German success against the Nijmegen and Remagen bridges.
 

Can anyone please throw light on the equipment and tactics used by the GAF when attempting to destroy the Nijmegen road and rail bridges and the Remagen rail bridge.

This follows from a discussion in the Allied section about USAAF and RAF failure against the Wesel road and rail bridges in Feb/March 1945.

Ellis states that the GAF made a sharp attack after dark on September 26 and followed this with some further 200 aircraft primarily directed against the Nijmegen bridges next day. 2 TAF defended the bridges and claimed 46 planes shot down. The GAF failed to hit the bridge, but what tactics and equipment did they use in the attempt?
The rail bridge and 80 feet of roadway from the road bridge was brought down on September 28 using frogmen.
I would be particularly interested to know whether the GAF used dive bombers against these bridges.

The Remagen rail bridge was attacked on March 15 by 21 GAF bombers, including Arado 234, but apparently without success. Again, does anyone know how these were used, and in particular, was dive bombing attempted?
Efforts by frogmen failed because that technique lacked surprise after Nijmegen.
The bridge collapsed on March 17 after being attacked by 11 V-2 rockets. Hitler claimed the rockets brought down the bridge, but I believe the Americans dispute this.

Tony

Re: German success against the Nijmegen and Remagen bridges.
 

The V-2 did not have the accuracy to aim at a bridge, or even a river. Any such success would have been by chance. The V-2 was aimed at cities, mainly London and Antwerp.

I've not heard of dedicated dive bombers (Ju.87s) being used on the Western Front. The Ju 88 may be a possible contender. Most of the references to attacks at Remagen I've seen involve the jets.

Vol 2 of the recent Shores/Thomas 2 TAF series describes the actions of the 27th over Nijmegen: 45 of the claims are for fighters (41 identified as being from JG units) and one Me 410. Four Ju 88s were observed but escaped. It seems likely that the majority of any attacks on the bridges will have been carried out by Jabos - mainly Fw 190s I suspect. These would have been identified as fighters in the claims, but the book does not mention jabos as such. The descriptions are all of combats over the area, not interceptions of bombing aircraft. The Luftwaffe lacked a significant bomber force and such were not survivable in daylight on the Western front.

Perhaps you could explain why your heading refers to non-existent success against the Nijmegen bridges? Shouldn't it read German "failures"?

Re: German success against the Nijmegen and Remagen bridges.
 

Remagen was attacked by JG2 , JG 53, NSGr. 1, KG 76, so FW 190´s , Bf 109´s, Ju 87´s and Ar 234´s some wanna see Me 262 - and mabey other groups too, also V2 rockets shot at the bridge - but missed ....

khorat

Re: German success against the Nijmegen and Remagen bridges.
 

I use the word success because the Germans actually destroyed the Nijmegen rail bridge with frogmen, and claimed the destruction of the Remagen rail bridge with the V-2s - a claim disputed by the Americans who said the collapse was coincidental.
Frogmen damaged the Nijmegen road bridge but it was repaired.

I know all GAF records were destroyed.
But is there anything written by participants of the attacks on the Nijmegen bridge?
And have the participating units been identified?

As for Ju-87s not being used on the Western Front, I seem to remember mention of a night-bombing unit that was so equipped. It was a night-bombing unit that attacked the Nijmegen bridges after dark on September 26.

And I wonder if there is anything in the literature about German methods of attacking bridges - perhaps in the Allied debriefing reports? Attacks on bridges must have been high on German priorities.
Any information about sources would be greatly appreciated.

Tony

Re: German success against the Nijmegen and Remagen bridges.
 

Thank you very much for this information.

Tony

Re: German success against the Nijmegen and Remagen bridges.
 

The following suggests that the GAF had lost confidence in their ability to destroy bridges from the air, and even believed that the Allies had surpassed them technically in this regard. However, the inability of the RAF/USAAF to destroy the Wesel bridges would imply that this conclusion was unfounded.
The right conclusion seems to be to that GAF/RAF/USAAF air power lacked the means of reliably destroying bridges in 1945.
It remains to be seen whether this was true of the Red Air Force.

"In the campaigns in Poland and France the destruction of bridges contributed largely to the success achieved in operations on the ground. In the opening stages of the Russian campaign this was also true.
However, events were to prove as early as 1941 that the growing strength of the defences at bridges was to make their destruction increasingly difficult with the means then available, and that even large bridges could be repaired within an astonishingly short time.
Thus, the destruction of bridges did not represent a decisive factor for the German side as the war continued. The unsuccessful efforts of the German Command in 1945 to destroy the Vistula River bridges by air attack, in which even the most modern means were employed, was nothing short of tragic.
Since the Western Allies in 1944 did succeed through the destruction of bridges in France - and this applies particularly to the bridges across the Seine River – in preventing the timely forward movement of German reinforcements against the invading Allied forces, it must be assumed that the failure of the Luftwaffe to accomplish similar missions must have been due to inadequate technological developments on the German side, quite apart from the general inferiority of German airpower at the time."
Source: German Air Force Operations in Support of the Army, by Paul Deichmann.
Numbered USAF Studies Number 163.
http://www.afhra.af.mil/studies/numb...ies151-200.asp

Tony

Re: German success against the Nijmegen and Remagen bridges.
 

Where do I start?

OK, Nijmegen. The bulk of the daylight attacks were made by Fw 190s and Bf 109s of regular fighter units. Me 262s were active in the area but I don't recall if they went for the bridge specifically.

"Daily report 27 September 1944:

19 Ju 87 of NSG 2 in attacks on bridges and roads leading into Nijmegen from the south. Two bombed secondary targets, a further three attacked Eindhoven. Bombs were observed to fall near troop movements.

42 a/c of III./KG 51 in two formations set out to attack bridges leading into Eindhoven from the south: 5 broke off for technical reasons and 1 missing.

4 Mistel and 8 Ju 88 of Einsatzgruppe 101 took off to attack bridges in Nijmegen. 1 Mistel and 2 Ju 88 broke off for technical reasons. 1 aircraft (Ju 88S) missing."

(National Archives AIR20/7704) No. VII/89 "War Diary of Luftflotte 3 (Western Front) September 1944"

On 28 September, the Fw 190 F-8s of Sonderverband Einhorn were also used and did bomb from a dive. This from Flt. Lt. Lapp of 411 Squadron RCAF:

While leading 411 Squadron on a low patrol over Nijmegen, several F.W. 190's were spotted coming from South East at approximately 12,000' we climbed and turned toward them. The 190's dived through us at high speed in an attempt to dive bomb the bridge. I took after the leading aircraft which dropped its bomb near the target, but was unable to get within 700 yds ...

According to the dairy of No. 100 AA Brigade, the Germans hit the rail bridge with a 500 kg bomb, putting it temporarily out of action, and slightly damaged part of the other bridge's roadway.

At Remagen, aside from the units already mentioned, NSG 2 and KG 51 were involved, as was 11./KG 200. Anything the Germans could get within range, really.

German lack of success against bridges in 1944–45 is at least in part attributable to the inadequacy of the means at their disposal. They couldn't send over formations of medium bombers in daylight to carpet the target like the USAAF could. Their medium bomber units were largely stood down in September 1944 and only reactivated for the one attack on Eindhoven during MARKET-GARDEN. At Remagen, the weather was terrible most of the time and the jets were often bombing under EGON guidance.

Re: German success against the Nijmegen and Remagen bridges.
 

Here is a book excerpt that I think may be helpful:


http://books.google.com/books?id=TXo...201944&f=false



Usual disclaimer,
Ed

Re: German success against the Nijmegen and Remagen bridges.
 

Thank you.

The author does not identify which of the three attack modes was actually used on the Remagen bridge;
1) high altitude horizontal attacks using autopilot with target held in crosshairs of Lotfe 7K bombsight and bomb released automatically
2) low level horizontal flight with pilot calculating when to release
3) shallow dive attacks from 5,000m to under 1,500m while aiming bomb through the periscopic sight.
I believe it was most likely 3).
The bomb load was 3,000 lb.

Tony

Re: German success against the Nijmegen and Remagen bridges.
 

Thank you for the information, Nick; much appreciated.

I would also appreciate information about how the German jets bombed under EGON guidance, and the accuracy obtainable by their version of Oboe/GEE-H?

Tony

Re: German success against the Nijmegen and Remagen bridges.
 

Ultra CX/MSS/T485/1:

Signed Jedele, Fhr., at 1600 hours 9th [March 1945]:-
Employment with III./KG 76 from 1(B% 4) 15 – 1545 hours on 9th, attack on Remagen bridge. Leading a/c £ Führermaschine £ was directed into the target area and to the point of dive though cloud £ Durchstosspunkt £.

NOTE:- Jedele controls Egontrupp Achmer (473/87)

BA-MA RL2 II/118: «Gen.Nafü (1.Abt.II) Vortragsnotiz betreffend Egon-Führung für Nachtschlachteinsätze auf Brücke und Brückenkopf Remagen» says that with good crews, accuracies of plus or minus 200m in range and 0.25 degrees in bearing were attainable.

Re: German success against the Nijmegen and Remagen bridges.
 

Hi Tony,
This may partly answer your Freya-EGON question.
http://www.gyges.dk/II%20JK%20spring%201945%202.htm

As a side note. This method was nowhere as accurate as Oboe.
bregds
SES

Re: German success against the Nijmegen and Remagen bridges.
 

Thank you Nick and SES.
Is the following conclusion accurate?
Conclusion;
- the AR234 B-2s carrying 1-ton bombs of IIIKG76 flew from Burg, located NE of Magdeburg, with fuel for a 760km round trip from Remagen.
- an An722 Zyklop directional beacon, consisting of a trailer with an AS 3 Funklandesender and two masts located 14m apart pointing directly at Remagen bridge, was set up presumably either at Codename Dornröschen (at 53639 Petersberg near Königswinter) about 12km due north of the Remagen Bridge, or at Codename Rübezahl (at 56584 Rüscheid), about 20km southeast of Remagen, and linked to an FuBl 1 or 2 Funklandegerät carried presumably only on the Führermaschine (leading Ar234 B-2 per Nick's Enigma decrypt).
- The pilot (sole crewmember) observed a course deviation indicator in front of him and corrected accordingly. Presumably, per Nick's Enigma decrypt, this was on the Führermaschine only but there seems no reason why course correction was not available to every pilot on the raid.
- The pilot of the Führermaschine was informed in real time by W/T of distance to target. This was obtained through EGON (Erstling-Gemse-Offensive Navigationsverfahren), being the normal German IFF (Freund-Feind Kennung) comprising the Erstling Kenngerät FuG 25a on the Ar234 B-2 responding automatically to the Gemse Freya FUS An 730 (Freya EGON). Presumably the other pilots on the raid received the same distance-to-target information and knew it applied specifically to the position of the Führermaschine. Distance-to-target was derived manually by plotters using a map (am I right?)
- The Gemse Freya in use was presumably one or other of those at Codename Dornröschen or Codename Rübezahl.
- The pilot of the Führermaschine flew the course that would take him over Remagen Bridge, and would initiate his attack as soon as W/T informed him of his arrival at the Durchstosspunkt (point of dive) which could be in cloud per the Enigma decrypt supplied by Nick. At this point he would call the German equivalent of 'Tally-ho', and dive for the bridge followed by the others on the raid. Bomb release in the dive was controlled by the pilot, AFAIK. But since it was a shallow dive delivering a single one-ton bomb, into heavy radar-directed and manually-aimed Flak, with the pilot sitting in a glasshouse with a superb view but feeling as vulnerable as hell, the system's accuracy came down to human skill and bravery. The Zyklop got him to the dive point on the right target heading.

This was German state-of-art bridge destruction at the end of the war, and should be compared and contrasted with its Allied equivalent.
What exactly was the Allied equivalent is unclear.
RP Typhoon 2s were not used against the Wesel bridges for reasons unknown, although speed in the shallow dive and hitting power were either the same or superior to the Ar234 B-2, and vulnerability to Flak was identical.
Bomphoons either uncontrolled or controlled by MRCP while flying straight and level outside the reach of medium Flak were not used against the Wesel bridges for reasons unknown.
Mosquitoes controlled by Oboe while flying straight and level at night above medium Flak were used against the Wesel Bridges.
B-17s bombing visually from height were used against the Wesel Bridges.

This provides confirmation that no sure weapon system for bridge destruction in 1945 existed in the GAF or RAF/USAAF. Russian equivalents are unknown.

Tony

Re: German success against the Nijmegen and Remagen bridges.
 

Hi Tony,
You are not far off the mark, but I think bomb release was done in level flight - with a CEP of 1.000 m :mad:.
And there was no sure way of destructing a bridge until the advent of the laser or GPS guided bombs, provided the bomb is big enough.
bregds
SES

Re: German success against the Nijmegen and Remagen bridges.
 

Dornröschen = Sleeping Beauty, I think.
Rübezahl = is also a fairy tale character but I don't think there's an English (or Disney?) equivalent.

Re: German success against the Nijmegen and Remagen bridges.
 

Please explain "a CEP of 1.000 m".

Actually this is a reminder that there were three bombing techniques available on the Ar234 B-2.
a) shallow dive using the PV1B periscopic sight with the on-board BZA bombing computer, which presumably released the bomb/s automatically
b) under autopilot with the aircraft aimed at the target using the Lotfe bombsight which was integrated with the bombing computer that released the bomb/s automatically. I read that this method was not popular.
c) what is called the EGON flight control (sic) system using the FuG 25a IFF transceiver in conjunction with two Gemse-Freyas. Presumably the pilot dropped the bomb when told to by the controller over the W/T.
Well, two suitable Gemses existed, and theoretically also two Zyklops, on the hills at Petersberg and Rüscheid, which were almost in line of sight of Remagen bridge which could therefore be accurately 'painted'. But even if the target was accurately identified, there was no way of delivering a bomb onto it from a fast moving aircraft.

The conclusion must be that in 1945 the only certain way of hitting a pin-point target was either to go in vertically or to send sufficient bombers with sufficient bombs of sufficient size to make it statistically highly likely that one would hit the bridge. This presumably was how the Seine bridges were brought down by BC/VIIIUSAAF in the Transportation Plan.
I have found a reference to Mitchells bombing the Wesel bridges under MRCP, which I will summarise in the RAF section. It was no more accurate than AR 234 B-2s under EGON.
The GAF, however, had the means of going in vertically with the Ju-87, but these were shot out of the skies by Flak, as was the Ar234 B-2. Increasing top speed did not solve the Flak problem, although it might have reduced it, but increasing top speed made the pilot more reliant on mechanical bombing aids, which in 1945 were unreliable.
Flak suppression was the missing ingredient.

Tony

Re: German success against the Nijmegen and Remagen bridges.
 

"Please explain "a CEP of 1.000 m".

CEP = Circular Error Probability = the radius of a circle around the aiming point within which a given percentage of the bombs/missiles/whatever will fall (usually 50%).

"The GAF, however, had the means of going in vertically with the Ju-87"

Actually, they may not have done. As photos show, the Ju 87s of the Nachschlachtgruppen frequently had their dive brakes removed (albeit not always). Their night attacks were generally conducted in level flight or a shallow dive - I'd imagine vertical dives at night are not a good idea - and so the brakes were just extra weight and drag.

Re: German success against the Nijmegen and Remagen bridges.
 

hm somewhere had a pic, of a bomb just released by a Ar 234 taken from the pilot of the plane, over the ponton bridge at Linz - few meters north of the remagen bridge, its a priv. pic, so no height given - but think was not higher than about 800 - 1000 meters and in a shallow dive.
khorat

Re: German success against the Nijmegen and Remagen bridges.
 

Maybe the second one is Rapunzel? With the golden hair?

NM

Re: German success against the Nijmegen and Remagen bridges.
 

I looked the name up on Google Images - he's not so pretty!