War in the Air

[Seeker]

Is a DVD wifey bought for me recently.; and it includes three wartime propaganda films: "The fight for the sky"; "Target for today"; and "Target for tonight".

Two things imeadiatly struck me with relevance to AH in the near future.

1) In "Target for today" (an 8th. air force film); I saw at least two shots of B-24 liberators with a belly ball turet. I'd not seen that before.

2) In "Target for tonight" (RAF Bomber command film); the Halifaxes were low enough to return fire from the tail turret to the AAA installations.

Now; with referece to Bomber command (RAF) buffs; it seems to be well proven that they did indeed fly at sub 10K operationaly. Indeed; I don't think any RAF buff could reach the altitudes of the B17's or B24's. However; RAF buffs operated effectively alone; and they should lose the formation option; that was an Eighth army airforce tactic and shouldn't apply to Lancs or any other RAF buffs HTC may have in the works.

Comments?

[Nefarious]

I'm pretty sure, B24's had retractable Ball turrets.

I dont know to much about bomber command, but I'm sure returning fire on AAA installiations would be a dangerous thing to do. And probably didnt happen in less they were really low.

Formations for RAF planes should be allowed, There were plenty of times they operated in somewhat large formations, Usually during the day.

[Furball]

Originally posted by Seeker

Now; with referece to Bomber command (RAF) buffs; it seems to be well proven that they did indeed fly at sub 10K operationaly. Indeed; I don't think any RAF buff could reach the altitudes of the B17's or B24's. However; RAF buffs operated effectively alone; and they should lose the formation option; that was an Eighth army airforce tactic and shouldn't apply to Lancs or any other RAF buffs HTC may have in the works.

Comments?

i was speaking to a Lancaster pilot who flew 30 or so missions in 1944-45. Out of them, he flew the grand total of 2 or 3 at night.

Dont get the impression that the RAF bombers just flew at night time, towards the end of the war they operated during the day in formation.

here is his book, he signed my copy

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1902304594/wwwlink-software-21/202-1678034-0862260

[Seeker]

I've spoken to a couple of Bomber command chaps at UK cons.

While it's true that post D day Lancs flew daylight missions; bomber command never attempted anything like the 8 th's combat box formations.

I remember Stamper saying he was shocked the first time they flew in daylight; he'd never seen so many planes before!

Nonetheless; the British heavies never did use strict combat formations in the same way; and in line with the same philosophy as the yanks. Indeed; the famous Lanc "corkscrew manouver" would be death in a tight formation!

And in night time; which is "classic" bomber command ops; they flew in a buff "stream"; which meant mutual support was impossible.


So.....

Yank heavies should have formations; but be forced to bomb from alt; RAF heavies should not have formations; but should have free choice of drop alt. Mediums from both sides should be treated as RAF types.

After all; when the Lancs did do their better known daylight stuff (tall boy bombs and similar);  again; there was no attempt at a "combat box".

[Angus]

Stumped on this:
"Indeed; I don't think any RAF buff could reach the altitudes of the B17's or B24's."

I'd doubt that, since the Lannie's Merlins did very well at alt.
The Lannies usually carried a heavier load than the B17's, so that could explain a lower ceiling.

[GreenCloud]

yes it was later model versions of B-24s that had ballturrets..They were retractble ..as they would scrape on landing

Electric and manually opertaed winches lowered the ball..


I would hate to be in a Liberator with no ball gunner...

[United]

The B-24 had a turret in the belly since the B-24A.  It wasnt until the B-24D came out there was a ball turret.

[Furball]

The Short Stirling was the real low alt bomber. They kept its wingspan down to fit into the standard RAF hangers..  IIRC its ceiling was 18,000 feet, the crews hated bombing italy in it because the mountains made for a nervous journey, and on joint ops they were lower than the halifax's and lannies so were paranoid about getting hit by bombs.


found this: -

The Stirling proved to be an excellent design and pilots were delighted to discover that it could outturn the Junkers Ju 88 and Messerschmitt Bf 110 nightfighters they faced: a side effect of that thick wing. Another side effect of the thick wing was poor altitude performance, and many missions were flown as low as 12,000ft. This made the plane particularily difficult to use in many scenarios, notably if they were attacking Italy and had to fly over the Alps. When operated along with other RAF bombers flying at higher altitudes, the Luftwaffe ignored the latter and concentrated on the low-flying Stirlings. Within five months of being introduced, 67 out of the 84 aircraft delivered had been lost to enemy action or written off after crashes.

 

could carry 60 250lb bombs or 30 500lb bombs.

the later models could carry 17k of bombs. http://www.xs4all.nl/%7Etropics/bomb.htm

http://www.stirling.box.nl/home.htm

[Angus]

And the late Lannie could carry a 22.000 lbs BOMB

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Angus
And the late Lannie could carry a 22.000 lbs BOMB

No, not really a late one, just a modified one.  Lancaster B.Mk I 'Special'

As to the formation option, that is really a gameplay device to allow bombers to have a shot at having an effect on the game.  It was added at the same time as the laser bombsight was replaced if you'll recall.  Taking away the formation option from RAF and medium bombs does not make good sense for the game.

[JB73]

Originally posted by Seeker
1) In "Target for today" (an 8th. air force film); I saw at least two shots of B-24 liberators with a belly ball turet. I'd not seen that before.

my best friends grandfather flew in a B24, was on the polesti raid, and successfully flew in 30+ missions.

he was a flight engineer, and related this story to me about the "ball" turret:


the gunner responsible for going into it complained all the time at base, and in the air saying how miserable it was. the pilot told him to just shut up and live with it...

until one day the gunner talked the pilot into getting into the turret and see how bad it really was.

the gunner was never asked by the pilot to go in there again.
from what he said he (buddies grandfather) could not fit into it at all, he was 6-1 and 155lbs, but still to big.

also from what he said, the visibility out of it was so terrible that unless a plane flew directly below the bomber the ball turret would never even see it. basically it was a usless trap for keeping someone occupied, not helping the plane in any way.


take it how you want, but he said the turret was removed from their plane not long after this also, and many others in their group.