Twin/three engined bomber for 2nd half of 1941: how would you do it? (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

That price must be paid if you want to hit the target. Otherwise you are simply exporting bombs that hit nothing of military or economic value.
 
are you saying that its preferable to accept attrition rates of 25% plus per mission, so as to get the bombs on target. remember what happened to the bombers that attacked at Sedan at low altitude. it would be another massacre in my opinion
 
Bombing accuracy of B-17 and B-24 groups in WW2
An average B17 group could place 32.4% of its bombs within 1,000 feet of a factory building. B24 groups averaged 30.4%. But these level bombers were flying at 25 to 30,000 feet.

That's not what the US Bombing Survey says.

Accuracy of US heavy bombers in Europe was about 20% of bombs within 1000 ft of aim point when bombing under 20,000 ft.
 
Bombers/planes flying at 3000ft are well within capabilities of any gun from 20-100mm calibre (read all AAA), ditto for all fighters; defender need to have just Eyeball Mk.I to perform fair warning for AAA (day attack assumed; I agree radars are better - if you have them that is).
It's either 300 ft, or 20Kft+ bomb-run altitude.
 
Last edited:
Actually at 3000 ft most planes were pretty safe from 75mm guns and above. The big guns just don't traverse quickly enough to track low flying planes and if you are using time fuses the firing solution for the fuse setter changes too quickly. There is a 'dead' time between when the fuse is set and the round is loaded and fired of several seconds.
 
are you saying that its preferable to accept attrition rates of 25% plus per mission, so as to get the bombs on target.
Yes. If the target is important then the price must be paid in blood.

However we are talking about 25% of a relatively small attacking force. A single squadron of low level bombers will probably get the job done as the bombs will be on target. You can also employ flak suppression measures immediately prior to bombing. That's a good job for fighter-bombers. Machineguns and 20mm cannon will not destroy hard targets but they work fine for killing AA gun crews.
 
It's the type of targets that makes the difference.
I can agree that bomb run in B-17/-24 style, performed by squadrons of P-38, led by Droop Snoot versions of P-38, could've been effective vs. factory complexes. I don't agree, though, that such a bomb run was effective vs. battlefield targets mentioned previously. Esp. if friendly troops were in vicinity.

Thanks for pointing out at that version of P-38 :)
 
Yes. If the target is important then the price must be paid in blood.

However we are talking about 25% of a relatively small attacking force. A single squadron of low level bombers will probably get the job done as the bombs will be on target. You can also employ flak suppression measures immediately prior to bombing. That's a good job for fighter-bombers. Machineguns and 20mm cannon will not destroy hard targets but they work fine for killing AA gun crews.

iy was this kind of thinking that imasculated the Luftwaffe over Stalingrad, post november '42. Airpower is in their for the long haul, whether that be cs or strategic bombing. Luftwaffe crews regulalry suffered 8-10% losses, which in a relatively short space of time ate the heart out of the KGs. Too great a losses in experienceed aircrew qwas devastating to long term combat efficiency. better off to stay high, keep the crews, hit the target two or three times if necessary.

If you can come up with aweapon systm that is resistant to light flak, then the equation changes. sturmoviks and Ju87Gs were pretty good in this respect
 
I often wonder how effective the Ju87G and Sturmoviks would have been in the air over France. The area was very dense and AA fire deadly, I cannot help thinking that the vast spaces on the Russian front had an impact keeping the loss rate down.

Battlefield targets can only be dealt with at altitude by mass saturation bombing, so ensuring that nothing can survive.
 
Battlefield targets can only be dealt with at altitude by mass saturation bombing, so ensuring that nothing can survive.
Why do you say that? Mass level bombing attacks on battlefield targets were used repeatedly by both the USA and Britain. I cannot think of a single instance where this method was effective.
 
During the preparitory bombing for Operation Goodwood the 22nd Panzer Regiment and the 503rd Heavy Panzer Battalion were temporarily out of action. Some tanks were abandoned, many others damaged, all the front line units were neutralised and the soldiers left dazed.

Freiherr von Rosen describing the bombing, which he survived by taking cover under his tank "It was Hell and I am still astonished that I ever survived it. I was unconscious for a while after a bomb had exploded just front of my tank, almost burying me alive."

The problem was of course that the bombing could never cover the whole front and people can recover.
 
Operation Goodwood was a major British defeat. An excellent example where massive aerial bombardment of military units didn't work.

Rubbish. It is perhaps most sympathetically described as a tactical defeat with a strategic victory. in terms of losses, it was heavily in favour of the allies.

5 allied divs versus the equivalent of 9 axis divs. 400 tanks lost versus about 100 91400 committed versus 377, however of that 400 over 300 were salvaged and repaired. Very few German AFVs were retrieved, because they lost the ground. 4000 casulaties versus at least 8500 (at least, including 2500 POWs). Successfully drew off the German armour in preparation for cobra....please enlighten me as to how this was a defeat??? And the use of carpet bombing was a key factor in this operation. A little ham fisted and clumsy, that much i will concede but a defeat....just who are you attempt to delude here

Tactical bombers were successfully used in direct support in a number of operations in the pacific, and in several battles in Italy and north Africa. The Germans used them for this purpose all the time in the east, with some heavy losses, admittedly, but effectively neverhteless. operations over Sevastpol come to mind as do the operations around Smolensk in 1941.

Level bombers were best used as interdiction weapons....denying mobility and access on the battlefield and in the approaches to the battlefield. they were not so good against moving targets, that I would grant you, but thats a long way short of them never being used, or never being effectively used for direct support.....
 
Operation Goodwood was a major British defeat. An excellent example where massive aerial bombardment of military units didn't work.

It was an excellent example of a massive aerial bombardment would have worked more effectively if the attack had been quickly followed up. It took the German forces a day to recover and rebuild their communications which is a lifetime if the follow up forces had been close by. The bombing was too far back.

As for your comments about it being a defeat I fully support Parsifal's comments.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back