Picture of the day

Dark Alley Dan said:
Jesus - got right in there, didn't he? Not much return fire, and the ball turret with the guns pointing straight down. Can't imagine the scene inside that B-17.
Click to expand...

The only fire I saw coming from the B17 was at the start (6:55) the ball turret got some off then the tail gun fired for a few seconds, seeing mountains I am wondering if the B17 was making a run for Switzerland (totally guessing on that one) as the rest of the formation fly on. I agree, the inside of the B17 must have been a charnel house after being worked over by the fighter.
 
CV32 said:
I doubt this was a real or effective strategy. Attacking from the rear was probably the worst option for a Luftwaffe fighter pilot. It was the worst option in the sense of trying to close the distance, while at the same time exposing the fighter to a high volume of fire for the longest period of time. The bomber rear was also the least vulnerable and harder to hit. Instead, Luftwaffe fighters tended to attack from the frontal aspect (head-on) or from above. (There is a reason for the term '12 o'clock high'.) As mentioned by scott585, the high closing speed/angle meant the attacking fighter had very little time or opportunity to focus on or attack specific parts of the bomber. That said, attacking from above also offered the advantage of allowing fire on the fuel tanks and the engines over the broadest area possible.
Click to expand...

There’s a lot of attacks from behind in the video posted. If there was no escort, the attacking pilot could take station outside the range of the tail gunner and lob cannon shells into him until he was gone. None of the other bomber's guns would have a clear shot. Then you slowly come in and rake the rest of the plane. Different story later in the war when the long range fighter escorts showed up.

As you can see though, this strategy didn’t easily finish off the bomber, which is why they went to head on attacks, etc. later.
 
Last edited:
Very interesting video. Surprised to see how many cannon shots were taken at such a distance. I wonder if the volume of machine gun fire from the bombers was too intense to get too close. I was also surprised to see some fighters venturing close the flak. Lastly, it really doesn’t seem fair does it, 6 machine guns on a fighter vs two for the tail gunner. Scary odds. I’d pick infantry every day over bomber command.
 
Machine guns were the least of the bombers problems.

Fw 190 armament:
Guns:
2 × 13 mm (.51 in) synchronized MG 131 machine guns with 475 rounds per gun, and
2 × 20 mm MG 151/20 E cannons with 250 rpg, synchronized in the wing roots, and
2 × 20 mm MG 151/20 E cannons with 140 rpg, free-firing outboard in mid-wing mounts.
Bombs: 1 bomb under fuselage or four bombs under wings.

Me 109:
Guns:
2 × 13 mm (.51 in) synchronized MG 131 machine guns with 300 rpg
1 × 20 mm (.78 in) MG 151/20 cannon as centerline Motorkanone with 200 rpg [88] or
1 x 30 mm (1.18 in) MK 108 cannon as centerline Motorkanone with 65 rpg (G-6/U4 variant)
2 × 20 mm MG 151/20 underwing cannon pods with 135 rpg (optional kit—Rüstsatz VI)
Rockets: 2 × 21 cm (8 in) Wfr. Gr. 21 rockets (G-6 with BR21)
Bombs: 1 × 250 kg (551 lb) bomb or 4 × 50 kg (110 lb) bombs or 1 × 300-litre (79 US gal) drop tank

Me 262
Guns: 4 × 30 mm MK 108 cannon (the A-2a had only two cannons)
Rockets: 24 × 55 mm (2.2 in) R4M rockets
Bombs: 2 × 250 kg (550 lb) bombs or 2 × 500 kg (1,100 lb) bombs (A-2a variant)

Me 110
Guns: ** 2 × 20 mm (0.787 in) MG FF/M cannon (180 rpg—3 drums with 60 rpg, cannon were reloaded by rear gunner or radio operator during flight)
4 × 7.92 mm (0.312 in) MG 17 machine guns (1,000 rpg)
1 × 7.92 mm (0.312 in) MG 15 machine gun for defence
 
Last edited:
The downward frontal and rearward climbing attacks were also probably more effective because the plane would present a larger target and those you have better odds of hitting it.
 
RMXC51 said:
There’s a lot of attacks from behind in the video posted.
Click to expand...

Keeping in mind that the gun camera video shown was from a handful of fighters (given that gun cameras were not mounted on every fighter); that the bombers represent a handful of the multiple thousands that were shot down; and a rear attack makes for the best footage. (Given that a slashing attack from a high angle would have lasted for much less time.) Its not that there were never any rear aspect attacks, but it did not generally make for the best methodology. Tactics also changed in some respects as the war progressed. The Fw 190, as shown in the video, also had the advantage of more armour.

If there was no escort, the attacking pilot could take station outside the range of the tail gunner and lob cannon shells into him until he was gone. None of the other bomber's guns would have a clear shot. Then you slowly come in and rake the rest of the plane. Different story later in the war when the long range fighter escorts showed up.
Click to expand...

Much easier said than done. The twin 0.50 cal turrets offered considerable range and volume of fire, especially against a stable target that was attempting to "lob" shells from a distance. At many angles, the tail, belly and dorsal turrets could join the effort. You'll notice in the longest part of the video the target B-17 has inactive turrets (with likely dead or missing crew, or inoperative guns) while the German fighter slowly closes the distance and shoots up the bomber.

Attacking bomber formations remained a very dangerous exercise for the Luftwaffe, even without the presence of Allied escorts. It just got progressively worse when the long range escorts showed up, bomber tactics and defensive armament improved, and the Luftwaffe numbers dwindled.

As you can see though, this strategy didn’t easily finish off the bomber, which is why they went to head on attacks, etc. later.
Click to expand...

Actually, the head-on attack was the preferred option early in the war. (Or rather, early in respect of the USAAF bomber operations over Europe that began in earnest from late August 1942.)

In November 1942, German fighter ace Egon Mayer found the weakest place on a B-17—directly in the front of the aircraft. Defended by only four machine guns, the nose of the B-17—and more importantly the cockpit—was vulnerable to a head-on attack. The attack required great skill and courage, as the German and American aircraft closed at an astonishing speed. The German pilot only had seconds to aim, fire, and peel away before careening into the heavy bombers. Tested by the developer himself, Mayer found the tactic worked exceedingly well. By December, the head-on attack was the preferred method of assailing American heavy bombers by Luftwaffe fighter pilots. Casualties among bomber crews began to mount steadily as B-17s were being blown out of the sky with growing consistency.
Click to expand...

Source: The Eighth Air Force vs. The Luftwaffe, National WWII Museum
 
Last edited:
Time lapse of an AC-47 mowing the lawn in Vietnam:

1f669e2e5756f1e5de53dc1cf6933a47.jpg
 
Light Infantry said:
^Neat! So i assume the plane is turning in a circle to make that twisted “fan”?
Click to expand...

Yeah, a circling orbit is a gunship's usual station over the target. I should say generally circular, because there could be figure eights or other similar patterns as well.
 
Last edited:
Pylon turn
Old biplanes used to fly low in circular turns to deliver mail when there was no place to land, also used for racing contests too
Early gunships are pretty cool because they have a mix of 1st gen night vision kit, flares, and searchlight, to engage ground targets
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom