Protecting the Long-Range Bombers (1 Viewer)

[33k in the air]

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

What meaningful technological differences were there between factories in the U.S. and in Germany?

The industrial base of the U.S. greatly exceeded that of the Axis, plus the U.S. produced some 65% of the world's crude oil during the war.

 

[33k in the air]

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 . . .

The U.S. did have a fast medium bomber under development — the Douglas XB-42. (To be fair, development started later in the war, and its first flight wasn't until 6 May 1944.)

 

[GrauGeist]

What meaningful technological differences were there between factories in the U.S. and in Germany?

The industrial base of the U.S. greatly exceeded that of the Axis, plus the U.S. produced some 65% of the world's crude oil during the war.

Germany hadn't adopted an American style assembly line even though they had the model (by way of German Ford and GM factories) and early in the war, they were not working more than single shifts.
It wasn't until later in the war, when the situation became critical, that they ramped up production under Speer, but by then, it was too late to make any difference.

 

[33k in the air]

Germany hadn't adopted an American style assembly line even though they had the model (by way of German Ford and GM factories) and early in the war, they were not working more than single shifts.
It wasn't until later in the war, when the situation became critical, that they ramped up production under Speer, but by then, it was too late to make any difference.

Does that count as a technological difference though? Or is it more of a management difference?

 

[tomo pauk]

Germany hadn't adopted an American style assembly line even though they had the model (by way of German Ford and GM factories) and early in the war, they were not working more than single shifts.
It wasn't until later in the war, when the situation became critical, that they ramped up production under Speer, but by then, it was too late to make any difference.

Unlike the USA, Germany have had a severe deficit of available workforce, some important raw materials, and often the energy needed. Slave workers, PoWs, foreign nationals - this will not cut it.

 

[GrauGeist]

Unlike the USA, Germany have had a severe deficit of available workforce, some important raw materials, and often the energy needed. Slave workers, PoWs, foreign nationals - this will not cut it.

Big difference between early war and late war.

Early war, it was a domestic civilian and foreign work-visa workforce working in shifts that resembled a peacetime schedule.

As Germany's situation deteriorated and manpower became in short supply, the workforce was supplemented by slave labor in increasing numbers with workshifts increasing.

 

[BlackSheep]

As an example of how hard it is to think of something new and better, but also, to give credit to forum members already on the right track, I recently read that in July of 1943 the thought of using B-26 Marauders as heavy escort fighters was considered, but, the performance envelopes couldn't match the bombers they needed to protect.

So, once again, in the absence of suitable escort fighters, the bombers were on their own. If only the M134 mini gun had been developed 25 years earlier or, better yet, the GAU-19…
Disclaimer: Yes, I am aware of the problems of mounting such systems on a 1940s airplane and am just throwing this bit of fantastical thinking into the mix, as an example, of how effective the Mustangs and other fighters turned out to be on those long trips across Europe or the Pacific.

Edit: I forgot to mention that the Japanese also entertained the same concept as the USAAF and experimented with the G6M1, which was an upgunned Betty bomber producing similar negative results. The concept was shelved and the JNAF went about procuring standard Bettys.

 

[Howard Gibson]

As an example of how hard it is to think of something new and better, but also, to give credit to forum members already on the right track, I recently read that in July of 1943 the thought of using B-26 Marauders as heavy escort fighters was considered, but, the performance envelopes couldn't match the bombers they needed to protect.

So, once again, in the absence of suitable escort fighters, the bombers were on their own. If only the M134 mini gun had been developed 25 years earlier or, better yet, the GAU-19…
Disclaimer: Yes, I am aware of the problems of mounting such systems on a 1940s airplane and am just throwing this bit of fantastical thinking into the mix, as an example, of how effective the Mustangs and other fighters turned out to be on those long trips across Europe or the Pacific.

I am looking at the Profile publication for the B-26 Marauder. 270mph at sea level actually is dammed impressive. 282mph at 15000ft less so, but not bad. B-26 Marauder in Action quotes 311mph at 14,500ft, which is better. Both publications quote service ceilings below 25,000ft. The Marauder's R2800 engines were bigger than the B-17's R1820s, but the B-17s were turbocharged. The Marauder had a very different performance envelope. There is no way it would have helped a formation of B-17s.

 

[wuzak]

I am looking at the Profile publication for the B-26 Marauder. 270mph at sea level actually is dammed impressive. 282mph at 15000ft less so, but not bad. B-26 Marauder in Action quotes 311mph at 14,500ft, which is better. Both publications quote service ceilings below 25,000ft. The Marauder's R2800 engines were bigger than the B-17's R1820s, but the B-17s were turbocharged. The Marauder had a very different performance envelope.

More importantly, the B-26 could not compete with German S/E fighters.

 

[Shortround6]

M134 mini gun

Four .303 cal or .30 cal Brownings would get close to 4800rpm. And a lot of bombers had them. Didn't work.

 

[BlackSheep]

Four .303 cal or .30 cal Brownings would get close to 4800rpm. And a lot of bombers had them. Didn't work.

Having fired them all, including the 1917
And 1919s, I'm going to disagree with you. They wouldn't have solved the problem but they would have been a step up. If you'd read the disclaimer, you might have noticed the part where I mention that the failure of the defensive guns is more of a tribute to the effectiveness of the escort fighters….(not in these exact words, but, read the disclaimer and you'll get my drift)

 

[MIflyer]

I read of a case where a formation of Martin B-26's was on a bombing mission in the ETO. I guess they probably were on their way home after dropping their bombs. A BF-109 made a firing pass and a B-26 pilot on the outer edge of the formation decided he'd had enough of that, dove after the 109, and shot it out of the air using the four .50 cal package guns. He pulled back up into formation and received a radio call, "Good shooting!"

But it seems that the B-26's in the ETO made very little use of their package guns or even the .50 cal gun in the nose, which required the Norden bombsight to be removed in order to use it.

When the A-26 came into service the USAAF decided to see if it could replace the P-47 in ground attack, since it was just as fast at low altitude and could carry a heavier bombload as well as even heavier forward firing armament. But they found out that the A-26 was a lot larger target than the P-47 and caught more ground fire.

 

[BlackSheep]

I read of a case where a formation of Martin B-26's was on a bombing mission in the ETO. I guess they probably were on their way home after dropping their bombs. A BF-109 made a firing pass and a B-26 pilot on the outer edge of the formation decided he'd had enough of that, dove after the 109, and shot it out of the air using the four .50 cal package guns. He pulled back up into formation and received a radio call, "Good shooting!"

But it seems that the B-26's in the ETO made very little use of their package guns or even the .50 cal gun in the nose, which required the Norden bombsight to be removed in order to use it.

When the A-26 came into service the USAAF decided to see if it could replace the P-47 in ground attack, since it was just as fast at low altitude and could carry a heavier bombload as well as even heavier forward firing armament. But they found out that the A-26 was a lot larger target than the P-47 and caught more ground fire.

I remember a similar story but it involved A-26s…. I don't have access to my library to confirm, so I may be mistaken. Iirc, the flight leader had everyone turn into the attacking 109s… I'm sure someone in the forum will correct me, especially if I'm wrong or too fantastical..

 

[BlackSheep]

While writing the OP,

I forgot to mention that the Japanese also entertained the same concept as the USAAF and experimented with the G6M1, which was an upgunned Betty bomber producing similar negative results. The concept was shelved and the JNAF went about procuring standard Bettys.

 

[Shortround6]

I believe the B-26 package guns were pointed down at slight angle for strafing?
Doesn't mean that somebody didn't use them for air to air, they were used against transports at times, but fighters may be harder targets?

 

[SaparotRob]

Or a "WTF moment" for the fighter pilot being attacked head-on by big angry tracer spitting Marauder.

 

[GrauGeist]

I believe the B-26 package guns were pointed down at slight angle for strafing?
Doesn't mean that somebody didn't use them for air to air, they were used against transports at times, but fighters may be harder targets?

As I understand, the B-25, B-26 and A-26 gunships with the gun-packs, gun-nose or wing-packs, were all converged dead ahead and deployed in a shallow dive for maximum effect.

 

[BlackSheep]

Or a "WTF moment" for the fighter pilot being attacked head-on by big angry tracer spitting Marauder.

As I understand, the B-25, B-26 and A-26 gunships with the gun-packs, gun-nose or wing-packs, were all converged dead ahead and deployed in a shallow dive for maximum effect.

Anyone have info on what sights the twin-engine strafers utilized? I found a reference that the B-26B-45-MA received ring and bead sights for the package guns, but nothing for the A-20, B-25, and a passing reference to a reflector sight for the A-26… it seems like you'd want an upgraded sight if you started earning the Sacajaweas flying low and strafing … Although, I was told by an OG Huey pilot who plied his trade in Nam that his first rocket and gun sights were grease pencil marks on the glass which sorta worked as long as he held his head the same way as when they bore-sighted the barrels and tubes….

 

[SaparotRob]

if you started earning the Sacajaweas flying low and strafing …

Not just a couple, we're talking a whole sack of jaweas

 

[SaparotRob]

That's my numismatic joke.