Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.

In article , Guy Alcala
writes
Dave Eadsforth wrote:

In article , BUFDRVR
writes
Dave Eadsforth wrote:

SNIP

If someone could give me a thumbnail sketch of how a series of B17
Combat Wings usually approached a target, and what specific options for
attack were possible between the IP and the RP I would be very grateful.

Depends on the period, but typically the wings would be 2-5miles in trail of
each
other. At the IP, each wing would try and get the groups in trail, by the lead
group making a regular turn and the flanking (high and low ) groups turning
early
or late. However, groups would stay at their same heights for bombing, which
made
reassembly into the wing formation after exiting the target easier.

In practice, it often was difficult or impossible for the groups to get into
trail,
so you might have the groups actually approaching the target on convergent
courses,
sometimes simultaneously. This could cause problems if one group flew under
another at bombs away - see the fairly numerous photos of B-17s or B-24s
destroyed
or damaged by being bombed by a/c of a higher group. For example, there's a
widely
published sequence showing a B-17 under another which releases its bombs, one of
which removes the left horizontal stabilizer and elevator of the lower a/c,
which
then gradually departs controlled flight and is lost.

I think I have seen it. Rather chilling...

It could get even worse,
when one or more _wings_ approached the target at the same time, usually because
someone had missed turning at the proper IP, or else one of the formations had
gone
around again because they hadn't bombed the first time (which made the lead
bombardier and the mission commander very unpopular with the other crews).

Depending on the size of the target and the number of wings, following wings
might
have the same or a different aimpoint. Later in the war with more wings, the
latter practice was more common, as it was found that smoke and fires from the
earlier groups bombs often made it impossible for the later groups' bombardiers
to
spot the original aimpoint. Indeed, the 8th Operational Research section did a
study which showed that group bombing accuracy directly correlated with where
the
group was in the sequence; the earlier a group bombed the target, the more
accurately it bombed. See Stephen L. McFarland's book "America's Pursuit of
Precision Bombing, 1910-1945," for everything you're ever likely to have wanted
to
know (and a lot more) about U.S. and other countries bombsight development and
use,
as well as accuracies achievable, production issues, factors such as the above
which caused bombing errors, etc.

If it is on Amazon or the like, I'll find it. Thanks!

In 1944 and especially in 1945 when attacking smaller, less well-defended
targets
with smaller formations, it became common to once again bomb by squadrons
instead
of groups, precisely to avoid the sort of spillover wastage that larger bombing
formations caused.

Made sense...

As to the technique of individual bombers aiming and bombing a target in a
stream,
AFAIK that was only practised by the RAF at night, from 1944 or so on (for
precision attacks, that is). This appears to have been adopted because
Churchill
was worried about French civilian casualties from collateral damage if the
transportation plan was adopted. However, it was found that Bomber Command
(well,
5 Group anyway, usually led by 617 as target markers), was able to bomb
marshalling
yards accurately and keep the collateral damage down, by bombing individually
instead of in formation. Using large formations would have caused too much
spillover damage -- even with a 100% accurate MPI, the bomb coverage area of a
big
formation was so large that numerous bombs were bound to hit outside the target
area. With individual bombers, even the occasional gross aiming error resulted
in
fewer bombs hitting civilian areas. Note that this technique was only considered
possible in areas where the defenses were rather light, i.e. over France at
night,
because the bombers lacked mutual support for defense. It's also true that such
a
risk was considered politically necessary to avoid allied civilian causualties,
whereas by 1944 (at least), none of the allied commanders cared all that much if
collateral damage from spillover due to bombing in formation killed large
numbers
of German civilians.

Guy


That's a huge thumbnail, Guy - thanks very much for devoting the time to
writing it. Archived and backed up already...

Cheers,

Dave
--
Dave Eadsforth

Guy Alcala wrote:

snip

That reminds me, if you can you might want to find a copy of Martin Middlebrook's "The
Schweinfurt-Regensburg Raid", as it describes the wing shift into bombing formation by
groups in trail and group bombing accuracy, as well as many other tactical matters
pertaining to mid-1943 era (and largely for the rest of the war) 8th Bomber Command
missions.

Guy

Another excellent reference is "The Mighty Eighth War Manual" by Roger A.
Freeman.

Jack G.

Disclaimer: Yes Art, I am a veteran with no combat experience, but I do
believe news groups exist more for the exchange of information than for
sharing "experiences".

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
Guy Alcala wrote:

snip

That reminds me, if you can you might want to find a copy of Martin
Middlebrook's "The
Schweinfurt-Regensburg Raid", as it describes the wing shift into bombing
formation by
groups in trail and group bombing accuracy, as well as many other tactical
matters
pertaining to mid-1943 era (and largely for the rest of the war) 8th
Bomber Command
missions.

Guy

Subject: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
From: "Jack G"
Date: 8/24/2004 4:18 PM Pacific Standard Time

nother excellent reference is "The Mighty Eighth War Manual" by Roger A.
Freeman.

Jack G.

Disclaimer: Yes Art, I am a veteran with no combat experience, but I do
believe news groups exist more for the exchange of information than for
sharing "experiences".

With no experiences to share I see your point. No offense of course.




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

From: (ArtKramr)
Date: 8/24/2004 2:35 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

Subject: Fly tight for tight bomb patterns on the ground.
From: (B2431)
Date: 8/24/2004 12:05 PM Pacific Standard Time

Art, of the two of us YOU are the only one bragging about his combat
experience. I don't like to discuss mine since it still hurts.

Please accept that my war was just as real as yours. Just stop bashing those
who haven't seen combat, the served just as honourably as you.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


I am sharing my experiences, not bragging. Since you share nothing I assume
you
have nothing to share. Sharing experiences is what a NG is all about. Anyone
not willing to share their experiences should get off this NG and not clutter
it with boring crap, which is all many have to offer. They use it as a
diversion from their lack of experience. Do you have experiences to share?
Well, where the hell are they?

.
Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS

Art, that should apply just as well to the assorted political rants you
initiated.

When you put down other servicemen's service as being not as important or valid
as yours you are bragging.

As for sharing experiences I have done it many times just not about my combat
time in Viet Nam. Have you ever noticed ground combat veterans rarely talk
about we experienced? Did you ever wonder why? While you and all the other air
combat types did see war it was different kind than ours. You never experienced
watching children die horribly, you never had to walk point, your combat
missions lasted only a few hours where ours might last days anmd a whole bunch
of things I'd rather not remember.

As I said, your war was no more important to you than mine was to me. I just
choose not to talk about it.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Art,

There is nothing you can say about me personally that could possibly offend
me - I just consider the source. What you say about not-combat veterans in
general is offensive and is a very sad reflection you personally.

Jack G.



With no experiences to share I see your point. No offense of course.




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

My mind boggles at the thought of a long string of B17s in single file
trail. Besides giving the flak a chance to shoot at each aircraft
individually, and the lack of mutual bomber gun support versus the
fighters, by the time the middle guys got there the target would be
obscured by smoke and dust from the bombs ahead. By late 44 most
B17/B24 bombing was executed by the lead bombardier, a man picked for
skill, and the rest of the planes in the formation dropped their bombs
when he dropped his. AMAF there was a radio system to trigger the rest
of the planes when he pressed the pickle button, but I don't know how
much it was used. FWIW I've seen bomb trails from Arc Light
(B52)strikes in the jungles of VN - three parallel lines of craters,
maybe half a mile to a mile long. The craters are not each a single
line but sort of staggered slightly from side to side as the MERs left
center and right stations kick the bombs left, down and right -
slightly. As I remember the spacing between strings is like a couple
hundred yards or so. Again, FWIW, a lot of those strings of craters
were left by F4 formations dropping off Loran birds or the RBS (MSQ)
station at NKP. That involved a lot of either close formation or night
work holding a precise heading altitude and airspeed for what seemed
like an hour meanwhile listening to the RHAW gear chirping (and now
and then rattling) away. Bombing like that was like kissing an
elderly aunt when I was a little kid.
Walt BJ

ArtKramr wrote:

The mystery is that with all we
learned in WW II about formations and bomb patterns, as late as Nam the USAF
was still droping in trails.

sigh We bomb in trail (for the most part) today and do a great job. Trail
formation has many benifits, not the least of which, it provides much needed
flexability when engaged by SAMs.

Your broad generalizations continue....


BUFDRVR

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

ArtKramr wrote:
The tighter the formation you fly the tighter the bomb pattern on the ground
and the more damage you do to the enemy.

If you're trying to wreck fresh bomb craters, the tighter the better.

Cheers

--mike


http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer/stripes.htm





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

When was the concept of fratricide among bombs first clearly articulated?