PDA

View Full Version : B-25 vs B-17



249th_Harrier
09-27-2004, 08:11 AM
I have read that the 9th AF used B-25s to attack bridges, railyards, mustering points, etc. My understanding is that they would attack at ~12,000 ft, rather than the ~30,000 ft the b-17s would use for industrial targets. It makes sense that a lower alt would be used: smaller target, but less well defended by AAA. My question is: why use a B-25 for this rather than a B-17? If the B-17 was the best bomber for high alt, why not use it for low at also? For that matter, if the B-25 was the best for low alt, why not use them for high alt bombing?

249th_Harrier
09-27-2004, 08:11 AM
I have read that the 9th AF used B-25s to attack bridges, railyards, mustering points, etc. My understanding is that they would attack at ~12,000 ft, rather than the ~30,000 ft the b-17s would use for industrial targets. It makes sense that a lower alt would be used: smaller target, but less well defended by AAA. My question is: why use a B-25 for this rather than a B-17? If the B-17 was the best bomber for high alt, why not use it for low at also? For that matter, if the B-25 was the best for low alt, why not use them for high alt bombing?

Metallicaner
09-27-2004, 08:15 AM
no you start flying with our squad again! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif hehehe

p1ngu666
09-27-2004, 08:35 AM
did b25 have turbo's? prolly slower up high, and less range and bombload
faster down low id guess

WOLFMondo
09-27-2004, 08:38 AM
The B17 was allot slower than the B25 and would present a much bigger target thats slower moving. Also could a box formation be made up at low altitude?

horseback
09-27-2004, 08:44 AM
USAAF did not operate B-25s out of England. The primary medium bomber for the 8th & 9th AFs was the B-26. The RAF did operate the B-25 out of the UK, as well as in the Med/Italian theater.

USAAF flew the B-25 (but not the B-26) in N. Africa and the Pacific. It may have been a matter of simplifying supply systems, since both bombers used different engines, like the 9th AF taking P-47s and P-38s while the 8th tried to convert its fighter groups to the Mustang.

As for why use medium bombers for smaller and closer targets, consider that the medium bombers were much faster, able to get in and out of the enemy's territory more quickly. This made them harder to intercept, and since they often had a Spitfire escort (Spits being much more available than longer ranged fighters in the ETO), not an appetizing target in any case. I also believe (not positive, but...) that the mediums flew a bit too high for the light flak, and at a less than ideal range for the heavier stuff, which with their speed, created a much tougher firing solution for ground based defenses.

Naturally, medium bombers had less payload and range. This made it hard for them to reach the heavy industrial targets in central Europe, and would have made them less effective when they got there. They were not designed for high alt flight, and generally lacked the supercharging needed to be as effective at high altitudes.

The 'heavies' were designed to fly at higher altitudes because it made it harder for the enemy to intercept. Given the relatively limited range of the German fighters, operating bombers at 6000-7500m created severe problems for effective interception, particularly once a practical escort fighter was introduced.

cheers

horseback

Daiichidoku
09-27-2004, 09:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:


Naturally, medium bombers had less payload and range. This made it hard for them to reach the heavy industrial targets in central Europe, and would have made them less effective when they got there. They were not designed for high alt flight, and generally lacked the supercharging needed to be as effective at high altitudes.

The 'heavies' were designed to fly at higher altitudes because it made it harder for the enemy to intercept. Given the relatively limited range of the German fighters, operating bombers at 6000-7500m created severe problems for effective interception, particularly once a practical escort fighter was introduced.

cheers

horseback <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Except the Mossie..great range, and carried the same bombload as a B17, with better speed than ANY bomber...

Allies would have been much, much better off with Mossies instead of B24s, 17s, 25, 26s, wtc

not to mention all the other duites it could perform

horseback
09-27-2004, 10:31 AM
Mossies weren't exactly in the same class as the FW or Me interceptors when burdened by that B-17 sized bombload, making them a potentially much easier kill, particularly in daylight at high altitudes. Flying long distance large scale raids at high (or any) altitude allows an opponent to anticipate your course to a large degree and be up to intercept.

Also, while you can make an arguement for payload weight, one big bomb doesn't always have the same utility as several smaller bombs which weigh the same but take up more space. Incendiaries, for example.

The Mossie also lacked the accuracy from those altitudes that the USAAF at least tried for. The Mosquito was a fine aircraft, but even assuming that enough could be produced to replace all those other aircraft (and wiping out half the world's rainforests in the process), I doubt that it would have been as effective in massed daylight raids as the USAAF heavies. In daylight, it was at its best in low level incursions in limited numbers.

cheers

horseback

Agamemnon22
09-27-2004, 10:53 AM
Bridges, camps and things of that nature are fairly small targets, and B-17 raids weren't very precise. After the war the USAF's own report showed that something like 2% of all bombs landed within some hundred yards of the intended target. So for small things I guess it made sense to use lower flying B-25s, while B-17s stayed high and area-bombed industrial complexes and such.

WOLFMondo
09-27-2004, 11:07 AM
Mossies were used for pin point low level raids or pathfinder missions. Where speed and stealth was essential

p1ngu666
09-27-2004, 12:46 PM
i think mossies can be acurate from high alt, depends on bombsite.
many b17s didnt have bomb sights, or not good ones, they dropped with leader...

also mossie is 1/2 1/3 of a b17, and u lose 2 crew vs 10/11 ?

the loss rate of the heavies (b17/24 was pretty horrific)
iirec 8% loss rate per mission.

now, stat wise, your dead by your 12th/13th mission, but u gotta do 25 or sumin, u should be dead 2x http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Abbuzze
09-28-2004, 02:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
i think mossies can be acurate from high alt, depends on bombsite.
many b17s didnt have bomb sights, or not good ones, they dropped with leader...

also mossie is 1/2 1/3 of a b17, and u lose 2 crew vs 10/11 ?

the loss rate of the heavies (b17/24 was pretty horrific)
iirec 8% loss rate per mission.

now, stat wise, your dead by your 12th/13th mission, but u gotta do 25 or sumin, u should be dead 2x http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The mossie was very good in the night, at daylight in big groups seen from a wide distance they would get in trouble... They can dive away from an enemy with some luck, but the complete group would split, after this the escourt wouldnâ´t be able anymore to protect them! And a single Bomber, even a fast one like a Mossie is in trouble... 2nd if they would fly alone after this, they would reach the targetarea one by one (I exaggerate)- so have fun with the flak!
So its quite simple- the mossie would have no chance to stand missions like the B17&24.

Aaron_GT
09-28-2004, 04:07 AM
horseback wrote:
"Mossies weren't exactly in the same class as the FW or Me interceptors when burdened by that B-17 sized bombload, making them a potentially much easier kill,"

Loss rates for Mosquito daylight raids were typically around 5%, basically the same as for B17 formations. Accuracy was about the same (although this may be partly due to the Mosquito generally having more experienced crews than most bombers due to their 'speciality' status).

LEBillfish
09-28-2004, 08:55 AM
Saw a show the other night on Discovery Wings about planes in the Pacific theatre. Toward the end of the war they were actually using B-29s on straffing runs I believe they said at 100' alt..

Also in looking for proof of this ran accross this, though can't vouch for what they offer...

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/CDVIDEOSTORE.html

horseback
09-28-2004, 11:25 AM
Apples and oranges, Aaron.

Mosquito daylight raids were generally made at low levels and high speeds in Squadron (12-16 planes) strength, with something less than a blockbuster (or even B-17) payload. Daylight raids were rarely made at long range over enemy held territory, although long distance raids when the bulk of the transit could be made over the sea were made. As a rule, these daylight strikes were made by FB MK VI fighter bombers, not specialized bomber marks. The fighters lacked the bomb capacity of the bombers, but could defend themselves to some degree on the way out of German held airspace.

Had Bomber Command been so daft as to send fully loaded bomber Mossies on long range, daylight raids in Wing or greater strengths into Germany or Central Europe at any altitude, I am sure that their loss rates would easily have exceeded 8th Bomber Command's for the Schweinfurt raids of October 1943. Large numbers of aircraft moving through your territory tend to attract attention (and fighters), and heavy bomb loads have a negative effect on performance. This was why bomber squadrons operating the Mosquito usually worked nights (and why USAF 'Stealth' units do the same most of the time).

I suggest you read Osprey's Mosquito Fighter and Bomber unit histories for a clearer picture. Mosquitos and the daylight heavies filled different, but complementary, niches in the bombing war, and the presence of each made the other more effective. Conversely, the absence of either one would have had a negative effect on the other's performance of its mission.

cheers

horseback

Korolov
09-28-2004, 12:17 PM
I thought that there were a few groups operating B-26s in the MTO?