[Aircrafty]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

With those kinds of "sources," I guess you can "prove" anything! Let's get serious, here.

The USAAF raids on Dresden were clearly aimed at the railroad yards in particular. The USAAF never went away from "precision" bombing against military/industrial targets. Again, this is in every history book. There may have been the occasional exception (where eaxctly?), but the doctrine never changed.

The "precision" may not have been what it was touted to be (no argument from me there), but to imply that the RAF was better at night (with H2S or otherwise) is a total laugh. And BTW, the use of H2S was exploited by the Luftwaffe which designed gear to home on to its signal and helped find/track RAF bombers more easily.

FVD

I admit that the web page was a bit suspect, but the references it listed are notable. And in the books I have read concerning strategic bombing during WWII it is well documented that the USAAF switched to area bombing. Further more, perhaps your recollection of the books you have read on the subject are as suspect as your comprehension of what I have written in my posts. I did NOT say that the RAF bombing at night was better than USAAF in daylight, but be assured most sources say it was not much worse.

If you are after a more reliable source on the subject, by which I assume only an official American publication would satisfy you, I suggest you obtain the full "overall" USSBS report on CD. Here's an excerpt: http://www.ussbs.com/ovr-all_rpt-eur-ussbs-excerpts.pdf

Pages F-Vii and F-Viii being of particular interest.

[FormerViperDriver]

Well, OK, let's just summarize the situation:

Aircrafty argues the B-17 is more overrated than the Zero. I argue the opposite.

His argument is based primarily on two assertions: 1) that the B-17 operated under more permissive conditions than the Lancaster and other RAF bombers, and therefore has less merit compared to its reputation; and 2) that the Zero fully earned its near-mythical reputation because of its maneuvrability (and range, but I doubt that's really where its reputation came from). He also hint briefly at the B-24's superiority over the B-17, but chooses not to develop that argument, instead sticking to the RAF versus USAAF bombing strategy line of thought.

Now, Aircrafty's assertion #1 is based on:

- Night bombing and day bombing were just as inaccurate (roughly).
- RAF crews had a tougher time against the threat, as shown by higher ratios of crew deaths in combat.

Now notice that taken together, the above means the RAF and Bomber Harris were just stupid, as they purposefully subjected their bomber crews to higher risk with no compensating gain. This is just bizarre and in fact quite contrary to every source I have ever seen/read on the issue. Night bombing was adopted by the RAF as a reaction to very high daylight losses, period, end of story. I will not argue this point any further, it's useless. It is irrelevant whether or not advances by the Lufwaffe night fighter arm later negated some of the advantages night conferred to the RAF. The RAF continued to bomb at night for a reason. If it wasn't the relative safety of the night (remember, the RAF had no long-range escort fighters to accompany potential daylight raids; I'm also NOT saying night bombing was a safe endeavor), I don't know what it was. According to Aircrafty, presumably it was just to prove the superior courage of RAF bomber crews!

As to assertion #2, let's see:

a) Aircraft's reputation is based exclusively (or at least primarily) on superior maneuverabilty (by the way, climbing ability is part of maneuverability).
b) Maneuverability turns out to be an overrated characteristic (Aircrafty seems to admit that much himself), rather easily countered by hit-and-run tactics and avoiding dogfights, assuming a decent opposition (not grossly inferior designs such as the F-4F).

Now, a logical mind MIGHT deduce that therefore that aircraft, the Zero, was (and still is) in fact overrated. But I guess not for some people...

I won't say a thing more on this issue. Let the readers decide for themselves.

FVD

[Hoverbug]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

With those kinds of "sources," I guess you can "prove" anything! Let's get serious, here.

The USAAF raids on Dresden were clearly aimed at the railroad yards in particular. The USAAF never went away from "precision" bombing against military/industrial targets. Again, this is in every history book. There may have been the occasional exception (where eaxctly?), but the doctrine never changed.

The "precision" may not have been what it was touted to be (no argument from me there), but to imply that the RAF was better at night (with H2S or otherwise) is a total laugh. And BTW, the use of H2S was exploited by the Luftwaffe which designed gear to home on to its signal and helped find/track RAF bombers more easily.

FVD

Actually, the increased reliance on H2X pathfinders (APS-15) for overcast bombing during 1944 led the 8th AF away from precision bombardment as the "mickey" scopes could not generally discern industrial targets from the remainder of built up areas within urban complexes. The fall of 1944 saw 80% of days having overcast conditions. The choice was to stick with precision visual bombing or go with sustained area bombing that was acknowledged to be a fair bit less than precision (i.e. equivalent to RAF H2S ops). This does explain the increased urban destruction in the face of a "precision" bombardment campaign, especially as the use of radar pathfinding coincided with a drastic rise of available aircraft and crews, many of which were inexperienced and not all that likely to put bombs on target in the best of conditions. By late 1944, the situation was altered again by technology as Gee-H and Micro-H came into play, which made H2X bombing about twice as accurate as it had been before (but at least twice as inaccurate as visual bombing). Had the war gone on much longer Eagle radar would have had a much greater impact as it could discern structures within an industrial target (as it did in the last weeks of the war with Japan to great effect).

[Old Crow]

If you check this link you'll discover that you have the RAF stats listed as USAAF and visa versa

Son of a gun, you're right. Sorry about that folks.

So, Old Crow, if dailight and night bombing are roughly as accurate (according to you), why would Bomber Harris and the RAF delibeartely decide to fly in more dangerous conditions (night flying is more difficult in itself, even if there is no threat)?

The fact that Harris and the RAF went to night bombing was clearly a reaction to unacceptable daytime losses during dailight mass raids, both by RAF and USAAF. This is well doumented. Harris rationalized the decision by saying he didn't believe the accuracy would be worse at night anyway, but the reason for the switch was unarguably the better survivability at nigh (everyone keeps forgetting FlaK in this discussion, I'm not sure why...). True, the Luftwaffe had to react and eventually beefed up its night fighter force (both in numbers and quality), which later made night bombing pretty deadly too. But the initial decision was based on survivability/attrition ratios, period. No argument possible there, it's in all the history books.

I agree with much of your analysis, FVD, but please do not put words in my mouth.

Perhaps I am making too fine a distinction but I said in my prior post that I did not agree it was "absolutely clear" the reason for the RAF switch to nighttime bombing was solely a crew safety issue. It may have been but I also read history books and other legitimate sources and there is ample evidence of other reasons, including what British officials said. Not only was I not there in person to gauge relative accuracy of the bombing missions, I was also not present when leaders gave their speeches and conferred and made their decisions on such matters, so I am not in a position to conclusively accept or disregard what was said and written.

Moreover, my references and comments were meant to suggest the RAF (and not the USAAF) lacked the technical wherewithall to bomb accurately, day or night, and thus adopted essentially city-wide area bombing. This is how I interpret some of the statements of Harris and others. So, in that sense, I suppose, the decision could have then been made to bomb at night since it was arguably safer for crews and made no difference if one was adopting an area bombing strategy. Or perhaps, as you say, it was all a rationalization for the switch to the perceived safety of night bombing. I agree it is all in the history books but careful reading suggests to me, at least, that the decision was not that simple or clear-cut.

[david cotton]

The B17 was over rated as self defending bomber as it could not perform that roll, with out unacceptable losses. The Eighth Air force effectively stopped unescorted raids into Germany around October 1943. The loss of 60 forts on the October Scheweinfurt raid being the nail in the coffin.

The RAF switched to Night raids when they worked out that daylight raids to Germany were to costly. Once they switched to Night raids they were able to hit Germany and keep losses to a sustainable level.

The concept of unescorted daylight raiding found to be unviable for all WW2 bombers , even the later B29. However, once escorts were provided, you still needed a bomber that could take punishment and hold of the enemy until the escort arrived. The B17 could take punishment better than most bombers and was able to survive with escorts.

The Eighth air force was never able to cover its whole bomber stream. An aircraft like the Lancaster would have still taken losses that were to high, with the level of escort available.>>

In short, the universal Concept of the self defending bomber was over-rated. WW2 proved that no bomber of that era could be self defending. However once it was realised that escorts were a must, the B17 was found to have the stamina to survive until the escort arrived.

[Martin Baker]

Originally Posted by david cotton

The B17 was over rated as self defending bomber as it could not perform that roll, with out unacceptable losses. The Eighth Air force effectively stopped unescorted raids into Germany around October 1943. The loss of 60 forts on the October Scheweinfurt raid being the nail in the coffin.

The RAF switched to Night raids when they worked out that daylight raids to Germany were to costly. Once they switched to Night raids they were able to hit Germany and keep losses to a sustainable level.

The concept of unescorted daylight raiding found to be unviable for all WW2 bombers , even the later B29. However, once escorts were provided, you still needed a bomber that could take punishment and hold of the enemy until the escort arrived. The B17 could take punishment better than most bombers and was able to survive with escorts.

The Eighth air force was never able to cover its whole bomber stream. An aircraft like the Lancaster would have still taken losses that were to high, with the level of escort available.>>

In short, the universal Concept of the self defending bomber was over-rated. WW2 proved that no bomber of that era could be self defending. However once it was realised that escorts were a must, the B17 was found to have the stamina to survive until the escort arrived.

What about the mosquito bomber ?

[david cotton]

Originally Posted by Martin Baker

What about the mosquito bomber ?

Mosquito could get away with a big bomb load at night. However, night bombing is not that accurate, so you need a weight of bombs greater than a mosquito.

The Luftwaffe found this with the Blitz on London.

Mosquito in daylight with a big bomb load would still have been a in trouble against single engine fighters. Flack would of done a lot of damage during the bomb runs to.

Mosquito is a great tactical bomber , but not a strategic bomber.

[Martin Baker]

[quote=david cotton;50068]Mosquito could get away with a big bomb load at night. However, night bombing is not that accurate, so you need a weight of bombs greater than a mosquito.
The Mosquito carrying Oboe radar were very accurate night & it could carry a 4000 pound cookie bomb to Berlin

[Hoverbug]

[quote=Martin Baker;50074]

Originally Posted by david cotton

Mosquito could get away with a big bomb load at night. However, night bombing is not that accurate, so you need a weight of bombs greater than a mosquito.
The Mosquito carrying Oboe radar were very accurate night & it could carry a 4000 pound cookie bomb to Berlin

Oboe was very accurate (only slightly less so than visual), but it was a relatively short-range system, so using it on Berlin was not an option. It did make blind bombing of targets with minimal colateral damaged a viable option in much of occupied NW Europe.

[david cotton]

[quote=Martin Baker;50074]

Originally Posted by david cotton

Mosquito could get away with a big bomb load at night. However, night bombing is not that accurate, so you need a weight of bombs greater than a mosquito.
The Mosquito carrying Oboe radar were very accurate night & it could carry a 4000 pound cookie bomb to Berlin

4000 Pound cooki aint enougth.....you need fire as well.

The Lancaster force was built up in 1943. All throught 1943 the Path finder squadrons still missed the Targets. I would not say night bombing was regularly accurate untill mid 1944. They still could not pick out a single factory.....it was still area bombing.....they just hit the right districts.