Bomber Losses: USAAF vs RAF - Page 3 - Aircraft of World War II

mhuxt · 05-24-2009, 07:18 AM

"I think I read somewhere" that BC crews believed H2S foxed German radar. Can't recall where I read that though.

For me the big missed opportunity was the decision not to develop the Oboe repeater system. It was tested in action before the Battle of Berlin, but the view of the time amongst their Airships was that H2S would be sufficient to do the job, especially given the limited number of boffins available.

Glider · 05-24-2009, 10:18 AM

Quote:

The second failure that could be levelled at the British was the way they used H2S, specifically by training aircrew to keep it on continuously, This had a disastrous effect on British Bomber losses

Parsifal
I agree with almost everything in your posting, I only deleted it to save space. The only bit I would comment on is the last sentance. Once the RAF knew that the Germans were on to them they did encourage the crews to use H2S as little as possible but the was little that could be done to stop the crews 'checking' their position. Generally there was a greater fear in the crews of Flak as opposed to NF which they felt they had more control over and a lot of planes were shot down by Flak because they wandered into flak areas.
To a degree this was countered by the latter versions of H2S having a feature that highlighted a NF if there was one in the area. Right now I cannot remember the name of this feature but will dig around and see what I can find. At least it gave some warning if a NF had homed on to them.

In one of the books I read there was a comment about the overconfidence in the bomber crews and their ability to handle NF's. You are probably aware that you could fit three people in a Beaufighter. One of the squadrons used to take bomber squadron leaders up and intercept bombers on their way home. This had some risk as any bomber seeing twin engined aircraft approaching at night would shoot first and worry about questions later. Time and again they took people up and were never seen. In the end Bomber Command asked them to stop doing this as it was bad for the morale of the bomber crews.

Watanbe · 05-24-2009, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider

Clearly the British NF were not able to stop the attacks that was impossible but my understanding was that the German NF's were very concerned about the Mosquito NF's over Germany. Considering they were on their own without any ground control the British NF's did pretty well. The best that I have heard about was on Mosquito that shot down four German NF's in one night.

Yes the Mossie NF's did do very well over Germany and the German NF's were definitely worried about the presence, but overall what I'm saying is that the bombers were virtually unescorted and their defensive armament wasn't very effective at night, its no wonder that they lost so many planes.

pbfoot · 05-24-2009, 11:16 AM

a little scan of a page from the book "The Right of the Line" this is about tactics used in the battle of Berlin Jan 44
"In the course of the battle, Bomber Command used every device that it could muster to outwit the defence . Window was freely distributed in vast quantities, airborne radar aids were used to defect night-fighters (but in fact this enabled the fighters to home in on the bombers) or to jam the enemy radar sets feints and diversions were practiced round about routes were taken . But nothing. it seems could mitigate the effect of the sheer distance to be travelled 1150 miles to Berlin and back .
This was far beyond GEE or Oboe ranges and as in turned out. the sprawling city was a poor reflector of H2S its geography offered no clear characteristic to show up on a screen. Too often Pathfinders and other leaders had to identify targets visually - and to: often these were covered by heavy cloud. Guns and searchlights, as might be expected with a target of such importance, were exceptionally numerous Ground controllers now directed the fighters tab area the bomber stream in groups instead of individually a far more effective tactic."

Glider · 05-24-2009, 11:30 AM

Watanbe
I don't entirely disagree with you. I was trying to explain that the RAF did what they could to escort the bombers given the limitations that they were under namely distance and technology and that they did have some success.

Re the defensive fire of the bombers I don't think it would ahve made much of a difference. At the ranges we are talking about 4 x 303 are still pretty effective and the vast majority of bombers were hit before they knew it.

Watanbe · 05-25-2009, 07:31 AM

I agree Glider. The RAF really did try everything it could, but its hard to escape the fact that the technology just wasn't available at the time. You can't defend against an object you can't see and you can't effectively radar jam if you don't have the technology. It was inevitable that they would lose large amounts of bombers but IMO they still had to carry on anyway. They basically destroyed all the key German cities.

Glider · 05-25-2009, 09:59 AM

I have found the addition to H2S that picked up any aircraft in the vicinity of the bomber when the H2S was in use. The code name was Fishpond.

As an aside I have found some comparisons of the accuracy of Oboe and H2S when bombing which may be of interest. In September 1944 it was calculated that Oboe had a typical error of 350m and H2S 1,800m.

Watanbe · 05-25-2009, 10:57 AM

Another factor is well, probably more on the NF thing. The airborne AI sets in WW2 aircraft were notoriously unreliable, they often failed to work properly. Also the latest AI sets were also used reluctantly by the British over Germany, they couldn't afford to allow any advantages in radar to fall into German hands.

Not sure how relevant it is in our debate, but it is interesting!

Waynos · 05-25-2009, 01:44 PM

What, sabotage by the National Front? The bastards

Erich · 05-25-2009, 03:03 PM

well Jabber as I hurriedly post this the priovate homepage stats are incorrect, I must disagree with his sources as being authorative, I will accept the research of others from England, Germany and Holland besides elsewhere over the past 45-50 years as being more accurate in numbers lost to the Nachtjagd arm nd even then the 7100 I put down am sure can be question within a 100 kills or so not counting what the RAF flew over the Balitc into Soviet held territory

appreciate the link(s) provided and the discussion

gents remember with the SN-2d being jammed that FuG 350z was being used fully when equipped and the pilots also homed in on the huge amounts nightly of the Window dropped getting into the area(s) of most concentration.

v/r E ~

Airbone Bunny · 05-25-2009, 08:14 PM

Regarding British night bombing there is something that has always nagged me: why they reacted so poorly, or didn’t react at all, to the introduction of Schräge Musik cannons by German night fighters?.

That puzzles me because from 1943-44 those Schräge Musik applications were widely used; you would assume the RAF should have implemented some kind of countermeasures by then, but as far as I know, there was nothing…

I read that one of the reasons the RAF didn’t counter effectively was because British bombers were not well suited to carry and use ventral turrets. But that seems like a poor excuse

pbfoot · 05-25-2009, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airbone Bunny

Regarding British night bombing there is something that has always nagged me: why they reacted so poorly, or didn’t react at all, to the introduction of Schräge Musik cannons by German night fighters?.

That puzzles me because from 1943-44 those Schräge Musik applications were widely used; you would assume the RAF should have implemented some kind of countermeasures by then, but as far as I know, there was nothing…

I read that one of the reasons the RAF didn’t counter effectively was because British bombers were not well suited to carry and use ventral turrets. But that seems like a poor excuse

the advantage was carrying 3 times the bombload of the B17, I can't comment on how effective "schrage music " was but I really doubt it was effective as a normal attack

mhuxt · 05-25-2009, 10:04 PM

Everything I've read indicates it was far more effective. Less chance of being seen, no turbulence off the aircraft in front, no debris flying back at the attacker, larger target area to aim at, easier to avoid hitting the bombload, etc.

I've also read that priority for fitting the oblique weapons went to experience crews - new guys had to "make do" with horizontal attacks.

I believe a lot of the attacks were put down to flak, but as to what the Operational Research Section knew, and when they knew it, I agree is a mystery.

Watanbe · 05-25-2009, 10:47 PM

"schrage music " was very effective.

fastmongrel · 05-28-2009, 03:58 PM

The RAF heavies were designed for a ventral dustbin turret you can see them in the original design for the Manchester and Halifax but the RAF didnt think they were worth the weight. When later on they they were needed to combat Schrage Musik H2s had been fitted in the ventral turrets place.

I have read somewhere that towards the end of the war a Canadian wing unofficially took out the H2s from its aircraft and fitted a handheld 0.5 Browning in the radome blister cant remember where I read it though.

05-25-2009, 07:31 AM	#36
Watanbe Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Adelaide Posts: 522	I agree Glider. The RAF really did try everything it could, but its hard to escape the fact that the technology just wasn't available at the time. You can't defend against an object you can't see and you can't effectively radar jam if you don't have the technology. It was inevitable that they would lose large amounts of bombers but IMO they still had to carry on anyway. They basically destroyed all the key German cities. __________________

05-25-2009, 10:57 AM	#38
Watanbe Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Adelaide Posts: 522	Another factor is well, probably more on the NF thing. The airborne AI sets in WW2 aircraft were notoriously unreliable, they often failed to work properly. Also the latest AI sets were also used reluctantly by the British over Germany, they couldn't afford to allow any advantages in radar to fall into German hands. Not sure how relevant it is in our debate, but it is interesting! __________________

05-25-2009, 03:03 PM	#40
Erich the old Sage Join Date: May 2004 Location: Platonic Sphere Posts: 11,093	well Jabber as I hurriedly post this the priovate homepage stats are incorrect, I must disagree with his sources as being authorative, I will accept the research of others from England, Germany and Holland besides elsewhere over the past 45-50 years as being more accurate in numbers lost to the Nachtjagd arm nd even then the 7100 I put down am sure can be question within a 100 kills or so not counting what the RAF flew over the Balitc into Soviet held territory appreciate the link(s) provided and the discussion gents remember with the SN-2d being jammed that FuG 350z was being used fully when equipped and the pilots also homed in on the huge amounts nightly of the Window dropped getting into the area(s) of most concentration. v/r E ~ __________________ Rip it up !

05-25-2009, 10:47 PM	#44
Watanbe Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Adelaide Posts: 522	"schrage music " was very effective. __________________

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

05-24-2009, 07:18 AM	#31
mhuxt Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 213	"I think I read somewhere" that BC crews believed H2S foxed German radar. Can't recall where I read that though. For me the big missed opportunity was the decision not to develop the Oboe repeater system. It was tested in action before the Battle of Berlin, but the view of the time amongst their Airships was that H2S would be sufficient to do the job, especially given the limited number of boffins available.

05-24-2009, 11:16 AM	#34
pbfoot Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: niagara falls Posts: 5,930	a little scan of a page from the book "The Right of the Line" this is about tactics used in the battle of Berlin Jan 44 "In the course of the battle, Bomber Command used every device that it could muster to outwit the defence . Window was freely distributed in vast quantities, airborne radar aids were used to defect night-fighters (but in fact this enabled the fighters to home in on the bombers) or to jam the enemy radar sets feints and diversions were practiced round about routes were taken . But nothing. it seems could mitigate the effect of the sheer distance to be travelled 1150 miles to Berlin and back . This was far beyond GEE or Oboe ranges and as in turned out. the sprawling city was a poor reflector of H2S its geography offered no clear characteristic to show up on a screen. Too often Pathfinders and other leaders had to identify targets visually - and to: often these were covered by heavy cloud. Guns and searchlights, as might be expected with a target of such importance, were exceptionally numerous Ground controllers now directed the fighters tab area the bomber stream in groups instead of individually a far more effective tactic."

05-24-2009, 11:30 AM	#35
Glider Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London Posts: 3,902	Watanbe I don't entirely disagree with you. I was trying to explain that the RAF did what they could to escort the bombers given the limitations that they were under namely distance and technology and that they did have some success. Re the defensive fire of the bombers I don't think it would ahve made much of a difference. At the ranges we are talking about 4 x 303 are still pretty effective and the vast majority of bombers were hit before they knew it.

05-25-2009, 09:59 AM	#37
Glider Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London Posts: 3,902	I have found the addition to H2S that picked up any aircraft in the vicinity of the bomber when the H2S was in use. The code name was Fishpond. As an aside I have found some comparisons of the accuracy of Oboe and H2S when bombing which may be of interest. In September 1944 it was calculated that Oboe had a typical error of 350m and H2S 1,800m.

05-25-2009, 01:44 PM	#39
Waynos Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,084	What, sabotage by the National Front? The bastards

05-25-2009, 08:14 PM	#41
Airbone Bunny Junior Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 24	Regarding British night bombing there is something that has always nagged me: why they reacted so poorly, or didn’t react at all, to the introduction of Schräge Musik cannons by German night fighters?. That puzzles me because from 1943-44 those Schräge Musik applications were widely used; you would assume the RAF should have implemented some kind of countermeasures by then, but as far as I know, there was nothing… I read that one of the reasons the RAF didn’t counter effectively was because British bombers were not well suited to carry and use ventral turrets. But that seems like a poor excuse

05-25-2009, 10:04 PM	#43
mhuxt Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 213	Everything I've read indicates it was far more effective. Less chance of being seen, no turbulence off the aircraft in front, no debris flying back at the attacker, larger target area to aim at, easier to avoid hitting the bombload, etc. I've also read that priority for fitting the oblique weapons went to experience crews - new guys had to "make do" with horizontal attacks. I believe a lot of the attacks were put down to flak, but as to what the Operational Research Section knew, and when they knew it, I agree is a mystery.

05-28-2009, 03:58 PM	#45
fastmongrel Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 103	The RAF heavies were designed for a ventral dustbin turret you can see them in the original design for the Manchester and Halifax but the RAF didnt think they were worth the weight. When later on they they were needed to combat Schrage Musik H2s had been fitted in the ventral turrets place. I have read somewhere that towards the end of the war a Canadian wing unofficially took out the H2s from its aircraft and fitted a handheld 0.5 Browning in the radome blister cant remember where I read it though.