WHich bomber had the best defence

fastmongrel said:

I have read that many Bomber Command pilots forbade the gunners from firing but insisted they simply kept close watch and gave him the corkscrew left or right command.

Click to expand...

The policy varied from Group to Group as well as among individual crews. 5 Group adopted a very aggressive policy, firing on any suspicious aircraft. Investigation showed that this did not reduce their losses and led to a significant increase in 'friendly fire' incidents.
Many crews believed that the best defence against a fighter, once seen, was to instigate a corkscrew as quickly as possible. This often had one of two outcomes. Either the night fighter lost the bomber in the darkness or, finding the manoeuvering bomber a difficult target, set off in search of another target with a less vigilant crew.
I have read a couple of accounts in which an experienced night fighter crew attempted to follow a corkscrewing bomber, but both conceded that it made an almost impossible target.
Many gunners said that they saw their role primarily as look outs, hoping to see any approaching night fighter before it could launch an attack and in time to warn their pilot so that he could instigate the evasive action. This is what made 'schrage musik' so dangerous, the fighter, in the hands of a skillful pilot, could make an unseen approach.
Some gunners have claimed that a quick and not necessarily well aimed burst in the general direction of a fighter was enough to put it off, again sending it away to seek a less alert victim. On the other hand the bomber, by revealing its position, might attract the attention of any other nearby fighters
There were many different reactions to the sighting of a night fighter, but both Bomber Command and most crews agreed that the bomber's best defence was darkness, not its guns.
Cheers
Steve

Robert Porter said:

I think a better question would be what authors, if any, are considered reliable sources? Marten Caidin was a very readable author but was I believe accused of a great deal of plagiarism and not a small amount of creative license without identifying clearly where he was being creative. So far 2/3 of my library has become suspect since joining this forum.

Click to expand...

A very real problem, especially with the history of WW2 is politics. I'm American, so I'm most cognizant of how it's taught in US schools. Leaving aside issues of war crimes -- the Germans and Soviets weren't alone in their commission -- there have been very few competent historians with the requisite knowledge of aviation and access to sources to write an accurate history. Memoirs are notoriously unreliable (one wonders if autobiography should even be shelved in non-fiction sections of the library), and memories are malleable and frangible (a trivial example: my father would tell you the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut happened during the Carter presidency. The bombings were in 1983; the Marines were sent to Beirut in 1982).

There also seem to be some cases of deliberate error, as may have happened with some of the Morrison's writings about the WW2 in the Pacific.

So have at least three problems: writings by careless, incompetent, or deliberately inaccurate historians, deliberate political bias (Holocaust deniers), information buried in classified documents, and reliance on eyewitnesses. An interesting case may be B H Liddel-Hart's book (The German Generals Talk or The Other Side of the Hill), which was based on interviews with German generals, which showed, perhaps inadvertently, that no two people see the same thing). With air combat history, writers face the additional problems that few are both competent historians and highly knowledgeable about aircraft and aviation and that reliable sources are even less available for air combat than for naval or ground combat.

swampyankee said:

Operations researchers found that heavy defensive armament on bombers increased casualties in a heavily defended operated: the increase in weight and drag slowed bombers, so more were needed, and the large crews meant that the number of casualties with each aircraft lost increased.

While this was, no doubt true, I think it overlooks a different problem: before smart weapons, massed bomber raids were necessary for the sort of suppression a couple of aircraft with smart bombs could do today: even if, as I've seen written, a Mosquito could deliver the same mass of bombs on Berlin as could a B-17, a 500-Mosquito formation would not be able to use the Mossie's superior speed or maneuverability to escape. The USAAF also found, quite the hard way, that bomber defensive armament, no matter how massive, could not reduce aircraft losses to a sustainable level. I have no real way of reliably analyzing the data, but I suspect that, had the USAAF removed the waist gunners and their associated weapons and ammunition, the numbers of bombers lost would not have changed, as each bomber could have carried 500 lb or so more bombs and, with the big holes that waist gunners shot through closed up, been slightly faster.

Click to expand...

The 5th Air Force removed waist guns from B-24s in late 1944. 8th AF removed ball turrets from B-24s around the dame time and several groups removed chin and ball turrets from B-17s.

varsity07840 said:

The 5th Air Force removed waist guns from B-24s in late 1944. 8th AF removed ball turrets from B-24s around the dame time and several groups removed chin and ball turrets from B-17s.

Click to expand...

I was not aware of that. I know some people have exaggerated the effectiveness of the defensive armament on American bombers and a consistent development of heavier and heavier weapons. I think that, during or shortly after the war, both the USAF and USN came to the conclusion that the best defensive armament for a bomber is escorting fighters. Of course, the B-36 had a different solution: for much of its service life, it operated above the altitude where interceptors could get a second pass (a college friend said his friend -- more likely his father, who was very active in the AAHS -- who was an F-86D pilot told him the Saber Dog could not make a second pass on a B-36 at its cruising altitude)

Was the B29s fire control system ever tested with a mass attack as in Europe 1944, how could a formation not concentrate on a few individuals and ignore others?

If there were any they of combat scenario testing, it would have been done stateside. My guess, after the experience in Europe, this was probably considered but then you have an aircraft that that had a bomb run I believe over 100 mph faster than the B-17 at higher altitudes. They wouldn't have been invincible under a "mass attack as in Europe 1944" but I think it would have been pretty obvious they would have been harder to shoot down.

I remember specifically asking my neighbor about the armament on all the B-17's he flew. First off, he said the G was the best, as it was the one that had all the hard earned lessons put into it. Then I was told, " in his opinion ", taking out the waist gunners and all associated weight and equipment, covering the openings, and then adding more ammunition to the other guns was what he felt would have been the best choice. On the ball turret, he felt it was effective, but did tear up the undersides of a B-17 on a belly landing as ball turrets are a lot tougher in construction than just about everybody (present company excepted) thinks. and he then said he " was involved " in either the the development or modification of the kit to drop the turret when the landing gear would not work, I asked " if " and he told me he had " more than one " of those types of landings. Hope this helps, being here is jogging my memory of this great Gentleman, and a friend.

YF12A said:

I remember specifically asking my neighbor about the armament on all the B-17's he flew. First off, he said the G was the best, as it was the one that had all the hard earned lessons put into it. Then I was told, " in his opinion ", taking out the waist gunners and all associated weight and equipment, covering the openings, and then adding more ammunition to the other guns was what he felt would have been the best choice. On the ball turret, he felt it was effective, but did tear up the undersides of a B-17 on a belly landing as ball turrets are a lot tougher in construction than just about everybody (present company excepted) thinks. and he then said he " was involved " in either the the development or modification of the kit to drop the turret when the landing gear would not work, I asked " if " and he told me he had " more than one " of those types of landings. Hope this helps, being here is jogging my memory of this great Gentleman, and a friend.

Click to expand...

There was always two very powerful arguments about defence of bombers. One is the defensive field that it has to protect itself and the other is the price paid in performance and payload to get that defensive field. I believe that statistically the B 24 was safer than the B 17 because it was slightly faster and flew slightly higher, this is only known by statistics, pilots of B17s would swear by their aircraft because they were robust, took damage and were better in a crash landing.

Taken to the absurd, a thousand "bomber" raid using only the fighter versions of the B17 and B24 then losses would have been cut by less than half. Approximately half of losses were from ground fire but the fighter versions were slower and statistically this caused higher losses. Oh and they didn't drop bombs.

pbehn,

With all due tremendous respect from this newbie there are many kinds of " combat " statistics out there. Which bomber flew more of the toughest missions as an example. In what area? My neighbor did fly the B-24, but not in combat to my knowledge, and he told me when I asked which one was the plane that would bring he and his crew back, without a second of pause, he said the B-17. His opinion of the B-24 was that it was a very good plane, but harder to fly, keep in formation, and he did not ever want to think about a belly landing in one. This came from someone that was there from the start to the end and had no question of his thoughts. Interestingly, he always wanted to fly a B-17 with the P&W 1830 engines from a B-24! He never had any bad words for the R-1820's, told me more than once they brought him back missing cylinders but still turning the prop over making power,. It is just something he would bring up, I think he said the R-1830's ran smoother, but there were more parts as well. It still is an interesting question to me as well. IIRC, in Robert Johnson's P-47 book, one time a Bomber stream was getting hammered and the B-24's were flying UNDER the B-17's for protection, if I am correctly remembering this. If you ask me, I've been in both, and the 17 is my choice. But more importantly, your opinions are just as valid.

My Father worked on just about everything out there and liked most of them, but sooner or later, one of them would have an " interesting " problem. In my 60+ years of flying there is only one aircraft I was NEVER allowed to fly on, even in A/A service and that was the DC-10. My Father hated that plane with a passion,said it was a rushed build, why do you put an engine soo far up in the tail, makes maintenance a nightmare, just some of the problems he had to deal with.it and I didn't and couldn't disagree with him on it.

Really starting to feel at home here, thanks to all, Fred.

YF12A said:

pbehn,

With all due tremendous respect from this newbie there are many kinds of " combat " statistics out there. Which bomber flew more of the toughest missions as an example. In what area? My neighbor did fly the B-24, but not in combat to my knowledge, and he told me when I asked which one was the plane that would bring he and his crew back, without a second of pause, he said the B-17. His opinion of the B-24 was that it was a very good plane, but harder to fly, keep in formation, and he did not ever want to think about a belly landing in one. .

Click to expand...

YF12 you are reflecting exactly a pilots view and it is valid. I am British and so my point of view is in many ways from the British experience. The HP Halifax was preferred by many crews because it was bigger, roomier and easier to get out of. However statistically the Lancaster beat it hands down. Not only were you more likely to be shot down in a Halifax but also on long distance raids the Halifax reduced bomb load and lower performance meant it was considerably worse than the Lancaster in terms of planes/crew lost per ton of bomb dropped. The pilot is only concerned with his mission and how it went, the commander of forces is concerned with bombs dropped and total crews lost.

As I said I am A Brit and I have read that the B 24 was statistically safer for the reasons I described, I would be happy to be corrected as long as it isn't on belly landings.