soc.history.war.world-war-ii

On Mar 5, 11:10 am, Bombardier wrote:
> >> Well, greater speed complicates the interception problem for opposing
> > fighter-interceptors and reduces the exposure time to anti-aircraft fire.
>
> We had a top speed of about 300mph.But we had to cruise at 180mph to
> reach our targets. Even if we coild cruise at 250 IAS so what?. The
> fighter after us were working at well over 300 mph often near 400
> mph.,That increase in our speed wouldhardly effect the fighters
> attacking us or the tracking of the Germaan 88's.

But of course it would. It would affect the amount of time you were
exposed to flak or fighters.

Its a tortoise and hare scenario. Your bomber is already at speed and
altitude. The fighter often starts at zero airspeed and zero altitude
and has to accelerate and climb and find you. And then the fighter has
a certain amount of time to intercept and close before they have to go
back. The faster you go, the less time they can spend hunting you. Ask
yourself why was a U2 hard to shoot down when SAMs were twice as
fast.

Watched an interesting episode of dogfights couple of weeks back about
a B17 that was made into a recon aircraft. They upgunned it adding
some twins where single guns were and a nose gun for the copilot. It
was heavier than a standard B17, but lighter than one carrying a bomb
load. It had to fly unescorted and flew over a Japanese airfield. 17
Japanese fighters intercepted it. The gunners knocked some down, and
lost some of their number. In the end, the fighters failed to knock
down the plane and had to turn for home. The faster the B17 was the
less time the fighters had to knock it down.

As for AA, its simple math. Less time within the AA gun range, fewer
shells will be fired at you.

James