B-17 Combat Bombing Accuracy, Operational Data
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 ต.ค. 2024
- The intent of this part 6 video is to discuss B-17’s combat bombing accuracy. Topics include the differences between training and combat mission. Walk trough of a typical 1944 combat mission. Definition of MPI, gross error bombing, mission failure. Introduction to sighting target with PFF or pathfinders, Micky bombing, radar bombing, H2x, blind bombing, overcast bombing, PFF bombing. Discuss operational bombing accuracy definitions and data of the 8th US Army Air Forces.
B-17 Bombing 7 part Series:
B-17 Part 1 (Bombing Introduction): • B-17 Bomber, Aerial Bo...
B-17 Part 2 (Fuses, shackles): • B-17 Bombing, Fuzes, S...
B-17 Part 3 (Norden Integration): • The Norden Bombsight B...
B-17 Part 4 (Ballistics Math): • B-17 Bombing Ballistic...
B-17 Part 5 (Training Accuracy): • B-17 Bombing Accuracy ...
B-17 Part 6 (Combat Accuracy): • B-17 Combat Bombing Ac...
B-17 Part 7 (Norden Bombsight): • WWII B-17 Combat Bombi...
![ILLSLICK - WINTER IS COMING [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dwTMeM1zIhQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I like the in-depth detail and content of these videos. Keep up the good work.
The intent of this part 6 video is to make me happy!!!!!
Mission accomplished!
Very good. Tons of facts to unload here. I’ll need to go around again.
Great videos I hope you could do other turret positions or different American bombers like the B-29 but these videos are still amazing!
I second this :) I love all the gun turret videos
Good job, as usual....as a fan of ww2 history, I enjoy these detailed video presentations.
Another "on-target" video, thank you.
The 8th must have kept records of crew moral. Any chance of doing a vid on that?
The author of these WWII US Bombers videos continues to produces videos far better than other TH-cam videos on this subject.
However, some questions still arise. For instance, in counting strikes in or out of the target area: Presumably this is done by counting craters in reconaisance photos. How was coincident craters accounted for? What about German trickery? Germany had an elaborate decoy creating organisation. How were bombs falling on decoys counted? Typically, the USAAF bombed strategic targets during the day, and the RAF bombed the general area at night - how did they tell a British bomb crater from an American one? A careful read of the US Strategic Bombing Survey summary report reveals they probably could not.
In terms of differentiating USAAF and RAF craters; before/after photoreconnaissance was conducted whenever possible and decently accurate on visual raids. Obviously much more difficult on radar/h2x etc but sometimes still possible depending on delay between follow on raids. Post-war, bomb differentiation and dating was the most effective. RAF BC rarely dropped 500lbers, whereas the USAAF used it almost exclusively. In terms of dating, general freshness of the crater and eyewitness interviews could sometimes be used to differentiate based on who had been conducting raids at what times. Finally, any shrapnel or other detritus found in the craters themselves or direct nearby area were collected and used to determine who dropped what where.
@@ME-xh7zp : Where did you get all that from? Reference(s)?
Photo reconnaisance was subject to error due to German trickery. They had lightweight portable means of disguising craters and bomb damage. They had an elaborate decoy system. For example, a supposed oil refinery was regularly bombed for 2 years before it was realised it was a decoy and the real refinery was several miles away. So the real bombing accuracy was zero. How did reconnaissance count it? I really don't know.
Smoke from fires, smoke deliberately generated by German teams, and cloud often ruined accuracy by obscurring targets. Hiding target areas from reconnaisance too. The Luftwaffe had infra-red cameras that could look through cloud fairly well, smoke not so well, but I don't think the RAF and USAAF had that - I might be wrong.
The US Strategic Bombing Survey reports in regard to bombing accuracy are probably not to be trusted. The numeric data are a minor feature of their conclusions and are based on interviewing German administrators ASAP after surrender. The motivation of German administrators in over-estimating the number of bombs missing strategic targets is obvious. I do intend to investigate this aspect further.
One thing the Strategic Bombing Survey Summary Report does say is that the Germans had a huge workforce - over 300,000 men could be deployed to repair a major industrial site or oil refinery - that could be deployed to clean up sites, making it look very different even within 24 hours. I would assume they filled in craters within target sites before they bothered about ones that didn't matter. A 500 Lb bomb crater wouldn't have taken much manpower to fill in and make good within an hour.
Mostly records accessible through AFHRA via McDermott. It's not a super deep dive for most records. Freely accessible via request internationally but doesn't have the turnover time of the Japanese records or anything. I wouldn't outright discard the USSBS, the folks involved had a pretty strong desire to get data as accurate as possible. 500lb bomb craters can be filled in but aren't necessarily removing all evidence. // Any English language sources you'd consider quality for the German decoy attempts? Nailing that subject down is difficult if you don't know German.
Radius (singular). Radii (plural).
Another fantastic video, thank you
excellent video. for your future reference radii should only be used as a plural of radius. if it is singular just say radius.
Yessssssss new upload!!!!!
Kind of off topic - but only a little. Since you seem to be very knowledgeable about B-17s, perhaps you could answer a question. Given all the guns on a B-17 plus the fact they were facing all sorts of directions, how much of a problem was "friendly fire" from other B17s?
Look at the causes of bomber damage chart in my 20mm cannon video. The chart includes friendly fire data.
How many of the 12 planes had bombardiers vs toggliers? Assuming not just the lead plane had a bombardier for redundancy?
Krupp decoy site RAF Bomber Command did not correctly identify the installation until 1943, by which time its bombers had dropped 64% of all high-explosive bombs and 75% of all incendiaries on it rather than the real site.[2]
By 1943 65% of the Luftwaffe was focused on the western front also the entirety of the Kreigsmarine was focused on the west.
Luftwaffe superiority was the biggest advantage the Nazi’s had over the USSR and they felt allied bombing was more of a threat and caused more destruction than the USSR did in the East. If that were not the case they would have used most of the Luftwaffe in the Eastern front instead of the western front
Most war factories and resources and war materials were destroyed by the US. The oil refineries destroyed by bombing did more to damage the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe than the Red army did in 3 years. Men can be replaced. Fuel production facilities that are constantly attacked means they can’t produce or send to the front nearly as many vehicles as they otherwise could have
If the combat box is 525 feet wide, subtract a half wingspan on each side, that leaves 425 feet, which is already wider than the average error. Someone's awfully hopeful!
The video seems to imply that the box is not necessarily maintained over the target, though. In any case, many targets, eg large industrial complexes, oil refineries, etc would be wider that 425 feet. In such cases bombs should be arranged to fall all over the target, not it's centre.
@@keithammleter3824 Everything seems to imply that the USAAF was emphasizing accuracy, and I was pointing out their 400 foot claim was impossible for their standard combat box.
I'd think they'd have to maintain the combat box over the target. Otherwise they'd have to spread out even more sideways if the maintained the same speed, or some planes speed up and slow down to spread out linearly, and that would play heck with the bombing accuracy along the flight path. In addition, trying to spread out and regroup in such short intervals seems to be asking for trouble, and a tight combat box was crucial for self-defense against fighters.
@@grizwoldphantasia5005 : I had always thought that the box was maintained, for the reasons you give, but this video hints that perhaps it wasn't. In fact, I always thought that the box also had to be maintained in order to avoid B-17's colliding over the target. The need to avoid collisions was the prime reason why a lead bombardier was employed, with other planes dropping when they saw the lead drop. That, as well as box formations, meant that bombs were necessarily spread out in impact point but, generally, that was what was needed anyway. If a German aircraft factory occupies a large area, it's no good smashing just a small part of it.
However, I don't see that the USAAF ever did mean that "daylight precision bombing" actually meant precisely and consistently hitting small (eg house size) targets. Nor do I see that in this video. The fact is, most strategic targets in Germany were of large size.
A claim of an AIMING POINT or bombing SYSTEM accuracy of
@@keithammleter3824 I think there was some "scam" in the accuracy claim for the American bomber. At the time questions were being raised about the RAF night "area" bombing. The American generals didn't want to be accused of indiscriminate bombing of civilians, so they pushed the "pickle barrel" claim.
It's also true that the Americans were trying, as much as possible, to bomb only Germany's war industry. With the technology of the day, that wasn't possible, and in the case of Japan, the destruction of its cities became standard practice. There were many reasons for this, and less concern by the American public.
@@keithammleter3824
You hit the nail right on the head, and you seem to have your head wrapped around everything at a much higher level than most others on this subject.
It seems like all people want to do is come up with reasons to criticize the US bombing campaign in WW2, which encompasses more than just the 8th Air Force flying out of England.
After several years of watching videos on the subject and especially from reading the comments in them it seems like people fall into 3 general categories on the subject;
1, The people who want to bash the US about anything any chance they get (like that guy up on stage on Ted TV talking about the Norden bombsight who I believe you referenced and amounts to nothing more than a stand up comedian).
2, People who can't seem to get their head wrapped around the concept that this happened in the early/mid 1940's and no one else had ever done anything like this before, and I mean no one, because no one else had heavy bombers that could fly that high and at those speeds at those altitudes, they just can't seem to grasp the concept that this was being done long before the advent of laser guided smart bombs which they seem to think of as the standard for accuracy concerning bombing since they grew up watching the 1st Gulf War and the conflicts that've followed.
3, People who want to act like experts on the subject but will take statistics out of context in their efforts to act like experts, ie add up the total number of bombs dropped by US bombers in WW2 and compare that to the number of bombs that actually hit the target and blame the difference on the Norden bombsight.
A comparison I use to get the point across about the Norden bombsight and how accurate it truly was is the M1 rifle comparison.
Claiming that the Norden bombsight was not accurate is like saying that the M1 rifle was not accurate based on the fact that every time the trigger was pulled on one in combat an enemy soldier didn't drop dead, if enemy soldiers would be courteous enough to sit upright and not shoot at you and toss grenades at you while you're shooting an M1 in combat it'd have a much higher kill per bullet ratio than it did.
Just because M1's are used under duress and other conditions that are less than ideal you don't dismiss or ignore the engineering and development that went into them that made them rifles that can easily shoot 2¼" groups off the bench at 100 yards, nor do you dismiss the fact that they're that accurate off the bench because they don't get used that way in combat, to suggest that type of accuracy is pointless because of the conditions they get used under would be stupid, yes accuracy degrades under the conditions they're used under but the fact remains that the more accurate they are off the bench the more accurate they'll be under the less than ideal conditions they're used under, ie a rifle that shoots 2¼" groups off the bench will kill more enemy soldier's in combat then one that shoots 4½" groups off the bench.
The same exact rules apply to the bombsight in a bomber.