Lots of elements to an interesting question.
The short answer is 'no'!
Anecdotal 'toughness' of aircraft isn't a reliable measure, and the night attacks on bombers were completely different to the day (heavier armed twins, for the most part, with lined-up 'slow' attacks, rather than formation high speed slashing attacks by less heavily armed longer range-firing single seaters in daylight). The Night Fighter Luftwaffe would've had the same effect on any other multi-engine type; whatever the armament (with one exception) as they aimed to get in close and hit hard at night, and often were able to do so; whereas in daylight they had to stand off. It wasn't the number or calibre of the guns that was decisive, it was how early the bomber crew (gunners) could spot the attacking fighter at night that counted.
The exception would be the excellent Sperry Ball turret, which could easily have been fitted to the RAF's heavies and would've provided observation in a quadrant that the RAF didn't realise was crucial. The RAF's early ventral turrets were all dogs, and were ditched, later replaced by H2S scanners.
Some items-
- The RAF
did the (early) B-17 in daylight, and it failed, and used them at night (100 Group Special Ops) but decided it was an inadequate
bomber.
- They also used the B-24, and I presume they didn't want it for night bombing because it was used in less primary roles; the Far East and Coastal Command - in daylight for the most part.
- The Stirling was the only RAF heavy with a two pilot crew; the Lanc and Halifax were one pilot aircraft. Think about the relative potential effects. The Stirling's weakness wasn't that it wasn't tough, but that it had an inadequate ceiling, so suffered a greater proportion of the attacks and flack. Of the five types, the Stirling was by far the most manoeuvrable.
For John B-
- The RAF did NOT fly 'loose formation' at night, but flew in 'the bomber stream' which was like a more packed version of the modern airline corridor, with the objective of enough bombers overwhelming the defences and the majority getting through unharmed. With the use of Window initially, that worked very well, and would not be a daytime option.
- The RAF tried multi-turret day bombing in 1939-40, and switched to night because the day campaign with the .303 armed turrets was simply not sustainable, as had been thought by bomber-advocates pre-war. The USAAF persisted and made it work, to a degree.
The question presumes that one (the US day bomber raids) was 'better' or more efficient or effective than the other (the RAF's night campaign).
Or that some (our) aircraft were tougher than theirs. I'm not sure that these presumptions can be proven beyond a national bias. The only concrete example of significant design weakness was the Liberator's ditching and other vulnerabilities, and the Stirling's over-complex and weak undercarriage.
The 24 hour campaign had a major effect on the Axis ability to wage war; however it was an expensive way of doing so, and the bomber barons objective was a morale collapse of the Axis and that they would sue for peace. (Certainly that was the pre-US entry Allied doctrine.) That didn't happen (which we know with hindsight, but we must remember that they were expecting it to happen 'tomorrow' up until mid-'45) and on that level the campaign was a failure. For comparison, the USAAF's
night firebombing campaigned also heavily affected the Japanese ability to wage war, but was very expensive in production, cash, training and infrastructure and lives, also also was not itself the thing that made the Japanese sue for peace.
Yes, interesting question....
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
