Flak vs. Fighters

and T.A. you touch again on the point I made some months ago on this and other forums the useage of the Fernenachtjagd in the intended role to "knock out" the bombers on their very own airfields. It worked in early war years until the hierarchy with their grandioise plans felt they should be kept at home for the future invasions.

In truth the bomber crews were more scared of the flak which they could not shoot back at; although intersting the few comments made along these lines a Sturm like attack from the rear in the summer and fall months put fear into the bomber crews even more than flak and with the increase in Minen ammo it pointed to this that much further. the increased appearance of the Me 262 which bomber gunners could not effectively track with their .50's also brought a very serious note of tension/frustration and increased fear

 

One other point: the Germans could not get enough pilots for more fighters, In the 1944/45 period, many "rookies" almost died instantly at their first fight due to lack of experience. It took too much time, money and above all men to get pilots, whereas flak AAC were cheaper, and easier to use.

 

actually there were plenty of fighters and eager pilots to fly them ......... the base is NO FUELS

the night fighters in 45 sat out in the open fields awaiting a heavy plastering by P-51's on strafing runs, the Germn Luftwaffe could do nothing about it

 

Now that would be interesting, effective SAMs.

Shadow Master, you also have to consider that the Germans did not have many nor good enough 4-engined planes that could do the trick. Which ones were you thinking of, more concretely? And besides, taking aim with a large calibre weapon with an intrinsically very low rate of fire is no recipe for success either.

 

the lack of fuel was indeed a major issue, I agree, this was another reason why Flak was used more and more. Local people remember a mobile Flak unit that was near Orleans, hidden in the forest, (I don't know who was based there)just north of the city (the extreme south limit of the Kammhuber defense line).It was mounted on a horse driven cart and moved all the time, wherever it was needed. No fuel was needed for this one.

 

Ernst Udet was the pilot I was thinking about who was chief of Luftwaffe supply and procurement and head of the technical office. He died on Nov.17, 1941.

 

Your quite right (on some points). Let me point a couple things out, and then we can begin.

When I first discovered these forums, I was used to thinking of myself as something of an 'expert' on WWII. Having just barley skimmed the top of the talent bucket here at the WWII Forums, I Begin to realize that I have a long way to go to reach the exalted rank of 'amature'.

Goes to show the kind of people I have been around up too this point! Unfortunately, this means that my knowledge is limited, and my ability to expand my knowledge is going to be limited for some time to what I can get my hands on cheap (read as FREE).

That said, I'd love to study the aircraft of the times. And then I could discuss with you the various merits of one type vs another. Until then, the best I'm going to be able to offer is a look at the old problems from another point of view (and hopefully, contribute something worthwhile in the process).

As for the available German aircraft, sadly I do not recall having read any books that made a lasting impression about any but the Me109, the FW190?, and the Ju88 (not counting the Me262, Komet and such, of course). I remember reading about the BF110 or BF111? It was a three engined craft, and my poorly remembered impression was that it was an under achiever. Therefore, I will have too draw upon the expertise of the other forum posters (yourself included, of course).

My concept for the ABB has three critical needs for it to work (at all).
1) Being able to fly higher/faster than an inbound allied bomber raid (without fighter escorts).
2) Being able to mount longer range, harder hitting armament so as to be able to drop a B17 with a reasonable # of shots fired (compared to # carried), from beyond the range of the B17s own guns.
3) Being able to match speeds and courses so as to make the relative movements cancel out as much as possible (Giving the ABB's gunners effectively a stationary target).

One of the posts in this thread mentions 20x20mm or 3x30mm being the average to take down a B17. If so (I have no idea), then an armament of 30mm would seem best unless weight of ammo would favor 7 times as much (or more) 20mm ammo.

Given the needed factors, arm the ABB with a quad 30mm cannon, gunner squeezes off a 6-9 round burst (per barrel). Given a decent gunner, B17 takes at least 6 hits and drops. If ABB can carry enough ammo to do this 20-30 times without landing/fueling?

So weight of Armament for quad 30mm + 1,000-1,500 rounds ammo (or 7+ times this in 20mm). This would be the load needed to be carried. Dismiss all German aircraft not able to fly faster/higher than a laden B17 while loaded accordingly. Which ones are left?

My lack of knowledge on the armaments and aircraft may cause me to believe a 4 engined plane is needed when it's not. Also, if you believe a different arrangement/makeup would be better, feel free...

Any thoughts?

 

Even if the Germans did develop a high attitude gunship, the US had the most experience with high altitude aircraft. They would have modified a few existing aircraft to operate at the higher altitude to shoot down the gunships. B-29s would also have been able to reach those altitudes and operate as defensive gunships.

 

what we should also keep in mind was that fighters and flak were complementary. Flak could not reach aircraft that flew above a certain altitude, but fighters could. On the opposite, fighters tried to avoid the flak zone to prevent being hit by friendly fire. Also nightfighters often downed large viermots with one single burst (30mmn canon schräge Musik)and the "Wilde Sau" strategy allowed them to land at diffrent bases to save fuel. Some fighters got up to five or more bombers on one operation. I doubt that a flak battery could do that.

 

Don't mean to sidetrack the topic, but I think it's rather interesting that he killed himself so relatively early in the war. Apparently he had some brains and realized it was going to go downhill for the reich before anyone else did... Any ideas on why he did it, specifically?

I agree more fighters and trained pilots would have been a better solution than increased use of flak, but I don't really think one can compare the two. They had some shared duties, but also a lot of individual areas of expertice, so to speak. Like Za said, peaches and avocados

 

Heh heh, been working allot and have shamefully let my posts slide! I have been looking over the wikipedia site (only place that i know of that fits my budget/schedule right now)!

Looking at the German aircraft engines/weapons: The Germans would have to try something along the lines of a P38/Dornier Do 335 hybrid. Twin (tandem) engines, with two push and two pull props. I believe this would get you the performance needed. I would have to think that with 4 engines in this layout, on what would amount to be just a slightly bigger fighter (too accommodate the extra armament/fuel) would be the best that they could have thrown together. Reading up on the Mark 103 30mm was appalled by the lack of range! Simple blowback would not have worked for my idea.

I found reference too a test flight (I forget what aricraft) in may 1942 that reached 50,000 feet, but didn't bookmark it! I'll have too go back and try too find it again.

More later...

 

Not there yet, if you used your google once in a while you'd see an Bf110 is something like this:

No, you're misreading the post! What the poster meant was that it too in average three rounds of 30mm or twenty rounds of 20mm to down a B-17, not that there would be a plane carrying twenty 20mm cannon!

Basically what you are saying is your ABB will fly happily along the bomber box and fire broadsides? Wont' work. You have to take into account the fact that the Yanks weren't stupid and each B-17 took 10 or more .50 guns, added to the fact that they used to fly in large formations optimized for air defense. The fighters came in fast, fired a burst and got out of there as quick as they could, while you propose to lumber around as if firing from a train at a buffalo herd. In this case the buffalo could fire back!

Believe me, everyone did the best they could with the planes and weapons they had. Sooper-dooper planes with heavy guns were tried, but they didn't work. Perhaps it would be a better idea to go ahead with the infant ground-air guided missiles but they would still take a lot of deveoping to become effective.

 

So, the idea proposed is to arm Boulton-Paul Defiant with 30mm cannon instead of 30 caliber machineguns. Yea, that's the ticket!

 

A Defiant with another engine up it's @ss and on a double fuselage, à la F-82 Twin Mustang or Do 335 Zwilling

 

Hmmm. Za, your right! The 'poorly remembered' plane i was thinking of was actually a Ju 252.


No. The turret would be ventral, not dorsal.


http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/021001-O-9999G-005.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Do_335-1.JPG

These links are provided as a second best option (I don't yet know how to make the images smaller). My apologies for the inconvenience.

Picture the Do 335. Now picture it's engine layout looking like the P38. Put the Turret underneath. 4 engines, 4 30mm cannons. Fly above (not beside/underneath) the allied bombers.

They had the means to put the firepower where it would have done them the most good had they put the different pieces together. Even the short ranged 30mm they used could have worked if fired from above with gravity on your side.
'Schrage Musik' was an effective tool, and all it had going for it was not having to point your plane at the enemy. The fighters that were equipped with this had to attack from below, and would have been within a B17's effective gun range. And the B17 gunner would have the advantage of being able to concentrate his entire undivided attention on shooting plus gravity working for him, as well.

My point is that had the Germans thought to make a 4 engined, high altitude ABB, they wouldn't have to come up with totally off the wall designs to do so. The only key items they would have needed were a pressurized cockpit/turret (I understand these were in the works), and the wing/control surfaces (for fighting above the 36,000 B17 ceiling).

Key points to an effective ABB:
Fly above your target. Stay out of their effective gun range. Fly at the same (or near as you can get) to their course and speed. Mount your armament in a turret to traverse your fire across their formations. The more allied bombers in the formation, the better (you miss the guy in the highest flight, but rounds can still hit the guys below him).

Za Rodinu: I read the post right! I just wasn't clear (I guess) in my post. 20x20mm or 3x30mm Hits from these weapons, not needing to carry all those guns.

T.A. Gardner: Sorry for kinda hijacking your post. When I saw 'flak vs. fighters' I just assumed the thread was for defense against bombers, totally missed the point about other factors (cost of AA guns, lack of fuel/trained pilots), etc.

 

Hmmm. Can you give me a link to the operational ceilings of the B17 and B29? Because wikipedia.org has the B17 @ 36,000 and the B29 @ less than this!?

 

Basically what you are saying is your ABB will fly happily along the bomber box and fire broadsides?

Um, no actually. Otto has told me (politely) that my posts tend to be a little hard to understand (OK, maybe more than just a little) .

What I AM saying is my ABB will fly happily along (10,000 or so) feet above the allied bombers and fire "undersides".

Wont' work. You have to take into account the fact that the Yanks weren't stupid and each B-17 took 10 or more .50 guns, added to the fact that they used to fly in large formations optimized for air defense.

I have taken into account the (very heavy) .50cal armament of the B17's, the fact that they would fly in tight formations and always, always outnumber the ABB's.

The M2 .50cal I fired while serving in the U. S. Army back in the mid to late 1980's had a max effective range of around 2,000 yards (at targets about the same elevation), and this was due in part to using 'ballistic archery' (firing above the target and letting gravity do the rest).

If the .50cal on the WWII B17's were the same, then all the .50cal armament of the entire raid would be worthless, as the ABB would be 3,000 yards directly above them (or near enough). This puts them well outside the maximum effective range!

The fighters came in fast, fired a burst and got out of there as quick as they could, while you propose to lumber around as if firing from a train at a buffalo herd.

Exactly! The traditional fighters used those tactics because they gave them the best returns (greatest chance to survive massed defensive fire, while still hitting the bombers). Having had the advantage of actually serving as a machine gunner, I can tell you that making a snap shot (firing while hurried or distracted), is going to greatly reduce your accuracy. The gunners on the ABB will not have these distractions, and will be firing (slowly and methodically, one after another) at allied bombers that will be effectively stationary.

Remember, "Whats good for the goose ain't always whats good for the gander". If the allied bombers stayed in the formations (that made it harder for the traditional fighters), they would be giving the ABB gunners a "target rich environment" that they would make the most of.

Believe me, everyone did the best they could with the planes and weapons they had.

Acutally, no. The order to cancell 'anything that won't be ready in a year or so' clearly wasn't "doing the best they could"

 

Schräge musik-Excellent, efficient and "cheap" for night fighter action, Why not for daytime action as well if one had enough planes and the protective fighters could be kept away!

 

Ok, I think I see now: a large high altitude plane able to carry a heavy downwards firing battery, a sort of Schrägemusik firing downwards (I wonder why Kai's diagram shows a Bf110 shooting at a He177, maybe this is carrying Rudolf Hess back to Germany? )

That's not impossible. Schrägemusik worked at night at short range only due to the fixed mounting, but the Germans had a few models of barbettes working, such as on the aforesaid He177 and Me410, perhaps a design could be made for the 30mm cannon.

Yes, they might have remained outside .50 guns, the problem I see would be the ever present P-51s.

 

Hey, if you flew inverted your problem would be solved