![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 15:35:11 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote: Standard RAF practice was to tighen up daylight formations around three-plane elements in vics. This was not as tight as a USAAF combat box, but under a heavier fighter threat it probably would have evolved further in that direction. More likely reverted to night bombing. Of course. Without air superiorty over the target daylight bombing created too many losses. No disagreement here. Close formation flying both increased the concentration of the bomb pattern and the effectiveness of return fire from the gunners. The RAF were extolling this in 1939 with Wellingtons over Heligoland Bight, and continued to do so in "large-scale" daylight ops (e.g. the Lancasters in the Augsburg raid). Which were unmitigated disasters. Of course they were. The point is that the RAF when flying in daylight, did rely on some extent to formation flying and gun defence. This was known to be inadequate in the absence of air superiority, and I'm not claiming otherwise. The Heligoland raid had 50% losses and during the Augsburg raid 97 squadron lost 7 out of 12 aircraft. Bottom line is the .303 was worfully inadequate against fighters armed with 20 and 30 mm cannon and unescorted daylight raids were unsustainable. The .5in-armed B-17's suffered from the same dynamic. Given the ranges at night were generally closer, the .303s were more effective as a night defensive armament than by day. Even so, the main value of a night bomber gunner was as a lookout to initiate evasive action. Sure but as both the USAAF and RAF learned the hard way tdeep penetration daylight raids were NOT sustainable without fighter escort. Of course not, and I'm not contending otherwise. I'm just pointing out how the late-war Lanc family evolved in the operational climate of 1944-45, which was permissive enough to allow daylight bombing to be resumed and a certain level of adaption for that role in terms of aircraft equipment to be utilised. ISTR that during late 44/45 daylight raids 617 squadron deliberately flew in loose gaggle of aircraft rather than a tight box as this presented a more dispersed target for the flak. Formation flying in fully-laden B.1S Lancs was never a practicable proposition - there was almost no margin of available power in hand for formating. Gavin Bailey -- "...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance." - 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11' The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS: 1984 "Aces And Aircraft Of World War I" Harcover Edition Book | J.R. Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | July 16th 04 05:27 AM |
FS: 1996 "Aircraft Of The World: A Complete Guide" Binder Sheet Singles | J.R. Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | July 14th 04 07:34 AM |
FS: 1984 "Aces And Aircraft Of World War I" Harcover Edition Book | J.R. Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | January 26th 04 05:33 AM |
FS: 1984 "Aces And Aircraft Of World War I" Harcover Edition Book | J.R. Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | December 4th 03 05:40 AM |
FS: 1984 "Aces And Aircraft Of World War I" Harcover Edition Book | Jim Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 11th 03 06:24 AM |