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

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

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]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

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

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

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]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

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