Night bombers interception in Western Europe in 1944

Subject: Night bombers interception in Western Europe in 1944
From: ojunk (Steve Mellenthin)
Date: 7/16/2004 9:35 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

smartace11 wrote:

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.

I suggest that the bombing radar system in a B-52 was more
reliable/efficient
than the navigation methods and Norden bombsight that Art had available to
him
during WWII. Especially considering that, IIRC, the VN B-52 raids were night
missions, fewer airplanes. Weather and selection of IPs was not as critical
as
in WWII.
Also consider the B-52s had two navigators and more training than Art's
contemporaries. Different war, different systems, different all the way
around.

Rick Clark


I don't disagree at all, I am just asking the question. The B/A-26 was used
in
Vietnam as well and my question is whether using a medium bomber/attack
aircraft was appropriately used in a heavy bomber role. There is no doubt
that
the heavies in War 2 were employed in what seems to have been the most
logical
tactic. The -26 is a bit of a different beast and its main advantage seems
to
have been speed and maneuverability, not payload.


The avergae B-17 group flew 21 planes per group each plane loaded with 5,000
lbs. of bombs for a total of 105,000 pounds. Each B-26 only carried 4,000 lbs
but we put up 56 planes per group for a total of 224,000 pounds of bombs per
mission. And we achieved very high accuracy working from 10,000 feet as opposed
ot the B-17's much poorer accuracy working from 22,000 feet. Of course the
B-17's had longer legs and they could hit targets we couldn't reach. But I
remember when they hit the fuel dumps at Wurzburg and missed. We came in and
wiped it out at the first pass. In fact I think it is still burning to this
day. See " Wurzburg" on my website.


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

smartace asked for clarification with:
I don't disagree at all, I am just asking the question. The B/A-26 was used
in
Vietnam as well and my question is whether using a medium bomber/attack
aircraft was appropriately used in a heavy bomber role. There is no doubt
that
the heavies in War 2 were employed in what seems to have been the most
logical
tactic. The -26 is a bit of a different beast and its main advantage seems
to
have been speed and maneuverability, not payload.

Okay, I'll try again....
Different airframe, the A/B-26 of Vietnam was the Douglas Invader, not the
Martin B-26 of Art's time. The A-26 didn't get to Europe until late in the war,
redesignated the B-26 after WWII, redesignated A-26 for political reasons
during SEA. Art's unit transitioned to it after the war IIRC.
The mission for the A/B-26 in the SEA wargames was different, primarily a
single or two ship "patrol"/ "fishing" expedition, usually under the guidance
of a FAC.Sometimes they had specific targets.
Somewhat similar to the role of the B-57 interdiction missions along the
"Trail".

According to my sources the targets were more "targets of opportunity" when
compared to WWII target selection and bombing practice.
None of the group briefing of 36 crews with the Intel officer standing in front
of the group saying "the Target for Today" is....

That what you are asking about?

Rick Clark

Subject: Night bombers interception in Western Europe in 1944
From: (OXMORON1)
Date: 7/16/2004 9:30 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Art wrote:
We did the best we could with what we had. And I guess we didn't do too bad
since we won that war. (sigh)

Nobody said you didn't.
However, and there is always a "however" in life, would you not agree that
with
better equipment, a shared workload and a little more training you might have
been able to squeeze a little more out of the system?

Same objective, different methods, etc.

Rick Clark

Well it is hard to argue with "If things had been better wouldn't things have
been beteer" Sure thaey would have. But our training was very good. I never ran
into a situation for which I wasn't prepared to deal with. Better equipment?
Sure. But if we had GPS, now that would have been a huge advantage. Just
think. No more E6-B's., the mind boggles. (grin)


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

Subject: Night bombers interception in Western Europe in 1944
From: ojunk (Steve Mellenthin)
Date: 7/16/2004 9:39 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

in WWII.
Also consider the B-52s had two navigators and more training than Art's
contemporaries. Different war, different systems, different all the way
around.

Rick Clark


We did the best we could with what we had. And I guess we didn't do too bad
since we won that war. (sigh)




Arthur Kramer

I am having a hard time getting my question across here (sigh). I will
re-ask
the question. Was the B-26 more effective or appropriately used in a heavy
bomber or a medium tactical attack aircraft type role. Hypothetical
question.
Just looking for an opinion not a service record.


YES !


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

Subject: Night bombers interception in Western Europe in 1944
From: (OXMORON1)
Date: 7/16/2004 10:12 AM Pacific

Intel officer standing in front
of the group saying "the Target for Today" is....

It's what came after"is" that sent cold shivers down your spine.


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

From: smartace11@

I am wondering, from a hypothetical standpoint, if
there were possibly other tactics that could have been more effective that
weren't used.

In Italy, while full group attacks by B-25s against targets were practiced, it
was also common for targets to be attacked by a squadron or even fewer planes.
Also, the B-25 groups in Italy evolved the tactic of having a box or half-box
of anti-flak planes fly ahead of and lower than the main attack force. These
were loaded with WP and attacked the flak positions, the timing such that the
flak crews would be dodging that nasty stuff as the main force arrived. The
anti-flak ships sometimes also dropped chaff, other times a dedicated chaff
plane would fly with them. Usually the gun batteries used radar tracking for
range and optical tracking for direction. The chaff helped mess up the radar
but did nothing against the optical part of the equation. Planes would jink to
mess up the optical aiming before settling down for the bomb run, which, of
course, had to be straight and level, but as soon as bombs away, the B-25s
would peel off and dive away--terrain permitting (lot of targets were in the
Alps). In mountainous terrain, approach to the target would be planned to take
advantage of it so as to come booming over a mountain ridge lined up on the
target, reducing exposure to flak. The Germans countered this by dragging
light flak guns up on the mountain ridges. Some B-25 groups in Italy also
fooled around with low-level attacks, but, aside from using that tactic against
shipping during Operation Stranglehold, except for specific tactical needs that
might develop, as against enemy units on the move in daylight, it was abandoned
as not providing any particular advantage in damaging the target or reducing
losses.
In the Pacific, some of the B-25 groups became specialists in low level
attacks, packing the nose with machineguns to suppress anti-aircraft fire (and
to destroy targets).
I've always been puzzled by the enthusiasm shown for this tactic. Aside from
its use against shipping, when skip-bombing tactics were a good choice, it
doesn't seem to have provided much of an advantage. Casualties were
substantially higher for medium bomber groups in the Pacific than in the MTO or
ETO, despite the fact that flak defenses were generally more formidable in
these theaters. Two problems with low-level attacks: First, every ape with a
weapon can potentially fire a golden BB. And second, if you are hit when you
are on the deck, you are in instant deep dog-do. That fact was made worse by
packing the B-25's nose with guns. The D model was a pretty good single engine
ship. But by the time the J-22 came out, with a solid nose filled with 8 .50s,
it was a different story. Putting that much weight forward made the airplane
pretty much uncontrollable if an engine were lost. Lose an engine at 50 feet
in a J-22 and five crewmen together couldn't finish the phrase "Oh, sh--"
before they ceased to exist. If enough ammunition had been expended before
engine loss, pilot and co-pilot together might keep the plane in control, but
being down on the deck just made everything much harder.
And why strafe an airfield and drop parafrags and parademos with a medium?
Such an airplane could do more damage dropping bombs in a tight pattern from
10,000 feet. Let the fighters go down and strafe. They're faster, nimbler,
present less of a target.
An example: 33 B-25s went in low level against a Japanese air base on Formosa
in March, 1945, straffing and dropping parafrags and parademos. Results of the
raid: two parked fighters destroyed, nine fighters and two bombers damaged,
two barracks damaged, two small buildings destroyed. Runways not damaged at
all, airfield still in operation. In exchange, 20 B-25s were damaged by AA, 4
seriously, with five crewmen wounded. And three B-25s were shot down and 10
crewmen killed. One ditched and the crew were rescued. During the whole month
of March, this group lost almost one-third of its aircraft and almost 60
aircrew killed. Bailout was impossible and when your plane was hit, unless it
could be nursed out to sea and ditched, you died.
In contrast, in Italy in the whole month of March, in repeated attacks on
targets defended by a total of some 500 flak guns, a B-25 group lost 14
aircraft shot down and 207 damaged. Total aircraft lost and damaged between the
two groups were not that different, but in the Italian situation, most of the
aircrew were able to bail out and those who were captured were interned, going
home at war's end. In many cases the damaged aircraft was able to make it back
to friendly territory before bailout was necessary. And in still other cases,
the aircraft, although a write-off, was able to make it to an emergency field
or even home, trading altitude for miles.




Chris Mark

From: smartace1

Was the B-26 more effective or appropriately used in a heavy
bomber or a medium tactical attack aircraft type role. Hypothetical
question.
Just looking for an opinion not a service record.

Mediums (B-25, B-26) were generally used to strike at logistical infrastructure
while the heavies generally went after strategic targets. Sometimes were were
used against logistical targets such as railyards, where they generally gave
poor results. Mediums flying at about a third their altitude really scored at
hitting precision targets.
In an ideal MTO world, aircraft types would have been assigned to targets
something like this:
B-17s and B-24s, the factories making the locomotives.
B-26s the rail yard.
B-25s the rail bridge.
P-47s, P-38s and A-20s the train.
P-40s, A-36s and Spitfires the trucks and carts that have unloaded the train.
That gives you an idea of how the types would have been tasked based on their
abilities. Of course, in the real world, B-26s bombed plenty of bridges and
B-25s hit plenty of rail yards. And P-47s hit plenty of road traffic (and
bridges) while P-40s strafed trains when they found them.
The biggest difference for most of the war was between the heavies hitting
factories and mediums hitting transportation targets.
In Italy mediums also bombed gun emplacements, airfields, shipping, troop
concentrations, basically becoming jacks of all trades.
In the Pacific, the mediums seem to have been used like fighter-bombers and the
heavies (before the B-29) most of the time like mediums.


Chris Mark

The biggest difference for most of the war was between the heavies hitting
factories and mediums hitting transportation targets.
In Italy mediums also bombed gun emplacements, airfields, shipping, troop
concentrations, basically becoming jacks of all trades.
In the Pacific, the mediums seem to have been used like fighter-bombers and
the
heavies (before the B-29) most of the time like mediums.


Chris Mark


Thanks Chris. Pretty much what I had understood. Some of Art's recollections
sound more like my Dad's B-17 nissions than the father of a friend's in B-25s.
In North Vietnam, ingress for fighter bombers tended to be in four ship line
abreast formation with four ships in trail formation, a big box, basically for
mutual jamming coverage, until abeam of the target.. Rollins were differtent
headings to keep the gunners on their toes. My origninal question was mainly
about whether different run in headings between flights would have avoided some
aimed AAA and possibly flack concentrations. Nothng negative intended, Art,
just curious.

is group lost almost one-third of its aircraft and almost 60
aircrew killed. Bailout was impossible and when your plane was hit, unless
it
could be nursed out to sea and ditched, you died.
In contrast, in Italy in the whole month of March, in repeated attacks on
targets defended by a total of some 500 flak guns, a B-25 group lost 14
aircraft shot down and 207 damaged. Total aircraft lost and damaged between
the
two groups were not that different, but in the Italian situation, most of the
aircrew were able to bail out and those who were captured were interned,
going
home at war's end. In many cases the damaged aircraft was able to make it
back
to friendly territory before bailout was necessary. And in still other
cases,
the aircraft, although a write-off, was able to make it to an emergency field
or even home, trading altitude for miles.




Chris Mark


Wow, Chris, great answer and thanks for taking the time to reply. This was
more in line with how I would have expected a meduim bomber to be used. You've
indeed satisfied my curiosity. I think I either asked the wrong question or
the wrong person earlier.

Steve.

ArtKramr wrote:

snip Have you ever seen a German fighter take the full
blast from American twin 50's? It's a beautiful sight to see and a lovely
emotional experience never to be forgotten.

I think the expression you're looking for is also a title to an
excellent book on Canadian war art: A Terrible Beauty.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)