PDA

View Full Version : BoB vs Battle of Germany



249th_Harrier
12-27-2004, 05:11 PM
In the Battle of Britain, losses seemed about equal between the Luftwaffe and the RAF, but since RAF pilots parachuted to friendly territory, their pilot attrition was lower than that of the Luftwaffe. Why does the same argument not hold for 8th AF attacks on Germany spring and summer '44, where the Luftwaffe was decimated by pilot attrition? It seems that the losses of fighters were much greater for the Luftwaffe than the USAAF escort fighters, at least after the p-51 showed up in numbers (although bomber losses were high whenever the Luftwaffe chose to show up). Were the Luftwaffe fighters setting themselves up to be bounced by attacking the bombers? Why would this be any different than the BoB?

LStarosta
12-27-2004, 05:35 PM
You try bailing at 30,000 feet.

249th_Harrier
12-27-2004, 06:23 PM
Is it fatal to bail at 30,000 ft?

PBNA-Boosher
12-27-2004, 06:28 PM
No, it's not, BUT

You have to decide the correct time to pull the rip cord:

too early and you freeze to death at alt. and esfixiate

too late and the pull off the chute will rip your limbs right off of you and the chute will pull off with it.

Bailing is risky business, bailing at 30,000 feet with a parachute is basically controlled suicide.

Dammerung
12-27-2004, 07:21 PM
There was a Habu Crew that punched out at 80k Mach 3. Both lived. But they had special suits. To Survive a bail out from 30k, you'd have to flare your body down to about 15k, then open the chute. Did they have drogue shoots in WWII?

georgeo76
12-27-2004, 08:30 PM
Bailing out is only slightly preferable to crashing, probable death vs. certain death.

First off, it's very difficult to get out. You have to achieve certain flight envelope. Too many Gs and you can't move enough to eject the canopy or unbuckle yourself, even then, you may not have the strength to push yourself out of your seat. If your rolling or spinning out of control, same problem, only add the fact that the tail could come around and smack you, or the prop could shred you. Negative Gs might help you out, but they are more likely to render you unconscious. also you have to factor speed, altitude (to low and your dead, too high and you could pass out from lack of oxygen)

The wind, prop-wash, and Gs that you experience when you exit the craft are dangerous to you and your equipment. (look @ what happened to the D-Day paratroopers, and they were bailing @ what fighter pilots would consider very low speeds).

Once your out... hope your cute works, and the altitude constraints mentioned previously.

All this assuming your un-hurt,conscious, and not panicking. The psychological factor cannot be understated.

It hasn't gotten much better w/ ejector seats. True, they work in situations where bailing wouldn't, but the forces of a rocket ejection are very dangerous. Do it perfectly, and you may still be injured, do it improperly and it will kill you as quick as a bullet to the head. Assuming that the thing functions properly in the first place.

J_Weaver
12-27-2004, 08:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PBNA-Boosher:
too late and the pull off the chute will rip your limbs right off of you and the chute will pull off with it.

Bailing is risky business, bailing at 30,000 feet with a parachute is basically controlled suicide. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No offence but that doesn't seem quite right to me. An object can only fall so fast.(terminal velocity)If you fall 1000ft or 10000ft would fall at the same rate. For a person terminal velocity is aprox 120mph. The only thing that would effect this is air density. Even though the air at 30,000 feet is considerably thiner than sea level I don't think that a falling pilot in a bulky WWII flight suit would or could reach much more than 120mph. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

This topic has got me doing some interesting research now. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Owlsphone
12-27-2004, 08:44 PM
The new ejection seats are so bad on your back that after an ejection, you can be as much as 1 inch shorter than you were before.

In WWII, the only reason you would bail is if you were certainly going to die by staying in your plane. If the plane were at all controllable, an emergency landing is first on the list.

Try to picture yourself with a shot up plane. Imagine sitting in the cockpit knowing that you have to eject the canopy, release your harnesses and jump out of an airplane. The prop wash hits you in the face at whatever speed youre going and try to think about having to avoid the wings/tail sections. If either hits you, you have a good chance of being knocked unconscious or killed.

Then the parachute must work. Towards the end of the war fighters shot at parachutes. It wouldn't be pleasant to be hanging in your chute completely helpless as other fighters whiz around you...possibly with the intent to shoot you.

And are you over enemy territory? If my plane were at all flyable, you can bet I'd try my hardest not to have to crash land or bail over enemy territory.

As you can see, bailing is not a pleasant alternative. It was only used when it absolutely had to.

Skycat_2
12-27-2004, 11:25 PM
Things that come to mind:

1. Germany was fighting a two-front war; this divided the resources and military strength of the nation including trained pilots.

2. Pre-war doctrine for the Luftwaffe did not call for heavy bombers; medium bombers were seen as supporting 'Blitzkrieg' infantry/armor advances. When BoB commenced, the Luftwaffe really wasn't inflicting the damage to industrial capabilities like the RAF and US would later inflict in their bombing operations.

3. During BoB, the RAF was under-equipped and undermanned, but managed its resources well to intercept German bombers with its available fighters. On the other hand, the Luftwaffe lost much of the advantage of surprise that it had enjoyed in previous campaigns in Norway, France and Poland. In many ways, BoB was a nearly even match because although the RAF was outnumbered it was also on the defensive and operated over its home territory; German pilots who were shot down were captured and sat out the war. However, Germany at that time had a fascination with aviation, and at this time had less problem replacing pilots than did Britain.
If the Luftwaffe hadn't changed its focus to bombing London (following a retaliatory RAF bombing raid on Berlin) and instead focused on military targets, RAF's Fighter Command probably would have soon been depleted through attrition. The Luftwaffe raids on London gave the RAF a chance to repair bases and train new pilots, plus it made predicting where the enemy would be much easier.

4. Once the tide had turned, the US and RAF were striking German targets (both military and industrial) both day and night. America's entry into the war brought a nearly inexhaustible supply of manpower as well as the nation's abundant industrial and natural resources. Quite simply, the Allies had lots of bombers and lots of fighters to escort those bombers, and they were bombing Axis factories, supply lines, oil refineries, military complexes, etc. Maybe the effect wasn't immediate, but eventually the lack of fuel, ammunition and replacement weapons was felt by German forces.

5. Luftwaffe pilots reportedly flew until they were killed or captured. Early in the war, pilot quality was very good, but later the sheer need for replacement pilots to quickly fill the ranks, combined with resource shortages, meant that many young pilots were going into combat with minimal training.

6. Conversely, 8th AF crews (and US air forces in general) had more breathing room and trained in the United States for several months before departing to the ETO and other theaters. Bomber crew losses were heavy, no argument there, and the Allies may have lost more airmen over France and Germany than the Luftwaffe (I have no statistics) ... however, the United States simply was able to keep rotating fresh crews and new aircraft into the theater and simply overwhelmed the Luftwaffe's ability to resist.

h009291
12-28-2004, 12:30 AM
Skycat brings out some good points. Especially the level of training of the German pilots in 1944-45 vs. 1940.

Also interesting to read what it was really like going after Allied Bomber Formations (noteably B-17) and how risky business it was.

Recently I read "Fighter Aces of the Luftwaffe" and many of the Western Aces recall how young in-experienced pilots would attack a bomber, never to be heard or seen of again. Then even if they were lucky enough to survive the 1 or 2 passes at the bomber formations, they risked getting pounced by the allied fighter escorts either during their attack or on the return to their bases.

plumps_
12-28-2004, 12:49 AM
I think the main difference was the range of the escort fighters and bombers. During BOB the German fighters only had a few minutes over the target area before they had to return. So they didn't have many options and couldn't wait for favourable moments to start an attack.

The allied forces over Germany had long range fighters that could not only escort the bombers but also control the Luftwaffe bases to prevent the effective deployment of the German forces.

It also has to do with numbers.

Abbuzze
12-28-2004, 05:45 AM
Later in the war the planes were faster making it harder to bail at this speeds.
And also it seems that some Pilots didn´t took it for a warcrime to shot a bailing or baild Pilots anymore- At least you can read it in some books written by them.

Stoyanov
12-28-2004, 06:12 AM
http://www.vnvv.com/pics/bail_109.jpg

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
12-28-2004, 06:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbuzze:
Later in the war the planes were faster making it harder to bail at this speeds.
And also it seems that some Pilots didn´t took it for a warcrime to shot a bailing or baild Pilots anymore- At least you can read it in some books written by them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

strafing chutes is a big point.

MrOblongo
12-28-2004, 07:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbuzze:
Later in the war the planes were faster making it harder to bail at this speeds.
And also it seems that some Pilots didn´t took it for a warcrime to shot a bailing or baild Pilots anymore- At least you can read it in some books written by them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Actually US pilots often shot enemy pilots after they crash landed.
Here u can find some good stories about 1944/45 battles. http://www.cebudanderson.com/262.htm

"Both P-51 pilots then strafed the pilot on the ground, but his fate is uncertain. Zach remembers that he missed, but thinks Karger may have hit him."

Platypus_1.JaVA
12-28-2004, 07:06 AM
Apart from the bailing at XXXXX altitude, Germany couldn't find any more people that could be thaught to fly fighter aircraft. Germany was exhasuted in terms of manpower, towards the end of the war.

Skalgrim
12-28-2004, 09:03 AM
thinks reach was weak points, like some other think,

it was too realy even fight, brits vs germany,

11 to 10

It was too luck that g¶ring, was so stupit and has not further bombing airbase.



but it was too good that brits have won, i like more freedom