THE DEADLY RAILROAD BRIDGES

Two Bad Days Over the Deadly RR Bridges


Railroad bridges were brutally defended. Knock out a RR bridge and you have cut
transport for possibly hundreds of miles . And while repairing track took only
a few hours. rebulding a RR bridge over a river or chasm might take weeks. We
had some of our heaviest losses over these bridges. On the 13th of February
1945 we attacked the RR Bridge at Euskirchen. We lost two aircraft over the
target. We lost Yeager and his crew and Williams (one chute seen to open) and
his crew. The very next day we hit the Engers RR bridge and we lost 5 aircraft
over the target. Brennen,Holms, Jones, Nelson and Meppen and crews were lost
but three chutes were seen you open. Two bridges,two days, seven crews lost. A
lot of empty bunks at the 344th. And the war was almost over. What a time to
die.
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 in message
...
Two Bad Days Over the Deadly RR Bridges


Railroad bridges were brutally defended. Knock out a RR bridge and you
have cut
transport for possibly hundreds of miles . And while repairing track took
only
a few hours. rebulding a RR bridge over a river or chasm might take weeks.
We
had some of our heaviest losses over these bridges. On the 13th of
February
1945 we attacked the RR Bridge at Euskirchen. We lost two aircraft over
the
target. We lost Yeager and his crew and Williams (one chute seen to open)
and
his crew. The very next day we hit the Engers RR bridge and we lost 5
aircraft
over the target. Brennen,Holms, Jones, Nelson and Meppen and crews were
lost
but three chutes were seen you open. Two bridges,two days, seven crews
lost. A
lot of empty bunks at the 344th. And the war was almost over. What a time
to
die.
Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


Couldn't they find a better/safer way to take out bridges? Loss rates like
that must've been very hard to sustain. Did they soften-up the AA with
fighter strafes, or would that give the game away too easily?

Jim D

Were the bridges successfully interdicted?

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 21:08:04 -0000, "Jim Doyle"
wrote:

Couldn't they find a better/safer way to take out bridges? Loss rates like
that must've been very hard to sustain. Did they soften-up the AA with
fighter strafes, or would that give the game away too easily?

Jim D


Bridges are among the most difficult targets for manual bombing. They
are narrow, usually in a constricted area, always heavily defended.
Art's experience in WW II is typical of the very same things we
experienced in Vietnam. The Bac Giang and Bac Ninh bridges on the NE
railroad out of Hanoi claimed a lot of airplanes and the Dragon Jaw
bridge at Thanh Hoa is the stuff of legends.

The Doumer Bridge raids in '67 and again in '72 were similarly
hazardous.

The only thing that has changed the equation is the advent of, first,
LGB and now GPS weapons with stand-off capability.

Defense suppression is a rewarding job, but it ain't no puss game.

"Soften up the AA with fighter strafes".... First rule is never duel
with a gun bigger than your own.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 21:08:04 -0000, "Jim Doyle"
wrote:

Couldn't they find a better/safer way to take out bridges? Loss rates
like
that must've been very hard to sustain. Did they soften-up the AA with
fighter strafes, or would that give the game away too easily?

Jim D


Bridges are among the most difficult targets for manual bombing. They
are narrow, usually in a constricted area, always heavily defended.
Art's experience in WW II is typical of the very same things we
experienced in Vietnam. The Bac Giang and Bac Ninh bridges on the NE
railroad out of Hanoi claimed a lot of airplanes and the Dragon Jaw
bridge at Thanh Hoa is the stuff of legends.



617 Squadron took some of their heaviest losses attacking bridges
in Germany, it wasnt until they got the Tallboy and GrandSlam
weapons that they got weapons that could reliably knock
down a bridge as they could do it with a near miss

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 21:08:04 -0000, "Jim Doyle"
wrote:

Couldn't they find a better/safer way to take out bridges? Loss rates
like
that must've been very hard to sustain. Did they soften-up the AA with
fighter strafes, or would that give the game away too easily?

Jim D


Bridges are among the most difficult targets for manual bombing. They
are narrow, usually in a constricted area, always heavily defended.
Art's experience in WW II is typical of the very same things we
experienced in Vietnam. The Bac Giang and Bac Ninh bridges on the NE
railroad out of Hanoi claimed a lot of airplanes and the Dragon Jaw
bridge at Thanh Hoa is the stuff of legends.



617 Squadron took some of their heaviest losses attacking bridges
in Germany, it wasnt until they got the Tallboy and GrandSlam
weapons that they got weapons that could reliably knock
down a bridge as they could do it with a near miss

Keith


Is this the same (or similar) as an airfield attack? To crater a runway must
be as difficult as taking out a bridge by virtue of their shape and size
(although granted, bridges are considerably shorter), plus I guess an
airfield is likely to have the same AA protection as a bridge, if not
substantially more.
I seem to remember the Black Buck Vulcans used a optimum angle of 30deg to
attack Stanley's runway for the highest probability of a centreline hit. Is
this the same for a bridge target?

Jim

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 21:08:04 -0000, "Jim Doyle"
wrote:

Couldn't they find a better/safer way to take out bridges? Loss rates
like
that must've been very hard to sustain. Did they soften-up the AA with
fighter strafes, or would that give the game away too easily?

Jim D


Bridges are among the most difficult targets for manual bombing. They
are narrow, usually in a constricted area, always heavily defended.
Art's experience in WW II is typical of the very same things we
experienced in Vietnam. The Bac Giang and Bac Ninh bridges on the NE
railroad out of Hanoi claimed a lot of airplanes and the Dragon Jaw
bridge at Thanh Hoa is the stuff of legends.

The Doumer Bridge raids in '67 and again in '72 were similarly
hazardous.

The only thing that has changed the equation is the advent of, first,
LGB and now GPS weapons with stand-off capability.

Defense suppression is a rewarding job, but it ain't no puss game.

"Soften up the AA with fighter strafes".... First rule is never duel
with a gun bigger than your own.

I guess that would be pretty stupid! Surely there must've been some
counter-AA tactics used by the allies other than hoping to take them out
with the target?

In Vietnam was this role taken-up by the Weasel variants? Or did AA prove to
hard/costly to strike specifically?



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"Jim Doyle" wrote in message
...



Is this the same (or similar) as an airfield attack? To crater a runway
must
be as difficult as taking out a bridge by virtue of their shape and size
(although granted, bridges are considerably shorter), plus I guess an
airfield is likely to have the same AA protection as a bridge, if not
substantially more.

I suspect it depends on the airfield/bridge

ISTR that the problem with major bridges like the Bielefeld
Viaducts was that you needed a direct hit with at least a
2000lb bomb and this was hard to achieve


I seem to remember the Black Buck Vulcans used a optimum angle of 30deg to
attack Stanley's runway for the highest probability of a centreline hit.
Is
this the same for a bridge target?

I think so and the difference with the Tallboys was that near miss would
collapse
the piers holding up the bridge which was much more destructive than
knocking down one of the spans.

Keith

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 23:21:04 -0000, "Jim Doyle"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 21:08:04 -0000, "Jim Doyle"
wrote:

Did they soften-up the AA with
fighter strafes, or would that give the game away too easily?

Jim D

Defense suppression is a rewarding job, but it ain't no puss game.

"Soften up the AA with fighter strafes".... First rule is never duel
with a gun bigger than your own.

I guess that would be pretty stupid! Surely there must've been some
counter-AA tactics used by the allies other than hoping to take them out
with the target?

In Vietnam was this role taken-up by the Weasel variants? Or did AA prove to
hard/costly to strike specifically?

The Weasel variants (F-100F, F-105F, F-105G and only briefly F-4C
Weasel) in Vietnam were radar detection systems and armed typically
with ARMs. While not reluctant to attack SAM sites, they were a
specialized system in short supply.

The Weasel escorts usually got the job of killing the SAM site with
CBU, rockets or plain iron bombs.

Flak suppression was a standard mission. It could be done by one
member in a flight of four, loaded with CBU being given the task or a
flight of four within a strike package of four or five flights having
the job. An area munition like CBU-24, 52 or 58 was very effective at
flak suppression. While it wouldn't insure a "gun kill" it was very
good at "gunner kill."

Defense suppression is always part of the task and ignoring the guns
is usually not a good tactic.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 21:08:04 -0000, "Jim Doyle"
wrote:

Couldn't they find a better/safer way to take out bridges? Loss rates
like
that must've been very hard to sustain. Did they soften-up the AA with
fighter strafes, or would that give the game away too easily?

Jim D


Bridges are among the most difficult targets for manual bombing. They
are narrow, usually in a constricted area, always heavily defended.
Art's experience in WW II is typical of the very same things we
experienced in Vietnam. The Bac Giang and Bac Ninh bridges on the NE
railroad out of Hanoi claimed a lot of airplanes and the Dragon Jaw
bridge at Thanh Hoa is the stuff of legends.

The major contribution of the Azon guided bomb during WWII was its use
against bridges in the CBI theater; ISTR reading where they were used to
drop some 27 bridges in that region during the last year of the war. It
still took some 500 (IIRC) total Azons to do that, however. I believe B-24's
were the aircraft conducting that particular campaign.

Brooks


The Doumer Bridge raids in '67 and again in '72 were similarly
hazardous.

The only thing that has changed the equation is the advent of, first,
LGB and now GPS weapons with stand-off capability.

Defense suppression is a rewarding job, but it ain't no puss game.

"Soften up the AA with fighter strafes".... First rule is never duel
with a gun bigger than your own.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8