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

[plan_D]

I have to point out here that RAF 2 Group were bombing during day and night through the war. They were using tight formation for mutual support since their first raid on 4th September, 1939. If the rest of Bomber Command needed training for tight formation flying - they had a whole RAF Group on hand to show them how.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by plan_D

I have to point out here that RAF 2 Group were bombing during day and night through the war. They were using tight formation for mutual support since their first raid on 4th September, 1939. If the rest of Bomber Command needed training for tight formation flying - they had a whole RAF Group on hand to show them how.

The RAF had exceptional pilots - it wasn't flying skill per se but different acquired skills i.e. Formation leaders keeping a very steady hand on throttles to prevent an accordion effect throughout the bomb group, 'forming up' skills and procedures to speed up process of getting into tight formations (or looser in bad weather) with minimum time and fuel consumption, etc.

The 8th AF thought they had the doctrine down pat before reaching Europe and found out that experienced formation flying pilots had a lot to learn. I have a few formation flying hours in a 51 plus an A-36 Bonanza - I can only imagine what it would be like to fly # 2 or 3 in a heavily loaded B-24 (or Lancaster) at the upper limits of ceiling to avoid flak as much as possible with a wing sticking into the airspace of my leader... for 7-12 hours.

I imagine 2 Group had it down pat - one down, 40+ to go to convert RAF to daylight.

I think the reverse would have been more difficult - namely converting USAAF to night bombing had daylight bombing failed.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by 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.....

Aussie - the big 'orange thingy' may be the the beast designed to take out very deep re-inforced bunkers - I'll have to do some checking - in places like Iran

The green thingy may be the 20 megaton Mk26 - one of which is missing deep in river mud in Charleston area (from a B-52) and another off the coast of Cuba from a B-47 Mid air during Cuban Missile crisis

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by drgondog

The RAF had exceptional pilots - it wasn't flying skill per se but different acquired skills i.e. Formation leaders keeping a very steady hand on throttles to prevent an accordion effect throughout the bomb group, 'forming up' skills and procedures to speed up process of getting into tight formations (or looser in bad weather) with minimum time and fuel consumption, etc.

That's the way to do it. Lead sets a power setting and for the most part leaves it alone. (unless you need to adjust your TOT). We get hammered for jockeying power unnecessarily as lead because you're only screwing your wingmen. In a tight formation, for example parade, you are constantly making power adjustments as wing. Loose forms, such as combat cruise, are much more fluent and require less workload as wing. Flying in a tight form as a wing is draining after a while.

I don't honestly know much about the particular forms they used and practiced back then - but I imagine that there are similar to the forms we fly today.

I have done forms in single engine, multi, and in about a week or so I will be doing helo forms - which should be interesting. Can't wait to do forms in the MV-22!

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by mkloby

That's the way to do it. Lead sets a power setting and for the most part leaves it alone. (unless you need to adjust your TOT). We get hammered for jockeying power unnecessarily as lead because you're only screwing your wingmen. In a tight formation, for example parade, you are constantly making power adjustments as wing. Loose forms, such as combat cruise, are much more fluent and require less workload as wing. Flying in a tight form as a wing is draining after a while.

I don't honestly know much about the particular forms they used and practiced back then - but I imagine that there are similar to the forms we fly today.

I have done forms in single engine, multi, and in about a week or so I will be doing helo forms - which should be interesting. Can't wait to do forms in the MV-22!

mkloby

I don't know if I mentioned this before but my last job at Bell in design before full time structures was the XV-15 wing - complicated mother..to account for deflections in flaps - and stresses in jump take-off..

[Erich]

a small thought from a small brain today, still cannot understand even with RAF day light bombing in 1945 why the Lancs were not equipped with a belly rotating turret knowing full well the LW was going to find this out and take full advantage as they did on at least 2 ops with JG 7 me 262's which came from underneath with deadly accuracy.

Granted it was going to be in the US hands with heavy bombing due to the presence of waking hours to deplete German moral, while at night the German populace was asleep except for the rattle of Flak in the larger of the cities

[mosquitoman]

The turret restricted the max bombload was the reason gven if I remember correctly. Although some Halifaxes had a single .303 in a blister underneath.

[renrich]

Am I mistaken or did not the RAF fly in line astern formation(bomber stream) rather than in formation like US day bombing?

[Aussie1001]

drgondog got that info off wiki....
But yes as i remember the "Orange thingy" is designed to take out underground complexes.....
it is a bit worrying about the "green thingy" isn't it though would hate to be under that bugger when it went off.....

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Aussie we are talking about WW2 bombers here not B-52's taking out bunkers in Iraq with orange bunker busting bombs.

[mosquitoman]

An RAF bomber formation wasn't tight at all, each plane bombed seperately and it was called a 'gaggle'.

[Hop]

a small thought from a small brain today, still cannot understand even with RAF day light bombing in 1945 why the Lancs were not equipped with a belly rotating turret knowing full well the LW was going to find this out and take full advantage as they did on at least 2 ops with JG 7 me 262's which came from underneath with deadly accuracy.

The technical reason was that H2S took the place of the belly turret. But I don't think they were particularly concerned about the Luftwaffe on daylight opps late in the war.

From Jul 1944 to the end of the war, BC flew about 63,000 daylight sorties. Losses ran at about 0.5%, and most of those were to flak.

Looking at Jim Perry's claims list, the Luftwaffe day fighters only claimed 108 Lancs and Halifaxes from July 1944 to the end of the war. Probably only a few of those would have been saved by a belly turret, and the reduction in bomb load would have required more sorties.

[syscom3]

I wouldn't doubt that most of the daylight sorties were the short range missions to bomb the V1 launch sites in the Netherlands and Belgium.

As was discussed in another thread, "upgunning" the Lanc to handle a dozen .50's would have added 2000 pounds or so of weight.

[Aussie1001]

so what..... its bomb load still would have been quite considerable....

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by Hop

The technical reason was that H2S took the place of the belly turret. But I don't think they were particularly concerned about the Luftwaffe on daylight opps late in the war.

From Jul 1944 to the end of the war, BC flew about 63,000 daylight sorties. Losses ran at about 0.5%, and most of those were to flak.

Looking at Jim Perry's claims list, the Luftwaffe day fighters only claimed 108 Lancs and Halifaxes from July 1944 to the end of the war. Probably only a few of those would have been saved by a belly turret, and the reduction in bomb load would have required more sorties.

But when the Lancs were without escorts (missed rendezvous etc) their losses were heavy