Night fighter rear gun: was it worth it (1 Viewer)

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

Erich

I have only ever treated your posts with the utmost respect. Just because I dont always agree with what you are saying, does not mean that I dont listen to your great wisdom on this subject. Most of the time, you have proven yourself to be right. That doesnt mean that us lesser beings should not put our views forward. Or would you prefer us to just sit and listen whilst you lecture???

Now, back on topic (or at least closer to topic)

one reason why the Mosquitoes were unable to turn things completely around is that there were so few of them operating in the NF role. I have read that at the height of the Battle For Germany, mid 1944, there were only 132 of them attached to Bomber Command, operating in the NF role

Parsifal Erich has studied this field intensively for last 40+ years, he has written multiple books and talked to hundreds of vets from both sides. So yeah, we should mostly just ask questions and let us be lectured in this case.

When in comes to the history of LW units their a/c plus the thoughts of the men in service at the day Erich is the man to ask, I think everyone on the forum will agree upon that.
 
PB

My opnion is that units engaged on Intruder Operations are not protecting the bombers. The previous links that you sent me showed this up very clearly. that is not to say they were not doing important work, they were. but they are not part of Bomber command, nor are they directly protecting the bombers IMO. To say nothing of the fact that i just dont know how many Mosquito units not attached to bomber Command were involved....
 
thanks Soren..........

now Parsifal pb has much on the Candian Mossie NF units

and true intruder work is separate from Bomber Command protection in theory, I say this as the limited Beufighter and early Mossie nf variants were up in the air in 1943 to take on the LW NF force at task if they could and what better way was the overall high protection in broken flights 1000 feet above picking up LW radar transmissions and then seek and destroy as one would say any existing LW NF they could come upon, that would include single Wild Sau a/c as well as radar equipped twin engine prop jobs. As the Allied NF force expanded true Intruder/low level bombing Mossie units became available and specialized in the task of hunting returning LW NF's at mid to low level following them back to their own airfields and punishing them in the onslaught and low level bombing and especially strafing of anything seen and left un-attended.

RAF 100th group had it's own supply you might say associated with it in late 44-45 performing protection and seek/destroy of any and all German a/c and also providing blocking/jammer a/c upon LW aircraft as they tried to form around their beacons and getting fixes upon BC heavy 4-engine a/c.

now to your question of just how many Mossie units that would have to be associated with the date - what month/year
 
I really can't see the Intruders mixed up in the bomber stream at night the various altitudes , I heard one Lanc driver say the moment he came near the target he dropped down to 2-3 thousand feet as to avoid flak (2 tours and never hit). The bombers were all over the sky not in any formation at various altitudes it would be nigh impossible for a mossie to stalk a german night guy with all that radar clutter from friendlies chaff etc . Please understand radar was in it's infancy and very very tempermental
 
its hard to accept but was done, sure the intruders knew the intended heavy route and the reason being to stay at least a 1000 feet away from all directions even on a dark night some light and profile silhouettes can be seen besides exhaust flames. in most cases the lingering effects of the Intruders marked impatience for many LW crews not wanting to hang around their beacons for too long as this of course was a major attraction for Allied NF's
 
its hard to accept but was done, sure the intruders knew the intended heavy route and the reason being to stay at least a 1000 feet away from all directions even on a dark night some light and profile silhouettes can be seen besides exhaust flames. in most cases the lingering effects of the Intruders marked impatience for many LW crews not wanting to hang around their beacons for too long as this of course was a major attraction for Allied NF's
I've always understood the intruder sqns always for the most part lurked around the fields or beacons thats where the fishing was the best.
IMHO in the stream is pretty dumb some guy sitting in the rear turret seeing anything with twin engines is more likely to let rip. with the thought that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure but then again recent reading on Bomber Command makes it quite feasible they got their **** together about the same time as the 8th AF mid 43
 
by 1944, the allied NFs were using IFF technology, as well as serrate to interrogate pursuing german NFs equipped with Lichtenstein. Also, whilst your comments about mk IV radr have some traction , Mk VIII and MK X was much more reliable. To be fair MK VIII and MK X was not cleared for service over the continent until June 1944. There may well be a time issue involved as to the reason we are not agreeing on this point. if you are referring to the Post June 1044 time period, i will have to disagree with you regarding the reliability issue (not saying it worked every time). If you are referring to the period pre-june 1944, you may have a point
 
found this little blurb om vectorsite.net ref IFF
IFF Mark III proved successful, though not entirely so:


One problem was that trying to interrogate a single aircraft in a large formation led to a large number of IFF responses. Such "IFF clutter" made it hard to determine if an unknown aircraft in a night bomber formation was a member of the formation, or a "wolf in the fold".

Another problem was due to the fact that the interrogator and IFF unit used the same wavelengths, which caused confusion when an IFF unit triggered the IFF unit of another aircraft.

When used on ships, IFF Mark III's behavior on the surface of the ocean was different than in the sky, resulting in a number of "friendly fire" incidents.
Then there were the simple difficulties of making sure people used the IFF system properly. Figuring out if an IFF unit was working was trickier than checking, say, a radio, and so malfunctions could be overlooked. Aircrews were trained to turn off IFF when over hostile territory, so the enemy couldn't use it against them, and sometimes they would forget to turn it back on when they came home -- and got a very nasty reception. There were so many incidents due to bungled use of IFF that the US military developed a 40-minute training film in 1944 to pound it into people's heads how to do it right.
 
In regards to the original question... Does anyone have access to the combat reports of the RAF nightfighter crews? It would be interesting to get an idea of the actual efficacy of the nachtdjager rear-gunners in thwarting attacks.
Something along the line of:

1: The percentage of attack runs meeting defensive fire before the attacker fired.
2:The percentage of attacks met with return fire after the attacker fired.
3:The percentage of attacks halted in response to defensive fire.
4:The level of damage inflicted on the attacking a/c and crew.

And from the LW side (from both those who sucessfully fended of the attackers, and those survivors whose planes either crashed or were damaged)

1: Was the attacker seen and fired upon before it opened fire?
2:Was the attacker fired upon after it had initiated fire?
3: Was the attacker repulsed, damaged, or destroyed by the defensive fire?
4: Were many seemingly unaware RAF NFs attacked with defensive weapons, and if so, to what effect?

Erich,

I know the book you're working on will probably answer some of these questions, but am I correct in presuming that it will focus on the Luftwaffe perspective? Will it include RAF NF data, also?

Any idea as to the projected cost of the book (It sounds good, but expensive ): )

Thanks
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back