Night bombers interception in Western Europe in 1944

ArtKramr wrote:

Subject: Night bombers interception....
From: Guy Alcala
Date: 7/16/2004 5:36 PM Pac

hen they did spot the fighters before they
opened fire, by far the most effective move to make was for the gunner to
tell the
pilot to start a corkscrew; opening fire was a matter of last resort.

I think you have just identified the heart of the problem.

Not a problem, just a recognition by the Brits that it was relatively easy to
make the fighter lose sight at night, while a single bomber engaging in a gun
duel against a fighter was usually a bad idea, as the fighter had far more
concentrated firepower and was much more maneuverable. This was equally true
whether the bomber was armed with .303, .50 cal. or even 20mm defensive guns.
It was often better, then, for the gunner to not open fire if it appeared that
the fighter hadn't seen the bomber, or so that he could retain his night
vision so he would hopefully maintain sight of the fighter and call out
directions to the pilot ("Corkscrew left!") should the fighter manage to stick
with the bomber after the first evasive move.

Naturally, not all gunners had such discipline -- having been trained to fire
their guns they wanted to fire them, especially as the first German
nightfighter they saw during their tour was generally also the last, either
because they were shot down or because the odds of them ever seeing another
were so low. Besides, active defense tends to be psychologically more
satisfying than passive defense, even if the latter is more effective, so many
a/c captains would tell them to open fire. The use of tracer ammo by the
Brits could have negative effects on both the fighter pilot's and gunners
night vision, so it might be a wash.

Guy

Subject: Night bombers interception....
From: Guy Alcala

Besides, active defense tends to be psychologically more
satisfying than passive defense, even if the latter is more effective,

My experience was just the opposite.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

ArtKramr wrote:

Subject: Night bombers interception....
From: Guy Alcala

Besides, active defense tends to be psychologically more
satisfying than passive defense, even if the latter is more effective,

My experience was just the opposite.

My "even if" should be read "when", but at night passive defense was
usually more effective, while by day flying in massed formations, active
defense was more effective. Active vs. passive defense effectiveness tends
to be situationally dependent. The psychologically satisfying bit re
active defense seems to be universal, though. Hard kills are more
satisfying than soft kills, because the physical evidence (target blowing
up etc.) is not only more exciting, but also you can usually tell that it
was an action on your part that caused it. It's a lot tougher to determine
the cause of soft kill, leaving the situation kind of vague and
unsatisfying.

For example, take the case of a ship protecting itself from a missile. If
it manages to shoot it down by its own missiles or guns, that tends to be
fairly obvious and relatively easy to assign credit for, although if more
than one system is firing on the missile multiple claims are likely to be
made. But if the missile isn't shot down but just misses, was it decoyed,
jammed, did it have a malfunction, was it fired at too great a range, was
the target not in the acquisition envelope, was the target signature too
low to be detected, etc. There's often no way to tell, and no satisfying
explosion to see/hear, even though the ultimate effect is the same - the
target ship is safe.

Guy