Bomber vs Fighter kill ratio

It simply wasn’t possible, in my opinion, to build a bomber fast enough to avoid interception by fighters but that was still capable of carrying a significant bomb-load over a sufficient range.

Defensive armament shouldn’t be judged only by the number of enemy fighters shot-down, many bombers were no doubt saved by forcing enemy fighters to shoot from greater range, from less favourable positions and with less time.

As with many aspects of air-warfare what is important is what losses you are prepared to take not what losses you wish to inflict; this is true for fighters just as it is for bombers.

That seems like a very sound conclusion. I bet the defensive fire-zone was a place Luftwaffe pilots tried to spend as little time as possible.

However, if it had truely effective, the development of long range escort fighters might not have been such a priority. They were not assigned to confront the danger from flak.

It simply wasn’t possible, in my opinion, to build a bomber fast enough to avoid interception by fighters but that was still capable of carrying a significant bomb-load over a sufficient range.

Defensive armament shouldn’t be judged only by the number of enemy fighters shot-down, many bombers were no doubt saved by forcing enemy fighters to shoot from greater range, from less favourable positions and with less time.

As with many aspects of air-warfare what is important is what losses you are prepared to take not what losses you wish to inflict; this is true for fighters just as it is for bombers.

After reading the posts so far in this thread, I couldn’t help wondering if it would have been better to have faster bombers and no guns as I understand the Mosquito was in some varients.

By the way my uncle was a WAG on B24’s operating out of northern Australia and attacking Jap targets in Indonesia and New Guinea.

cheers

Attacking the massed formations of B-17/B-24’s wasn’t something the Luftwaffe pilots relished by any means, hence the adaption of the head-on attack and later the development of the Sturmbock versions of the Fw 190A.
One of the most telling indications is the words written by one of the Luftwaffe’s great Experten, Hans Phillipp. With 15 victories during the Battle of Britain, and almost 180 on the Eastern front, Philipp returned to the Western Front to take command of JG.1. In Oct 1943, with his total score now over 200, he wrote a letter to a former Eastern Front comrade, describing how tough the fighting was on the Western Front, in it he wrote,

“Against 20 Russians trying to shoot you down, or even 20 Spitfires, it can be exciting, even fun. But curve in towards 40 Fortresses and all your past sins flash before your eyes.”

Four days later, ‘Fips’ Philipp was dead, it’s believed, shot down by 56FG ace Robert Johnson shortly after shooting down his first and only 4-engined bomber.

I was under the assumption that flak was the biggest danger on any mission, be it night or day.

Bomber Command were under the same impression for most of the war, probably because most bombers that came home damaged were damaged by Flak…

…of course the bombers ‘damaged’ by fighters usually didn’t get home.

I seem to remember that the Germans calculated that it took 20 hits with 20mm shells to bring a B-17 down from the rear.

The B-17 was a very tough aircraft and could take a lot of punishment but it could also be brought down by a single 20mm round if it was unlucky; the analysis of the number of rounds is difficult to accept, where they hit is far more important.

Attacking a formation of B-17 bombers from the rear was extremely unwise; there were a lot of guns to face, a fighter offers a zero-deflection target and a relatively low closing speed means the fighter is a target for a relatively long time.

One common way for a B-17 to be lost was for a single engine to be damaged; on three engines it would be very difficult to stay in formation and any straggler was ‘easy meat’ for fighters.

Interesting numbers thanks.

I was under the assumption that flak was the biggest danger on any mission, be it night or day.

The B-17 would also take a considerable amount of damage, in particular from the rear. I seem to remember that the Germans calculated that it took 20 hits with 20mm shells to bring a B-17 down from the rear. Consider that it was estimated that an avarage pilot would hit the target with 2% of his rounds. 2000 rounds to bring a B-17 down from that angle. From the front, where the B-17 had much less defensive firepower and was more vulnerable, it was considered that it took only 4 or 5 well placed shells.

I guess the loss ration would also depend on the period of the war. As the USAAF gained expirence and adapted their aircraft/tactics, the Luftwaffe lost their ace pilots.

…who would be in the best position – the bomber, or the fighter?

Fighter…..no question about it.

During the Schweifurt-Ragensburd mission on 17 August 1943 the B-17 gunners shot-down about 18 single-engined Luftwaffe fighters but the gunners made claims (which were accepted at the time) for 288 definitely destroyed, 81 probably destroyed and 103 damaged, and these are only the claims made by gunners that returned from the mission.

The escorting P-47 fighters shot-down about 13 single-engined fighters compared to the 20 claims made at the time.

Against this 60 B-17 bombers were lost; about 50 of them to enemy fighter attack.

I should point out that I have the greatest respect for the B-17 gunners, they were brave men and their claims were made in good faith but the whole object of the B-17 formation was to bring as many defensive guns to bear on attacking fighters as possible hence the difference between claims and actual aircraft shot-down.