Protecting the Long-Range Bombers

[33k in the air]

All well and good if the Ruhr actually contains the factories you are interested in.
Bombing the steel works will eventually work but if you are ignoring the aircraft factories that are beyond your self imposed limit it may be a long slog to reduce the German air force defense.
Too much concertation also makes German AA gun location a lot easier. Just send the majority to the Ruhr and the approaches and use the Ruhr as a giant flak trap.

Of course you vary the targets, but the Ruhr is major focus. That the Ruhr is important to German armaments manufacture is demonstrated by what happened historically — the RAF's campaign against it in the first half of 1943 resulted in a stagnation of German armaments production for nine months, as Adam Tooze documents in The Wages of Destruction, citing the German's own records.

The Ruhr could be a linchpin to forcing the Luftwaffe to come up and fight in 1943 in the same way attacks on aircraft production in early 1944 forced the Luftwaffe to engage.

Having both the RAF and the USAAF hitting it day and night in cooperation would also pay dividends which didn't exist historically as the two tended to operate more independently.

 

[tomo pauk]

The Ruhr could be a linchpin to forcing the Luftwaffe to come up and fight in 1943 in the same way attacks on aircraft production in early 1944 forced the Luftwaffe to engage.

That's the main point - get the Luftwaffe go up to play.

 

[BlackSheep]

The B-29s over Japan ranged between lower altitudes and 15,000 feet, on occasion up to 20,000.

They avoided predictable patterns because while Japan's AA defenses were not as heavy as Germany's, they could (and did) inflict losses.
Japan also had some dangerous night fighters, too.

Don't forget for many of the fire bomb raids, B-29s stripped of defensive armament, except for the tail gunner, flew in from 5500ft to just below 10,000 ft in order to exploit a gap in the Japanese anti-aircraft gun range. Pilots said flying too high or too low and you were up against a number of guns to rival Berlin, WITHOUT the coordination between sites, though.

 

[wuzak]

And then we run into the Crew situation, The US heavy bombers used crews of nine-12 men, usually 10-11?
B-25s carried 5 or more men depends on glass nose and if they carried 1 waist gunner or 2
B-26s 7 men (or 6-8) so you need more men (and more highly trained men) to carry the same bombload as the heavies.

The whole question of tactical vs strategic does need looking at, but a tactical campaign instead of strategic might have pushed back D-Day months if not a year. Forget landing during the winter.

Were these the B-26 crew?

1. Pilot
2. Co-pilot
3. Navigator
4. Bomb Aimer
5. Upper Turret gunner
6. Tail gunner
7. Left Waist gunner
8. Right waist gunner

Could they have combined a couple of roles? Like co-pilot/navigator.
And could they have done without the waist gunners?

How much weight could be saved by having 3 fewer crew, and 2 fewer gun positions?

Would that give more flexibility with bomb and fuel loads?

Losing the waist gunners would not, IMO, diminish the bomber's defences much, if at all.

 

[33k in the air]

Were these the B-26 crew?

1. Pilot
2. Co-pilot
3. Navigator
4. Bomb Aimer
5. Upper Turret gunner
6. Tail gunner
7. Left Waist gunner
8. Right waist gunner

Normal crew complement for the B-26 was six:

Pilot
Co-pilot
Bombardier/Navigator
Flight engineer/gunner
Radio operator/gunner
Tail Gunner

For the aircraft leading the bombing formation, the bombardier and navigator roles were separated and an additional specialist crew member was carried:

Pilot
Co-pilot
Bombardier
Navigator
GEE/G-H operator
Flight engineer/gunner
Radio operator/gunner
Tail Gunner

This is according to the website for the 387th Bomb Group, as described here.

 

[wuzak]

Often the medium bombers would be used for diversionary raids.

Normal crew complement for the B-26 was six:

Pilot
Co-pilot
Bombardier/Navigator
Flight engineer/gunner
Radio operator/gunner
Tail Gunner

For the aircraft leading the bombing formation, the bombardier and navigator roles were separated and an additional specialist crew member was carried:

Pilot
Co-pilot
Bombardier
Navigator
GEE/G-H operator
Flight engineer/gunner
Radio operator/gunner
Tail Gunner

This is according to the website for the 387th Bomb Group, as described here.

They had Gee/Gee-H?

 

[Greg Boeser]

Nice link!

 

[33k in the air]

Often the medium bombers would be used for diversionary raids.




They had Gee/Gee-H?

Apparently. GEE is specifically mentioned, but G-H was also used later on by medium bomber groups.

 

[33k in the air]

Nice link!

If you like that one, you might like the following. All have mission lists which include bomb load outs or similar detailed data, which I why I bookmarked them.

B-17
91st Bomb Group
303rd Bomb Group
398th Bomb Group

B-24
392nd Bomb Group
451st Bomb Group
458th Bomb Group

B-25
57th Bomb Wing (310th, 319th, 320th, and 340th Bomb Groups)
345th Bomb Group (PTO)

B-26
320th Bomb Group
387th Bomb Group

A-20 and A-26
416th Bomb Group

 

[BlackSheep]

Were these the B-26 crew?

1. Pilot
2. Co-pilot
3. Navigator
4. Bomb Aimer
5. Upper Turret gunner
6. Tail gunner
7. Left Waist gunner
8. Right waist gunner

Could they have combined a couple of roles? Like co-pilot/navigator.
And could they have done without the waist gunners?

How much weight could be saved by having 3 fewer crew, and 2 fewer gun positions?

Would that give more flexibility with bomb and fuel loads?

Losing the waist gunners would not, IMO, diminish the bomber's defences much, if at all.

What a difference a couple of years made with the advent of the A-26 and crews of 3….

 

[Shortround6]

For an early B-26 manual see

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/B-26/B-26_Operation_and_Flight_Instructions.pdf

March of 1942, a lot of what is in there didn't survive very long in combat.

Were these the B-26 crew?

1. Pilot
2. Co-pilot
3. Navigator
4. Bomb Aimer
5. Upper Turret gunner
6. Tail gunner
7. Left Waist gunner
8. Right waist gunner

Could they have combined a couple of roles? Like co-pilot/navigator.
And could they have done without the waist gunners?

How much weight could be saved by having 3 fewer crew, and 2 fewer gun positions?

The manual lists a 5 man crew.
Pilot
Co-pilot
Navigator
Radio operator
Gunner.

Now the defensive armament was ridiculously light and the number of men needed for the crew was also very optimistic. You need a lot of cooperation from your enemy.

Single .30 cal gun out the front with 600 rounds.
Two .50 cal guns in the turret with 400 rounds (total)
One .30 cal gun in ventral tunnel with 600 rounds
One .50 cal gun in the tail with 200 rounds.

Overload ammo is listed as 400 round for the turret.

Ten seats (and seat cushions) are listed.

Now please note that with 5 men, if every gun position is manned the pilot is flying the plane by himself and the radio operator is a number of feet away from the radio.
Navigator and Radio operator were in a compartment in between the cockpit and the wing/bomb bay.
I am assuming the navigator goes forward through the cockpit to take up the bombardier position and the nose gun.
That leaves the radio operator to work his way through the bomb bay to rear compartment where the early tunnel gun and the dorsal turret were located. The tail gun was located obviously in the tail
With a 5 man crew "the" gunner was a very busy man indeed leaping about from gun mount to gun mount.
Most crew photos show 6 or 7 man crews.
In later B-26s the ventral "tunnel" was replaced by low mounted "windows"

Please note the whole B-26 project was a house of cards as far as predicted performance vs practical performance went.

The early ones were listed as doing 326mph at 14,250ft at 26,734lbs.
Trouble was the plane went 21,959 lbs empty. (guns NOT mounted, no oil, etc)
With 465 US gallons fuel and a 2000lb bomb load (four 500lb) bombs the plane was 28, 706lbs.

Max over load was 33,326lbs.

The B-26G grew to 37,000lbs
If the early, small wing, light B-26 had trouble reaching a target with more than 2000lbs worth of bombs and a 5 man crew, cutting a few men and guns out of the later versions wasn't going to fix things.

 

[Howard Gibson]

While reading about bomber losses in the days before long range fighter escort, I began pondering how they could have been protected earlier.
For one reason or another fighters weren't ready early in the strategic bombing campaign. What seemed like the next best thing, up-gunned bomber gunships designated YB-40s, were too heavy and too slow to keep up.


Which leads us to the step not taken, as far as I know…
What if those in charge of the strategic bombing of Germany took a page out of the war in the Pacific's playbook and utilized strafer versions of A-20 and B-25 bombers. Without bombs, carrying extra fuel and increased forward firing guns, could the medium bombers have flown in front of, lagged a bit behind, and/or in other locations along the bomber stream utilizing the forward firepower to disrupt Luftwaffe attacks?

I've read accounts of A-26s turning into their attackers and firing all guns to break up attacks by Bf-109s. Also, the B-17 nicknames Ol' 666 is said to have done the same thing to break up Japanese attacks using a pilot controlled, custom mounted 50 configured to fire forward from the nose.

Would it have helped save bombers? Could modified mediums do what the YB-40 couldn't?

You build a long range escort fighter. I build a short range interceptor using the same level of technology./

• My interceptor is smaller and lighter.
• I have substantially better acceleration, climb and manoeuvrability, and I am somewhat faster.
• My interceptor is better armed.
• Your escort is faster in a dive.

My interceptors shoot down your escorts, then they rip into your bombers.

You lose.

In the real war, the Germans failed to develop and deploy two-stage superchargers, and they failed to issue significant quantities of high octane fuel to their fighter squadrons. In 1943, all the American aircraft were turbocharged, and capable of high performance at altitudes. At 30,000ft, the P-47 had a 50mph speed advantage over German fighters. The Americans develop the superb P-51 Mustang airframe, and the British develop Merlins with two-stage superchargers.

Air war does not change conventional military tactical and strategic considerations, one of which is that you do not overextend your communications.

 

[33k in the air]

You build a long range escort fighter. I build a short range interceptor using the same level of technology./

• My interceptor is smaller and lighter.
• I have substantially better acceleration, climb and manoeuvrability, and I am somewhat faster.
• My interceptor is better armed.
• Your escort is faster in a dive.

My interceptors shoot down your escorts, then they rip into your bombers.

You lose.

For every measure there is a countermeasure. Just as with the Me 262, I send some escort fighters to prowl around your airbases and shoot down your interceptors when they are returning to land to refuel and rearm, a time when they are low and slow, and thus quite vulnerable.

Also, if I outproduce your interceptors three-to-one, you lose by attrition.

 

[Howard Gibson]

For every measure there is a countermeasure. Just as with the Me 262, I send some escort fighters to prowl around your airbases and shoot down your interceptors when they are returning to land to refuel and rearm, a time when they are low and slow, and thus quite vulnerable.

Also, if I outproduce your interceptors three-to-one, you lose by attrition.

I said the same level of technology. You don't out produce me. Your production tries to correct your massive losses.

 

[Greg Boeser]

For an early B-26 manual see

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/B-26/B-26_Operation_and_Flight_Instructions.pdf

March of 1942, a lot of what is in there didn't survive very long in combat.



The manual lists a 5 man crew.
Pilot
Co-pilot
Navigator
Radio operator
Gunner.

Now the defensive armament was ridiculously light and the number of men needed for the crew was also very optimistic. You need a lot of cooperation from your enemy.

Single .30 cal gun out the front with 600 rounds.
Two .50 cal guns in the turret with 400 rounds (total)
One .30 cal gun in ventral tunnel with 600 rounds
One .50 cal gun in the tail with 200 rounds.

Overload ammo is listed as 400 round for the turret.

Ten seats (and seat cushions) are listed.

Now please note that with 5 men, if every gun position is manned the pilot is flying the plane by himself and the radio operator is a number of feet away from the radio.
Navigator and Radio operator were in a compartment in between the cockpit and the wing/bomb bay.
I am assuming the navigator goes forward through the cockpit to take up the bombardier position and the nose gun.
That leaves the radio operator to work his way through the bomb bay to rear compartment where the early tunnel gun and the dorsal turret were located. The tail gun was located obviously in the tail
With a 5 man crew "the" gunner was a very busy man indeed leaping about from gun mount to gun mount.
Most crew photos show 6 or 7 man crews.
In later B-26s the ventral "tunnel" was replaced by low mounted "windows"
View attachment 692901

Please note the whole B-26 project was a house of cards as far as predicted performance vs practical performance went.

The early ones were listed as doing 326mph at 14,250ft at 26,734lbs.
Trouble was the plane went 21,959 lbs empty. (guns NOT mounted, no oil, etc)
With 465 US gallons fuel and a 2000lb bomb load (four 500lb) bombs the plane was 28, 706lbs.

Max over load was 33,326lbs.

The B-26G grew to 37,000lbs
If the early, small wing, light B-26 had trouble reaching a target with more than 2000lbs worth of bombs and a 5 man crew, cutting a few men and guns out of the later versions wasn't going to fix things.

The early ones did not have trouble reaching their targets. 1943 POI lists "do not exceed" TO weight as 36,500 lbs for all short wing versions. Obviously, the B-4 was going to reach that weight with less variable weight than the straights, which had less armor, fewer guns. In the Southwest Pacific, 22nd BG generally carried up to 3500 lbs of bombs for short hops from Port Moresby to Lea or Buna, 2000 lbs plus a 250 gallon (US) bomb bay tank - 1212 gallons total.
Performance was good enough that the Japanese were demanding high performance interceptors to counter them. Zeros could barely catch them.
MTO and ETO was another story. Early attempts to fly low level missions were failures. German fighters had a significant edge in speed, flak was heavier. Changes in tactics saw them flying in tight formations of 18 to 54 ships at medium altitude, 10-12k ft, with heavy escort.

 

[tomo pauk]

I said the same level of technology. You don't out produce me. Your production tries to correct your massive losses.

I certainly out-produce you.

 

[Shortround6]

The early ones did not have trouble reaching their targets. 1943 POI lists "do not exceed" TO weight as 36,500 lbs for all short wing versions. Obviously, the B-4 was going to reach that weight with less variable weight than the straights, which had less armor, fewer guns. In the Southwest Pacific, 22nd BG generally carried up to 3500 lbs of bombs for short hops from Port Moresby to Lea or Buna, 2000 lbs plus a 250 gallon (US) bomb bay tank - 1212 gallons total.
Performance was good enough that the Japanese were demanding high performance interceptors to counter them. Zeros could barely catch them.
MTO and ETO was another story. Early attempts to fly low level missions were failures. German fighters had a significant edge in speed, flak was heavier. Changes in tactics saw them flying in tight formations of 18 to 54 ships at medium altitude, 10-12k ft, with heavy escort.

Some of my post was in regards to this post

Could they have combined a couple of roles? Like co-pilot/navigator.
And could they have done without the waist gunners?

How much weight could be saved by having 3 fewer crew, and 2 fewer gun positions?

Would that give more flexibility with bomb and fuel loads?

Losing the waist gunners would not, IMO, diminish the bomber's defences much, if at all.

If the early, small wing, light B-26 had trouble reaching a target with more than 2000lbs worth of bombs and a 5 man crew, cutting a few men and guns out of the later versions wasn't going to fix things.

I was as showing that published performance figures were somewhat of an illusion. At least for operational use. So were the B-25 figures.
The medium bombers could reach the targets, just not at quite the speeds listed. A B-26 could suck down just under 400 US gallons in one hour at max cruise. Max speed required just under 8 gallons a minute. Getting out of "Dodge" required more fuel than the performance charts allowed for even with bombs gone. Granted the difference is not much at all but everything shifts down.
It also shows that there were no "extra" men being carried. If you have a 5 man crew and 4 gun positions you don't enough men. The enemy is not going to be sporting and give you a time out while crewmen scramble about the fuselage changing positions.


When comparing the American bombers to the Mosquito (the standard for unarmed bombers) we also have to take the engines into account.
The early B-26 used early (1850hp T-0) engines and that is what shows up , if they list the early engines at all.
Problem is the 1850 hp engines only held 1850hp to 2700ft. (no RAM) and power dropped off as the plane climbed. After shifting to high gear power would come back up and peak at 1500hp at 14,000ft. (No RAM) Now compare that to the power the early Mosquitos had at the mid altitude levels. (1120hp at 18,500ft)

tests of a special Mosquito with non-standard bomb bay show that there was about a 4-5mph difference between carrying a 3500 load and running empty. (20000lbs vs 16,500lbs)

The American Mediums (B-26 and B-25) could not perform useful missions at the performance weights listed in the very early manuals. (gliding back to base with empty tanks was not a good tactic). However the actual performance penalty of a few hundred gallons of extra fuel may not have been all that much.

The flip side of that is that leaving one or two men home with a pair of .50 cal guns and few hundred rounds of ammo is not going to increase the speed of the planes enough escape enemy fighters.

If you want to use the light defense (or no gun) "option" you have to do it on the drawing board where you can make the fuselage smaller (lower drag) and lighter and thus use a smaller (less drag) wing of less weight and thus lighter landing gear which allows you to go back to the fuselage/wing and lighten that up a bid more then use less fuel which........................................

I have no idea of the reasoning of quoting performance figures for planes with less than a full loads. US Navy did that a lot in 1940-41-42 and stopped.

 

[Greg Boeser]

My take on the combat weight was it represented the halfway point fuel-wise. So, what the expected performance envelope at the target would be. The max take-off weight included full tanks.
Using American mediums as escorts was not an option. The engines were not designed to operate at the altitudes of the heavies. High altitude versions were proposed, but never reached production (XB-27, XB-28).

 

[Shortround6]

My objection is that is not what the early manual says. Or not in so many words. However there is bunch of performance figures given for situations that were not going to happen.
Please look at the Manual if you have not done so, later manuals may well have changed most/all of the numbers.
26,734lbs is given as the "designed gross weight" and speeds are given at 4 different power settings. That is also the weight used for the take-off to 50ft information.
It is also the weight used in the climb chart (every 5,000ft.)
In this manual they do not use the words "combat weight."

On the next page in the manual (weight data)

They give a normal gross weight of 28,706lbs and list the weights needed to get to that point. (465 gal fuel, 1/2 oil, 2000lbs of bombs, crew and so on)

We can "assume" that the 26,734lbs is the weight with 465 gal and bombs gone but why is that the standard for the listed performance specifications?

The plane will hold 962 gallons in the wing tanks, forget the bomb bay tanks. The plane will hold 4,000lbs of bombs inside the bomb bays (forget the torpedo)
The max gross weight in the manual was 33,326lbs. I may not need the performance numbers at max gross (although it would be nice).

Performance numbers closer to 30,000lbs would have been handier.
There are a number of loading charts and how to figure center of gravity for loads of around 30,000lbs including taking out the turret and armor and loading in over 3000lbs of cargo and full fuel.
There is also instructions on the B-26 that basically want (with bombs and ammo gone) and less than 250 gallons of fuel onboard to have two crewmen from the pilot or navigators compartment move to the turret compartment (go through the bomb bay) to restore the center of gravity for easy of control for the pilot when landing after the landing gear is extended. They don't change that for the B-26B with the two guns in the tail and more ammo but they do repeat the instruction in the B-26B section.

 

[pbehn]

You build a long range escort fighter. I build a short range interceptor using the same level of technology./

• My interceptor is smaller and lighter.
• I have substantially better acceleration, climb and manoeuvrability, and I am somewhat faster.
• My interceptor is better armed.
• Your escort is faster in a dive.

My interceptors shoot down your escorts, then they rip into your bombers.

You lose.

In the real war, the Germans failed to develop and deploy two-stage superchargers, and they failed to issue significant quantities of high octane fuel to their fighter squadrons. In 1943, all the American aircraft were turbocharged, and capable of high performance at altitudes. At 30,000ft, the P-47 had a 50mph speed advantage over German fighters. The Americans develop the superb P-51 Mustang airframe, and the British develop Merlins with two-stage superchargers.

Air war does not change conventional military tactical and strategic considerations, one of which is that you do not overextend your communications.

In the real war in Europe there were other factors. If a bomber formation can be escorted by 200 escorts, how many interceptors do you need to protect the whole of the French Belgian Dutch German and Norwegian coasts meeting it with 200 planes? Attacks were also mounted from Italy, so how many needed to meet any threat to south Germany and the Balkans. With the range of a single engined interceptor, the time taken to get to altitude the numbers run into thousands. Adolf seized an area of land he had no hope of defending, and no way of fighting any battle of attrition, US factories were out of reach.