Flight model abuse / grievance

[Motherland]

Per Stanley Baldwin Bomber Command, "The bomber will always get through!"

It's been proven that bomber command mentality for BOTH US and British command was flat-out wrong, and flawed. The bomber is so important that... well, lookee here. We've got almost none left in the arsenal! Those we have are leftover from the Vietnam war!!! The few B-1s, B-2s, and B-52s we have in service are a tiny tiny fraction compared to UCAVs, naval fighters, and single-engined precision attack weapons. Bombers are gone. Even with Mach3 speeds during the cold war, the bombers would not have gotten through. Fighters always have and always will catch them, be it in WW2 or in WW3.

I'm sure that has absolutely nothing to do with the advent of ICBM's with the ability to wipe out entire cities. Since that was already available to all countries on a large and useful scale in WWII and all.

[Raygun]

I'm sure that has absolutely nothing to do with the advent of ICBM's with the ability to wipe out entire cities. Since that was already available to all countries on a large and useful scale in WWII and all.

^^ Winner.

[2Slow]

Per Stanley Baldwin Bomber Command, "The bomber will always get through!"

It's been proven that bomber command mentality for BOTH US and British command was flat-out wrong, and flawed. The bomber is so important that... well, lookee here. We've got almost none left in the arsenal! Those we have are leftover from the Vietnam war!!! The few B-1s, B-2s, and B-52s we have in service are a tiny tiny fraction compared to UCAVs, naval fighters, and single-engined precision attack weapons. Bombers are gone. Even with Mach3 speeds during the cold war, the bombers would not have gotten through. Fighters always have and always will catch them, be it in WW2 or in WW3.

Proven?  Hmmmm...Allies won, Axis lost.  Based on my 20 years of experience in the USAF during the Cold War, enough of the bombers would have got through.  When defenses prohibited altitude and speed, we went low and fast.  During Vietnam, we were within a surrender of the North by five days do to our bombing campaign according to the NVA.  The diplomats/politicians screwed the pooch on it.

During WWII, Gen. Arnold was correct.  Look at the experience you are complaining about.  The bombers had altitude and speed.  That was their best defense.  They got through.

Glass is still empty and the green cheese crumbs are now moving about on the plate.

[Die Hard]

During Vietnam, we were within a surrender of the North by five days do to our bombing campaign according to the NVA.  The diplomats/politicians screwed the pooch on it.

False.


http://www.snopes.com/quotes/giap.asp

[Die Hard]

Looks like Krusty has some quite unrealistic expectations with regard to WWII air combat at high altitude. I've successfully fought a B-17 bomber stream (5-7 formations) at 25-30k in a 190A-8 (with the mk108's even). It takes time ... a lot of time, and you need to plan your attacks very carefully. That particular sortie resulted in 4 kills, but took the better part of an hour from take-off to landing, covering several sectors.

Attack from a few thousand feet alt above the bombers from the front quarter and exit in a long careful turn towards the bombers course so you can use your built up speed to overtake the formation and plan your next attack. Speed is your best defence, but never ever dive to avoid defensive fire ... if you do you won't catch the bombers again before they get home or you run out of gas. If you see a bomber formation on radar attacking a base it is already too late to get airborne, so just let them go. You need to be at altitude (25-30k) in a sector where enemy bomber activity is likely (hoard or popular strat target). Bring extra fuel if you can and loiter using the bare minimum of power needed to keep altitude on auto. Use radar and contact reports to get ahead of the bombers, or if you can't, use the time they take to hit their target to set up an attack on their most likely egress route.

Intercepting bombers at high altitude is not easy and demands a lot of patience and planning. In real life the 109 had an endurance of about an hour and a half on internal fuel, and twice that with a drop tank, but still the "rote lampe" (red warning light on the fuel gauge) saved more allied bombers than any other tactical factor.

[2Slow]

Posted on: Today at 03:54:13 AMPosted by: Die Hard
Quote from: 2Slow on Yesterday at 10:25:35 PM
During Vietnam, we were within a surrender of the North by five days do to our bombing campaign according to the NVA.  The diplomats/politicians screwed the pooch on it.

False.


Perhaps you are correct.  I went to the Snopes link and a bunch of other places.  There is some doubt that Gen. Giap said "What we still don't understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing of Hanoi.
You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder, just for another day or
two, we were ready to surrender!"

I remember hearing the above quote attributed to him in the '80's while I was in the service.

[2Slow]

Looks like Krusty has some quite unrealistic expectations with regard to WWII air combat at high altitude. I've successfully fought a B-17 bomber stream (5-7 formations) at 25-30k in a 190A-8 (with the mk108's even). It takes time ... a lot of time, and you need to plan your attacks very carefully. That particular sortie resulted in 4 kills, but took the better part of an hour from take-off to landing, covering several sectors.

Attack from a few thousand feet alt above the bombers from the front quarter and exit in a long careful turn towards the bombers course so you can use your built up speed to overtake the formation and plan your next attack. Speed is your best defence, but never ever dive to avoid defensive fire ... if you do you won't catch the bombers again before they get home or you run out of gas. If you see a bomber formation on radar attacking a base it is already too late to get airborne, so just let them go. You need to be at altitude (25-30k) in a sector where enemy bomber activity is likely (hoard or popular strat target). Bring extra fuel if you can and loiter using the bare minimum of power needed to keep altitude on auto. Use radar and contact reports to get ahead of the bombers, or if you can't, use the time they take to hit their target to set up an attack on their most likely egress route.

Intercepting bombers at high altitude is not easy and demands a lot of patience and planning. In real life the 109 had an endurance of about an hour and a half on internal fuel, and twice that with a drop tank, but still the "rote lampe" (red warning light on the fuel gauge) saved more allied bombers than any other tactical factor.

Well said.

[Stoney]

Bombers did not run at full milpower, even in the thickest of flak and fighters.

"We all but lost an engine just before the IP – a bad mag, no doubt. In order to catch up, we had to pull 52 inches on the other 3."

"We pulled military power from the IP past the target & how I hated to do it."

Quoted from the war diary of 2nd Lt. Charles J. Mellis:  http://www.398th.org/History/Diaries/Mellis/Diary_Index_Mellis.html

Lots of good stuff to learn from on this website.

[RTHolmes]

all but losing an engine seems a decent reason the use emergency power, but certainly not normal usage. why was it Lt Mellis "hated" to use Mil Pwr settings? Was it because he knew the engines were only rated to use those settings for 5mins or so and would likely disintegrate if used any longer?

[moot]

More likely he didn't want to take the chance to find out when his life was on the line. 

[Stoney]

More likely he didn't want to take the chance to find out when his life was on the line. 

Or, perhaps it was his first time ever doing it.  Imagine his confidence in the aircraft after having successfully coaxed such performance out of those engines. 

Regardless, its merely two quotes from two different missions used as a response to Krusty's statement that bombers never used military power, "even in the thickest of flak and fighters".

[colmbo]

It would seem he wasn't terribly concerned about the engines since 49 inches/2500RPM is the Max allowable on the 1820 in the B-17.

[Stoney]

It would seem he wasn't terribly concerned about the engines since 49 inches/2500RPM is the Max allowable on the 1820 in the B-17.

  I was waiting for someone to make this observation.  I had imagined an incredulous "but you can't pull 52" of manifold pressure in a B-17!"

[1BULL]

Dear Kristy,

                   I understand your frustration, that being said if you want an easy kill on some B-17s you might not pick the OD ones.
    Seems to be bad for any ones health.  We take the time to get the alt, boring as it may be.  I feel your frustrations are stemming from
    a lack of dedication, tactics, and wanting of a big clinking pair.  Next time try picking on a noob, I'm sure they wont be as taxing, and they probably wont
    shoot you down, or talk crap on 200.  This is the 100Th BGH, we climb, we fight, we bomb.

[Karnak]

Krusty, the comment about the bomber always getting through was made in the early '30s, during a time when the monoplane bombers entering service were as fast or faster than the biplane fighters entering service.