4 ms·

What do you propose instead of the "idiotic" idea? An extended ground campaign? Sending fighters without the range along? It was a grim decision, but it was

by LanceH 8y ago

What do you propose instead of the "idiotic" idea? An extended ground campaign? Sending fighters without the range along? It was a grim decision, but it was effective as they did reach their targets and perform the mission.

nradov 8y ago
With the benefit of hindsight a better option would have been to build more unarmed fast bombers like the de Havilland Mosquito instead of slow, heavy bombers like the B-17 and B-24. The Mosquito could deliver more bombs at a lower cost, only risked two crew members, and was less vulnerable to fighters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito_operational_history#First_Berlin_raids https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito_operatio...
- mandevil 8y ago
  I disagree. Mosquitoes could be very effective flown by highly skilled pilots and navigators given great latitude to use those skills effectively. But one problem with the war was that it tended to kill those highly skilled pilots and navigators faster than they could be replaced. Even in 1944, after losses had declined, most 8thAF Bomb groups had one or two really good navigators and bombardiers, and had everyone else play "follow the leader," even to the point of having entire bomb groups release their bombs simultaneously, rather than each bombardier making their own independent calculations. Obviously if the leader was shot down, then the next man up would take over, but degrading accuracy. Similarly BC used skilled Pathfinders (in Mosquitoes) to mark a target, and then let all of the rest of the unskilled drop somewhere in the target area. Without the skills to take advantage of the Mosquito, the majority of pilots would have been worse off with less defensive effect, and because it would take more planes- and therefore pilots and bombardiers- to carry the same bomb load, it would have pulled more heavily from the middle and lower levels of pilot skill to put the same bomb loads into occupied Europe.
  - jabl 8y ago
    Why couldn't they have used the leader/pathfinder approach with Mosquito-style aircraft being the bulk that followed the leader? Wrt losses, recall that for the British the Mosquito loss rate was one tenth of the heavies. So much less problems with crews being killed. And Mosquito bomb load was almost as high as the B-17.
    - drunken-serval 8y ago
      The Mosquito could only carry half of the bombs of a B-17 and had almost half the range.
      - jabl 8y ago
        Well, wikipedia claims the bomber version of the Mosquito had a range of 2400 km with 1800 kg bomb load (good enough for Berlin and back), and B-17G 3200 km range with 2700 kg bomb load. So 3/4th the range and 2/3rd the bomb load.
    - mandevil 8y ago
      So bombing with HE is very different than bombing with incendiaries. Incendiaries want to be spread out across an area, so having everyone drop individually within a specified area is preferred. But that's not necessarily the right choice for all targets: going after factories, in particular, drives you to High Explosive bombs. HE effectiveness will suffer dramatically if you let each bombardier control their own route, given that there are not that many good ones available, which drives you to tight formations so one good bomb run can suffice for many planes. And big formations makes the Mosquito vulnerable, because it means that they can't use their speed and elusiveness. It's hard to turn a big formation, so their location is much more predictable, and big formations can't go at their top speed, because all the pilots have to be constantly adjusting their speed to stay in formation, and stay at the speed of the slowest member of the formation. So a Mosquito isn't as effective as a Lancaster at the "burn down a city" job (much smaller bombload), and isn't as effective as a B-17 at the "blast this factory down" with generic crew quality. This isn't a knock on the Mossie: it was a good airplane. Just not suited to every mission.
- jabl 8y ago
  > less vulnerable to fighters. Less vulnerable to flak as well, primarily by flying faster (less time to get shot at) and higher than the heavies (cruise speed of around 300 kn vs. 160-190 kn for heavies). And of course, if one got hit, it was a much smaller loss than a heavy.
jabl 8y ago
Well, it's easy to be wise after the fact, but anyway, a few ideas that pop up: - No unescorted daylight raids. - Rip out most turrets and guns (save maybe the tail and front) to save weight, reduce drag, and lose fewer men for each bomber downed. Or, as the sibling poster mentions and I mentioned in another post in this discussion, focus on fast bombers like the Mosquito rather than lumbering heavies. - And yes, indeed, spend less resources on the strategic bombing campaign and more on other stuff. Like, e.g. the invasions of North Africa, Sicily, and Italy. Or more resources on winning the battle of the Atlantic faster. Marine patrol might not be as glamorous usage of big four-engined aircraft as thousand-aircraft raids over Germany, but were highly effective against the U-boat threat (and whatever was left of the German surface fleet). - Focus bombing on operational/tactical targets rather than strategic bombing of cities. (This probably implies a bigger focus on improving bombing accuracy.). That is not to say all heavy bombing was useless. The focus on energy, particularly petroleum, infrastructure and transportation (e.g. railway infrastructure, or the aerial mining of the Danube and other waterways) was highly effective. And of course the British raids with the bunker-buster bombs, such as the sinking of the Tirpitz, U-boat pens, railway bridges/viaducts etc.

by LanceH 8y ago

nradov 8y ago

With the benefit of hindsight a better option would have been to build more unarmed fast bombers like the de Havilland Mosquito instead of slow, heavy bombers like the B-17 and B-24. The Mosquito could deliver more bombs at a lower cost, only risked two crew members, and was less vulnerable to fighters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito_operational_history#First_Berlin_raids https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito_operatio...

mandevil 8y ago
I disagree. Mosquitoes could be very effective flown by highly skilled pilots and navigators given great latitude to use those skills effectively. But one problem with the war was that it tended to kill those highly skilled pilots and navigators faster than they could be replaced. Even in 1944, after losses had declined, most 8thAF Bomb groups had one or two really good navigators and bombardiers, and had everyone else play "follow the leader," even to the point of having entire bomb groups release their bombs simultaneously, rather than each bombardier making their own independent calculations. Obviously if the leader was shot down, then the next man up would take over, but degrading accuracy. Similarly BC used skilled Pathfinders (in Mosquitoes) to mark a target, and then let all of the rest of the unskilled drop somewhere in the target area. Without the skills to take advantage of the Mosquito, the majority of pilots would have been worse off with less defensive effect, and because it would take more planes- and therefore pilots and bombardiers- to carry the same bomb load, it would have pulled more heavily from the middle and lower levels of pilot skill to put the same bomb loads into occupied Europe.
- jabl 8y ago
  Why couldn't they have used the leader/pathfinder approach with Mosquito-style aircraft being the bulk that followed the leader? Wrt losses, recall that for the British the Mosquito loss rate was one tenth of the heavies. So much less problems with crews being killed. And Mosquito bomb load was almost as high as the B-17.
  - drunken-serval 8y ago
    The Mosquito could only carry half of the bombs of a B-17 and had almost half the range.
    - jabl 8y ago
      Well, wikipedia claims the bomber version of the Mosquito had a range of 2400 km with 1800 kg bomb load (good enough for Berlin and back), and B-17G 3200 km range with 2700 kg bomb load. So 3/4th the range and 2/3rd the bomb load.
  - mandevil 8y ago
    So bombing with HE is very different than bombing with incendiaries. Incendiaries want to be spread out across an area, so having everyone drop individually within a specified area is preferred. But that's not necessarily the right choice for all targets: going after factories, in particular, drives you to High Explosive bombs. HE effectiveness will suffer dramatically if you let each bombardier control their own route, given that there are not that many good ones available, which drives you to tight formations so one good bomb run can suffice for many planes. And big formations makes the Mosquito vulnerable, because it means that they can't use their speed and elusiveness. It's hard to turn a big formation, so their location is much more predictable, and big formations can't go at their top speed, because all the pilots have to be constantly adjusting their speed to stay in formation, and stay at the speed of the slowest member of the formation. So a Mosquito isn't as effective as a Lancaster at the "burn down a city" job (much smaller bombload), and isn't as effective as a B-17 at the "blast this factory down" with generic crew quality. This isn't a knock on the Mossie: it was a good airplane. Just not suited to every mission.
jabl 8y ago
> less vulnerable to fighters. Less vulnerable to flak as well, primarily by flying faster (less time to get shot at) and higher than the heavies (cruise speed of around 300 kn vs. 160-190 kn for heavies). And of course, if one got hit, it was a much smaller loss than a heavy.

jabl 8y ago

Well, it's easy to be wise after the fact, but anyway, a few ideas that pop up: - No unescorted daylight raids. - Rip out most turrets and guns (save maybe the tail and front) to save weight, reduce drag, and lose fewer men for each bomber downed. Or, as the sibling poster mentions and I mentioned in another post in this discussion, focus on fast bombers like the Mosquito rather than lumbering heavies. - And yes, indeed, spend less resources on the strategic bombing campaign and more on other stuff. Like, e.g. the invasions of North Africa, Sicily, and Italy. Or more resources on winning the battle of the Atlantic faster. Marine patrol might not be as glamorous usage of big four-engined aircraft as thousand-aircraft raids over Germany, but were highly effective against the U-boat threat (and whatever was left of the German surface fleet). - Focus bombing on operational/tactical targets rather than strategic bombing of cities. (This probably implies a bigger focus on improving bombing accuracy.). That is not to say all heavy bombing was useless. The focus on energy, particularly petroleum, infrastructure and transportation (e.g. railway infrastructure, or the aerial mining of the Danube and other waterways) was highly effective. And of course the British raids with the bunker-buster bombs, such as the sinking of the Tirpitz, U-boat pens, railway bridges/viaducts etc.