We’re limited to discussing the flying fort and the liberator, which are basically experiments in Mitchell’s “flying battleship” concept. The one turret-one man system was very crude. The jump that few marked was the directional and remote firing system of the B-29. Four turrets plus the tail gun were all remotely controlled. Gunners inside the fuselage were more protected, and they can take over one or two guns on a “first call” basis. Sighting deflections and parallax were automatically adjusted. It’s actually similar to the fire control system of a modern battleship. The system resulted in the downing of at least 105 Japanese interceptors during bombing missions over Japan.
His point is that you can convert altitude into speed and vice versa. If you start at an altitude and spee3d you can dive down, gaining speed all the while. Then climb back up losing speed all the while. And end up back where you started.
Obviously this requires the engine to be on and at a high power setting to overcome drag. But the point still stands that all the potential energy of your height is not 100% lost when you dive; some of it is converted to kinetic energy of speed. Which can be exchanged back into potential energy going back uphill.
This is a basic tenet of aircraft flight and especially of high performance or combat flight.
I don’t understand. It seems it is like coasting down hill. All you potential energy is lost when you stop to reverse direction and go back up hill. Do you have any math? 
As you go downhill, you pick up speed which helps you climb the next hill. The point is that you don’t brake or stop.
Swede’s first, with collision. Second is Jay Zeamer and crew, dogfighting in a hacked B-17E against 17 Japanese fighters.
Dogfights–Long Odds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eDPyvyt-MQ
Ok, let’s say you’re in a German FW-190 cruising at 22,000 ft. at 400 mph. The enemy bombers are cruising at 20,000 ft. You dive down through the bomber formation and at 18,000 feet you pull out of your dive and start to climb again.
By the time you get to 18,000 feet your speed is 520 mph (then you start your climb). When you get back to 20,000 your speed would have decreased to about 400 mph. When you get back to 21,000 feet your speed would have decreased to 300 mph. And, finally by the time you’ve climbed back to 22,000 (the altitude where you started) you’re speed would have decreased to around 200 mph.
So, yes…You lose energy from the climb. But, you are back at your starting altitude. And some of the energy you lose from the climb you had gained from your dive.
Which is hardly a realistic scenario. FW-120D’s can’t really fight above 20,000 while fully loaded B-17E’s could cruise at 25,000. Ordinary pursuit planes with air-cooled radial engines proved obsolete against heavy bombers above 20,000 feet.
And I wish people would stop arguing about that one’s momentum during a dive can somehow be channeled to climbing back up. Nitwits.
If you have ever watched Bob Hover in his Shrike Commander airshow routine, you would not need to be arguing about what the plane can & will be able to do.
Moderator Note
Personal insults are not permitted in GQ. Don’t do this again.
In addition to the advent of radar, the belief was created in a time period when the bombers would have gotten through because the development of the bomber outpaced that of the fighter in the early '30s when the strategy was born.
I think the idea with the rockets was, as LSLGuy points out, the rockets were used to break up the formation rather than as bomber killers themselves.
I saw his routine back in the 70’s, at the Oshkosh EAA fly in. As I recall, he picked a pennant off a stake 3 ft high, inverted, engines off. Incredible.
Wow.
Needs more dakka.
Ahem:
My Dad was a B24 tail gunner in ETO. He didn’t talk about the war much but he said he loved firing those twin fifties. Part of their training really was riding around in the back of a truck and shooting at clay pigeons with a shotgun.He said neither the gunners nor the bombardiers hit many targets. Adolph Galand does say in his memoir that attacking the massed fire from a formation was both terrifying and dangerous. Most of the damage to the bombers was done by antiaircraft artillery since the B24 was essentially a very slow flying aluminum beer can.
Real veterans dont talk about combat much. One way you can tell them from posers.
My grandfather (B-17 top turret gunner, 385th BG, Sept-Dec 1943, inc. 2nd Schweinfurt) opined to me once that falling out of formation was, other than things like instant death, about the most dreaded thing that could happen, as it usually meant that they’d end up easy prey for Luftwaffe fighters.
His recollections seemed to be more apprehensive about flak than fighters, although that might be because he was a gunner, and could shoot back against fighters, but flak was random and impersonal. He also said that most damage to his particular plane was done by flak, not fighters.
And yeah, for whatever reason, my grandfather only really spoke about it to me at first. No idea why he’d confide in his adolescent/teenaged grandson, but he did. As he got older, he started talking to my dad about it, and by the 50th anniversary, was willing to give a talk to a high school class about it.
My mother is a ghost writer who writes the stories of a lot of these old vets. What happens a lot is that these guys are finally ready to tell their stories. My mom interviews them for hours and hours while they spill it cathartically. Stories never heard by their families. Then, once she publishes their stories, very often they die soon after. These guys have been tortured for decades, desperately needed to get it out. And once they do, they are finally at peace.
Will you give us an author’s name, and/or some titles?