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.

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.

keep ’em flying…..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k6GyXVDRGw&feature=related

Songspinners and their immortal “wing and a prayer”, set to a WWII aviation slide show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B69CquvLHgY&feature=related