Tactical Strikes of World War II

"It sure had fighter-bomber performance charteristics. Speed and good payload. Plus maneuverabilty. just add guns"

Hahahahahaha ! So what syscom? It didn't have guns! It was a pure light bomber! No fighter-bomber there at all. My god! You've been proven wrong in your statement that medium or light bombers raided across the Rhine before 1944, and you've been proven wrong that no light bombers raid deep in Germany between 1942 and 1944. Just give that point up too. The Mosquito was a freakin' light bomber, alright !? I have many more facts than you, 'cos you have none.

Of course the Mosquito went to Berlin during the day, it was the first Allied bomber to raid Berlin in daylight!

---"He just keeps telling you that you can't use that example you can't use that one either etc, ahhhhhhh. Or you can only use the years from 42-before 44!!!! Well why does he not norrow the parameters soooo small until you can't prove your point!! Frustrating."

It would be frustrating and I probably would have gone off on one like I used to only a few months ago. But I'm more relaxed these days, and I'm finding it sad and a good laugh more than anything now. Plus, I have to say while I have more of an interest in tactical air power (because of it's attachment to supporting of armies), I haven't been so keen to spend money and time researching it in great detail until this thread.

"I am not trying to put words into PlanD mouth here but I am impressed PlanD with your patiences and information gathering skills."

Thank you. It's taking a lot of work, and a little bit of money. But I've been after the books for a while anyway. By the end of the week, I'll have the histories on 2 Group, 2nd TAF and US Ninth Air Force. Practically in full.

"PlanD you might just have to give it up, I don't think syscom will ever admit what is plain to everyone else to see. Syscom is a smart guy but he never admits when he is wrong."

I've already given up trying to make him admit his mistakes. Because I know he will not. But everytime a comment is made by him that I can soundly prove wrong I can reply with laughter. And also, my research has a place to be shared with everyone else on the board. At least I hope people reading this thread have learnt a few things about the 2nd TAF and tactical raids.

First syscom did I actually call "you" a jackazz? no

I have refrained from entering this thread b/c PlanD is more than able to handle it himself. It has been frustrating to watch and read but I have tried to say as little as possable. But now you have me looped me into this thread with your comments.

But before I waste days and days looking up information that you will just discount as invalid. I want to hear from you exactly what it will take to prove to you tactical airstrikes are highly valuable.

List what you need to hear or see to prove to you. What is it?

Confirmation from Vets in the field?

Missions that were completed successfully?

What is it that will finally prove to our point?

What years do you want to see?

How many planes involved do you want to see?

List for me what you want to see, be detailed.

This is getting sadder and sadder as it goes along....

When he provides that list, Hunter. I will gladly research it. But the list will be so pathetic to prove his "point" - that it won't prove anything at all.

Now I am confused.

You mean he had a point?

I ... don't know. I just enjoy researching tactical raids and passing the information on. Syscom is merely being ...well, I don't know. A reason for me to pass the information on?

Hunter368 said:

First syscom did I actually call "you" a jackazz? no

I have refrained from entering this thread b/c PlanD is more than able to handle it himself. It has been frustrating to watch and read but I have tried to say as little as possable. But now you have me looped me into this thread with your comments.

But before I waste days and days looking up information that you will just discount as invalid. I want to hear from you exactly what it will take to prove to you tactical airstrikes are highly valuable.

List what you need to hear or see to prove to you. What is it?

Confirmation from Vets in the field?

Missions that were completed successfully?

What is it that will finally prove to our point?

What years do you want to see?

How many planes involved do you want to see?

List for me what you want to see, be detailed.

Click to expand...

I didnt call you a jacka***. Go look what i said.

My point is the light bombers such as the A20 were worthless. Better to spend the effort on more medium bombers. Heck, even more Mosquito's, but not on light attack bombers.

And the Mosquito is more a fighter bomber than a light attack bomber. And all plan_D has proven is a few mosquito's flew to Berlin, (at night no doubt) but never did they go in a mass raid on a worthwhile tactical target east of the Rhine. (Sorry Plan_D, coastal targets dont cut it, it has to be welll within german borders).

I looked at some 9th AF mission lists from 1943 and 1944, and they were all within France and the Low countries. Only untill late 1945, did they begin to wander into German airspace.

Mosquitos flew over Germany during both night and day (to Berlin as well). Somehwere back in this thread is the story of the Mosquito raid on Berlin to coinside with the speaches being made by Goebbels and Goering (one in the morning the other in the afternoon). Both speaches were disrupted by Mosquito raids in the middle of the day, I'm not sure of the losses to the Mosquito's but they were few.

syscom3 said:

My point is the light bombers such as the A20 were worthless. Better to spend the effort on more medium bombers. Heck, even more Mosquito's, but not on light attack bombers.

Click to expand...

I still don't see how you can class a plane which carries only bombs and has NO GUNS as a fighter bomber. Yes there were fighter versions of the Mosquito but those with bombs had no guns and therefore could not attack fighters and therefore be a fighter which makes it an unarmed fast light/medium attack bomber...

Gnomey

It is apparent he has not read a single damn thing posted that has Truth slapped all over it.

Just remember "Never wrestle with a Pig, you get dirty, and the Pig enjoys it".

Now Syscom.

I think Mosquito anti shipping raids at night time would be a tad hairy to say the least. Yet raids were consistently carried out in Norway and other regions that were as far in distance and further than Berlin.

Often these would include 1 or two Strike Wings of a large number of Aircraft.

Can you find One supporting document that states the Mosquito was solely a Fighter Bomber.

Please post said document and its source please.

If not, admit it. You was WRONG.

syscom3 said:

My point is the light bombers such as the A20 were worthless.

Click to expand...

syscom3 said:

I looked at some 9th AF mission lists from 1943 and 1944, and they were all within France and the Low countries. Only untill late 1945, did they begin to wander into German airspace.

Click to expand...

USAAF Light bombers fulfilled a pure Tactical Role after D Day taking out rail yards, factories and infrastructure. Their lack of range kept them from venturing far into Germany, but that 's not what they were there for. Some thing you're missing - although the Mossie and other "fighter Bombers" could carry a close or comperable ordnance load, light bombers carried more navigational and electronic equipment (in WW2 a good radio set could take up a small closet, so this was ideal for a light bomber) than fighter bombers, and with a multi man crew, took some of the work load off the pilot. Light bombers were far from worthless and filled a great tactitcal role.

Here's something to chew on...

"Simply stated, this is a brief history on the 410th Bombardment Group. The 410th Bomb Group was indeed a unique unit, flying both day and night missions, and established one of the best bombing records of World War II.


This chart shows bombing accuracy data published by the Operational Research Section of the 9th Bombardment Division. It shows percent of bombs plotted to withing 500 feet of aiming points.
In April 1945 the 410th record was the best ever. A total of 65 superior or excellent bombing ratings were attained. Another first was for this unit was that it was the only combat Bomb group in the USAAF during WWII, fully trained, equipped with modified aircraft,and manned to fly both day and night missions, using precision bombing techniques. Another remarkable record is that of 9,648 combat sorties flown, only 185 mechanical failures occurred.


Officially, the 410th flew 262 combat missions and 241 combat sorties. (To be credited with a combat sortie, the aircraft had to fly over the target. In 21 cases, the group was recalled or did not fly over the target due to adverse weather, no fighter cover or by higher headquarters directive)

The 410th Bomb Group was active in most of the major battles in Europe... Air Offensive, Europe; Normandy; Northern France; Rhineland; Ardennes-Alsace; and Central Europe. They received the Distinguished Unit Citation for the effectiveness of its bombing in the Ardennes, 23-25 December 1944, when the group made numerous attacks on enemy lines of communications.

The 410th Bomb Group was made up of 4 bomb squadrons. The 644th (call letters 5D), 645th (7X), 646th (8U), and the 647th (6Q). They flew out of Birch and Gosfield airfields in Essex County England, and Coulommiers, Juvincourt, and Beaumont-sur-Oise, all in France.


Air Force Assigned to: 9th AF (March '44 - end WWII)

Stations flown from: Birch, England (April '44)
Gosfield, England (April '44 - Sept. '44)
Coulommiers, France (Sept. '44 - Feb. '45)
Juvincourt, France (Feb '45 - May '45)
Beaumont-sur-Oise, Belgium (May '45 - end WWII)

Campaigns: Air Offensive, Europe
Normandy
Northern France
Rhineland
Arnennes-Alsace
Central Europe

Decorations: Distinguished Unit Citation: Germany, 23-25 Dec '44 "

Web-Birds: Warbirds on the 'Web - The WWII Gallery

Here's info on the 410th BG
http://www.web-birds.com/9th/409/409th_missions.html

Some more to chew on....

"TUESDAY, 3 APRIL 1945

AIRBORNE OPERATIONS (IX Troop Carrier Command): The 23d, 313th and 314th Troop Carrier Squadrons, 349th Troop Carrier Group, arrive at Barkston, England from the US with C-47s.

STRATEGIC OPERATIONS (Eighth Air Force): 2 missions are flown.

Mission 924: 752 B-17s and 569 P-51s are dispatched to hit U-boat yards at Kiel; they claim 1-0-0 Luftwaffe aircraft; 2 bombers and 4 fighters are lost:
1. 693 of 752 B-17s hit the Deutsche U-boat yard and 24 hit the Howardts U-boat yard; 2 B-17s hit Flensburg Airfield a target of opportunity; 2 B-17s are lost and 121 damaged; 1 airman is WIA and 20 MIA. Escorting are 517 of 569 P-51s; they claim 1-0-0 aircraft; 2 P-51s are lost and 2 damaged beyond repair.

2. 98 of 100 P-51s fly a sweep of the Kiel area; 1 is damaged beyond repair.

3. 4 P-51s escort 1 F-5 on a photo reconnaissance mission over Germany.

4. 17 of 18 P-51s fly a scouting mission; 2 P-51s are lost.

Mission 925: 1 B-17 and 10 B-24s are dispatched to drop leaflets in the Netherlands, France and Germany during the night; 1 returns to base.


TACTICAL OPERATIONS: First Tactical Air Force (Provisional): Unit moves in France: 10th Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron, 69th Tactical Reconnaissance Group, from Nancy to Haguenau with F-6s (first mission is 17 Apr); 34th Photographic Reconnaissance Group, XII Tactical Air Command (attached to Provisional Reconnaissance Group), form Azelot to Haguenau with F-5s.

Ninth Air Force: In Germany, about 230 B-26s, A-20s and A-26s attack Holzminden and Hameln marshalling yards, the town of Gottingen, 2 targets of opportunity, and fly a leaflet mission; fighters fly escort, fly patrols and armed reconnaissance, support the US 9th Armored Division in the Warburg area, the XX Corps E of the Werra River toward Muhlhausen and in the Kassel area, the XII Corps in the Gotha and Suhl areas, and the 2d and 8th Armored Divisions in the Teutoburger Forest and Neuhaus; unit moves: HQ XXIX Tactical Air Command (Provisional) to Haltern; HQ 84th and 303d Fighter Wings from Munchen-Gladbach to Haltern; 14th Liaison Squadron, XIX Tactical Air Command (attached to Twelfth Army Group), from Oberstein to Berkersheim with L-5s; 15th Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron, 10th Photographic Group (Reconnaissance), from Trier to Ober Olm with F-6s; 507th and 508th Fighter Squadrons, 404th Fighter Group, from St Trond, Belgium to Keltz with P-47s."

USAAF Chronology:

Far from useless!

If they were usefull why were the A20 units converting to A26's as they became available?

Because the AAF saw they didnt add value to the air force as compared to the medium bombers or fighter bombers.

A group of B26's (or A26's) were far more usefull than A20's. And I'd even say a P47, P38 or Typhoon that could roam at will looking for targets was more usefull than the A20's.

syscom3 said:

If they were usefull why were the A20 units converting to A26's as they became available?

Click to expand...

Because it was a newer faster aircraft designed to replace the A-20, that simple. BTW the A-20 stayed around till the end of the war.

syscom3 said:

Because the AAF saw they didnt add value to the air force as compared to the medium bombers or fighter bombers.

Click to expand...

WRONG!!!The 409th and 410th bomb group stayed active right till the end of the war basically following the movment of ground troops and deployed where and when needed, they did an outstanding job during the Battle of the Bulge. There were at least 12 "Light Bomber" squadrons highly active right up to the end of the war. If they were that ineffective they would of never landed on the European Continent...

syscom3 said:

A group of B26's (or A26's) were far more usefull than A20's. And I'd even say a P47, P38 or Typhoon that could roam at will looking for targets was more usefull than the A20's.

Click to expand...

The A-26 was considered a light bomber and was equipping light bomber squadrons. B-26 fulfilled a similar role. The A-20 was still effective and many of the pilots who flew all 3 considered the A-20 a better flying aircraft. These aircraft were able to aviate, navigate and deliver their ordnance over specific targets and did so with the same or better effectiveness that single engine aircraft as now they were operating within their minimum rage with full bomb load, you were getting more bang for the buck in compared to single engine fighter bombers - and yes, the single engine fighters were mainly left to take care of targets of opportunity - Tactical Air Warfare at it's finest...

plan_D said:

When he provides that list, Hunter. I will gladly research it. But the list will be so pathetic to prove his "point" - that it won't prove anything at all.

Click to expand...

Ok PlanD I will stay out of this thread the best I can.


Syscom I will say this and I say it again, you have not answered my questions. If you want PlanD and now Joe to prove to you that tactical airstrikes were of value answer my list:

List what you need to hear or see to prove to you. What is it?

Confirmation from Vets in the field?

Missions that were completed successfully?

What is it that will finally prove to our point?

What years do you want to see?

How many planes involved do you want to see?

Why limit this to only USA and UK planes? To prove that tactical air strikes were of value we should be able to provide tactical airstrikes from all nations to prove our point. Why are we being limited to USA or UK planes, were are proving that tactical airstrikes were of value here nothing else. Lets give Axis tactical airstrikes also as examples.

List for us what you want to see, be detailed. Answer these questions plz.

FLYBOYJ said:

Because it was a newer faster aircraft designed to replace the A-20, that simple. BTW the A-20 stayed around till the end of the war.

Click to expand...

Of course it stayed on till the end of the war. The A26 wasnt in a production rate to replace all of the A20/B25/B26 groups right away

The A-26 was considered a light bomber and was equipping light bomber squadrons. B-26 fulfilled a similar role. The A-20 was still effective and many of the pilots who flew all 3 considered the A-20 a better flying aircraft. These aircraft were able to aviate, navigate and deliver their ordnance over specific targets and did so with the same or better effectiveness that single engine aircraft as now they were operating within their minimum rage with full bomb load, you were getting more bang for the buck in compared to single engine fighter bombers -

Click to expand...

The A26 had a payload that was in the medium bomber specifications. It was considered an attack bomber, not a light bomber. Regardless of the designation, it was going to follow the B26 tactics of medium altitude attacks.

and yes, the single engine fighters were mainly left to take care of targets of opportunity - Tactical Air Warfare at it's finest...

Click to expand...

Agree'd

Syscom I will say this and I say it again, you have not answered my questions. If you want PlanD and now Joe to prove to you that tactical airstrikes were of value answer my list:

Click to expand...

Ive been saying tactical airstrikes by multi engined light bombers were ineffective and a waste of resources. If you read my posts, i have been continually saying that medium bombers and fighter bombers were usefull

Why limit this to only USA and UK planes? To prove that tactical air strikes were of value we should be able to provide tactical airstrikes from all nations to prove our point. Why are we being limited to USA or UK planes, were are proving that tactical airstrikes were of value here nothing else. Lets give Axis tactical airstrikes also as examples.

Click to expand...

And that goes for axis planes as well. A JU-88 carrying several bombs was more usefull than a single -234 carry one bomb.

And furthermore, most of the tactical targets as designated for attack by bombers, like airfields and railyards, needed lots of bombs to knock them out. Either you can do it with several heavy bombers, or a couple of groups of mediums. But light bombers needed lots of aircraft to deliver the same number of "bombs per target", and if thats the case, do away with the light bombers and stock up on more medium bombers.

syscom3 said:

The A26 had a payload that was in the medium bomber specifications. It was considered an attack bomber, not a light bomber. Regardless of the designation, it was going to follow the B26 tactics of medium altitude attacks.

Click to expand...

And it did where it replaced other "medium bombers." Where it replaced the A-20 it fulfilled the same role as the A-20...

syscom3 said:

Ive been saying tactical airstrikes by multi engined light bombers were ineffective and a waste of resources.

Click to expand...

And why were there 3 Bomb groups and 11 bomb squadrons of light bombers in the 9th AF?

FLYBOYJ said:

And it did where it replaced other "medium bombers." Where it replaced the A-20 it fulfilled the same role as the A-20...

Click to expand...

the A26's did exactly what the B26's had been doing since they joined combat in 1943. And thats to stay up at 10,000 ft. Go in fast, dump your load and get out.

FLYBOYJ said:

And why were there 3 Bomb groups and 11 bomb squadrons of light bombers in the 9th AF?

Click to expand...

You have to fly with what youve got. The A20 groups in the 9th and 12th AF were being converted to A26's when the war ended. If the wat had gone on for a few more months, there would have been zero A20 groups.

Quite simply, in the ETO, the A20 didnt have the payload to make things worthwhile.

B25 = good
B26 = good
A26 = good
A20 = mediocre (at best)
P38 = good
P47 = good

syscom3 said:

You have to fly with what youve got. The A20 groups in the 9th and 12th AF were being converted to A26's when the war ended. If the wat had gone on for a few more months, there would have been zero A20 groups.

Click to expand...

There were plenty of other aircraft readily availble. If 9th AF brass had anything against the A-20 it would of been gone prior to D Day, it would of got dumped the same way the P-38 was taken out of service. BTW the A-26 was designed to replace the A-20, this taking place when Edward Heinemann and Robert Donovan came up with an unsolicited proposal in 1941 for a replacement for not only the A-20, but the B-25 and the B-26.

syscom3 said:

Quite simply, in the ETO, the A20 didnt have the payload to make things worthwhile.

Click to expand...

The plan was to replace the A-20 long before and was actually instigated by Douglas. The 9th AF continued to operate the A-20 because it was effective, a good flying airplane and it fulfilled its mission - just ask the guys at Bastonge when A-20s of the 410th BG helped flatten convoys in and around the Ardennes during the Battle of the Bulge, the 410th BG got a Distinguished Unit Citation for its participation. BTW the A-20 bomb groups of the 9th AF were one of the only (and probably the only) US bomb group to perform their mission at night... By far the A-20 didn't win the war in Europe but to say they were ineffective is nonsense.