It's one of those open questions that hard to cover all the ramifications accurately.
Dave Homewood wrote:
Would these aircraft have actually carried a bombload and gone all the way to the target? Or was it simply there for ECM duties? Did they have a reduced crew or less guns so more ECM equipment could be carried?
The 100 Group Forts didn't carry a bomb load, their job was ECM, and as they were sometimes electronically lit up like a Christmas tree and stoogeing on the edge of or in enemy territory it was certainly very dangerous work. Calling it 'simply there for ECM' I think gives away a preconception of relative importance and risk - saying that gives the impression it was some make-work second-rate effort: it wasn't.
Normally carried extra crew for the ECM tool management, them and the kit compensated for by not having a bombload.
Some RAF Lancasters also carried ABC, and an extra operator and flew in the bomber stream with a bombload. However that was only one (or part) of the counter-measures deployed.
As The Inspector's already said, much of the work was hush-hush at the time, and it's often forgotten now that they were what we'd now call 'beta testing' experimental kit in a rapidly evolving environment that was also a combat zone; so the efficacy (or not) of many of the tools was hard to be sure of; including tragic Bomber Command crew myths such as the "protection" they were getting from having a rear warning switched on, which actually the Germans used a tool to vector onto. 'Monica' and 'Flensberg'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_radarQuote:
Airborne Cigar (ABC)
This was only fitted to the Lancasters of 101 Squadron. It was three aerials, two sticking out of the top of the fuselage and one under the bomb aimer's position. These aircraft carried a German speaking crew member on board and were used to jam radio to German night fighters and feed false information on allied bomber positions to them. Due to the nature of the equipment, the enemy was able to track the aircraft and due to this, 101 suffered the highest casualty rate of any squadron. Fitted from about mid-1943, they remained until the end of the war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_LancasterImage here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lanca ... -_1944.jpgI don't believe the 100 Group Forts used Oboe as the Inspector says. That was a target marking device that required the aircraft to fly a measured arc on an electronic signal over the target - the Forts didn't do that, some Lancs and mainly Mosquitos did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oboe_%28navigation%29Quote:
And if this squadron did not actually partake in the dropping of bombs, did the RAF or any other air arm use the B-17 ever for night bombing? And was it a success in that role?
AFAIK, the B-17 was never used regularly for night-bombing in Europe. Some raids started or finished in the dark, or shuttled to (or from) N Africa in the dark.
The RAF's
first Forts were used as high altitude daylight bombers, but were rejected as "not combat ready" after a few experimental raids. Issues with fuel tank protection, and inadequate armour and guns - the RAF never really liked the flexibly mounted guns and preferred turrets in all positions. After that, I think the RAF had given the B-17 'dog a bad name'.
US B-17s undertook some night raids in the Pacific, I believe, but there wasn't a strategic level bombing campaign until the B-29 entered service. RAF and RAAF B-24s in the Pacific were used by night as well as by day.
Early B-17s didn't have ground mapping radar (H2S) some later (formation / unit lead) ones did, enabling better bombing through cloud.
As to refs, the RAF Bomber Command book from PSL is pretty good too on 100 Group; however I think some of the data is unlikely to ever be published.
HTH!
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
