Overall, who had the better bombing campaign of the Third Reich, USAAF or RAF?

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

The B-17 could carry way more than 4000lb of bombs. I believe the usual was about 6000lb.

As pD put the Mossie could carry the same as a B-17 over short missions.

Literally, the B-17 could carry the 17K+ load cross channel and that's about it.

It carried 4,000 to targets east of Berlin, 5,000 on typical mid to east Germany and 6,000 on a typical Koblenz (or shorter) raid as a max for normal mission.

The F-105 carried far more on typical missions in Viet Nam but sucked from tankers on the way in and out

At the end of the day Strategic Bombing had one huge success that affected the outcome - Petroleum and Chemical (including nitrogen for fertilizer) and the USAAF contributed more in that role - and paid a heavy price.

[FLYBOYJ]

The RAF had the "luxury" of the night, but at the same time that luxury could sometimes be a demon. Returning to bases at dawn in the soup using ancient navaids and instrument approach procedures - that was harrowing in it self...

But when successful, incinerated large areas of German real estate...

The USAAF had the luxury of the daytime, most of the time in good weather, but then again so did the Luftwaffe's fighters. Here you are in a B-17 or B-24 sitting above Germany at 130 knots while flak gunners bead in on you or marauding fighters await to blast you out of the sky...This had always reminded me of 2 19th century armies with muskets lined up in a row across a grass field just blasting away at each other...

But when successful, whole industries ceased to exist...

Over all I think the USAAF had the edge but having flown in the soup at night I take nothing away from the RAF and her aircrews - the fear factor is with them!

[Aussie1001]

like the smilie Flyboy J
Yes i do agree with you both were effective at what they did when they got through as is anything.. By the way i do like you comparing thoes flak guns to the muskets it does make a lot of sense... Poor ba#tards.
However if a B17 could only reasonably expected to carry 6000 lbs compared to a Lancasters load of up to a 22000 lbs Grand Slam well it does put things into perspective doesn't it....

[Graeme]

Originally Posted by Aussie1001

However if a B17 could only reasonably expected to carry 6000 lbs compared to a Lancasters load of up to a 22000 lbs Grand Slam well it does put things into perspective doesn't it....

Aussie,
The ability of the Lancaster to carry to the 'Grand Slam' had a lot to do with its capacious and long bomb-bay. The Stirling had the longest bomb-bay with the Lancaster in second place, but the heaviest bomb which the Stirling could accommodate was the 4,000 pounder because its bomb-bay was divided onto sections.

(Good to see you survived Queensland's storms!)

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by drgondog

I've often wondered how much MORE damage to critical industries would have occurred if the RAF shifted most of their ops to daylight from D-Day forward.

I was wondering about that myself. With the RAF adding bomber sorties next to USAAF sorties, and the LW still having the same amount of fighter force as before, then the LW would have either to completely ignore the added bulk of bombers penetrating the airspace, or spread it's forces even more thinly.

Naturally, this would only makes sense past 1944, with the arrival of the Mustang other long-range capable escort fighters on the scene. Given what happened to heavily armed B-17s and B-24s when unescorted, things would have look bleak for the lightly armed British noctural bomb trucks - otherwise the rather numerous Nachtjagd would simple become an extremely nasty form of heavily armed daylight bomber destroyer forces... And of course, the whole thing of overloading the defenses with masses of bombers requires sufficient mass of USAAF heavies operating.

Interesting none the less, and a valid alternative to what I'd describe with Talleyrand's classic : 'was more than a crime, it was an error.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Aussie1001

like the smilie Flyboy J
However if a B17 could only reasonably expected to carry 6000 lbs compared to a Lancasters load of up to a 22000 lbs Grand Slam well it does put things into perspective doesn't it....

Lancasters that carried the Grand Slam were specially modified with a lot of stuff removed from the plane. So I don't quite get why compare that to standard-issue B-17s, which were carrying a lot more weight in the form of defensive armament OTOH..

Not to mention the Grand Slam would be of little operational use for conventional task bombers are normally engaged in, and that it was used only at the very end o the war..

It's and odd and unfair comparison.

[trackend]

I think there is some confusion over maximum pay load and operational payload.
All bombers carried different load weights depending on range of mission.
What can be got into the air and what can be got to target are two different things.
An operational average which on a quick calculation seems to come out at roughly 12000-14000 lbs for the Lancaster and 4000-6000 lbs for the B17
(although I won't be suprised if these figures are disputed)

All bombers from Ju 88s to Lancasters & B17's where relitively sitting ducks for the hugely faster and more nimble fighters the horendous loss rates for bombers in general shows this.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

I was wondering about that myself. With the RAF adding bomber sorties next to USAAF sorties, and the LW still having the same amount of fighter force as before, then the LW would have either to completely ignore the added bulk of bombers penetrating the airspace, or spread it's forces even more thinly.

Naturally, this would only makes sense past 1944, with the arrival of the Mustang other long-range capable escort fighters on the scene. Given what happened to heavily armed B-17s and B-24s when unescorted, things would have look bleak for the lightly armed British noctural bomb trucks - otherwise the rather numerous Nachtjagd would simple become an extremely nasty form of heavily armed daylight bomber destroyer forces... And of course, the whole thing of overloading the defenses with masses of bombers requires sufficient mass of USAAF heavies operating.

Interesting none the less, and a valid alternative to what I'd describe with Talleyrand's classic : 'was more than a crime, it was an error.

My thoughts on this are two-fold and empahasis on PAST D-Day.

In one stroke this strategy completely neutralize the effectiveness of NJG forces in Germany - at least all the reciprocal engine versions. They proved they could not survive in daylight ops in presence of long range escort. Hence they sit on the ground or fly and lose valuable crews.

It shifts RAF Fighter Command Ops to focus on 'longer range' escorts to relieve the now long range P-47s of the Penetration and Withdrawal Support except further than P-47s before more fuel in late model P-47D's - if not all the way to most targets in Central germany.

Result, even more overwhelming numbers around Kassel, Magdeburg, leipzig and Halle with RAF bombers capable of bigger bombloads, accurate daylight bombing and quicker destruction of both the Oil and Chemical targets plus more attrition, faster, of Luftwaffe.

Once bases in France and Belgium are secured, Spits and Tempests could go all the way plus RAF Mustangs from beginning of daylight ops.

PS - it would have been interesting to see how fast the RAF could change formation Flying tactics to 'tighten up' for both bomb density around MPI of target as well as make it feasible for escort fighters to protect them. LW simply too good for RAF fly night ops 'strings' into target w/o getting brutalized somewhere along the trail.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Aussie1001

like the smilie Flyboy J
Yes i do agree with you both were effective at what they did when they got through as is anything.. By the way i do like you comparing thoes flak guns to the muskets it does make a lot of sense... Poor ba#tards.
However if a B17 could only reasonably expected to carry 6000 lbs compared to a Lancasters load of up to a 22000 lbs Grand Slam well it does put things into perspective doesn't it....

Lancaster had to modified to carry a Grand Slam. That was not a typical payload.

Not taking anything away from the Lancaster though, it was in my opinion better than the B-17.

If you wish to put something in perspective however, what about the B-29 that could carry 2 Tall Boys or a 42,000lb T-12 bomb.

[Graeme]

That's a big bomb Adler! Ever used?

This is a test drop of a sand filled Grand Slam in March 1945.
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/4854/lastscanxm8.jpg

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I honestly dont know if it was used or not. If it was dropped, it was done so only in tests.

[syscom3]

From wikipedia......

"The 'B1 (Special)' Lancaster bomber could only carry one at a time and it had to be dropped from 22,000 feet (6700 m) which limited its accuracy. The Grand Slam was first used on March 14, 1945 when the Royal Air Force No. 617 "Dambusters" Squadron, lead by Squadron Leader C.C. Calder, attacked the Bielefeld railway viaduct destroying two spans of the viaduct.[1]

The viaduct at Arnsberg was bombed on 15 March 1945 with 2 Grand Slams and 14 Tallboy bombs but they failed to bring the viaduct down. Four days later on 19 March 1945 another attack by No 617 Squadron using 6 Grand Slams was successful and a 12 m (40 ft) gap was blown in the viaduct.[1]

Farge is a small port on the Weser River north of Bremen, and was the site of an oil-storage depot and the Valentin submarine pens that were attacked by the RAF on 27 March 1945. The pens had a ferrous concrete roof up to 7 metres (23 feet) thick. Two Grand Slam bombs penetrated parts of the pen with a 4.5 m-thick roof[2][3]"

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

We are not talking about the Grand Slam sys. We were talking about the US built T12.

[Aussie1001]

Ok adler..... what about this......
Apprantly this is the most powerfull conventional bomb in the world at 30 000 lbs and filled with 18 000lbs of H6....

Anyway the green bomb is the largest Nuke ever made and the Orange one is the conventional one.....

[lucanus]

Ok here goes....My memory bank seems to remember a
bomb used in Nam and Desert Storm that weighed 15,000 lbs
and was dropped out of a C130 Herc...The bomb was
a BLU-82


BBC NEWS | Americas | Fact files: Daisy Cutter bombs

Or key in daisy cutter in google images for some more snaps of
this thumper

From 303rd BG nice page on all US bombs

Aerial Bombs

A "Daisy Cutter" is a huge bomb that can cause massive destruction.
The blast is so horrific that one of the main reasons merely for threatening its use against an enemy is psychological.

In the Gulf War, US aircraft dropped leaflets on Iraqi troops depicting a huge bomb, with the slogan "Flee and Live, or Stay and Die!"

The type depicted in the leaflets, and also used in Afghanistan, is the BLU-82B Commando Vault or Big Blue 82, also known as the Daisy Cutter.

Some say the name derives from the blast pattern it leaves when viewed from above. Others say it is a much older term for any bomb designed to cut down infantry.

According to the US Air Force, 11 of these were dropped on Iraq during the Gulf War.

They were used in the Vietnam War for creating instant helicopter landing sites in dense jungle.

Parachute descent

The bomb's warhead contains 12,600 lb (5,700 kg) of GSX, a slurry of ammonium nitrate - the basis of nitrogen fertiliser - highly flammable aluminium powder, and polystyrene-based soap as a thickener.

A Daisy Cutter is so big that it can be "launched" only by pushing it out of the open back door of a transport plane - typically the MC-130 special forces version of the Hercules is used.

The bomb descends under a stabilising parachute and is detonated just above the ground by a 38-in (97 cm) fuse, which sticks out of its nose.

When it explodes, it generates a massive pressure wave. Ordinarily, atmospheric pressure is about 100,000 pascals (the equivalent of 1kg of force applied to an area of one square cm or 14.2psi). In a Daisy Cutter explosion, the pressure reaches about 7,000,000Pa (70kg/sq cm - 1,000psi) at the centre.

The effects are felt over an area typically reported to be the size of several football pitches.