WWII bombing question

smokepole

Sitting here pondering away about the marvelous American technology in Afghanistan and the bombing campaigns of WWII. Much modern study has indicated that by and large, much of the bombing campaign in Europe was not very effective. Lots and lots of targets missed, often by over a mile. It took many, many bombs to get one direct hit. Today--according to the news--they have it down so they can get a direct hit with two bombs; if they don't get it with the first they'll get it with the second. In light of this, would it have been wiser to go with dive bombers in Europe instead of the massive B17's and B24's? Figure that if only one of the 30 bombs the B17 is dropping hits--and that's a rosy estimate--then really the Dauntless might be much more effective. Of course, fuel restrictions would have to be worked out and they would need escorting fighters, but what do you think? Would a precision approach have been better during WWII?

Big Timber

Smokepole from IA Whitetail??????????BT

GreenLantern

I'd have to imagine that at the time, individual dive bombing was marginally better than carpet bombing at best. The pilot would be trying to coordinate air speed, angle of attack, windage, and a rudimentary bomb-site to still drop an unquided bomb. Now throw the AAA into the equation! I think they did the best they could with what they had.

smokepole

Right, like I said, the fuel issues would have needed to have been worked out. Bear in mind, though, that the nature of war time production in Germany and Japan was often rather different; Japan diffused its factories throughout cities, making the area bombing necessary and effective. Germany, however, concentrated its production in traditional factories, making precision bombing much more effective. I've got to imagine that five or ten 500 pound carefully placed bombs could take out most any factory for a very long time. The read questions are: Could the dive bombers get through? Would the German smoke machines and AAA make the losses too heavy and make the bombing ineffective? Didn't the Luftwaffe use Stukas for a while during the Battle of Britian? As I remember it was a dismal experiment.

webley

Dive bombers need fighter escort.With the English bombing at night and the US in the day time the Germans manufactured more war materials in the last year of the war than any other year. They fought the last year of the war using synthetic oil.Ever wonder why we dont use it 57 years later? We copied their rockets and jets, but stayed with our big oil coompanies.

jonk

The unsung victory of the fleet of B-17s and 24's is that at terrible costs, they wrested air superiority from the Luftwaffe. Gunners on these planes shot down more German fighters than all other US types!As for bombing, it was a failure in that German fighter, tank, gun, etc. production peaked right when the bombing was at its greatest. Bombing failed to destroy really heavy machines, which could generally be winched out from under rubble to use again. However, strategic bombing DID force the Germans to disperse their production centers and certainly caused many halts in production... I would have hate to have faced an unscathed Luftwaffe or an unscathed Tiger force in Normandy in 44 had I been there...The greatest impact of strategic bombing was when we targeted the German oil manufacturing and refining capacity, and used medium bombers to thrash the transportation net. No oil=no gas= Wehrmacht kaputt.Tactical bombers were more accurate and did have the ability to do the job of 4 engine bombers, but:1. While some, such as the fighter/bomber versions of the twin engined D.H. Mosquito DID in fact have the range to get to the long distance targets, attacking at low level made planes very vulnerable to ground fire, more easily jumped by fighters, and so on.2. On the other hand, most fighter bombers didn't have the range to reach all targets.3. Fighter bombers were just that- jerry rigged planes taken from the air war to target ground targets. The Stuka was a true ground attack airplane; the Thunderbolt was not. The thunderbolt was more successful because we had air superiority, it could still dogfight (unlike the Stuka) and it was so tough; but in accuracy, we never matched the Germans in Europe, though our Dauntlesses in the Pacific were just about as good, perhaps better. An interesting side note- in late 44 and through the end of the war, of allied planes destroyed by enemy fighters in europe, fighter bombers suffered the worst. The hated "Jagdbombers" or Jabos were an opportunity for frustrated german pilots who could do little against the massive streams of 4 engine bombers to get revenge. 4. Fighter bombers don't have the defensive guns of a bomber; they must jettison their load to defend themselves if unescorted.5. Most fighter bombers couldn't carry the load of a B-17, and none could carry that of a Lancaster or B-29. 6. Seeing waves of unopposed bombers freely smashing the reich was supposed to have a massive pshych. effect; even when they were opposed, the bombers did generally get through, even with losses. Studies show that the german morale was not broken but given a shot of adrenaline by the bombing raids, but surely there was some depression by the hopelessness of teh situation.So my input is that the strategic bombing effort helped tremendously, though perhaps not in ways originally envisioned.

---

"...hit your enemy in the belly, and kick him when he is down, and boil his prisoners in oil- if you take any- and torture his women and children. Then people will keep clear of you..." -Admiral of the Fleet Lord Fisher, speaking at the Hague Peace Conference in 1899.

Xracer

Precision bombing during WWII was an oxymoron. We had the Norden Bombsight which supposedly "could hit a pickle barrel from 10,000 feet." Not even close.In fact, after WWII, the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey determined that only one bomb in five hit within a half-mile of it's intended target.If that's precision bombing, I'll eat my tinfoil hat.

nord

Waves of heavies for many reasons. Morale (ours & theirs), damage (on target and off), safety (there really is something to be said of safety in numbers).Most of all it was a shotgun approach just as we use on birds today. Scatter enough ordinance and you'll hit something sometime.Our engineers were very aware that the pickle had to be the size of Dresden to score a sure hit.One more thought... None of the smaller planes were equipped with proper navigation gear. Heavies, even with an on-board navigator were as likely lost as not if pathfinders didn't make the initial runs.

gunluv280

As an Air Force guy, I just have to put in my 2 cents worth.....It is true that strategic bombing in WWII suffered from a lack of precision. It is also true that German war production did not drop significantly until quite late in the war. On the other hand, one thing strategic bombing did accomplish, especially after drop tanks were perfected and P-51s and P-47s could fly deep into Germany, was to draw out the Luftwaffe and make them fight. Because of this, the Luftwaffe eventually lost so many trained pilots (not to mention fuel, oil, supplies etc, but mainly TRAINED pilots) that it lost its effectiveness as a fighting force. They had planes, but without well-trained pilots, their planes were of little use. Toward the end of the war, the Allies had almost complete air superiority, and that was a HUGE factor in the success of the Allied D-Day invasion subsequent battles. The Germans could not operate during the day without exposing themselves to devastating air attacks, and they knew it. That's why they launced the Battle of the Bulge during a spell of cloudy weather--it negated our air superiority. Our air superiority was a tremendous advantage during good weather. After the war, German soldiers said they hated to hear the sound of airplanes because they knew the planes would be Allied.This did not come at a small cost. I've read that the Eighth Army Air Force (that part of the USAAF that was in Europe and mainly based in England) suffered more casualties than the entire Navy and Marine Corps combined. In casualty RATE, the USAAF was slightly behind the USMC, and both were significantly higher than either the Army or the Navy. Early in the air war over Europe, an airman was expected to complete 25 missions before he could go home. Sounds easy, but loss rates were so high that the statistical probability of completing 25 missions without being shot down was zero. You knew you would eventually not come back. This took a heavy toll on morale. Memphis Belle was famous because she was the first B-17 to actually accomplish the feat.As to dive bombing.....NO WAY. Dive bombers carried too small a payload, didn't have sufficient range (no way to correct that problem) and they would have been nearly defenseless against fighter attack because they are very slow and have little defensive capability. As badly as the B-17s and B-24s were torn up by German fighters, it would have been a massacre to send dive bombers. Every B-17 carried 10 .50 machine guns; dive bombers might have a .30 or two. But this is a moot point because they didn't have sufficient range to do the job anyway. And they were NOT precision bombers. Precision bombing didn't really come into being until Vietnam.Today, the USAF likes to say we can accomplish with one bomb what it took 3,000 bombs to do in WWII, and it is pretty much the case. Keep in mind, to deliver 3,000 bombs in WWII would have taken at least 180 bombers with 1800 crewmen, not counting fighter escort. One F-117 or B-2 can do the same job today (and then some), and they need no escort. A fully loaded B-2 is a fearsomely capable weapon. These new aircraft are expensive, but for what they can do, they are very cost effective. More importantly, they put a lot fewer our our guys lives in danger. We have the best Air Force in the world today, and nobody else can even come close (and the same goes for my fellow servicemen in the Army, Navy and USMC!!). Let's hope our leaders are smart enough to keep it that way. After all, we don't want it to be a fair fight.

jonk

Regarding the battle of the bulge- the idea that the Germans intentionally launched the battle to coincide with a cloudy spell is a myth. In fact, they planned a huge attack on allied fighter bombers and their bases so their Panzers would roll forth uninterrupted. It was called Unternehmen Bodenplatte and was to coincide with the attack... BUT the weather closed in. AFter the weather opened again, Hitler vacillated, and finally launced the attack on New Year's day. Want a trivia fact for the books? Think the allies had air superiority? The New Year's day mission was the largest single operation mounted by the Luftwaffe during the war, with something close to 1000 planes taking place. In fact, several hundred allied fighterbombers were destroyed, many more damaged. Had the attack come when it was supposed to come, it could have been a decisive factor. THe planes came from General der Jagdflieger Adolf Galland's carefully marshalled Schwerpunkt force, designed to hit the swarms of heavies with 2000 some fighters at once. Germany had purposely been withholding fighters in 1944 for this blow. The idea was to drop 500 bombers in a day and force the bombing raids to stop. Given another month or two, Galland may have realized his goal, but Hitler wanted ground attack missions instead.No, we didn't have TOTAL air superiority. The Germans held back and then frittered away their last reserves, so the result was the same though. And certainly pilot quality was marginal; they could fly their outmoded 109s but not fight. Even in 1945, the 109 was lethal as any allied fighter in the hands of an experienced pilot, but in the hands of inexperienced kids it was useless.Not that the war would have been changed, but interesting. Read the book "To Win the Winter Sky." I think it is by Danny S. Palmer.

---

"...hit your enemy in the belly, and kick him when he is down, and boil his prisoners in oil- if you take any- and torture his women and children. Then people will keep clear of you..." -Admiral of the Fleet Lord Fisher, speaking at the Hague Peace Conference in 1899.

Iconoclast

smokeploe, without getting into many of the (very interesting) side issues brought up in this thread, the short answer is that the dive bombers of the era did not have the range nor the payload to take on industrial targets. A ship, a pillbox, a tank, but not a factory. There was a German Stuka pilot, Hans Ulrich Rudel, who survived the war with over 1000 confirmed kills of Soviet tanks - plus a Soviet battleship. One guy, the armor for three tank divisions. But none of his missions were ever directed at industrial targets nor at any great distance from his base.

smokepole

Thanks all for posting. Look back at my original post and you'll see that I mention the fuel question. I would have to think, though, that wing drop tanks common to fighters of the era could easily have been adapted to the dive bombers. Perhaps the rear gunner could have been done away with an a big fuel tank put back there. I do think it could have been done.As far as there being NO precision bombing at that time, I'm not sure I buy that. By many accounts, the Stukas and the Dauntless were rather accurate. Think about the skill necessary to hit something only as big as a destroyer, a target much smaller than a factory. Then think about it moving and twisting and taking evasive action. All that taken into account, the dive bombers still hit their targets.My point is this: In the same way that spary-and-pray is looked down upon in shooting circles, shouldn't the type of bombing done in Europe be looked at in the same fashion? Wouldn't the use of a few carefully targetted bombs have been much more effective than countless poorly aimed bombs?

dakotashooter2

Smokepole Fuel capacity was not so much an issue of availability of space as weight. Planes have weight limitations based on their design. That means in most cases you can either carry extra fuel load or bombs but generally not both and if you could, speed and manuverability would be sacrificed making these planes more vulnerable to interception.

mudge

Precision, or not. Air superiority, or not.I have to agree with the old axiom......"In a battle, he who puts out the most lead, wins." The allies had the resources, the "Krauts" and "Japs" (WWII lingo) didn't.There was a line from "Battle of the Bulge" that I think sums it up pretty well."The Americans have enough fuel to fly cakes across the Atlantic."Mudge the geezer

---

I can't come to work today. The voices said, STAY HOME AND CLEAN THE GUNS!

Gordian Blade

smokepole, there are some interesting threads going on today. (Actually started last night.) I like that you've had some interesting "out of the box" thoughts on this, but I have to add my voice to those saying it wouldn't have worked.The basic problems are range and enemy AAA. When a dive bomber like the Ju-87 (Stuka) was within close range to the front and able to attack lightly defended targets (Poles, French, and early Russians), it was deadly. When at longer range from the bases against more heavily defended targets (Britain), it was still deadly, but more to the pilot than the target.It's all in the physics and kinematics of AAA fire at the time (and even now). Imagine trying to hit a motorcycle rider with a pistol as he drives by at 60 mph about 1000 yards from you, weaving from lane to lane. Now imagine the same situation where the rider is coming straight at you (trying to hit you) and closing the range from 1000 to 500 to 200 to 100 to 50 to 20 yards. As he gets closer, the solid angle (cone) that you can fire in and hit him gets bigger and bigger. His ability to swerve back and forth gets smaller since he has to keep lined up on you.I have some family history related to this, since I lost an uncle who was a B-26 (twin engine) pilot. He was attacking a heavily defended bridge in France and had to fly in close to get a good chance of hitting it. His plane was hit by German AAA fire, three men managed to bail out (not him), but only one survived.

Iconoclast

smokepole, the divebombers of WW2, with a good pilot, could and did take out targets much smaller than DDs! And on a regular basis; in the European theater, that was their primary mission. I don't remember the height where they pulled out, but it was up close and personal. You keep adding fuel, etc., and you end up w/ a different aircraft, one incapable of performing the mission. Gordian, even though the Ju-87, with it's fixed landing gear, was woefully obsolete by the end of the war, their bombs could still turn the very best Allied AFVs into smouldering piles of scrap - as many Soviet and German accounts describe. Heck of a lot more explosive in those bombs than in any but the largest tube-delivered munitions. Plus the Soviets had the habit of stowing a few extra drums of gasoline on the deck so they would be able to exploit a break through without waiting for resupply. The Stuka pilots would take those out with just their cannon.

madminute

We've all become so accustomed to seeing the miraculous performance of modern aircraft today that we forget that 50 years ago, aerial warfare was still a very scarry developing science which absolutely no one had the first clue how to successfully wage. I am a bit of a WW2 history nut, and a military aircraft nut, and it amazes me to see these crates at air shows restored and flying, and think that anyone voluntarily climbed into a big aluminum tube held aloft by those big wings, propelled by huge piston engines, carrying a zillion gallons of high octane gas, a couple thousand pounds of TNT, and god knows how many rounds of .50...to be shot at by every manner of weapon...these guys had courage. So this is the truth: Mass aerial bombing was a new, untried idea, and in fact NO ONE was certain it would work at all. It almost did not. And smaller raids with more precision were impossible with the aircraft of the day, as they lacked the required range to reach Germany from England carrying any meaningful payload. The Generals and staff were doing the best they could with what was the best idea they had. Of course nowdays, you just go up to 40,000 feet with an AC-130 gunship and orbit your target for an hour dropping ordinance by the bushel basket on the enemy's head....and one plane does more damage than an entire squadron of B-17s...but hey, technology marches on....

slidder12

the sight of a large formation of heavy bombers is more demorilizing to the enemy than one or two dive bombers..and safety is in numbers as far as mutual defence against enemy aircraft

Patrick Odle

In those days there was a distinct differencebetween enemy and friend. In todays improved thinking, enemys that receive bombs by night, change to friends by day and receive food packets. I guess the thinking is if you feed them they will offer a greater challenge in their struggle against what they refer to as the great satan. no one with the inteligence of a bessie bug would dare call such a mis-adventure a war

competentone

Along the lines of "weapon effectiveness" in WW2:Consider, the number of rounds fired by infantry per enemy troops killed; the ratio was in the thousands!It took our soldiers literally thousands of rounds to kill one German or Japanese soldier.

Iconoclast

Well, the small arms comment is off on a tangent, but WTH . . . . Not only 1,000s of rounds, but most actual casualties from small arms fire actually occurred at distances of well under 100 yards.

webley

Speaking of the bf 109 in 1945 with an experienced pilot vs the US P-51. I have an old 1976 book here that mentioned Eric Hartman shot down 7 P-51;s on his last day in combat with his 109 over Austria in late April 1945. No fuel after that flight. Most of his 352 victories were on the Eastern front.

---