If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
I think you'll find that all the groups did this, wether they were assigned
to escort, high cover, withdrawal support; an element would break away to attack targets of opporchancity, some would even go straffing if there was no show by the luftwaffe. This as i have said before is a result of reading many books by many of the guys who were there, i am in no way an expert. "John S. Shinal" wrote in message ... Stephen Harding wrote: Was the 13th (??) AF in Italy, and the Tuskeegee Airmen in particular, following the wrong tactic? Is the reputation of this fine group of fighter pilots somewhat over-embellished with hollow accolade over the issue of "never losing a bomber"? None other than ace Robert S. Johnson spoke about how they made sure they were not drawn away from escort position in order to chase easy kills. In many instances the 56th FG would dispatch a single squadron or pair of flights in order to engage targets of opportunity (Luftwaffe fighters) while the rest of the group continued escorting the bombers along their route. The key is really not to get drawn away from the bombers you are charged with escorting, since catching up is sometimes not possible, and other times may be too late. ONLY after significant numbers of long range fighters were available were tactics changed to a roaming cover (Zemke fan, or Roving High Cover are two of the names used for this technique). All the first-hand accounts I have read stated that the suggestion was put forth by squadrons & groups, but was made policy by the major AF command. I don't know if their particular AF implemented it, or merely the 8th AF. I'd say that the Tuskeegee Airmen sacrificed their personal scores (only one pilot made ace, IIRC) in order to protect the bombers. Ultimately, it was the strategic bomber that made the difference instead of the fighter escort mission. I'd say it was the right move, although not a choice that was correct by a huge and obvious margin. Credit to them for their devotion. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
i think we have to stay in context here; the bombers were assigned targets,
primary, secondary, or targets of opportunity, i.e. the nearest strategic target to their intended mission. They were assigned the destruction of a particular target such as the oilfields, aircraft production, industrial targets, these cannot be destroyed by straffing; bombs are much more effective. The were some times hitting airfields, but you'll find that the medium bombers would do most of the bombing of airfields as part of support of a larger mission, to soften up the defences, and the fighters would straffe them, straffing was effective if a target of opportunity was in their area, they would even follow the enemy down, and attack the landing patterns at the airfields, they could destroy many planes this way, because of their speed and the abilty to get low and their aglity, bombers were not really designed to do this, thats why the medium bombers would attack them, other targets of opportunity for them being ghost fields, (not officially designated as an airfield, but an ordinary field suitable to be used to avoid their detection, and used as a forward operating fighter field). They would stumble on these and they had the chance to do something about it. Each force had a perticular part to play in a mission, wether it be the fighters on bomber escort, withdrawal support, top cover, etc, the medium bombers hitting smaller targets in support, softening defences, airfields etc, and the heavies attacking ussually a few targets at one time with various groups, including a diversionary raid, to fool the enemy as to the intended target. Each group, combat wing, etc contributing to the overall picture until the ultimate defeat of the enemy. The bombers did major work on hitting hitlers oil supplies, ultimately grounding his airforce for lack of fuel. ....Each had a part to play!! "Michael" wrote in message om... Stephen Harding wrote in message ... Saw the Tuskeegee Airmen movie earlier this week where intermission had discussions with a couple fellows who were members of the real thing. Quite interesting. However, they mentioned the oft repeated accolade that they never lost a bomber to enemy fighters that they escorted. One reason, according to one of the actual "Airmen", was they *stuck with their charges* rather than follow the German fighters to the ground as the 8th was doing by 1944. History seems to say this was precisely the *wrong* thing to be doing! The bombers served as much as "incentive" for the LW to come up to fight, as they were in destroying German war fighting resources. The shift from "sticking with the bombers" to "follow the enemy anywhere and destroy him" seemed to do the trick for the 8th. Was the 13th (??) AF in Italy, and the Tuskeegee Airmen in particular, following the wrong tactic? Is the reputation of this fine group of fighter pilots somewhat over-embellished with hollow accolade over the issue of "never losing a bomber"? Is it a hollow accolade? No. Was their's the best tactics to use? I'm sure the bomber crews thought so. IMO, it wasn't. The fighter group that hunts down the enemy, shoots down 300-600 enemy aircraft, and goes looking for more planes on the ground to shoot up does more to win the war and protect bombers overall, than the group that sticks with the bombers and shoots down 111 of the enemy. The Tuskegee Airman would not have been successful with their tactics if the other groups weren't out there seriously weakening the Luftwaffe. ~Michael |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Stephen Harding wrote:
This would have been before the loosening of regulations on escort correct? At this time, the numbers of escorts available were still small and the opposition fairly high (and skilled) in number. This would also have been a shorter escort run, since Johnson was a P-47 pilot. Correct. It was not too long after the 56th FG became fully operational. Johnson, Gabreski, Schilling and Zemke all had relatively low scores at this point (compared to their later tallies). It has sometimes been said that the PTO was more a "fighter pilot's war", meaning that groups were more free to improvise. Tactics were discussed in more informal manner and less a "top down" command type of approach. Absolutely. John Blackburn in VF-17 developed the Roving High Cover tactic in the Solomons at a squadron meeting, and got approval from their next higher command relatively quickly. It was pretty much done on a handshake, and as long as it was successful, the brass were willing to let them improvise with minor limitations (only the most experienced pilots, no lower than a particular altitude, etc.). I understand at one point, the 8th AF dictated escorts be no farther than about 100 feet of an escorted bomber! Don't know if that is actually true, but I believe during 1943 and very, very early 1944, the fighters were not allowed much leeway in how they did their escort. I've seen this described by members of the 95th BG and in short stories about John Godfrey and Gabreski. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Ya' landed the job eh? Congrats! Yes, got the phone call a little bit ago. Turns out this plane was Adm Nimitz personal transport during WW2, so I will actually be flying a plane with some real military history to it. I will be based in Silver City tanker base for apr-jul, then Oregon at a tanker base there for jul-oct Ron Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4) |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:46:20 -0500, Stephen Harding
wrote: It's not yet clear to me that the tactic of "sticking with the bombers" was not known as the *wrong* tactic by early 1944. As I recall the Battle of Britain, the German fighters were difficult to cope with because they did *not* stick with the bombers -- at least in the sense that they flew nearby. Instead they flew at a much higher altitude. That's what caused the Brits to adopt the strategy of sending the Hurricanes after the bombers and the Spitfires after the fighters. Nichts? all the best -- Dan Ford email: see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
ArtKramr wrote:
See "Fighter Cover RAF Style" on my website. I think I've read all your stuff, but reread this article. I wonder if the difference in escort "technique" reflected the different escort experience of the two air forces? The USAAF was flying deep escort and needed to have a looser attachment to the bombers in order to maintain a tactical edge as Emmanuel has described. This was "known" to the 8th AF fighter command by early 1944 (and 9th AF as well). The RAF didn't do deep penetration escort (the Spit didn't have the range) and would be more inclined to stick close to its escort charges. The fact that individuals would peel off to go after AAA is probably a reflection of the confidence of having air superiority and adequate numbers by mid/late '44. I don't think the peel off would have been done in '43. You're always a great read, even more than once! SMH |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Tactical Air Control Party Airmen Help Ground Forces | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | January 22nd 04 02:20 AM |
Misawa revamps awards system for airmen | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 2 | December 17th 03 02:28 PM |
Pope Air Force Base airmen honored | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | September 27th 03 09:50 PM |
Airmen honor POWs, MIAs | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | September 21st 03 08:49 PM |
STEP program helps advance hundreds of hand-picked airmen | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | September 19th 03 09:15 PM |