Erich
the old Sage
totally the latter Chris, good observation by the way .....
Effectiveness of Heavy Bomber defensive fires vs LW Fighters
- Thread starter kettbo
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
They uparmed because they needed weapons that could disable a bomber quicker and from a longer range, thus exposing the fighters to less defensive fire.
The changing of attack strategies was enable the fighters to approach the bombers in a way that exposed the fighters to the least amount of return fire for the minimum amount of time.
I shouldn't have to explain why they uparmored.
The changing of attack strategies was enable the fighters to approach the bombers in a way that exposed the fighters to the least amount of return fire for the minimum amount of time.
I shouldn't have to explain why they uparmored.
Erich
the old Sage
actually SturmFw tactics brought the Fw's within feet of US heavies and thus gave them more time to be exposed to defensive fire in from attacks from the rear. Höhenjägern or no the Fw's still attacked from the rear no matter what if they were overwhelmed by US escorts or not.
Dang wish my old web-site with Neil Page on the Sturmjager was still up and running...................not to brag but it was the best thing on the web, still is for that matter if you can find any of the old pages as much of the questions on this thread were answered.
Dang wish my old web-site with Neil Page on the Sturmjager was still up and running...................not to brag but it was the best thing on the web, still is for that matter if you can find any of the old pages as much of the questions on this thread were answered.
drgondog
Major
Defensive fire was clearly effective, but from March 1944 to the end of WWII no attack from LW was guaranteed to be permitted for more than one pass. A 7'Oclock to 5'Oclock pass from the rear in a heavily armored Fw 190A-8 was the best chance to have the highest kill/sortie approach - and the 190A-8 Sturm suffered grievous losses from July through November, 1944. After November 1944 they were largely ineffective due to near complete coverage by Mustang escorts and superb bomber to fighter communication on C-Channel.
Erich knows more about Sturm tactics than any historian I have encountered.
Erich knows more about Sturm tactics than any historian I have encountered.
I was reading some of the old post about the SturmFW's, very impressive. But even they got shot down by defensive fire sometimes.
Don't think i'm trying to say the defensive fire was enough, because combat proved different and quick. But it was a factor that even the SturmFWs couldn't ignore.
Without escorts, daylight bombing would not have been possibile for very long.
Don't think i'm trying to say the defensive fire was enough, because combat proved different and quick. But it was a factor that even the SturmFWs couldn't ignore.
Without escorts, daylight bombing would not have been possibile for very long.
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
it wasnt useless...it was effective.... just not effective enough. it did not deter the LW from attacking but only to adopt other tactics and modifications to their aircraft. the LW inflicted enough losses on the usaac that they stopped daylight bombing...the bombers didnt inflict enough losses on the LW to stop them from coming up after them. it was a war of attrition that the usaac was on the wrong side of. the LW was losing planes and pilots but the bombers were losing more.
Last edited:
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
Erich, I may have those pages from your website saved on a CD. What are you looking for specifically?
TheMustangRider
Senior Airman
Great job there Kettbo 
- Thread starter
- #31
kettbo
Senior Airman
Thanks gents but they'll all look better some day when all the goodies are painted....and they are on a high-altitude terrain mats
Long way between now and THAT point.
Glad that you liked the visual. With the large size of the miniatures to the ground scale they are, by necessity, bunched-up. Why? The game boards cannot be infinite.
OK, so far we have determined that it was an escalating battle. More defensive weapons on the bombers. More and heavier weapons on the fighters. Edge going to the fighters in this battle, prohibitive losses prevented by long range fighters. So now, if my miniature fighters are approaching the big ol bomber miniatures, without HARD NUMBERS, now it is WILD ASS GUESS as to potential hits on the fighters, and mixed levels of damage up to destruction of the plane and or pilot
Will advise on some simple but common sense resolution to this. Do NOT want lots of time-consuming die rolls.
and YES, would have loved to see Erich's STURM site
Long way between now and THAT point.
Glad that you liked the visual. With the large size of the miniatures to the ground scale they are, by necessity, bunched-up. Why? The game boards cannot be infinite.
OK, so far we have determined that it was an escalating battle. More defensive weapons on the bombers. More and heavier weapons on the fighters. Edge going to the fighters in this battle, prohibitive losses prevented by long range fighters. So now, if my miniature fighters are approaching the big ol bomber miniatures, without HARD NUMBERS, now it is WILD ASS GUESS as to potential hits on the fighters, and mixed levels of damage up to destruction of the plane and or pilot
Will advise on some simple but common sense resolution to this. Do NOT want lots of time-consuming die rolls.
and YES, would have loved to see Erich's STURM site
CobberKane
Banned
- 706
- Apr 4, 2012
That just about sums it up. Certainly attacking a formation of B-17s in a fighter would have been a dangerous propoisition, but perhaps not as dangerous as being in the B-17! At the end of the day the pre-war concept of unescorted mutually supportive daylight bombers being able adequately protect themselves was proven whishful thinking. The Luftwaffe won the air war over Europe in 43-44. But we all know what happened after that.
Towards the end of the war the squadron formation within the group changed from this
As posted in Njaco's diagram of a bomber box to this
Is this a reflection of the Luftwaffe's inability to mount effective interceptions or something else?
I suspect that the newer formation would provide a more concentrated bombing pattern.
Steve
As posted in Njaco's diagram of a bomber box to this
Is this a reflection of the Luftwaffe's inability to mount effective interceptions or something else?
I suspect that the newer formation would provide a more concentrated bombing pattern.
Steve
It doesn't have the spacing on those formations, but it looks like it would be more hazardous to approach from the rear, and harder to get inside the formation.
Coming from the rear, you'd have a lot of tailgunners concentrating on you , from a lot of different angles.
Coming from the rear, you'd have a lot of tailgunners concentrating on you , from a lot of different angles.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Now for the bigger question.
Were all those B-17 and B-24 gunners effective enough to justify the large weight and aerodynamic drag penalty?
Were all those B-17 and B-24 gunners effective enough to justify the large weight and aerodynamic drag penalty?
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
I think it might be obvious that those penalties are null when compared to what the Allies were trying to achieve. Its more like quantity of bombers and amount of ordinance placed on target. Whats more effective: a bomber going 350mph on a target with a light load or one that goes 150mph with a larger load? If the latter is the answer then you need many of them for mutual protection and firepower along with destruction of target.
Shortround6
Major General
Once you have designed and built the bombers (or set up production lines) it is too late to change your mind. Leaving the turrets and guns off, covering the holes and leaving the gunners behind WILL do wonders for the ability to carry more bombs and/or fuel but will do very little for speed, either top speed or cruise. 15-25mph might be all you can expect on top speed.
You have to decide from day #1 to go the unarmed route and you can't hedge you bets and just put in a few guns. Even a few guns will slow you down and will be nearly useless for an effective defense if if a few fighters were shot down by single 7.7-8mm machine guns.
You have to decide from day #1 to go the unarmed route and you can't hedge you bets and just put in a few guns. Even a few guns will slow you down and will be nearly useless for an effective defense if if a few fighters were shot down by single 7.7-8mm machine guns.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
You can cover only the vulnerable tail as the USAF did for the B-47 and Germany did for the Me-410A. I don't think these weapons caused much aerodynamic drag.
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
how many guns would you strip? off the top of my head i would say, yes, they were worth the drag penalty to give the crew somewhat of a fighting chance. with out any arms it would have been a turkey shoot. the lw could have leasurely moved through the boxes getting close and taking their time to get a good shot. and obviously the usaac thought it was worth it as well because when the LW started doing frontal attacks...what did the 17 get...more guns up front. i would say it was a necessary evil....all those guns are even more important to the crew when that 17 or 24 is limping home by itself with an engine out.
But a B-47 was designed from the onset with just a tail gunner in mind. B-17, B-24 were from the beginning designed with several gun positions, ( greatly added to later), with added room and structure for those positions in the design. Just removing those turrets, and fairing over the positions would gain some speed and lift, but you can't remove all the structure, and space designed in to for those turrets.
