I think all the fighter pilots irrespective of their uniform colour did a magnificent job protecting bombers. Just shows that courage is in everyone who dares to look for it.
That said Spits are much prettier than 'Stangs

But the Spit is more agile! Don't forget the 'Stang was a lardy thing until it got a Merlin engine and the USAAF didn't want it only the RAF did. Then the Americans saw the P-40s take a pasting and finally got their heads on the right way around
Oh and having spoken to people who flew both types they always said the Spit was better in a scrap (and this from an Eagle Squadron guy)

dcunning30 wrote on Jul 18^th, 2007 at 4:43pm:


That's why we went at night. I'm fairly sure several US commanders wanted to join us - as was seen when the USAAF turned to night bombing in Japan.

As for the long legs - the 'stangs may have been longer, but I bet it wasn't retrofitted to carry beer barrels...

Bomber Command had excellent accuracy in the second half of the war as we'd learned from our mistakes. It still makes me laugh that a B-17 only had the same bomb load and range as a Mossie.
However all those guys who drove "down town" as it were deserve our respect for the incredible courage they displayed..... you'd never get me flying one of those buses into flak!

ozzy72 wrote on Jul 18^th, 2007 at 5:21pm:


Mistakes aside, there were obstacles that they faced that they could not have been overcome with the current period technology.  It wasn't a matter of mistakes, the technology just wasn't there.  With 1940's technology, how was a navigator/bombadier going to accurately identify a target and isolate it from the surrounding area, which often was urban areas full of surrounding buildings?.....during a blackout being enforced by the target city?  they could only get a really good approximation and hope for the best.  It wasn't a matter of mistakes, they just didn't have the technology to achieve any better accuracy.

dcunning30 wrote on Jul 18^th, 2007 at 5:58pm:


That's why generally the area bombing tactic was employed. As for technology, Bomber Command came up with a number of solutions. The Pathfinder force, and target marking techniques therein; Gee; Oboe (very precise, although limited range) and finally of course H2S, which was last used operationally in 1982 over a certain group of islands in the South Atlantic. Hence the great increase in accuracy by 1944-45, and the limited daylight operations by smaller forces.

Quote:


The RAF's bomber fleet was designed that way from the start, hence only 7 crew members on most of our bombers.

Quote:


I think the term "practical bomb load" ought to be used. Yes the B-17 could carry a fair weight (although still 5 tons under a "Grand Slam"), it's limitation was in the physical dimensions of the (compartmentalised) bomb bay itself, which limited it to relatively small munitions. In this way, the British bomber had a superior design characteristic, and as we saw with the Dams raid and "Tallboy" and "Grand Slam", allowed modification to be completed relatively easily. It also allowed the RAF to carry a greater variety (for example, a 4000lb blast bomb, a few smaller bombs and incenduries too. On the negative side though it made out bombers a lot more vulnerable on daylight operations.

Quote:


Not to hand. I'm fairly sure it was mentioned in Sir Arthur Harris' war memoirs. The obvious choices would have been either Spaatz or LeMay - I doubt it was LeMay because he initially still favoured day bombing in Japan.

Charlie wrote on Jul 19^th, 2007 at 4:47am:


Exactly, that was I was originally referring to when I spoke of the increased horror on the civilian population.

Quote:


I never said they didn't have technological solutions, but I did say the technology wasn't there in the 1940's to achieve precise nighttime bombing.  It helped, but it wasn't anything resembling precision.

Quote:


Surely you wouldn't have us to believe the H2S technology used in 1982 was essentially the same technology and accuracy as that used in 1944-45.  

Quote:


There were no limited daylight raids by smaller forces in 1944-45.  

Quote:


Did the RAF bombers have gunners?  LeMay removed defensive armament and their gunners.

Quote:


Quote:
it's limitation was in the physical dimensions of the (compartmentalised) bomb bay itself, which limited it to relatively small munitions. In this way, the British bomber had a superior design characteristic, and as we saw with the Dams raid and "Tallboy" and "Grand Slam", allowed modification to be completed relatively easily. [/quote]

That's an unfair assumption.  First of all, the British saw a mission they neede to achieve and improvised to meet that goal.  We have no historical evidense that the US had a need to accomplish such a task, so there is NO record that the B17 was considered for such a modification and that couldn't be done.  It's one of those theings that we don't know one way or another, so by making such a claim is basically unfair.

Quote:


It was Spaatz.  I've read that there was much debate prior to the final decision, with much consideration to what the British was doing.  However, when the decision was made, it was made and all debate ended.  And history tells us it was a success.