Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.

Dave Eadsforth wrote:

What I meant to ask about was
a tactic I read about a while ago where Combat Wings would shake out
into individual Groups in trail at IP when a concentration of bombs was
required for a particular target.

I'm not sure I understand the formation you're talking about. At typical B-17
formation (after early 1943) consisted of three groups (18-20 aircraft) flying
line a breast and staggered by altitude. There were times (I believe this was
done at Regensberg) when one of the three groups would fall in behind in order
to narrow the bombing pattern. Is this what you're thinking of?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Subject: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
From: Dave Eadsforth
Date: 8/24/2004 1:38 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article , BUFDRVR
writes
Dave Eadsforth wrote:

However, how did the
formation attack compare with say a long string of B17s in trail, each
aiming individually?

In 1937, with career Army Air Corps crews, over Arizona with little wind it
worked great! In 1943 with crews that had been in service 18 months, over
Germany with flak and fighters...not so well.

The formation attack must be all or nothing,
whereas the trail attack must result in a number of well-aimed drops
amongst the average ones.

Except a two mile long train of B-17s looks like donuts rolling off the
production line to an Me-109 pilot.

Whoops - night time is not the best time for me to formulate a detailed
question!

I realise I said individual B17s (ouch!). What I meant to ask about was
a tactic I read about a while ago where Combat Wings would shake out
into individual Groups in trail at IP when a concentration of bombs was
required for a particular target. Are there any analyses of the
effectiveness of a succession of waves of Combat Wings over the target
versus a succession of formations of bombers broken down into individual
Groups?

If someone could give me a thumbnail sketch of how a series of B17
Combat Wings usually approached a target, and what specific options for
attack were possible between the IP and the RP I would be very grateful.

Many thanks in advance,

Dave

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth


Thanks for realizing and admiting your errors Dave. B-17's flew the missions in
the same way B-24's. B-26's and A-26''s did. In tight formations as entire
squadrons within groups in defensive boxes.

f someone could give me a thumbnail sketch of how a series of B17
Combat Wings usually approached a target, and what specific options for
attack were possible between the IP and the RP I would be very grateful.

No options. We planned the mission and we flew the plan. We were not a bunch
of cowboys all in business for ourselves. We were well trained and disciplined
airmen. You have been listening to too many non combat wannabees making up crap
When someone tells you "what it was really like up there" ask them how many
missions they flew. If the answer is "none" disregard what they say. It will
probably either be all or partly wrong. Flying good tight formations was
essential to success. And holding those formations tight against the most
vicious attacks by fighters and or flak was a matter of life and death. It's
nice to read books about war. But no one ever sitting at home reading about war
ever got shot down in flames..


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: 8/23/2004 10:40 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: lxAWc.2377$%11.2238@trnddc02

Does Art know that he has become a very sad parody of himself? Does he know
that his behavior on this news group would be extremely hilarious were it
not for the slanderous remarks he makes to and about other veterans who
served honorably for their country in all capacities? Does he know that by
making such a complete ass of himself he denigrates the image of United
States service men and women who are currently serving? Didn't think so.

Jack G.


"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
I said half the things Kramer has I wouldn't be able to look at myself
in
the
mirror to shave.



You still can't

Another sad piece of evidence supporting the theory that many people
regress
to childlike behavior when they enter their senior years.



Arthur Kramer


Another bitter jealous wannabee raisies his ugly head. I think you would be
happier in a knitting NG. But I notice you read very word of every post I
write. Now tell us all about your intensive combat experience.No combat
experience? Go screw yourself.




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
...
Subject: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
From: "Jack G"
Date: 8/23/2004 10:40 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: lxAWc.2377$%11.2238@trnddc02

Does Art know that he has become a very sad parody of himself? Does he
know
that his behavior on this news group would be extremely hilarious were it
not for the slanderous remarks he makes to and about other veterans who
served honorably for their country in all capacities? Does he know that
by
making such a complete ass of himself he denigrates the image of United
States service men and women who are currently serving? Didn't think so.

Jack G.


"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
I said half the things Kramer has I wouldn't be able to look at
myself
in
the
mirror to shave.



You still can't

Another sad piece of evidence supporting the theory that many people
regress
to childlike behavior when they enter their senior years.



Arthur Kramer


Another bitter jealous wannabee raisies his ugly head. I think you would
be
happier in a knitting NG. But I notice you read very word of every post I
write. Now tell us all about your intensive combat experience.No combat
experience? Go screw yourself.

And yet *another* sad piece of evidence supporting the theory that many
people regress
to childlike behavior when they enter their senior years; is this some kind
of obsessive/compulsive complex you are (not) dealing with, Art?

Brooks





Arthur Kramer

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

From: (ArtKramr)
Date: 8/23/2004 10:58 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

Subject: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
From: (B2431)
Date: 8/23/2004 8:40 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

From: "Pete"
Date: 8/23/2004 9:38 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote
Subject: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
From: (BUFDRVR)
Date: 8/23/2004 4:13 PM Pacific Standard Time

In 1937, with career Army Air Corps crews, over Arizona with little wind
it
worked great! In 1943 with crews that had been in service 18 months,
over
Germany with flak and fighters...not so well.

How the hell would you know?

Except a two mile long train of B-17s looks like donuts rolling off the
production line to an Me-109 pilot.


We never flew in "long trains". What rinky dink air force were you in?
Not
ours for sure. Too bad you never fought in a real war.

Jeez, Art! He was *agreeing* with you.

Pete

If art wanted to experience a real war I would have been glad to oblige by
having him next to me when I was in the Army in Viet Nam. Granted we had a
greater survival rate than the AAF did (before he got there) but he had a
bed
to sleep in, hot meals and cold drinks. I don't think he would have lasted
even
if he was 18 as I was.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


Are't you the big hero.




Arthur Kramer


Art, of the two of us YOU are the only one bragging about his combat
experience. I don't like to discuss mine since it still hurts.

Please accept that my war was just as real as yours. Just stop bashing those
who haven't seen combat, the served just as honourably as you.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Subject: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
From: (B2431)
Date: 8/24/2004 12:05 PM Pacific Standard Time

Art, of the two of us YOU are the only one bragging about his combat
experience. I don't like to discuss mine since it still hurts.

Please accept that my war was just as real as yours. Just stop bashing those
who haven't seen combat, the served just as honourably as you.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


I am sharing my experiences, not bragging. Since you share nothing I assume you
have nothing to share. Sharing experiences is what a NG is all about. Anyone
not willing to share their experiences should get off this NG and not clutter
it with boring crap, which is all many have to offer. They use it as a
diversion from their lack of experience. Do you have experiences to share?
Well, where the hell are they?

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

Dave Eadsforth wrote:

In article , BUFDRVR
writes
Dave Eadsforth wrote:

However, how did the
formation attack compare with say a long string of B17s in trail, each
aiming individually?

In 1937, with career Army Air Corps crews, over Arizona with little wind it
worked great! In 1943 with crews that had been in service 18 months, over
Germany with flak and fighters...not so well.

The formation attack must be all or nothing,
whereas the trail attack must result in a number of well-aimed drops
amongst the average ones.

Except a two mile long train of B-17s looks like donuts rolling off the
production line to an Me-109 pilot.

Whoops - night time is not the best time for me to formulate a detailed
question!

I realise I said individual B17s (ouch!). What I meant to ask about was
a tactic I read about a while ago where Combat Wings would shake out
into individual Groups in trail at IP when a concentration of bombs was
required for a particular target. Are there any analyses of the
effectiveness of a succession of waves of Combat Wings over the target
versus a succession of formations of bombers broken down into individual
Groups?

If someone could give me a thumbnail sketch of how a series of B17
Combat Wings usually approached a target, and what specific options for
attack were possible between the IP and the RP I would be very grateful.

Depends on the period, but typically the wings would be 2-5miles in trail of each
other. At the IP, each wing would try and get the groups in trail, by the lead
group making a regular turn and the flanking (high and low ) groups turning early
or late. However, groups would stay at their same heights for bombing, which made
reassembly into the wing formation after exiting the target easier.

In practice, it often was difficult or impossible for the groups to get into trail,
so you might have the groups actually approaching the target on convergent courses,
sometimes simultaneously. This could cause problems if one group flew under
another at bombs away - see the fairly numerous photos of B-17s or B-24s destroyed
or damaged by being bombed by a/c of a higher group. For example, there's a widely
published sequence showing a B-17 under another which releases its bombs, one of
which removes the left horizontal stabilizer and elevator of the lower a/c, which
then gradually departs controlled flight and is lost. It could get even worse,
when one or more _wings_ approached the target at the same time, usually because
someone had missed turning at the proper IP, or else one of the formations had gone
around again because they hadn't bombed the first time (which made the lead
bombardier and the mission commander very unpopular with the other crews).

Depending on the size of the target and the number of wings, following wings might
have the same or a different aimpoint. Later in the war with more wings, the
latter practice was more common, as it was found that smoke and fires from the
earlier groups bombs often made it impossible for the later groups' bombardiers to
spot the original aimpoint. Indeed, the 8th Operational Research section did a
study which showed that group bombing accuracy directly correlated with where the
group was in the sequence; the earlier a group bombed the target, the more
accurately it bombed. See Stephen L. McFarland's book "America's Pursuit of
Precision Bombing, 1910-1945," for everything you're ever likely to have wanted to
know (and a lot more) about U.S. and other countries bombsight development and use,
as well as accuracies achievable, production issues, factors such as the above
which caused bombing errors, etc.

In 1944 and especially in 1945 when attacking smaller, less well-defended targets
with smaller formations, it became common to once again bomb by squadrons instead
of groups, precisely to avoid the sort of spillover wastage that larger bombing
formations caused.

As to the technique of individual bombers aiming and bombing a target in a stream,
AFAIK that was only practised by the RAF at night, from 1944 or so on (for
precision attacks, that is). This appears to have been adopted because Churchill
was worried about French civilian casualties from collateral damage if the
transportation plan was adopted. However, it was found that Bomber Command (well,
5 Group anyway, usually led by 617 as target markers), was able to bomb marshalling
yards accurately and keep the collateral damage down, by bombing individually
instead of in formation. Using large formations would have caused too much
spillover damage -- even with a 100% accurate MPI, the bomb coverage area of a big
formation was so large that numerous bombs were bound to hit outside the target
area. With individual bombers, even the occasional gross aiming error resulted in
fewer bombs hitting civilian areas. Note that this technique was only considered
possible in areas where the defenses were rather light, i.e. over France at night,
because the bombers lacked mutual support for defense. It's also true that such a
risk was considered politically necessary to avoid allied civilian causualties,
whereas by 1944 (at least), none of the allied commanders cared all that much if
collateral damage from spillover due to bombing in formation killed large numbers
of German civilians.

Guy

In article , BUFDRVR
writes
Dave Eadsforth wrote:

What I meant to ask about was
a tactic I read about a while ago where Combat Wings would shake out
into individual Groups in trail at IP when a concentration of bombs was
required for a particular target.

I'm not sure I understand the formation you're talking about. At typical B-17
formation (after early 1943) consisted of three groups (18-20 aircraft) flying
line a breast and staggered by altitude. There were times (I believe this was
done at Regensberg) when one of the three groups would fall in behind in order
to narrow the bombing pattern. Is this what you're thinking of?

Thanks - yes, that was how I interpreted the brief description I read.
I did not glean from the description whether it was a regular manoeuvre,
and if it was, were there metrics to support its success?

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

In article , ArtKramr
writes
Subject: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
From: Dave Eadsforth
Date: 8/24/2004 1:38 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


SNIP


Except a two mile long train of B-17s looks like donuts rolling off the
production line to an Me-109 pilot.

Whoops - night time is not the best time for me to formulate a detailed
question!

I realise I said individual B17s (ouch!). What I meant to ask about was
a tactic I read about a while ago where Combat Wings would shake out
into individual Groups in trail at IP when a concentration of bombs was
required for a particular target. Are there any analyses of the
effectiveness of a succession of waves of Combat Wings over the target
versus a succession of formations of bombers broken down into individual
Groups?

If someone could give me a thumbnail sketch of how a series of B17
Combat Wings usually approached a target, and what specific options for
attack were possible between the IP and the RP I would be very grateful.

Many thanks in advance,

Dave



Thanks for realizing and admiting your errors Dave. B-17's flew the missions in
the same way B-24's. B-26's and A-26''s did. In tight formations as entire
squadrons within groups in defensive boxes.

Thanks - I did not know that the same approach was followed by the
heavies and the mediums.


f someone could give me a thumbnail sketch of how a series of B17
Combat Wings usually approached a target, and what specific options for
attack were possible between the IP and the RP I would be very grateful.

No options. We planned the mission and we flew the plan. We were not a bunch
of cowboys all in business for ourselves. We were well trained and disciplined
airmen.

Yes, I realise that! When I spoke of options at IP I was thinking about
officially planned ones.

You have been listening to too many non combat wannabees making up crap
When someone tells you "what it was really like up there" ask them how many
missions they flew. If the answer is "none" disregard what they say. It will
probably either be all or partly wrong. Flying good tight formations was
essential to success. And holding those formations tight against the most
vicious attacks by fighters and or flak was a matter of life and death. It's
nice to read books about war. But no one ever sitting at home reading about war
ever got shot down in flames..

I think that many people who did not experience air combat often wonder
how they would have got on. I think I would have qualified for Section
Eight at the recruitment interview...

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


Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth