A 'what if' question RE: LW vs 8th AF

[Nokose]

It seems that the idea of such "commando" attacks on the the 8th AAF was not in the German commands way of thinking. I remember reading somewhere that a German bomber pilot had proposed a "one-way" trip to bomb targets in the U.S. since they knew the location of fuel storage, shipyards and docks but was turned down because it would be a waste of a pilot and plane.

[Flitzer]

In my mind there was only one way to stop the Allied bomber offensive, both day and night. If the German effort was put into a vt proximity shell, instead of the V-2, and used them with the 88 mm radar controlled AA, it would have made it too costly for the bombers and their escorts. Of course the Allies would have developed counter measures eventually, but that time would have been used to build up the Luftwaffe fighter strength. Would the U.S. have risked a nuclear weapon at a later day knowing that the weapon may fall into German hands while being delivered?

[mars]

drgondog, USAAF losses in the highly succeseful Luftwaffe night intrusion on the night of Apr 22/23 1944 were 9 B-24s and 1 Albermarle shot down, three crashed landing and two detroyed in collision. As I said, that was nothing but a nuisance, it will not interup USSAF bombing schedule, and since USAAF heavy bombers rarely returned to UK in the evening, this kind of success agains USAAF heavy bombers could not be repeat anyway.

[drgondog]

You have a different perception than I do regard the phrase 'nuisance'.

Had the LW repeatedly tried to achieve the same success - who knows what the outcome? At the very least continued attacks, even if sustaining significant losses to early evening late night could have had a major impact on flight operations.

Your supposition that such successes could not be repeated is simply speculation, as is my supposition that the effect could have been material.

Your opinion is duly noted.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Flitzer

In my mind there was only one way to stop the Allied bomber offensive, both day and night. If the German effort was put into a vt proximity shell, instead of the V-2, and used them with the 88 mm radar controlled AA, it would have made it too costly for the bombers and their escorts. Of course the Allies would have developed counter measures eventually, but that time would have been used to build up the Luftwaffe fighter strength. Would the U.S. have risked a nuclear weapon at a later day knowing that the weapon may fall into German hands while being delivered?

There is a huge lead time in building manufacturing capability to re-produce such a weapon - and yes the US would have easily risked 'losing' a nuclear weapon. The easiest way to prevent 'loss' would be to arm it upon entering German airspace. An airburst over Brunswick when the target was Belin would not be a happy event for the flak gunners.

In addition, the B-29 was capable of a higher ceiling than the B-17 and B-24 and really the only airframe capable of a.) carrying Fatman and Tallboy but also at very high altitudes. Last but not least the B-29 could have flown at very low altitudes, very fast, at night and used a delayed fuse making even proximity fuses for the 88 a very difficuly target..

[mars]

Originally Posted by drgondog

You have a different perception than I do regard the phrase 'nuisance'.

Had the LW repeatedly tried to achieve the same success - who knows what the outcome? At the very least continued attacks, even if sustaining significant losses to early evening late night could have had a major impact on flight operations.

Your supposition that such successes could not be repeated is simply speculation, as is my supposition that the effect could have been material.

Your opinion is duly noted.

Me-410 tried to mix into B-17s and B-24s in the daytim under USAAF fighters escort? Impossilbe, that would be a slaughter before Germans even had a chance close to the USSAF heavies, their only chance was that USAAF heavy bombers execute mission late and had to return to their UK bases in the evening, but since this cases were very rare, that was why I said this kind of sucess could not be repeat

[drgondog]

Where did you conclude 'daytime' from early evening/late night? neither of the two examples were in 'daytime'?

in addition, the SOP for the 8th was never forced to deviate by virtue of changing refueling for next days mission from pre day afternoon to daylight hours - same day.

Ergo, they could start the take off and assembly process around dawn to go to Munich/Berlin/Posnan/Brux - instead of 8/9 am - which WOULD have forced after dark returns - particularly in winter.

Finally, SOP for escorts was to BE near the Dutch coast for the northern "Trolley Route". Interceptions from Denmark, etc, given intelligence reports from shadowing LW Ju 88/Me 410 on return leg could make an interception possible after dark, Independent of daytime escort after dark, over Zuider Zee/Channel.

The really interesting question is why didn't the LW TEST the possibilities?

[mars]

Sir, in the case of April 22/23 1944, USAAF B-24s were attacked around 10 pm, late in the evening, as I said, American Heavies rarely went home in that late hour

[drgondog]

Mars - you repeatedly and consistently miss the point of the value of repeated small faroce low level 10pm to 3am attacks on US airfields. 1.) it forces the 8th AF to build revetments to protect aircraft, bomb and fuel dumps. 2.) it forces 8t (and 9th) to quit fueling up in afternoons for following day missions.

If the 8th is forced to account for the POSSIBLE damage of fully fueld aircraft lounging on hardstands, then they will required to diminish the rsk by re-fueling in the morning while keeping one eye tot he east.

That Forces missions to start late and return later - creating more possble early evening successes.. etc, etc

[mars]

Originally Posted by drgondog

Mars - you repeatedly and consistently miss the point of the value of repeated small faroce low level 10pm to 3am attacks on US airfields. 1.) it forces the 8th AF to build revetments to protect aircraft, bomb and fuel dumps. 2.) it forces 8t (and 9th) to quit fueling up in afternoons for following day missions.

If the 8th is forced to account for the POSSIBLE damage of fully fueld aircraft lounging on hardstands, then they will required to diminish the rsk by re-fueling in the morning while keeping one eye tot he east.

That Forces missions to start late and return later - creating more possble early evening successes.. etc, etc

You also repeately and consistently miss the point that 1) If Luftwaffe tried to repeated small faroce low level 10pm to 3am attacks, most possibly they would fail to find the airbase 2) if Luftwaffe tried to enter the UK air space in higher altitude, and only dive to low lever AFTER THEY LOCATE USSAF AIR BASES, then they would suffered very high losses to RAF night air defense system without achieve anything 3) you miss the point that Luftwaffe did try night ground attack in UK by fighter bomber, it FAILED MISERABLY.
And I also notice that now you switch back to the ground attack, and give up mixing into USSAF heavy bombers stream when Americans were returning to their base