Fighter Cover - RAF Style

[dcunning30]

I thought it was a cool *short* article.

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

[ozzy72]

I think all the fighter pilots irrespective of their uniform colour did a magnificent job protecting bombers. Just shows that courage is in everyone who dares to look for it.
That said Spits are much prettier than 'Stangs

[dcunning30]

I think all the fighter pilots irrespective of their uniform colour did a magnificent job protecting bombers. Just shows that courage is in everyone who dares to look for it.
That said Spits are much prettier than 'Stangs

Now you done started it up!  

'Stangs have longer legs!  

[ozzy72]

But the Spit is more agile! Don't forget the 'Stang was a lardy thing until it got a Merlin engine and the USAAF didn't want it only the RAF did. Then the Americans saw the P-40s take a pasting and finally got their heads on the right way around
Oh and having spoken to people who flew both types they always said the Spit was better in a scrap (and this from an Eagle Squadron guy)

[dcunning30]

But the Spit is more agile! Don't forget the 'Stang was a lardy thing until it got a Merlin engine and the USAAF didn't want it only the RAF did. Then the Americans saw the P-40s take a pasting and finally got their heads on the right way around
Oh and having spoken to people who flew both types they always said the Spit was better in a scrap (and this from an Eagle Squadron guy)

But none of that matters if the bomber crew is over Berlin and the short legged Spit is nowhere to be found.  ;)

[C]

But none of that matters if the bomber crew is over Berlin and the short legged Spit is nowhere to be found.  ;)

That's why we went at night. I'm fairly sure several US commanders wanted to join us - as was seen when the USAAF turned to night bombing in Japan.

As for the long legs - the 'stangs may have been longer, but I bet it wasn't retrofitted to carry beer barrels...

[dcunning30]

[quote][quote]
But none of that matters if the bomber crew is over Berlin and the short legged Spit is nowhere to be found.

[ozzy72]

Bomber Command had excellent accuracy in the second half of the war as we'd learned from our mistakes. It still makes me laugh that a B-17 only had the same bomb load and range as a Mossie.
However all those guys who drove "down town" as it were deserve our respect for the incredible courage they displayed..... you'd never get me flying one of those buses into flak!

[dcunning30]

It still makes me laugh that a B-17 only had the same bomb load and range as a Mossie.

I think you might want to reassess that claim.

[dcunning30]

Bomber Command had excellent accuracy in the second half of the war as we'd learned from our mistakes.

Mistakes aside, there were obstacles that they faced that they could not have been overcome with the current period technology.  It wasn't a matter of mistakes, the technology just wasn't there.  With 1940's technology, how was a navigator/bombadier going to accurately identify a target and isolate it from the surrounding area, which often was urban areas full of surrounding buildings?.....during a blackout being enforced by the target city?  they could only get a really good approximation and hope for the best.  It wasn't a matter of mistakes, they just didn't have the technology to achieve any better accuracy.

[H]

I think we went over the "horse can range farther than any can spit" some while ago.

B17s were actually employed in the Korean conflict -- but, with a cruise speed faster than the B17's max and over 75% of its max range, the single-seat 1945 Dauntless 11 (renamed AD-1 Skyraider in 1946) came along: Able Dogs

8-)

[C]

Mistakes aside, there were obstacles that they faced that they could not have been overcome with the current period technology.  It wasn't a matter of mistakes, the technology just wasn't there.  With 1940's technology, how was a navigator/bombadier going to accurately identify a target and isolate it from the surrounding area, which often was urban areas full of surrounding buildings?.....during a blackout being enforced by the target city?  they could only get a really good approximation and hope for the best.  It wasn't a matter of mistakes, they just didn't have the technology to achieve any better accuracy.

That's why generally the area bombing tactic was employed. As for technology, Bomber Command came up with a number of solutions. The Pathfinder force, and target marking techniques therein; Gee; Oboe (very precise, although limited range) and finally of course H2S, which was last used operationally in 1982 over a certain group of islands in the South Atlantic. Hence the great increase in accuracy by 1944-45, and the limited daylight operations by smaller forces.

LeMay stripped all the bombers of their defensive armament so they could carry a greater bomb load

The RAF's bomber fleet was designed that way from the start, hence only 7 crew members on most of our bombers.

I think you might want to reassess that claim.  A quick google search served up the data to the contrary.

I think the term "practical bomb load" ought to be used. Yes the B-17 could carry a fair weight (although still 5 tons under a "Grand Slam"), it's limitation was in the physical dimensions of the (compartmentalised) bomb bay itself, which limited it to relatively small munitions. In this way, the British bomber had a superior design characteristic, and as we saw with the Dams raid and "Tallboy" and "Grand Slam", allowed modification to be completed relatively easily. It also allowed the RAF to carry a greater variety (for example, a 4000lb blast bomb, a few smaller bombs and incenduries too. On the negative side though it made out bombers a lot more vulnerable on daylight operations.

I've never read anything indicating the desire to bomb at night once the desision was made to do daylight strategic bombing.

Not to hand. I'm fairly sure it was mentioned in Sir Arthur Harris' war memoirs. The obvious choices would have been either Spaatz or LeMay - I doubt it was LeMay because he initially still favoured day bombing in Japan.

[ATI_7500]

Stangs suck.
Spits suck.
Bomber command sucked.

My point of view.

[dcunning30]

That's why generally the area bombing tactic was employed.

Exactly, that was I was originally referring to when I spoke of the increased horror on the civilian population.

As for technology, Bomber Command came up with a number of solutions. The Pathfinder force, and target marking techniques therein; Gee;

I never said they didn't have technological solutions, but I did say the technology wasn't there in the 1940's to achieve precise nighttime bombing.

[dcunning30]

anyway, I just wanted to post to a link where a Mauader pilot paid RAF fighter pilots a compliment, and Ozzy had to start up  a USAAF vs RAF debate!  Man, there's land mines all around here.