Most Dangerous Position on a Bomber....?

[Lightning Guy]

And insanely high loss rates . . .

 

[plan_D]

Schweinfurt (sp?) That's what you get for not believing in the British code breakers..Black Thursday.

 

[Lightning Guy]

I believe that's right. I was pointing out that low-level bombing (at least with heavy bombers) usually resulted in totally unacceptable loss rates.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

it depends, like you say, it you were in a mossie, you would be pretty safe, if you were in a lancaster, there were quite heavy losses, like the dambusters, 19 aircraft left, 8 didn't come back.................

 

[MP-Willow]

It was low leavel with bombers not for that bit. Polesti was a great idea, but the B-24s were just not for the 1000 ft hight. Now if they could have made a heavy that operated that low, it might be interesting.

But at the time planners thought the raid could have a great and devistating impact, well a few raids latter they were right.

 

[plan_D]

The Mosquito was the best low-level bomber, a heavy at low altitude is really risky because of its size, and speed (or lack of). The Dambusters raid is a good example of heavy bombers in low with devestating effect, but high losses.

Amiens is a great example of the ideal aircraft, doing one of the best bomb jobs of the war. They were flying under 20 ft, that's lower than the wall they were going to hit.
They dropped their bombs and had to pull up get over the wall. One navigator even said he looked up to see a German sentry looking down on him...

Briefing for the B-17s 'Target for today: Bremen ball bearing factory'
Briefing for the Mosquitos 'Target for today: Amiens prison, west wall and sentry garrison building'

 

[Lightning Guy]

B-25's were flying that low in the Pacific. There is one story about a B-25 pilot who drug his tail bomber through the sand on some island for several hundred feet. He claimed that he had to fly slow so to see in the windows of the Japanese bunkers so he'd know what to shoot at!

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

don't forget the dambusters bomber that lost his upkepp in the sea and got his tail gunner wet, that's low............

 

[Lightning Guy]

Yes that was very low. But (and I think the records point to this) low-level bombing in a heavy bomber wasn't a good way to stay alive.

 

[plan_D]

Yes, it wasn't the best of ideas.

 

[Lightning Guy]

I could understand it being tried the first time. But it's all those raids that came after the first one (I'm not even sure which that would have been) but you think the Allies would have learned their lesson.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

but if you had a big target to hit with a big bomb, you would have to use a heavy...................

 

[plan_D]

Yes, but these big targets wouldn't always have had to been hit from low level.

 

[Lightning Guy]

And the truly big bombs (Tallboy, Grand Slam) were only effective if they were dropped from a high altitude. And the lower level means more accuracy which means a smaller bomb can be used.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

but if you have to hit a big target a small bomb won't do, and what if you need the range that a mossie couldn't offer but a heavy could?

 

[plan_D]

By 'big' target I assume you mean armoured, since if it's big you use more planes.
The range of a heavy would be a deciding factor, so that would be a reason.

 

[Lightning Guy]

And you probably wouldn't be trying to low-level bomb then.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

it depends on the target, the dams were a big target, but the only way to hit them was at low level.................

 

[plan_D]

That was a rare case though, the bomb involved was also an ingenius and rare case.

 

[Lightning Guy]

The low altitude of the dam busters raid was required by the nature of Upkeep.