The Second World War.

[Dr Cro]

Originally Posted by crinolynne

Actually I think what you needed was a YB-40...

The YB-40 was a good idea on paper but in practice it was to all intents and purposes a failure. Due to the modifications the weight added, guns and turrets, gave the YB-40 similar performance to a normal operational B-17, but the aircraft suffered because whilst the B-17 became lighter after dropping it's bomb load and therefore was faster, the YB-40 still carried the extra weight and so lagged behind the rest of the formation. Some of the features of the aircraft led to modifications in production B-17's. The P-51 came into service ve soon after

[scoundrel]

Ironically, as the balance of force started to tilt against Germany, P51s used their impressive operating radius to range ahead and to the side of the bomber formations and meet the intercepting fighters a long way away. It was similar to the frei jäger idea the Germans had in 1940 but worked better because the P51 had the range to patrol effectively and still follow the bombers on their mission rather than abandon them and go home when the fuel ran out. Also, the purpose was to protect the bombers rather than go on a glory-hunting personal jolly, using the bonbers a bit like a tethered goat to lure the wolf out of the undergrowth.

By late 1944, the B17 and B24 air gunners were an insurance policy. They only came into action when German fighters managed to evade the outer screen of free-ranging Allied fighters and then slip through the close escort as well. Combine the formidable fighter defences with the increasing difficulty of getting fuel; and the withering away of Germany's metropolitan air defences over the months in 1944 becomes understandable.

The Luftwaffe made a tactical wrong decision late in 1943 by concentrating too much effort on deploying heavy fighters, such as the ME110 and Ju88, because these types had done very well indeed against unescorted massed B17 daylight formations. The German side had no foreknowledge that the Americans were introducing a long range single seat escort fighter which could perform as well as their own Bf109 and do it over 750 miles away from its home airfield. They lost a lot of heavy twin engined fighters in combat with the P51Ds which came sniffing ahead of the bomber formations to stop the attackers getting anywhere near the bombers.

[haVEFun here]

(did think to place this info in the Military History thread, yet this thread seemed more appropriate, apologies for any incorrect language statements)

Today 75 years ago this battle took place; engaging the Japanese invasion fleet /battle group headed for the Dutch East indies for occupying the Oil resources etc.

The Allied force of American-British-Dutch-Australian warships was outclassed by the Japanese: more and better firepower and equipped with long range torpedoes.

Recently it was discovered that the wrecks of allmost all Allied ships which sank during the battle were missing from the ocean floor. Two Dutch shipwrecks, and large parts of a third, the HNLMS De Ruyter, HNLMS Java and HNLMS Kortenaer. Also HMS Exeter (renowned for the battle of River Plate, Graf Spee scutteling), HMS Encounter, and part of HMS Electra, as well as the submarine USS Perch were missing too: these were all illegally scavenged! which is to me is very outraging ( my nickname does not fit here).

Yesterday and today this documentary was broadcasted on dutch non-commercial TV; The son of the Allied Force commander— Dutch Rear-Admiral Karel Doorman is followed whilst visiting the battle site and to let commemoration plaques to be placed.


****
Although in Dutch language, the divers and crew are all English speaking, therefore worth wile to look upon:
http://www.npo.nl/slag-in-de-javazee...7/POW_03476111

(also downloadable)****


**** the above link is not valid anymore ( Checked Sept. 2023)


more exact info , images and details:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Java_Sea

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HNLMS_De_Ruyter_(1935)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HNLMS_Java_(1921)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HNLMS_Kortenaer_(1927)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Exeter_(68)

regards, hfh

[Rendell]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

The Luftwaffe made a tactical wrong decision late in 1943 by concentrating too much effort on deploying heavy fighters, such as the ME110 and Ju88, because these types had done very well indeed against unescorted massed B17 daylight formations. The German side had no foreknowledge that the Americans were introducing a long range single seat escort fighter which could perform as well as their own Bf109 and do it over 750 miles away from its home airfield. They lost a lot of heavy twin engined fighters in combat with the P51Ds which came sniffing ahead of the bomber formations to stop the attackers getting anywhere near the bombers.

However mention should also be made of the "destroyer" variants of the FW190 which were heavily armed and armoured but as a result, lost their advantage of agility and speed. The 109 wasn't as well suited to adding extra guns and armour as the FW190 and tended to be used more in the fighter interception role. Before the P51's introduction, it made sense to use twin engine heavy fighters in a bomber destroyer role as they could carry heavier weapons as well as more fuel. The Me410 with 50mm cannon was just starting to look like the answer to massed heavy bomber formations when the Mustang made it's debut...

[crinolynne]

Originally Posted by Dr Cro

The YB-40 was a good idea on paper but in practice it was to all intents and purposes a failure. Due to the modifications the weight added, guns and turrets, gave the YB-40 similar performance to a normal operational B-17, but the aircraft suffered because whilst the B-17 became lighter after dropping it's bomb load and therefore was faster, the YB-40 still carried the extra weight and so lagged behind the rest of the formation. Some of the features of the aircraft led to modifications in production B-17's. The P-51 came into service ve soon after

Protecting other bombers yes, but consider it for attacking Luftwaffe formations during the battle of britain.

[Dr Pepper]

Originally Posted by crinolynne

Protecting other bombers yes, but consider it for attacking Luftwaffe formations during the battle of britain.

Well considering it (YB40) didn't fly until September 1942-it might just have been a bit late-about 2 years too late! ...for the Battle of Britain in Jul-Oct 1940 .....

[crinolynne]

Originally Posted by Dr Pepper

Well considering it (YB40) didn't fly until September 1942-it might just have been a bit late-about 2 years too late! ...for the Battle of Britain in Jul-Oct 1940 .....

Others on this forum indulge in "what ifs", allow me mine...

I know nothing of air combat tactics, however the RAF relying on pointing an entire aeroplane at a target and throwing high velocity peanuts at it is lacking in simple practicality. As is lobbing a shell 4 miles straight up. Or expecting a pilot to conveniently fly into a balloon.

With the benefit of hindsight, were there more effective ways of countering bomber formations?

[Mal Hombre]

Late in the War,The Germans were using upward firing cannon,Unguided rockets and early Guided missiles..

[haroldeye]

Hindsight, such a wonderful thing.

[scoundrel]

The RAF found that single seat fighters were a lot better than heavier and slower fighter-bombers in interception roles. There was a fighter variant of the Bristol Blenheim bomber, but it was not a success. Likewise, we have talked on this thread before about the failure of the Boulton Paul Defiant. Speed and agility in the air were the attributes of a good combat aircraft. Endurance was important when playing away from home but in 1940 the RAF had home advantage.