General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: DaveBB on May 21, 2015, 05:18:14 PM
Title: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: DaveBB on May 21, 2015, 05:18:14 PM
The U.S. Strategic Bombing Campaign was a failure. It's aim was to destroy bottleneck industries, such as German ball bearing plants, and thereby grind production of all mechanical vehicles to a halt. Obviously this did not work. The bombing of German controlled refineries surprisingly only slowed production for a few weeks, and never fully put a refinery out of operation. Only when the Russians overran the Romanian oilfields did Germans began to run low on fuel. British and American bombing of cities did kill quite a large number of people, but this did not seem to have an effect on the German war effort or even morale.
I think that only tactical bombing with medium bombers and ground attack by fighters was truly effective. Accuracy was far greater, more vulnerable targets were selected (trains for example), and German troop morale was directly effected (the destruction of a panzer battalion {even though that was by 4 engine bombers, it was still tactical bombing}].
Long range bombing did tie up a lot of Germans. But it tied up more Americans. At one point there were a shortage of gunners due to all the bombers being shot down. And the immense amount of material and labor to produce B-17s and B-24s is astounding.
What are your opinions on the subject?
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Arlo on May 21, 2015, 05:44:12 PM
To conclude that it was a failure simply because it didn't live up to it's full potential is a hasty conclusion, imo.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Ack-Ack on May 21, 2015, 06:02:47 PM
Allied strategic bombing wasn't a failure.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: bustr on May 21, 2015, 06:59:33 PM
You can look at the concept of strategic bombing to impact the enemy, was being evolved over three years, until they figured out how to flatten one city per bomber with a single bomb. Pretty rapid learning and development cycle if your goal was to deliver the most destruction for the fewest lives and platforms. Germany surrendered and it only took dropping two of those bombs to get Japan's undivided attention.
The AAF losses tapered off after 43, while enemy war material production became dispersed and quickly lessening in quality. A sustained three year bombing campaign and Germany surrenders to boots on the ground a shattered wreck. If we had not bombed so ineffectively, a better quality and quantity of war materiel could have been produced. How many other advanced weapons systems would that have allowed Germany to field?
Then again look at Japan and our ineffective bombing campaign versus some of the surprises in technology they were still willing to work on that were found. The only direct setback vector to what they were working on was our bombers over Japan. And externally our taking the territories around the Pacific they held with raw materials aided by bombing.
People make money and Political\Ivory Tower names for themselves by using hind sight and current cultural expectations to judge parts of WW2 war strategies as failures. In the 40's it was what we had to hit the enemy with. When the war was over, we won, not the other guys. The realities of the time, men, and technology while being in the middle of a world war 70 years ago.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Scherf on May 21, 2015, 07:05:38 PM
Campaign against German oil has been demonstrated to have been particularly effective. Many of Japan's major cities had been razed before the atomic weapons were used - highest casualty count from a single raid anywhere in the war was Tokyo, puts Dresden in the shade.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Oldman731 on May 21, 2015, 07:42:30 PM
The U.S. Strategic Bombing Campaign was a failure.
*sigh*
"1. The German experience suggests that even a first class military power -- rugged and resilient as Germany was -- cannot live long under full-scale and free exploitation of air weapons over the heart of its territory. By the beginning of 1945, before the invasion of the homeland itself, Germany was reaching a state of helplessness. Her armament production was falling irretrievably, orderliness in effort was disappearing, and total disruption and disintegration were well along. Her armies were still in the field. But with the impending collapse of the supporting economy, the indications are convincing that they would have had to cease fighting -- any effective fighting -- within a few months. Germany was mortally wounded."
US Strategic Bombing Survey, available in multiple places, but here's an easy one:
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm#c
- oldman
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: mbailey on May 21, 2015, 07:48:25 PM
I'm fairly certain Albert Speer would disagree
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Triton28 on May 21, 2015, 08:10:53 PM
Allied strategic bombing was as effective as it could have been given that German heavy industry was pretty much a spread out group of small cottage shops. There simply wasn't that many massive complexes for us to destroy, which makes them harder to hit and harder to know about.
Losing oil fields will choke out any country pretty fast. That doesn't count. :)
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Oldman731 on May 21, 2015, 08:25:51 PM
He didn't. In fact, he was one of the principal sources of the bombing survey.
Overy explained it more concisely than I can:
From Overy, Richard, “Why the Allies Won,” W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1995, isbn 0-393-03925-0, page 131:
The stifling of industrial potential caused by bombing is inherently difficult to quantify, but it was well beyond the 10 per cent suggested by the post-war bombing survey, particularly in the cluster of war industries specifically under attack. At the end of January 1945 Albert Speer and his ministerial colleagues met in Berlin to sum up what bombing had done to production schedules for 1944. They found that Germany had produced 35 per cent fewer tanks than planned, 31 per cent fewer aircraft and 42 per cent fewer lorries as a result of bombing. The denial of these huge resources to German forces in 1944 fatally weakened their response to bombing and invasion, and eased the path of Allied armies.
The indirect effects were more important still, for the bombing offensive forced the German economy to switch very large resources away from equipment for the fighting fronts, using them instead to combat the bombing threat. By 1944 one-third of all German artillery production consisted of anti-aircraft guns; the anti-aircraft effort absorbed 20 per cent of all ammunition produced, one-third of the output of the optical industry, and between half and two-thirds of the production of radar and signals equipment. As a result of this diversion, the German army and navy were desperately short of essential radar and communications equipment for other tasks. The bombing also ate into Germany’s scarce manpower: by 1944 an estimated two million Germans were engaged in anti-aircraft defence, in repairing shattered factories and in generally cleaning up the destruction. From the spring of that year frantic efforts were made to burrow underground, away from the bombing. Fantastic schemes were promoted which absorbed almost half of all industrial construction and close to half a million workers. Of course, if German efforts to combat the bombing had succeeded the effort would not have been wasted. As it was the defences and repair teams did enough to keep production going until the autumn of 1944, but not enough to prevent the rapid erosion of German economic power thereafter, and not enough to prevent the massive redirection of economic effort from 1943. Bombing forced Germany to divide the economy between too many competing claims, none of which could, in the end, be satisfied. In the air over Germany, or on the fronts in Russia and France, German forces lacked the weapons to finish the job. The combined effects of direct destruction and the diversion of resources denied German forces approximately half their battle-front weapons and equipment in 1944. It is difficult not to regard this margin as decisive.
At p 133:
There has always seemed something fundamentally implausible about the contention of bombing’s critics that dropping almost 2.5 million tons of bombs on tautly-stretched industrial systems and war-weary urban populations would not seriously weaken them. Germany and Japan had no special immunity. Japan’s military economy was devoured in the flames; her population desperately longed for escape from bombing. German forces lost half of the weapons needed at the front, millions of workers absented themselves from work, and the economy gradually creaked almost to a halt. Bombing turned the whole of Germany, in Speer’s words, into a “gigantic front.” It was a front the Allies were determined to win; it absorbed huge resources on both sides. It was a battlefield in which only the infantry were missing. The final victory of the bombers in 1944 was, Speer concluded, “the greatest lost battle on the German side…” For all the arguments over the morality or operational effectiveness of the bombing campaigns, the air offensive was one of the decisive elements in Allied victory.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: DaveBB on May 21, 2015, 09:16:12 PM
Quote
How did the theory of strategic bombing hold up in practice? The amount of resources dedicated to the combined bomber offensive was immense. As much as 40 to 50 per cent of the British war effort went into the RAF and the USAAF consumed as much as 25-35 per cent of US industrial output. The USAAF grew to 2.4 million men in June 1944, or over a third the size of the US Army. The operational costs were steep. RAF Bomber Command lost 8,325 bombers and 64,000 casualties among their aircrew. The USAAF lost 8,237 bombers and 73,000 crew members which exceeded total USN and USMC casualties in the Pacific.[9] Additionally, an estimated 600,000 German civilians died in the bombings. The effectiveness of the bombing is still being debated. The United States commissioned a study titled “The United States Strategic Bombing Survey Report” (USSBS) after the war. The USSBS report looked at both sides of the combined bomber offensive and came to the conclusion that strategic bombing was a failure. Among the many factors contributing to the conclusion was the fact that Germany had a great deal of slack industrial capacity so that even at the height of the bomber offensive in 1944, armaments production actually increased. Another critical factor was the strategic air offensive against Germany was not a constantly pursued, single-minded affair in its execution. Bombers were diverted to the battle of the Atlantic, to operations in North Africa, to prepare for the Normandy invasion and to support breakout of the allied armies in Northern France in 1944. In fact, the USSB report noted “It is of vital significance that of all the tonnage of bombs dropped on Germany, only 17 percent fell prior to January 1, 1944 and only 28 percent prior to July 1, 1944”.[10] The Combined Bomber Offensive did have successes however. The most important accomplishments were the destruction of the Luftwaffe in aerial combat by the introduction of long range fighters such as the P-51 that could escort bombers on deep penetration missions into Germany. Secondly, the strategic bombing campaign diverted resources from the German army to home defense. The draining of one million men to operate the air defense network of the Reich was the equivalent of opening another front. The bombing also absorbed not only manpower but industrial production to include scarce petroleum that could have been used elsewhere. The bombing’s impact on morale was the least understood and definable aspect of the campaign. Certainly, there was widespread hardship and misery inflicted by the bombing but German worker morale did not collapse as Douhet, Trenchard and Mitchell had predicted. German workers continued to produce weapons and German soldiers continued to fight almost to the very last. Did strategic bombing win the war? By itself, no but it was certainly a factor in Germany’s defeat.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Arlo on May 21, 2015, 10:31:21 PM
The title of Colonel Patton's 2013 online article is "The Failure of Strategic Bombing and the Emergence of the Fighter as the Preiminent Weapon in Aerial Warfare." In spite of the author's experiences in modern fighter warfare I think he would have been better off focusing on the emergence part without the attempt to claim failure regarding strategies leading up to it. He obviously has a dog in this fight. Were he to logically take his premise a step further it would go on to describe the failure of manned fighter planes as they give way to drones (which is just as much a falsehood since technical evolution does not actually exemplify failure in the process ..... just a process).
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Squire on May 21, 2015, 10:34:34 PM
You can ask at what level German production of tanks, ships, guns, planes, ect would have been had they not been bombed at all. I can't beleive that it would not have been at a much higher rate than it was by 1944. Not to mention the attrition cost to Germany of Flak guns and crews, interceptors, air defence radars, installations ect, disruption of road and rail.
Quote
By itself, no but it was certainly a factor in Germany’s defeat
Exactly.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Guppy35 on May 21, 2015, 11:07:26 PM
Ask the guys on both sides in Normandy if the bombing campaign made a difference. If for no other reason than it lead to the death of the Luftwaffe and skies full of Allied airpower it was a success.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: bozon on May 22, 2015, 02:47:44 AM
The strategic bombing capaign was not a pure "failure". It did cause a lot of damage to German insudtry - no doubt about that. On the other hand it took a huge toll of human lives and resources from the allies as well. I mean that number of casualties and POWs was staggering (remember it was 10 men per bomber going down, plus the fighters) and the cost of so many 4-engined bombers that could have been spent on other weapons. So, the real questions are:
1. Was it worth it? 2. Was there a better way to achieve the same goals?
I do not have a clear answer. My gut feeling regarding #2 is that putting all those resources into a much larger tactical airforce and investing in precision bombers (i.e. low alt and dive bombers / fighter bombers) would have paid off a lot more and cost less lives. A handful of Mosquitoes at low alt could do the same damage to a factory deep in enemy territory that numerous squadrons of 4-engine bombers that scatter their bombs over miles could do - at a fraction of the cost and risk, during both day and night.
I don't agree with everything, but he gets the main point: http://www.2worldwar2.com/mosquito-2.htm
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: mbailey on May 22, 2015, 05:20:27 AM
He didn't. In fact, he was one of the principal sources of the bombing survey.
Overy explained it more concisely than I can:
From Overy, Richard, “Why the Allies Won,” W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1995, isbn 0-393-03925-0, page 131:
The stifling of industrial potential caused by bombing is inherently difficult to quantify, but it was well beyond the 10 per cent suggested by the post-war bombing survey, particularly in the cluster of war industries specifically under attack. At the end of January 1945 Albert Speer and his ministerial colleagues met in Berlin to sum up what bombing had done to production schedules for 1944. They found that Germany had produced 35 per cent fewer tanks than planned, 31 per cent fewer aircraft and 42 per cent fewer lorries as a result of bombing. The denial of these huge resources to German forces in 1944 fatally weakened their response to bombing and invasion, and eased the path of Allied armies.
The indirect effects were more important still, for the bombing offensive forced the German economy to switch very large resources away from equipment for the fighting fronts, using them instead to combat the bombing threat. By 1944 one-third of all German artillery production consisted of anti-aircraft guns; the anti-aircraft effort absorbed 20 per cent of all ammunition produced, one-third of the output of the optical industry, and between half and two-thirds of the production of radar and signals equipment. As a result of this diversion, the German army and navy were desperately short of essential radar and communications equipment for other tasks. The bombing also ate into Germany’s scarce manpower: by 1944 an estimated two million Germans were engaged in anti-aircraft defence, in repairing shattered factories and in generally cleaning up the destruction. From the spring of that year frantic efforts were made to burrow underground, away from the bombing. Fantastic schemes were promoted which absorbed almost half of all industrial construction and close to half a million workers. Of course, if German efforts to combat the bombing had succeeded the effort would not have been wasted. As it was the defences and repair teams did enough to keep production going until the autumn of 1944, but not enough to prevent the rapid erosion of German economic power thereafter, and not enough to prevent the massive redirection of economic effort from 1943. Bombing forced Germany to divide the economy between too many competing claims, none of which could, in the end, be satisfied. In the air over Germany, or on the fronts in Russia and France, German forces lacked the weapons to finish the job. The combined effects of direct destruction and the diversion of resources denied German forces approximately half their battle-front weapons and equipment in 1944. It is difficult not to regard this margin as decisive.
At p 133:
There has always seemed something fundamentally implausible about the contention of bombing’s critics that dropping almost 2.5 million tons of bombs on tautly-stretched industrial systems and war-weary urban populations would not seriously weaken them. Germany and Japan had no special immunity. Japan’s military economy was devoured in the flames; her population desperately longed for escape from bombing. German forces lost half of the weapons needed at the front, millions of workers absented themselves from work, and the economy gradually creaked almost to a halt. Bombing turned the whole of Germany, in Speer’s words, into a “gigantic front.” It was a front the Allies were determined to win; it absorbed huge resources on both sides. It was a battlefield in which only the infantry were missing. The final victory of the bombers in 1944 was, Speer concluded, “the greatest lost battle on the German side…” For all the arguments over the morality or operational effectiveness of the bombing campaigns, the air offensive was one of the decisive elements in Allied victory.
Good read Oldman, I believe the title of this thread has changed ( I believed stated It was a failure) and that was what I was responding too. Everything you posted regarding Speers comments and deficiency in war production from the bombing speaks to what I was getting at with my post.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 22, 2015, 06:33:43 AM
Strategic bombing did not live up to what it was meant to in WWII, and the resources spent on creating a strategic air force would arguably have been better used to create a more tactical air force. However, you fight with the air force you have, not the one you need.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Interceptor on May 22, 2015, 09:01:47 AM
Strategic bombing primary goal was to destroy German industry: In january 1945, Germany was a the top of its production capabilities : If we only considered this fact, then yes the strategic bombing didnt meet its objective... :old:
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Karnak on May 22, 2015, 11:16:21 AM
Strategic bombing primary goal was to destroy German industry: In january 1945, Germany was a the top of its production capabilities : If we only considered this fact, then yes the strategic bombing didnt meet its objective... :old:
What would Germany's production have been in January, 1945 without the bombing? Without that information we can't say if the bombing worked or not.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: earl1937 on May 22, 2015, 03:10:17 PM
What would Germany's production have been in January, 1945 without the bombing? Without that information we can't say if the bombing worked or not.
:airplane: there were two reasons heavy bombers did not do what they were designed to do, i.e., force their will on a country, THE BOMB SIGHT AND WIND!
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 22, 2015, 03:21:42 PM
And lack of an effective payload. Only after the advent of the atomic bomb did strategic bombing become a war-winning capability.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Zimme83 on May 22, 2015, 03:21:58 PM
The original idea from the 30:s was that strategic bombing alone could force an enemy to surrender and this idea lived for most of WW2. In that perspective strategic bombing was a failure and rather strengthen the morale and fighting spirit among the people.
As for the affect on industries its harder to evaluate. The bombing campain did not pick up pace until 1944 and only after Allied could deploy enough long range fighters to overwhelm Luftwaffe. But by 1944 the outcome of the war was already clear, it was a matter of how long time it would take to force Germany to surrender.
A brief check shows that USAAF and RAF lost around 79.000 men each in the bombing campain out of around 400.000 total KIA (for each country). So in that perspective i would say that the gain did not outweight the cost. (Especially if civilian casualties are counted).
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: MiloMorai on May 22, 2015, 04:05:31 PM
Strategic bombing primary goal was to destroy German industry: In january 1945, Germany was a the top of its production capabilities : If we only considered this fact, then yes the strategic bombing didnt meet its objective... :old:
A few months late for it was the fall of 1944 when the peak was reached.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Zimme83 on May 22, 2015, 04:22:40 PM
We don´t even have to go as far as to WW2, Vietam war saw a similar strategy with strategic bombing (on a much bigger scale) and it still failed to force the enemy to surrender, or cripple his capabilities, The enemy simply addopted and thus neutralized much off the effect.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Ack-Ack on May 22, 2015, 04:41:23 PM
We don´t even have to go as far as to WW2, Vietam war saw a similar strategy with strategic bombing (on a much bigger scale) and it still failed to force the enemy to surrender, or cripple his capabilities, The enemy simply addopted and thus neutralized much off the effect.
Strategic bombing during the Vietnamese War was hindered by political considerations, taking off the target list most strategic targets that would have most harmed the North Vietnamese.
During the peace talks when North Vietnamese walked away from the table, Nixon ordered the unrestricted bombing of North Vietnam which resulted in "Operation Linebacker II". After the 11 day campaign, there were "few strategic targets worthy of mention left" and North Vietnam contacted Kissinger and asked that peace talks resume in Paris. The 11 day campaign pretty much destroyed North Vietnam's economy, transportation, petroleum and power industries, which is why they crawled back to the peace negotiations.
ack-ack
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Zimme83 on May 22, 2015, 04:46:03 PM
Still... Did the US won the Vetnam war because of the strategic bombing campain?
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Ack-Ack on May 22, 2015, 05:36:41 PM
Still... Did the US won the Vetnam war because of the strategic bombing campain?
Regardless of the political outcome of the Vietnamese War, your claim that strategic bombing failed has shown to be incorrect as US strategic bombing forced the North Vietnamese back to the negotiating table.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Zimme83 on May 22, 2015, 06:15:40 PM
US droped more ords on Vietnam than all countries in WW2 combined. And still it wasnt enough to win the war. I would call that a failure. And i disagree that Linebacker II had any significant impact on the war, aldough negotiations were resumed, they did not resulted in anything significant. The North did not followed the agreement and the bombings did not forced North to accept any terms they did not previously had agreed to.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Ack-Ack on May 22, 2015, 06:52:22 PM
US droped more ords on Vietnam than all countries in WW2 combined. And still it wasnt enough to win the war. I would call that a failure. And i disagree that Linebacker II had any significant impact on the war, aldough negotiations were resumed, they did not resulted in anything significant. The North did not followed the agreement and the bombings did not forced North to accept any terms they did not previously had agreed to.
You can disagree all you want, it will not make you correct in your claims.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Zimme83 on May 22, 2015, 06:58:24 PM
Same rules apply for u.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on May 22, 2015, 07:04:20 PM
We all know who won the Vietnam war, but who lost it? Answer: South Vietnam.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Ack-Ack on May 22, 2015, 07:56:16 PM
No, the facts back up what I've said, unfortunately for you, the facts don't support yours.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Arlo on May 22, 2015, 08:08:37 PM
Goin' South fast here.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Zimme83 on May 22, 2015, 08:12:15 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linebacker_II
Quote
"The US claimed that the operation had succeeded in forcing DRV's Politburo to return to negotiating, with the Paris Peace Accords was signed shortly after the operation. However, the agreement clearly benefited the PAVN in the end.[100] Also, sources indicated that when RVN's President Nguyen Van Thieu objected to the terms, Nixon threatened that he might follow the footsteps of Ngo Dinh Diem (implying that Thieu might also find himself deposed by a military coup).[101] Also, while the bombing did severe infrastructure damage in Northern Vietnam, it did not break the stalemate in the South, nor did it halt the endless stream of supplies flowing down the Ho Chi Minh trail."
Doesnt sound that succesful to me...
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Volron on May 22, 2015, 08:37:20 PM
What would Germany's production have been in January, 1945 without the bombing? Without that information we can't say if the bombing worked or not.
It is speculation on my part: Unaffected by bombing, the material quality and amount of resources available to Germany would have been higher. The war would have lasted maybe 2 more years.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Volron on May 22, 2015, 08:40:30 PM
It is speculation on my part: Unaffected by bombing, the material quality and amount of resources available to Germany would have been higher. The war would have lasted maybe 2 more years.
A almost impossible question to answer, Of course life for German forces would have been easier without any bombing, The defence against the bombers took large resorces from other front, on the other hand same thing is true for the Allied side. But two years feels a little too long, the meat grinder in east took a heav toll and the tide in the east turned well before the bombing campain started to pick up pace.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Oldman731 on May 22, 2015, 08:53:52 PM
Supplies were coming from a bit farther north than Vietnam.
Which is the critical point. There were no strategic targets to bomb in the north. Hanoi imported (virtually) all of its munitions and supplies. There really wasn't any strategic bombing campaign, it was an interdiction campaign, hampered, as others have noted, by political considerations, world's best AA defense, and lousy weapons (Mk 84s against bridges, give me a break).
- oldman
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Zimme83 on May 22, 2015, 09:17:05 PM
That is the best defence against strategic bombing, make yourself invulnerable to them by spreading out and hiding your resources and industries. Germany did it and were still able to increase production.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: DaveBB on May 22, 2015, 10:16:53 PM
Each heavy bomber was essentially an infantry squad of men, with 10-11 machine guns, and enough material to make several tanks. All that manpower and material for extremely inaccurate bombing from 25,000 feet.
German production only slowed when ground forces captured areas supplying alloying elements for metals, and oilfields. German war production was ramped up in response to allied bombing.
The only German vehicle that was ever knocked out of production due to strategic bombing was the Maus Tank.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: MiloMorai on May 22, 2015, 10:24:59 PM
Aluminium tanks. :x
Zimmer doesn't matter how many war machines were produced if they can't get to where they are needed due to lack of fuel and a destroyed transportation system.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Zimme83 on May 22, 2015, 10:32:14 PM
Almost 1 of 5 American and Brittish soldier KIA in WW2 died in while involved in the Strategic Bombing campain against Germany.
Some numbers: (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8f/Ussb-1.svg)
Zimmer doesn't matter how many war machines were produced if they can't get to where they are needed due to lack of fuel and a destroyed transportation system.
Dont mix strategic bombing with tacital. German fuel shortages was an effect of not having enough production capacity ie no oil field, atleast not after they lost control of them in Romania. For front line units it was hard to get fuel and supllies because of the air superiority but that is not what we are discussing. Hampering the enemy with tacital bombing is very effective. The German tanks reached the front line but their fighting were greatly affected by Allied air superiority over the battle area.
Edit: The bombing campain did a lot of damage to Germany, But since it wasnt untill spring 1944 the campain really picked up pace it was already too late, Germany was already on the retreat and would have lost anyway. The damage done from late -44 to the end had no effect on the outcome. My point is that concidering the amount of personell and resourced used in the strategic bombing campain the result is a disapointment.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Zimme83 on May 22, 2015, 10:58:31 PM
But I can agree in that the bombings could have been more succesful in forcing Germany to surrender if the Allied had gained air superiority earlier. If it had happen for ex in spring -43 instead it might have been different.
On Japan on the other hand the bombings could be called more succesful in forcing Japan to surrender, espesially if the A-bombs are included. In Europe the campain was hampered by lack of escort fighters and enough heavy bombers untill very late in the war.
I would say that using the bombers for military targets like airfield etc would probably be more effective than hitting cities and industries.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: MiloMorai on May 22, 2015, 11:02:22 PM
German avgas did not come from oil fields.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Zimme83 on May 23, 2015, 12:26:04 AM
And Luftwaffe wasnt defeated because lack of fuel but because they could replace their losses of pilots. Early 1945 there was still around 1000 fighters for bomber defence but the pilots were too poorly trained to use them effectivly against the bombers. By 1945 Germany had exhausted their reserves of manpower, that cannot be compensated with industries. Tanks and planes are useless without skilled crews.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Interceptor on May 23, 2015, 03:26:25 AM
Im only reading the results by the book: The main objective was to prevent Germany from producing anything, and thats the opposite that happened. Someone who was involved in the Allied HQ could explain us if their bombing campaign was a success or not..We didnt even live during this period (for majority), so i dont think we can judge...(my opinion)... :salute
And Luftwaffe wasnt defeated because lack of fuel but because they could replace their losses of pilots. Early 1945 there was still around 1000 fighters for bomber defence but the pilots were too poorly trained to use them effectivly against the bombers. By 1945 Germany had exhausted their reserves of manpower, that cannot be compensated with industries. Tanks and planes are useless without skilled crews.
Why were they poorly trained? Because of the lack of fuel.
"In July 1944, Luftflotte 3 discovered that with few exceptions, only Gruppen and Staffelen commanders had more than six months' operational fighter experience. A small number of other pilots had up to three months' experience, while the bulk of available pilots had only between eight and thirty days' combat service. All of these factors by 1944 had become mutually reinforcing. The declining skill of German fighter pilots pushed up the level of attrition taking place, which increased the demand that the training establishment turn out more pilots. The viciousness of the circle received its final impetus and the Luftwaffe its death blow when the May attacks on German petroleum sources robbed the training program of the fuel needed to produce new pilots."
(http://kurfurst.org/Engine/Fuel/USSBS_fig22.gif)
I suggest you read this, http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF-Luftwaffe/
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Arlo on May 23, 2015, 09:04:03 AM
That is the best defence against strategic bombing, make yourself invulnerable to them by spreading out and hiding your resources and industries. Germany did it and were still able to increase production.
Being forced to use such a 'best defense' is actually a strategic accomplishment. Surely you are aware of this.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: pembquist on May 23, 2015, 11:18:28 AM
The strategic bombing capaign was not a pure "failure". It did cause a lot of damage to German insudtry - no doubt about that. On the other hand it took a huge toll of human lives and resources from the allies as well. I mean that number of casualties and POWs was staggering (remember it was 10 men per bomber going down, plus the fighters) and the cost of so many 4-engined bombers that could have been spent on other weapons. So, the real questions are:
1. Was it worth it? 2. Was there a better way to achieve the same goals?
I do not have a clear answer. My gut feeling regarding #2 is that putting all those resources into a much larger tactical airforce and investing in precision bombers (i.e. low alt and dive bombers / fighter bombers) would have paid off a lot more and cost less lives. A handful of Mosquitoes at low alt could do the same damage to a factory deep in enemy territory that numerous squadrons of 4-engine bombers that scatter their bombs over miles could do - at a fraction of the cost and risk, during both day and night.
I don't agree with everything, but he gets the main point: http://www.2worldwar2.com/mosquito-2.htm
Whadayou own a balsa plantation or something?
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: bozon on May 23, 2015, 02:15:16 PM
Being forced to use such a 'best defense' is actually a strategic accomplishment. Surely you are aware of this.
That says that the heavy bombers were not completely useless. On the other hand, since this was the major achievemt it means they were not much more than that.
The day I heard about the Mosquito I immediately baught 1000 acres of Balsa forest. The next day I realized that the last Mosquito was taken out of service about 20 years before I was born. I've been crying myself to sleep everyday since. :cry
More to the point, the Mosquito specifically and also the rise of Fighter-Bombers in general during WWII showed the way to the future. I didn't mean to say that they needed to make all wooden wonder airforces - just adopt the concept on a wide scale. All modern attack planes attemp to be a modern mossies. No one tries to build a modern B17 equivallent.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Zimme83 on May 23, 2015, 03:14:30 PM
160.000 men is a very high prize for forcing the enemy to relocate their industries... It was at least a disapointment, the costs were too high and the result only came in the last year when Germany was already beaten.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Squire on May 23, 2015, 03:37:38 PM
Proof that Air Power is useless because IRAQ did not surrender after the air campaign:
Quote
The Air campaign of the Gulf War, also known as the 1991 Bombing of Iraq started with an extensive aerial bombing campaign on 17 January 1991. The coalition flew over 100,000 sorties, dropping 88,500 tons of bombs,[2] widely destroying military and civilian infrastructure.[3] The air campaign was commanded by USAF Lieutenant General Chuck Horner, who briefly served as Commander-in-Chief – Forward of U.S. Central Command while General Schwarzkopf was still in the United States. The British air commanders were Air Vice-Marshal Andrew Wilson (to 17 November) and Air Vice-Marshal Bill Wratten (from 17 November).[4] The air campaign largely finished by 23 February 1991 when the coalition invasion of Kuwait took place.
...I guess they just should not bother anymore?
...The COALITION would have won without the air campaign...ergo it was not effective. I guess.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Zimme83 on May 23, 2015, 03:53:58 PM
Yes they prob would have. But its hard to compare WW2 and now, Its easier to be effective with LGB:s. But the aerial superiority and the ability to strike the Iraqi ground forces at will was prob more important than the strikes on Bagdad etc.
What u forgetting is that the strategic bombing in WW2 was a result of a doctine were they believed that heavy bombers could force a country to surrender by hitting cities and breaking the morale of the people. So when deciding if it was a failure or not we have to concider that.
No one have said heavy air strikes was useless, but was it worth sacrificing 160.000 men in the strategic bombing of Germany? I vote No.
Striking tagets on a tacital level in order to support ground operations was quite effective even in WW2.
But the type of strategic bombing that was done in WW2 is pretty much banned today, pin pointing individual targets its not the same thing as aerial bombing.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: DaveBB on May 23, 2015, 05:18:54 PM
That says that the heavy bombers were not completely useless. On the other hand, since this was the major achievemt it means they were not much more than that.
That's not a very good translation/reinvention of my post.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Squire on May 23, 2015, 05:50:40 PM
Quote
Most if not all of the bombing was done by tactical fighters and light bombers
Because that's what makes up 90 percent of modern air power.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: MiloMorai on May 23, 2015, 07:25:52 PM
Massive numbers of strategic bombers are not needed today because of ICBMs and the BIG bomb.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: bozon on May 24, 2015, 12:34:25 PM
Proof that Air Power is useless because IRAQ did not surrender after the air campaign:
...I guess they just should not bother anymore?
...The COALITION would have won without the air campaign...ergo it was not effective. I guess.
Almost all of the strikes were tactical, not strategic. The plan was a blitz war and strategic bombing is counter productive to the plan.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Squire on May 24, 2015, 01:45:34 PM
Not arguing that many were tactical in nature but:
Quote
Coalition bombing raids destroyed Iraqi civilian infrastructure. 11 of Iraq's 20 major power stations and 119 substations were totally destroyed, while a further six major power stations were damaged.[18][19] At the end of the war, electricity production was at four percent of its pre-war levels. Bombs destroyed the utility of all major dams, most major pumping stations, and many sewage treatment plants, Telecommunications equipment, port facilities, oil refineries and distribution, railroads and bridges were also destroyed.
...in any event air war didn't win thew whole thing.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: artik on May 25, 2015, 07:40:44 AM
More to the point, the Mosquito specifically and also the rise of Fighter-Bombers in general during WWII showed the way to the future. I didn't mean to say that they needed to make all wooden wonder airforces - just adopt the concept on a wide scale. All modern attack planes attemp to be a modern mossies.
The problem that is thinking out of the box wasn't strongest side of the air command (and still is), don't forget that they sent a waves of unescorted bombers believing into Giulio Douhet theories until the losses were way too high. Also it was proven for a long time ago that fighter escort is essential.
If you hadn't read Way of a Fighter by Claire Lee Chennault, I strongly recommend - it isn't "politically correct" what makes it fascinating.
In any case I'm not sure that replacing entire B-17/B-24/Lancasters fleet by a Mosquitos would be right decision.
Yes, they are much more accurate but much more vulnerable to AAA. Also if you don't have air superiority and you put a decent CAP you still can loose some.
Note, fighter bombers generally can defend themselves in equal terms against other fighters. Mosquito isn't the case. Of course in Your experienced hands in AH Mosquito is deadly but yet unless you come at advantage from the beginning, you are in trouble.
It is ideal weapon for surprise missions but probably not for strategic campaign.
Either to get over a target: (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/B-2_Spirit_original.jpg/300px-B-2_Spirit_original.jpg) Or to shoot from a standoff range: (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Tu-160_at_MAKS_2007.jpg/320px-Tu-160_at_MAKS_2007.jpg)
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Karnak on May 25, 2015, 08:13:55 AM
Yes, they are much more accurate but much more vulnerable to AAA.
Less vulnerable to AA. They spend about half the time in the AA's range and they are a smaller target. While they can't take as much punishment as one of the big four engined bombers, those two factors more than make up for it.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: MiloMorai on May 25, 2015, 10:20:36 AM
In any case I'm not sure that replacing entire B-17/B-24/Lancasters fleet by a Mosquitos would be right decision.
Only the B-17 fleet. The heavy lift capability of the Lanc was needed and the B-24, tho not in the numbers actually produced, for long range sea patrolling.
The Mosquito had the perfect escort in the P-51.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Volron on May 25, 2015, 12:04:37 PM
Either to get over a target: (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/B-2_Spirit_original.jpg/300px-B-2_Spirit_original.jpg) Or to shoot from a standoff range: (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Tu-160_at_MAKS_2007.jpg/320px-Tu-160_at_MAKS_2007.jpg)
The B-52 and Tu-95 are still very much active as well. I know the bomber variant of the B-52 is solely a cruise missile platform, and I believe the bomber variant of the Tu-95 has been converted like that as well. I believe both are capable of carrying more cruise missiles than the B-2 and Tu-160, especially if they decide to utilize the external hard points on each. Well, I can't say in regards to the Tu-95, but I know the B-52 is capable of carrying more ordinance on external points.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: artik on May 25, 2015, 12:09:19 PM
Less vulnerable to AA. They spend about half the time in the AA's range and they are a smaller target. While they can't take as much punishment as one of the big four engined bombers, those two factors more than make up for it.
Unless you are talking about XVI, the VI version is dive bomber that does low altitude penetrations...
It is one of the most vulnerable positions for AAA. While at 20,000 only 88mm can get them. At low altitude - every single gun would shoot at them.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Karnak on May 25, 2015, 08:14:05 PM
Unless you are talking about XVI, the VI version is dive bomber that does low altitude penetrations...
It is one of the most vulnerable positions for AAA. While at 20,000 only 88mm can get them. At low altitude - every single gun would shoot at them.
We're talking about bombers, not fighters or fighter-bombers. The Mosquito marks in question would be the Mk IV, Mk IX and Mk XVI for wartime versions.
You would never use a B-17, B-24 or Lancaster for the tasks you would use a Mosquito Mk VI. The aircraft have completely different roles.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: bozon on May 26, 2015, 01:11:41 AM
Note, fighter bombers generally can defend themselves in equal terms against other fighters. Mosquito isn't the case. Of course in Your experienced hands in AH Mosquito is deadly but yet unless you come at advantage from the beginning, you are in trouble.
It is ideal weapon for surprise missions but probably not for strategic campaign.
Yes they do:
Either to get over a target: (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/B-2_Spirit_original.jpg/300px-B-2_Spirit_original.jpg) Or to shoot from a standoff range: (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Tu-160_at_MAKS_2007.jpg/320px-Tu-160_at_MAKS_2007.jpg)
Mossie FB.VI proved to be quite capable of defending against 109 and 190s (110s were considered as food), especially when operating in groups. Coastal command missions were intercepted a few times over Norway and the fights started from a very bad position for the mossies. Still, not only they were not obliterated by the LW, the shot down about as many of the enemy as they lost.
Post war, Mosquitoes served in the IAF. The pilots impressions of the plane was that while not as good a fighter and the spit or p51d, it was quite capable of defending itself in a dogfight.
Bomber Mossies are a different story altogether. First, as noted by Karnak above, they are far more survivable to flak than heavy bombers. Versus fighters, had they been used on large scale day time missions, they would have needed Escorts.
HOWEVER! This would have been a very different escort from the heavy bombers. Cruising at fighter speeds would have extended the range of the escorts far deeper than B17 escort ranges even before the arrival of the P51. It would have been very difficult for the LW fighters to get into position to intercept a bomber that is as fast if not faster than they are - even if they could slowly close from behind, any intervention from escorts would have made the enemy drop out of the race. Frontal attacks are difficult to set up against maneuvering targets - the mossies would have flown in small formations rather than big boxes and could easily ruin a good setup, not to mention that the attackers will fall far behind a and not get a second chance.
As for the B2, Let's see, it has no defensive armament, it is quite fast and relies on evading interceptors altogether in order to deliver ordnance with high precision. Is it more like a B17 or a Mossie Bomber? :)
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: artik on May 26, 2015, 01:39:56 AM
Post war, Mosquitoes served in the IAF. The pilots impressions of the plane was that while not as good a fighter and the spit or p51d, it was quite capable of defending itself in a dogfight.
I read Dani Shapiro's biography (he was most famous IAF test pilot) and remember quite a different story. He wasn't fond of Mosquito and considered them as quite dangerous because they had very small safety margins. i.e. Mosquitos are not forgiving planes at all and you could easily get yourself in trouble with it.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: bozon on May 26, 2015, 06:35:17 AM
I read his book decades ago so I cannot recall his exact words. The mossie was quite a plesant plane to handle - until you lost control over it. Like most twins it could get into very nasty spins (I guess it has to do with the high wingspan/length ratio and having the engines off the central axis). Interestingly, it handles just so in AH as well.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Jabberwock on May 31, 2015, 09:46:33 PM
The Mosquito wasn’t great shakes as a dayfighter. Sure, it made some kills, but that was more being in the right place at the right time and having something stumble across the gunsights.
According to the AFDU tactical trials, the FB Mk VI’s controls were very heavy at 3G and above, detracting from its general performance as a fighter. Even a single-seat lightened version (-1500 lb) without the elevator weight wasn’t really considered that good against S/E fighters.
In trials vs the Spitfire V, IX and XII and Typhoon, it was found that all the single-engine fighters could throw the Mosquito off their tails, with the exception of a Typhoon handled by an inexperienced pilot. The Mosquito however was unable to disengage S/E opposition using turns or climbs.
However, there were a couple of points in the Mosquito’s favour. It was generally considered to be a very difficult target for fighters and at medium altitudes, it was found to have better initial level acceleration and dive acceleration than the single engine fighters.
The general conclusion was that the Mosquito was unable to go on the offensive against S/E fighters and it was limited to making itself as difficult a target as possible.
On the general behaviour of the Mosquito, most of the pilots reports I've read indicate that it was a comparatively nice bird to fly, with well balanced controls and few bad manners with its handling.
Single-engine flying was poor in the early marks, I think purely due to a lack of power combined with a high stall speed. Stall behaviour, even with a single engine, was relatively benign from what I've read, with a pronounced buffet and 'mush' period prior to full onset.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: FLOOB on May 31, 2015, 10:09:20 PM
Dude's named Jabberwock!
Frumious Bandersnatch!
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: MiloMorai on May 31, 2015, 10:15:22 PM
Jabberwock knows his aviation. He might not post here much but he does on several other boards.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: FLOOB on May 31, 2015, 10:26:22 PM
Jabberwock knows his aviation. He might not post here much but he does on several other boards.
What's that have to do with anything?
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: bozon on June 01, 2015, 12:51:14 AM
Jabberwokie,
We are not considering the mosquito as a day fighter. This is the one role it was never meant to fill. The discussion was about the vulnerability of the mossies (bombers and FB) to enemy fighters had they been used in large scale.
AFDU tested a merlin 23 mosquito which was not fast enough vs. contemporary fighters. This is why the FB.XI got the merlin 25s. In the same document you can find some tests that were performed later with merlin 25s. It walked away from all spitfires including the Griffon powered XII that was the fastest spit on the deck (faster than spit 14, which our mossie VI isn't by the way), and it matched or out performed the Typhoon in turn and climb.
AFDU has some wrong assessments in their time. You should read what they thought of the P-47...
Actual combat records suggest that the mossies were difficult opponrnts. Most of those records come from coastal command actions in Norway since other many on many engagements were rare. You also have to remember that mossie pilots were usually not trained as fighter pilots and when engaged were focused on protecting each other and disengaging. I think that most of the mossie kills in those engagements were by pilots that started out in single-engine fighters and had more of a day-fighter mentality and training, though I did not do the actual statistics.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 01, 2015, 01:36:55 AM
The main reason the Mosquito did so well was exactly because it wasn't used in greater numbers. The Luftwaffe's interceptor aircraft and tactics evolved to counter the main threat of the slower heavy bombers, where firepower and armor was more important than speed. Had the Mosquito been the main threat, the Luftwaffe would have evolved differently throughout the war to counter it.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Karnak on June 01, 2015, 02:45:23 AM
The main reason the Mosquito did so well was exactly because it wasn't used in greater numbers. The Luftwaffe's interceptor aircraft and tactics evolved to counter the main threat of the slower heavy bombers, where firepower and armor was more important than speed. Had the Mosquito been the main threat, the Luftwaffe would have evolved differently throughout the war to counter it.
Given the performance aircraft of the day were capable of, or what the technology might max at in terms of climb and speed, there isn't all that much the Luftwaffe could have done to make intercepts better. It is simply a matter of numbers and the window to intercept Mossies was vastly smaller than the window to intercept the heavies was.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 01, 2015, 03:15:35 AM
True, but having faster, lighter fighters would make interception easier. Depending on how deep into Germany the raid is a Mosquito would still have to spend several hours over continental Europe. The Luftwaffe did experiment with equipping single engined fighters with radar to hunt down Mosquitoes (mostly on Goering's behest), but it was given little priority as the vast armada of RAF Bomber Command's heavy bombers laid waste to German cities.
(http://www.rlm.at/profil/07/fw190_migge.jpg)
Migge's White 9 equipped with the FuG 218.
Had the Mosquito been the main RAF bomber you'd seen a lot more lightened, nitroed-up 109's and 190's with radar sets, rater than the ponderous Ju88's.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Jabberwock on June 01, 2015, 03:43:50 AM
The main reason the Mosquito did so well was exactly because it wasn't used in greater numbers. The Luftwaffe's interceptor aircraft and tactics evolved to counter the main threat of the slower heavy bombers, where firepower and armor was more important than speed. Had the Mosquito been the main threat, the Luftwaffe would have evolved differently throughout the war to counter it.
I hear this quite commonly, and it undoubtedly true, to an extent. When the Luftwaffe did develop a group specifically to hunt the wily Mosquito, they performed... not so well. JG300 and NJGr 10, later NJG11, had very little success in actually hitting the Mosquitoes that they were going after.
There was a very good LEMB thread on this about five years ago that I wish I had saved somewhere. The Luftwaffe tried stripped down S/E fighters with radar loitering on likely flight paths - particularly turning areas - souped up twin engine fighters over expected bombing zones and a couple of other tricks.
Yes, had the main threat been the Mosquito, I'm sure that Mossie loss rates would have gone up. Yes, I'm sure that the Luftwaffe would have developed more effective counters if they'd put the resources into it and they would have devoted proportionally more resources to shooting down Mossies. If history was different, history would be different...
However, its also my conviction that loss rates never would have been as high as with the four-engine heavies.
I don't think that the Mosquito could, or even should, have replaced four engine bombers though.
I do think that there was a missed opportunity, a very large one at that, to the Mosquito force as a supplement to the heavy bomber arms, particularly the RAF's night bombing force. The 18 months or so that the higher ups in the RAF took to acknowledge the Mosquito's effectiveness was time badly wasted.
In an ideal world for the Mosquito, the RAF would have welcomed the fast bomber idea with open arms, ordered more of them earlier and even pressed for the four-engine powered version that de Haviland kicked around in mid 1941.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Karnak on June 01, 2015, 06:47:31 AM
I concur that Mossie loss rates in this scenario would have been very much higher than they were historically, but I firmly believe that the cost in losses, both in crew and machines, would still be significantly lower than was historically the case for the heavies.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: bozon on June 01, 2015, 07:17:19 AM
I concur that Mossie loss rates in this scenario would have been very much higher than they were historically, but I firmly believe that the cost in losses, both in crew and machines, would still be significantly lower than was historically the case for the heavies.
Given that about half of all lancs were lost and each took 7 crewmen with it, it could not have been worse.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: MiloMorai on June 01, 2015, 08:35:17 AM
It was JG25 and JG50 that were the specialist units formed on Goring's order to intercept the Mossie. JG50 only got 1 Mossie with their souped up 109s in 4 months of operations.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 01, 2015, 10:33:07 AM
Crew losses would have been less I think we can all say with whatever certainty can be had in such "what ifs". However, the perhaps ugly truth about war is that some people are more expendable than others. It took one pilot and one navigator to fly a Mosquito. It took one pilot and one navigator to fly a Lancaster, the rest of the crew were not nearly as hard or time consuming to train, and were very expendable in the scope of a total war. The RAF would need seven Mosquitoes to match two Lancasters in bomb load. An increase in critical highly trained personnel by a factor of 3.5.
This reasoning was very prevalent in the RAF at the time. The Halifax carried 13,000 lbs of bombs compared to the 14,000 bomb load of the Lancaster, but this 7.2% shortfall was enough to draw scathing criticism from Harris. That the Halifax had lower loss rates and higher crew survival rates after bailing out was inconsequential to the RAF. A crew who bailed out over occupied Europe was still lost to the RAF regardless of whether they lived or not. Thus the Halifax (and other types) was increasingly relegated to secondary roles as the Lancaster became the main RAF bomber.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: hitech on June 01, 2015, 11:51:01 AM
The original idea from the 30:s was that strategic bombing alone could force an enemy to surrender and this idea lived for most of WW2. In that perspective strategic bombing was a failure and rather strengthen the morale and fighting spirit among the people.
As for the affect on industries its harder to evaluate. The bombing campain did not pick up pace until 1944 and only after Allied could deploy enough long range fighters to overwhelm Luftwaffe. But by 1944 the outcome of the war was already clear, it was a matter of how long time it would take to force Germany to surrender.
A brief check shows that USAAF and RAF lost around 79.000 men each in the bombing campain out of around 400.000 total KIA (for each country). So in that perspective i would say that the gain did not outweight the cost. (Especially if civilian casualties are counted).
Why did Japan surrender?
HiTech
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 01, 2015, 11:55:33 AM
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: save on June 01, 2015, 12:13:01 PM
What if Germany did use their reinforcement more wisely at Ardenners and Bodenplatte, prolonging the war,and the US dropped a nuke or two on Germany, would Germany have given up ?
Probably not, would they have responded with chemical warfare ? - probably....
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 01, 2015, 12:23:45 PM
True. Germany did have advanced chemical weapons and a means to deliver them that the Allies could not counter or intercept. The only thing holding them back was, ironically, Hitler.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Oldman731 on June 01, 2015, 12:29:27 PM
True. Germany did have advanced chemical weapons and a means to deliver them that the Allies could not counter or intercept.
And so did the Allies. If Germany used chem weapons after, say, the spring of 1944, Germany would have been smothered under a cloud of gas instead of under a cloud of bombs. I suspect that both sides realized this.
- oldman
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Arlo on June 01, 2015, 12:39:49 PM
What if Germany did use their reinforcement more wisely at Ardenners and Bodenplatte, prolonging the war,and the US dropped a nuke or two on Germany, would Germany have given up ?
Probably not, would they have responded with chemical warfare ? - probably....
Methinks your probability logic is flawed (a polite understatement).
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: FLOOB on June 01, 2015, 12:52:56 PM
It's often said that Japan surrendered because of the atomic bombs. But really the US bombing raids were doing just as much damage with conventional fire bombing. The real reason Japan surrendered is because it had been systematically burned down.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: FLOOB on June 01, 2015, 12:58:10 PM
A better argument against the effectiveness of long range bombing would be the korean war, definitely not japan. There are almost no remaining pre war man made structures remaining in North Korea. Unfortunately for the UN forces the chinese didn't live in North Korea.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: bozon on June 01, 2015, 01:09:47 PM
The RAF would need seven Mosquitoes to match two Lancasters in bomb load. An increase in critical highly trained personnel by a factor of 3.5.
Not really, because the 7 mosquitoes are much more likely to hit something they aimed for than the two lancasters... unless they were aiming at the ground. In additions, the Mosquitoes are much more likely to come back. Then again, Bomber Harris didn't really care where the bombs landed as long as its was within a city. By that point in the war Bomber Command forgot what it was originally ment to do. So yes I stand corrected, for killing civilians the two lancasters are perhaps better.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 01, 2015, 01:25:28 PM
The RAF were aiming at whole cities.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 01, 2015, 01:35:22 PM
And so did the Allies. If Germany used chem weapons after, say, the spring of 1944, Germany would have been smothered under a cloud of gas instead of under a cloud of bombs. I suspect that both sides realized this.
- oldman
Not really. The Allies had stockpiles of WWI type chemical weapons like mustard gas, but not the nerve gas Germany had developed during the war. The Germans produced and stockpiled 30,000 tons of Tabun before the factory was captured by the Red Army. They also developed an even more potent nerve agent called Sarin and stockpiled 5,000-7,000 tons by war's end. Enough to kill the occupants of 30 cities the size of Paris. There were many generals who pleaded with Hitler to deploy the weapons, but with only a few exceptions on the Russian front, chemical weapons were not used by Germany despite Germany's enormous advantage. Another interesting if disturbing "what if".
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: FLOOB on June 01, 2015, 01:39:15 PM
Check it yall!
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Jabberwock on June 01, 2015, 10:38:12 PM
Then again, Bomber Harris didn't really care where the bombs landed as long as its was within a city. By that point in the war Bomber Command forgot what it was originally ment to do.
I'm not a Harris fan - I think he drew the wrong conclusions from 1940-1941 experiences and took Bomber Command into an unnecessary war of attrition - but I think that this comment does him a disservice.
Harris took the best available information to him (Butt report, Singelton report, dehousing paper ect) and made a command decision that area bombing was more effective than point target bombing and would continue to be the way that Bomber Command prosecuted the war. He felt Casablanca directive gave him open reign to target any German urban or industrial area, and none of the political or military leadership of the time really disabused him of that notion (although there were some minor scuffles leading up to Neptune/Overlord and about the Transportation Plan).
Harris, to his credit, did recognise the need for better accuracy and although he was obstinate about diverting any resources from the "main effort", did allow the formation of the Pathfinder Force/No 8 Group, No 100 Group, 617 Squadron ect through the war. RAF accuracy did improve through the war, but it could have been improved more quickly and easily if the head of BC was more open to alternatives and different targeting strategies.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Scherf on June 01, 2015, 11:32:02 PM
Agree with the above - I believe the Area Bombing philosophy was in place before Harris was put in charge of Bomber Command (not surprisingly, being put in charge by the people who came up with Area Bombing).
I also believe it is inaccurate to say he didn't care so long as the bombs were somewhere in the city. The need for concentration was recognised early on, and indeed was part of the reason for 105 Squadron going on to Oboe ops in mid-43, to back up 109, who had made such a difference in attacks on the Ruhr earlier that year. There was a specific aiming point, and bomb photos were taken by all aircraft in an attempt to measure accuracy.
On a more controversial and possibly un-related note, I believe there is a strong case that the Japanese authorities were more afraid of Ivan and a replication of the carve-up of Germany than they were of more bombings.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Zimme83 on June 02, 2015, 02:06:14 AM
RAF tactic are understandable. Long range bombing were the only way to hurt Germany in the early years but lack of escort and precision gave them only one choise, to bomb cities at night because that was the only thing doable.
As for Japan its disputed if the bombings, and even the A-bombs, were the main reason for their surrrender.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: save on June 02, 2015, 06:33:25 AM
What I'm trying to get through, chemical agents are just another strategic terror weapon (1k of heavy bombers area bombing, or a nuclear strike is another).
US proved to have chemical agents (mustard gas) in Italy 1943 when ju88s blew up the port at Bari, hitting US ship Harvey causing many US troops and civilian casualties.
What I'm trying to get through, chemical agents are just another strategic terror weapon (1k of heavy bombers area bombing, or a nuclear strike is another).
US proved to have chemical agents (mustard gas) in Italy 1943 when ju88s blew up the port at Bari, hitting US ship Harvey causing many US troops and civilian casualties.
Funny, it seemed you were tying to get through that Germany would not have surrendered had the U.S. dropped a couple of nukes on them. Germany not surrendering and retaliating with chemical weapons without being able to put them on U.S. soil doesn't sound like a realistic theoretical answer.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: save on June 02, 2015, 07:29:26 AM
I see very little difference between a 1000 plane raid hitting Berlin, or a 10kt nuke hitting the same place, did they surrender - NO. Did they care if this was delivered by Brittish or US flying objects - NO
What the A-bomb could do is trigger a retaliation action, something "normal" bomber raid had proven not to do.
Why go for US soil where other western Europe cities packed with civilians that could easy get a terminal treatment.
You narrow this to a US threat, Germans did not care about that ,whole western Europe was in threat of chemical agents.
Funny, it seemed you were tying to get through that Germany would not have surrendered had the U.S. dropped a couple of nukes on them. Germany not surrendering and retaliating with chemical weapons without being able to put them on U.S. soil doesn't sound like a realistic theoretical answer.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Arlo on June 02, 2015, 09:12:18 AM
Actually, there is a big strategic and logistical difference in a 1000 plane raid and a single bomber capable of the same amount of destruction. I'm pretty sure the Germans weren't as devoted to Hitler as the Japanese were to their emperor at the end of the war. Germany would have surrendered.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Karnak on June 02, 2015, 09:32:27 AM
Keep in mind that Japan had tried to surrender well before we were bombing them. They weren't insane on some asinine idea of Aryan superman crap. The reason they were rejected is because they insisted on one condition, that the emperor not be taken down. Frustratingly we'd already reached the same conclusion, but were bound by the requirement that Japan had to surrender unconditionally, something that was done to match the British insistence that the Germans had to surrender unconditionally.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 02, 2015, 09:38:42 AM
In a police state devotion to the government is not a requirement, only obedience. It was not the Japanese public who forced their government to surrender. It was the government itself that chose to do so. In Germany the government issued orders to destroy the country's infrastructure completely, to leave nothing left for the invaders. They would not have surrendered if the allied air forces had done the job for them (even more so than they were already doing), and the people had no say in the matter. There were only children and old people left anyway. In Hitler's eyes the German people had proven themselves weak, and according to Nazi beliefs they deserved nothing better than to be destroyed by the stronger races.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 02, 2015, 09:45:36 AM
Ian Kershaw's book The End: Hitler's Germany 1944-45 should be obligatory reading for any WWII buff.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Arlo on June 02, 2015, 09:56:21 AM
Germany wouldn't surrender after being nuked because of Hitler, Aryan supremacy and a standing order to destroy the country's infrastructure? Um. Well. Interesting hypothesis and all ....
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 02, 2015, 10:16:57 AM
They didn't surrender after the Dresden fire storm. They wouldn't have surrendered no matter what was done to them. Given the chance the people surrendered to the advancing forces, most of the German soldiers surrendered after a little fighting. However, the German government never surrendered. And as long as the German government refused to surrender the war would go on. They chose to be destroyed. As a technicality Germany was occupied and WWII officially lasted until 1990 when a reunited Germany signed the treaty on the final settlement with respect to Germany.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: MiloMorai on June 02, 2015, 10:25:38 AM
"It was quite a surprise to us when the first Hamburg raid took place because you used some new device which was preventing the anti-aircraft guns to find your bombers, so you had a great success and you repeated these attacks on Hamburg several times and each time the new success was greater and the depression was larger, and I have said, in those days, in a meeting of the Air Ministry, that if you would repeat this success on four or five other German towns, then we would collapse."
Albert Speer - The Secret War
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 02, 2015, 10:35:55 AM
And history proved him wrong.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: MiloMorai on June 02, 2015, 12:00:16 PM
Germany wouldn't surrender after being nuked because of Hitler, Aryan supremacy and a standing order to destroy the country's infrastructure? Um. Well. Interesting hypothesis and all ....
I was not commenting on Germany's willingness to surrender after being nuked. I was pointing out that, as history unfolded, they fought to the bitter end as they did for reasons of insanity. Reasons the Japanese largely didn't share, as evidenced by trying to enter negotiations to surrender well before Japan was being bombed. My meaning was to say that while the nukes may have tipped it over to unconditional, the Japanese were already open to a way of ending it.
The Japanese emperor and Prime Minister were not delusionally thinking they could somehow turn the war around and win. They knew they had lost it some time in 1944. The Nazi government, at least at the top, deluded themselves into fantasies of turning it around and actually winning it when it was blindingly obvious by 1944 that it was lost and all that remained to be seen was the exact manner in which it would end.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 02, 2015, 12:45:27 PM
How is that? There was only 2 devastating raids > Hamburg 1943 and Dresden 1945.
lol no. There was hardly any cities or large towns remaining in Germany (or Japan). The most thoroughly bombed city in Germany was not Dresden, Berlin or even Hamburg. It was Julich. On 16 November 1944, 97% of Julich was destroyed by Allied bombing. Bremen, Dusseldorf, Cologne, Nurnberg, Lubeck, Potsdam, Dortmund, Pforzheim, Wurzburg, Magdeburg, Bochum, Gelsenkirchen, Ulm, Kaiserslautern, Darmstadt, the list goes on and on...
Harris took the best available information to him (Butt report, Singelton report, dehousing paper ect) and made a command decision that area bombing was more effective than point target bombing and would continue to be the way that Bomber Command prosecuted the war. He felt Casablanca directive gave him open reign to target any German urban or industrial area, and none of the political or military leadership of the time really disabused him of that notion (although there were some minor scuffles leading up to Neptune/Overlord and about the Transportation Plan).
Harris, to his credit, did recognise the need for better accuracy and although he was obstinate about diverting any resources from the "main effort", did allow the formation of the Pathfinder Force/No 8 Group, No 100 Group, 617 Squadron ect through the war. RAF accuracy did improve through the war, but it could have been improved more quickly and easily if the head of BC was more open to alternatives and different targeting strategies.
It is true that at some early point in the war it was either carpet bombing of cities, or let the bombers sit idle. The choice was indeed an obvious one.
However, as the war developed, bombing accuracy and lethality of individual bombs increased - later in the war, lancs were bombing bridges, large bunkers and the Bismark with the Barns Wallis earthquake bombs. They were capable of destroying point targets with a small number of bombers during the day. There were also the mosquitoes that were able to place bombs inside the doors of buildings and into the mouth of tunnels. To destroy a factory they did not need 100+ heavy bombers to cover 2 square kilometers with bombs - they needed 8-12 mosquitoes that can actually hit the target both in day and at night.
Aside from special missions, Harris was too deep into the bomb-to-submission concept that he could not, or was not willing to reform bomber command and send it to bomb point targets as a global strategy. The 8th AF was also locked into the heavy bombers area bombing. They too could not see that a force of fast light bombers could achieve the same goals with a much higher efficiency. Once they set this huge machine of mass heavy bomber production, crew training, escort tactics, logistics etc. it was very very difficult to suddenly stop, say "this is stupid" and change everything from the ground up. They just kept on going with the momentuum. I cannot blame them.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: save on June 02, 2015, 02:35:49 PM
I know of only 2 German cities with more than 50.000 inhabitant's that where not bombed full or partly. For those who lived in the bombed cities, it was devastation, and US and British airmen had to be protected by military against the civilians if they had to bail.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: FLOOB on June 02, 2015, 02:54:07 PM
There is one major accomplishment of the european bombing campaign that nobody has mentioned yet.
The main accomplishment would be the destruction of the Luftwaffe by attrition.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Rich46yo on June 02, 2015, 03:55:35 PM
The Germans had to divert a huge amount of resources on equipment/manpower/production to the air war. These were vast resources they would have loved to had deployed elsewhere. Sure it united them, most of all since there was no alternative. But at some visceral level one has to believe that most Germans thought they were screwed once the Allies were able to level their cities at will.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: FLOOB on June 02, 2015, 03:59:44 PM
I wouldn't say it was the main but yes it was a major accomplishment.
After Jimmy Doolittle took over the reins of the 8th AAF in January 1944 it became the main objective, to destroy the Luftwaffe before Operation Overlord. And hardly anything the 8th did in 1943 can be said to have had much effect on the outcome of the war. Targets were no longer selected strictly based on strategic value, but on how likely they were to provoke the Luftwaffe into defending. And the escort fighters were released to go hunting the Luftwaffe wherever they were encountered and leave the bombers to fend for themselves. It worked, but even the bomber crews realized they were just bait, and it did nothing to lessen their losses in the early months of 1944. Despite the fighter escort the 8th lost just as many bombers going to Brunswick in January 1944 as they did on the unescorted Schweinfurt missions in 1943. And in March 1944 they lost 51 bombers going to Berlin.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: MiloMorai on June 03, 2015, 08:02:27 AM
lol no. There was hardly any cities or large towns remaining in Germany (or Japan). The most thoroughly bombed city in Germany was not Dresden, Berlin or even Hamburg. It was Julich. On 16 November 1944, 97% of Julich was destroyed by Allied bombing. Bremen, Dusseldorf, Cologne, Nurnberg, Lubeck, Potsdam, Dortmund, Pforzheim, Wurzburg, Magdeburg, Bochum, Gelsenkirchen, Ulm, Kaiserslautern, Darmstadt, the list goes on and on...
Nice of you to list places that were bombed many many times. Julich was a large town.
Quote
Despite the fighter escort the 8th lost just as many bombers going to Brunswick in January 1944 as they did on the unescorted Schweinfurt missions in 1943.
Mission 182 663 bombers were sent to Brunswick and other targets and 60 were lost > 9% loss
Brunswick itself had 372 attack with 18 lost to enemy causes > 4.8% loss
Mission 84 230 bombers were sent to Schweinfurt and 36 were lost 146 bombers went to Regensburg and 24 were lost 60/376 > 16% loss
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Lusche on June 03, 2015, 08:19:22 AM
Jülich was a small town. In 1939, it had 12,000 inhabitants.
Much of the bombings of Jülich were more of a 'tactical' nature (I use this term very loosely in this context), when it already was a supply hub for the nearby front, full of troops and the Allies were afraid of it becoming just another 'fortress'. Much of the destruction was also a result of the heavy fighting in and around the town.
Jülich was destroyed for different reasons and with different intentions then, say, Hamburg, Köln, Coventry or Tokyo.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: WaffenVW on June 03, 2015, 08:20:05 AM
Mission 182 663 bombers were sent to Brunswick and other targets and 60 were lost > 9% loss
Brunswick itself had 372 attack with 18 lost to enemy causes > 4.8% loss
Mission 84 230 bombers were sent to Schweinfurt and 36 were lost 146 bombers went to Regensburg and 24 were lost 60/376 > 16% loss
Yes, exactly. The losses were the same. The only reason the loss rate in percentage went down in 1944 was because the 8th AAF had double the force of bombers to throw at the Luftwaffe. They still lost 60 aircraft and 600 men. They reduced the loss rate in percentage by producing more bombers. The loss rate in actual aircraft and personnel didn't drop until the Luftwaffe in Western Europe was defeated in late spring 1944.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: WaffenVW on June 03, 2015, 08:21:36 AM
Yes, exactly. The losses were the same. The only reason the loss rate in percentage went down in 1944 was because the 8th AAF had double the force of bombers to throw at the Luftwaffe. They still lost 60 aircraft and 600 men. They reduced the loss rate in percentage by producing more bombers. The loss rate in actual aircraft and personnel didn't drop until the Luftwaffe in Western Europe was defeated in late spring 1944.
:aok
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: FLOOB on June 03, 2015, 08:30:14 AM
Any Idea what the four engine plane was lobbing shells into the b17s from beyond the range of their 50 cals?
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 03, 2015, 08:33:02 AM
20 mm would be my guess. I don't know of any German bomber armed with larger cannons.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: MiloMorai on June 03, 2015, 08:50:12 AM
:huh Hamburg was bombed many, many times. It wasn't just one big raid. It took more than a week.
Yes, exactly. The losses were the same. The only reason the loss rate in percentage went down in 1944 was because the 8th AAF had double the force of bombers to throw at the Luftwaffe. They still lost 60 aircraft and 600 men. They reduced the loss rate in percentage by producing more bombers. The loss rate in actual aircraft and personnel didn't drop until the Luftwaffe in Western Europe was defeated in late spring 1944.
But the raid Speer was talking about was only one night.
Did you fail math? Almost the same number of a/c attacked Brunswick that attacked S-R. Losses went from 16% to 4.8%.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Lusche on June 03, 2015, 09:02:59 AM
Which matters exactly how much to the civilians who lived there?
Which was not the point of the thread or of my post.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 03, 2015, 09:05:49 AM
WaffenVW is right. Operation Gomorrah, aka the battle of Hamburg lasted 8 days. The destruction of Hamburg was not done in one night.
If the Luftwaffe managed to shoot down 60 bombers out of 372, why do you think they would shoot down more than 60 if the number of bombers doubled? Do you fail at logic? Obviously the Luftwaffe had to spread their resources to deal with multiple incursions and thus there were fewer interceptors available to counter the Brunswick raid, but in total the Luftwaffe shot down the same number of bombers.
60 out of 376 on August 17, 1943
60 out of 291 on October 14, 1943
60 out of 663 on January 11, 1944
51 out of 730 on March 6, 1944 (by this time the Luftwaffe was hurting bad and nearing collapse in the west).
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: WaffenVW on June 03, 2015, 01:12:36 PM
On the night of July 24th, 1943 the RAF bombed Hamburg. Later the same day the USAAF made a raid. On the 25th Harris sent his bombers to Essen instead. On the 26th they returned to Hamburg and the USAAF by day. On the 27th they returned yet again, and the USAAF too. On the 29th the RAF again raided Hamburg with more than 700 bombers. The last raid was made on the night of 2nd/3rd of August, marking the end of Operation Gomorrah.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: FLOOB on June 03, 2015, 01:50:12 PM
20 mm would be my guess. I don't know of any German bomber armed with larger cannons.
I assumed he meant mortars as mg151 doesn't have longer range than .50 bmg. Also he says "lobbing shells into the formation" which I took to mean not firing at point targets.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 03, 2015, 02:08:26 PM
You can lob 20 mm shells into a formation of heavy bombers. Only in AH does the 20 mm and .50 cal have equal range due to the time out.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: FLOOB on June 03, 2015, 02:24:50 PM
No.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 03, 2015, 02:25:40 PM
What a convincing argument.
Yes.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 03, 2015, 02:32:11 PM
Hitting a single moving target with a .50 cal from a flexible mount is a lot more difficult than spraying a tight formation of B-17's. Even the MK 108 had a better effective range vs bombers than their defensive fire. Or as Chuck Sasse, B-17 top turret gunner put it: "We got our tulips shot off. And the Messerschmitts had a 30-millimeter cannon that was just a death trap. They knew exactly how far away they had to be to stay out of range of our guns, and they’d sit back and take their shots."
That won't happen in AH, because AH is a cartoon arcade game compared to real life.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: FLOOB on June 03, 2015, 06:29:57 PM
Hitting a single moving target with a .50 cal from a flexible mount is a lot more difficult than spraying a tight formation of B-17's. Even the MK 108 had a better effective range vs bombers than their defensive fire. Or as Chuck Sasse, B-17 top turret gunner put it: "We got our tulips shot off. And the Messerschmitts had a 30-millimeter cannon that was just a death trap. They knew exactly how far away they had to be to stay out of range of our guns, and they’d sit back and take their shots."
That won't happen in AH, because AH is a cartoon arcade game compared to real life.
You might take a look at actual "real life" ballistical data ;)
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Arlo on June 03, 2015, 07:16:03 PM
Like you would know! Oh .... wait ..... ;)
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 03, 2015, 08:19:57 PM
You might take a look at actual "real life" ballistical data ;)
Has nothing to do with ballistics. Just as that real life B-17 gunner I quoted (you bleeding ignorants) knew. It's about effective range, the range at which you can actually hit something. For the .50 cals fired from the turrets it was no more than a thousand yards against a fighter sized target. For the flex mounts much, much less. The German fighters could sit outside the effective range of the gunners and lob shells at the bombers in relative safety. As for the MK 108 the Germans would often use them as mini flak as the self destruct fuze would detonate the shell at 1,100-1,500 meters depending on speed and altitude.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 03, 2015, 08:33:39 PM
There's a reason the self escorting bomber concept was a total failure you know.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Zimme83 on June 03, 2015, 09:41:55 PM
There's a reason the self escorting bomber concept was a total failure you know.
Yep. Bombers needed more or less air supremacy in order to be efficient. Without the industrial capacity to produce a never ending stream of heavy bombers and escort fighters the bomber campain would not have had any chance to be succesful. And aldough the bombing campain casued severe damage to Germany it was not the main reason for the German defeat. more than 80% of Wehrmacht were deployed to the Eastern front and the tide there turned back in 1942, well before the bombing campain became efficent. The meat grinder in east wore down Luftwaffe so when the RAF and AAF launched their back breaking offensive in 1944 Luftwaffe hadnt enough strenght to respond.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Scherf on June 03, 2015, 11:18:03 PM
I'd be surprised if Mk 108s had much range at all - low velocity as they were. Mk 103s different story, but 108s were like lobbing hand grenades.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: FLOOB on June 04, 2015, 07:53:06 AM
As for the MK 108 the Germans would often use them as mini flak as the self destruct fuze would detonate the shell at 1,100-1,500 meters depending on speed and altitude.
Where did you find this information? From what I know the germans opted not to use the self destruct fuse even over Germany. Secondly, even at a 1000 yards, which would be before the self destruct fuse would fire, the mine geschos projectile has fallen about 140 feet which means the target would be below the pilots line of sight. And thirdly it seems a foolish waste of ammo as the 30mm shell detonating outside of the targeted bombers is going to be harmless. The self destruct fuse operated by centrifugal force to to fire within 2000 meters.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: MiloMorai on June 04, 2015, 09:17:55 AM
The tide turned for the Germans in the east when they failed at Stalingrad in Feb 1943.
This chart shows that the Lw was ground down in the West, http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm
It also shows that more of the Lw was in the West.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: bustr on June 04, 2015, 03:41:41 PM
FLOOB,
Some years back someone posted info from an FW190 A8 pilot's memoirs. I followed the link to read it. I think there was maybe two full time A8 groups with the MK108 wing mounted who fought the bomber streams. From what I remember, the pilot said his group would stand off about 1100m and a bit high. Then fire their MK108 at the bombers outside of the tail gunners range. Their goal was to have the self destruct fuse detonate the round near the bombers. The self destruct fuse for the Mine shell was an 1100m fuse.
As for the mentioning of four engine aircraft standing off from the black Thursday raid. I read years ago from a luft memoir that FW200 stood off to lob their front facing 20mm at the bombers. Chemical potential rounds are pretty much range insensitive versus kinetic potential rounds. Even the MG FF had about a 1000m range.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 04, 2015, 05:39:37 PM
Yes, exactly. The Germans used the MK 108 in this fashion in an attempt to break up formations, just like they did with rockets. The 30 mm round contains 85 grams of PETN, equal to 140 grams of TNT. About the same explosive force as a M67 hand grenade. Firing 11 rounds per second with two guns per plane, a squadron of Sturmbock 190's or 110G-2 could produce a hail of exploding shrapnel hell denser than any flak barrage onto a tight formation of bombers. This kind of Pulk-Zerstörer formation attack was short lived however, since it became suicidal when the P-51's showed up.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Arlo on June 04, 2015, 06:29:15 PM
Gettin harder and harder to map this thread.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: FLOOB on June 04, 2015, 06:33:00 PM
Some years back someone posted info from an FW190 A8 pilot's memoirs. I followed the link to read it. I think there was maybe two full time A8 groups with the MK108 wing mounted who fought the bomber streams. From what I remember, the pilot said his group would stand off about 1100m and a bit high. Then fire their MK108 at the bombers outside of the tail gunners range. Their goal was to have the self destruct fuse detonate the round near the bombers. The self destruct fuse for the Mine shell was an 1100m fuse.
As for the mentioning of four engine aircraft standing off from the black Thursday raid. I read years ago from a luft memoir that FW200 stood off to lob their front facing 20mm at the bombers. Chemical potential rounds are pretty much range insensitive versus kinetic potential rounds. Even the MG FF had about a 1000m range.
Well that was dumb of them. So you've read at least one account where they did install self destruct fuses? Interesting.
And no predator they weren't fragmentation rounds, that was kind of the point of the m schos, thin walls more room for explosive.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Lusche on June 04, 2015, 06:37:24 PM
Firing 11 rounds per second with two guns per plane, a squadron of Sturmbock 190's or 110G-2 could produce a hail of exploding shrapnel hell denser than any flak barrage onto a tight formation of bombers.
Not quite.
The Minengeschos was very thin walled and designed for maximum concussion blast. It produced very little shrapnel. totally different from hand grenades or flak rounds, which had large walls rifled to produce a lot of shrapnel of specific, efficient sizes.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 04, 2015, 06:52:28 PM
Yes but it was a very large shell the length of your hand. The 30x90RB round had a projectile weight of 330 grams, of which 85 grams was the chemical filler (about 25%). By comparison a Hispano 20 mm projectile weighs 130 grams. The MK 108 round had a steel mass of no less than 245 grams, or about half a pound. 28 grams more than a M67 hand grenade.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 04, 2015, 08:31:56 PM
They are to scale. As you can see there is plenty of metal in the 30 mm minengeschoss shell to cause fragmentation damage, even if it is a bit thin in the middle. The M67 hand grenade has a lethal blast and fragmentation radius of 50 feet, or about half the wingspan of a B-17.
a squadron of Sturmbock 190's or 110G-2 could produce a hail of exploding shrapnel hell denser than any flak barrage onto a tight formation of bombers. This kind of Pulk-Zerstörer formation attack was short lived however, since it became suicidal when the P-51's showed up.
The MK108 armed Fw190s were first delivered in June 1944. There was lots of P-51s around by then.
If any are interested. Army Air Forces in World War II Europe: ARGUMENT to V-E Day, January 1944 to May 1945 http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/III/index.html#contents
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 04, 2015, 09:35:38 PM
The first 190A-6/R2 with MK 108's were delivered in the fall of 1943. In December 1943 the A-7/R2 and R3 entered service.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: save on June 05, 2015, 07:16:51 AM
Sturmgruppen from mid-44 closed in with their armoured planes to point blank range, either from high 12, or dead 6, their extra armor made them close to invulnerable to .50 cal fire from front, and 30mm from close range often exploded the bomber (source : defense of germany)
On occasions Sturmgruppen could tally high scores when escorts where not around, they paid a high price when caught by escorts. It was one of few successes Jagdwaffe had from 44-on.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: MiloMorai on June 05, 2015, 06:40:11 PM
Just because there is a Rustsatz number does not mean it was installed in an operational a/c. The Fw190A-6/R2, /R3 were not serial produced.
Looking at the Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen of JG1, 2 and 26 in 1943 one can find the /R6 but no /R2 and /R3.
The Mk108 first saw service with Me109s and Me110s in the fall of 1943 and there was not that many MK108s built at that time.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 05, 2015, 07:21:20 PM
The MK 108 had been in limited production since 1942. The First 109G-6/U4 were delivered in May 1943 and Erprobungsstelle Tarnewitz was given the task of assessing the MK 108 application in the 109G with 27 aircraft, beginning in June 1943. No the R2 (+R12) kit wasn't mass produced in 1943. The First Fw190 to be armed with the MK 108 was Fw 190A-5/U16 W.Nr. 130975. It was the prototype for what would become the Rustsatz 2 kit for the A-6, A-7, A-8, A-9, and technically the D-9 as well. Only a few Rustsatz kits were serial produced from the factories, the most common variants in service. The whole idea of the Rustsatz kits were that they were field kits, able to be mounted on any 190A-6+. The R2 kit was never put on an A-6 or A-7 at the factory. Only the A-8 was delivered from the factory with R2 kits installed. The Rustsatz kits made the Luftwaffe a more flexible force, but it makes tracking and documenting what was actually used a lot harder looking back 70 years.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Ack-Ack on June 05, 2015, 07:32:44 PM
If any are interested. Army Air Forces in World War II Europe: ARGUMENT to V-E Day, January 1944 to May 1945 http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/III/index.html#contents
Excellent site, thanks for posting the link.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Oldman731 on June 05, 2015, 07:46:00 PM
Craven & Cate. That series is SO good that some years ago I was able to identify one of my father's neighbors who was shot in his parachute by the Japanese during the Battle of the Bismarck Sea. Wonderful to see you can get it online.
- oldman
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: DaveBB on June 06, 2015, 01:58:05 PM
Notice how that B-17's self-sealing fuel tank works. The 30mm hits the wing, flaming fuel sprays out, then it stops.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 06, 2015, 07:01:29 PM
Looks to me like he hit the small feeder tank (marked C) and it blew up. It also looks like a possible secondary explosion from the nearby hit a fraction of a second earlier and not a direct hit.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: DaveBB on June 06, 2015, 07:52:44 PM
I agree that it hit the feeder tank. But the feeder tank is 212 gallons. That's enough energy to cut the wing in half if it exploded, or burn the wing in half if it caught fire. I'm sure it was self-sealing, as your chart even references self-sealing fuel hoses.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 06, 2015, 08:05:34 PM
Self sealing wasn't fool proof and would not stand much chance of completely sealing a hit by a 30 mm, but as I said in my previous post I think it wasn't a direct hit. I'm also not sure how much fuel would be left in the feeder tank by the time a B-17 reaches German airspace as I'm not that familiar with the B-17's fuel system.
A direct hit would probably have resulted in something similar to this:
I'm also not sure how much fuel would be left in the feeder tank by the time a B-17 reaches German airspace as I'm not that familiar with the B-17's fuel system.
All kinds of fuel in the feeder tank as that was its purpose. The fuel in the outer tanks (6-9) flowed to the feeder tank which was fed to the inner engine tank.
Fuel from the outer tanks (1-5) went directly to the main tank of the outer engine.
Here is a better graphic, (follow the black lines)
(http://www.airpages.ru/eng/mn/b17_157.jpg)
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 06, 2015, 09:06:32 PM
Thanks. To me it looks like the round struck between the main fuel tanks and the feeder tank, in the area of the shut-off valve. Immediately after we see a blow out between the engine nacelles. It may not have been a tank at all, but perhaps only the fuel lines.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: DaveBB on June 07, 2015, 09:24:25 AM
Self sealing wasn't fool proof and would not stand much chance of completely sealing a hit by a 30 mm, but as I said in my previous post I think it wasn't a direct hit. I'm also not sure how much fuel would be left in the feeder tank by the time a B-17 reaches German airspace as I'm not that familiar with the B-17's fuel system.
A direct hit would probably have resulted in something similar to this:
I have no doubt that a wing could blow off a B-17, but something doesn't seem right about that video.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Scherf on June 07, 2015, 09:53:43 AM
It's a missile test, think it was the Nike, though I make no claim to understand which missile is which.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 07, 2015, 10:31:07 AM
You're right.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Mister Fork on June 09, 2015, 03:14:48 PM
PR3D4TOR et al...that was the only mechanical result...7 families would of received letters to their mom's and dad's that their sons (aged 18-26) were killed in action over Germany.
While a lot of us trivialize the mechanics of weapon effectiveness, for every bomber we see being shot down, there is something we must not forget...
I'm just as guilty of this in the past as well forgetting that for every bomber we see being blown out of the sky, analysing the weapon effectiveness, a mother bathed a young baby, helped them get ready for school, worried about them when they were sick, and then watch with fear and anxiety when they signed up to enlist to become airman after watching a patriotic Jimmy Stewart infomercial for the USAAF. They raised these young men, read them stories as children, and watched with love and pride in them growing into adults. For every video we see, every picture we analyze, there are lives torn and hearts broken. And loosing a child, even if they are a young airman , it destroys lives of those left behind.
So please, we need to remember and show respect and at least being mindful of what some of these images really show.
Now, back to our discussion. Large scale bomber formations were about as useless as titz on a bull and were nothing more than to bait the Luftwaffe up into the air so the Allied forces could shoot them down and establish air superiority out of pure attrition and sustainment of effort.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 09, 2015, 04:36:12 PM
While we're at it let's not forget what those bombers were doing and why they were being shot down. War is an ugly thing.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Mister Fork on June 09, 2015, 04:38:09 PM
While we're at it let's not forget what those bombers were doing and why they were being shot down. War is an ugly thing.
:salute - yep, they (those shooting down bombers) were defending their homeland. War is fuggly.. :old:
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Zimme83 on June 09, 2015, 05:01:44 PM
Imo, The prob best way to use the heavy bombers should have been limiting the strikes against cities to only hit major industrial complex and vital industries (most of them were dispersed and out of reach anyway) and railway junctions. Other than that focus should have been military targets like airfields, ports, supply stores, troop concentrations etc. if u look at BoB, the Luftwaffe were very close to win as long as they focused on RAF bases. Once they switched to city bombing they gave the initiative away.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 09, 2015, 05:32:36 PM
That is a myth. The Luftwaffe were never close to winning the BoB. The RAF was strained, but their losses were sustainable. The Luftwaffe's losses were not. At the end of the battle the RAF was stronger than when the battle began.
As for the best use of allied air power: Interdiction, as you say, transportation network, airfields, supplies.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Zimme83 on June 09, 2015, 06:01:51 PM
RAF had a tough time to replace their pilots, in numbers it worked but in terms of experience it was harder. During late august to 6th of September RAF losses was not sustainable and a few more weeks with pressure on the air fields could have been catastrophic. But u are right in that RAF was far more prepared to replace losses than the Luftwaffe.
Edit: But I can agree that even historians have a hard time to determinate how close or far RAF was a defeat in 1940, its simply too many "if" involved.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Oldman731 on June 09, 2015, 09:46:25 PM
RAF had a tough time to replace their pilots, in numbers it worked but in terms of experience it was harder. During late august to 6th of September RAF losses was not sustainable and a few more weeks with pressure on the air fields could have been catastrophic.
OK. And what then? The Nazi plan to cross the Channel was to string mine belts either side of the invasion path and try to get some U-boats into the mix. The troops (much less tanks) would have had to cross on barges towed by tugboats in the Channel chop and current. That transit would have taken something like 12 hours. It's unlikely that the Royal Navy would have sailed out and surrendered.
And more: The RAF flew from, and defended, its forward airfields because it wanted to. It didn't have to. Had England gotten over its pride (which killed a lot of its people during the July Channel convoy debacle) it would simply have withdrawn its fighters to 12 Group bases - largely out of German escort range - and flown from there when required.
I get agitated when people assume that defeating the RAF would have resulted in the successful Nazi occupation of England. There was a lot to be done in between, and the General Staff half-seriously treated the whole operation as a glorified river crossing.
- oldman
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Zimme83 on June 09, 2015, 10:06:48 PM
The entire operation was a big FUBAR from the German side and was very poorly planned and executed. The overall strategy wasnt worked out so I agree that it had under all circumstances very small chances of succeeding, aldough RN would probably had a very hard time if they had to operate in the Channel during German air superiority. My point however were not to determinate if Seelöwe would have been succesful or not. Point was to show that attacking military target like air fields etc were much more effective than strategic bombing of cities.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Volron on June 09, 2015, 10:11:58 PM
OK. And what then? The Nazi plan to cross the Channel was to string mine belts either side of the invasion path and try to get some U-boats into the mix. The troops (much less tanks) would have had to cross on barges towed by tugboats in the Channel chop and current. That transit would have taken something like 12 hours. It's unlikely that the Royal Navy would have sailed out and surrendered.
And more: The RAF flew from, and defended, its forward airfields because it wanted to. It didn't have to. Had England gotten over its pride (which killed a lot of its people during the July Channel convoy debacle) it would simply have withdrawn its fighters to 12 Group bases - largely out of German escort range - and flown from there when required.
I get agitated when people assume that defeating the RAF would have resulted in the successful Nazi occupation of England. There was a lot to be done in between, and the General Staff half-seriously treated the whole operation as a glorified river crossing.
- oldman
Even with the RAF done, the Kriegsmarine would not have been capable of dealing with the RN head on, which is what would be needed in order to defend the invasion force. If I recall correctly, they didn't even have that many u-boats during that time frame. I recall seeing a show in which the plan the RN had was to use their light ships (DD's, CL's, CA's, etc,) to "clear" the mines to allow their heavy cruisers and battleships to get within range of the invasion force.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Jabberwock on June 09, 2015, 10:20:31 PM
Imo, The prob best way to use the heavy bombers should have been limiting the strikes against cities to only hit major industrial complex and vital industries (most of them were dispersed and out of reach anyway) and railway junctions. Other than that focus should have been military targets like airfields, ports, supply stores, troop concentrations etc.
The problems with this are manyfold:
US heavy bomber combat boxes were ideally about 2000 ft across for a 36 plane formation, and about 2500 ft across for a 54 plane formation. Mutual defense doctrine required these large formations in occupied airspace. They were often larger in practice, particularly when faced with heavy flak or high wind conditions. So, if you want large bomber formations, you're going to have to accept lower accuracy;
Major industrial complexes and vital industries weren't dispersed or out of reach - at least not in Germany or Japan. They were typically located in and around the outskirts of major cities, quite often with high-density worker housing in the immediate areas. The same story goes for railway junctions, except that many of these were located in the residential hearts of major cities. Same thing for many airfields;
Precision really was not an option. 1944 medium altitude (15,000 ft) daylight missions had an average CEP of 825 ft to 1175 ft. At average altitudes of 23,000 to 27,000 ft, CEP for 1944 average just under 3000 ft. Blind-boming and missions with heavy cloud had CEPs of better than 5200 ft. The average 8th AF radial bombing error on German oil industry targets in 1944-1945 was 2.5 miles. Just 2.2% of bombs dropped fell within the boundaries of production facilities.
Here are the USSBS figures for September 1944 to December 1944 for "visual bombing with "good to fair visibility":
Percentage of bombs dropped within 1000ft 0.5mile 1 mile 3 miles 5 miles %eff A 30.0 64.3 82.4 91.5 92.2 14
If you want to bomb nothing but military targets on the western front between 1942 and June 1944, then you're going to be fighting a bomber war similar to the one the RAF experienced in 1939-1940. You'll face a limited number of targets, of minimal to moderate strategic value, that are comparatively well protected. Due to the limited target choice, the Luftwaffe will generally know where you're attacking, and they'll be able to concentrate resources more effectively. Not a war I want to fight.
There was plenty the USAAF could do to improve its accuracy. From an old discussion on this topic, on another board, I made this list:
Use larger bombs, Bomb from lower altitudes, 11,000-15,000 ft would have been necessary for sub 750ft CEPs Bomb in smaller formations, Increase intervals between bomb groups to reduce target occlusion Reduce the width of combat boxes, Switch to an all B-17 force, as they were more accurate bombing platforms than B-24 Increase the level of training for crews, particularly for pilots, bombardiers and navigatiors Improve meteorological forecasting, particularly wind directions at targets Never visually bomb through anything more than four tenths cloud, Abandon blind bombing techniques Introduce pathfinder aircraft Reduce or eliminate use of fragmentation bombs and incendiaries
The 8th AF determined the four most significant factors in terms of accuracy were: The cloud/visibility conditions above the target. This could affect accuracy by a factor of 10. The number of bomb groups involved in the raid. A raid of three bomb groups was up to 40% more accurate than a raid of 10 or more groups Bombing altitude. The amount of flak over a target. Particularly heavy flak could halve bombing accuracy.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 09, 2015, 10:27:37 PM
Even with the RAF done, the Kriegsmarine would not have been capable of dealing with the RN head on, which is what would be needed in order to defend the invasion force. If I recall correctly, they didn't even have that many u-boats during that time frame. I recall seeing a show in which the plan the RN had was to use their light ships (DD's, CL's, CA's, etc,) to "clear" the mines to allow their heavy cruisers and battleships to get within range of the invasion force.
IF the RAF had been completely suppressed to the point that the Luftwaffe had total air dominance over southern England, the RN would not have had the opportunity to interfere with any German channel crossing. Moving 1940-era warships with their very limited AA capabilities into range of Stukas and Ju 88's would have been suicide. Just ask any of the crew of HMS Prince of Wales or HMS Repulse...
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Oldman731 on June 09, 2015, 10:40:24 PM
IF the RAF had been completely suppressed to the point that the Luftwaffe had total air dominance over southern England, the RN would not have had the opportunity to interfere with any German channel crossing. Moving 1940-era warships with their very limited AA capabilities into range of Stukas and Ju 88's would have been suicide. Just ask any of the crew of HMS Prince of Wales or HMS Repulse...
Stukas and Ju88s were not good at night dive-bombing. The invasion force could not have started in daylight and landed in daylight.
- oldman
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Zimme83 on June 09, 2015, 10:54:02 PM
US heavy bomber combat boxes were ideally about 2000 ft across for a 36 plane formation, and about 2500 ft across for a 54 plane formation. Mutual defense doctrine required these large formations in occupied airspace. They were often larger in practice, particularly when faced with heavy flak or high wind conditions. So, if you want large bomber formations, you're going to have to accept lower accuracy;
Major industrial complexes and vital industries weren't dispersed or out of reach - at least not in Germany or Japan. They were typically located in and around the outskirts of major cities, quite often with high-density worker housing in the immediate areas. The same story goes for railway junctions, except that many of these were located in the residential hearts of major cities. Same thing for many airfields;
Precision really was not an option. 1944 medium altitude (15,000 ft) daylight missions had an average CEP of 825 ft to 1175 ft. At average altitudes of 23,000 to 27,000 ft, CEP for 1944 average just under 3000 ft. Blind-boming and missions with heavy cloud had CEPs of better than 5200 ft. The average 8th AF radial bombing error on German oil industry targets in 1944-1945 was 2.5 miles. Just 2.2% of bombs dropped fell within the boundaries of production facilities.
Here are the USSBS figures for September 1944 to December 1944 for "visual bombing with "good to fair visibility":
Percentage of bombs dropped within 1000ft 0.5mile 1 mile 3 miles 5 miles %eff A 30.0 64.3 82.4 91.5 92.2 14
If you want to bomb nothing but military targets on the western front between 1942 and June 1944, then you're going to be fighting a bomber war similar to the one the RAF experienced in 1939-1940. You'll face a limited number of targets, of minimal to moderate strategic value, that are comparatively well protected. Due to the limited target choice, the Luftwaffe will generally know where you're attacking, and they'll be able to concentrate resources more effectively. Not a war I want to fight.
There was plenty the USAAF could do to improve its accuracy. From an old discussion on this topic, on another board, I made this list:
Use larger bombs, Bomb from lower altitudes, 11,000-15,000 ft would have been necessary for sub 750ft CEPs Bomb in smaller formations, Increase intervals between bomb groups to reduce target occlusion Reduce the width of combat boxes, Switch to an all B-17 force, as they were more accurate bombing platforms than B-24 Increase the level of training for crews, particularly for pilots, bombardiers and navigatiors Improve meteorological forecasting, particularly wind directions at targets Never visually bomb through anything more than four tenths cloud, Abandon blind bombing techniques Introduce pathfinder aircraft Reduce or eliminate use of fragmentation bombs and incendiaries
The 8th AF determined the four most significant factors in terms of accuracy were: The cloud/visibility conditions above the target. This could affect accuracy by a factor of 10. The number of bomb groups involved in the raid. A raid of three bomb groups was up to 40% more accurate than a raid of 10 or more groups Bombing altitude. The amount of flak over a target. Particularly heavy flak could halve bombing accuracy.
U did not get the point, i didnt said "dont hit civilian areas under any circumstances" If we put moral arguments aside, collateral damage would have been inevidable even when only concentrating on specific targets. But thats not the same as targeting residential areas. Dresden is an example of the latter.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Jabberwock on June 09, 2015, 11:14:48 PM
If you want to eliminate residential bombing, you have to force Bomber Command to bomb in daylight and force the 8th AF to radically revise its target lists. This essentially means changing the entire character of the ETO air war between late 1940 and the beginning of 1945.
I'm not advocating for area bombing/and or de-housing. It was a dreadful policy that resulted in way too many casualties on both sides.
I am arguing that a combination of circumstances - battle experience and history, doctrine, effectiveness evaluations, the psychology of the commanders and the limitations of tactics and technology of the period - essentially forced de-housing and area bombing on Bomber Command, and resulted in the 8th AF adopting techniques that were precision bombing in name, but area bombing in practical effect (at least for missions involving anything more than 4/10ths cloud cover).
The heavy bomber forces were analogous to a steam roller - it doesn't matter how precisely its driven, using them is going to result in a lot of things getting flattened.
But, and its a big but, if you find you are in the circumstances of the US and the UK in 1941/1942, are you going to sideline completely? Because of the accuracy inherent in WW2 bombing, the results of a 10-group 8th AF raid on the oil and port facilites in, say, Bremen in 1944, are almost indistinguishable from a Bomber Command raid on the centre of the city.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Volron on June 09, 2015, 11:26:59 PM
IF the RAF had been completely suppressed to the point that the Luftwaffe had total air dominance over southern England, the RN would not have had the opportunity to interfere with any German channel crossing. Moving 1940-era warships with their very limited AA capabilities into range of Stukas and Ju 88's would have been suicide. Just ask any of the crew of HMS Prince of Wales or HMS Repulse...
The Prince of Wales and Repulse were sunk by the Japanese, who were better trained in terms of attacking ships than the Germans. Still, the RN would have pushed forward against the invasion force, regardless of Luftwaffe air superiority. The other thing to note is that the RN also had something the Germans didn't, carriers. So there would still be air cover for the RN, even if it was meager.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 09, 2015, 11:32:33 PM
Stukas and Ju88s were not good at night dive-bombing. The invasion force could not have started in daylight and landed in daylight. With the RAF neutralized Luftwaffe bomber could have operated as far as Ireland. The RN ships would have had to run the gauntlet up the Channel.
- oldman
There is no way the RN could have started outside Luftwaffe range and made it all the way up the Channel in one night.
The Prince of Wales and Repulse were sunk by the Japanese, who were better trained in terms of attacking ships than the Germans. Still, the RN would have pushed forward against the invasion force, regardless of Luftwaffe air superiority. The other thing to note is that the RN also had something the Germans didn't, carriers. So there would still be air cover for the RN, even if it was meager.
In 1940 the RN did not have any carrier fighters available.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 09, 2015, 11:44:29 PM
Oh and after the Channel Battle the Luftwaffe had plenty of experience in attacking ships. They sank more than 40 ships including four RN destroyers.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Squire on June 10, 2015, 12:03:01 AM
Quote
Use larger bombs,
How does that increase accuracy in any significant way? in any case various types were tried by the RAF and none increased bombing accuracy overall by any great degree.
Quote
Bomb from lower altitudes, 11,000-15,000 ft would have been necessary for sub 750ft CEPs
The Flak would tear you a new one and your losses would be severe and unsustainable over Europe.
Quote
Bomb in smaller formations,
The fighters would tear you a new one.
Quote
Increase intervals between bomb groups to reduce target occlusion
Debatable practicality but I think the idea might have had some merit.
Quote
Reduce the width of combat boxes,
Increases your losses to fighters
Quote
Switch to an all B-17 force, as they were more accurate bombing platforms than B-24
That would hardly "fix" the problems of bombing from alt in 1944. The B-17 was not some superbomber it had a norden sight and dropped iron bombs.
Quote
Increase the level of training for crews, particularly for pilots, bombardiers and navigatiors
There was a war on and I think they were as well trained as you could reasonably make them. Trained better than most in fact by 1944.
Quote
Improve meteorological forecasting, particularly wind directions at targets
They already did that.
Quote
Never visually bomb through anything more than four tenths cloud,
That's a lot of bombers jetting their loads for nothing.
Quote
Abandon blind bombing techniques
Nice to say but not practical in Europe.
Quote
Introduce pathfinder aircraft
They did that with H2S. They are a partial fix to the technology of the day.
Quote
Reduce or eliminate use of fragmentation bombs and incendiaries
Targets burn
Quote
I am arguing that a combination of circumstances - battle experience and history, doctrine, effectiveness evaluations, the psychology of the commanders and the limitations of tactics and technology of the period - essentially forced de-housing and area bombing on Bomber Command, and resulted in the 8th AF adopting techniques that were precision bombing in name, but area bombing in practical effect (at least for missions involving anything more than 4/10ths cloud cover).
Completely agree.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: bozon on June 10, 2015, 01:05:32 AM
The bombing accuracy of heavy bombers could not be improved in a drastic way, especially prior to 1944.
At the time, the only two ways to hit a building with a bomb with any certainty was to either drop from low altitude (mosquito style) or dive bombing. The allied pretty much dismissed both options and insisted on solving the problem with even more and bigger heavy bombers, which of course did not work very well.
Dive bombing by light bombers is something that the allied reserved exclusively for naval warfare. In that role they proved successful even though largely done by obsolete models. The allied should have kept a much smaller heavy-bombers force and divert the resources towards long range light bombers with low altitude and/or dive bombing capabilities. Essentially, long range fighter-bombers designed for that role.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Karnak on June 10, 2015, 03:03:53 AM
The Royal Navy ships would have been covered by surviving forces of RAF Fighter Command.
Or do you actually think the Brits would have not pulled their remaining Spitfires and Hurricanes back to use as cover for the navy's defense against invasion and would instead have let it be ground all the way down once it became apparent that the Luftwaffe was about to win?
The RAF would not have had to contest the skies for long and while the RN would have lost some ships, what would have happened to the Wehrmacht on those barges would have been far, far worse.
As to the AA, the KGV class BBs actually had pretty good AA. PoW lost ~90% of it to the first torpedo hit, which by happenstance hit where her armor was weak from a German bomb strike that landed right next to her when she was being built. It took out the power to most of her guns and jammed her rudder.
That said, I am not sure if KGV was in service in 1940, so that may be all moot.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: artik on June 10, 2015, 03:06:44 AM
The bombing accuracy of heavy bombers could not be improved in a drastic way, especially prior to 1944.
At the time, the only two ways to hit a building with a bomb with any certainty was to either drop from low altitude (mosquito style) or dive bombing. The allied pretty much dismissed both options and insisted on solving the problem with even more and bigger heavy bombers, which of course did not work very well.
Actually there was another way...
Lancasters were exceptional bombers in the WW2 warfare mostly due to their contribution to hitting high value targets. But that was a task that requires experience and training - the 617 was AFAIR the only squadron that did it.
The 617 RAF squadron used Tallboys and SABS bombsight (similar to Norden but proved to be more accurate also probably due to high level of training) and were able to hit the target with CPR of around 150m and less.
Given the power of Tallboys and Grand Slams and the high precision of bombing thanks to the state of the art technology and the highly specialized training it was "the laser guided weapon" of these days.
They managed to destroy bridges, U-Boat docks, fortifications and even ships.
Finally 617 probably was the greatest example of high "long range heavy bombers" were effective. But it was also in highly specialized task with highly trained crew.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Jabberwock on June 10, 2015, 03:10:37 AM
Squire,
The recommendations I listed are not my own inventions. They were made either during the war or immediately after, based on the results achieved during the war and reported by the operational research groups. These things were known to work to improve accuracy.
How does that increase accuracy in any significant way? in any case various types were tried by the RAF and none increased bombing accuracy overall by any great degree.
That's not what the US operational research groups found. The 1000 lb bomb was more accurate than the smaller 250 and 500 lb weapons. The smaller bombs tended to tumble more on release before stabilising in the airflow, and were more affected by crosswinds, causing greater drift from the aiming point.
The Flak would tear you a new one and your losses would be severe and unsustainable over Europe.
Correct. I was discussing what would have made bombing more accurate though, not the implications of the tactics. Bombing form 11,000 to 15,000 ft was seen at the best for accuracy - lower and you were too affected by turbulence, higher and CEP starts to widen again.
Correct, see previous answer. Formation sizes were reduced for some missions from about two thirds of the way through 1944 onwards. This had a positive effect on accuracy.
Again, see answers to #2 and #3. Several different combat box formations were trialed in the ETO and PTO. Smaller boxes had better accuracy. I'm not discussing practicality, I'm discussing methods of improving accuracy.
That would hardly "fix" the problems of bombing from alt in 1944. The B-17 was not some superbomber it had a norden sight and dropped iron bombs.
Correct, the B-17 was not a superbomber. However, it was a more stable bombing platform than the B-24, was easier to pilot and assemble and tended to 'wander' less during a bomb run. B-17 groups consistently had better CEPs than B-24 groups in 8th AF service.
There was a war on and I think they were as well trained as you could reasonably make them. Trained better than most in fact by 1944.
Better than most still doesn't reach the potential for accuracy that the USAAF had but failed to achieve. Better trained and more experienced crews had improve accuracy over fresh crews, particularly those that had seen no combat.
high altitude meterological forecasting was called for time and time again by experts, with almost bugger all reaction. They didn't even begin to start correcting for the jet stream until mid 1943.
That's a lot of bombers jetting their loads for nothing.
In 1943, you can find missions where 100-200 bombers failed to bomb because of lack of visibility. As the war progressed, this squeamishness about not bombing without visibility went away. Bombing thorough 5/10ths cloud dropped the number of bombs with 1000 ft of the aiming point from 30% to 9.4%. Bombing with H2X and 8-9/10ths cloud dropped this to 1%.
Yes, but incendiaries, particularly the small 5-40 lb ones, were vastly less accurate than even conventional dumb bombs.
On the practicality side of things, only a few of these techniques/changes I listed are immediately usable for an air campaign. I acknowledge that most of them will require revisions of tactics, major and minor. These were the known solutions, at the time, to improving accuracy.
Many of them were ignored because they'd lead to higher losses. Some, like reducing the % of incendiaries, were ignored completely, or even reversed.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 10, 2015, 03:59:30 AM
Oh and after the Channel Battle the Luftwaffe had plenty of experience in attacking ships. They sank more than 40 ships including four RN destroyers.
These RN destroyers were ......
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 10, 2015, 09:48:00 AM
If we include the Norwegian campaign, Battle of France and Channel battles the Allied losses to Luftwaffe bombing were at least the following: Destroyers HMS Afridi, HMS Valentine, HMS Keith, HMS Basilisk, HMS Havant, HMS Whitley, HMS Brazen, HMS Codrington, HMS Wren, HMS Delight, minesweeper HMS Skipjack, armed boarding vessel HMS Van Dyck, troop ship HMT Lancastria. Also the French destroyers Foudroyant and Bison, and minesweepers Madeleine Louise and Notre Dames des Dunes. Polish destroyer ORP Grom. Royal Netherlands destroyer HNLMS Van Galen and minelayer HNLMS Thor. All were bombed and sunk by the Luftwaffe between May and July 1940. In addition a large number of smaller vessels and cargo and transport ships were bombed and sunk by the Luftwaffe. Mostly by Ju 87 and Ju 88 bombers, and most were sunk in the English Channel and off the coast of Norway.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 10, 2015, 09:52:15 AM
If anyone want to work their way through all the sinkings of WWII they can start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shipwrecks_in_September_1939 It basically starts with Ju 87's ravaging the Polish navy.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 10, 2015, 10:00:30 AM
So by the time the Prince of Wales and Repulse was sunk the Luftwaffe was clearly the most experienced air force in the world in anti-shipping operations. That is, at least the part of the Luftwaffe that survived the Battle of Britain.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: MiloMorai on June 10, 2015, 01:09:51 PM
At Dunkirk most of the RN D losses the ships that were not moving or at low speed.
RN losses can be found at http://www.naval-history.net/WW2aBritishLosses01BB.htm
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Zimme83 on June 10, 2015, 01:31:41 PM
LW werent that good at all in sinking ships and against towed barges u dont need battleships, torpedo boats would have been lethal.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Ack-Ack on June 10, 2015, 02:42:30 PM
OK. And what then? The Nazi plan to cross the Channel was to string mine belts either side of the invasion path and try to get some U-boats into the mix. The troops (much less tanks) would have had to cross on barges towed by tugboats in the Channel chop and current. That transit would have taken something like 12 hours. It's unlikely that the Royal Navy would have sailed out and surrendered.
And more: The RAF flew from, and defended, its forward airfields because it wanted to. It didn't have to. Had England gotten over its pride (which killed a lot of its people during the July Channel convoy debacle) it would simply have withdrawn its fighters to 12 Group bases - largely out of German escort range - and flown from there when required.
I get agitated when people assume that defeating the RAF would have resulted in the successful Nazi occupation of England. There was a lot to be done in between, and the General Staff half-seriously treated the whole operation as a glorified river crossing.
- oldman
I think it was sometime back in the '70s when the British ran some staff level war game scenarios on the Battle of Britain and in each scenario, the British won, using the strategy you basically outlined. The end result of their war gaming was that Germany was defeated within a few months of getting a foot hold on Britain.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Ack-Ack on June 10, 2015, 02:44:15 PM
Even with the RAF done, the Kriegsmarine would not have been capable of dealing with the RN head on, which is what would be needed in order to defend the invasion force. If I recall correctly, they didn't even have that many u-boats during that time frame. I recall seeing a show in which the plan the RN had was to use their light ships (DD's, CL's, CA's, etc,) to "clear" the mines to allow their heavy cruisers and battleships to get within range of the invasion force.
The Kriegsmarine also took a beating in Norway, reducing their effectiveness if called on to support any landing against England.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Ack-Ack on June 10, 2015, 02:56:12 PM
So by the time the Prince of Wales and Repulse was sunk the Luftwaffe was clearly the most experienced air force in the world in anti-shipping operations. That is, at least the part of the Luftwaffe that survived the Battle of Britain.
The British were just as successful (if not more so) at the beginning of the war in anti-shipping operations as the Germans were. Just read about the operations flown by 2 Group against German shipping and the success of British anti-shipping operations in the Med, like the Battle of Taranto or the Battle of Cape Matapan. Also, at the time of the sinking of HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales, Japan was probably the undisputed master of anti-shipping operations.
ack-ack
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Zimme83 on June 10, 2015, 03:42:45 PM
I think we can leave the hypothetic BoB debate now, not even the German commanders (except maybe Hitler and Göring) belived that an invasion of Britain was possible.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 11, 2015, 12:45:27 AM
The British were just as successful (if not more so) at the beginning of the war in anti-shipping operations as the Germans were.
Really... From June 1940 to February 1941 the Luftwaffe Fw200 units alone sank 365,000 tons of Allied shipping. The Luftwaffe sank, crippled or damaged about 300 vessels of varying size in the 10 days in and around Operation Dynamo (Dunkirk).
Just read about the operations flown by 2 Group against German shipping and the success of British anti-shipping operations in the Med, like the Battle of Taranto or the Battle of Cape Matapan.
The Battle of Taranto was the British sneak attack against Italian naval units laying at anchor. It was a daring raid, but only one of the three Italian battleships damaged was put out of action for more than seven months.
Little more than a month later at noon on January 10th, 1941 HMS Illustrious, the carrier whose planes had attacked the Italian fleet at Taranto, along with the main forces of the Mediterranean Fleet, consisting of HMS Warspite, HMS Valiant and 7 destroyers came under attack by 25 or more Ju87 and Ju88 bombers. Illustrious was severely damaged as a result of 6 direct bomb hits and several near misses, which caused fires and disabled her steering gear.
Later the same day the Luftwaffe returned with about 30 aircraft and attacked the fleet again in which another hit was was made on Illustrious, and HMS Valiant was also damaged. The crippled HMS Illustrious was withdrawn from the Med and repaired in the United States. She did not return to action until 1942. The Luftwaffe lost 6 or 7 aircraft in the attack.
The Battle of Cape Matapan was a significant RN victory at sea sinking three Italian cruisers and two destroyers. However at the same time of the war during the German invasion of Greece the Luftwaffe all but destroyed the entire Hellenic Royal Navy sinking 25 ships including two battleships. The surviving cruiser Averof and six destroyers managed to escape and joined the RN in the Med.
Also, at the time of the sinking of HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales, Japan was probably the undisputed master of anti-shipping operations.
Well, that's the myth, but is it supported by the facts? By that time I would bet both the Luftwaffe and RAF Coastal Command were far more experienced in anti shipping operations.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Karnak on June 11, 2015, 02:27:01 AM
It's silly, I know. The premise was that the RAF had been destroyed to the point of total Luftwaffe air domination over southern England.
It is useless to discuss such a thing as it never would have happened. The RAF would have pulled its fighters back for a last ditch effort to cover the Royal Navy's ships against the invasion before losing all of them. Mid you, the Germans probably would have believed they had wiped the RAF fighters out. They proved frighteningly gullible as to the number of fighters the British actually had.
Well, that's the myth, but is it supported by the facts? By that time I would bet both the Luftwaffe and RAF Coastal Command were far more experienced in anti shipping operations.
The hit rate of Japanese dive bombers against ships prior to Midway was about twice what Ju87 pilots obtained at Dunkirk and the lead up to the Battle of Britain. Torpedo hit rates were similarly higher.
The Japanese, before losing their highly trained aircrews, were undoubtedly the best at anti-shipping operations using aircraft.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 11, 2015, 02:50:52 AM
The hit rate of Japanese dive bombers against ships prior to Midway was about twice what Ju87 pilots obtained at Dunkirk and the lead up to the Battle of Britain. Torpedo hit rates were similarly higher.
Can you cite a source for that. I'd be very interested to read more on this. What about after the BoB and the fights in the Med?
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Karnak on June 11, 2015, 05:19:29 AM
Can you cite a source for that. I'd be very interested to read more on this. What about after the BoB and the fights in the Med?
Sorry, no. It is something I came across in my decades long fascination with WWII aviation. If you read about the strengths and weaknesses of the IJN's training programs it is entirely believable.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: MiloMorai on June 11, 2015, 07:00:20 AM
No Ju88s attacked Force A on Jan 10 1941.
18 He111s of KG 26 and 43 Ju87s of StG 1 and StG 2 escorted by 10 Bf110s of ZG 26.
Title: Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
Post by: Jabberwock on June 11, 2015, 11:34:43 PM
The Luftwaffe sank, crippled or damaged about 300 vessels of varying size in the 10 days in and around Operation Dynamo (Dunkirk).
British and French loss numbers for Dynamo vary but are between 225 and 260 ships, with another 20 or so heavily damaged enough to put them out of action and a further 20-50 damaged. Most of the losses (around 160-180) were small, non-naval ships.
Of the 49 destroyers in action (French, British and Dutch), nine were sunk, 19 damaged (with five put totally out of action for several months). Of the other 150 or so actual combat Royal Navy vessels, the major losses was in trawlers and minesweepers.
Losses were not to aircraft alone. There E-boats and U-boat attacks with both torpedoes and mines, accounting for four of the nine destroyer losses.
I don't count Dynamo as a particular success for the Luftwaffe. Over 10 days of attacks, against mostly static and unarmed targets operating without major air cover, they (and the Kriegsmarine) managed to sink a combined total of 35-38 surface combatant warships - including nine destroyers - and put another 30-40 out of action.
Sealion what-ifs are a running joke on a number of alternate history and WW2 aviation boards, and for a good reason.