Top ten Allies bomber

I would also point out the Korean War, where the American Strategic bombing was absolutely savage, worse than what was done to Japan, basically without any limits (at least within the borders of Korea obviously) but, what good did it do us? Those who weren't burned alive learned to work and run their war from underground. We now contend with a crazy mole-state dug into the mountains with nuclear tipped ICBMS.

Vietnam is where the bombing campaigns such as Arclight and Linebacker drove the Vietcong underground or into neighboring "off limits" nations.

I understand the attempt to try and understand the logic behind the bombing campaigns of the war, but it was a war that had one foot planted in the old method of warfare: bombs and artillery.
A great many lessons were learned and several chapters of old traditions were closed by the time the war came to a close.

In the case of bombers, every belligerent nation possessed them and every nation used them on cities during the course of their campaigns.
It just happens that the Allies had more but don't think for a moment that if the Axis had the same quantity, that they wouldn't hesitate to do the same.
The "Amerika bomber" program was intended to have a bomber capable of flying from France to New York City and bomb it. They weren't looking for a type that could fly in and only bomb a specific place - the city was the target.

Sending in Mossies, P-47s, Typhoons and the like is a noble idea, but the AA would have eaten them alive - the Germans would have adapted. As it was, their 88 and 120 batteries scourged the heavy bombers at altitude.

GrauGeist said:

Vietnam is where the bombing campaigns such as Arclight and Linebacker drove the Vietcong underground or into neighboring "off limits" nations.

Click to expand...

The Chu Chi tunnels proved to be a very effective strategy for the Viet Cong, one which the Americans never adapted to. In spite of the incredible quantity of bombs dropped on the "Ho Chi Minh" trail, ultimately the Americans were not able to disrupt it. All we really did was shell shock the Cambodians so bad we contributed to the takeover of a cartoon like villain in the Khmer Rouge.

I understand the attempt to try and understand the logic behind the bombing campaigns of the war, but it was a war that had one foot planted in the old method of warfare: bombs and artillery.
A great many lessons were learned and several chapters of old traditions were closed by the time the war came to a close.

Click to expand...

One of the main reasons I bring this up is that the lessons really were not learned, or were learned very slowly, because we doubled down on the terror bombing in Korea (especially) and heavy bombing still in Vietnam, even though it ultimately wasn't very effective. Gradually we have shifted, with the help of technology, much more to precision bombing, but there is stil a mentality in some circles that "mud moving" and "more tons of TNT dropped= more success" and worst of all, that killing civilians is winning war. The legacy of Total War, in other words, still exists in the air war, and the use of weapons like Scud type ballistic missiles. In our nuclear arsenals.

In the case of bombers, every belligerent nation possessed them and every nation used them on cities during the course of their campaigns.
It just happens that the Allies had more but don't think for a moment that if the Axis had the same quantity, that they wouldn't hesitate to do the same.
The "Amerika bomber" program was intended to have a bomber capable of flying from France to New York City and bomb it. They weren't looking for a type that could fly in and only bomb a specific place - the city was the target.

Click to expand...

Needless to say, I have no doubt about that whatsoever. The Nazis had little concept of moderation in war, neither did the Japanese.

Sending in Mossies, P-47s, Typhoons and the like is a noble idea, but the AA would have eaten them alive - the Germans would have adapted. As it was, their 88 and 120 batteries scourged the heavy bombers at altitude.

Click to expand...

Well, that is the real question isn't it. I think this is where the argument really is and where you have your best point. AAA was always a problem, and so were German fighters almost to the end, however I don't think the Germans ever really adapted to the Mosquito well enough to blunt it's effectiveness, and the Allies too could adapt.

I do think there was a role for heavy bombers mind you. I assume most here saw the footage of the Grand Slam bomb detonated by the Polish recently? It gives you a sense of the mighty power of the raids which were going on against German ships at that time. I still think dive bombers were a more effective to get them but dive bombers were a major design challenge which often 'broke' otherwise promising designs.

However, I grant you, low altitude strikes are dangerous, even today ground fire and AAA are a problem. I think that would be an interesting scenario, but I admit I can't be certain which way it would have gone. Ultimately in my mind, the heavy bombers are inevitably going to be more vulnerable, they have to fly slow, in big formations, in predictable paths, they can be detected far out, etc. Fast bombers and fighter bombers come much faster, can come more unpredictably, are smaller targets, and have much more agility. But the Germans did have good AAA. No doubt about that. And they certainly were adaptable.

In Japan, assuming you had aircraft carriers or somewhere to stage from, and good enough strike aircraft, I think the AAA wasn't as good so the strategy would have been easier to implement.

Could we have done better than 44% casualties for Bomber Command? I think so.

Gentlemen,

Do we not have an example in WW2 of fighter bombers going after a strategic target? I suggest we look at the June 10 1944 raid on the Ploesti oilfields to get an idea of the problems the attackers had, the type of defenses employed, and the effect of the bombing, as well as the loses.

FWIW

Eagledad

Most of the raids on Ploesti were by B-24s (i.e. definitely heavy bombers) escorted by (still early model) P-38s. I have argued here in the past that Mosquitoes would have been much more suitable for that job. The June 10 Raid was apparently not successful but I couldn't find out any details. There was at least one other fighter-only raid in that same campaign, one against rail yards in Craiova (near Ploesti) flying out of Russia with 60 fighters, on 6 August 1944.

There were definitely 'fast bomber' (Mosquito and A-26, and Pe-2 and Tu-2) raids against Strategic targets. Not sure about fighter-bombers, I'm sure there were other raids but I'd have to do some digging to find specific examples. But we know they weren't used that way very much, since the emphasis was on the heavies.

I know fighter bombers were however used quite with quite a bit of success in raids against Operational targets like enemy air bases, bridges, railyards, ports and so on. For example in China and North Africa. P-40s were used against Hong Kong and Hanoi, and Saigon port facilities several times in 1943-1945, and against bridges and troops operation Ichi-Go in China in 1944. They were used effectively against German airbases and logistics in Tunisia and compelled the surrender of the island of Pantelleria in 1943 (although medium and heavy bombers were also involved).

I don't know the details as well but I believe P-38s, P-47s, P-51s, Typhoons and Tempests were also used against Operational as well as Tactical targets in France, the Low Countries and Germany in 1944-45, and in Italy also. We've all seen the footage of their strafing trains and supply columns.

"the terror bombing in Korea" Change that, please, to "total war bombing". I don't recall hearing whether we cared whether they feared, only whether they continued attacking South Korea.

Schweik said:

Could we have done better than 44% casualties for Bomber Command? I think so.

Click to expand...

Here's how:
1: Shoot the Bomber Mafia (or task them to fly in those unescorted bombers themselves and let the enemy shoot them for us).
2: Never send Bombers without Fighter escorts. If that shortens your bomber's radius, carry more bombs/plane until the fighters can carry more fuel/plane.

Back to top ten bombers. I consider bomber evaluation like a cargo plane, that is you can do various trade offs in capability, bomb load versus fuel load, defensive armament versus bomb load or fuel load. So, I like to look at empty weight versus max gross weight to give me an indication of lifting power. Also, ceiling is important. The higher the bomber is the less radius of threat it has and the longer the flight time of AAA thus more time to maneuver (when the bomber can). Cruse speed is important since the slower it is the longer the exposure to the threat, the easier to intercept, and the easier to compute lead. And, of course, range is important. Also, internal capacity and flexibility is certainly a benefit. Here are some comparisons between the B-17, B-24, and Lancaster. As you can see these planes are pretty well interchangeable as bombers. The Lancaster has better range but its defensive armament is considerably lighter which allows it to carry more fuel. It also has better lifting capacity than either the B-17 or B-24. The B-17 has the significant advantage of higher altitude and the B-24 is a bit faster. I did not include the B-29, its pretty well in a class of its own.

Lancaster I
empty weight (lbs) 35900
Max takeoff weight (lbs) 68000
Max lifting capability (lbs) 32100
Max speed (mph) 282
Cruise speed (mph) 200
Service ceiling (ft) 25000
Range (miles) 2530 at loaded weight

B-17G
empty weight 36135
Max takeoff weight 65500
Max lifting capability 29365
Max speed 287
Cruise speed 182
Service ceiling 35600
Range 2000 at loaded weight

B-24J
Empty weight 36500
Max takeoff weight 65000
Max lifting capability 28500
Max speed 297
Cruise speed 215
Service ceiling 28000
Range 1540 at loaded weight

Does the Lancaster have the same reputation in the Commonwealths as the B-17 has in the States? Or would that be comparing night and day?

SaparotRob said:

Does the Lancaster have the same reputation in the Commonwealths as the B-17 has in the States? Or would that be comparing night and day?

Click to expand...

Hard to say, pretty similar I would say, or a mix of how the B-17 and B-29 are seen, you would need to speak to an Anglo American. Not exactly the same, in some ways the Lancaster represents cold revenge for the British which the B-17 and B-29 could never do, but the Lanc didn't end the war.

It sure helped!

SaparotRob said:

It sure helped!

Click to expand...

It played a part, my mother had a friend after my father died. He lived in the village of Middleton St George which was the name of the local WW2 RAF bomber airfield. He said it was a fantastic experience listening to the Lancasters and Halifaxes taking off from there and nearby Croft to go and bomb Hitlers Germany. For the people of the time revenge was a big part of it. By the same token I read about a USA bomber crew who were feeling "what are we doing here fighting someone else's war" they went to London while on leave when it was hit by the "Baby Blitz", then they knew what the war was about, just us or them.

pbehn said:

the Lanc didn't end the war.

Click to expand...

Neither did the 17, nor the 29, nor the nuke. Millions of dead, and millions of living, each contributed their part to the "end". To say "the nuke" without saying "the 29" is empty. To say "the 29" without saying "Marianas" is empty. To say "Marianas" without saying "200,000 people, 600 ships, and the support train that brought them together to battle" is empty. There was no magic bullet (or plane, or bomb) that ended the war.

The Impending Invasion by Stalin plus the impending invasion by Truman (and their millions of troops and support train) finally persuaded the Emperor to speak up, and still he had to survive an attempted coup.

TheMadPenguin said:

Neither did the 17, nor the 29, nor the nuke. Millions of dead, and millions of living, each contributed their part to the "end". To say "the nuke" without saying "the 29" is empty. To say "the 29" without saying "Marianas" is empty. To say "Marianas" without saying "200,000 people, 600 ships, and the support train that brought them together to battle" is empty. There was no magic bullet (or plane, or bomb) that ended the war.

Click to expand...

I agree to a large extent - which is why I said upthread, the tactical aircraft which won the naval and amphibious battles that allowed the US to capture the Marianas were probably actually more important than the B-29 was to actually winning the war.

The Impending Invasion by Stalin plus the impending invasion by Truman (and their millions of troops and support train) finally persuaded the Emperor to speak up, and still he had to survive an attempted coup.

Click to expand...

Japan is an island. By 1945, all her ships were sunk, she had very few pilots left, all she really had was the ground army in Manchuria, and the Soviets wiped that out in two weeks. We had already taken Okinawa, showing that we could take the island if we wanted to (albeit at great cost). The writing was on the wall, they would have run out of food and oil fairly quickly.

Schweik said:

I agree to a large extent - which is why I said upthread, the tactical aircraft which won the naval and amphibious battles that allowed the US to capture the Marianas were probably actually more important than the B-29 was to actually winning the war.



Japan is an island. By 1945, all her ships were sunk, she had very few pilots left, all she really had was the ground army in Manchuria, and the Soviets wiped that out in two weeks. We had already taken Okinawa, showing that we could take the island if we wanted to (albeit at great cost). The writing was on the wall, they would have run out of food and oil fairly quickly.

Click to expand...

The naval attacks on Japan, proper, and minelaying operations by the USAAF have been under-reported as well. I do not know what the food or fuel situation was in Japan, although I suspect both were parlous enough so only the most detached from reality leaders would think anything resembling victory was possible. Combine that with the looming destruction of the IJA at the hands of Soviet troops and Japanese surrender was pretty inevitable. Given that an invasion of Japan's home islands would be preceded by a total blockade and continued bombardment, the question for the emperor and his militaristic thug cronies was whether they'd get to surrender before a massive revolt with large numbers of heads on pikes.

Schweik said:

There were definitely 'fast bomber' (Mosquito and A-26, and Pe-2 and Tu-2) raids against Strategic targets

Click to expand...

I'm not sure about Pe-2/Tu-2. Unless rail hubs are strategic targets. Are they?

Dimlee said:

I'm not sure about Pe-2/Tu-2. Unless rail hubs are strategic targets. Are they?

Click to expand...

I would call rail heads Operational targets, but what I have read, admittedly in rather vague English language descriptions, Pe 2 and Tu 2 were both used to strike substantial German port facilities, factories, and even I think a couple of times Tu-2s went to Ploesti. They also used B-25s and A-20s in this way, though the A-20 mainly in the Baltic zone as a torpedo bomber in a maritime context (with very high losses), effectively it was Strategic warfare or so I would argue. From what I have reqad the B-25s were used almost exclusively at night, but for (comparatively, by WW2 Soviet standards) long range raids deep behind enemy lines.

I believe Soviet raids against Romania after the first year of the war were rare and fairly light in terms of impact, but I can't find details right now. I do remember reading about some of them. Many of the American raids were flown either too or from a Russian base which the Soviets were sharing with the Americans.

It's hard for me to say much about any Soviet air operations because there is so little in English about them in general and Soviet bombing operations in particular. There are a few books, mostly with a heavy pro-German bias like Black Cross Red Star. The only good online source I knew of really was the Lend-Lease.Ru site which seems to have lost their funding as Anglo-Russian relations have soured (the site is still around or some version of it, but not as robust as before). Anyway that site only talked about Anglo American aircraft in Soviet use and like I said, Anglo-American bombers which were provided to the Soviets were not deemed suitable for use on their front.

I did find this though, I can't speak to accuracy but it mentions what sound pretty close to Strategic raids (or maybe on the cusp between Operational and Strategic) by Tu-2s against some targets in Vyborg and Kongisberg (now Kalliningrad Oblast)

In 1944, with the start of full-scale production of the aircraft, these aircraft began rearming large aircraft units. Airplanes received 334 BAA, which took part in the Vyborg operation, bombing Finnish fortifications, railway junctions, bridges, headquarters, and attacking enemy reserves with ton bombs. During the fighting, participating in three massive bombardments in daytime conditions, 334 BAA did not lose a single Tu-2. Then there was the participation of the Tu-2 in the Belarusian offensive operations, battles in the Baltic States.
On April 7, 1945, the Tu-2 units, together with the Pe-2, bombed the fortress city of Koenigsberg for two hours, after which the raid of 516 bombers of the 18th Air Army (ADD) began. For four days, 4440 tons of bombs of various calibers fell on the city. April 10, Koenigsberg fell. During the fighting for Berlin 6 BAK on the Tu-2 effectively supported the ground forces. On the very first day of the battles for the capital of the Reich, 54 Tu-2s dropped 97 tons of bombs on the enemy, and in the following days, the intensity of the Tu-2 strikes in Berlin increased and so on until its fall.

Some of the long range strikes were with Il-4 and other more mediocre medium bombers

Pe-2/Tu-2.
Koenigsberg - yes, you are right. Probably minor compared to many targets of Allied strategic bombing, but it was such a thorn for the Soviet Army that it was in priority lists. I recall from memoirs of bomber pilots flying other missions that Koenigsberg was a number two for quite a long period. If the primary target is obscured, just go to Koenigsberg and drop bombs there, does not matter what the conditions are. Even Li-2s were used - at night, obviously.
Dmitriy Khazanov wrote some good books and articles about Pe-2. I think I need to read them again.

"Black Cross Red Star" books - I do not consider them pro-German. The first two volumes did contain mistakes but the author promised to rewrite them.

I don't mean pro-German as in ideology or politics or anything like that, please don't get that impression. I mean just in terms of emphasizing the German victories and the Soviet losses a bit more than the opposite, and (from my perspective) not covering the Soviet side of the narrative as much. Admittedly I only have two volumes. Nothing unusual about it either I think it's a common tendency ever since various German veterans wrote popular books in English in the 50's and 60's. We need more perspective from Soviet and various other countries IMO. Of course soviet records weren't available until the 1990's so there is still some catching up to do.