Overall, who had the better bombing campaign of the Third Reich, USAAF or RAF?

[Kurfürst]

like the smilie Flyboy J
However if a B17 could only reasonably expected to carry 6000 lbs compared to a Lancasters load of up to a 22000 lbs Grand Slam well it does put things into perspective doesn't it....

Lancasters that carried the Grand Slam were specially modified with a lot of stuff removed from the plane. So I don't quite get why compare that to standard-issue B-17s, which were carrying a lot more weight in the form of defensive armament OTOH..

Not to mention the Grand Slam would be of little operational use for conventional task bombers are normally engaged in, and that it was used only at the very end o the war..

It's and odd and unfair comparison.

 

[trackend]

I think there is some confusion over maximum pay load and operational payload.
All bombers carried different load weights depending on range of mission.
What can be got into the air and what can be got to target are two different things.
An operational average which on a quick calculation seems to come out at roughly 12000-14000 lbs for the Lancaster and 4000-6000 lbs for the B17
(although I won't be suprised if these figures are disputed)

All bombers from Ju 88s to Lancasters B17's where relitively sitting ducks for the hugely faster and more nimble fighters the horendous loss rates for bombers in general shows this.

 

[drgondog]

I was wondering about that myself. With the RAF adding bomber sorties next to USAAF sorties, and the LW still having the same amount of fighter force as before, then the LW would have either to completely ignore the added bulk of bombers penetrating the airspace, or spread it's forces even more thinly.

Naturally, this would only makes sense past 1944, with the arrival of the Mustang other long-range capable escort fighters on the scene. Given what happened to heavily armed B-17s and B-24s when unescorted, things would have look bleak for the lightly armed British noctural bomb trucks - otherwise the rather numerous Nachtjagd would simple become an extremely nasty form of heavily armed daylight bomber destroyer forces... And of course, the whole thing of overloading the defenses with masses of bombers requires sufficient mass of USAAF heavies operating.

Interesting none the less, and a valid alternative to what I'd describe with Talleyrand's classic : 'was more than a crime, it was an error.

My thoughts on this are two-fold and empahasis on PAST D-Day.

In one stroke this strategy completely neutralize the effectiveness of NJG forces in Germany - at least all the reciprocal engine versions. They proved they could not survive in daylight ops in presence of long range escort. Hence they sit on the ground or fly and lose valuable crews.

It shifts RAF Fighter Command Ops to focus on 'longer range' escorts to relieve the now long range P-47s of the Penetration and Withdrawal Support except further than P-47s before more fuel in late model P-47D's - if not all the way to most targets in Central germany.

Result, even more overwhelming numbers around Kassel, Magdeburg, leipzig and Halle with RAF bombers capable of bigger bombloads, accurate daylight bombing and quicker destruction of both the Oil and Chemical targets plus more attrition, faster, of Luftwaffe.

Once bases in France and Belgium are secured, Spits and Tempests could go all the way plus RAF Mustangs from beginning of daylight ops.

PS - it would have been interesting to see how fast the RAF could change formation Flying tactics to 'tighten up' for both bomb density around MPI of target as well as make it feasible for escort fighters to protect them. LW simply too good for RAF fly night ops 'strings' into target w/o getting brutalized somewhere along the trail.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

like the smilie Flyboy J
Yes i do agree with you both were effective at what they did when they got through as is anything.. By the way i do like you comparing thoes flak guns to the muskets it does make a lot of sense... Poor ba#tards.
However if a B17 could only reasonably expected to carry 6000 lbs compared to a Lancasters load of up to a 22000 lbs Grand Slam well it does put things into perspective doesn't it....

Lancaster had to modified to carry a Grand Slam. That was not a typical payload.

Not taking anything away from the Lancaster though, it was in my opinion better than the B-17.

If you wish to put something in perspective however, what about the B-29 that could carry 2 Tall Boys or a 42,000lb T-12 bomb.

 

[Graeme]

That's a big bomb Adler! Ever used?

This is a test drop of a sand filled Grand Slam in March 1945.
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/4854/lastscanxm8.jpg

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I honestly dont know if it was used or not. If it was dropped, it was done so only in tests.

 

[syscom3]

From wikipedia......

"The 'B1 (Special)' Lancaster bomber could only carry one at a time and it had to be dropped from 22,000 feet (6700 m) which limited its accuracy. The Grand Slam was first used on March 14, 1945 when the Royal Air Force No. 617 "Dambusters" Squadron, lead by Squadron Leader C.C. Calder, attacked the Bielefeld railway viaduct destroying two spans of the viaduct.[1]

The viaduct at Arnsberg was bombed on 15 March 1945 with 2 Grand Slams and 14 Tallboy bombs but they failed to bring the viaduct down. Four days later on 19 March 1945 another attack by No 617 Squadron using 6 Grand Slams was successful and a 12 m (40 ft) gap was blown in the viaduct.[1]

Farge is a small port on the Weser River north of Bremen, and was the site of an oil-storage depot and the Valentin submarine pens that were attacked by the RAF on 27 March 1945. The pens had a ferrous concrete roof up to 7 metres (23 feet) thick. Two Grand Slam bombs penetrated parts of the pen with a 4.5 m-thick roof[2][3]"

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

We are not talking about the Grand Slam sys. We were talking about the US built T12.

 

[Aussie1001]

Ok adler..... what about this......
Apprantly this is the most powerfull conventional bomb in the world at 30 000 lbs and filled with 18 000lbs of H6....

Anyway the green bomb is the largest Nuke ever made and the Orange one is the conventional one.....

 

[lucanus]

Ok here goes....My memory bank seems to remember a
bomb used in Nam and Desert Storm that weighed 15,000 lbs
and was dropped out of a C130 Herc...The bomb was
a BLU-82


BBC NEWS | Americas | Fact files: Daisy Cutter bombs

Or key in daisy cutter in google images for some more snaps of
this thumper

From 303rd BG nice page on all US bombs

Aerial Bombs

A "Daisy Cutter" is a huge bomb that can cause massive destruction.
The blast is so horrific that one of the main reasons merely for threatening its use against an enemy is psychological.

In the Gulf War, US aircraft dropped leaflets on Iraqi troops depicting a huge bomb, with the slogan "Flee and Live, or Stay and Die!"

The type depicted in the leaflets, and also used in Afghanistan, is the BLU-82B Commando Vault or Big Blue 82, also known as the Daisy Cutter.

Some say the name derives from the blast pattern it leaves when viewed from above. Others say it is a much older term for any bomb designed to cut down infantry.

According to the US Air Force, 11 of these were dropped on Iraq during the Gulf War.

They were used in the Vietnam War for creating instant helicopter landing sites in dense jungle.

Parachute descent

The bomb's warhead contains 12,600 lb (5,700 kg) of GSX, a slurry of ammonium nitrate - the basis of nitrogen fertiliser - highly flammable aluminium powder, and polystyrene-based soap as a thickener.

A Daisy Cutter is so big that it can be "launched" only by pushing it out of the open back door of a transport plane - typically the MC-130 special forces version of the Hercules is used.

The bomb descends under a stabilising parachute and is detonated just above the ground by a 38-in (97 cm) fuse, which sticks out of its nose.

When it explodes, it generates a massive pressure wave. Ordinarily, atmospheric pressure is about 100,000 pascals (the equivalent of 1kg of force applied to an area of one square cm or 14.2psi). In a Daisy Cutter explosion, the pressure reaches about 7,000,000Pa (70kg/sq cm - 1,000psi) at the centre.

The effects are felt over an area typically reported to be the size of several football pitches.

 

[plan_D]

I have to point out here that RAF 2 Group were bombing during day and night through the war. They were using tight formation for mutual support since their first raid on 4th September, 1939. If the rest of Bomber Command needed training for tight formation flying - they had a whole RAF Group on hand to show them how.

 

[drgondog]

I have to point out here that RAF 2 Group were bombing during day and night through the war. They were using tight formation for mutual support since their first raid on 4th September, 1939. If the rest of Bomber Command needed training for tight formation flying - they had a whole RAF Group on hand to show them how.

The RAF had exceptional pilots - it wasn't flying skill per se but different acquired skills i.e. Formation leaders keeping a very steady hand on throttles to prevent an accordion effect throughout the bomb group, 'forming up' skills and procedures to speed up process of getting into tight formations (or looser in bad weather) with minimum time and fuel consumption, etc.

The 8th AF thought they had the doctrine down pat before reaching Europe and found out that experienced formation flying pilots had a lot to learn. I have a few formation flying hours in a 51 plus an A-36 Bonanza - I can only imagine what it would be like to fly # 2 or 3 in a heavily loaded B-24 (or Lancaster) at the upper limits of ceiling to avoid flak as much as possible with a wing sticking into the airspace of my leader... for 7-12 hours.

I imagine 2 Group had it down pat - one down, 40+ to go to convert RAF to daylight.

I think the reverse would have been more difficult - namely converting USAAF to night bombing had daylight bombing failed.

 

[drgondog]

Ok adler..... what about this......
Apprantly this is the most powerfull conventional bomb in the world at 30 000 lbs and filled with 18 000lbs of H6....

Anyway the green bomb is the largest Nuke ever made and the Orange one is the conventional one.....

Aussie - the big 'orange thingy' may be the the beast designed to take out very deep re-inforced bunkers - I'll have to do some checking - in places like Iran

The green thingy may be the 20 megaton Mk26 - one of which is missing deep in river mud in Charleston area (from a B-52) and another off the coast of Cuba from a B-47 Mid air during Cuban Missile crisis

 

[mkloby]

The RAF had exceptional pilots - it wasn't flying skill per se but different acquired skills i.e. Formation leaders keeping a very steady hand on throttles to prevent an accordion effect throughout the bomb group, 'forming up' skills and procedures to speed up process of getting into tight formations (or looser in bad weather) with minimum time and fuel consumption, etc.

That's the way to do it. Lead sets a power setting and for the most part leaves it alone. (unless you need to adjust your TOT). We get hammered for jockeying power unnecessarily as lead because you're only screwing your wingmen. In a tight formation, for example parade, you are constantly making power adjustments as wing. Loose forms, such as combat cruise, are much more fluent and require less workload as wing. Flying in a tight form as a wing is draining after a while.

I don't honestly know much about the particular forms they used and practiced back then - but I imagine that there are similar to the forms we fly today.

I have done forms in single engine, multi, and in about a week or so I will be doing helo forms - which should be interesting. Can't wait to do forms in the MV-22!

 

[drgondog]

That's the way to do it. Lead sets a power setting and for the most part leaves it alone. (unless you need to adjust your TOT). We get hammered for jockeying power unnecessarily as lead because you're only screwing your wingmen. In a tight formation, for example parade, you are constantly making power adjustments as wing. Loose forms, such as combat cruise, are much more fluent and require less workload as wing. Flying in a tight form as a wing is draining after a while.

I don't honestly know much about the particular forms they used and practiced back then - but I imagine that there are similar to the forms we fly today.

I have done forms in single engine, multi, and in about a week or so I will be doing helo forms - which should be interesting. Can't wait to do forms in the MV-22!

mkloby

I don't know if I mentioned this before but my last job at Bell in design before full time structures was the XV-15 wing - complicated mother..to account for deflections in flaps - and stresses in jump take-off..

 

[Erich]

a small thought from a small brain today, still cannot understand even with RAF day light bombing in 1945 why the Lancs were not equipped with a belly rotating turret knowing full well the LW was going to find this out and take full advantage as they did on at least 2 ops with JG 7 me 262's which came from underneath with deadly accuracy.

Granted it was going to be in the US hands with heavy bombing due to the presence of waking hours to deplete German moral, while at night the German populace was asleep except for the rattle of Flak in the larger of the cities

 

[mosquitoman]

The turret restricted the max bombload was the reason gven if I remember correctly. Although some Halifaxes had a single .303 in a blister underneath.

 

[renrich]

Am I mistaken or did not the RAF fly in line astern formation(bomber stream) rather than in formation like US day bombing?

 

[Aussie1001]

drgondog got that info off wiki....
But yes as i remember the "Orange thingy" is designed to take out underground complexes.....
it is a bit worrying about the "green thingy" isn't it though would hate to be under that bugger when it went off.....

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Aussie we are talking about WW2 bombers here not B-52's taking out bunkers in Iraq with orange bunker busting bombs.