Tactical Strikes of World War II

[syscom3]

320th Bomb Group webpage:
320th Bomb Group and B-26 Marauder

Mission list:
B-26 320th Bomb Group Missions

Number of aircraft per mission varied considerbly, although on numerous occasions, more than 30 aircraft were sortied, with 54 being the most (Mission 462, to Offenburg Marshalling Yards (Germany), Feb 15 1945. http://320thbg.org/mission_pdfs/mission_472.pdf). whats interesting about this is a couple of B26's also taregtted and dropped fragmentation bombs on a nearby flak battery.

Untill I see more group mission lists and see what they were attacking on the same day, its conjecture on what targets warrented more than two groups attacking at the same time.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

You still have not shown any proof that the tactical bombing had no effect on the war. You have to prove it syscom. Everyone here knows what it takes to win a war, you obviously dont, so prove your case.

Having said that:

Until you do, I think the general concensus here is that you dont know what the hell you are talking about. You have realized it and are trying to talk your way out of it.

 

[Hunter368]

Not to jump on the band wagon, but I 110% agree that Tactical air strikes have a large impact on WW2 and any battle / war.

Sorry syscom3 I think you have a huge job to convince anyone otherwise.

 

[syscom3]

Someone quote me back me where I said tactical airstrikes did not help to win the battles.
And I dont mean tactical targets like what the FAC's would call in for the fighter bombers to destroy. I'm talking tactical targets the multi engined bombers went after.

I have all along said that a few aircraft carrying small payloads are not going to destroy big targets as precision bombing was a near impossibility in WW2 (the rare exception, not the rule). And the tactical targets that were important, needed lots of bombs to damage or destroy it.

 

[Glider]

I believe the phrase you used was a stunt.

You seem not to grasp the concept that putting an aircraft and aircrew at risk to carry a single 1000 pound bomb which is not a war or battle winner but more of a stunt.

How many raids on your evidence were 200a/c
I would sum it up this way. just because the RAF didnt have the resources necessary to launch raids involving 200 or so medium bombers, didnt mean the AAF couldnt do it.

Now think about how many tons of bombs are needed to take out an airfield 1 square kilometer. It would take lots, and the 9th and 12th air forces had the planes and aircrews to do it.

Some more examples from your postings
And theres no evidence of these small raids of several planes hitting tiny targets did anything to shorten the war or help things out.

That Mosquito raid on the Gestapo HQ, while deservadly an excellenty planned and executed raid, did nothing. Although the people in the jail probably think it was the most importannt bombing raid in history.

What made the tactical bombing effective and helped the ground troops were mass raids plastering the sinews of war and wearing down the Germans from lack of loguistics.

 

[Glider]

A few more of your postings
The large raids were the effective ones, the small raids didnt do much

How many of your raids were 72 planes?
72 B26's hitting an airfield will do more lasting damage with hundreds of bombs hitting all over the place, than a few bombers could. And that goes for a lot of other targets too.

 

[plan_D]

"Of course you remember that several 12th AF groups ended up in France after operation dragoon. Or did you not know that."

No, I wasn't aware that US 12th Air Force sent some it's groups to France. Care to enlighten me on which ones these were?

"Les, look closer, I responded to it already."

Dan was refering to my last post comparing your answer to your original question. Basically, Dan was pointing out how you have contradicted yourself and not noticed. Then chosen to ignore it when shown to your face.

"Number of aircraft per mission varied considerbly, although on numerous occasions, more than 30 aircraft were sortied, with 54 being the most (Mission 462, to Offenburg Marshalling Yards (Germany), Feb 15 1945."

What happened to your original numbers? You claimed that the USAAF attacked tactical targets with 100 - 300 B-26s. Yet, I've had to provide evidence that has produced greater numbers of B-26s than you have. It seems obvious to me, and everyone else, that 100 - 300 B-26s was not the general number of bombers against a tactical target. Even your own evidence proves it.
I'm waiting for your information on the US 9th Air Force that you have. As you said your sources state the same as mine in that the US 9th Air Force generally used 72 bombers against airfields. Evidence? Or, your sources even?

"Untill I see more group mission lists and see what they were attacking on the same day, its conjecture on what targets warrented more than two groups attacking at the same time."

You have started the discussion by telling me I was wrong to assume the RAF and USAAF didn't use more than 100 bombers against a tactical target. And you argued, and argued, and even tried to insult me. But you haven't even got the evidence to back up your case.

"I have all along said that a few aircraft carrying small payloads are not going to destroy big targets as precision bombing was a near impossibility in WW2 (the rare exception, not the rule). And the tactical targets that were important, needed lots of bombs to damage or destroy it."

No. This all started when you said Ar 234s carrying a total of 9,900 lbs together wasn't useful. You never said anything about big targets to start with. Then you said that it would take hundreds of Ar 234s to attack big targets. Then you said it took the USAAF sending 100 - 300 B-26s to attack big targets. And then ... well, you've been on a downward spiral ever since. There's been no evidence from your side that has backed up your argument.

Just admit it, syscom, you're wrong. I can produce US 9th Air Force raids and 2nd Tactical Air Force raids that show less than one hundred bombers on a tactical raid. I have found a single US raid over one hundred, which was against marshalling yards. Which had to be attacked again 16 days later by another 72 bombers. I have provided more evidence to your cause than you have ! One single raid above one hundred bombers, a mighty 108.

 

[syscom3]

You seem not to grasp the concept that putting an aircraft and aircrew at risk to carry a single 1000 pound bomb which is not a war or battle winner but more of a stunt.

I stand by that. except for fighter bombers, the number of light bombers needed to put enough bombs on target can be huge and a waste of resources. If you have bombers that can only lug around small payloads, then get rid of them and use F-B's. In fact, amazingly, thats what the AAF eventually did.

would sum it up this way. just because the RAF didnt have the resources necessary to launch raids involving 200 or so medium bombers, didnt mean the AAF couldnt do it.

That was sacrasm directed at Plan_D since he didnt seem to know that the 9th and 12th AF's had several groups among them each. More groups = more aircraft = more potential bombers per target. I already knew the RAF had a number of tactical bombers and STATED that they attacked tagets in probably similar numbers, which he said no. His logic is if the RAF needs fewer, then the AAF used the same numbers, which was incorrect.

Now think about how many tons of bombs are needed to take out an airfield 1 square kilometer. It would take lots, and the 9th and 12th air forces had the planes and aircrews to do it.

Are you saying that an airfield would only take a few bombers to take out? Would you say only a few bombers would be needed to bomb an area where only a general idea of your target is located?

And theres no evidence of these small raids of several planes hitting tiny targets did anything to shorten the war or help things out.

That Mosquito raid on the Gestapo HQ, while deservadly an excellenty planned and executed raid, did nothing. Although the people in the jail probably think it was the most importannt bombing raid in history.

What made the tactical bombing effective and helped the ground troops were mass raids plastering the sinews of war and wearing down the Germans from lack of loguistics.

Do you have any evidence that those small raids did produce proportional results? There's also no evidence the gestapo raid shortened the war one iota.

The large raids were the effective ones, the small raids didnt do much

And your point is what? Are you saying small raids are as damaging as large raids?

72 B26's hitting an airfield will do more lasting damage with hundreds of bombs hitting all over the place, than a few bombers could. And that goes for a lot of other targets too.

And your point is what? 72 aircraft seems to be a normal sized raid on an airfield in the ETO for summer 43.



Nowhere did I say that tactical bombing was not important. REMEMBER..... I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT FIGHTER BOMBERS, BUT TWIN ENGINE MEDIUM AND LIGHT BOMBERS ATTACKING PRE BREIFED TARGETS.

 

[syscom3]

No, I wasn't aware that US 12th Air Force sent some it's groups to France. Care to enlighten me on which ones these were?

I will happy to look that up for everyone. I wasnt even aware of that untill now.

What happened to your original numbers? You claimed that the USAAF attacked tactical targets with 100 - 300 B-26s. Yet, I've had to provide evidence that has produced greater numbers of B-26s than you have. It seems obvious to me, and everyone else, that 100 - 300 B-26s was not the general number of bombers against a tactical target. Even your own evidence proves it.
I'm waiting for your information on the US 9th Air Force that you have. As you said your sources state the same as mine in that the US 9th Air Force generally used 72 bombers against airfields. Evidence? Or, your sources even?

YOURE RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOURE RIGHT!!!! YOURE RIGHT!!!!!! ONLY 72 BOMBERS SEEMS TO BE THE NORMAL NUMBERS ON THE HIGH END!!!!!! TWO GROUPS OF MEDIUMS MEANS ABOUT 72!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My source book was Ridger Freemans 8th AF book. Did you know that the B26's were part of the 8th AF untill autumn 1943? 72, thats still quite a bit isnt it! Just imagine, the 9th AF could attack five airfields each with 72 aircraft at the same time.

You have started the discussion by telling me I was wrong to assume the RAF and USAAF didn't use more than 100 bombers against a tactical target. And you argued, and argued, and even tried to insult me. But you haven't even got the evidence to back up your case.

First of all, youre the one who began the insults. Not me. And guess what, youre right, so far it doesnt look like, there were as a rule, more than a hundred medium bombers attacking a target. But YOU didnt know that either. .

And I also clearly said you were right about that number. What more do you want?

No. This all started when you said Ar 234s carrying a total of 9,900 lbs together wasn't useful. You never said anything about big targets to start with. Then you said that it would take hundreds of Ar 234s to attack big targets. Then you said it took the USAAF sending 100 - 300 B-26s to attack big targets. And then ... well, you've been on a downward spiral ever since. There's been no evidence from your side that has backed up your argument.

And it still is a waste of resources. Nine -234's didnt destroy that railyard. They damaged it for a short period. And all of those -234's didnt bring down the Remagan bridge untill it was irrelevant. And since 72 planes is just 28 off of 100, I was pretty close in a guess. Considering that the 9th and 12th AF's had a few hundred medium bombers to send on missions is still a lot of planes.

Just admit it, syscom, you're wrong. I can produce US 9th Air Force raids and 2nd Tactical Air Force raids that show less than one hundred bombers on a tactical raid. I have found a single US raid over one hundred, which was against marshalling yards. Which had to be attacked again 16 days later by another 72 bombers. I have provided more evidence to your cause than you have ! One single raid above one hundred bombers, a mighty 108.

So there was a raid of more than 100 planes? wow........ I'd say that it proves my point!!!!!!! And of course we havent even delved into the 12AF. But I even admit that was the unusual and not the rule. By the way, what raid was that? I listed 320th BG raid numbers, so why dont you enlighten us about the details.

 

[plan_D]

"I stand by that. except for fighter bombers, the number of light bombers needed to put enough bombs on target can be huge and a waste of resources. If you have bombers that can only lug around small payloads, then get rid of them and use F-B's. In fact, amazingly, thats what the AAF eventually did."

The bombers would carry more than 1,000 lbs of bombs to target if required. We are talking about Bostons, Mitchells and Marauders which can carry up to 6,000 lbs of bombs.
You stated that small aircraft carrying a small payload was useless. You never defined between fighter-bomber and light or medium bombers. This whole thread is about tactical strikes, which fighter-bombers took part in alongside the larger bombers.

"That was sacrasm directed at Plan_D since he didnt seem to know that the 9th and 12th AF's had several groups among them each. More groups = more aircraft = more potential bombers per target. I already knew the RAF had a number of tactical bombers and STATED that they attacked tagets in probably similar numbers, which he said no. His logic is if the RAF needs fewer, then the AAF used the same numbers, which was incorrect."

syscom, I have the order of battle for the US 9th Air Force on 5 June, 1944. I know exactly what groups it had. You were attempting to inform me that the USAAF attacked tactical targets with 100 - 300 bombers because it could. There's no sarcasm at all there.

My logic has never been that, syscom. Quote my words where I state the USAAF use the same numbers as the RAF. I have pointed out that the USAAF used less than 100 bombers against tactical targets, which is correct.
You claimed the RAF attacked in similar numbers to the USAAF, which you incorrectly claimed was a 100 - 300 figure per tactical target. I right so said "no", as this was proven by myself and Wildcat to be absolutely wrong.

I have to admit, through my recent studies, I have discovered the USAAF attacked with larger numbers than I expected. This discovery was in no way helped by you, as you were wrong all along. And the explanation for these larger numbers in the attack was explained by Glider, not you. As your theory was that the USAAF had more planes, so it would send more planes is false. And would be a sound waste of resources.

"Are you saying that an airfield would only take a few bombers to take out? Would you say only a few bombers would be needed to bomb an area where only a general idea of your target is located?"

I know it would only take a few bombers to destroy an airfield, and the RAF agreed. The RAF attacked in a completely different way to the USAAF, as Glider pointed out in the first page of this thread. They would go in individually on the target to attack precise targets, rather than the airfield as a whole. This provides a far greater degree of accuracy and freedom in the attack.

"Do you have any evidence that those small raids did produce proportional results? There's also no evidence the gestapo raid shortened the war one iota."

Syscom, you have already admitted that the medium bomber campaign was a large factor in the successful conclusion of Overlord. This would be a combination of all the 2nd TAF and US Ninth Air Force raids. 99.9% of which were below 100 bombers.

There's no evidence from you, full stop. You don't even know what you're getting at anymore. I've never seen so much back pedalling, and you never answer a question, or reply directly. You should be a politician!

"And your point is what? Are you saying small raids are as damaging as large raids?"

Glider's point is obvious to all with eyes and a fully-functioning brain. He's pointing out that you claim "small raids didn't do much". Which makes you wrong. Because these small raids did a lot, and could well be as damaging as larger raids. Just because more tonnage is dropped, it doesn't mean more damage will be done.

"And your point is what? 72 aircraft seems to be a normal sized raid on an airfield in the ETO for summer 43."

How would you know, syscom? The only mention of these 72 plane raids comes from me, and in only one of those was a direct mention of an airfield. I am waiting for your evidence, and sortie listing, that backs up your "agreement" on my numbers.

"Nowhere did I say that tactical bombing was not important. REMEMBER..... I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT FIGHTER BOMBERS, BUT TWIN ENGINE MEDIUM AND LIGHT BOMBERS ATTACKING PRE BREIFED TARGETS."

Make up your mind. In the first instance, you never defined between fighter-bomber or medium bomber. It was simply nine planes, carrying 9,900 lbs of bombs was a useless raid. Now you're not including fighter-bombers. Which is silly because you're making out as if fighter-bombers didn't have pre-set targets. Do you want me to provide with sortie listings that prove that assumption wrong too?

 

[plan_D]

"I will happy to look that up for everyone. I wasnt even aware of that untill now."

You weren't aware of that until now? Then why attempt to show me up as if everyone knows it. This quote from you:

"Of course you remember that several 12th AF groups ended up in France after operation dragoon. Or did you not know that."

Well, I couldn't remember something I never knew. But obviously nor could you. The bold, especially, shows that you attempted to belittle me. And I will be looking forward to the information, although I'm not expecting it anytime soon.

"YOURE RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOURE RIGHT!!!! YOURE RIGHT!!!!!! ONLY 72 BOMBERS SEEMS TO BE THE NORMAL NUMBERS ON THE HIGH END!!!!!! TWO GROUPS OF MEDIUMS MEANS ABOUT 72!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My source book was Ridger Freemans 8th AF book. Did you know that the B26's were part of the 8th AF untill autumn 1943? 72, thats still quite a bit isnt it! Just imagine, the 9th AF could attack five airfields each with 72 aircraft at the same time."

I'm impressed, syscom, you have finally admitted your mistake. No I didn't the B-26s were a part of the US Eighth Air Force until Autumn 1943. I haven't got around to reading about US strategical bombing in detail. I'm more interested in the tactical and operational side of air power.

For a tactical target, I agree that seventy-two is quite a few bombers. But compared to the strategical attacks that went up to, even over, 1,000 bombers on one raid it's quite small.

The US Ninth Air Force could attack several targets in one day, and so could the 2nd Tactical Air Force. Which is a sensible thing to be doing, instead of wasting a lot of bombers on one target.

"First of all, youre the one who began the insults. Not me. And guess what, youre right, so far it doesnt look like, there were as a rule, more than a hundred medium bombers attacking a target. But YOU didnt know that either. .

And I also clearly said you were right about that number. What more do you want?"

Where did I begin with the insults?

Syscom, I knew full well that the rule was under one hundred bombers per target. As I knew that it would be a waste of resources sending several hundred bombers against a bridge, or supply depot. I argued because I knew I was right. So I certainly did know. What I want from you is to listen in future, and then, if you think I'm wrong get the evidence together and prove me wrong.

"And it still is a waste of resources. Nine -234's didnt destroy that railyard. They damaged it for a short period. And all of those -234's didnt bring down the Remagan bridge untill it was irrelevant. And since 72 planes is just 28 off of 100, I was pretty close in a guess. Considering that the 9th and 12th AF's had a few hundred medium bombers to send on missions is still a lot of planes."

Have you got evidence of the results of that raid, syscom?

Your guess wasn't just 100. It was 100 - 300, which is completely wrong. The US Ninth and Twelfth Air Forces did have a lot of bombers, much more than the 1st and 2nd Tactical Air Forces, I never denied that. My point, from the start, was the USAAF and RAF generally sent less than 100 bombers to a tactical target. And it seems now, the RAF generally sent less than 30 because of a different tactical approach.

"So there was a raid of more than 100 planes? wow........ I'd say that it proves my point!!!!!!! And of course we havent even delved into the 12AF. But I even admit that was the unusual and not the rule. By the way, what raid was that? I listed 320th BG raid numbers, so why dont you enlighten us about the details."

I thought you might claim that your point has been proven. Although it quite clearly hasn't, as the one raid over all the others is an anomaly. I find it quite sad that you've relied on my evidence all this time.

I am glad you asked for details. Because the results bring a smile to my face. You have claimed all along that a small raid is worthless alongside a larger raid that peppers the whole area with bombs. Read the next two sorties, and you'll realise why they make me smile:

7 March 1944: Spitfire IXs of 401 Squadron escort 108 B-26s to Creil marshalling yards.

(I'm not aware of the groups involved as I get these from the day accounts of the 2nd TAF. Anymore information on the raid from a 2nd TAF stand-point, I will gladly answer.)

23 March 1944: 126 Airfield Spitfires escort 72 B-26s to Creil marshalling yards.

Seems the large formation of bombers peppering the area with bombs did no better than a smaller formation hitting low, and with more precision.

 

[plan_D]

I seem to be getting a sense that syscom believes I don't, or didn't, know what the US Ninth Air Force had. Well, I do and did so here's the bomber wings he's talking about:

98th Bomber Wing

323rd Bomb Group based at Earls Colne
387th Bomb Group based at Chipping Ongar
394th Bomb Group based at Boreham
397th Bomb Group based at Rivenhall

99th Bomber Wing

322nd Bomb Group based at Andrews Field
344th Bomb Group based at Stansted
386th Bomb Group based at Great Dunmow
391st Bomb Group based at Matching

There was also the 1st Pathfinder Squadron (Provisional) which operated B-26 Marauder and was based at Great Saling. All above mentioned groups operated the B-26, and came under the IX Bomber Command. Also under the command was 97th Bomb Wing which operated three groups of A-20 Havocs, these were 409th, 410th and 416th Bomb Groups and were based at Little Walden, Gosfield and Wethersfield respectively.

There was also the IX Fighter Command, IX Tactical Air Command, XIX Tactical Air Command and IX Troop Carrier Command under the US Ninth Air Force. I will give more information on the wings, groups and aircraft operated if wanted.

 

[syscom3]

Plan D, keep on posting. When youre on a roll, dont stop.

Dont forget some 9th AF units converted to A26's.

 

[Glider]

Someone quote me back me where I said tactical airstrikes did not help to win the battles.
And I dont mean tactical targets like what the FAC's would call in for the fighter bombers to destroy. I'm talking tactical targets the multi engined bombers went after.

I have all along said that a few aircraft carrying small payloads are not going to destroy big targets as precision bombing was a near impossibility in WW2 (the rare exception, not the rule). And the tactical targets that were important, needed lots of bombs to damage or destroy it.

All I was doing was supplying the quotes that you asked for. In this case where you said that tactical strikes did not help win battles.

If you want to argue against your posts feel free to go ahead.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I believe the phrase you used was a stunt.

You seem not to grasp the concept that putting an aircraft and aircrew at risk to carry a single 1000 pound bomb which is not a war or battle winner but more of a stunt.

How many raids on your evidence were 200a/c
I would sum it up this way. just because the RAF didnt have the resources necessary to launch raids involving 200 or so medium bombers, didnt mean the AAF couldnt do it.

Now think about how many tons of bombs are needed to take out an airfield 1 square kilometer. It would take lots, and the 9th and 12th air forces had the planes and aircrews to do it.

Some more examples from your postings
And theres no evidence of these small raids of several planes hitting tiny targets did anything to shorten the war or help things out.

That Mosquito raid on the Gestapo HQ, while deservadly an excellenty planned and executed raid, did nothing. Although the people in the jail probably think it was the most importannt bombing raid in history.

What made the tactical bombing effective and helped the ground troops were mass raids plastering the sinews of war and wearing down the Germans from lack of loguistics.

Thankyou for looking all that up for me. He has posted that many times over and over in other words that tactical bombing was worthless.

Syscom small tactical raids by 9 bombers each does help win a war. Have you actually in person seen the destructive power of a 1000lb bomb? I have and 9 of them will tear up a rail yard and put it out of commision.

9 bombers attacking a runway and hangers takes out the enemies ability to launch fighters and bombers of there own.

They help shorten the war, you just dont understand the science of warfare.

 

[plan_D]

"Plan D, keep on posting. When youre on a roll, dont stop."

No reply, syscom? Aren't you going to answer the questions?

"Dont forget some 9th AF units converted to A26's."

Well, I can't forget. I never knew that. Which groups converted to the A-26, and at what date?

 

[Jank]

For an interesting read on the use of smaller group bombing tactics, see:

Ploesti Oil Raid Operation Tidal Wave

 

[syscom3]

9th AF bomb groups that converted to A26's were:
386th, 391st, 409th, 410th (partial) and 416th.

 

[syscom3]

No reply, syscom? Aren't you going to answer the questions?

And what questions were that?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Have you even been reading what others have been saying to you or are you just posting garble?