3 ms·

> The B-17 "Flying Fortress" had lots of guns and a crew of 10, but couldn't defend itself against German fighters. It's payload ended up being the same as the

by jabl 6y ago

> The B-17 "Flying Fortress" had lots of guns and a crew of 10, but couldn't defend itself against German fighters. It's payload ended up being the same as the 2-man British Mosquito bomber. To make a more apples to apples comparison, one should replace the B-17 with the British heavy bombers, who often flew on the same missions as the Mosquito. The British heavies were similar to the American ones (though somewhat higher bomb load and less defensive guns). The interesting thing is that the loss rate for the Mosquito was an order of magnitude less than for the heavies (which was beyond appalling). It was just so fast that it was very difficult to catch for the Luftwaffe night fighters, and of course by being faster it spent less time in flak barrages as well. Of course one could argue that the slow heavies presented much juicier and easier targets for the Luftwaffe and the flak, so they didn't bother going after the Mosquitos. And thus if Bomber Command had switched from heavies to fast unarmed ones like Mosquito the loss rate would have climbed. Still hard to see how it could have reached the levels it factually did for the heavies. An interesting tidbit here is from Freeman Dyson, who served as an analyst in Bomber Command during the war. He had calculated that the loss rate would be reduced by removing all, or most, defensive armaments. This was based on reduced drag and weight increasing the speed, and also that interviews with aircrew who had been shot down and (miraculously) survived and made it back to England revealed that most never knew what hit them. But this proposal was shot down, as the myth of the heroic gunners protecting their mates was so strong.

cpgxiii 6y ago
interviews with aircrew who had been shot down and (miraculously) survived and made it back to England revealed that most never knew what hit them The particularly depressing part of this story is that for months RAF crews were reporting attacks they couldn't see coming, and the RAF ignored these reports and chalked these losses up to flak. What was happening was the Luftwaffe had observed that RAF heavy bombers lacked belly gun turrets and had essentially zero downwards visibility, and had developed the upwards-facing Schräge Musik gun mounts to attack from below. What was also happening was that RAF bombers were being equipped with Monica tail warning RADAR in an attempt to detect pursuing night fighters more easily, but the Luftwaffe had quickly developed detectors that allowed night fighters to directly home in on these bombers instead, while still avoiding being detected by Monica sets. Together, these were responsible for much of the severe losses suffered by Bomber Command in the winter of 1943-1944.
- jabl 6y ago
  > Luftwaffe had observed that RAF heavy bombers lacked belly gun turrets and had essentially zero downwards visibility, and had developed the upwards-facing Schräge Musik My understanding was that the point behind attacking from below wasn't so much the bombers lacking a belly turret as the bomber being silhouetted against the night sky, whereas detecting a plane by looking downwards towards the dark earth was almost impossible. And yeah, the history of early electronic warfare is fascinating. All the things they came up with, and the counter-measures developed amazingly quickly etc.
  - cpgxiii 6y ago
    There were plenty of other reasons to attack from below - interest in the tactic predates the war - but I don't think the tactic would have been anywhere near as effective if RAF heavy bombers had been equipped with belly turrets (and armed with something better than the basically useless .303 machine guns). Entirely different tactics were used against the USAAF formations in daylight, where a slow overtaking approach from below would be far to vulnerable. whereas detecting a plane by looking downwards towards the dark earth was almost impossible This would be true on the long approach to the target, but once near the target area, bombers would be silhouetted from below by searchlights, flares, and the burning city beneath them. Enough light was available from these sources for the Luftwaffe to use Wilde Sau single-seat "day" fighters at night.

by jabl 6y ago

cpgxiii 6y ago

interviews with aircrew who had been shot down and (miraculously) survived and made it back to England revealed that most never knew what hit them The particularly depressing part of this story is that for months RAF crews were reporting attacks they couldn't see coming, and the RAF ignored these reports and chalked these losses up to flak. What was happening was the Luftwaffe had observed that RAF heavy bombers lacked belly gun turrets and had essentially zero downwards visibility, and had developed the upwards-facing Schräge Musik gun mounts to attack from below. What was also happening was that RAF bombers were being equipped with Monica tail warning RADAR in an attempt to detect pursuing night fighters more easily, but the Luftwaffe had quickly developed detectors that allowed night fighters to directly home in on these bombers instead, while still avoiding being detected by Monica sets. Together, these were responsible for much of the severe losses suffered by Bomber Command in the winter of 1943-1944.

jabl 6y ago
> Luftwaffe had observed that RAF heavy bombers lacked belly gun turrets and had essentially zero downwards visibility, and had developed the upwards-facing Schräge Musik My understanding was that the point behind attacking from below wasn't so much the bombers lacking a belly turret as the bomber being silhouetted against the night sky, whereas detecting a plane by looking downwards towards the dark earth was almost impossible. And yeah, the history of early electronic warfare is fascinating. All the things they came up with, and the counter-measures developed amazingly quickly etc.
- cpgxiii 6y ago
  There were plenty of other reasons to attack from below - interest in the tactic predates the war - but I don't think the tactic would have been anywhere near as effective if RAF heavy bombers had been equipped with belly turrets (and armed with something better than the basically useless .303 machine guns). Entirely different tactics were used against the USAAF formations in daylight, where a slow overtaking approach from below would be far to vulnerable. whereas detecting a plane by looking downwards towards the dark earth was almost impossible This would be true on the long approach to the target, but once near the target area, bombers would be silhouetted from below by searchlights, flares, and the burning city beneath them. Enough light was available from these sources for the Luftwaffe to use Wilde Sau single-seat "day" fighters at night.