Hits to down a bomber

[Boomerang]

According to Alfred Price's 'The Last Year of the Luftwaffe', referring to the 30 mm cannon fitted to the Sturmbocks, 'on average three hits were sufficient to bring down a heavy bomber' (page 36). That's a secondary source, but it is consistent with three 30mm rounds being able to bring down a heavy.

Going from my memory (dangerous!) I recall a discussion of around twenty 20mm rounds being required to bring down a heavy in Hooton's 'Eagle in Flames: The Fall of the Luftwaffe', based on analysis of gun camera films. I don't have this book to hand, but perhaps other forum members could confirm (or deny) whether my memory is correct.

There might be one other issue to consider. It might be that the twenty 20mm and three 30mm numbers refer to strikes on B17s. Didn't the 15AF operate many B24s? I understand they were considered more vulnerable than the B17. Numbers applicable to the B17 might be overestimates for the B24.

Cheers

Don W.

[Boomerang]

It's likely that most people looking at this thread would be familiar with this vision, but there may be a few who haven't seen it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZyJbSIFJn8

I have seen this footage spliced together several different ways, but not in this version, with names and dates included. Anyway, hope that it is of some interest.

Cheers

Don W

[Kutscha]

Originally Posted by Boomerang

There might be one other issue to consider. It might be that the twenty 20mm and three 30mm numbers refer to strikes on B17s. Didn't the 15AF operate many B24s? I understand they were considered more vulnerable than the B17. Numbers applicable to the B17 might be overestimates for the B24.

Cheers

Don W.

The 15th was approx. 2/3 B-24s. The 8th was approx. 2/3 B-17s.

[13starsinax]

This is something I remember reading, but can not be sure, though I think it was Steinhoff.
The pilot went on an alert flight, claimed five kills and only expended 5 rounds 30mm confirmed by his ground crew.

[Johannes]

Hi Don

Have seen footage of attacks on B-24's, which usually caught-fire in the outer reaches of the wings.

I think the B-17 was rather like the He111 in sturdiness . But the B-24 though with skinnier wings does look less vunerable in the nose area. Have seen several photos with B-24's having had their wings severed, or even the rear fuselage severed.

Should be easy enough to work-out which was easiest to bale-out from. I seem to remember Adolf Galland stating that the bomber he least liked the look off to attack was actually the B-26.

Kind Regards

Johannes

P.S Regarding the five 30mm shells, I would think you would expend more than that just coughing.

[stephen f. polyak]

http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm