German bombers so much tougher than RAF bombers?

[trademe900]

Even with the same plane versus RAF or German bombers, why is it that the Wellington or Blenheim will go down so easily but the He111 or Ju88 needs an absolute slaughtering from multiple fighters to go down?

With 5 fighters versus 20 blenheims at least half of the blenheims will be lost. The result is even worse for the wellingtons. For the same scenario hardly any german bombers are lost though.

[ATAG_Dutch]

You may have a point here, but it needs further investigation. I just came offline having pumped all my ammo into a Ju88 from a Hurri 100oct. Don't know if the 88 was human or AI controlled.

I was at convergence distance for most of the shots, using default loadout and hitting where usually a wing would blow off, i.e. the fuel tanks between the engine and the fuselage. No joy.

As I say, needs investigation....

[Blackdog_kt]

A lot depends on what weapons you have, shooting within your convergence and what you hit.

This last bit is the most important one but is not always possible to control to your favor. I have de-winged a He-111 with a half second burst from a Spitfire, using a slightly tweaked belt setup (default plus a bit more AP and incendiary rounds). However i was shooting from quite close at the top of his wing, just outside the engine. The fuel tank blew up and the wing was torn away.

The next bomber i attacked in that mission it took 4 times the ammo to bring down, because i was attacking from the same altitude. I killed the rear gunner at the start of my attack run, so i just parked behind him and kept firing at his engine. I guess most of my rounds were hitting his armor plating.

In short, it's always better to come in from oblique angles to bypass the armor plating, while aiming for the crew (relatively easy with all that glass on LW bombers), engines or fuel tanks. This means you have to be reasonably good at deflection shooting.

With regards to the RAF bombers now, the Wellington was known for its structural strength but at the same time it was prone to catching fire. I think the early models lacked self-sealing fuel tanks, which would explain the vulnerability.
In one of the earliest raids in the war (battle of the Heligoland bight, wikipedia has a pretty good article on it), a formation of Wellingtons on a low altitude daylight raid was all but massacred by 109s and 110s. Certain tactical decisions played a part as well, but the actual vulnerability of the aircraft also became apparent. I think that after that raid it was decided to start fitting them with self-sealing fuel tanks. It also drove the RAF to start considering night bombing and the development of bombsights that didn't require such a long bomb run to aim accurately.

As for the Blenheim, squadrons equipped with it had some of the highest casualty rates in the RAF. Again, choice of tactics played a big part in that, but it too was never known for its durability.

Generally speaking, none of the RAF bombers were (apart from later Wellington versions). The RAF bombers were designed to carry as much as possible, as far as possible and as fast as possible.

This design mentality continued throughout the war, with the Lancaster having one of the worst ratings for crew survivability in emergencies. The competing Halifax was much safer in the event of a crash landing or in-flight emergency. The Mosquito was almost untouchable (unless bounced by single engined fighters that had an altitude advantage) it only carried 2-3 crewmen, was cheaper to built, had a range to reach Berlin, could carry as much as a B-17 and a lot of them had the ability to carry out pin-point strikes against vital targets.

However, most bomber command squadrons were flying the Lancaster, simply because it could carry 8 tons of bombs in that cave of a bomb bay.
The irony is that some historical studies now claim that had the RAF gone for an all-mosquito force, it would have done much more damage to actual military infrastructure with a much lower cost in material and crews.

I hope you find some answers to your questions in this post and excuse me if i'm rambling on a bit. I tend to get carried away because the ETO bomber campaigns are one of my favorite WWII topics :-P

[CaptainDoggles]

Even with the same plane versus RAF or German bombers, why is it that the Wellington or Blenheim will go down so easily but the He111 or Ju88 needs an absolute slaughtering from multiple fighters to go down?

With 5 fighters versus 20 blenheims at least half of the blenheims will be lost. The result is even worse for the wellingtons. For the same scenario hardly any german bombers are lost though.

Can't say I've ever shot down a German bomber while flying a German aircraft, but I agree that the RAF bombers are a joke to take down. It's as simple as loading armor piercing ammo and using your MG 17's to snipe the gunner from extreme range, and then closing in for the kill.

Against the AI you don't even need to use the cannons :(

[CaptainDoggles]

This design mentality continued throughout the war, with the Lancaster having one of the worst ratings for crew survivability in emergencies. The competing Halifax was much safer in the event of a crash landing or in-flight emergency.Got a source? Lancasters could land on just a single engine, and maintain altitude with just two.

The Mosquito was almost untouchable (unless bounced by single engined fighters that had an altitude advantage) it only carried 2-3 crewmen, was cheaper to built, had a range to reach Berlin, could carry as much as a B-17 and a lot of them had the ability to carry out pin-point strikes against vital targets.B-17s could carry something like 18000 lbs of bombs. IIRC the Mosquito carried less than a quarter of that.

[Al Schlageter]

Agh, Blackdog, if your Lanc or Hallie is hit by an 88 or 128 carrying that much of a bomb load, not likely many crew would survive.

[Blackdog_kt]

Got a source? Lancasters could land on just a single engine, and maintain altitude with just two.

B-17s could carry something like 18000 lbs of bombs. IIRC the Mosquito carried less than a quarter of that.

Regarding the Lancasters, it was stated in terms of things like in-flight fires, behaviour in crash landing and how easy/difficult it was to get out of the plane. It was in the Lancaster focus article on a quarterly aviation publication (world air power review), but i don't remember which issue. If i remember about it tomorrow, i'll have a look around the house and see if i can dig it up.

As for the mossie and B17, yes, my statement was a bit simplified because a lot depends on range vs payload. The B-17s usually carried 6000lbs to achieve the needed range on most of their missions. The mossie could do that (i think the "cookie" block buster bomb alone was 4000lb) but i doubt the usual load in a mossie would be 6000lbs for the same reasons.

However, it was probably still cheaper (especially in terms of crew losses, it's almost as fast as a fighter and if it goes down only 2-3 crewmen are lost instead of 7-10) and just as accurate to put extra mossies in the air to get the same amount of explosives raining on a target.

Mossies were among the main pathfinder aircraft and they were fast enough to operate in daylight if they went in at a high altitude. I'm theorisizing a bit here, but i suppose that having a few hundred of them bombing on command of 1-2 dozen lead ships equipped with pathfinder gear would do the trick just as good as the heavies. Less bombs (hence less bomb spread) per aircraft, cheaper to put more of them in the air to get the same total tonnage, accurate bomb release regardless of weather conditions and time of day (thanks to the pathfinder lead ships), etc.

It certainly is an interesting prospect and if any of the CoD sequels ever get to modeling the bomber offensive over Europe and the electronics of the time, it will be among the first things i will try out :grin:

[Al Schlageter]

B-17s could carry something like 18000 lbs of bombs. IIRC the Mosquito carried less than a quarter of that.

For a VERY short distance and using external bomb racks.

For a more realistic view of what the B-17 carried read http://www.303rdbg.com/missions.html

The Mosquito could carry one 4000lb Cookie or 6 x 500lb bombs (4 internal + 2 external).

The Avro carrier could take 6 x 500lb bombs internally but afaik was never used.

[CaptainDoggles]

For a VERY short distance and using external bomb racks.

For a more realistic view of what the B-17 carried read http://www.303rdbg.com/missions.html

The Mosquito could carry one 4000lb Cookie or 6 x 500lb bombs (4 internal + 2 external).

The Avro carrier could take 6 x 500lb bombs internally but afaik was never used.

Ah, right on. Thanks for the correction.

[gimpy117]

I would venture a guess it is because Germans are shooting Explosive cannon rounds and Brits just peashooters.

we need a test with german planes on german bombers

[CaptainDoggles]

I would venture a guess it is because Germans are shooting Explosive cannon rounds and Brits just peashooters.

we need a test with german planes on german bombers

You can de-wing a Blenheim with just the MG 17's in the nose of the 109.

Comes off right at the wing root, and only takes ~200 rounds or so.

[Blackdog_kt]

For a VERY short distance and using external bomb racks.

For a more realistic view of what the B-17 carried read http://www.303rdbg.com/missions.html

The Mosquito could carry one 4000lb Cookie or 6 x 500lb bombs (4 internal + 2 external).

The Avro carrier could take 6 x 500lb bombs internally but afaik was never used.

That's an awesome link, tons of mission reports.

It's also very enlightening about how easy it was to be forced to abort a mission. Engine troubles, missing vital equipment, malfunctions of important aircraft systems, crewmen unable to continue because of a simple cold and so on.
And before anyone scoffs at it, a common cold can really mess you up in an unpressurised aircraft that flies at those altitudes, because your ears/nose are blocked and you can't effectively equalize the pressure as the aircraft climbs. Air can be trapped inside, expand as you climb and give you a royal headache or even damage your ear drums.

Also very interesting details on the bomb loads used. Most reports i saw state 5000lbs or so. They also mention incendiaries quite frequently and fire-bombing of civilian areas, which i thought was not systematically practiced in the ETO during daylight bombing raids. Some reports give as low as 3000lb bomb loads if a bomb bay fuel tank had to be carried for extra range.

All in all a great read ;)

[gimpy117]

You can de-wing a Blenheim with just the MG 17's in the nose of the 109.

Comes off right at the wing root, and only takes ~200 rounds or so.

200 hits or 200 total?

[CaptainDoggles]

200 hits or 200 total?I have no way of knowing how many hits I'm getting.

It's been a while since I've tried, but usually it never takes me more than 400 rounds from my guns to down an AI blenheim. Depends how well I'm shooting, and it's usually easier to exploit the awful AI that bails out as soon as you smoke the engine.

Sawing the wing off without cannons requires precise aiming and I'm not a particularly good shot.

What I like to do is kill all the rear gunners and then get to about 50m or so before picking away at the wing root.

Drawback to this is that if the wing comes off it will sometimes hit your machine causing catastrophic damage.

Either way, it's still too easy. Spitfires absorb more punishment.

[Al Schlageter]

Glad you like the link Blackdog. Here is another for you, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA398044

PHYSIOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF BOMBER CREWS IN THE EIGHTH AIR FORCE DURING WWII

You mentioned the size of bombs,
total http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t137.htm
vs Germany http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t138.htm

Gives the number of bombs dropped by weight and type.

[ATAG_Dutch]

A lot depends on what weapons you have, shooting within your convergence and what you hit.

Yup. My response above is relating to the latest patch only, which I assumed the OP meant. In the new patch, Ju88s particularly seem much tougher than before this patch.

That's what I thought the OP meant. If he meant generally speaking, well the 88 was notoriously tough to take down. Stukas not so much. I got a few shots into one online the other day but it was brought down mostly by that chap 'bofors'. :)

There does appear to be a difference in the new patch, hence my suggestion for 'investigation'.

[trademe900]

Yes, what I originally meant was I tested to see using RAF fighters on RAF bombers and German fighters on German bombers. No matter what, the German bombers are extremely tough (especially he111) and the RAF bombers are a joke.

[SlipBall]

Yes, what I originally meant was I tested to see using RAF fighters on RAF bombers and German fighters on German bombers. No matter what, the German bombers are extremely tough (especially he111) and the RAF bombers are a joke.


I have done a bit of ballistic testing on most of the aircraft (machine gun). I can find no evidence that the DM has changed at all with the latest patch. All the aircraft have their own weak spots, and that must be the target area to aim for. Experimenting with belt loads and convergence is a good first step.:)


http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/17He111H-2.jpg



http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/50Ju-88.jpg

[SlipBall]

Here you go boys...sorry for wasting ammo but your birds have a lot of guns:-P

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/15Spit1.jpg

[Osprey]

German bombers are a doddle to bring down if you get 2-3 secs into the right spot. No problem to get 4 with the belts in the RAF types. a shallow dive from 5 or 7 high is safe enough with speed, you can access above the armour plating protecting the tanks from there.

Ju88 and Do17 - hit just inside the engine on top of the wing
He111 - hit just outside the engine on top of the wing

This will cause at worst big black smoke as the type wheels away into a death dive, at best an explosion which takes off the wing.

FW200 is easy too.

BR20, that's something else, I've given up attacking them - any solutions?

[SlipBall]

German bombers are a doddle to bring down if you get 2-3 secs into the right spot. No problem to get 4 with the belts in the RAF types. a shallow dive from 5 or 7 high is safe enough with speed, you can access above the armour plating protecting the tanks from there.

Ju88 and Do17 - hit just inside the engine on top of the wing
He111 - hit just outside the engine on top of the wing

This will cause at worst big black smoke as the type wheels away into a death dive, at best an explosion which takes off the wing.

FW200 is easy too.

BR20, that's something else, I've given up attacking them - any solutions?

Yes of course, but I don't want to be charged with treason!:-P

this crew bailed, so no hit count
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/BR20m.jpg

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/br20.jpg

[macro]

i hit the tails of br20's, they come off sometimes, or something catches fire

[5./JG27.Farber]

I shot a wing off a He 111 with a spitfire other times you pump it all in and nothing happens. Its heavily reliant on convergence.

[Osprey]

It always is with wing guns, but there are sweetspots on the bombers.

Thanks Macro, I'll give that a try. (Can't see those pics Slip, my work is blocking them!)

[CaptainDoggles]

(Can't see those pics Slip, my work is blocking them!)

108 hits from a Spit I to down a Br.20

[Osprey]

I think I can manage that, but where to put them is the crux.....

[KG26_Alpha]

He111 wings are huge with 2 steel spars running through them.

Compared to the Blehiems wing which is thinner and weaker.

Blenhiem wing with control surfaces

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v119/alpha1/DSCF0826.jpg

So comparing bombers, as has been done in this thread, you need to remember the difference in size and strength.

HE111 wings without control surfaces.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v119/alpha1/DSCF2186.jpg

They could take a lot of punishment.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v119/alpha1/DSCF0085.jpg

[gimpy117]

108 hits from a Spit I to down a Br.20

and thats not a lot of trigger time assuming that those guns are firing close to 1200 RPM if those are the ones I'm thinking of.

[tools4fools]

BR20, that's something else, I've given up attacking them - any solutions?

Come in slightly from the side, aim for fuselage, about where the wings are. Burns nicely.
10526
10527
10528

As pointed out above it's the guns that make the difference. 109 or 110 with 20mm downs German bombers easy.

Guess there is a reason why later Spits (and Hurries) had cannons - and why the Typhoon went from 12 0.303 to 4 cannon...

Shooting from dead 6 with Brit MG's has little effect. Come in with some angle and hit weak points at close distance and in convergence and you will get them down.

[SlipBall]

He111 wings are huge with 2 steel spars running through them.

Compared to the Blehiems wing which is thinner and weaker.

Blenhiem wing with control surfaces

So comparing bombers, as has been done in this thread, you need to remember the difference in size and strength.

HE111 wings without control surfaces.

They could take a lot of punishment.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v119/alpha1/DSCF0085.jpg


Wow, must have been a horror for the red pilot. Even in the game, it is tricky to not close too quickly sometimes.

[TomcatViP]

Taran probably.

edit: we can even calculate the aircraft closing speed ;) It will show tht closing rate was fairly low.

[KG26_Alpha]

Taran probably.

edit: we can even calculate the aircraft closing speed ;) It will show tht closing rate was fairly low.

Yup Taran attack is likely, I would like to think the gunners did a good job on the attacking aircraft so the pilot decided to do a Taran.


In the original IL2 v1.0 you could creep up on bombers and chew them up with the prop and use Taran tactics without penalty,
but the DF servers complained of pilots ramming after running out of ammo so it was removed from the game.



.