I know we covered this once before, but I could not find the thread using the search function. There was a discussion about the lethality of the B17 bombers flying over Germany and the number of planes that they shot down being higher than the number shot down by our fighters or close to it. Anyone have that thread handy or the cites referenced in that thread? Thanks.
Bump.
Don’t give up hope. The answer is out there, I just haven’t found it yet.
Grrr. It’s annoying when a well-known “fact” such as this suddenly escapes into anonymity.
Tonight I will check the sources from the chapter on strategic bombing in Keegan’s The Second World War. That might be worth consulting if you have a copy around.
I’m not a WWII history buff, but a cursory look at the history of the B-17 revealed the following info (I assume you’re interested in the European theater):
-
B-17 bomber crews tended to exaggerate the number of kills
-
Figher escorts capable of long-range missions such as the P-47 Thunderbolt and P-38 Lightning were not available until late 1943, while the most lethal P-51D Mustangs weren’t around until spring 1944.
-
Despite their heavy armament, B-17 losses were heavy. As many as 1 in 4 bombers were lost on each raid, hardly an exceptional accomplishment, regardless of the impact on the ground. (pun intended
) -
The highest kill ratio I could find involved the raid on August 17, 1943 of the Schweinfurt and the Messerschmitt factories at Regensburg where 376 bombers took part. 60 aircraft were lost. The bomber crews claimed 288 fighter kills, less than one per bomber.
Until more informed people get here, my best guess on this subject is this: Initially, the range of fighter escorts was severely limited. At the most, these early escorts might encounter isolated patrols of enemy aircraft, or chance upon larger squadrons. Heavy resistance couldn’t be expected till the bombers were deep into Axis territory were the bombers were the ONLY aircraft able to return fire. Naturally, the kill ratio would have been high, regardless of their gross numberss. As better fighters were developed, the bombers continued to attack any fighters they encountered, but the balance shifted to the more manuverable, precision fighters. By this time, Axis power and production capabilities were waning. Resistance was scattered to many fronts and weak.
For more information on B-17’s than you ever wanted to know: http://www.fscwv.edu/users/rheffner/b17/B17facts.html
Another interesting page, with audio of flight operations, vital statistics, and a gallery of images, including controls: See Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress World War 2 Training Film Live Online
I haven’t checked the links, I’m going on memory, and this is a pre-caffeine post; but I seem to remember the B-17 missions suffering about 10% losses and that there was debate within Bomber Command as to whether precision daylight raids were worth the losses.
I don’t want to tour over Berlin or the Ruhr
Flak always makes me lose my lunch
For me there’s no “Hey, hey!” when they holler, “Bombs away!”
I’d rather be at home with the bunch
For there’s one thing you can’t laugh off
And that’s when they shoot your ass off
And I’d rather be home, Buster, with my ass than with a cluster, buster
As Johnny noted, the Eighth Air Force actually considered abandoning daylight raids when they suffered 10% casualties.
25% casualties was not the norm.
Extrapolating from other information provided, I wonder if someone had put together the number of German planes claimed by all the bombers for the whole period (during much of which time they had no escorts) and matched that against the number of kills claimed by fighters (limited to claims made while on escort missions) and found some slightly higher number in the bomber column.
Frankly, I don’t believe it, in any event. Heavily armed bombers in tight formations are harder to kill than scattered, poorly armed bombers, but that does not translate to the bombers killing more attackers than the fighters.
I should have been more clear, the 10% casualty rating was the average loss. Losses were heavier during daylight precision bombing runs. Occasionally losses as high as 25% were reported, hence “as many as”. Sorry for the confusion.
“Bomber Command” by Max Hastings gives a good account of the RAF bombing strategy & their reasons to keep to night-time raids.
Total enemy aircraft destroyed in the ETO by AAF type:
Heavy Bombers:
On the ground: 0
In the air: 6098
Medium and Light Bombers:
On the ground: 0
in the air: 103
Fighters:
On the ground: 6796
In the air: 7422
Realize, the numbers for fighters certainly included non-fighter aircraft, while the bomber numbers almost certainly are almost all fighters, so, at least for the AAF, heavy bombers were very likely the premier fighter-killers.
There is always a lot of debate when counting kills by bomber gunners. There was no gun camera footage to show anything to the debreifers, there were several hundred guns firing at a single plane at a given moment, many people taking credit for the same aircraft, etc. As with fighter pilot claims, many are for enemy planes that quickly flipped over and dived for safety that the gunner/pilot would claim as a kill. I have read a number of books about the WWII air war and none could come up with conclusive evidence about actual numbers. Just look at Tranquilis’s post. Bombers didn’t even get credit for aircraft destroyed on the ground but the fighter jocks did.
-
- As an aside, I recently finished a book that told about a group of bombers that were breathing a sigh of relief that the fighters just drove away the Me-109’s. Then one enemy came up from behind and made formation with the tail-end-charlie just behind and to his left and sat there smoking a cigarette. The tail gunner and the waist gunner couldn’t move their guns over far enough to hit him. Apparently the fighter ran out of ammo and pulled into the planes ‘safe area’ to relaxe and rub it in a bit to the bomber crew.
Actually, the consensis amongst pilots and many researchers is that the kill numbers are understated. While many pilots made claims for aircraft that were merely damaged, many, many more only recieved damage credit for actual kills. If gun-camera footage didn’t conclusively show a target as suffering fatal damage or the enemy pilot bailing out, it was credited as a “probable”. In the absence of film, it required witnesses to certify that the enemy was destroyed, otherwise, again, it was a “probable”. Same rules applied for air gunners. Additionally, no one could account for the aircraft that escaped immediate destruction, but crashed on the way home. Gregory Boyington, for example, was officialy credited with 22 kills, but most of his fellow pilots felt it was more likely double that number.
A much better plane than all the heavy bombers of both the RAF and AAF was the Mosquito fighter bomber. This all- wooden plane only had a crew of 2 but could carry almost the same bomb load as a B17 or Lancaster. It was well armed and could fly at twice the speed of heavy bombers. This underestimated plane,if it had been used in greater numbers,could have been a very effective tool in the bombing war and much less costly in crew casualties.
The De Havilland Mosquito is an odd bird to consider in a comparison of the lethality of fighters versus bombers as it was originally conceived as a bomber, but achieved its greatest success as a fighter. It actually achieved success in quite a few roles. The original bomber configuration carried no armament, the idea being that the Mosquito would rely on superior speed for defense.
Thats a bit of an exaggeration. The Mosquito was a great plane, no denying that. However, the bomb load was typically around 2000lbs, where as a B17 was closer to 6000lbs.
Thanks everyone for the responses and answering my original OP. But don’t close the thread since it is still informative.
Some additional questions on the same topic.
How many gunners actually qualified as Aces?
Was there a gunner position that was especially well represented in “kills” (say, tailgunner, for instance)? And finally… any difference in the kill ratios between the American and British bomber crews?
As for the general discussion, I can only add this information… I read somewhere that part of the reason the British bomber command preferred night missions was the fact that Lancasters we’re only equipped with .303 machine guns (unlike the B-17’s .50 cal.'s), which during a day raid did not have the range or the firepower to take on the German fighters
The British preferred night raids because from the earliest days of the war they were sending bombers into Germany. It is a lot harder to shoot down a bomber that you can’t see.
Searchlights are hit or miss operations (one light has to find a plane (and not lose it when the plane begins jinking), then other lights have to get on the plane (while they are all searching for their “own” planes to highlight) so that the plane can be acquired by a gun crew)–then the gun has to be accurate.
Radar was just barely invented at the beginning of the war; the Germans did not originally have it; and placing it on fighter aircraft took a couple of years. No fighter had the range to protect a bomber all the way into Germany at the beginning of the war, so, as night fighters did become more lethal, there was at least the chance that they would not find a bomber who could not get an escort until 1944.
It is true that the Brits used .303 guns instead of the U.S. .50s, but they frequently mounted four in a turret (which, against the more lightly armored fighters at the beginning of the war was considered a good trade-off) as opposed to the two-gun turrets that the U.S. stayed with.
The decision to go with night raids was made before any serious discussion of the caliber of defensive weapons was begun.