B-52 attrition rates?

Andrew Chaplin wrote:

BUFDRVR wrote:

ArtKramr wrote:

Knowing nothing about the weapons in use then,what did they throw up at you
at
300' Were they shoulder fired?

I'd imagine there were some MANPADs, however the only visable damage from the
low level sorties were holes from AAA.

GRAIL, the first effective Soviet ManPADS, did not reach the field
until about '73 as U.S. forces were clearing out of Viet Nam.

SA-7s were used in 1972 during the Easter offensive, and drove the slow FACs, Spads
and gunships to altitudes that made them much less effective.

I guess you were too fast and too low for 88's
or similiar artillery.

Once again, it depends. Usually those higher calibre AAA pieces can only be
fired from a minimum elevation and if your low enough it simply becomes a
problem of being able to lower the muzzle enough.

ADA of heavy calibre such as the FlAK 88 was passé by the time the NVA
was pinging away at the B-52. The radar/fuze/gun combinations like
Skysweeper, the Soviet 100mm and the German 88 just hadn't kept up
with a gunnery problem that was jet- rather than prop-driven.

Whil AAA guns firing on a BUFF at high altitude had an extremely low pK, they
(almost certainly 100 or 130mm; the 85mm would be way out of its envelope at the
heights the Buffs were flying, above 30,000 feet) still managed to cause damage to
at least one BUFF during LB II.

Missiles
could provide the required single-engagement probability of a kill.
The comparative precision of B-52 strikes and the selectivity of their
direction meant that area missile systems like GUIDELINE and GOA were
required -- the bombers were just too likely to be flying in airspace
that guns could not cover or were not covering.

CAS and BAI were different. The point nature of the defended assets
meant that they could be defended effectively with proximity-fuzed
guns such as S-60 and ZSU 57-2, and contact-fuzed or API-T-firing guns
like the ZSU, ZPU and ZU guns.

Despite numerous accounts by Vietnam aircrew who thought they were being targetted
by prox. fused shells (or time shells on the 57mm), there wasn't any prox. fused
ammo for the Soviet guns then, and unless some other country is making them for
that ammo there still isn't. I suspect it was well beyond Soviet electronics
production capacity to turn out the number of fuses (hundreds of thousands if not
millions) required of the necessary quality, just to throw it away after a single
use. A big SAM is a different matter, essentially a silver bullet, and a prox.
fuse is well worth the cost and is subject to a much more benign environment as
well.

Besides, at the time it may well have been beyond their capability to make one that
small; at the end of WW2 the smallest prox. fuse round was for the US 3"/50. In
the '50s or maybe early '60s I think Bofors had made one for _their_ 57mm. By the
early 1970s or so Bofors had managed to make one for the 40mm/L70, that was small
enough that it provided a useful increase in lethality (along with improvements to
the shell itself - the rounds were pre-fragmented, improving the fragment pattern
density and size).

Aside from reliability, the lethality issue is key -- 57mm guns like the S-60 and
the ZSU-57-2 used contact fused shells with a self-destruct fuse, because it made
no sense to use time fuses on them. Using a time fuse would have slowed down the
rate of fire (owing to the time required to set the fuse) and decreased the
explosive load (because the fuse would take up more space, in the shell, displacing
explosive) resulting in a _decrease _ rather than increase in lethality. Indeed
most manpads like the SA-7 only have point detonating and graze fuses, because
their warheads are so small that prox. fuses aren't considered worth the extra cost
and complexity. As the predicted pH of the missile rises, it's tempting to forego
prox. fuses; after all, if you can theoretically guarantee a direct hit, why use a
prox. fuse with a bigger warhead when you can use a smaller warhead inside (or in
direct contact with) the target, and put the weight saved to use improving the
missile performance or the guidance, or else make the whole thing smaller and
lighter? This is the idea behind the design of "hittiles" such as Rapier.
Unfortunately, Rapier like most missiles of its generation, proved to be much more
of a "_miss_ile" than a "_hit_tile", but missile capabilities have improved
considerably since then.

To a certain extent the same holds true with prox. fuses. Until electronic
miniaturization can make the fuse small enough, it makes no sense to use a prox.
fuse that will displace explosive/fragments, especially if the lethal volume of the
shell is small in size in the first place. That's why small caliber weapons (small
referenced to a particular era) don't use prox. fuses; it just isn't worth it. I
think they may have Prox. fuses for the 35mm Oerlikon now but don't remember for
sure, and FAIK 30mm rounds like Goalkeeper could use them as well. But AFAIK it's
still not cost-effective to do so, at least given the intended target set.

Guy

"Dave Kearton" wrote in
message ...
"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
| The Enlightenment wrote:
|
| Did the rudder and horizontal elevators continue to opperate after
that?
|
| Yep. They recovered without further incident.
|
| Was it a direct hit or was it a proximity
| fused detonation?
|
| I'm not sure. It took well over three years before all the pieces were
put
| togather. IIRC, it was thought to have been a MANPAD when it initially
| happened. Before you ask; no, I have no idea how they finally determined
it was
| a HARM.
|
|
| BUFDRVR
|


I'll go out on a limb here .....

From what I recall of a Discovery Channel docco (which is a complete
authority level higher than Disney) Harm was intended as an airburst
weapon. Not intended to explode on contact with the transmitter, but
30-50m above it, ensuring that the blast and fragments from a near miss
would fill the antennae full of holes and disrupt the comms equipment
underneath.

The fragmentation pattern, as well as the fragments themselves would be a
fairly reliable signature - compared to the expanded rods that you would
expect to see on an air-to-air or ground-to-air weapon.



Thanks Bufdrvr and Dave,

The Warhead is a framentation type with cubes of tungsten to penetrate
lightly armoured vehicles. The proximity fuse is an active laser.

In article , BUFDRVR
wrote:

Billy Preston wrote:

One B-52G was even damaged by a hit from an AGM-88A HARM missile fired by
another US aircraft that was providing defense suppression support for the
attacking
force.
The missile managed to home in on the tail-mounted gun-laying radar of the
B-52G, and
obliterated a sizable chunk of the rear fuselage when it hit. Fortunately,
the damaged
B-52G was able to land safely at Jeddah.

I've talked to guys who were on that jet and they all tell the same, humerous,
story. At first impact they were all thrown back in their seats...then the
drag
chute deployed due to the gaping hole that allowed it to escape...the drag
chute, despite being over 200 knots above its max deployment speed caused
everyone to be thrown forward in their seats...then it shreded which, once
again, threw everyone back in their seats. The entire sequence took less than
5
seconds.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

I spoke to the EWO of that BUFF at the Whidbey air show in 92 or 93 and
showed him around the back seat of the Prowler (crappy view but much
better than his!) He was pretty darn sure that the HARM that hit them
came from their own F-4G SEAD protection. I obviously won't go into the
parametric data of the intended shot target and it's likeness to the
BUFF tail radar but having looked at both the target radar and the
BUFFs I can easily see it happening if you didn't have an o-scope or
raw audio to differentiate. He backed that up with after action reports
from that night and it looks like that Weasel was the only place it
could have come from.
Pugs

Guy Alcala wrote:

To a certain extent the same holds true with prox. fuses. Until electronic
miniaturization can make the fuse small enough, it makes no sense to use a prox.
fuse that will displace explosive/fragments, especially if the lethal volume of the
shell is small in size in the first place. That's why small caliber weapons (small
referenced to a particular era) don't use prox. fuses; it just isn't worth it. I
think they may have Prox. fuses for the 35mm Oerlikon now but don't remember for
sure, and FAIK 30mm rounds like Goalkeeper could use them as well. But AFAIK it's
still not cost-effective to do so, at least given the intended target set.

Thanks. Christopher Foss on the S-60 gave prox as the primary fuzing
in 1974. My Janes missile book (1975) makes no mention of GRAIL's
employment before the YK War.

The Oerlikon AHEAD (Advanced Hit Efficiency and Destruction)
ammunition is time-fuzed ("ETSQ" as opposed to "MTSQ") and set
electronically _after firing_ through transmitters at the muzzle
integrated into the muzzle velocity measuring base. It's a neat trick
but one unfortunate effect is that it shortens the guns' range by
about a kilometre. What it does provide is the capability to shred
UAVs, cruise missiles, and some ARMs and LGBs. I haven't been in
recent contact with the regiment that uses these, but I would like to
find out if a mix of ammunition would work (one barrel HEI-T, other
barrel AHEAD).
http://www.rheinmetall-detec.de/img/...S0307-66_1.jpg
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

On 07 Aug 2004 23:42:44 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

ArtKramr wrote:

Did Michel actually fly B-52's?

Ed maybe able to answer this, because I've heard conflicting stories. During
Linebacker II, Michel was flying F-4s, so he was an eyewitness (as much as you
can be from an F-4). I've got both of Michel's books "Clashes" and "The 11 Days
of Christmas" and both book jackets say the same thing about Michel, that he
flew RF-4Cs, F-4Es and eventually F-15s. *However* a guy I met at the Pentagon
claims he was told Michel's first assignment was to B-52s. According to the
book jacket; "He joined the Air Force in 1966 and in 1970 was assigned to the
432nd Tactical Reconnaissance Wing at the Royal Thai Air Force Base in
Thailand". Surely some part of his initial 4 years was UPT and an FTU, but
could he have a short BUFF assignment? Ed?


BUFDRVR


I can't speak definitively regarding those four years from '66 to '70
in Marsh's background. I've known him for about six years now, first
through some extensive interviews I did with him for "Eleven Days",
then meeting face-to-face at River Rats in Atlanta in 2000. He was
accompanied by a video crew collecting footage for a Linebacker II
documentary. I did about two hours of taping with them and spent a lot
of time talking with Marsh.
(http://www.teleproductiongroup.com/12_72-main.html)

I can confirm that he flew RF early, then F-4Es during Linebacker and
finally Eagles. (If I had to guess at his first assignment, I'd say
FAIP.)

In his research for "Eleven Days" he did a lot of interviewing of
participating crews, particularly BUFF crews and SAC leadership. He
also spent considerable time in Hanoi talking with the air defense
forces and examining their records. The documentation supporting
Eleven Days is professional quality. The work is well researched,
referenced and cited.

Marshall and John Sherwood, USN Historian, are the two guys that got
me off my butt to write When Thunder Rolled and who opened the doors
at Smithsonian Books to get the work published. I owe them both a lot.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

On 08 Aug 2004 00:52:56 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

ArtKramr wrote:

For me my first choice of information is from the men who walked the walk.

Well, Michel's bibliography includes dozens of B-52 crewmembers who he
interviewed, so does that suffice?


BUFDRVR

And so, the circle closes again. If you were there, but it wasn't
published it isn't a fact. If you wrote and researched but weren't
there, it isn't a fact. If you wrote and were there, it still isn't
acceptable, because he never read the book. And, there seems to be an
acute reluctance to go to the library, apply Google, or spend a buck
at Amazon.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

Kevin Brooks wrote:
"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...

Kevin Brooks wrote:


ISTR that aircraft went down closer to the combat than that

Nope, on final to FJDG with a series of non-combat related malfunctions.


Oops. Mea culpa. There was one aircraft that went down in the PG
IIRC--perhaps that was the AC-130 that was lost?

Brooks


The AC-130 did crash in the Gulf, so that is likely the one you
are thinking of.

Mike

"Mike Williamson" wrote

The AC-130 did crash in the Gulf, so that is likely the one you
are thinking of.

Not really in the Gulf proper. Parts were found along the shores of
southern Kuwait. They got repeated SAM calls from the RJ, and never
retrograded. The opinion at the time, was they were really scoring big kills
and got target fixation, and then were blown out of the sky.

(ArtKramr) wrote:
Pugs

[...]
Which war? Vietnam, Desert Storm, Balkans, Serbia, Afghanistan or
Iraq? It's been in all of them but only suffered losses due to enemy
action in Vietnam.

Pugs


Viet Nam please. Isn't it amazing that there were no other losses in all those
other wars?


I remember some comments by an East German intelligence operative
visiting Cuba in the 70s, who was shown the battleground of the Bay of
Pigs: He mentioned how he was shown some 'B-52 wreckage' as part of
the tour.

I had never heard of B-52s being used in the Bay of Pigs, nor any
combat losses over Cuba.

My guesses we

a) A theatre set building company in Havana had run-up some "B-52
wreckage" . Che & The Beard's advance across Cuba contained high
levels of amateur theatrics (machine guns being fired in the
background during hammed-up radio broadcasts etc), so this would fit.

b) The NVA had gone into the "B-52 wreckage" export business

c) All former scenes of battle with the Imperialist Pig-Dogs contain
"B-52 wreckage" by definition, visitors being required to nod
appreciatively.

Subject: B-52 attrition rates?
From: funkraum spam
Date: 8/11/2004 5:45 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(ArtKramr) wrote:
Pugs

[...]
Which war? Vietnam, Desert Storm, Balkans, Serbia, Afghanistan or
Iraq? It's been in all of them but only suffered losses due to enemy
action in Vietnam.

Pugs


Viet Nam please. Isn't it amazing that there were no other losses in all
those
other wars?


I remember some comments by an East German intelligence operative
visiting Cuba in the 70s, who was shown the battleground of the Bay of
Pigs: He mentioned how he was shown some 'B-52 wreckage' as part of
the tour.

I had never heard of B-52s being used in the Bay of Pigs, nor any
combat losses over Cuba.

My guesses we

a) A theatre set building company in Havana had run-up some "B-52
wreckage" . Che & The Beard's advance across Cuba contained high
levels of amateur theatrics (machine guns being fired in the
background during hammed-up radio broadcasts etc), so this would fit.

b) The NVA had gone into the "B-52 wreckage" export business

c) All former scenes of battle with the Imperialist Pig-Dogs contain
"B-52 wreckage" by definition, visitors being required to nod
appreciatively.


I think an A-26 Invader was lost. But am not sure.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer