Long-range Spitfires and daylight Bomber Command raids (was: #1 Jet of World War II)

Subject: Long-range Spitfires and daylight Bomber Command raids (was:
#1 Jet of World War II)
From: (Peter Stickney)
Date: 8/21/03 7:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time

I'll disagree here. You want two pilots so they can take turns flying tight
formation. For night ops it was no big deal to put the a/c on george and
have

On our missions the guy in the left seat flew formation all the way .

Hmmm, we're assuming here that tight combat boxes are the only way to
go. Whilst I haven't looked at it in depth, I reckon that with
sufficient long range fighter escort, smaller, loser formations might

We flew loose boxes on the way and would tighten for the bomb run. Flying tight
meant burning more gas since it called for non stop throttle jiggling for the
guys in the back to hold their place in the formation.. Also tight formations
were exhausting. You can see the loose formation in my website by clicking on
"B-26 in formation" (pre D-Day) and for a very tight bomb run formation click
on "stipes in Formation" (D-Day) These two photographs are a good example of
just what loose and tight formations looked like.

A more loose formation is going to have a bunch of problems. It's
harder to escort, attampts at evasive action by aircraft within the
formation will at best break the

Not true. It is easier in loose formation.

cells, meaning that teh formation appeared as a single. more diffuse
blip. You'd also lose jamming cover, too. Many B-17s adn B-24s were
carrying Noise Jammers to use on the flak radars, and they were quite

The trick is to make your evasive action totally random.

ou also get a much less concentrated bomb pattern

Bombing in loose formation is out of the question In the USAAF anyway. The
tighter the better.


Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer