B17 B24 Defensive weapons

[LSLGuy]

@MichaelEmouse

Funny that they brought back volley fire.
…
Ah, like wolves/lions sowing panic in a herd to scatter and isolate individuals.
…
Did the USAF have you studying air tactics back to WWI or is it your personal interest?
…
I can’t be the only one curious about those.

Volley in the sense that the aircraft carried several rockets which all fired in very rapid succession with one button push. Not volley fire in the sense that several aircraft lined up and somebody yelled “Feuer!!” over the radio & they all pushed their buttons.
…
Man has been imitating proven biological approaches to combat since the days of Og & Grog facing off with a stick & a rock. The concepts are eternal & universal. The details change with circumstances, but remain just details.
…
USAF professional education includes intros to all this stuff. I’ve carried my studies farther than some, less far than others. Some folks were students of air combat, but not of warfare in general. Others, like me, had academic, personal, or professional background and interest in statecraft, war, and combat in all its forms across history.
…
As noted above about animals, the current tactics are identical at the conceptual level because they are eternal. The details change with the tech.

A ground attack formation of, say, F-16 or F/A-18 or equivalent aircraft will arrange themselves to simplify navigation to the target & maximize their chances to detect incoming defending fighters. And to provide mutual support such that anyone being targeted by the enemy is also within the attacking envelope of another friendly. It’s the wingman concept writ large.

From the enemy air-to-air defender perspective he’s looking at a snake with teeth & eyes all over its body. There’s almost no safe place to jump in & take a bite.

So instead you lob a SAM or two or some long range AAMs in there to stir up the snake. The attackers are going to react to the incoming ordnance by manuevering aggressively if they detect it, which they generally will. If not, they’re sure going to react when their pals start exploding. Once the snake breaks up into several smaller blobs of aircraft, significant mutual support is lost.

A similar move can be done using 1 or two very fast (& short-straw-drawing) fighters. Come in radar silent & terrain masked relying on guidance from your pals and loose a few short range AAMs through the front of the attacker formation as you blast through the it nearly head on, then egress out the side (or top) while they’re busy avoiding the missiles & figuring out what the hell just happened.

If right about then the rest of the defending force arrives from behind the next hill you’re looking at close quarters melee combat with short range AAMs & guns. With possible defeat in detail for the attackers. At a minimum this will be a thorough mission kill as substantially all the attackers jettison their bombs to grapple with the defenders. Many or even most of the attackers may live to return to base, but whatever they had planned to bomb is totally untouched & also lives another day.

[LSLGuy]

Late edit. Left out a paragraph. :smack: Try this:

… It’s the wingman concept writ large.

*Using current non-stealth tech that amounts to an attack formation like this: a pair of jets flying line abreast about a mile apart. With another pair behind them about 2 miles back. And another pair about 2 miles back. Repeat for 6 to 10 pairs. So the overall formation is a mile wide and 12 to 20 miles long. Measured in time the formation is about 10 seconds wide and about 2.5 minutes long max.

Given typical speeds and weapons ranges, there’s massive overlapping fields of fire and of radar & visual lookout and of passive ESM (RWR). And of active ECM depending on the rest of the battle scenario.*

From the enemy air-to-air defender perspective …

[Leo_Bloom]

@AK84

Here is very detailedanalysis of defensive armament.

Nice cite/site. Thanks.

@LSLGuy

…

The other difference is the rockets were big and visible. It was much harder to hold formation while watching large one-hit=one-kill weapons coming at you than it was seeing fighters swarming but not knowing who they’re after.

[…]Somebody believes a rocket’s going to hit, so they pull up or down or left or whatever to evade, somebody else evades them, and suddenly you’ve got aerial bumper cars.[…]

Your analysis of scattering in defensive and (trained) attack formations is especially good because it integrates human behavior/psychology, which tends to get lost in discussions – here, at least – on weapons systems.

I was struck particularly by your point here about actually seeing the damn things.

The set-off of the identical group behavior can be any number of things, but an incoming mailed fist I had never thought of. Nowadays I suppose electronics permits the same thing, and of course spoofing is all the better.

[TokyoBayer]

@LSLGuy

It’s also important to understand that a bomber in formation was protected by all the surrounding bombers. Any bomber that got separated from the flock was pretty much screwed. If any fighter with enough fuel & ammo found them alone, they were dead. So one bomber generally could not hold off one fighter. But 20 bombers could (mostly) hold off 20 fighters.

However, it needs to be stressed that by the end of 1943, the Germans had become spectacularly good at breaking up the groups.

@TokyoBayer

By the end of 1943, the Germans were winning the contest, and by the time the second Schweinfurt raid occurred, the US lost almost 30% of the bombers. It was unsustainable and they had to stop bombing for months to rebuild their forces. It wasn’t until they had the P-51 that they could resume day raids.

I should have specifically noted that the US lost almost 30% in a single raid, which was simply devastating.

@LSLGuy

The rockets were impact fused. The key innovation is they were fired in volleys which spread out due to natural variations in how each flew. So it was sort of an aerial shotgun versus trying to snipe at the other aircraft with a rifle.

It was my understanding that the Werfer Granate rockets were timed. From wiki:

A time fuse detonated the warhead at a pre-set distance of 600 metres (2,000 ft) to 1,200 metres (3,900 ft) from launch point, resulting in a lethal blast area approximately 30 metres (98 ft) wide.

(. . .)

The relatively low velocity of the rocket created a considerable problem in attempting to counter the resultant ballistic drop of such a slow-moving projectile, which required that the launcher tubes be mounted at a roughly 15° angle upwards from the line of flight, causing considerable drag on the airframe of the carrier aircraft. The low launch velocity also meant accurate aiming was difficult, as it was for the attacking pilot to accurately judge the distance to the target. As a result, most of the rockets fired exploded either in front of or behind the bomber target. However, they did often achieve the effect of opening up the bomber formations enough for fighters to attack with conventional weapons.

[/quote]
There were only one to four carried per plane and squadrons did indeed fire them in volleys. From the same article.

While a single fighter’s payload of two or four such rockets was extremely unlikely to score a hit, a mass launch by an entire fighter squadron (a Staffel of 12-16 aircraft) as it arrived to intercept the bombers would likely score two or three hits, about 15% accuracy. The rocket’s huge blast radius also compensated for inaccuracy, and even a non-lethal hit on a bomber by a showering of shrapnel would have psychological effects and perhaps cause it to take evasive manœuvres that would drive it from the protection of its fellows.

[bob_2]

@Hail_Ants

The British never accepted that un-escorted, precision daylight bombing would work, hence they only pursued night-time area bombing.

It made sense for the British and American bombers to be separate. American “precision” bombing was anything but. Even today bombing is a blunt instrument at best. My father used to joke that the front line soldiers after D day were more scared of the American bombers than the Germans.

Considering what a bomber crew had to go through, just to get to the target area, it is hardly surprising that they just wanted to drop the load and get the hell out - day or night.

[LSLGuy]

@TokyoBayer

…
It was my understanding that the Werfer Granate rockets were timed. From wiki:

There were only one to four carried per plane and squadrons did indeed fire them in volleys. From the same article.

Great cite. Thanks for the better info.

[TokyoBayer]

@obbn

The defensive screen a bomber formation could put up could put the fear into the heats of the Luftwaffle. I remember one story by a B 17 to turret Gunner. He recounted a mission where the formation was being attacked by ME262s (jets). He said one made a run and then flew or ahead of the formation to get into position to attack had in. When he began his attack every gun that could be brought to bear on him was. He said that 262 literally disappeared in a bright flash as it hit a wallfof lead.

This would not have happened many times, the closing speed of the Me 262 and the B 17 was so fast, 1,050 ft/sec that accurate aiming was impossible. The German pilots had to change their tactics to bleed of speed even when attacking from behind because the closing rate was too rapid.

@LSLGuy

Great cite. Thanks for the better info.

Digging deeper, it does look like you were correct about the R4M rocket, both in that it was impact triggered and fired in salvos from a single plane, often the Me 262.

The anti-aircraft version of the R4M used a large warhead of 55 mm with 520 g. (17.6 ounces) of the strongly brisant Hexogen explosive charge, nearly guaranteeing a fighter kill with one hit, from the “shattering” force of its explosive warhead — this was the same explosive used in the shells fired by both the MK 103 (30 x 184 mm cartridge) and MK 108 (30 x 90 mm cartridge) autocannons. Each R4M weighed 3.2 kg and was provided with enough fuel to be fired from 1000 m, just outside the range of the bomber’s defensive guns. The main body of the rocket consisted of a simple steel tube with eight base-hinged flip-out fins on the tail for stabilisation, deployed immediately after launch. A battery typically consisted of two groups of 12 rockets and when all 24 were salvoed in an attack, they would fill an area about 15 by 30 m at 1000 m, a density that made it almost certain that the target would be hit. The R4Ms were usually fired in four salvos of six missiles at intervals of 70 milliseconds from a range of 600 m, and would supersonically streak towards their target at a sixty percent higher velocity than the Wfr. Gr. 21’s rockets would (the BR 21’s projectile travelled at some 1150 km/h post-launch), as the R4M typically had a flight speed of roughly 1,890 km/h (1,175 mph).

However, as noted in the wiki article, only a few planes were outfitted with these rockets.

[Boyo_Jim]

@Urbanredneck

Back to the OP.

There was a fast British bomber called the Mosquito than when it was in the bomber role had few weapons and could fly faster than anything the Germans had.

This. Slow bombers strategic bombers needed protection because other wise they could be pounded for literally hours – or pass after pass by the same fighters until the fighters ran out of ammunition.

Near the end the war the US Navy introduced the Douglas Skyraider based on the idea that speed is its own defense, a single engine attack aircraft with no rear facing guns and fixed cannons in the wings. It was something like a large heavy fighter that could life very heavy loads. Since it lasted well into the Viet Nam war, it was obviously successful.

Very early in the war. SBD Dauntless dive bombers were used for fighter patrols with some limited success. They were slow and did have a rear facing gun, but they survived by being extremely maneuverable – something the heavy bombers couldn’t do. Swede Vejtasa shot down 3 Japanese Zeros in one, in a single engagement – well, he shot down 2 and collided with one, but both he and his plane survived and the 3rd Zero didn’t. Here’s a brief description but it doesn’t mention the collision.

[silenus]

@Boyo_Jim

Near the end the war the US Navy introduced the Douglas Skyraider based on the idea that speed is its own defense, a single engine attack aircraft with no rear facing guns and fixed cannons in the wings. It was something like a large heavy fighter that could life very heavy loads. Since it lasted well into the Viet Nam war, it was obviously successful.

1946, but technically that is near the end of the war.

[Boyo_Jim]

Ok, but it was designed during the was and a prototype was flying before the end of the war.

[LSLGuy]

And about the only place it survived was where the enemy had no air-to-air fighters. Speed as defense wasn’t going to work in 1946 even if nobody knew jets were right around the corner. But everybody that mattered did know jets were right around the corner.

It was however a very effective bomb truck and a huge contributor to the campaigns it fought. The A-10 was consciously built in the same mold: slow, huge load, long loiter, damage tolerant.

[DrDeth]

@Urbanredneck

Back to the OP.

There was a fast British bomber called the Mosquito than when it was in the bomber role had few weapons and could fly faster than anything the Germans had.

Fast, but not* that* fast.

[DrDeth]

@Boyo_Jim

Near the end the war the US Navy introduced the Douglas Skyraider based on the idea that speed is its own defense, a single engine attack aircraft with no rear facing guns and fixed cannons in the wings. It was something like a large heavy fighter that could life very heavy loads. Since it lasted well into the Viet Nam war, it was obviously successful.

The Skyraider wasnt that fast. It was tough and maneuverable. More or less, they designed a fighter-bomber with the emphasis on ground attack.

[Sailboat]

It’s worth noting that the pre-war belief unescorted bombers would be practical (“The bombers will always get through” was the quote) wasn’t as crazy as it sounded.

The problem relatively fast, long-range bombers posed a defense was mathematical in nature. Over a large area, bombers could enter the airspace from a wide variety of directions at any time. Since you could only see a bomberformation at very close range, you’d have to have huge numbers of fighters up looking for them widely spread out, and when you found a formation, you’d only have a few fighters in the area (because they were spread out). Also, the fighters would be running low on fuel frequently, further compounding the problem. Now that you’d found the bomber formation, you could launch a large number of interceptors to concentrate against it…if you had even more planes in reserve, and they happened to be nearby, and they could reach altitude and catch the bombers before running out of fuel themselves. It was a maddening problem – vast numbers of fighters and a lot of fuel and effort would be required to have a chance to intercept even a small bomber force.

Ground-based listening stations and spotters were a very poor attempt to assist the defense with this problem.

What solved the problem for the defenders and put the bombers at such risk was the development of radar, shortly before the war and in great secrecy. Radar enabled defenders to observe ad plot the course of bomber formations long in advance, making it possible to concentrate fighters against them without limitless resources.

The people who had designed bombers to go in unescorted weren’t crazy or overconfident…they just had no way of anticipating that a nearly-magic technical solution would appear at just the right time.

[Deeg]

Would the B-29 have been appreciably better? It was much faster than the B-17/24s and its guns were (somewhat) coordinated and controlled by analog computers. On the other hand it was much bigger and a formation would have been less dense.

[Boyo_Jim]

I read a memoir by a Japanese pilot saying how difficult it was to reach the B-29s because of both its speed and altitude. But eventually the bombers dumped most of their defensive weapons to carry more bombs and flew in low-level fire bombing night attacks. The Japanese never had a well integrated night fighter defense, so these tactics weren’t nearly as dangerous over Japan as they were over Germany.

[Mk_VII]

@Hail_Ants

The British never accepted that unescorted, precision daylight bombing would work, hence they only pursued night-time area bombing.

We tried it in 1939, and after a couple of painful lessons which achieved very little, accepted that night bombing was the only realistic way the bomber was going to survive.
After a couple of years it became apparent that we weren’t achieving very much by night either. Only one in three crews claimed to have found and bombed the target; only one in three of those had actually bombed within five miles of the target and about half of all bombs fell on open country or on targets of no military importance.

[_tinkfoot]

I’m fairly certain that the B17 would have been a better bomber without the ball turret (on the belly of the aircraft).

I’m not sure how much the whole assembly weighed, but i’d bet it was more than 1000 lbs.

Also, i’m sure it adversely affected the aerodynamics of the plane. The cruising speed would probably go up 10-20 mph without the ball turret.

Also, after playing 1000’s of hours of a WWII flight combat sim (WWII Fighters), I tried for countless hours to find the absolute best way to attack a formation of enemy bombers, and i’ve found the absolute best way to attack an enemy bomber was from above, at a pretty steep angle.

Basically the tactic is to take your time and climb up above the formation by 2000-ish feet. Then roll over and pull back to initiate your dive. Then roll back over, so your now right side up again (you’re now diving at an angle of about 45 degrees). Spot the bombers, who are now about 1000 feet below you. Pick out a target and adjust your angle of attack. Wait untill you are close and let out a full long burst (i try to aim for right behind the cockpit, where the wings meet the fuselage).

When you pass down through the bomber formation you should be going at least 500 mph. You then use that energy and to climb right back up to where you started and start the process over again.

Attacking a bomber from below was too hard for a couple reasons. When you’re climbing in a airplane you lose speed rapidly. This makes aiming very hard. One, because you start to lose control of the airplane the slower you go. And it also just makes aerial gunnery just more difficult in a way i’m having trouble finding the words for right now.

I think it would have been a better idea to ditch the ball turret and design a better tail gunner position possibly with quad .50’s.

Also, concerning the aerial rockets used by the Germans. I’ve found that they weren’t that effective. It’s too hard to hit a bomber that’s traveling at 200 mph. I got a hit here or there, but i think in real life it would have been better to leave the rockets at home and concentrate on your use of machine guns/cannon.

It’s too hard to make a pass and use both rockets and guns/cannons. It was a bit of a distraction to use the rockets

[carnivorousplant]

@_tinkfoot

I’m fairly certain that the B17 would have been a better bomber without the ball turret (on the belly of the aircraft).

You would shoot at a guy attacking you from below how?

[carnivorousplant]

@_tinkfoot

When you pass down through the bomber formation you should be going at least 500 mph. You then use that energy and to climb right back up to where you started and start the process over again.

Don’t you lose the energy from a dive by climbing?