USAAF Bombing Berlin!!
Robert Sveinson
I was just treated to an american documentary dealing with
the FEB. 3, 1945 bombing of Berlin, claiming of course massive
destruction of the LW Airministry!
They [the american commentators ] said that 1,002 B-17s carrying
2,250 tons of bombs. HE and incendiaries!
I just recently read on this NG the CLAIM that B-17s carries
16,000
lbs
of bombs, or something close to that!! Well on this vital raid
on Berlin with hundreds of escort fighters the B-17 carried 4,491
lbs of
bombs each! A discrepancy of 11,000 lbs!!!!
Every one is not reading from the same hymn book!!!!
Bill Shatzer
The maximum bomb load of the B-17 (using the external wing bomb
racks) was 17,600 lbs. This was an extremely specialized load
almost never (or perhaps never) used - it involved, among other
things, mounting (IIRC) 4000 lb bombs on the external bomb racks.
The more typical B-17 combat load was 4,000-8,000 lbs of bombs.
There is always a trade off between weight for fuel and weight
for armament - an aircraft can carry lots of fuel and fewer bombs
or more bombs and less fuel. On a relatively short raid like,
for instance, bombing the railyards at Rouen, France, the aircraft
needs only a modest fuel load and so can carry a heavy bomb load.
On a long range raid like to Berlin, every fuel tank needs to
be filled completely if the aircraft is to have enough fuel to
complete the round trip. Thus little additional weight is available
for bombs and the bomb load would close to the minimum.
World War II bombing aircraft almost never operated with their
maximum bomb capacity. Maximum bomb loads could be hoisted aloft
only at the cost of using minimum fuel and operating at extremely
close ranges. Operating over combat effective ranges almost always
required significant reductions from the maximum rated bomb load.
Adding other weight, such as additional crew armor and machine
gun ammunition further cut into the weight available for toting
bombs.
Cheers and all,
Geoffrey Sinclair
<3cc073e...@news.pacific.net.au>...
>
> I was just treated to an american documentary dealing with
> the FEB. 3, 1945 bombing of Berlin, claiming of course massive
> destruction of the LW Airministry!
And the German raid report was?
> They [the american commentators ] said that 1,002 B-17s carrying
> 2,250 tons of bombs. HE and incendiaries!
> I just recently read on this NG the CLAIM that B-17s carries
>16,000 lbs
> of bombs, or something close to that!! Well on this vital raid
> on Berlin with hundreds of escort fighters the B-17 carried 4,491
> lbs of bombs each! A discrepancy of 11,000 lbs!!!!
>
> Every one is not reading from the same hymn book!!!!
Robert the rest of us cannot compensate for your obvious
attempts to rewrite history, for the double standards you
choose to apply and the straight out, repeated, false
information.
As has been stated many times the B-17 could take a
maximum of 12,800 pounds of bombs internally and around
20,800 as an extreme overload.
Robert to put your posturing in perspective the attack on Berlin
on 2/3 December 1943 was 425 Lancasters, 18 Mosquitoes
and 15 Halifaxes, dropping 1,686 long tons of bombs or,
if you assume only Lancasters carried bombs, 8,900 pounds
per bomber. That is 13,000 pounds below the 22,000 pound
extreme overload and 5,000 pounds below the 14,000 pounds
the official performance figures indicate could have been taken.
The all Lancaster raid of 16/17 December 1943 (483 despatched
plus 10 Mosquitoes) dropped around 8,400 pounds per Lancaster
assuming only the Lancasters were carrying bombs.
The difference between the theoretical bomb loads and the
actual loads used has been explained to Robert many times,
it was a penalty extracted by the defences, Robert has
continually chosen to highlight the effects on the USAAF
while ignoring the RAF.
As an aside the later Mosquito bombers could have carried
5,000 pounds of bombs to Berlin, but needed the wing
stations for fuel so they could use faster cruise speeds,
dropping the bomb load to 4,000 pounds.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
Cub Driver
> of bombs, or something close to that!! Well on this vital raid
> on Berlin with hundreds of escort fighters the B-17 carried 4,491
>lbs of
> bombs each! A discrepancy of 11,000 lbs!!!!
Bomb load was severely impacted by the altitude and the distance
flown. The maximum theoretical load was a bit less than 8000 kg,
17,600 pounds of bombs. Your figure of about 4,500 lb is probably
closer to what was actually carried on a contested flight from Britain
to Berlin.
all the best -- Dan Ford (email: webm...@danford.net)
see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub
Lawrence Dillard
The B-17's various models could indeed be fitted with up to 16,000 lbs
of
bombs, but at the expense of range. While carrying an eight-ton
bombload,
the a/c's range was limited. You seem to be unaware that any bomber is
faced
with certain trade-offs which involve payload (bombs, ammunition) vs
range
(fuel) for a given mission profile.
You should have paid more attention to the explanations offered as to
bombload/range compromises.
It was not unusual in late 1944 through the end of the war for B-17
to
carry a bombload of 6,000 lbs (4x500lb blast plus 2x500lb incendiary)
from
bases in Great Britain to Berlin, and was in fact done routinely.
Lesser
bomb loads were carried if the routing to and from the target were
less
direct.
Consequently, you are mistaken when you claim to have spotted a
"discrepancy". But you are indeed correct, to the extent that you are
not
reading your hymn book appropriately.
"Robert Sveinson" <rsve...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3cc073e...@news.pacific.net.au...
>
> I was just treated to an american documentary dealing with
> the FEB. 3, 1945 bombing of Berlin,
SNIP
SNIP
> I just recently read on this NG the CLAIM that B-17s carries16,000 lbs of
bombs,
Snip
> Well on this vital raid on Berlin
SNIP
John Halliwell
<gsinc...@froggy.com.au> writes
>Robert to put your posturing in perspective the attack on Berlin
>on 2/3 December 1943 was 425 Lancasters, 18 Mosquitoes
>and 15 Halifaxes, dropping 1,686 long tons of bombs or,
>if you assume only Lancasters carried bombs, 8,900 pounds
>per bomber. That is 13,000 pounds below the 22,000 pound
>extreme overload and 5,000 pounds below the 14,000 pounds
>the official performance figures indicate could have been taken.
The 13,000lbs off 22,000lbs isn't a fair comment. The maximum load of
a
Lancaster (standard production aircraft) was 14,000lbs. 22,000lbs was
available only to a small number of specials using several beefed up
components.
More importantly, Bomber Command loads were specially picked to cause
the most damage. As incendiaries were seen as very useful to have,
they
were carried in a combination with HE. In these cases, the maximum
load
for the combination is limited not by weight, but by the volume
available in the bomb bay (more correctly the availability of shackles
etc.)
--
John
Preston, Lancs, UK.
David Thornley
Geoffrey Sinclair <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote:
>
>As an aside the later Mosquito bombers could have carried
>5,000 pounds of bombs to Berlin, but needed the wing
>stations for fuel so they could use faster cruise speeds,
>dropping the bomb load to 4,000 pounds.
>
but AFAIK the internal fuel capacity had to be reduced for the
4000-pound blockbuster, so on internal fuel it could barely reach
Berlin and come back. Hang a extra 1000 pounds of bombs where
they can cause drag for half the way, and it seems likely to me
that it would come up short.
Did the Mosquito ever fly combat missions with a "cookie" and
two 500-pounders under the wings? These bombs don't seem quite
compatible to me, in that I'd think that missions the "cookie"
was good for would be marginal for 500-pound GP bombs, and vice
versa.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion,
ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
Velo...@aol.com
> 2,250 tons of bombs. HE and incendiaries!
> I just recently read on this NG the CLAIM that B-17s carries
> 16,000 lbs of bombs,
> the B-17 carried 4,491 lbs of
> bombs each! A discrepancy of 11,000 lbs!!!!
So, if I get this right, you are saying that while a B-17 could max
out
it's load of bombs at over 15,000 pounds, and on this particular raid
they
did not, there is something wrong?
Bombs are heavy. The more bombs carried (as you approach maximum
load),
the more fuel needed to get the plane into the air and to the target.
Therefore, B-17s were *often* not loaded to capacity in order to get
maximum
fuel economy. Indeed, for a raid on Berlin, this was more than a good
idea,
it was NECESSARY.
Did I address your concern, or did I miss your point?
V-man
John Halliwell
writes
>Therefore, B-17s were *often* not loaded to capacity in order to get
>maximum
>fuel economy.
Fuel economy is not that important, if you can load more bombs into
each
bomber, you can reduce the number of bombers, using less fuel overall.
> Indeed, for a raid on Berlin, this was more than a good
>idea,
>it was NECESSARY.
That shows up as the limits of the bomber's range comes into the
equation. The trick is to leave all the non-essential kit on the
ground
to minimise the dead weight carried there and back.
Geoffrey Sinclair
David Thornley wrote in message
<3cbdd024...@news.pacific.net.au>...
>In article <3cd1ff64...@news.pacific.net.au>,
>Geoffrey Sinclair <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>As an aside the later Mosquito bombers could have carried
>>5,000 pounds of bombs to Berlin, but needed the wing
>>stations for fuel so they could use faster cruise speeds,
>>dropping the bomb load to 4,000 pounds.
>>
>Is this true? My sources aren't nearly as detailed as I'd like,
>but AFAIK the internal fuel capacity had to be reduced for the
>4000-pound blockbuster, so on internal fuel it could barely reach
>Berlin and come back. Hang a extra 1000 pounds of bombs where
>they can cause drag for half the way, and it seems likely to me
>that it would come up short.
As far as I can tell if the Mosquito XIV was doing economic cruise
at 10,000 feet with 540 gallons of fuel, the range was 1,120 miles
clean, with Berlin around 1,000 miles to and from the closest RAF
base. Direct route, low and slow and they could make it, just.
Sorry I meant to put the figures in the previous post, to make
the absurd point, but did not, so my words were misleading.
The B XIV could carry 860 gallons of fuel, 539 with "useful load".
Apparently it was never flown post war at the weights it took
off during the war to attack Germany.
>Did the Mosquito ever fly combat missions with a "cookie" and
>two 500-pounders under the wings? These bombs don't seem quite
>compatible to me, in that I'd think that missions the "cookie"
>was good for would be marginal for 500-pound GP bombs, and vice
>versa.
I have no information on whether a 5,000 pound load was
carried in combat, I assume it must have a few times to
the Rhur for example. According to Mosquito by Sharp and
Bowyer when Oboe worked the Mosquitoes were putting
80% of the bombs within 100 yards of the aiming point,
bombing from 28 to 29,000 feet over the Rhur. So the
"nuisance raids" by Mosquitoes on specific targets had
the accuracy to use the extra bombs, if the fuel was not
needed.
Geoffrey Sinclair
John Halliwell wrote in message
<3cbcd01c...@news.pacific.net.au>...
>In article <3cd1ff64...@news.pacific.net.au>, Geoffrey Sinclair
><gsinc...@froggy.com.au> writes
>>Robert to put your posturing in perspective the attack on Berlin
>>on 2/3 December 1943 was 425 Lancasters, 18 Mosquitoes
>>and 15 Halifaxes, dropping 1,686 long tons of bombs or,
>>if you assume only Lancasters carried bombs, 8,900 pounds
>>per bomber. That is 13,000 pounds below the 22,000 pound
>>extreme overload and 5,000 pounds below the 14,000 pounds
>>the official performance figures indicate could have been taken.
>
>The 13,000lbs off 22,000lbs isn't a fair comment. The maximum load of
>a Lancaster (standard production aircraft) was 14,000lbs. 22,000lbs
>was available only to a small number of specials using several beefed
>up components.
Yes I agree it was not a fair comment, I simply applied Robert's
rules to an RAF strike, note the theoretical maximum bomb
loads and denigrate the aircraft for not carrying them. Hence
the posturing claim.
>More importantly, Bomber Command loads were specially picked to cause
>the most damage. As incendiaries were seen as very useful to have,
>they were carried in a combination with HE. In these cases, the maximum
>load for the combination is limited not by weight, but by the volume
>available in the bomb bay (more correctly the availability of shackles
>etc.)
Yes, and the same applies to all bombers, like merchant ships as
well, load is a function of size, and density of the load, not always
limited by weight. To achieve 12,800 pounds internally the B-17
had to carry only 1,600 pound bombs. Apparently the Mosquito
XIV could carry 4 500 pound bombs in the bomb bay instead
of a 4,000 pound bomb as another example. (Correcting an
earlier post where I doubted the machine could carry a useful
number of non 4,000 pound bombs in the bomb bay).
Then add the trade off between fuel and bomb loads.
The Lancaster could carry a larger load for a longer distance
than the B-17 due to the bigger bomb bay and the lighter
defensive armament. If people want to note the difference
between loads used and theoretical limit on bomb loads
they need to do it for all types, not just one.
TMOliver
> were carried in a combination with HE. In these cases, the
> maximum load
> for the combination is limited not by weight, but by the
> volume available in the bomb bay (more correctly the
> availability of shackles etc.)
>
......Bong! Bong! Bong! (Sound of bullshit alarm ringing in
background).....
Now you're attempting to cover previous fumbles with a
Lollapaloozer, for the capacious bombbay of a Lanc would hardly
be undersized for any load it might haul to Berlin and back.
As others here have tried to explain, payload is a function of
range, modified by a number of tangible factors applying to
specific missions, wind and weather conditons (Head winds reduce
range substantially and flight plan out may differ from the
return legs.), mission and bombing altitudes (A/c enginres
deliver quite different fuel economy at different heights.), and
even the weight/configuration of crew, equipment and weapons (I
suspect that removal of top turrets and/or H2S, cleaning up the
airframe, added a bit to range as well as cruising speed.) and
some intangibles realted to individual commands or units.
Incendiaries were "bundled' both for convenience of handling and
in an attempt to concentrate their point of impact (making their
weight to volume not much different from conventional GP bombs).
Aerodynamic design could be employed to slow their fall to
"arrive" after HE, but the idea that a Lanc's bay contained too
little room for a full or partial load of incendiaries seems un
usually far-fetched, and the combination of mission profile,
projected weather, and individual a/c configuration remain as
the determinates of available payload. By any standards
(contemporary) the Lancaster had a large bombay, providing the
a/c adaptability for special purpose loads. IIRC, the Lanc's
bay is certainly more capacious than that of a B-17, and
although the B-24 may be larger in volume, its ability to house
unusuallly shaped weapons is less than the Lanc's,
Now, we might argue over the "margins" (extra fuel above minimum
amount required) provided, areas in which the USAAC/AAF, the RAF
and the USN did differ.
TMO
Gavin Bailey
>A discrepancy of 11,000 lbs!!!!
>
>Every one is not reading from the same hymn book!!!!
It is refreshing to see that myopic double-standards and
nationally-partisan opinions are not restricted to some Americans
alone.
Remind me of the bombload carried by Lancasters to Berlin at that
time,
any why this was a mere 14,000lbs below the 22,000lbs carried by 617
Sqn
when dropping Grand Slam bombs.
It seems everyone is indeed not reading from the same hymn book.
Gavin Bailey
David Thornley
Geoffrey Sinclair <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote:
>
>As far as I can tell if the Mosquito XIV was doing economic cruise
>at 10,000 feet with 540 gallons of fuel, the range was 1,120 miles
>clean, with Berlin around 1,000 miles to and from the closest RAF
>base. Direct route, low and slow and they could make it, just.
>
does not include hanging bombs off the wings to spoil the
aerodynamics,
so that there is serious room for doubt about whether a Mosquito
with a 5000-pound bomb load could hit Berlin and come back.
>>Did the Mosquito ever fly combat missions with a "cookie" and
>>two 500-pounders under the wings? These bombs don't seem quite
>
>I have no information on whether a 5,000 pound load was
>carried in combat, I assume it must have a few times to
>the Rhur for example.
I'd like to find some supporting evidence. I've never found
a mention of a 5000-pound bombload in practice, and I'd be
interested to see if somebody else has.
According to Mosquito by Sharp and
>Bowyer when Oboe worked the Mosquitoes were putting
>80% of the bombs within 100 yards of the aiming point,
>bombing from 28 to 29,000 feet over the Rhur. So the
>"nuisance raids" by Mosquitoes on specific targets had
>the accuracy to use the extra bombs, if the fuel was not
>needed.
>
Oh, they'd have the accuracy to use the 500-pound bombs,
they were good at that. However, the 4000-pound bomb was
not inherently accurate, and IIRC was not supposed to be
dropped too close to the ground. Further, you frequently
don't see the maximum bombload carried without very good
reason (such as the modified Lancs with the "Grand Slam"),
and it seems to me that hanging the extra bombs on the wings
might be seen to be pushing the limits of the aircraft without
corresponding benefit.
Paul Hacker
news:3cbd00e8...@news.pacific.net.au...
> In article <3ccbd0da...@news.pacific.net.au>, Velo...@aol.com
> Fuel economy is not that important, if you can load more bombs into
> each bomber, you can reduce the number of bombers, using less fuel overall.
> That shows up as the limits of the bomber's range comes into the
> equation. The trick is to leave all the non-essential kit on the
> ground to minimise the dead weight carried there and back.
John,
Are you kidding? I believe the 'fuel economy' he was trying to express
is being able to fly all the way to Berlin and back with some gas left
over to land.
Let me explain a little about flying in WW2 over Europe. The French
coast was just chock full of flak guns. So the 8th had to, after
takeoff, fly in circles while climbing to over 20,000 feet and
assemble
into combat boxes BEFORE flying over the French coast. By the time
they
reached the coast, they expect to be anywhere from 20,000 to 30,000
feet. That takes quite a bit of gas. They would stay at that altitude
for the duration of the flight till over the English Channel for
letdown
to their bases.
Gen. LeMay even combined combat boxes (18 or so B-17 or B-24s) with
two
other boxes to maximize firepower (against German fighters). These big
boxes, took even longer to form before preceeding into enemy
aerospace.
Fuel economy was very serious. Even after over the English Channel,
many
times they would alter course and zig-zag to confuse the German radar
operators as to just what the objective was (this helped keep the
number
of German fighters down, especially with no zero escourts in much of
1943.
As for 'nonessencial gear', that was left off in just about every
mission, and replaces with ammo for their .50s. The loads the bombers
carried had to be balanced between bombs, guns, armor, ammo, O2
bottles,
emergency equipment, and the like. The shorter the trip, the more the
bomb load, the longer the trip, more ammo, fuel, O2, etc.. needed.
Of course, things like parachutes, life rafts, flare guns, water,
etc...
were not considered 'non-essencial' either.
I believe the mission loads for Berlin were 10 500lb bombs per B-17.
Targets farther than that they carried only 9 or 8 500lbs. Gen.
Doolittle had a study made, and found the 1000lb bombs only somewhat
more distructive than the 500lb, so they tended to carry the 500s as
they could carry from 10 to 12 of them on normal missions.
Paul
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
David Thornley
John Halliwell <jo...@photopia.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3ccbd0da...@news.pacific.net.au>, Velo...@aol.com
>writes
>>Therefore, B-17s were *often* not loaded to capacity in order to get
>>maximum
>>fuel economy.
>
>Fuel economy is not that important, if you can load more bombs into
>each
>bomber, you can reduce the number of bombers, using less fuel overall.
>
back without stopping at a gas station en route, no matter what.
The Allies did not in general lack for avgas, and if more was needed
more could be provided.
Moreover, aircraft have maximum takeoff weights, and takeoffs near
it tend to be hazardous. This put another limit on the bombload.
Add in the fuel and ammo needed for a deep penetration, and there
really isn't enough room under the max takeoff weight for more than
five or six thousand pounds of bombs.
>That shows up as the limits of the bomber's range comes into the
>equation. The trick is to leave all the non-essential kit on the
>ground
>to minimise the dead weight carried there and back.
>
Fuel is essential. Ammo was essential to prevent any interceptors
that evaded the escort from becoming too comfortable. Altitude was
very important, and the altitude that is best for evading the enemy
is not necessarily the best for fuel economy.
Christopher Wilson
news:3cc8558...@news.pacific.net.au...
....
> >>Did the Mosquito ever fly combat missions with a "cookie" and
> >>two 500-pounders under the wings? These bombs don't seem quite
> >
....
> I'd like to find some supporting evidence. I've never found
> a mention of a 5000-pound bombload in practice, and I'd be
> interested to see if somebody else has.
The best I've ever seen is mosquito's with bulged bomb-bays for the cookies,
but in these instances no underwing bombs were carried. Remember the initial
design catered only for 4 500lb internally carried bombs. I should think
that a 100% increase in bomb load would have been good enough.
FWIW the B Mk IX and B Mk XVI were the ones converted to carry "cookies" all
had the "standard wing" of the B Mk V so it would appear that he only thing
they could carry on the wings were additional fuel tanks (the B Mk V was
listed as being able to carry 2 500lbers on the wings however this does not
appear to be a listed load-outs for the later versions). British Aircraft of
WW2 - David Mondey
--
All the best,
Chris Wilson
cwi...@britwar.co.uk
http://www.britwar.co.uk
--
John Halliwell
<hac...@trimofran.org> writes
>Are you kidding? I believe the 'fuel economy' he was trying to express
>is being able to fly all the way to Berlin and back with some gas left
>over to land.
We're obviously using different terms for different things. Yes,
operational flying required more fuel than the target distance would
otherwise indicate, but your examples are concerned more with getting
the necessary range available. To extend that range, you have to trade
other areas down a bit. The ultimate limit to the bomber's
range/payload
equation is dictated mostly by its design.
Fuel economy to me suggests making the most air miles per gallon (or
pound weight etc.). As you up the bomb load, you up the aircraft
weight;
as you up the weight you have to up the fuel to get it to target
(upping
the weight even more etc.). At some point the fuel needed starts to
become progressively more than the increase in bomb load carried, your
'fuel economy' starts to drop. The bomber can still make the target
and
return, but uses up proportionally much more fuel to do so.