Flight model abuse / grievance

[Ack-Ack]

Think AAA fire was the leading cause of all aircraft kills.


ack-ack

[Shifty]

That many people flying that high and bragging because nobody can catch them and they don't have to fight???

Who cares, let them play American Airlines.

[RTHolmes]

And you know that how?

as I understand it low-alt raids would be done at high speed if possible to reduce time over target, high alt raids generally at cruise speeds because of the fuel required to climb to alt and because they were deeper into enemy airspace, again a fuel consideration. engine wear is also much greater running at full power settings, so this would have been a factor.

if SOP for high alt raids was full power climb, cruise to target, then full power over target, I stand corrected

[Yeager]

Another little tidbit about mission 115....

1st Air Division launched One Hundred Forty Nine B17s
3rd Air Division launched One Hundred Forty Two B17s

Two Hundred Ninety One B17s took off from England.

Two hundred twenty eight B17s made it to the drop point and dropped:
Four Hundred Fifty 1000 pnd HE bombs
Six Hundred Sixty 500 pnd HE bombs
One Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty One 100 pnd Incendiary bombs

The Butchers Bill:
Forty B17s lost from various causes; exact reasons unidentified.
Two B17s lost from flak; positive identification.
Eighteen B17s lost from fighters; positive identification.

A further Five B17s lost in England on return.

[Stoney]

...high alt raids generally at cruise speeds...

What exactly is the "cruise speed" of a formation of B-17s or B-24s flying at 25,000 feet--in True Air Speed? I'll tell you that for a loaded B-17 at that altitude, it was around 240-260 mph TAS, based on a planning chart I found on Zeno's website.  Now, once the weight was gone, they could pull a little power, but their speed would have stayed pretty similar due to the decrease in induced drag, which at those weights and altitudes is pretty high.

On long missions, they replaced bombs with fuel.  That's why the B-17 would carry 5,000-6,000 lbs. of bombs instead of what it was potentially capable of.  The bomb bays were rarely "cubed" out.

I appologize if I sound curt, but I've argued this pretty much every time Krusty starts one of his bomber rants, and its getting tiresome.

[Stoney]

Another little tidbit about mission 115....

1st Air Division launched One Hundred Forty Nine B17s
3rd Air Division launched One Hundred Forty Two B17s

Two Hundred Ninety One B17s took off from England.

Two hundred twenty eight B17s made it to the drop point and dropped:
Four Hundred Fifty 1000 pnd HE bombs
Six Hundred Sixty 500 pnd HE bombs
One Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty One 100 pnd Incendiary bombs

The Butchers Bill:
Forty B17s lost from various causes; exact reasons unidentified.
Two B17s lost from flak; positive identification.
Eighteen B17s lost from fighters; positive identification.

A further Five B17s lost in England on return.

I appreciate your illustration here, but picking one mission, especially when the majority of the aircraft were lost to unidentified causes, is an example of selectivity bias.  If I'm wrong regarding the statistics, I'll admit it and eat my crow.

[Yeager]

Granted, its a mere slice.....but that mission was arguably the most costly and difficult of the entire daylight precision bombing campaign.  It effectively shut the 8th bombing command down for four months.

Also, there can be little doubt that flak played some role in those 40 B17s lost due to undefined causes....yet fighters must surely have as well.

There must be some anecdotal evidence to support your position, I just haven't been able to locate it.

[Baumer]

According to USAF records the following numbers of aircraft were lost over Europe to each cause.

• Lost to enemy Aircraft- 4,274
• Lost to Anti-Aircraft- 5,380
• Lost to other- 2,033

Looking at the chart below you can see that there is room for both sides of the argument. Specifically looking at just the heavy bomber losses you can see that initially most were lost to enemy aircraft, but later in the war it shifted to predominately AA losses.

(This is from the USAF Historical Research Agency's web site http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/, lot's of good data to be found there.)



This may help provide some additional information;

http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/aafsd/aafsd_pdf/t159.pdf

[Oldman731]

Looking at the chart below you can see that there is room for both sides of the argument. Specifically looking at just the heavy bomber losses you can see that initially most were lost to enemy aircraft, but later in the war it shifted to predominately AA losses.

Excellent find, Baumer.  By the end of the spring of 1944, of course, the Luftwaffe had pretty well been shot out of the sky, so it isn't surprising that the balance of kills changes.  Except for January 1945 - when heavy bomber operations were maxed out because of the Bulge piled on top of their other duties - AA never was as effective as fighters were (when there were fighters around!).

- oldman

[Stoney]

AA never was as effective as fighters were (when there were fighters around!).

That is an excellent find; Baumer continues to find the good stuff!  Apparently I was wrong. 

I'm not sure that a net 13 aircraft equals a "never as effective as" 

[Guppy35]

That many people flying that high and bragging because nobody can catch them and they don't have to fight???

Who cares, let them play American Airlines.

That was my thought too.  If someone wants to waste that much of their time climbing that high to drop bombs, have fun.  I'll be about 30K below that looking for a fight.

That aside, can someone show me any documentation of Ta152s attacking B17s?  With so few 152s operational I'm wondering if they ever did?

I'm not implying it didn't btw, I just don't remember seeing anything about it.

[RTHolmes]

What exactly is the "cruise speed" of a formation of B-17s or B-24s flying at 25,000 feet--in True Air Speed? I'll tell you that for a loaded B-17 at that altitude, it was around 240-260 mph TAS, based on a planning chart I found on Zeno's website.

I did a little test with a B-17 in the TA, takeoff 20k base, 12x500lb, 50% fuel. The charts show about ~285mph TAS at 25k and after climbing to 25k these are the steady state speeds I got for different settings:

• B-17G: Bay closed (Bay open)
• Military Power: 280mph (270mph)
• Normal Power: 260mph (250mph)
• Max Cruise: not sustainable at 25k

which suggests your RL example is closer to AH Normal Power settings than the firewalled Military Power settings which we encounter in AH.

[chewie86]

I think buffs should show up as larger blips on dar.   

The little realism we've in radar is that you cannot identify the plane from the "dot".  I guess in RL a plane could have been identified only by his speed, actually it could be done in AH too. So leave the AH's radar as it is now.

And you know that how?  I've read annecdotes from German pilots that mention tail chasing bombers and having a hard time with the speeds.  Our problem is the people that have been deluded through their reading/movies, that German fighters were able to bust through Allied formations at will, with very little effort, mowing planes down at the cyclic rate.  Fact:  number one killer of 8th AF bombers in WWII was flak.

I can't agree more on this one. Luftwaffe pilots were afraid to attack bombers, remember that a single b17 has more than 10 x .50cal machineguns and if u get shot down from these bombers you actually dont risk your life (yes, dweebs, this is a game), but only 5 / 10 minutes. Compared to the time a B17 needs to climb to a certain altitude it is just a fraction ( one third? ). Here's why we (I'm talking about my squad and me) take our time to climb up that high when we dont have escorts. The number of the enemies is much lower at 27k than when bombing at 10k...
 

[colmbo]

see...i almost think it would. obviously i've never flown real combat, and that's why i asked that. i do know that when i'm in the pattern, i need to adjust my bank angles  according to what the wind is doing to make my turns as i want them. same if i'm doing a turn around a point. i'm constantly changing my bank to keep the target on the ground where i want it.
 that's what made me wonder if combat pilots had to do things slightly differently on windier days.......or on turbulent days too.

The difference is when in the pattern your flying in reference to the ground....in air combat your flying in reference to another aircraft -- both of you are in the same air mass.

[Baumer]

Actually with most of the early US radars you could infer what the inbound target was by the strength signal. Especially with a type "A" display shown below, the peak was much higher for a bomber than a fighter. However, this was not full proof, a perfect example is the attack on Pearl Harbor. The in coming Japanese planes in close formation were mistaken for a flight of B-17's coming in from California.



The USN historical center has some excellent information on early US radar, check out this article;

http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/radar.htm