If that didn't work for the 109s, they'd do a head on attack. A head on attack made it very hard for the B17s to hit them, and the closing speed was so fast it would carry the 109s out of range quickly after the attack.
My father said that unlike the buffoonish German pilots portrayed in WW2 movies, the real ones were careful, professional, and deadly. You never wanted to let your guard down around them.
Never really meant? Some citations there would be nice.
US day bombers that were not protected by fighters often suffered heavy losses against the Luftwaffe. Which is why unescorted daylight bombing was suspended following the 25% casualty raid on Schweinfurt.
>They switched to shooting mostly tracer rounds. ..right. What I've read is that many units stopped using tracers altogether on pure fighters because their different ballistics at long range meant that they were not useful. The gas created when the base of the tracer burned diminished drag. (this has later been adopted for howitzer ammo, base bleed increases range by up to 30%)
You mean stopped using tracers against fighter aircraft, or stopped carrying them on fighters? The parent seems to be talking about ground AA gun crews using tracers -- presumably a lot of these would be firing at bombers?
Stopped putting tracers into fighter craft ammunition belts or magazines.
> The parent seems to be talking about ground AA gun crews using tracers -- presumably a lot of these would be firing at bombers?
I'm not aware of tracer ammo even existing for the big flak guns. This material implies there wasn't any.
http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/88mm-antiaircraft-gun/ammu...
One of the most interesting cold war AFVs was an M113 chassis with a cherry picker and 15 TOW missiles on it. Armor is nice, but a hill is even nicer.
The problem is that the US army is still equipping itself superbly to fight the Eastern Bloc in 1985.
Is this what you're talking about? http://russian-tanks.com/the-m901-armored-missile-vehicle.ph...
Interesting, never heard of that one! Any links by any chance? I would be curious to look at pictures :) (Edit: looks like another reply has a link!)
And IMO it makes perfect sense for the first priority to be always prepared for the toughest opponent: a TOW missile will destroy a pickup truck just fine, but it also forces the opponent to be much more careful with their tanks.
I have a relative who was in the mechanized infantry back in the early 1990s. From what he was able to share with me, the Bradley was an interesting vehicle with a lot of cool stuff but if my life was on the line, I'd prefer to be in an M1 Abrams.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkava#Specifications_of_mode...
There were some WWII 'gunship' style modifications of planes, but that was not that common.
For a more modern comparison, consider that the Bradley fighting vehicle carries anti tank missiles. Sending a group of Bradleys directly against tanks would be suicidal. The Bradley has aluminum for armor. A well trained set of tank crews operating even WWII vintage vehicles would decimate them. Instead, the misiles are there to deter tanks from engaging them. It also provides the crew with an enormous psychological benefit. That benefit is they at least have the benefit of being able to respond to an enemy tank with a potentially lethal weapons system. Ironically of course the TOW missiles on the Bradley destroyed more Iraqi tanks the M1 tank ever did in the Gulf war. But that is because Iraqi tank crews either had no experience or had armored vehicles in horrible condition.