4 ms·

The guns on a bomber were never really meant for engaging aircraft. They're meant to deter fighters from ever getting near the bomber. Not many pilots are willi

The guns on a bomber were never really meant for engaging aircraft. They're meant to deter fighters from ever getting near the bomber. Not many pilots are willing to sit directly in the path of machine gun fire, even if it is not very accurate. German anti-aircraft figured this out as well. They switched to shooting mostly tracer rounds. You aren't going to hit anything in the first place, so you might as well just scare the crap out of them. There were some WWII 'gunship' style modifications of planes, but that was not that common. For a more modern comparison, consider that the Bradley fighting vehicle carries anti tank missiles. Sending a group of Bradleys directly against tanks would be suicidal. The Bradley has aluminum for armor. A well trained set of tank crews operating even WWII vintage vehicles would decimate them. Instead, the misiles are there to deter tanks from engaging them. It also provides the crew with an enormous psychological benefit. That benefit is they at least have the benefit of being able to respond to an enemy tank with a potentially lethal weapons system. Ironically of course the TOW missiles on the Bradley destroyed more Iraqi tanks the M1 tank ever did in the Gulf war. But that is because Iraqi tank crews either had no experience or had armored vehicles in horrible condition.

LordKano 11y ago
It's kind of an interesting story how the military didn't really want the Bradley in the first place but it was forced upon them by congress and they had to find a use for it. I have a relative who was in the mechanized infantry back in the early 1990s. From what he was able to share with me, the Bradley was an interesting vehicle with a lot of cool stuff but if my life was on the line, I'd prefer to be in an M1 Abrams.
- greggyb 11y ago
  There is a pretty good movie "Pentagon Wars" about the development of the Bradley.[0] It's not entirely accurate, but even as complete fiction would be an enjoyable satire. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon_Wars
  - hydrogen18 11y ago
    The movie is good, but the book is excellent.
- Tloewald 11y ago
  If my life were on the line I'd prefer not to be in combat, but if you're infantry, riding around in an Abrams isn't an option. It's like saying you'd prefer to be in a frigate.
  - RogtamBar 11y ago
    Some militaries use infantry transport vehicles developed from tanks. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namer
    - gherkin0 11y ago
      Though, IIRC, the tank that's based off of was already designed to carry some passengers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkava#Specifications_of_models https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkava#Specifications_of_mode...
    - xixi77 11y ago
      It's a pretty cool vehicle, but with the $3MM price tag I'm not sure how suitable it is for an infantry carrier... But I agree, this type of vehicles are surely going to get more common.
      - douche 11y ago
        According to Wikipedia[1], the Bradley is more expensive, at $3.16 million [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Bradley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Bradley
      - jasonwatkinspdx 11y ago
        The Isrealis have had mixed results from the Namer and Merkava (though the Merkava is an icon of pride, so this comment might draw some cheerleading). I think the basic idea of having extra passenger room in a MBT for flexibility in evolving situations is pretty sound, but these particular vehicles have proven pretty vulnerable in close in urban combat vs smart patient infantry.
Tloewald 11y ago
Given that the Bradley was designed to fight Eastern Bloc forces on the plains of Germany (which comprises rolling terrain, closely spaced villages, streams, etc.) a vehicle that can be tucked behind cover and fire lethal anti-tank missiles isn't just decoration. One of the most interesting cold war AFVs was an M113 chassis with a cherry picker and 15 TOW missiles on it. Armor is nice, but a hill is even nicer. The problem is that the US army is still equipping itself superbly to fight the Eastern Bloc in 1985.
- gherkin0 11y ago
  > One of the most interesting cold war AFVs was an M113 chassis with a cherry picker and 15 TOW missiles on it. Armor is nice, but a hill is even nicer. Is this what you're talking about? http://russian-tanks.com/the-m901-armored-missile-vehicle.php http://russian-tanks.com/the-m901-armored-missile-vehicle.ph...
- xixi77 11y ago
  = One of the most interesting cold war AFVs was an M113 chassis with a cherry picker and 15 TOW missiles on it. Armor is nice, but a hill is even nicer. = Interesting, never heard of that one! Any links by any chance? I would be curious to look at pictures :) (Edit: looks like another reply has a link!) And IMO it makes perfect sense for the first priority to be always prepared for the toughest opponent: a TOW missile will destroy a pickup truck just fine, but it also forces the opponent to be much more careful with their tanks.
RogtamBar 11y ago
>The guns on a bomber were never really meant for engaging aircraft. They're meant to deter fighters from ever getting near the bomber. Not many pilots are willing to sit directly in the path of machine gun fire, even if it is not very accurate. German anti-aircraft figured this out as well. They switched to shooting mostly tracer rounds. You aren't going to hit anything in the first place, so you might as well just scare the crap out of them. Never really meant? Some citations there would be nice. US day bombers that were not protected by fighters often suffered heavy losses against the Luftwaffe. Which is why unescorted daylight bombing was suspended following the 25% casualty raid on Schweinfurt. >They switched to shooting mostly tracer rounds. ..right. What I've read is that many units stopped using tracers altogether on pure fighters because their different ballistics at long range meant that they were not useful. The gas created when the base of the tracer burned diminished drag. (this has later been adopted for howitzer ammo, base bleed increases range by up to 30%)
- xixi77 11y ago
  = What I've read is that many units stopped using tracers altogether on pure fighters because their different ballistics at long range meant that they were not useful. = You mean stopped using tracers against fighter aircraft, or stopped carrying them on fighters? The parent seems to be talking about ground AA gun crews using tracers -- presumably a lot of these would be firing at bombers?
  - RogtamBar 11y ago
    > The parent seems to be talking about ground AA gun crews using tracers Stopped putting tracers into fighter craft ammunition belts or magazines. > The parent seems to be talking about ground AA gun crews using tracers -- presumably a lot of these would be firing at bombers? I'm not aware of tracer ammo even existing for the big flak guns. This material implies there wasn't any. http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/88mm-antiaircraft-gun/ammunition-german-88-mm-aa-gun.html http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/88mm-antiaircraft-gun/ammu...
WalterBright 11y ago
My father was the navigator in a B17. He said the Luftwaffe would try to sneak up behind the B17, to see if the tail gunner was watching. The tail gunner would let off a few rounds, even out of range, so the tracers would let the Luftwaffe pilot know he was watching. If not, well, another B17 down. If that didn't work for the 109s, they'd do a head on attack. A head on attack made it very hard for the B17s to hit them, and the closing speed was so fast it would carry the 109s out of range quickly after the attack. My father said that unlike the buffoonish German pilots portrayed in WW2 movies, the real ones were careful, professional, and deadly. You never wanted to let your guard down around them.
- nullsocket 11y ago
  Correct. Hence the development of the B-17G model with the chin turret to provide more forward protection.

LordKano 11y ago

It's kind of an interesting story how the military didn't really want the Bradley in the first place but it was forced upon them by congress and they had to find a use for it. I have a relative who was in the mechanized infantry back in the early 1990s. From what he was able to share with me, the Bradley was an interesting vehicle with a lot of cool stuff but if my life was on the line, I'd prefer to be in an M1 Abrams.

greggyb 11y ago
There is a pretty good movie "Pentagon Wars" about the development of the Bradley.[0] It's not entirely accurate, but even as complete fiction would be an enjoyable satire. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon_Wars
- hydrogen18 11y ago
  The movie is good, but the book is excellent.
Tloewald 11y ago
If my life were on the line I'd prefer not to be in combat, but if you're infantry, riding around in an Abrams isn't an option. It's like saying you'd prefer to be in a frigate.
- RogtamBar 11y ago
  Some militaries use infantry transport vehicles developed from tanks. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namer
  - gherkin0 11y ago
    Though, IIRC, the tank that's based off of was already designed to carry some passengers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkava#Specifications_of_models https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkava#Specifications_of_mode...
  - xixi77 11y ago
    It's a pretty cool vehicle, but with the $3MM price tag I'm not sure how suitable it is for an infantry carrier... But I agree, this type of vehicles are surely going to get more common.
    - douche 11y ago
      According to Wikipedia[1], the Bradley is more expensive, at $3.16 million [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Bradley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Bradley
    - jasonwatkinspdx 11y ago
      The Isrealis have had mixed results from the Namer and Merkava (though the Merkava is an icon of pride, so this comment might draw some cheerleading). I think the basic idea of having extra passenger room in a MBT for flexibility in evolving situations is pretty sound, but these particular vehicles have proven pretty vulnerable in close in urban combat vs smart patient infantry.

Tloewald 11y ago

Given that the Bradley was designed to fight Eastern Bloc forces on the plains of Germany (which comprises rolling terrain, closely spaced villages, streams, etc.) a vehicle that can be tucked behind cover and fire lethal anti-tank missiles isn't just decoration. One of the most interesting cold war AFVs was an M113 chassis with a cherry picker and 15 TOW missiles on it. Armor is nice, but a hill is even nicer. The problem is that the US army is still equipping itself superbly to fight the Eastern Bloc in 1985.

gherkin0 11y ago
> One of the most interesting cold war AFVs was an M113 chassis with a cherry picker and 15 TOW missiles on it. Armor is nice, but a hill is even nicer. Is this what you're talking about? http://russian-tanks.com/the-m901-armored-missile-vehicle.php http://russian-tanks.com/the-m901-armored-missile-vehicle.ph...
xixi77 11y ago
= One of the most interesting cold war AFVs was an M113 chassis with a cherry picker and 15 TOW missiles on it. Armor is nice, but a hill is even nicer. = Interesting, never heard of that one! Any links by any chance? I would be curious to look at pictures :) (Edit: looks like another reply has a link!) And IMO it makes perfect sense for the first priority to be always prepared for the toughest opponent: a TOW missile will destroy a pickup truck just fine, but it also forces the opponent to be much more careful with their tanks.

RogtamBar 11y ago

>The guns on a bomber were never really meant for engaging aircraft. They're meant to deter fighters from ever getting near the bomber. Not many pilots are willing to sit directly in the path of machine gun fire, even if it is not very accurate. German anti-aircraft figured this out as well. They switched to shooting mostly tracer rounds. You aren't going to hit anything in the first place, so you might as well just scare the crap out of them. Never really meant? Some citations there would be nice. US day bombers that were not protected by fighters often suffered heavy losses against the Luftwaffe. Which is why unescorted daylight bombing was suspended following the 25% casualty raid on Schweinfurt. >They switched to shooting mostly tracer rounds. ..right. What I've read is that many units stopped using tracers altogether on pure fighters because their different ballistics at long range meant that they were not useful. The gas created when the base of the tracer burned diminished drag. (this has later been adopted for howitzer ammo, base bleed increases range by up to 30%)

xixi77 11y ago
= What I've read is that many units stopped using tracers altogether on pure fighters because their different ballistics at long range meant that they were not useful. = You mean stopped using tracers against fighter aircraft, or stopped carrying them on fighters? The parent seems to be talking about ground AA gun crews using tracers -- presumably a lot of these would be firing at bombers?
- RogtamBar 11y ago
  > The parent seems to be talking about ground AA gun crews using tracers Stopped putting tracers into fighter craft ammunition belts or magazines. > The parent seems to be talking about ground AA gun crews using tracers -- presumably a lot of these would be firing at bombers? I'm not aware of tracer ammo even existing for the big flak guns. This material implies there wasn't any. http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/88mm-antiaircraft-gun/ammunition-german-88-mm-aa-gun.html http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/88mm-antiaircraft-gun/ammu...

WalterBright 11y ago

My father was the navigator in a B17. He said the Luftwaffe would try to sneak up behind the B17, to see if the tail gunner was watching. The tail gunner would let off a few rounds, even out of range, so the tracers would let the Luftwaffe pilot know he was watching. If not, well, another B17 down. If that didn't work for the 109s, they'd do a head on attack. A head on attack made it very hard for the B17s to hit them, and the closing speed was so fast it would carry the 109s out of range quickly after the attack. My father said that unlike the buffoonish German pilots portrayed in WW2 movies, the real ones were careful, professional, and deadly. You never wanted to let your guard down around them.

nullsocket 11y ago
Correct. Hence the development of the B-17G model with the chin turret to provide more forward protection.