R4M ...............

[Matt308]

From a US Confidential Report Jan-May 1944. Attacks and hits on B-17s and B-24s. I'll summarize the chart and have to consolidate for time.


B-17
3585 attacks and 441 hits
Position (Hits/attack percentage at x o'clock)
12 - 20.2/15.6
11 1 - about 11/10
6 - 15.6/20.7
7 5 - about 8/9
Flanks were low with right side having a higher ration of hits/attacks

B-24
1042 attacks and 102 hits
Position (Hits/attack percentage at x o'clock)
12 - 21.6/17.6
11 - 7.8/11.9
1 - 12.7/8.7
6 - 20.6/19.6
7 5 - about 7.2/10.5 with about 33% more attacks from 7 position
Flanks all very low, but with more hits from port side.

Interesting to note that more attacks and hits originated from starboard side on B-17s and from port side on B-24s.

 

[Civettone]

Thanks Matt, you might want to edit that small typo with the B-24. You wrote 12 instead of 6.

Now my question was how this would change with the R4M which were shot at a distance. What would be the best angle, when you take a look at the pics with formations I presented above?

Kris

 

[Matt308]

Thanks Matt, you might want to edit that small typo with the B-24. You wrote 12 instead of 6.

Kris

right you are. Thx.

 

[Erich]

sadly the time frame you have put up which I also own is for the first part of 44 and not in the very important change over in tactics come July of 44 when it was called for attacking from the rear slightly low or slightly high

 

[Civettone]

Erich, what do you believe were the reasons for this change in tactic?


Kris

 

[Erich]

Kris the ease of attack and only facing the tail gunners position, longer loiter time to set up the attack on staffel strength in the wedge normally and to close in the with tails edge of the squadron from whence the LW fighter could bank up or down and away to the right or left and then if no Allied escorts in the area come around again for a 2nd attack from the rear.

E ~

 

[Civettone]

Why slightly low/high and not straight behind? Is it to first take out the tail gunner and then still have a good angle for the rest of the fuselage? What about the wing fuel tanks? Those were supposed to be easy targets.

Slightly to the side would also be nice then: the waist gunner was less dangerous than the dorsal or belly gunner.

In any case and coming back to my original question, I suppose sticking with the rear attack when having R4M rockets must be attributed to only one thing: the follow-up attack with cannons!

Kris

 

[Erich]

yes you pretty much answered your questions, closing in from the rear enabled the LW pilot to shoot out both engines from one wing causing the tip over effect plus not all shots will hit the inboard but along the fuselage causing great internal havoc

 

[Gixxerman]

Interesting stuff.

Coupled with an equivalent to the proximity fuse the allies were using (I have read that Germany was developing several possibilities......., seems another case of that recurrent WW2 German theme, dilution of effort/resources?) those rockets could have been even more deadly.

 

[Civettone]

They were working on three or four types of proximity fuses ... but the real problem was the 20 other fuse types they were working on


Kris

 

[Matt308]

I would think that attacks from the rear would be most easily defended since you have no deflection and the closing speed is lower. With the ballistics of the .50BMG you could reach out far. But the flip side is that the attacker has the same advantage with a more stable target.

Now question for Civvetone... are those bomber box formations applicable to all USAAF makes? Were defensive formations different between B-17s and B-24s? Certainly, these different airplanes had different operational altitude capabilities. Does operational altitude change defensive formations?

I'm wondering how to explain the signficantly higher percentage of attacks upon a particular flank depending upon airplane model. At first I was thinking it might be Luft taking advantage of engine torque for disengagement techniques, but that would only make sense if they were consistent between models.

 

[Civettone]

Yes, they were different. And they changed over time. Especially LeMay was really busy with changing tactics.

This wiki page seems pretty good, it goes into depth on the subject: Combat box - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kris

 

[Gixxerman]

On an oblique point.....

I'm wondering about those very young men in the various gun positions (in the various US bombers) doing their best to track fast moving targets (some of which pass through or between the formations), is there any data on the level of damage or losses by so-called 'friendly fire'?

 

[Matt308]

No, but I do have a confidential report on losses by airplane model and gunner position. I'll try and summarize when I get a chance. Fascinating stuff. I recall ball turrest position was most safe.

 

[davebender]

I suspect it was substantial. However when you've got friendly fire plus enemy flak and fighter aircraft shooting at you simultaneously it would be tough to prove exactly who caused which hole in your heavy bomber.

 

[Matt308]

Not necessarily. You have to remember that USAAF crews were briefed and debriefed and such parameters were tracked with absolute focus. Fog of war may have certainly influenced reporting, but flak and defensive fighter attacks were operationally planned to be mutually exclusive.