Night bombers interception in Western Europe in 1944

"Steve Mellenthin" wrote in message
...
They were getting the **** shot out of them every night as they flew
planes
with no belly turrets. And hey used the planes with belly turrrets,
B-17's
and
B-24's for electronic jammimg? Brilliant. Just brilliant.



Arthur Kramer

Art,

Going back to an earlier discussion on encountering AAA on a bomb run, I
have
always wondered if large formations all on the same run-in headig was an
appropriate tactic for a medium (attack) bomber such as the B-26. It
always
seemed to me that smaller flights on different target approach headings
might
be more effective for and that the danger of a mid-air in between
formations
might be less than the danger of flak in a bomber stream on a predictable
flight path. This is what the B-52s went to in Linebacker II to cut
losses.
There is a tacit assumption of a good measure of air superiority in my
question.

Steve

The strategy of the bomber stream is the same as that used
by birds and fish when they form dense flocks. Its much harder
for a number of predators to pick off 10 from within the mass
than 10 individuals.

In the case of daylight ops the bombers were separated
not only by distance but by elevation with high and low
formations as well as leading and trailing ones.

Once air superiority was available the RAF flew their
daylight missions in loose gaggles of 2-4 aircraft staggered
in height to minimise flak damage.

Keith

In the case of daylight ops the bombers were separated
not only by distance but by elevation with high and low
formations as well as leading and trailing ones.

Once air superiority was available the RAF flew their
daylight missions in loose gaggles of 2-4 aircraft staggered
in height to minimise flak damage.

Keith


That is where I was headed with the question. Thanks for the response. It has
been my impression, perhaps erroneous, that the choice of the stream stragegy
was not the best decision at times when a loose gaggle and varying run-in
headings and altitudes between the 2-4 airgraft groupings would have been more
effective. As I said, only an impression not backed up by much research or
fact.

Steve

Subject: Night bombers interception in Western Europe in 1944
From: ojunk (Steve Mellenthin)
Date: 7/17/2004 12:09 PM Pacific

That is where I was headed with the question. Thanks for the response. It
has
been my impression, perhaps erroneous, that the choice of the stream stragegy
was not the best decision at times when a loose gaggle and varying run-in
headings and altitudes between the 2-4 airgraft groupings would have been
more
effective. As I said, only an impression not backed up by much research or
fact.

Steve


That makes for lousy bomb patterns on the target.


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

Once air superiority was available the RAF flew their
daylight missions in loose gaggles of 2-4 aircraft staggered
in height to minimise flak damage.



That might have been influenced by the fact that no other aircraft type could
fly in the tight formations used by the B-17.

I've heard that B-26s could also fly in very tight formations, but I shouldn't
think as at high an altitude as the B-17.

B-17's could maintain formation at heights almost twice as high as the altitude
at which Bomber Command usually operated, either by day or by night.

Walt

Walt

Subject: Night bombers interception in Western Europe in 1944
From: (WalterM140)
Date: 7/17/2004 1:12 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Once air superiority was available the RAF flew their
daylight missions in loose gaggles of 2-4 aircraft staggered
in height to minimise flak damage.



That might have been influenced by the fact that no other aircraft type could
fly in the tight formations used by the B-17.

I've heard that B-26s could also fly in very tight formations, but I
shouldn't
think as at high an altitude as the B-17.

B-17's could maintain formation at heights almost twice as high as the
altitude
at which Bomber Command usually operated, either by day or by night.

Walt

Walt


No trick maintaining formation at high altitudes. The trick is hitting the
target from high altitudes.


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

WalterM140 wrote:

Once air superiority was available the RAF flew their
daylight missions in loose gaggles of 2-4 aircraft staggered
in height to minimise flak damage.



That might have been influenced by the fact that no other aircraft type could
fly in the tight formations used by the B-17.

That's a question of stability and control forces. The B-17 was easier to fly in
formation than the B-24, but I have no idea how the British heavies stacked up.

I've heard that B-26s could also fly in very tight formations, but I shouldn't
think as at high an altitude as the B-17.

Not even close, owing to the engine supercharging.

B-17's could maintain formation at heights almost twice as high as the altitude
at which Bomber Command usually operated, either by day or by night.

Again, due to the superchargers. Both US mediums and the British heavies used
single-stage two-speed superchargers while the B-17 and B-24 used turbochargers
(feeding superchargers). That generally gave them max. power and top speeds ain
the range of 13,500 - 15,000 feet. A couple of years ago a few of us decided to
find out what it would take to boost RAF heavies to B-17 or B-24 formation cruise
heights. Given the available British engines, they could only have used two-stage
two-speed Merlins, 60, 70 or 80 series. Those were all being used by Spit 8/9/16s,
late model Mossie bomber/recon a/c, and of course Merlin P-51s. Major changes in
production lines (and the a/c) would have been required to provide enough for the
heavies as well.

Our conclusion was that the simplest and quickest method for the Brits to go over
to US style daylight bombing against well-defended targets in the fall of 1943 was
to use B-24s diverted from US groups in training (the 8th preferred the B-17), at
least until they could produce a high altitude bomber engine (preferably a Bristol
Hercules air-cooled radial, either turbocharged or with a two-speed supercharger)
in adequate numbers. By night most of them were able to cruise individually in
the 19 - 23,000 foot range, but formation flying limits the performance to the
worst a/c, and also requires some power in hand for throttle jockeying and
formation turns. So we figured they were likely restricted to tight formation
flying at altitudes of around 18,000 or at most 20,000 feet for Lancs or Halifax
IIIs, although we knew we'd have to lighten the bombloads to get them that high
(owing to the need to increase the defensive armament, armor, crew, and fuel
loads).

Guy

Aargh! Need to correct some brain farts.

Guy Alcala wrote:

WalterM140 wrote:

snip

B-17's could maintain formation at heights almost twice as high as the altitude
at which Bomber Command usually operated, either by day or by night.

Again, due to the superchargers. Both US mediums and the British heavies used
single-stage two-speed superchargers while the B-17 and B-24 used turbochargers
(feeding superchargers). That generally gave them max. power and top speeds ain
the range of 13,500 - 15,000 feet.

'Them' in the above sentence refers to the US mediums and British hevies, not the B-17
and B-24, which put out max. power up to 25 or 30,000 feet, owing to the turbochargers.

snip

Our conclusion was that the simplest and quickest method for the Brits to go over
to US style daylight bombing against well-defended targets in the fall of 1943 was
to use B-24s diverted from US groups in training (the 8th preferred the B-17), at
least until they could produce a high altitude bomber engine (preferably a Bristol
Hercules air-cooled radial, either turbocharged or with a two-speed supercharger)
in adequate numbers.

"two-speed" should of course be "two-stage," usually two-stage, two-speed.

snip rest

Guy

formation turns. So we figured they were likely restricted to tight
formation
flying at altitudes of around 18,000 or at most 20,000 feet for Lancs or
Halifax
IIIs, although we knew we'd have to lighten the bombloads to get them that
high
(owing to the need to increase the defensive armament, armor, crew, and fuel
loads).

Guy



That's interesting. Didn't the RAF typically operate at @ 15,000 feet over
German targets?

On at least one occasion, B-17' were briefed to attack Berlin at 27,000 feet;
once to beat the clouds a group bombed from 30,000.

Walt

WalterM140 wrote:


formation turns. So we figured they were likely restricted to tight
formation
flying at altitudes of around 18,000 or at most 20,000 feet for Lancs or
Halifax
IIIs, although we knew we'd have to lighten the bombloads to get them that
high
(owing to the need to increase the defensive armament, armor, crew, and fuel
loads).

Guy



That's interesting. Didn't the RAF typically operate at @ 15,000 feet over
German targets?

Depends on the period, the target and the individual crews, but in general not
the heavies, although Stirlings and squadron dogs might be that low or lower.
For the Nuremberg raid (except for Mossies, all Halifax and Lancaster) a/c were
assigned one of four cruise heights, 20, 21, 22, or 23 thousand feet, although 1
Group were given dispensation to cruise lower, 13-16,000 feet IIRR until they
reached the Rhine or some other river, in the hope of hiding in forecast cloud,
climbing to the same height as everyone else after that. The cloud wasn't there,
and they were hit hard.

Once the attacks started, anyone who could went higher -- one Halifax crew in a
new a/c were delighted to find that they could get up to 26,000 feet, and cruised
safely above the carnage below. Others jettisoned some of their bomb load to
improve their ceiling. Crews flying average a/c, or those with less experience
or more determination to follow orders stayed at the assigned altitude bands, and
were the main targets of the fighters. Dog a/c were stuck even lower, and on
that particular mission it actually saved many of them -- one crew couldn't get
their Lanc above 12,000 feet and in this case were fortunate, as the fighters
were going after the main stream above them.

On at least one occasion, B-17' were briefed to attack Berlin at 27,000 feet;
once to beat the clouds a group bombed from 30,000.

That's the effect of the turbos. Two-stage two-speed supercharged Merlins (or
other) would have given similar altitude performance for the British heavies. I
have a vague memory that at least one small group of B-17s dropped from close to
35,000 on one occasion, but that must have been very late war with the B-33
turbos. I've got the navigator log data for one B-24 crew's entire 35 mission
tour in 1944-45, and the highest bombing altitude recorded (for the plane) is
29,000 feet. One run was at 28,000, another at 26,700, but the majority of runs
were in the low 20s. For lightly defended targets they might drop down a few or
even several thousand feet - the lowest recorded is 9,000 feet, with another at
12,000.

Guy

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
Once air superiority was available the RAF flew their
daylight missions in loose gaggles of 2-4 aircraft staggered
in height to minimise flak damage.



That might have been influenced by the fact that no other aircraft type
could
fly in the tight formations used by the B-17.


It has more to do with the doctrine of the self defensing bomber
that was adopted by the USAAF. You'll find that B-24's
also flew in such formations.

I've heard that B-26s could also fly in very tight formations, but I
shouldn't
think as at high an altitude as the B-17.

B-17's could maintain formation at heights almost twice as high as the
altitude
at which Bomber Command usually operated, either by day or by night.


True but irrelevant since bomber command didnt fly defensive
formations by day after 1941.

Keith