trisonic Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Ploiesti Oilfields were the closest - maybe someone else would know different. Low level bombing by heavy bombers. Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnd Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 (edited) Ploiesti Oilfields were the closest - maybe someone else would know different. Low level bombing by heavy bombers. Best, Pete. At what altitude may I ask and hardly a small target. The Yanks even today can't do the accurate job thats why the need the RAF for specialist missions where accuracy is important. Just ask about friendly fire and I won't say any more they are good dropping in numbers and in doing so are bound to make mistakes. Edited October 3, 2011 by johnd Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozexpatriate Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 (edited) Just remember the height 617 did the bombing runs over the dams and the jail break raid of the mossie. Did any American aircraft carry out such type of raids. Ploiesti Oilfields were the closest - maybe someone else would know different. Low level bombing by heavy bombers. If by 617 Squadron, you refer to the dambusters, then no, nothing like that, but there were lots of low-level raids carried out by American aircraft, though not so much by heavy bombers, excepting Pete's example of B-24s at Ploiesti (and perhaps others). Like the Mosquitos and Beaufighters, the two-engined B-25, B-26 and A-26 aircraft carried out lots of low altitude raids in many theatres during the war, medium bombers being much more suited to this than the heavies. Success and required accuracy varied, but the 1942 Doolittle raid on urban targets in Japan was famously a low-level raid, and B-25s were used to 'skip bomb' Japanese naval convoys in the south Pacific at attitudes of 100', without the requirements for Barnes Wallis' contraptions. The USMC flew B-25s as the PBJ-1 for interdiction of Japanese shipping. Of course the PBY Catalina was extensively used for submarine hunting by the USN, RAF and mutiple Commonweath airforces including the RCAF and RAAF, two Victoria Crosses being awarded in U-boat encounters. The RAAF also used Catalinas as low altitude (200') tactical minelayers, dropping mines at night on long-duration raids to bottle Japanese ships in ports all over the western Pacific. I imagine all the tank and train-busting activity in 1944 and 1945 by a variety of aircraft like P-38s, P-47s and P-51s, not to mention Hawker Typhoons etc is out of the scope of your question. Edited October 4, 2011 by Ozexpatriate Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-UnitMad Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 (Re Ploiesti Oilfields) At what altitude may I ask and hardly a small target. The Ploiesti Oilfields were attacked by B-24 Liberators. They approached at 10,000ft, then some way out went right down to the ground for the attack - hardly any altitude at all!! Apparently B-24s were not that 'stable' in level flight and could rise & fall something like 30ft without the Pilot moving the control column; the crews were less than impressed to be told at briefing to go in at 30ft.... True, the oilfields were not a small target, but they were attacked by far more planes (178 set out) than the Dambusters raid. I've never heard of low-level sorties by B-17s. The B-25 Mitchell is a better comparison with the Mossie than a B-17, good call! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 (edited) At what altitude may I ask and hardly a small target. The Yanks even today can't do the accurate job thats why the need the RAF for specialist missions where accuracy is important. Just ask about friendly fire and I won't say any more they are good dropping in numbers and in doing so are bound to make mistakes. Snide remarks about "Yanks" gets real old very fast. F-UnitMad (Jordan) answered your legitimate question already. Best, Pete. Edited October 4, 2011 by trisonic 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Wintle Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 (edited) Snide remarks about "Yanks" gets real old very fast. F-UnitMad (Jordan) answered your legitimate question already. Best, Pete. Agreed. Anyone who watched the video coverage from the bombs during the first Iraq war would realize the inaccuracy of the comment. BTW, friendly fire happens reasonably frequently due to the 'fog of war'. The fact that there seem to be more instances from US forces is most likely due to the fact that the majority of the forces in recent wars have been US, so the total number of instances will be higher. The comment about bombing accuracy was more about the fact that a larger aircraft could carry a bigger and better bombsight and was likely a more stable platform for sighting. High altitude bombing with unguided weapons is inherently inaccurate, but to call it 'carpet bombing' is not really accurate for most of the raids against military/industrial targets (I won't go into the targeting of civilian areas/cities). The raids mostly hit the target they were aiming for, albeit with a lot of collateral damage. It tended to be easier to find and aim for the targets in daylight, hence the US reliance on daylight bombing. Adrian Edited October 4, 2011 by Adrian Wintle Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackRat Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 The Yanks even today can't do the accurate job thats why the need the RAF for specialist missions where accuracy is important. Just ask about friendly fire and I won't say any more they are good dropping in numbers and in doing so are bound to make mistakes. Is this based on your personal experience? My own opinion is quite the opposite and their forward air controllers are exceptional, (and I am biased!). 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-UnitMad Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Snide remarks about "Yanks" gets real old very fast. F-UnitMad (Jordan) answered your legitimate question already. To be honest I just thought the best way to deal with the "Yanks" comment was to treat it with the disdain it deserves and ignore it... The details of the Ploiesti raid were significant enough to be commented on. It is generally said that by the end of WW2, when the US 8th & RAF Bomber Command were fully experienced and equipped for their roles, that the USAAF area-bombed Precision Targets, and the RAF precision-bombed Area Targets.... Whatever the morals of the campaign (eg Dresden) or it's effectiveness (German war production still rose despite the bombing) the one fact is that for much of the War, the bombers were the only means the Allies had to hit Germany itself. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebottle Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 To be honest I just thought the best way to deal with the "Yanks" comment was to treat it with the disdain it deserves and ignore it... The details of the Ploiesti raid were significant enough to be commented on. It is generally said that by the end of WW2, when the US 8th & RAF Bomber Command were fully experienced and equipped for their roles, that the USAAF area-bombed Precision Targets, and the RAF precision-bombed Area Targets.... Whatever the morals of the campaign (eg Dresden) or it's effectiveness (German war production still rose despite the bombing) the one fact is that for much of the War, the bombers were the only means the Allies had to hit Germany itself. Succinctly put. I had been going to post that area/precision bombing quote, which I heard an RAF Air Commodore say, some years ago, that he'd heard from a USAF senior officer. Obviously, each service respected the other, and I hope we can do the same. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Wasn't the predilection of the USAAF to bomb during the day due to their use of the incredible NORDEN bombsight? Didn't that require daylight to function, at the time? I'm not to well up on it except to say that a few years back I tried out a (fairly) accurate simulation of it and it did seem an amazing device. Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebottle Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 (edited) Wasn't the predilection of the USAAF to bomb during the day due to their use of the incredible NORDEN bombsight? Didn't that require daylight to function, at the time? I'm not to well up on it except to say that a few years back I tried out a (fairly) accurate simulation of it and it did seem an amazing device. Best, Pete. You probably know more about it than the rest of us then, Pete, but I gather that the USAAF found the weather over Europe rather more difficult to contend with than that over the New Mexican deserts where the bombardiers were trained. The Norden bombsight also required a great deal of skill on the part of the bombardier, and in practice it was found to be most effective to have the best men in the leader aircraft, the others simply dropping their bombs when they saw the leaders do so. For basic reading on the subject, the Wikipedia article on the Norden bombsight seems to be pretty well written, to my limited knowledge, and Paul Brickhill's "The Dam Busters" is interesting on the use of the British Stabilised Automatic Bomb Sight (S.A.B.S.). Gordon Edited October 5, 2011 by bluebottle Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now