber, I would take out the offending tail / belly turret then work the plane over from below and behind (highest probability of quality hits on it).

Change the scenario to 2 versus 2 (fighters versus bombers) and the odds slew more in favor of the fighter. Use a tactic of both fighters attacking one bomber at a time from the side (minimize the additional effectiveness of both the supporting bomber and the attackee) by giving them two targets to shoot at near or simultaniously.

Change the scenario further to many versus many and you have the air war over Europe. Yes the bomber in box type formations has the highest odds of survival, but add escort and the odds increase dramatically (history speaks to that). Hence the Germans continously looking for longer ranged / more destructive fighter armaments (the longer the "stick" the more time the offender / attacker has exclusive shooting / employment opportunities). Or, it's better to shoot first...

The weakest part of any airplane is the pilot (most suseptable to gunfire). Kill both of them and the dinosaur dies even if it's body doesn't know it yet.

Cheers,
Biff

FLYBOYJ · Apr 2, 2014

Greyman said:
It's not so much that the Ki-43 was able to hamper Allied B-24 operations - that equation involves many more variables than just how a fight between a Liberator and an Oscar would turn out. On that latter question, however ... that was one of my takeaways from Christopher Shores' Bloody Shambles series that surprised me; Ki-43 vs. B-24 = bomber(s) in deep trouble.

I hve read Bloody Shambles (it's been a while) and don't remember much about this. I do know that enemy fighters were always a concern but it didn't seem to phase crews. My kids great grandfather flew in the 819th BS, 30BG - I did some research into their actions and it seems the crews didn't have a great fear of fighters.

Greyman said:
Another really interesting aspect of Shores' work; you can really see how far off the mark claims generally were.

Agree there - In the CBI I believe there was one B-24 FE who claimed 16 aircraft.

FLYBOYJ · Apr 2, 2014

parsifal said:
Day Bombers rely on the tightnes of the defensive box to give high levels of defensive fire. break up the box and you open up the bombers to a concerted attack by fighters.

The B-17 offered the best solution to this tactic, because it was well armoured and possessed pretty good all round defensive fire. Its success when operating unescorted was however only a qualified success, some would say an outright failure.

B-24s had a slightly higher operating altitude and used this to good effect.
British bombers suffered in being limited to .0.303 inch defences, and not possessing an all round field of fire. more importanly however, the night bomber formations had to enter the target area as a stream, because of navigational issues, so there was no defensive box. For this reason, British bombers, if they could detect the NF before it destroyed them, would almost always enter into a tight corkscrew manouver to try and throw the NF off its poassive detection systems. Effectively, dogfighting with a lancaster.....The last few kilometres of interception generally relied on radar homing devices and AI radar, and both these pieces of technology could be fooled by violent evasive manouvers by the bombers. they had to be lucky, but it was one way of defending.

Another was to insert Mosquitoes into the bomber streams, using a radar detection called Serrate (Types I to IV) which had varying amounts of success. Basically the LW NF would get on the tail of the mossie . at about 1km range, the mossie wouold switch off the Monika tail radar (used by the Germans as a radar beacon on which to home in on) and switch on its own AI radar, enter a tight turn throttle up, and before the LW crew knew what hit them have an angry mossie on their tail guns blazing. British AI radar was higher definition compared to German, and could either

German bombers were very vulnerable. they lacked the speed to get away, were not particulalry high fliying, were not well protected with armour, and their defensive armmanet offered incomplete fields of fire, and were generally lacking in turrets. German bombers were generally easy meat as a result. Same can be said for italian and Japanese bombers, who had the additional misery of being unarmoured , and in the case of the italians, being made out of fabric and wood.

The heavily armed defensive bomber was probably the least successful defence method of the war for the allies. greter defensive benefit would have been achieved by higher altitude, higher speed or better manouver over the defensive guns packed into the heavy bombers of the 1930s. Without a doubt, the best solutions on offer, were those provided by the Mosquito, B-26, and at the end of the war, the AR234.

B-29s had tremedous defensive benefit from their extreme ceilings, but they had to forego this in order to increase thei lethality and fire bomb Japanese cities. this in turn dictated they convert to night bombing. Lucky for the US, japanese night fighters were not very effective.

I think it's the opposite - B-17s were the higher flying aircraft, the B-24 had the range.

parsifal · Apr 2, 2014

ah, righto, my lack of knowledge of things american is exposed

tyrodtom · Apr 2, 2014

If you look at the armor on the flight deck of the B-17, you'll notice it's only behind the pilots. The armor in front of them is below them, behind the bombardier and navigator.

When attacked from the front the armor behind them is a disadvantage to what no airplane can do without, keeping the pilots alive.

Gunfire from the front would be ricocheting back thru the cockpit from the armor behind them, and explosive 20mm and bigger would have something to explode against which would shower the flightdeck with shrapnel.

mig-31bm · Apr 2, 2014

CobberKane said:
The HVAR and it's British equivalent were air to ground weapons, and not particularly accurate ones (though that did not preclude them being effective in the right circumstances). They were effectively useless air to air.

i dont get it , why the HVAR useless as air to air ?, i know it may be useless again fighter but a bomber is hardly maneuver at all
btw the spec of R4M and HVAR is quite similar except the HVAR is alot bigger and likely to be alot more destructive

R4M
velocity 525 m/s (1,175 mph)
range 600-1,000 m
weight : 3.85 kg

compared to

HVAR
velocity : 419 m/s
range : 3 miles
weight : (61 kg

mig-31bm · Apr 2, 2014

tyrodtom said:
If you look at the armor on the flight deck of the B-17, you'll notice it's only behind the pilots. The armor in front of them is below them, behind the bombardier and navigator.

When attacked from the front the armor behind them is a disadvantage to what no airplane can do without, keeping the pilots alive.

Gunfire from the front would be ricocheting back thru the cockpit from the armor behind them, and explosive 20mm and bigger would have something to explode against which would shower the flightdeck with shrapnel.

but attack them from front you will have to face 2 turret , also according to the German it take 20 hit of 20 mm bullet to bring down a bomber , dont know how much 12.7 mm would you need

Shortround6 · Apr 2, 2014

You are assuming the things will actually go where they are pointed.

A very big assumption in case of early rockets. Even small ships did not get hit 100% of the time and they are A. much larger than a bomber. B. stationary for all practical purposes.
Launch the HVAR from 419 meters and even a 200 mph bomber will move over 100yds before the rocket reaches it. Guns are pretty useless for firing tracer to "aim" the rockets as they have a much different trajectory not mention they will arrive at the target in about 1/2 the time which throws the lead all off.

For air to air use the idea was to fire large numbers of rockets in a single salvo which would "blanket" or saturate and area of airspace with the idea of at least one of the rockets hitting something. Using too few rockets is like using buckshot from a shotgun on geese. 9-12 pellets each likely to kill if it hits but 9-12 pellets in a 30-40 in wide pattern ( and all not arriving at exactly the same time, some are 5-10 ft behind the first pellet ) leaves gaps that allow the goose to be untouched even if the pattern is properly centered. If goose is at edge of pattern it can easily be untouched. Same with aircraft and 4-8 rockets is simply too few to get a good pattern from.

stona · Apr 2, 2014

mig-31bm said:
but attack them from front you will have to face 2 turret

This was the favoured means of attack for some Luftwaffe fighter units. It's not easy. Closing speeds are high leaving little time to aim and then avoid a collision, but it was effective when done properly, often precisely for the reason given by BiffF15 above.
Cheers
Steve

GrauGeist · Apr 2, 2014

mig-31bm said:
... not to mention very thick armor on a bomber...

Very little armor aboard a B-17 or B-24. The only substantially armored B-17 was the YB-40 and with the armor plating and up-gunned configuration, but it was too slow to keep up with the bombers after they delivered their bombs.

The head-on attacks by the Luftwaffe was to kill or incapicitate the pilot/co-pilot and that didn't require tremendous cannon fire, or even lighter caliber MG strikes, as the flight crew were only "protected" by the windscreen and aluminum skin. Add to that, the nose of the B-17 and B-24 had large plexiglass noses that allowed MG/cannon rounds very little resistance.

In a head-on attack, the rate of closure between the fighter and the bomber meant that the defensive armament aboard the bomber had very little time to aquire the inbound fighter, increasing the chances of the fighter successfully scoring hits on the bomber. Chasing in on the bomber's 6 meant a longer rate of closure to get in range, by which time the gunners of the bomber have had more time to aquire the fighter.

bobbysocks · Apr 2, 2014

CobberKane said:
I would be wary of equating the allied experience of attacking Fw Condors over the Atlantic with the situation a fighter would face tackling a B-17. The Condor was designed as an airliner (really, not as misdirection as was the case with many other German military aircraft) and had nothing like The B-17s toughness. Nor was it as comprehensively armed. Some contributors maintain that HMGs should be sufficient for bringing down a heavy bomber but the Luftwaffe, who were the only service routinely tasked to do so, thought otherwise and progressively up-gunned their fighters. Even so, Galland expected to lose a fighter for every bomber they bought down, and that was at a time when they could largely avoid the escorts. The LW did extensive studies on what it took to knock down a Fortress and the results were that no single engine fighter had the weapons or ammo load to reliably do the job (more than 50% of the time) unless it had 30mm cannon.
Mig, I suspect your assertion that the P-51 was as fragile or more-so than a Zero is really stretching things. But in the scenario you describe the LW experience would suggest that the average pilot in a fighter armed with HMGs would require a solid helping of luck to bring down a B-17, even without the defensive fire to deal with. Mass attacks and ganging up on stragglers were the best options

no the condor isnt as tough as a 17 or 24 but it is the only example i could come up with at the time of a 51 taking out a 4 engine heavy. i have been digging looking for friendly fire incidents fighter vs bomber...or tests where one was subjected to fighter fire....so far nothing.

mig-31bm · Apr 2, 2014

bobbysocks said:
no the condor isnt as tough as a 17 or 24 but it is the only example i could come up with at the time of a 51 taking out a 4 engine heavy. i have been digging looking for friendly fire incidents fighter vs bomber...or tests where one was subjected to fighter fire....so far nothing.

this the only thing i can find on how much it need to bring a bomber down

The R4M was developed in order to deal with the increasing weight of anti-bomber weapons being deployed by Luftwaffe fighters. Their design had started out with the 20-mm. MG 151/20 cannons, compact enough to be mounted in an internal wing bay mounting in the Focke-Wulf Fw 190, but it was found that it took an average of twenty 20-mm. hits to shoot down a typical four-engined bomber.

mig-31bm · Apr 2, 2014

Shortround6 said:
You are assuming the things will actually go where they are pointed.

A very big assumption in case of early rockets. Even small ships did not get hit 100% of the time and they are A. much larger than a bomber. B. stationary for all practical purposes.
Launch the HVAR from 419 meters and even a 200 mph bomber will move over 100yds before the rocket reaches it. Guns are pretty useless for firing tracer to "aim" the rockets as they have a much different trajectory not mention they will arrive at the target in about 1/2 the time which throws the lead all off.

For air to air use the idea was to fire large numbers of rockets in a single salvo which would "blanket" or saturate and area of airspace with the idea of at least one of the rockets hitting something. Using too few rockets is like using buckshot from a shotgun on geese. 9-12 pellets each likely to kill if it hits but 9-12 pellets in a 30-40 in wide pattern ( and all not arriving at exactly the same time, some are 5-10 ft behind the first pellet ) leaves gaps that allow the goose to be untouched even if the pattern is properly centered. If goose is at edge of pattern it can easily be untouched. Same with aircraft and 4-8 rockets is simply too few to get a good pattern from.

i know the hit rate are low but even one hit mean the bomber will go down , and also the long range ensure that the fighter will be safe

bobbysocks · Apr 2, 2014

the closest thing i can find is 2 mustangs from the 352nd taking out an he 177...but again the 177 isnt as heavily armed as a 17 or 24.

GrauGeist · Apr 2, 2014

Luftwaffe gun camera footage shows the damage they inflicted on the bombers:

First video was a compilation of Luftwaffe gun camera footage shown to German audiences during the war with a modern English commentary:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVxtJULJ0KA

GrauGeist · Apr 2, 2014

This second (and much longer) video is a compilation of captured Luftwaffe gun camera archival footage that clearly shows various Luftwaffe attack methods, including head-on attacks. In the head-on attacks, note how fast the rate of closure was between the fighter and the bomber:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuxpnx4Tic

tyrodtom · Apr 2, 2014

mig-31bm said:
but attack them from front you will have to face 2 turret , also according to the German it take 20 hit of 20 mm bullet to bring down a bomber , dont know how much 12.7 mm would you need

I've heard the 20 rounds of 20mm statistic many times, but never exactly how they determined that.

It's not likely they could have examined shot down bombers.
What could be learned from wreckage scattered across the landscape, or smoking holes in the ground ?
A few would have come down intact, but would that be enough to really determine what would bring the majority down ?

They could examine gun camera film, but I never seen any clear enough to tell how many strikes you're getting.

Or they could have shot at some intact allied aircraft structures on the ground, and try to guess at how many hits would cause structural failure in flight.

IHO, that 20 rounds of 20mm to bring down a B-17 was just a SWAG.

FLYBOYJ · Apr 2, 2014

Juha said:
Hello Flyboyj
my source is Young's B-24 Liberator vs Ki-43 Oscar China and Burma 1943 Osprey Duel 41 (2012) In real numbers Oscars shot down 31 B-24s while they lost 20 Oscars. I was also surprised when I read the book, Ki-43 wasn't an ideal interceptor but Japanese developed an effective tactic to their not so ideal tool.

Juha

Interesting! I assume that occured over several missions?

Shortround6 · Apr 2, 2014

mig-31bm said:
i know the hit rate are low but even one hit mean the bomber will go down , and also the long range ensure that the fighter will be safe

Trouble is the range won't be long if you want any real hope of a hit. No country was rich enough to fire thousands of rockets for each enemy aircraft brought down. the 5in HVAR (introduced after D-Day) used 23.9lb of propellant for a 1375 ft/sec velocity which is actually rather poor for an air to air weapon. Both the .50 cal and 20mm Hispano had velocities of around 2850-2880fps.

Any projectile falls 16ft in the first second of flight. 48ft in the second second of flight and 80ft in the 3rd second of flight. (144 ft total in 3 seconds) what governs range is how far the projectile travels in the number of seconds of flight. Both the machinegun/cannon shells/bullets and the rockets will be slowing down considerably at time goes on ( few tenths of second for the rocket burn?) form the muzzle on the guns.

You can LOB the rockets at a 'distant' bomber but the chances of a hit are pretty dismal as you have no way of knowing what the exact range is or how fast the bomber is going so trying to get an aiming point is guess work.

Ranges given in many sources are for air to ground work or are maximum ranges if launched from a certain altitude and in no way are are practical combat ranges.

Juha · Apr 2, 2014

FLYBOYJ said:
Interesting! I assume that occured over several missions?

Yes, over 22 missions in 1943, from March 13 to Dec 24. Ki-43s were most successful on Dec 1 when they got 5 B-24s while losing one Oscar and least successful on Oct 27 when they failed to shot down any B-24s but lost 3 Oscars.

Bomber vs fighter

Tech Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Colonel

Senior Master Sergeant

Airman 1st Class

Airman 1st Class

Major General

Major

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Chief Master Sergeant

Airman 1st Class

Airman 1st Class

Chief Master Sergeant

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Senior Master Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Major General

Senior Master Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads