|
Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
Although the B17 is classed as a heavy bomber it only carried a small bomb load when compared with the City destroying capabilities of the RAF bomber command Lancaster and Halifax.
Both these types carried a bomb load the B17 could only dream about, on looking at Duxfords Sally B against the Lancaster is is appart that the bomb bay on the B17 is very small compared the the Lancasters massive bay The Lancaster did in some varients carry the 24,000 pound Grand Slam. What was the biggest bomb a B17 could carry and was it incapable of carrying heavier bomb loads or was it simply the small bomb bay that restricted the weight of the load it could carry. Shouldn't it have been classed as a medium bomber? |
Re: Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
America didn't class it's bombers by weight carrying ability, but by size, armour protection and armament. Hence a four-engined bomber was classed as a Heavy Bomber.
As to load carrying ability below are listed some figures that may be of interest to you. B-17E: Empty Weight: 33,280lb Loaded weight: 53,000lb Max Bomb Load: 4,000lb Range: 1100 miles with 4,000lb B-17F: Empty Weight: 34,000lb Loaded weight: 65,500lb Max Bomb Load: 8,000lb Range: 1,250 miles with 6,000lb B-17G: Empty Weight: 38,000lb Loaded weight: 65,500lb Max Bomb Load: 9,600lb Range: 1200 miles with 6,000lb B-24D: Empty Weight: 32,605lb Loaded weight: 71,200lb Max Bomb Load: 12,000lb Range: 1400 miles with 8,000lb B-24J: Empty Weight: 38,000lb Loaded weight: 71,200lb Max Bomb Load: 12,800lb Range: 1540 miles with 8,000lb B-29: Empty Weight: 71,360lb Loaded weight: 138,,000lb Max Bomb Load: 20,000lb Range: 1950 miles with 20,000lb Halifax Mk.I: Empty Weight: 33,860lb Loaded weight: 55,000lb Max Bomb Load: 13,000lb Range: 980 miles with 13,000lb Halifax Mk.III Empty Weight: 39,000lb Loaded weight: 65,000lb Max Bomb Load: 13,000lb Range: 1260 miles with 13,000lb Lancaster B.I: Empty Weight: 41,000lb Loaded weight: 72,000lb Max Bomb Load: 14,000lb Range: 1040 miles with 12,000lb Lancaster B.III: Empty Weight: 41,500lb Loaded weight: 72,000lb Max Bomb Load: 14,000lb Range: 1040 miles with 14,000lb Lancaster B.I (Special): Empty Weight: 36,000lb Loaded weight: 72,000lb Max Bomb Load: 20,000lb - Grand Slam Range: 660 miles with 20,000lb Heinkel He 111H: Empty Weight: 17,000lb Loaded weight: 30,8650lb Max Bomb Load: 7,165lb Range: 910 miles with 6,000lb Heinkel He 177A-5: Empty Weight: 37,038lb Loaded weight: 68,343lb Max Bomb Load: 13,225lb Range: 1200 miles with 11,000lb As can be seen from the above the load carrying of the B-17 (any model) is really quite poor. But the built-in survivability, which accounts for miuch of it's loaded weight, was legendary. The B-24 could carry more, and over a greater distance. One reason why it was the popular choice with Pacific air force generals. But it was a more difficult aircraft to fly than the B-17, especially in formation and did not have quite the same strength to combat damage. The Halifax could carry a (slightly) larger load than the standard Lancaster, and over a greater distance. But it too was more difficult to fly than it's counterpart, and was more susceptible to damage. Of all the bombers shown above, only the Lancaster could carry more than it's rated max bomb load. That was the Grand Slam. But that was only in the specially modified B.I's, which were stripped of much equipment to assist in lift. And to it's extremely long bomb bay. Interestingly the German bombers also had very good lift capabilities, especially the He 111. But at the expense of protective armour and armament. But pound for pound the german bombers could out bomb any equivalent Allied bomber. Now the B-29.....well that's in a class all by itself. A truly outstanding aircraft. If it had flown over Germany the Luftwaffe, in all probability, would have been as ineffective against it as the Japanese. |
Re: Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
Hi,
Just to say that you forgot to include the Mosquito in your list, it too could match the B17 . Alex |
Re: Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
Wow! thanks Alex for the very comprehensive answer.
Interesting that the humble Mosquito carried the same load as the B17 but obviously the same weight in fewer bombs i would imagine. Thanks Again Jon |
Re: Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
The normal Mosquito bombload was up to 4x500lb, or half that of a normal B-17. Some modified aircraft could (and regularly did!) carry a single 4000lb bomb, but the aircraft was overloaded and unstable.
The difference between the Halifax and the Lancaster was that the Halifax had a shallow bomb-bay, designed to carry the prewar weapons no larger than 2000lb, but not significantly greater in diameter than the standard 500lb. It was not possible to fully close the bombbay doors when carrying the wider 4000lb bomb. (The 8000lb and 12000lb bomb were simply 4000lb cases connected together.) Apparently the 4000lb bomb was carried in this configuration with no noticable drop in performance - a statement I find very hard to believe. HP plans to introduce a bulged bombbay (as the Mosquito did) for these weapons was not approved by the Ministry, even for the superior Hercules-engined variants. The shape can be seen as the pannier on transport variants. |
Re: Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
Just to note, left out of the equation were two items, first, the B-17 was almost a full generation older (in aircraft terms, first flight july 1935 IIRC!) of all the other bombers mentioned, except the He 111. Second, IIRC, the specified bombing missions for which it was designed, IIRC, were actually for long range unescorted anti-naval missions. Foreign based launching points for targets like Germany were not really contemplated by many in the USA when the specifications were set in 1934. That being said, I have seen references indicating the US B-24s were regularly operated at well past maximum gross design weights. I can only wonder if the same applied to B-17s. I also know the exceeding gross missions was also true (first hand accounts by very credible pilots) of US transports.
Best regards, Artie Bob |
Re: Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
Apparently the Davis wing and the control setup of the B-24 made it so stable that you could always tell who were the pilots on the early B-24s because they had arms like Arnie Schwarzenegger, from the strength they needed to turn the sucker.
The Lancaster may be well liked by many people, and especially historians, but it was very hard on its crews in that they, especially the pilots, had the lowest survival rate of any WW2 bomber. In comparing the two bombers ex-S/L David Leicester, who flew a tour in Halifaxes and then one in Lancasters, noted that while the Lancaster could carry heavier bomb loads on less fuel than the Halifax, and was easier to fly than the Halifax, he preferred the Halifax because it would respond to the controls faster than the Lancaster--very important for avoiding flak and fighters--and its radial engines were more reliable than the in-lines of the Lancaster. And, he thought that with the square fins and rudders fitted, it was just about the nicest bomber in the world to fly. Oh yes, according to S/L Leicester, the survival rate per 7-man crew was 1.3 for the Lanc as opposed to 2.45 from the Halifax. (This is from p. 117-118 of "Night Airwar" by Theo Boiten). |
Re: Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
Sorry for 2 postings in a row, but in my estimation the argument about the small bomb load of the B-17 is a bit of a red-herring, and feel that the question should be: who caused greater damage and production loss to German industry, Bomber Command by burning down cities, or the USAAF by destroying factories and refineries?
|
Re: Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
Quote:
The B-17s bomb load is something like this: load 1 - 12 x 500lb load 2 - 6 x 1000lb load 3 - 24 x 100lb load 4 - 10 x100lb + 6 x 500lb Only load 2 had much chance at damaging/destroying machine tools which are much harder to replace than a roof. George, BC, at least in Nov '44, dropped more bomb tonnage on oil targets than the 8th AF. |
Re: Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
At the severe risk of splintering this thread, I would point out that the quoted survival rate for the crews is almost certainly that applied after the aircraft had been shot down (I'd appreciate confirmation if otherwise!) as the loss rate of the Merlin Halifax was considerably higher than that of the Lancaster. So much so that it eventually had to be withdrawn from BC operations before the superior Hercules-engined Mk.III was available.
Re Mosquitoes: I admit I was thinking of the modified Mk.IVs rather than the Mk.XIVs, but 400 is still a small number - and how many of those were dedicated to the 4000lb rather than just being replacements for the older machines? |
Re: Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
Quote:
In 1945, for example, only 36% of the Bomber Command effort was (mis)directed against area targets. Although it is true that the Mighty Eighth lead the way, Bomber Command, for example, had a major effect on the attack against oil. Between May 1944 and May 1945, the USAAF mounted more attacks on oil (170 versus 82) but Bomber Command dropped a higher tonnage of bombs (63,674 versus 45,617). Without arguing the respective accuracy and effectiveness of these attacks (both air forces had their successes and failures), it should be noted that, at times, the higher capacity blast bombs of Bomber Command could cause more destruction, if the target was hit, than the 500-2000lb bombs or incendiary devices used by both air forces. As for the discussion that seems to have developed regarding the B17 and the Lancaster, simply put, both were outstanding aircraft that reflected more than anything the differing philosophies of their respective air forces. It should be stated that as fine as the B17 was, in daylight it was mince-meat without the benefit of the air superiority gained by the escort fighters. This was not a failure of the aircraft, but of the "self-defending bomber" brigade. On the same token, the Lancaster burned easily and it's poor downward defensive qualities, allied with the overloading to increase bomb tonnage and the venerability of it's fuel and oxygen systems, was exploited by the Nachtjagd. Without the benefit of the weakening of the Nachtjagd, due to a number of different factors, I think that the loss rates of early 1944 could have prevailed. The the point I am trying to make (sorry, 'cause it is a 'what if' question) is how would have both aircraft performed if: (a) the B17 lost some armour and defensive firepower in order to increase bomb load (with a corresponding increase in the size of the bomb bay)? (b) the Lancaster increased armour and the calibre of defensive armament at the expense of bomb load? To me, only then can true comparisions be made - when the aircraft have equal capabilities (bomb load, defensive armament and armour) - otherwise the argument is actually about the validity of the differing philosophies of the USAAF and Bomber Command.... Cheers RodM |
Re: Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
When I look at the bomber campaign against the Reich I tend to ignore 1945 when it comes to accuracy, tonneage and targets. The Luftwaffe had lost control of german airspace and even the quality of heavy Flak units had deteriorated.
With little or no opposition over much of the target areas, it does not surprise that accuracy increased dramatically, nor tonneage on target, nor the fact that RAF Bomber Command flew more daylight missions (proof itself that the opposition had deteriorated significantly). Some may argue that this was a culmination of many factors, I'd even agree, but it was not IMHO the fruits of the bomber campaign itself - the culmination of strategic air warfare. However it does not surprise me that supporters of strategic bombing focus on the last 6-12 months to proof their point (anyone who has seen tonneage stats can see the dramatic increase in 1945). Perhaps USSBS wasn't that far of the mark, nor politically orientated, when it didn't support bomber claims out of hand. One may also wonder if the war might have been shortened if part of the strategic bomber force had been deployed against the German army instead - the tactical role (as it did impact the Normandy invasion). To me it appears like the generals behind strategic bombing were eager to proof their point before the war ended, that they had a war winning capability of their own. |
Re: Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
Hi Ruy,
I tend to agree and although one can look back with hindsight and state that if this or that was done differently then the war may have ended sooner, in a way the supporters of strategic bombing were, in part, theoretically right for although they did not have the means to deliver a quick and decisive knockout blow in Europe, the advent of the atomic bomb, in the hands of only one side or another, made such a decisive blow by air power alone possible....(with all the horrible consequences). Cheers Rod |
Re: Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
Sure Rod, I agree completely.
Although the advent of ICBMs and perhaps more importantly SLICBMs, have again changed the role of strategic air warfare. The last decades have seen a clear shift towards the tactical role of aircraft, but there is of course an overlap into the strategic (especially since the capability of a modern fighter(-bomber) is greatly enhanced). Personally I see today's tactical role of aircraft as good proof that aircraft are often best used in support of battlefield (not only direct support), instead of waging a separate war. Shortly after WW2 - still being parrotted today - the Luftwaffe was criticized because they failed to put up a strategic air arm, or failed to understand the importance of air power in a strategic role, yet it seems that their idea of operational air war was more balanced (especially if circumstances dictate the choices you can make). The keyword may be flexible versus doctrinal use of air power. |
Re: Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
Quote:
|
Re: Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
Hi Ruy,
With the American use of air power in the Gulf, most of the targeting as aimed at objectives that would support, directly and indirectly, a ground war. Even then, it is the improved (but not perfect by a long shot) accuracy of delivery systems that make this possible. When thinking back to the tactical use of strategic air power around D-Day, some usage just plain failed to achieve it's goals (such as the bombing that Monty always insisted upon in support of his ground forces while trying to break out). Maybe, the four-engined bomber was just unsuited to the task (oh, how the Allies would have loved an aircraft like the F-16/F-18 back then!). And, yes, from re-reading some of the official histories, it seems that some of the main inhibiting factors on the conduct of the airwar resulted from the commanders themselves and the schools of thought they dogmatically aligned themselves with, causing mis-application or a dilution of effort. However, the Second World War was THE testing ground of air power. To me, the only benefit of having so many advocates of different doctrines during the air war in Europe is that least the 'field was covered' - although we can theorise in hindsight how strategic air power could or should have been more effectively used, obviously the defeat of the Axis forces was a combination of many factors, one of which was strategic air power and in the application of that strategic air power, the effects of many different doctrines helped bring about the collapse of Germany. If, a single air commander had been appointed and they had aligned themselves with a particular target system, would have this have brought about the same result? Myself, I tend to get annoyed at the some of the modern arguments made about the Strategic air offensive that seem to have more to do to nationalistic pride than honest assessment (it is from this that many black-and-white half-truths develop). As you say, the flexible application of air power, both strategic and tactical, allied to more effective targeting and more efficient and accurate delivery systems, is the key. Where would the effective use of air power today be without the lessons learnt 60 years ago? I guess that the first Gulf War finally saw a maturing of the use of air power, reapplying many lessons learnt in the North African campaign, under one unified battle-plan for all forces....and the acknowledgement that air power cannot win a conventional war alone without soldiers on the ground. Cheers Rod |
Re: Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
Hi,
For what it’s worth I’m in total agreement with RodM, however as per normal the contribution of the Short Stirling is forgotten.:mad: Regarding accuracy, Bomber Command’s accuracy steadily improved throughout the war, from mid 1944 onwards Bomber Commands major contribution towards the destruction of Germany’s synthetic oil plants and railway facilities are unfortunately overlooked in favour of the attacks upon German cities. Perhaps we should have copied the Yanks with better press covered and built up our contribution in the same way they did. ! :D No.3 Group RAF Bomber Command in particular played a prominent role in attacking Hitler’s oil and transport targets, equipped with G-H the group carried out a number of highly effective and destructive attacks from October 1944 onwards. I personally feel that Harris should have been replaced mid 1944, Bomber Command could have and perhaps should have played a more prominent role in attacking selective targets, Bomber Command had the men, aircraft and the bombing and navigational aids to destroy any target in Germany, the only thing it lacked was a commander willing to explore and develop a selective bombing policy. Commanders such as Cochrane (5 Group) or Bennett (8 Group) both of whom explored new bombing and target locating techniques should have been given the chance. ( I await the flak :p ) Of course in hindsight it is easy to have an opinion. Regards Smudger |
Re: Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
Hello Smudger
You'll not get any flak from me because I totally agreed with You, well said. Juha |
Re: Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
Hello Gentlemen,
Statistics and figures can sometimes be wrong and misleading. First, even though the Halifax and Lancaster had a max bomb capacity of 13,0000-140000 lbs, the planes that flew the missions hardly ever had their planes to full bomb capacity. I have some references with accurate stats: Key raids against Germany by the RAF: 1943, July 24/25: RAF Raid on Hamburg. 791 Planes (Mostly Lancaster, the rest Halifax and Sterling) dropped 2,200 tons of bombs, which works out to about 5,560 lbs per A/C. 1943, November 18/19: RAF Raid on Berlin. 444 Planes (Lancaster, Halifax and Sterling) dropped 1,500 tons of bombs, which works out to about 6,700 lbs per A/C. 1944, March 30/31: RAF Raid on Nuremberg ( Black night for Bomber Command and heaviest defeat suffered by the RAF in a bombing mission. Of the 795 A/C dispatched, 108 were lost, 70 damaged, casualties 545 men killed, 159 shot down but evaded capture) 795 Planes (mostly Lancaster and Halifax) dropped 2,500 tons of bombs, which works out to about 6,200 lbs per A/C. So, as one can see by these three key examples, the bomb capacity was no way near the 13,000 to 14,000 range. If the B17 had an average of 5,000 to 7,000 lb load, the Lancaster( with the exception of the B.1 special) and Halifax were not too far off. Years ago at a hobby show here in Calgary, I talked to a Lancaster pilot, who was visiting from Saskatoon. He told me that he never flew a mission with a max bomb load on his plane, everything depended on the target and the range. Facts and Stats: The bombing of Europe in WW2 Sorties flown by RAF Bomber Command: 1940-1945: 391,137 Sorties flown by USAAC: 1942-1945: 762,000 Tons of bombs dropped by RAF 955,000 ( 758,000 Bombs, 196,000 Incindiaries) Tons of bombs dropped by USAAC: 1,400,000 Lancaster: Tons of bombs and incindiaries dropped, 600,000. (1940-1945) Halifax: Tons of bombs and incindiaries dropped, 227,000. (1940-1945) Boeing B17: Tons of bombs dropped: 640,000. (1942-1945) Consolidated B24: Tons of bombs dropped: 460,000. (1942-1945) *Note: The 8th Air Force alone, dropped more tons of bombs than the entire RAF and did it in 3 years compared to the RAF in 5 years! Vinman. References and sources: WW2 AIRCRAFT, The Allies: by Chris Chant. 1939-1945 war planes: by Andrew Kershaw. Aviation Heritage: Black night for Bomber Commad by N.W. Emmott. |
Re: Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
Thanks Vinman.
You failed to mention if the B17 carried its full bomb load each time....the answer is no it didn't....so as i stated the LANCASTER CARRIED FAR BIGGER BOMB LOADS THAN THE BI7 Any chance you could answer my original question !! Cheers. |
Re: Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
There has never been any doubt that the B-17 carried a smaller bomb load than the Halifax and Lancaster. So what? And, Bomber Command dropped great quantities of bombs on the German refineries in the last few months of the war, after the German early warning system had been destroyed, and the refineries had already been mortally wounded by the USAAF. Again, so what? Reading the official histories clearly shows that while the British were burning cities and killing civilians, the USAAF was decimating the German fighter arm, destroying the German war-making capacity, bringing transportation in western Europe to a virtual standstill, and making D-Day possible. They all enforce the perception that it's not the size of the bomb load, but how intelligently the bomb load is used.
|
Re: Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
Hello George,
Excellent post! My thoughts exactly, you couldn't have said it better. Vinman. |
Re: Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
Still waiting for an answer to the question !
Jon |
Re: Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
Oh! and one other thing.
As you Canadians flew with us Brits i assume when you say British killing civilians...you mean WE were killing civilians. Not nice from a country that has never been on the wrong end of a bomb! Tally ho! |
Re: Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
Dear George & Vin,
I have taken an hour or so before I attempt to reply to your posts, I have had to read your posts a few time’s just to make sure I was not hallucinating I have never heard such rubbish; Bomber Command had no involvement in the disruption of the transport and railway networks in occupied Europe pre and post D-Day. ? Bomber Command did not attack oil targets or war producing factories. ? Bomber Command only attacked German cities killing “innocent” civilians. ? Unbelievably naïve, and rather sad when one considers the magnificent contribution of the Canadian No.6 Group, RAF Bomber Command. The contribution of the US 8th & 15th Airforce was without doubt massive and decisive; the destruction of the German fighter arm was in no small measure the result of the US Mustangs, Thunderbolts and Lightings. However you so casually belittle RAF Bomber Commands contribution. Both worked together towards victory, side by side sharing the same dangers. It’s rather unfortunate that people such as you wish to run-down the contribution of Bomber Command because it suits your political stance. I humbly suggest you read a number of books on RAF Bomber Command, yes the command made mistakes, and should have perhaps change it’s bombing policies sooner. That’s me being objective and rational, you both might want to try it. Smudger |
Re: Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
Smudger, I again agreed with You. I'm also puzzled with George's message.
George, BC was an active participant in transport plan before D-Day and it began again attack oil targets on night 12/13 June 1944 with a successful attack on Nordstern synthetic-oil plant in Gelsenkirchen. It should be mentioned in the Official History, Vol. IV, p. 322. My source is Middlebrook and Everitt's The Bomber Command War Diaries (ISBN 0-670-80137-2) p. 527. Juha |
Re: Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
In France in 1944, raids by BC against railroads were both more efficient and less bloody for French civilians than raids by 8th and 15th AF. So the distinction between USAAF precision bombing and BC area bombing seems not so serious to me.
|
Re: Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
Hello Jon,
Yes, I will answer your question. The B17 did not carry the same bomb load as the Lancaster. But, if you read my first post, you will find that on average, the Lancaster carried around 5000-6500 lbs per A/C and not the max that it was designed to do. Again, it depended on the range and type of target. The point that I am trying to make is that on average, the Lancaster, Halifax, B17 and B24 were flying missions with more or less the same bomb loads. Those three KEY EXAMPLES of RAF night raids that I posted, have the stats. No one is trying to belittle Bomber Command, I certainly am not. The whole Allied contribution to the destruction of Europe, was a team effort. However, one must admit, that the USAAF was a huge factor in winning the war. Vinman. |
Re: Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
Quote:
That may have been true about rail lines, but not in general. For example, in July 1944 the RAF area bombed Caen in front of the British Army which was stalled outside the city. The Bomber Command raid was completely unnecessary, doing more to help the German Army than damage them. Very few German troops were inside Caen and many French civilians were killed by the bombs. Later, some of the bombing survey teams discovered that the British Army advance was actually delayed more by the huge bomb craters and piles of rubble that blocked their path through the city. |
Re: Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
Note that as a moderator I must point out at this stage that only an objective discussion can be allowed to continue, once this becomes an emotional dispute I will have to close it down.
Hopefully we can all continue without reaching that point since the subject is an interesting one. |
Re: Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
Thanks Vinman for the last post you placed.
Yes i agree 110% that US bombing in world war two was a massive contributor to the final victory. My question certainly was not aimed to attack the B17 it was just out of interest thats all. Regards Jon |
Re: Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
Make it stop Ruy, please.
|
Re: Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
Quote:
I have for the past few hours been viewing a number of Avro Lancaster & Short Stirling squadron ORB’s, I have 16 Lancaster and 8 Short Stirling squadron ORB’s. The following is a typical bomb-load for the Avro Lancaster, I have chosen four targets at various ranges. Avro Lancaster Mk.B.I & III
Avro Lancaster Mk.B.II
Short Stirling Mk.B.III
Vin, your average Lancaster bomb load of 5000-6500lb per aircraft seems slightly out. :confused: The above figures are actual bomb loads, taken via the squadron ORB. The above figures relating to the Avro Lancaster tell the real story. The figures you have provided Vin are doubtful, however what is not in doubt is the courage and sacrifices of both Bomber Command and US 8th & 15th Airforces. |
Re: Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
Quote:
Are there any flyable Lancasters, Halifax or Stirlings these days? I've seen many of the American World War II types at airshows or flying over my house (including B-17s and B-29s) but we don't get many British warbirds over here. A few years ago I did see a Griffon-engined Spitfire put on a demonstration. It was quite impressive, and I'm sure a Stirling buzzing the local airstrip would also attract some attention. |
Re: Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
Thank you, Smudger and Juha, for your considered and valuable comments on my posting. First, Smudger, I do think it would be more accurate to say, "I have never read such rubbish;" rather than, "I have never heard such rubbish." But, that’s only my opinion. And, thank you also for being so objective and rational, it’s such a welcome relief from the crazies who sometimes pop out of the woodwork in these threads.
I am a bit confused as to why I should consider myself naïve about the accomplishments of Bomber Command just because one of its groups happened to come from Canada. Incidently, from a Canadian who served in one of the other Bomber Command groups: while 6 Group may have had a good record in the air, on the ground the aircrew were generally considered to be a bunch of "loud-mouthed, beer-swilling louts." But, I guess they wouldn’t be unique in that. You are totally accurate when you say that, "The contribution of the US 8th & 15th Air Force(s) was without doubt massive and decisive ...." That is exactly what I was saying: The efforts of the USAAF – including the 9th Air Force – were decisive, and were what made D-Day, and an Allied, rather than a Soviet, western Europe possible. Where we might disagree ever so slightly is the part about "Both (Bomber Command and the USAAF) worked together towards victory, side by side sharing the same dangers." If you read about the politics of Bomber Command, you would see that Bomber Harris was dragged, kicking and screaming, into the idea of using his command against anything but cities, because he felt that other targets were simply too small to be effectively attacked at night. And, you might note also that whenever the opportunity presented itself, he would quickly switch away from other targets to attack another city. So, yes, BC did attack transportation and oil industry targets, but it was certainly not with the heartfelt blessing of the CinC. But, you appear to allude to that very thing when you say that Bomber Command "made mistakes, and should perhaps have changed its bombing policies sooner." So, really, Smudger, our postings seem to indicate that we are in almost total agreement with each other, only using different words – welcome to the world of the naïve with political stances. As a postscript, Juha, I feel that the majority of the strategic bombing that took place after the Allied armies were established in France, was superfluous. Since the transportation facilities were being smothered, it really didn’t matter what was produced or refined, because only minute amounts of it would ever reach the fronts. Thank you again for both your comments. PPS. For Nifty. In Canada we have one flying Lancaster; and a Halifax is being restored, but whether to flying status I don't know, but don't think so. |
Re: Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
Quote:
|
Re: Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
George Wrote :
Reading the official histories clearly shows that while the British were burning cities and killing civilians, the USAAF was decimating the German fighter arm, destroying the German war-making capacity, bringing transportation in western Europe to a virtual standstill, and making D-Day possible. It is because you make such an unsupported and obviously incorrect generalisation I replied to you above post. It’s the type of statement I expect from the present day PC brigade tabloids. My opinion of Bomber Command was clearly recorded on post 17. I stand by it. It’s obvious that we do not read the same histories, I could the record the number of times the US bombers bombed targets over cloud, but I want, this is not the place to go over the same old ground. |
Re: Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
There is indeed a very misguided belief that the 8th AF (and 15th for that matter) only attacked military targets and did not target, or bomb, cities.
It is of course far from the truth. That's not to say that there was not a very basic divergence by RAF Bomber Command and the USAAF on strategic bombing at the very highest level. There was. It part it was due to the fact that Britain had had it's cities bombed, America had not. There was definitely a revenge element involved on the part of the political leaders of Britain, from Churchill down. And it should be noted that the policy of night bombing of Cities was well in force before Harris came to control Bomber Command. The difference in bombing philosphy had much to do with the aircraft each country fielded. Britain found out very early in the war that it's bombers could not survive in the air against the modern fighters of the Luftwaffe. And so switched to night bombing - as did the Luftwaffe when faced with equally strong opponents in the BoB. The USAAF believed totally in the powerfully armoured bomber, and that it could penetrate successfully in daylight. And because it could bomb in daylight the 8th had the luxury (if you like) of selecting specifc military targets. Yet still they managed to not only miss their targets, and bomb cities, they even on occasion bombed the wrong country! Mind you Bomber Command also were guilty of this on several occasions. Aerial bombing is an emotive subject, let alone whether day or night bombing was preferable. Any judgements must be made based on the moral view that applied in the 40's, not now. The same applies to the USAAF's indiscriminate fire bombing of Japanese cities in late '44 and '45. There are a number of very fine books on the subject, however most deal in isolation with either Bomber Command or the 8th Air Force. One excellent book that has recently come out deals with the bombing campaign against Germany as a whole, and draws many interesting findings on the bombing campaign based on the combined effects by both Britain and America. I thoroughly recommend it, it's title is "The Bomber War, The Allied Air Offensive Against Nazi Germany", by Robin Neillands. ISBN 1-58567-457-5 |
Re: Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
Hello George
the transportation facilities were being smothered before D-Day and during the summer 44 by both the USAAF and RAF and besides most of the German military supplies got to the front or at least near of it. There were delays, sometimes crucial, but by drasticly curtailing French civilian rail traffic and non-essential German rail traffic most of the essential supplies, troops and equippment got to or near the front. IIRC only after late Feb. - early March 1945 German transport system was in such a chaos that it had decisive impact. But we are now rather far from the original question. IIRC B-17 was design on a spec which was meant to produce a new bomber. The number of engines was not specificed but the assumption was that the end product would be a twin-engined medium bomber as was the other contender which also got into production, Douglas B-18. I'm not want to downgrade B-17 which was a truly excellent design, only to show how far-sighted the Boeing design team and also USAAC top brass were on this occasion. Juha |
Re: Small B17 bomb bay and bomb load
Quote:
Probably the worst idea ever by Allied bomber commanders was the decision to bomb Normandy cities to create roadblocks with their rubble on D-day and the days after. British and American raids killed thousands of French civilians in two days and German reports showed that their troops were almost not delayed at all. Fighter-bombers were far more useful to delay them and far more precise. I think both air forces have in common to have seen their original conceptions fail. But both changed and their efficiency increased during the war. My own opinion is that bombing results of the RAF were most efficient at any time than USAAF. But the main contribution of the 8th AF still IMHO is to have defeated the German Luftwaffe in the air, killing thousands of German fighter pilots in 1944 and thus winning air superiority over Europe. Even if both airforces became more and more powerful and precise during the war, German production increased in 1944. Only when both airforces targetted together the oil factories had they a decisive influence on the German war machine. |
| All times are GMT +2. The time now is 13:01. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2018, 12oclockhigh.net