Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
From: Robert Briggs UCKET
Date: 8/25/2004 11:24 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Mike Dargan wrote:
ArtKramr wrote:

The tighter the formation you fly the tighter the bomb pattern on
the ground and the more damage you do to the enemy.

If you're trying to wreck fresh bomb craters, the tighter the better.

Nicely put, Mike.



Is that that the result of the many missions you flew and your experience
with
formation variations and the effect on bomb patterns? BTW, how many
missions
did you fly? Could you give us details?


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


Art, have you never heard of research?

Your individual experience is limited.... one man's view of what happened.

Subject: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
From: "Mike"
Date: 8/25/2004 2:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
From: Robert Briggs UCKET
Date: 8/25/2004 11:24 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Mike Dargan wrote:
ArtKramr wrote:

The tighter the formation you fly the tighter the bomb pattern on
the ground and the more damage you do to the enemy.

If you're trying to wreck fresh bomb craters, the tighter the better.

Nicely put, Mike.



Is that that the result of the many missions you flew and your experience
with
formation variations and the effect on bomb patterns? BTW, how many
missions
did you fly? Could you give us details?


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


Art, have you never heard of research?

Your individual experience is limited.... one man's view of what happened.


And you both have it all wrong. I did my research at 10,000 feet over the Ruhr
valley.


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

And, it shows in your posts that you have not researched a military aviation
subject any closer since then.

Jack G.



And you both have it all wrong. I did my research at 10,000 feet over the
Ruhr
valley.


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: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
From: "Jack G"
Date: 8/25/2004 2:47 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 2O7Xc.693$Cc.161@trnddc07

And, it shows in your posts that you have not researched a military aviation
subject any closer since then.

Jack G.



And you both have it all wrong. I did my research at 10,000 feet over the
Ruhr
valley.


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



And it shows in your posts that you live in a wannabee dream world of fantasy.




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

Art wrote:
And it shows in your posts that you live in a wannabee dream world of fantasy.


Art a couple of days ago I asked you:
Can you tell me the difference between "horse apples", "rabbit pellets", and
"cow patties"?

You never answered the question. Do you know the answer?

Rick Clark

(ArtKramr) wrote in message ...
Subject: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
From: (buf3)
Date: 8/24/2004 4:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(ArtKramr) wrote in message
...
The tighter the formation you fly the tighter the bomb pattern on the
ground
and the more damage you do to the enemy.


http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer/stripes.htm





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

When I arrived at Andersen AFB on Guam in the summer of 1969 with my
RTU (Replacement Training Unit) B-52D crew we got a personal briefing
by the Third Air Division Commander. He had a lot of slides on BDA
(bomb damage assessment). In the beginning the Buffs were dropping in
trail formation. BDA showed that the first one was digging a trench
with his 108 five hundred pounders, then the following drops were just
digging the trench deeper and deeper. The tactics had changed to a
system they called DASK (drift angle station keeping). This was an
echelon formation to the right, stacked up with 500 ft, and half mile
separation. Sometimes we dropped off the lead aircraft. Sometimes we
dropped individually using radar offset aiming points. At times we
dropped at the direction of ground based radar. This system was RBS
(radar bomb scoring) in reverse. The ground controller would give
heading changes and then initiate a count down to release. At that
time we usually flew in three ship formations.

Gene Myers



Thank you for that fact filled very interesting post,.which are all too few in
this NG. Of course as you found out the trail formation was idiotic. No
offense to the Brits who used it all the time. The mystery is that with all we
learned in WW II about formations and bomb patterns, as late as Nam the USAF
was still droping in trails. The mind boggles. In WW II we flew tight
formations. As tight as possible and we got dense football shaped patterns on
the ground. This was done with such precision that by examining the shape of
the bomb pattern we could spot planes out of formation at the drop, or planes
that triggered late. What interests me about your post would be the shape of
the bomb pattern that resulted from the DASK formations. Got any strike photos?
Any at all? Can you describe these patterns in detai?. I am very interested.
Thanks again for a good post.


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

I emailed you three alleged BDA pictures of Viet Nam drops by B-52s. I
can not vouch that they are authentic, but look about right to me.

Gene Myers

Subject: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
From: (buf3)
Date: 8/25/2004 3:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(ArtKramr) wrote in message
...
Subject: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
From: (buf3)
Date: 8/24/2004 4:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(ArtKramr) wrote in message
...
The tighter the formation you fly the tighter the bomb pattern on the
ground
and the more damage you do to the enemy.


http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer/stripes.htm





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

When I arrived at Andersen AFB on Guam in the summer of 1969 with my
RTU (Replacement Training Unit) B-52D crew we got a personal briefing
by the Third Air Division Commander. He had a lot of slides on BDA
(bomb damage assessment). In the beginning the Buffs were dropping in
trail formation. BDA showed that the first one was digging a trench
with his 108 five hundred pounders, then the following drops were just
digging the trench deeper and deeper. The tactics had changed to a
system they called DASK (drift angle station keeping). This was an
echelon formation to the right, stacked up with 500 ft, and half mile
separation. Sometimes we dropped off the lead aircraft. Sometimes we
dropped individually using radar offset aiming points. At times we
dropped at the direction of ground based radar. This system was RBS
(radar bomb scoring) in reverse. The ground controller would give
heading changes and then initiate a count down to release. At that
time we usually flew in three ship formations.

Gene Myers



Thank you for that fact filled very interesting post,.which are all too few
in
this NG. Of course as you found out the trail formation was idiotic. No
offense to the Brits who used it all the time. The mystery is that with all
we
learned in WW II about formations and bomb patterns, as late as Nam the
USAF
was still droping in trails. The mind boggles. In WW II we flew tight
formations. As tight as possible and we got dense football shaped patterns
on
the ground. This was done with such precision that by examining the shape
of
the bomb pattern we could spot planes out of formation at the drop, or
planes
that triggered late. What interests me about your post would be the shape
of
the bomb pattern that resulted from the DASK formations. Got any strike
photos?
Any at all? Can you describe these patterns in detai?. I am very
interested.
Thanks again for a good post.


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

I emailed you three alleged BDA pictures of Viet Nam drops by B-52s. I
can not vouch that they are authentic, but look about right to me.

Gene Myers



Thank you Gene. I'll view them wiith interest.




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: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
From: (ArtKramr)
Date: 8/25/2004 3:40 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Subject: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
From: (buf3)
Date: 8/25/2004 3:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(ArtKramr) wrote in message
...
Subject: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
From: (buf3)
Date: 8/24/2004 4:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(ArtKramr) wrote in message
...
The tighter the formation you fly the tighter the bomb pattern on the
ground
and the more damage you do to the enemy.


http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer/stripes.htm





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

When I arrived at Andersen AFB on Guam in the summer of 1969 with my
RTU (Replacement Training Unit) B-52D crew we got a personal briefing
by the Third Air Division Commander. He had a lot of slides on BDA
(bomb damage assessment). In the beginning the Buffs were dropping in
trail formation. BDA showed that the first one was digging a trench
with his 108 five hundred pounders, then the following drops were just
digging the trench deeper and deeper. The tactics had changed to a
system they called DASK (drift angle station keeping). This was an
echelon formation to the right, stacked up with 500 ft, and half mile
separation. Sometimes we dropped off the lead aircraft. Sometimes we
dropped individually using radar offset aiming points. At times we
dropped at the direction of ground based radar. This system was RBS
(radar bomb scoring) in reverse. The ground controller would give
heading changes and then initiate a count down to release. At that
time we usually flew in three ship formations.

Gene Myers



Thank you for that fact filled very interesting post,.which are all too
few
in
this NG. Of course as you found out the trail formation was idiotic. No
offense to the Brits who used it all the time. The mystery is that with
all
we
learned in WW II about formations and bomb patterns, as late as Nam the
USAF
was still droping in trails. The mind boggles. In WW II we flew tight
formations. As tight as possible and we got dense football shaped patterns
on
the ground. This was done with such precision that by examining the shape
of
the bomb pattern we could spot planes out of formation at the drop, or
planes
that triggered late. What interests me about your post would be the shape
of
the bomb pattern that resulted from the DASK formations. Got any strike
photos?
Any at all? Can you describe these patterns in detai?. I am very
interested.
Thanks again for a good post.


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

I emailed you three alleged BDA pictures of Viet Nam drops by B-52s. I
can not vouch that they are authentic, but look about right to me.

Gene Myers



Thank you Gene. I'll view them wiith interest.




Got 'em !

These are not very good, but all I could find after a short look.

Gene Myers

Thanks Gene. They are every interesting but not too clear. What I found
especially interesting are the huge gaps in the patterns. These look like bomb
patterns that surround the target more than clobber it. I would guess that it
is the result on an intermittant intervelometer.But it is hard to see very
clearly so I could be missing something. We need 10x10's and a stero glass.
(grin) Thanks again for letting me see them. You might want to look at the bomb
patterns on my website to see my frame of reference. Especially Wurzburg,
Verberie and Brest.




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

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
From: "Mike"
Date: 8/25/2004 2:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
From: Robert Briggs UCKET
Date: 8/25/2004 11:24 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Mike Dargan wrote:
ArtKramr wrote:

The tighter the formation you fly the tighter the bomb pattern on
the ground and the more damage you do to the enemy.

If you're trying to wreck fresh bomb craters, the tighter the
better.

Nicely put, Mike.



Is that that the result of the many missions you flew and your
experience
with
formation variations and the effect on bomb patterns? BTW, how many
missions
did you fly? Could you give us details?



Art, have you never heard of research?

Your individual experience is limited.... one man's view of what
happened.


And you both have it all wrong. I did my research at 10,000 feet over the
Ruhr
valley.


I have no argument that your experience taught a great deal about
personal discipline, crew cooperation, and the value of formations.

But the best BDA, the statistical analysis of bomb dispersion patterns,
aren't done from 10,000 feet. May I assume, for example, that there was
no photogrammetric analysis gear aboard Willie the Wolf? It may be
unglamorous and not at all warrior-like, but target vulnerability
analysis tends to involve civil engineers and photointerpreters,
straining their eyes over photographs.

Did your research include the decision that blast, fragmentation, or
thermal effect would be most damaging for a target? Instantaneous or
delay fuzing?

Subject: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 8/25/2004 4:05 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
From: "Mike"
Date: 8/25/2004 2:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
From: Robert Briggs UCKET
Date: 8/25/2004 11:24 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Mike Dargan wrote:
ArtKramr wrote:

The tighter the formation you fly the tighter the bomb pattern on
the ground and the more damage you do to the enemy.

If you're trying to wreck fresh bomb craters, the tighter the
better.

Nicely put, Mike.



Is that that the result of the many missions you flew and your
experience
with
formation variations and the effect on bomb patterns? BTW, how many
missions
did you fly? Could you give us details?



Art, have you never heard of research?

Your individual experience is limited.... one man's view of what
happened.


And you both have it all wrong. I did my research at 10,000 feet over the
Ruhr
valley.


I have no argument that your experience taught a great deal about
personal discipline, crew cooperation, and the value of formations.

But the best BDA, the statistical analysis of bomb dispersion patterns,
aren't done from 10,000 feet. May I assume, for example, that there was
no photogrammetric analysis gear aboard Willie the Wolf? It may be
unglamorous and not at all warrior-like, but target vulnerability
analysis tends to involve civil engineers and photointerpreters,
straining their eyes over photographs.

Did your research include the decision that blast, fragmentation, or
thermal effect would be most damaging for a target? Instantaneous or
delay fuzing?



Let me set you straight so you don't have to go on assumptions. Every mission
resulted in photogrametric strike photos that we studied carefully after the
mission. We saw what happened from the air on the ground then we saw the strike
photos. You can actually see those photos on my website taken on the missions I
flew. But afterward recon planes (P-38's) took shots after the smoke cleared
(see "death of a marshalling yard") so we could see the damage on the ground. I
think that will give you a good idea of how we went about our attacks..


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