Effectiveness of Heavy Bomber defensive fires vs LW Fighters

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


I suspect that the number of attacks measured on the B-24s were "1042" or "1045" or "1025" as it is highly unlikely that B-24s were attacked 3x more than B-17s when they only had about 35% of the heavy bomber force in that timeframe.
 
With the distance between bombers. probably if you aimed directly at another bomber in the formation and fired, airspeed and bullet drop would result in a miss, while a bullet aimed well ahead and above just might result in a hit.

But the way the formations were staggered and stepped most of the gunners had pretty clear fields of fire, that of course depends on everybody keeping a accurate formation.
With fighters and flak all around, keepng a good formation had to be difficult.
 
to attack from the top ( diving ) or bottom ( porpoising) has its advantages in that you would only be in contending mostly with the 2 50 cals from ball turret or top turret from each plane...plus your target has more surface exposure. you could essentually take longer shots with the likelihood of hitting something. the smaller the profile ( side, front or rear ) the closer you are going to have to get to be accurate....and the more guns can be aimed at you.

it should be easier to measure the effectiveness of defensive bomber fire before nov 43. i would think a majority of the LW losses would have come from bombers and/or accidents. you should be able to draw a ratio from there. this would be for those sectors where only the bombers roamed...beyond the fighter escorts and away from the fronts. there is should be purely bomber vs interceptor. after long range escorts comes in those numbers would tend to be more garbled.
 
I'm not surprised that most attacks measured were from the bombers' 12 or 6. Most successful attacks,which could not be assessed,would most likely be from this direction which would further weight those figures were they included.
Cheers
Steve
 
Folks, thanks for getting this thread back on track, there's some real good information here...

I would have expected the B-24 to fare better, especially later models with the powered nose and tail turret. Any thoughts?
 
I know you can't always go by statistics, but look how successful a 7 o'clock attack was on a B-24.
Compared with the B-17 over 3 times more attacks from 7 o'clock, and a good % of hits.
I wonder why ?
 
FLYBOYJ said:
Folks, thanks for getting this thread back on track, there's some real good information here...

I would have expected the B-24 to fare better, especially later models with the powered nose and tail turret. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

First - by the time the 8th, and 15th AF were in full stride the B-17G was dominant B-17, and Cheyenne powered tail 'turret' was about the same effectiveness as the B-24 tail turret - ditto G chin turret with computing gunsight - so hard to make a distinction from late 1943/early 1944 onward.

Joe - It is hard to draw conclusions but some of the worst Squadron/Group losses in 1944, particularly to StrumJager attacks, were on B-24 Groups.

For 8th AF - May 12 was a B-17 Bad Day, but June 20/July 7/Sept 27/Nov 26 were all VERY Bad days in attacks which lasted less than a minute or two before escorts broke them up.

I haven't seen the loss/sortie data broken out in context of 'air-flak-ops' for any bomber type in any theatre but if B-24 losses are rolled up to 'all B-24s' then their losses because of heavy weighting to PTO should be less than B-17s which had high losses in ETO.

WRT ETO, there weren't many 8th AF B-24s in ETO between May and October 1943 and then the only losses for B-24s in that period were TDY at Ploesti as everything else was training for the strike. 12th and 15th combined never came close to 8th AF sorties which was 2/3 B-17s so there are a Lot of factors to scratch heads over.

Long winded explanation for why "I don't know"
 
kettbo said:
Obviously the USAAC thought there was a need for waist guns and gunners, thinking this was a waste.
Believe late war, the waist guns were sometimes not manned? Sure I saw this somewhere.
Click to expand...

In addition to being a single mount with significant windage, the open waist position created probable the greatest aerodynamic drag of all the gun positions.
 
That is what I was thinking Balljoint!
Air deflector or not, big pneumonia holes in the side of bird seems a poor idea

More hits from the 12 and 6 as the Mark One Eyeball firing solutions are easier
Vertical attacks better with post war jets but I can see this getting interesting if the bomber box is tight

.50 cal carries a Loooooooong way, pretty sure a lot of Blue on Blue was attributed to LW or Flak
 
Not but basically familiar with Me-110 and Me-410 in ZG usage.
Could someone specify submodel and armament please.
My old Wm Green small books list EVERY type but do not tell you what the bread and butter stuff was.
Noted the twin 21cm rockets under each wing on the Me-110s
Know there were freaks with 37mm and 5cm weapons, few successes with these I understand. Am I mistaken?
And I read in Caldwell, the US crews thought the rockets were very effective
 
The damaged fuselage and mid-upper turret of Avro Lancaster B Mark I, R5700 'ZN-G', of No. 106 Squadron RAF based at Elsham Wolds, Lincolnshire, after crash-landing at Hardwick, Norfolk, following an attack by a German fighter over Essen. R5700, was among 60 aircraft taking part in one of the first "Oboe" raids on Essen, on the night of 13/14 January 1943, when it was twice attacked by a Focke Wulf Fw 190 "Wilde Sau" night-fighter shortly after bombing the target. The aircraft was severely damaged, the rear gunner was badly wounded and the mid-upper gunner, Sergeant J B Hood, was killed, but the pilot, Sergeant P N Reed, managed to fly the crippled bomber as far as the USAAF base at Hardwick before executing a successful crash-landing. Three weeks later, Sergeant Reed and his crew failed to return from a raid on Hamburg.



Another view of Lancaster R5700 'ZN-G', of No. 106 Squadron RAF.
 
Actually only Bf 110G-4's of I./NJG 1 were involved on this raid to Essen. NO Fw 190's and Wilde Sau was not even thought of yet as a tactic till July of 1943 over Hamburg.

yes to the ZG's of ZG 1, ZG 26 and 76 with the useage of heavy cannons also on their Me 410 A's and B's. Wr 21 rocket launchers were used in twins and singles under each wing. A book on ZG 76 is in the works by the way.
 
Erich said:
Actually only Bf 110G-4's of I./NJG 1 were involved on this raid to Essen.
Click to expand...

Correct.

Three night fighter claims,all Lancasters.Two for Maj. Werner Streib and one for Oblt.Horst Pause both of NJG 1.

4 of the 66 Lancasters involved were lost. On the ground 63 people were killed including 11 French PoWs and 6 other foreigners.

"Wild Boar" were first proposed by Herrmann in February 1943,but Kammhuber was opposed to their use.It wasn't until June 1943 that Milch recommended their use to Goering,effectively going over Kammhuber's head. The first successful use was on the night of 3/4 July 1943 over Cologne. A mixed "Kommando" of Fw 190s and Bf 109s claimed 12 RAF bombers. The next morning Goering ordered Herrmann to establish a Geschwader of these Wild Boar night fighters and that was JG 300. Ordered by the Reichsmarschall Kammhuber didn't have much choice,whatever his personal reservations.

Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:
yes it's all noted in Dr. Boitens volume 1 of NJG war diaries.

let me add that when we had Sturmgruppen missions 1944 web-site up some years ago we were often asked which was the tougher US bomber to bring down by the Lw SturmFw's................. after asking a half dozen former pilots of JG 3, 4 and 300 the conclusion was : Neither, because of the closeness of the rear attacks and the effectiveness of the heavier 3cm M ammo especially. what was taken on was the tail gunners position and once this was silenced the bomber was good as dead.
 

I sometimes wonder about this observation. To me the question and answer is valid with no questions for 'one on one' attack. What I wonder about is the relative quality of the answer considering that not only is the target tail gunner a threat but also the ball turret, top turret and tail guns of the other ships in the formation?

Erich you have better data but it seems that very few devastating attacks were made by Sturms on B-17 formations when june 20, July 7, Sept 27, November 26 pop out with major disasters to B-24 Groups. Do you have a post July example where say a squadron or group of B-17s took equivalent losses?
 
the LW pilots did take it from other bombers when flying through the pulk with no other means of evading US escorts. Because of the early SturmFw attack angle really only the tail p0osition was affected so one could say the LW flew at a straight and narrow focused path till late in 44 when they would almost sit on the tail and fire upward at the tail and belly turret and then also flying a little above the bombers firing on the tail position and into the top of the engines, I do have cine film of one Sturm pilot hitting a B-17 in this manner as well as his 2cm mine rounds hitting an evading B-17 in front of the first one attacked. Due to flying through US heavies was alomost inevitabloe the elding wing edges and engine cowlings were beefed up with more armor thus a real slow sluggard and doomed to fly in fighter vs fighter combats.

yes Bill actually most Sturm attacks were against US Forts. July 18, 44 by JG 3 Sturms., July 20 with 8 B-17 claimed by JG 3 alone. July 29 JG 3 attacked and shot down 8 100bg B-17's, 16 August JG 3 claims 7 B-17's. 22 August 44 ugly day for B-24's....September 11, 44 JG 4 and JG 300 hit B-17 units hard but also suffer terrible losses. September 12, 44 3 B-17 units hit by the three Sturmgruppen, some 22 bombers claimed with 15 shot out of formation. September 28, 44 3 B-17 groups maybe more attacked by the 3 Sturm units again. At least 21 claimed downed with at least 6-8 shot out of formation. 7 of October the 3 Sturm units are at it again claiming 29 B-17's. November 2, 1944 really the last Sturmfw day with JG 3 and 4 attacking but nearly getting annihilated in return, JG 3 alone claims 21 B-17's. December 23rd, 44 a sad day for the B-26 groups nearly shot out of the skies by JG 3 Fw's. JG 3 makes some pretty high claims with 32 Marauders shot down.....December 24 Fw's of JG 3 attack 1 B-17 group while over Belgium 10 B-17's shot down confirmed. 0ne last major mission in mid-January 1945 by JG 300. the other 2 Sturm units sent to the Eastern front to defend Berlin.
 
Good stuff Erich. Actual losses above 15 for one group was kinda the threshold I was using to compare Sturm success against B-17 vs B-24.

For example from your sample;
November 2 - 26 total B-17s lost, 13 from 91st and 9 from 457th;
September 11 - 29 total B-17s lost, 92nd (8), 100th (11)
September 12 - 19 total B-17s lost, 306th 8, 351st 6.
July 18 - misprint - total 4 lost from 8th BC
July 19? - 11 B-17s lost with 351st losing 3
August 22 - misprint - no losses for B-17s or B-24s
August 24? 16 B-17s lost; 305th lost 5
September 28 - 23 B-17s lost; 303rd lost 11, 457th lost 6
October 7 - 36 B-17s lost from 1st and 3rd BD; 1BD 351st lost 7, 401st lost 5, 457th lost 5; 3rd BD lost 16 B-17s, 94th lost 8

From this sample the 303rd (11), 91st (13), 94th (8) and 457 (9), 306th (8) were the hardest hit B-17 groups on a single day to all GAF fighters, presumably all Sturm by the claims entered as you presented them.

This was cause of my confusion as the single group totals for the B-17s didn't attain the B-24 445th, 492nd and 491st disasters (off the top of my head). The other factor is that there were 50% more B-17s in the air than B-24s.

Interesting exercise - don't know how to draw a conclusion.
 
Last edited:
Bill

many apologies the misprints and (?)'s you marked were for US 15th AF losses.................... some accounts from both sides still quite confusing.

again as I have pointed out in the past the LW Fw pilots did not care whether they attacked the B-17 or lower altitude B-24's, each had their own distinctive flying patterns and were attacked from the rear and slightly high or low or straight on the tail in Sturm fashion in 44 and early part of 45. none was ever thought of as harder to bring down. the ideal was to bring down at least one bomber per LW pilot and as close as they could attack and then hopefully avoid the US escorts as they made way back to their perspective airfields.

E ~
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Effectiveness of the P-38
6 7 8
Replies
145
Views
13K
Thumpalumpacus
S
Aerodynamics of Japanese fighters
2 3
Replies
47
Views
4K
Holtzauge
Aircraft in Battle of Păuliș? Hungary vs Romania 1944
Replies
0
Views
611
CHen10
S
Spitfire vs. Dora mass battle
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
dedalos
D
M
Pinnacle of Piston fighter: XP-72 vs Spiteful Mk XVI?
3 4 5
Replies
83
Views
6K
Jugman
J
Menu
Log in
Register