USAAF philopshy of the heavies being able to defend themselfs

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


Isn't that because the Brits were bombing at night. Never heard of any problems finding the target during daylight hours.
 
pinsog said:
Radar doesn't shoot down bombers. Just because you can find them doesn't mean you can shoot them down.
Click to expand...
no but it does alllow you the luxury of planning your defence , bombing results were diasppointing for both BC at night and the USAAF during the day , surprising that BC had better results at night then day , and at that point the Spitfire was in its glory a short ranged interceptor that I do believe would kicked the P51's butt
 
I think part of the answer why the USAAF had to make its bombers "self-defending" was that its fighters, up until the P-51, were unable to escort the bombers all the way to the target.
 

The Spitfire was a fine short ranged interceptor at that time, and would have done ok against the Mustang depending on which model was used. But, I think it would have had a more difficult time with B17s and B24s. A dog less trouble killing another dog than it does killing a procupine. I believe B17s and B24s would have been the Spitfires "porcupine".
 
In a number of instances the US "planned" bombers could far exceed the range of the "planned" fighters. The B-17 was built to a requirement for a bomber with 2000 miles of range. The Army built both the B-15 (5000 mile range) and B-19 bombers. The USAAC ordered the B-35 flying wing and the B-36 prototypes in 1941, before Pearl Harbor with the idea of being able to bomb Europe from the US. The B-29 fit in between. At any given level of aircraft and engine development it was always going to be possible to build bombers that could far out range fighters unless you could count of mid air refueling and even that doesn't work while penetrating enemy airspace.
 
I must ask have you ever tried to run a turret in a 17 I have , and with my 5 minutes of using it would be hard pressed to track a kid pulling a wagon , please note I think you are out to lunch on the LW being the only force able to counter the USAAF . I am far from being a RAF best type of guy but personally rank them ahead of the USAAF in a man to man or scenario
 

Why so? The Luftwaffe didn't have problems shooting down B-17s and B-24s prior to the availability of long-range escorts. Why would the Spitfire have a harder time? By the time the USAAF heavies were available in anything like decent numbers, the RAF was already flying the Spit MkV which had 2 cannon did serious damage to its targets.
 

If the defensive guns on a B17 or B24 posed no threat, then why would the Germans develop special tactivs to deal with them? ie: head on attacks.

If they were so easy to knock down, why did the Germans go to 4 20 mm cannon? Then to 30 mm cannon? Then rockets? Then even dropping bombs?

When you talk of the RAF over USAAF man to man, are you refering to pilots or aircraft types?
 

The Spit V did serious damage to its targets??? ME109s and FW190s? A little different from 4 engined US heavy bombers

If the defensive guns on a B17 or B24 posed no threat, then why would the Germans develop special tactics to deal with them? ie: head on attacks.

If they were so easy to knock down, why did the Germans go to 4 20 mm cannon? Then to 30 mm cannon? Then rockets? Then even dropping bombs?

No one here will change their others minds on this subject, but I maintain that USAAF B17's and B24s would have overwhelmed England flying from mainland Europe. If they didn't, the B29 surely would have.
 
Last edited:
I never said that the defensive guns posed no threat - please stop putting words in my mouth. Tactics change to tackle the threat. As to the armament question, the move towards heavier armament was also replicated in the RAF...and that was without a heavy bomber threat: late marks of the Spit had 4 cannon. It was a general trend that all the major combatants, with the notable exception of the US, followed...and even the US did after WWII.

It is a simple fact that the 8th AF bomber losses in 1942-43 were reaching the level of being unsustainable. Had the USAAF been able to mobilise the bomber formations in 1942 that were achieved in 1944, I agree British defences would have been overwhelmed. But in 1942? With the B-17's pretty pitiful bomb load (for a "heavy" bomber with a 10-man crew)? I don't think so. Also, don't forget that a major part of the offensive force applied against Germany is missing from your scenario - RAF Bomber Command night attacks which, with USAAF bombing in daylight, afforded Germany no respite. The lack of an effective night bombing capability would enable more Brit defences to be focussed on daylight interception and would have afforded scope for recuperation.
 
Just to make the scenario a little more realistic the USAAF would in all probability bomb from Iceland and that might be a little far for the B17 to get to the UK with a realistic load , so that leaves the US relying on the B24 and it sure would be easy to hold them back as they would not have a lot of room for feints and doglegs.
 
Originally Posted by pinsog

The Spitfire was a fine short ranged interceptor at that time, and would have done ok against the Mustang depending on which model was used. But, I think it would have had a more difficult time with B17s and B24s. A dog less trouble killing another dog than it does killing a procupine. I believe B17s and B24s would have been the Spitfires "porcupine".

Its a graphic description but I admit to not understanding your arguement. The Spitfire could easily and quickly have been converted to a very effective fighter against bombers. It has been noted that nearly all Spits of the Period could carry 4 x 20mm cannon without modification plus of course all Spitfires could be equipped with extended wing tips to improve performance at altitude. The test reports of the Spitfire V with 4 x 20mm show that handling was almost unaltered a major handicap of the Me109 with underwing cannons.

So now you have a fighter that has a very good altitude performance and heavy firepower. They are at least as good as the Luftwaffe fighters with the firepower of the Fw 190 and the high altitude performance of the Me109, the aircraft that stopped the USAAF offensive until the long range fighter became available.

Then the P51 and P47 arrive. The only advantage the P47 has over the Spitfire is its dive speed, which is fine, the P47 dives away and leaves the bomber undefended. The P51 has speed or does it? If the RAF were facing this threat then its safe to assume that when the P51 arrive in numbers production of the Mk XIV would have a higher priority and that is a close call.

So at the end of the day the question is :-
If the Me109 and Fw 190 were able to stop the B17/24 before the arrival of the P51, why would the Spitfire fail?

PS in the early stages when the raids were unescorted the Beaufighter and Mosquito had the performance and concentrated firepower to inflict fatal damage to the bombers.
 
Ok. I'll throw in the towel and say that Britain might have been able to stop B17 and B24 raids.(Personally I still think Britain didn't have the manpower or indutrial power to stand up to USAAF bombing but I will stop arguing) But Japan couldn't. B17's and B24's were able to defend themselves against Japanese fighters. Without German assistance Italy couldn't have stopped them and I don't think the Soviet Union could either.
 
Would there even be Merlins engines in the P-51 if American bombers were attacking Great Britain? Never mind that, would there even be P-51s?
 
Milosh said:
Would there even be Merlins engines in the P-51 if American bombers were attacking Great Britain? Never mind that, would there even be P-51s?
Click to expand...

We arent discussing Mustangs. We are discussing self defending bombers. Self defending bombers with escort are not self defending bombers, they are escorted bombers.

Guys, I don't wish to get into the hypothetical of where we would bomb England from or anything like that. It is my belief that Germany was the sole power on the planet that could have defeated the unescorted American heavy bombers. I still don't think England could have stopped them. They would have probably shot alot down, but I don't think they could have stopped the onslaught and brought the bomber offensive to a halt like the Germans would have had we not brought in escort fighters.

I also maintain that the B17 and B24 operated against Japan early in the war and they held their own against Japanese Zeros(Zero representing whatever single engine fighter the Japanese employed, they were all close enough to that design)

I also believe that the Italians couldn't have stopped them by themselves and neither could the Soviets.

And even though the Germans were able to defend against the B17 and B24, what about the B29? How would the Germans have done against it if we had brought the B29 to Europe instead of Japan?
 
it rather depends on the year doesn't it? in 1942 and 1943 the Americans are not going to be able to overwhelm the British with shear numbers. Perhaps they could in 1944 but that is when the escort fighters showed up historically so comparisons are hard to make. Without escort fighters to deal with from 1942 on EVERY British interceptor (Typhoons included) would have had four 20mm Hispano cannon making them more effective than even the German 3 cannon gunboat 109s or Fw 190s with the two 20mm MG 151 two 20mm MG/FF armament. Some Fw 190s carried heavier armament but they were a minority.
How many hundreds of German fighters were used against the American bombers to get the results needed to stop the raids?
How many British fighters were available during the same time periods?
Unless the German fighters are 'magic' I don't see how they can stop the Americans using less effective armament per plane than the British and yet the British cannot?

Getting away form this divergence is is also worth noting that Americans progressively improved the armament of the B-17 and B-24 during the war and that Navy PB4Y-2 Privateers carried 12 .50 cal guns ALL in powered twin mounts, so again the defensive capability of the planes changed over the years even if only a little bit.
The B-29 could have posed problems for the Luftwaffe in flying several thousand feet higher than the B-17s and flying faster making them more difficult targets for the fighters before even considering the defensive armament. However the The later German fighters may have been improved enough to Handle them if escorts had not been available.

Japanese difficulties with B-17s and B-24s in the early part of the war may have been due to the light armament of the Japanese planes. By 1944-45 many Japanese planes had armament sufficient to deal with the the B-17 and B-24.
 
I would also like to suggest that in 1942/43, at least, the majority of the Luftwaffe fighter capability was concentrated on the Eastern Front. Galland even warned the hierarchy about the situation, IIRC.

I'd also suggest that the Luftwaffe's tactics would have differed to the British in the presence of escort fighters. From what I understand the Luftwaffe pilots were ordered to ignore the fighters and concentrate on the bombers. The British would have, I feel, used tactics similar to what they had in the BoB - Spits to tackle enemy fighters and other aircraft to deal with the bombers. That could include Mosquitos, Beaufighters, Typhoons, Tempests (later). Spitfires could have been supplemented by Meteors from 1944...

Maybe if 4 x 20mm wasn't enough to destroy B-17s a few Mosquito FBXIIIs could have bene used in the bomber destroyer role.
 
pinsog said:
And even though the Germans were able to defend against the B17 and B24, what about the B29? How would the Germans have done against it if we had brought the B29 to Europe instead of Japan?
Click to expand...

By that time the Me262 was in operational service. So I think Germany could have done quite well against B-29, depending on fuel and experienced pilot stocks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

The poor performance of the 343 Kokutai against USAAF fighters
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
6K
GrauGeist
W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
GrauGeist
Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
853
Ivan1GFP
I
A
The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
12K
EwenS
E
D
Total number of USAAF fighter pilots enlisted in WW2
2
Replies
25
Views
5K
J.A.W.
Menu
Log in
Register