Descriptions of Sturmbock attacks on Heavy Bombers: From the REAR

[Buzzbait]

S!

The Luftwaffe developed tactics in '44 to optimize the destruction of US Heavy bombers. One of these was the formation of "Sturmjaeger" units which flew heavy armoured and armed 190A8's.

These units were trained to attack from the REAR of the bomber formation.

Wonder how many would survive such an attack against AH B17's?

Here is a link to a description of an attack:
 http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/neilpage/sturmgruppenactions.html

[Urchin]

None.  At all.  They wouldn't get within 500 yards, much less 100.

[Karnak]

Do you guys want the guns on the bombers to be absolutely, 100% accurate to real life?

Urchin,

I've manuvered to within 200 yards of a bomber that was shooting at me.  He just wasn't any good at shooting.  

[mauser]

Hm... check my thread out, I point to the same site and include a couple of links to the site to some interesting excerpts from combat.  Makes me wonder if my posts are invisible to everyone else because I usually don't get many replies if at all.  Or is it because I'm not controversial enough?    

mauser

[Wotan]

throw in a few observations and opinions.....
facts just dont bring in the traffic


with a nik like mauser I'm surprised though  

[GRUNHERZ]

Here is the problem with AH buff guns.

The LW pilots here clearly express a high degree of justified confidence in their 190s armor, there certainly can be no doubt about that, unless of course they are lying.

However trying such an attack against even an AH lancaster with 2x 50cals and 2 useless? 303s from 60c and 1000yds out will most of the time kill you, with your plane being cut up loosing wings and tails.

Dont deny this guys, we all know you buff guys even the lanc flyres always say its dumb and stupid to attack from 6)C, and thats against 2 50cal guns.

Something is no right wth AH implementaition of bomber defensive guns.

[Karnak]

GRUNHERZ,

You are correct.  It is absolutely idiotic to attack a Buff, even a Ju88, from the 6 o'clock level position. I've never seen anybody say otherwise. HTC even states that the effective range of Buff guns is extended over that of fighters.

My question is, do you want the guns on bombers modeled perfectly in line with their historical reality?

[ 09-21-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]

[gatt]

Buzz, there are very nice Luftwaffe guncameras showing Fw190A-7, Fw190A-8, Bf109G and Bf110G attacking B-17 and B-24 from dead 6 o'clock. Not only Sturmbock formations. There are 8th Air Force diagrams showing those attacks: high 6, low six, high-low-high ...

But, ... sometimes the tail gunner was dead/wounded, sometimes wasnt at his place, sometimes he was terrified, sometimes the bomber was on the way back home already crippled by other fighter attacks or flak. Some guncameras show the LW fighters *very* close to the buff, maybe less than 100yds.

I am sure that in the real thing many 6 o'clock attacks were successfull for those reasons but I'm sure that all the guncameras we have are from victorious attacks as well ...     And I agree that a dead six attack in AH should be *very* dangerous.

[ 09-21-2001: Message edited by: gatt ]

[Buzzbait]

S! Mauser

Sorry to steal your material.  

I read it and noticed the description of the Sturmbock attack and thought it was appropriate to the general discussion vis a vis bombers which has been happening on this board.

[Apar1]

I think the success was mainly due to the fact that they attacked in line abrest formation with large number of attackers. It is very hard (almost impossible) to get effective fire on multiple rear targets before the rear gunner and belly gunner died or before the bombers were shot to pieces.

I have gun camera footage of 109's fitted with Mk108 30mm guns. Although they attacked from close because of the effective range of the Mk108, the damage was devestating, the Mk108 ate up the bombers if the attacking pilot didn't get shot down in time by that bomber. Another thing I noticed is that allot of these gun camera footage is of attacks on isolated bombers (mostly already crippled) and there were no tracers visible from bomber to fighter.

Until the B17's were fitted with chin turrets the 109's attacked the bomber formations from the front where they made a shallow dive through the bomber formations.

[ 09-21-2001: Message edited by: Apar1 ]

[Buzzbait]

S! Apar

If you read it closely you will see the attack was by approx. 30 Sturmbock on a formation of 18 bombers, ie. the low Squadron of a group.  The other two Squadrons would be 'stacked' 1000 and 2000 feet higher than the low Squadron.  This is the typical defensive 'box' that USAAF bombers used.

So the attackers were facing 18 rear gunners, plus whatever could be directed their way by the next highest Squadron.

[Buzzbait]

S!

Oops correction.  The 492nd, (the USAAF bomber Group) was understrength.  There were only two 492nd Squadrons in the Group, the other came from another Group.  Also the two Squadrons totaled 23 aircraft instead of 36.  Plus two aborted.  So there would be 21 Liberators in total in the low and center Squadrons of the box.  And there would be 11 Liberators rear gunners firing at the Sturmgruppe, as well as the 10 in the next highest Squadron in the box.

[Apar1]

CC read the eyewithness acount of the bomber group as well.

[ 09-21-2001: Message edited by: Apar1 ]

[Apar1]

S! Buzzbait

Yes, I agree, I think you can rule out the effectiveness on the higher groups guns though, it is very hard to get a gun solution on a 1000-2000ft low passing target. Still, imagine the horror of facing 11 guns blazing away at you from the front and not being able to open fire until much closer range, it's almost like facing a firing squad with your back against the wall.

The stress these fighter pilots and bomber crews faced is unimagineable

[GRUNHERZ]

So Karnak HTC is not telling the truth when they say the buff guns are the same as fighter guns?

Because HiTech said that, should I assume he is deleberatly misinforming us to quiet buff crticizm?