Bomber vs fighter

[mig-31bm]

There was mention a little ways back about rockets being used on bombers.

This is a B-24M (44-50838) that was hit by a salvo of R4M rockets launched by a Me262 on 4 April 1945. Only one crewmember, Cpl. Charles Cupp, Jr., survived. This was exactly 69 years ago today.

View attachment 258475

seem very destructive , image a head on hit from HVAR which is alot bigger

 

[CobberKane]

actually all these 3 are average , but of different kind to deal with different sort of statistic

Good call - I was using the common vernacular when I should have been sticking to the strictly mathematical.

 

[GrauGeist]

seem very destructive , image a head on hit from HVAR which is alot bigger

With the higher speed of the Me262, a head-on attack was unlikely (but not unheard of), they generally attacked from behind.

From the looks of the damage to the B-24 in the photograph, it was a single R4M that struck the fuselage in the waist area. There also looks to be damage on the starboard wing and inboard starboard engine from 30mm hits.

 

[Milosh]

The Me262 had to slow down when attacking heavy bombers.

 

[beitou]

Which position was the surving crew member of that B 24 in?

 

[stona]

Interesting, Stona.

It makes it clear that with a frontal attack you get 1 second to fire*, which is a lot less time to fire than if approaching from the rear. Well, at least the B-17 only has about a second to fire at you also!

* With an MG151/20, that's a chance for about 11 rounds on target. For the slower firing cannon from a zero it's about 8 rounds.

Yes, but any 20mm cannon rounds, plus however many hits from the machine guns, taken in the cockpit area is going to be fairly devastating if not fatal. As someone else pointed out the weakest part of any manned aircraft is the man. The pilot(s) of most WW2 bombers are almost unprotected from a frontal attack and the Luftwaffe was well aware of this.

The problem for the fighter pilot is actually making that shot in the minimal time available. It certainly could be done, I've seen several segments of gun camera footage that show it.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Garyt]

The problem for the fighter pilot is actually making that shot in the minimal time available. It certainly could be done, I've seen several segments of gun camera footage that show it.

I read where it was difficult to time right and be able to pull up, as they were closing at about 600 mph, very easy to fire to early (out of range) or too late.

 

[stona]

I read where it was difficult to time right and be able to pull up, as they were closing at about 600 mph, very easy to fire to early (out of range) or too late.

Exactly. One Luftwaffe pilot recalled the closing speed as 1,000 kph which is presumably what they were told and based their calculations upon.

Cheers

Steve

 

[BiffF15]

I'm really surprised the Germans didn't come up with a simple way of judging ranges for face shots. I would have used to inverted staples, |___| for on trigger, and |______| for off trigger. When the wingspan fills the first start shooting, and when it fills the second stop and pull / roll away. Final product would have looked like this |__|___|__| (middle two uprights for on trigger, outer two for off trigger).

But then again I like things simple...

Todays radars give very accurate range and velocity of closure, and with the gun called up VERY accurate shooting (if the bandit behaves). They also give you excellent feedback on where your bullets are going. No more flying the tracers onto the enemy (not enough trigger time). The Eagle carries 940 rounds, the most except for the A-10, and that equates to approx 9.4 seconds on high rate. If your shots are accurate it takes well less than a second to "kill" another aircraft. Bullets are also not susceptible to chaff, flares, or electronic jamming.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[pbehn]

There was a video link here showing Japanese fighters engaging a B17 from head on ...but they were flying inverted, I couldnt understand why, any answers?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

There was a video link here showing Japanese fighters engaging a B17 from head on ...but they were flying inverted, I couldnt understand why, any answers?g

They will go inverted, hit their targets and dive away inverted at high speeds keeping positive Gs on the airframe at all time, I've seen LW pilots do this too, I think they would have an easier time recovering and re-engaging using elevator than aileron.

 

[pbehn]

They will go inverted, hit their targets and dive away inverted at high speeds keeping positive Gs on the airframe at all time, I've seen LW pilots do this too, I think they would have an easier time recovering and re-engaging using elevator than aileron.

Thanks Flyboy, I was thinking maybewhen flying inverted the guns would fire up slightly giving a better chance of a hit. Obviously not

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Thanks Flyboy, I was thinking maybewhen flying inverted the guns would fire up slightly giving a better chance of a hit. Obviously not

Your welcome - here's something interesting...

"When intercepting a bomber force, German fighter units initially flew a parallel course off to one side outside the range of the defensive guns. After reaching a point about 3 miles ahead, either three or four plane groups peeled off and swung 180 degrees around to attack head-on in rapid succession. It was critical for the fighters to maintain some semblance of cohesion, or at least visual contact, so after each pass they could regroup for repeated concentrated attacks. That was the theory anyway. In reality, many pilots ended the first pass with a split-S maneuver, inverting and diving down and away from the defensive fire above them.

With increased experience, German fighters began to make their head-on attacks using either in line astern or with the entire unit spread out abreast in the "company front" formation. The recommended procedure was to pull up and over the bombers and then from their position of advantage above, the German fighters were quickly able to launch another attack. It was critical for the fighters to maintain some semblance of cohesion, or at least visual contact, so after each pass they could regroup for repeated concentrated attacks. That was the theory anyway. The huge tail fin of the Fortress posed a collision risk and many German pilots preferred to break away below. Either they dipped the noses of their aircraft and passed close underneath, or rolled inverted and broke hard down with the "Abschwung" (Split-S maneuver.) This took them well below the bombers and valuable minutes were lost before they could gain sufficient height to attack again."

German Pilot Perspective

 

[pbehn]

Your welcome - here's something interesting...

"When intercepting a bomber force, German fighter units initially flew a parallel course off to one side outside the range of the defensive guns. After reaching a point about 3 miles ahead, either three or four plane groups peeled off and swung 180 degrees around to attack head-on in rapid succession. It was critical for the fighters to maintain some semblance of cohesion, or at least visual contact, so after each pass they could regroup for repeated concentrated attacks. That was the theory anyway. In reality, many pilots ended the first pass with a split-S maneuver, inverting and diving down and away from the defensive fire above them.

With increased experience, German fighters began to make their head-on attacks using either in line astern or with the entire unit spread out abreast in the "company front" formation. The recommended procedure was to pull up and over the bombers and then from their position of advantage above, the German fighters were quickly able to launch another attack. It was critical for the fighters to maintain some semblance of cohesion, or at least visual contact, so after each pass they could regroup for repeated concentrated attacks. That was the theory anyway. The huge tail fin of the Fortress posed a collision risk and many German pilots preferred to break away below. Either they dipped the noses of their aircraft and passed close underneath, or rolled inverted and broke hard down with the "Abschwung" (Split-S maneuver.) This took them well below the bombers and valuable minutes were lost before they could gain sufficient height to attack again."

German Pilot Perspective

good info thanks

 

[pbehn]

good info thanks

I remember reading about a Spitfire pilot doing a withdrawal of B17s over France late in the war, he thanked his lucky stars he was escorting and not attacking the formation. I think the book was called "fighter boys"

 

[GrauGeist]

I recall reading about a couple 262 pilots that conducted "swooping" passes through a box formation, starting their run above and behind, diving through and giving short bursts as they went. Once through the formation, they passed ahead and climbed above the formation coming about for another pass, then diving through just as they had before, just in the opposite direction.

I'll have to look through my books to see who the pilot was that described this.

 

[Milosh]

German fighter tactics vs bombers, German Fighter Tactics Against Flying Fortresses

Bomber formations, B-17 Flying Fortress / Details / Formation

 

[Greyman]

I'm really surprised the Germans didn't come up with a simple way of judging ranges for face shots. I would have used to inverted staples, |___| for on trigger, and |______| for off trigger. When the wingspan fills the first start shooting, and when it fills the second stop and pull / roll away. Final product would have looked like this |__|___|__| (middle two uprights for on trigger, outer two for off trigger).

Most (maybe all?) reflector gunsights had various markings for this and other purposes. However, in life-and-death combat, sometimes what little training an 18 year old receives doesn't always stick.

 

[Aozora]

From

The origins of the frontal attack and Adolf Galland's commentary:

In spite of the tactic's success in August the OKL ordered that they could no longer be carried out:

 

[BiffF15]

Most (maybe all?) reflector gunsights had various markings for this and other purposes. However, in life-and-death combat, sometimes what little training an 18 year old receives doesn't always stick.

View attachment 258580

I think the first two pictures (top row) shows the "beir goggles" effect, and the third shows reality...

All feeble attempts at humor aside, notice that the lower row of sight pictures shows a stern attack. The OKL ordering all heavy bomber attacks must be from the stern forced the youngsters to fly into a hail storm (I know it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't order), however I think it would have been better to give the freedom of deciding tactics to those whose life was on the line.

Cheers,
Biff