USAAF philopshy of the heavies being able to defend themselfs

Nikademus · Jan 11, 2012

pinsog said:
Just because you have a SDB you dont put it into places to get it shot at on purpose.

The concept of the SDB was that it could penetrate enemy airspace irregardless of enemy fighter defenses and bomb the target without the need for fighter escort because it could DEFEND ITSELF. You keep claiming......without anything other than generalized statements, that US bombers flew all over the Pacific and "defended" themselves. Yet I have shown....repeatedly that the USAAF took painful measures to AVOID interception......because of the threat of enemy interception. This flies into the face of the original SDB concept, no matter how you try to quibble over it. A truely self defending bomber as defined by the purists would not need to bomb at night which it often did in the Pacific, bomb during periods of near nighttime for the same reason....again done in the Pacific, or in the case of bombing the Home islands....fly at extreme heights in order to avoid interception and loss....which was done prior to the switch to incendiary low level NIGHT attacks.

I didn't say it was impossible to shoot them down, but the Japanese were unable to halt the bomber offensive anywhere at anytime during the war.

What bomber offensive are you referring too? The Home Islands? Indeed. By that time the IJNAF and IJAAF were worn down, outgunned and outnumbered and facing a new complex piece of military hardware of which even a single loss hit the taxpayers straight in the wallet. How does this suddenly reverse the long held conclusion that the SDB concept did not have merit under the test of combat?

" The USAAF burned the entire country of Japan to the ground and then nuked it. At exactly what time does the threat get bad enough to try to shoot them down?

The USAAF SB campaign against Germany started under unique qualifyers. You take that scenario and simply swap out the opponents. Doesn't work that way. Apples and Oranges comparison. Had Japan, or Italy or the USSR faced a US strategic air threat as its primary opponent in a sliding scale of escalation, they all too would have reacted as Germany did. Japan's war however was far different than Germany's war. Your reply to this is to simply say "US bombers were successful whereever they flew in the Pacific...the SDB concept does work"

Sorry. Don't agree. Said my piece on it. Le' Done.

pinsog · Jan 11, 2012

You said ""This is not to say that Japan and Italy could acomplish as much as the Germans given their specific limitations....especially Italy, but had they faced the same "what if" that Germany did they would have both reacted, esp with interceptors better armed and suited for knocking down the big bombers. "

Japan faced the same thing Germany faced, they didnt do so hot. Their country was burned to the ground and then nuked. The nuclear strikes were like 3 unescorted bombers and they still didn't get intercepted.

Are you saying, if a bomber is self defending and can fly at 30,000 feet at 350 mph and enemy fighters can only fly at 20,000 feet at 300 mph that the bombers should slow down and lower their altitude so they can fly through the enemy fighters??????

So the B29 flew high and fast and the Japanese couldn't catch it, nor shoot it down when they did, that means it isnt self defending?

I'm sorry I don't get your thinking here.

Even the toughest main battle tanks on the planet, M1 Abrams, Leapard2, etc, still fight "hull down", does that makes them something besides main battle tanks?

Remember, fighters intercept bombers, SDB don't see a swarm of enemy fighters and say "Oh, we need to fly through that group of enemy fighters. We almost accidently went around them!"

Siegfried · Jan 11, 2012

FLYBOYJ said:
Norden Bombsight Info...

NORDEN BOMBSIGHT

Interestingly this web page says:

This particular version was typical of what was used toward the end of WWII and throughout the Korean Conflict. This is an M-9B bombsight head (L-9772) manufactured by Lucas Harold Incorporated. The sight head has a Maxon X-1 Reflex Sight and the tachometer adapter for the Glide Bombing Attachment.

This means the Norden could be used to glide bomb (shallow dive bomb)!

Siegfried · Jan 11, 2012

Edgar Brooks said:
7 in fact (including the last) + 7 by the FAA

19 actually, and it's a fair indication of how good the Tallboy was that two hits were able to sink her, and the near misses scoured away enough of the bottom to ensure that she turned completely over.

It took the RAF three raids and 100 superbombs to sink tirpitz, which survived one of the tallboys. The fundemental problem was the Luftwaffe was spread way to thin: not enough fighters and not enough radars. Blaming it on poor interservice communication is fallacious. Systems break down when they are undermanned and under resourced. Not one of the Lancaster riads was intercepted.

The bombing that the RAF did could have been done in 1942 by the Luftwaffe using the Lofte 7 and I daresay a few hits by a 2500kg bomb (the largest the Germans made) from a He 111or Do 217 would be just as effective. The Norden had been available for years earlier though I don't know what the USAAF heavies AP bomb was. The Roma was sunk by only 2 x Fritz-X which is basically an SC1400 (1400kg bomb) with a tailkit and welded on fins.

The fiction that "the Germans" had claimed the Bismark and Tirpitz were unsinkable seems to be the usual propaganda or post war fiction designed to malign Germans as arrogant.

Siegfried · Jan 11, 2012

When did the USAAF develop its 'heavily defended bomber' concept. It is my understanding that the first heavily armed USAAF bomber was the B-17E.

From Joe Baughers website:

"It is often written that the B-17E was the result of initial experience with the B-17C and D during the first months of combat in 1942 in the Pacific against the Japanese. Other sources report that the B-17E had its origin in the negative experience that the RAF had with the Fortress I (B-17C) over Europe in the summer of 1941. Neither view is correct, since the B-17E was first ordered on August 30, 1940, and the first prototype took to the air on its maiden flight on September 5, 1941. "

Shortround6 · Jan 11, 2012

Siegfried said:
When did the USAAF develop its 'heavily defended bomber' concept. It is my understanding that the first heavily armed USAAF bomber was the B-17E.

While it didn't see service and took about 4 years to build the B-19 may suggest some of the thinking of the USAAC at the time.

Flightline II - B-19

Factsheets : Douglas XB-19

Jabberwocky · Jan 11, 2012

Siegfried said:
When did the USAAF develop its 'heavily defended bomber' concept. It is my understanding that the first heavily armed USAAF bomber was the B-17E.

'Heavily defended' is a comparative term and the meaning changed as aircraft and other technology developed. Most US 'heavy' bombers of the 1920s through to the early 1930s had a defensive armament of 3 x .30 cal in unpowered mounts. The B-2 Condor had six Lewis guns in three positions. Most of the light bombers had five Lewis guns in three positions.

What really paved the way for later 'self defending' designs were aircraft like the B-10 - which featured power turrets (still 3 x .30s though) and was faster than contemporary fighters. Experimental designs such as the XB-15 and XB-21 of the mid 1930s featured 5-8 machine guns, either .30 or .50, also with several powered turrets.

It wasn't just heavy armament, but speed and altitude as well that were integral parts of the self defending bomber concept. Early B-17s had 5 defensive positions, but they were split between .30 and .50 cal weapons and most positions were unpowered.

MikeGazdik · Jan 12, 2012

Wow, this thread took off into alot of variables. What-ifs aside. The fact that the U.S. HAD to get P-51 escorts to enable the bombers to continue to strike Germany, and attempted to set up bases to escort the B-29's pretty much proves that it was eventually realized that the "self protecting bomber" was a unrealized dream. Once the B-29's switched to night low altitude bombing, it may have minimized the need for escorts , but that was a change in tactics brought on by the realization of a weakness in Japan in defending in such attacks. Had the B-29's continued high altitude daylight bombing, fighter escort would have been an absolute necessity.

And, how much worse would the Battle of Brittain been for Germany if the bombers went without any fighters?

Bombing at night, be it the RAF, or U.S over Japan, was a period form of stealth.

wuzak · Jan 12, 2012

pinsog said:
Are you saying, if a bomber is self defending and can fly at 30,000 feet at 350 mph and enemy fighters can only fly at 20,000 feet at 300 mph that the bombers should slow down and lower their altitude so they can fly through the enemy fighters??????

So the B29 flew high and fast and the Japanese couldn't catch it, nor shoot it down when they did, that means it isnt self defending?

If you fly your bombers so high and fast that the opposition will have difficulty intercepting them, or fly routes to avoid interception, wouldn't it be better to dump the guns, turrets and ammo and have a higher performing aircraft?

pinsog · Jan 12, 2012

wuzak said:
If you fly your bombers so high and fast that the opposition will have difficulty intercepting them, or fly routes to avoid interception, wouldn't it be better to dump the guns, turrets and ammo and have a higher performing aircraft?

Just because they TRIED to avoid interception doesn't mean they always could. They probably MINIMIZED interception as best they could, but they still needed defensive weapons.

Shortround6 · Jan 12, 2012

wuzak said:
If you fly your bombers so high and fast that the opposition will have difficulty intercepting them, or fly routes to avoid interception, wouldn't it be better to dump the guns, turrets and ammo and have a higher performing aircraft?

If dumping the guns, turrets and ammo gives you enough better performance it may be worth it. Usually to get both enough higher and faster required a smaller airframe and a smaller bomb load too. Existing designs could not be made to fly high enough or fast enough simply by leaving stuff out.

The high/fast idea was tried for a number of years in the late 40s and 50s but it didn't sink in for a while that an unmanned missile would always be able to fly a bit higher and faster than a manned bomber.

Milosh · Jan 12, 2012

Didn't the B-29 get rid of some of its defensive guns?

Nikademus · Jan 12, 2012

Japan faced the same thing Germany faced, they didnt do so hot. Their country was burned to the ground and then nuked. The nuclear strikes were like 3 unescorted bombers and they still didn't get intercepted.

If you say so.

.

I'm sorry I don't get your thinking here.

I can see that.

Nikademus · Jan 12, 2012

Milosh said:
Didn't the B-29 get rid of some of its defensive guns?

LeMay ordered the guns removed for several reasons. He was under intense pressure to get results quick, and one of the issues that plauged the command was the servicability problem. Switching to night ops allowed lower altitudes to be selected which eased the strain on the cranky new engines of the plane.....removing 'some' of the guns reduced weight further which also allowed more ordinance to be stuffed into the bombbays to assist with the Blitz. Per Tillman's book on the campaign, he says "most" of the guns were removed to save weight.

This was part of a planned ten day blitz to support the Okinawa invasion and LeMay planned on using every incendiary present in the Marianas and that the USN could deliver in time for it. More bombloads equalled less missions equalled less time and less flying hours on the Forts and their engines.

drgondog · Jan 12, 2012

The primary objective for LeMay was improving bombing results. The choice of operational altitude was dictated by a strike zone of a.) perceived bombing accuracy (even if the load was incindieries) on a specific area, and b.) zone at which the lighter and more flexible AA effectiveness diminished.

The operational benefits of engine life/reliability, fuel consumption reduction and increased bomb load were a bonus to the prime mission altitude selection criteria.

IIRC the only defensive weapons were the tail guns - all others, and ammo, were removed.

Nikademus · Jan 12, 2012

I see it as the other way around. The bonus was the increased bomb loads. LeMay was brought in to fix what was percieved as a major problem, and the servicability/abort issue was one of the big ones. He also was, as mentioned, under intense pressure to get results yesterday so he resorted to unorthodox methods including his reasoning that Japanese night defenses would be not a major threat, hence the bombers could fly lower, he could reduce weight by deleting some of the weapons which combined with the lower altitude eased strain on the engines and also...lastly allowed more incendiaries to be stuffed into each bomber for his projected "blitz" He turned out to be correct. The major problem after the first blitz was that he used up every single incendiary in the Marianas and had to stand down until the USN could deliver more!

Glider · Jan 12, 2012

wuzak said:
If you fly your bombers so high and fast that the opposition will have difficulty intercepting them, or fly routes to avoid interception, wouldn't it be better to dump the guns, turrets and ammo and have a higher performing aircraft?

Tis could be done with smaller aircraft such as the Mosquito but if you want a large payload you need a large aircraft and it becomes impractical. Unarmed recce aircraft worked on the same principle

drgondog · Jan 12, 2012

Nikademus said:
I see it as the other way around. The bonus was the increased bomb loads. LeMay was brought in to fix what was percieved as a major problem, and the servicability/abort issue was one of the big ones. He also was, as mentioned, under intense pressure to get results yesterday so he resorted to unorthodox methods including his reasoning that Japanese night defenses would be not a major threat, hence the bombers could fly lower, he could reduce weight by deleting some of the weapons which combined with the lower altitude eased strain on the engines and also...lastly allowed more incendiaries to be stuffed into each bomber for his projected "blitz" He turned out to be correct. The major problem after the first blitz was that he used up every single incendiary in the Marianas and had to stand down until the USN could deliver more!

If you read Mission With leMay by McKinley Cantor you will see what LeMay thought about the subject.

Nikademus · Jan 12, 2012

drgondog said:
If you read Mission With leMay by McKinley Cantor you will see what LeMay thought about the subject.

Thx. I'll note that book for a future read. Barrett Tillman's book on the B-29 campaign also sheds good light on LeMay's role in the evolution of the SuperFort tactics.

TheMustangRider · Jan 12, 2012

MikeGazdik said:
Once the B-29's switched to night low altitude bombing, it may have minimized the need for escorts , but that was a change in tactics brought on by the realization of a weakness in Japan in defending in such attacks. Had the B-29's continued high altitude daylight bombing, fighter escort would have been an absolute necessity.

Apart from the devastating fire raids unleashed by Le May and 20th BC in early 1945 which proved to be aghastly devastating against major Japanese populated centres; long-range escort fighter protection was indeed needed and employed towards the end of the Pacific war in the form of P-51s operating from Iwo Jima from April '45 onwards.

As far as I know, 20th BC finished the air war over Japan hammering at Japanese industrial centers and communication lines during day-light and consuming Japanese cities during night-time.

USAAF philopshy of the heavies being able to defend themselfs

Senior Airman

Tech Sergeant

Banned

Banned

Banned

Major General

Staff Sergeant

Senior Airman

Captain

Tech Sergeant

Major General

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Airman

Senior Airman

Major

Senior Airman

Captain

Major

Senior Airman

Senior Airman

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads