the bomber will always win

what if the idea of the heavily armed bomber really worked?
as in during world war 2, it was discovered that bombers had three times the kill ratio of fighters as fighters had for bombers?
what would air combat look like now?
 
The proper phrase is "the bomber will always get through". :p

I'm in the middle of reading a fascinating book on Bomber Command, so I'd love to answer your questions, but first I need some clarification. Are you asking how things would turn out if it worked for the British or how things would turn out if it worked for the Germans? Or both?
 
"the book that got away" in my case was a fascinating-looking book on the German effort to build a trans-Atlantic large bomber during WW2.

apparently, one of the bottlenecks was developing an engine that was strong and efficient enough to make it work.

(my spouse and I were at Barnes and Noble together, and she was about to go overboard with certain books, so to put power into my persuasion, I sacrificed my entire I-want pile to whittle down hers. sigh...)
 
what if the idea of the heavily armed bomber really worked? as in during world war 2, it was discovered that bombers had three times the kill ratio of fighters as fighters had for bombers? what would air combat look like now?

The real challenge is to make heavy bombers more effective in European theater to dispel notions that bomber offensives were a waste. Barring nuclear weapons I think there would have to be a faster introduction of precision and heavy attack weapons. Fritz-X. Hs-293 and their various counterparts along with British special bombs (Tall Boy, Spherical bombs etc.) didn't really require a dramatic technological advances or great budget.

This would require realistic exercises by, say, USAAC or British Bomber Command during early 1930's and innovative commanders who could see it would not be enough to improve aircraft and training but navigation and attack weapons too.
 
The problem Bomber Command had wasn't so much the number of planes or the weapons, it was finding the bloody target in pitch dark.
 
I know it was called “the bomber will always get through”….
on paper, it looked liked that, but in real life…..
ok, lets say that in the late 1930s, bomber designers in the U.K. design a superheavy bomber armed exclusively with 20 mm cannon……..
and that it could fend off any attack by fighters, and could outfly them at altitude as well….
 
You aren't going to be able to arm an aircraft enough to fend off the defenders. The weight of defensive weapons subtracts from the offensive weapons which is the purpose for the strategicc bomber

I think the best you can hope for is a window of oppurtunity where performance of the bombers exceeds that of the fighters. This happened for a short period in the 30s where streamlined monoplane bombers could outrun most fighters of the day. It happened again when the first swept wing bombers (such as the B-47) could give fighters a run for their money.

I believe the best oppurtunity you have would be the following

1) create an environment where multiple engined aircraft have an advantage in speed at altitude that single engine fighters can't effectively defend against bombers

2) Have the bombers equiped with effective electronic countermeasures ECM) so that the defenders cannot get enough warning to concentrate defenses well ahead of the bombers so that they can have the time to climb to altitude. Also the ECM would counter the deployment of guided weapons that would be able to defend against the large high altitude formations

These conditions were actually met in 1944-45 by the B-29s over Japan. The large high altitude daytime operations were not defeted by the Japanese defenders. They were defeated by the unique weather conditions. The very large winds at high altitudes (The Jet Stream) made it difficult to accurately bomb from high altitude.

This all assumes daytime 'precision' bombing operations. If you are willing to go to night operations a few different concerns apply

SInce it would be almost impossible to operate large formations you have to go to 'Bomber Stream' operations These were effectively used by the British from about mid '43 on and by 21st AF against the Japanese in '45. ECM becomes more important. Effective management of the target is also very important (Target marking, allowing for enemy deceptive markers, target creep, etc) Then there is managing the psychological issues. Justifying the huge casualties to the enemy civilian population. You need to dehumanize the enemy to the crews so that they do not dwell on it and in a democracy like Britian or the US to keep your civilian population fromreacting in horror when they find out what the results of such a campaign are.
 
inflated scores

Kill claims made by bomber crews must be taken with extreme caution. Wartime kill claims, when compared with actual recorded German losses were found to have been inflated by something like the fishermen rules from three men on a boat (add one and multiply by 10).
The fact that german fighters tended to dive away from the bombers after attacking might have made for some honest mistakes. US claims tend to be extremely inflated anyway.
The USAF tried to modify special "fighter killer" B17s, with extra ammo for the .50 and they were a failure. The French bombers of 1940 (LeO 451, Amiot) had dorsal 20mm guns for self defence.

The Tupolev SB was, for a short while, too fast to be intercepted by contemporary fighters. The B29 was extremely difficult for the japanese to intercept, but since it was a contemporary of the Me262 it was more a matter of were than when. In an alternate "USAF vs Luftwaffe 1945" the Ta152H high altitude fighter would have proved a lethal B29 killer
 
Incorrect kill claims because multiple turrets in multiple aircraft claim the same victory is a common event. A 3 to 1 kill ratio for a 4-engined bomber with 10 crew against single-engined fighters with 1 crew is still a losing ratio.

"The bomber will always get through" rates right up there with "The manned fighter is obsolete". The things people say in parliament.
 
the idea of "the bomber is allways winning" is a warwinner - for the other side

if we look to ww2 the brits tried it - but without the american daylight bombing their nightwork had been halted.

for the americans - if they had used B29 earlier the germans had produced the Wasserfall in masses... every action cause countermeasures... high level high precision bombing doen´t exist in the 40ties.

also, if the bomber is faster it is less easy to hit something...
if the americans for example concentrate in fast heavy bombers and - important - do not push the long range fighter - they will served their butt on a tablet... by german high altitude fighters, like the G10-Version of the Me109 or the Ta-152H...

no, this is a dead end for the bomber-fan-side
 
To answer the actual question...

If the bomber was somehow magically good at shooting down other aircraft - then logically they would be adapted to shoot down other bombers. You'd end up with a steampunk-esque vision of arial warface with winged destroyers and cruisers attacking each other at range and/or exchanging broadsides at wingtip distance. Bombing would likely become a secondary consideration...

You'd get, in other words, flying navies: the exact inspiration behind the heavily armed flying fortress concept.

That would last until fighters or missiles arrived that moved faster than the gunners could track. Which is what eventually doomed this concept in our world. :)

Interestingly, the Boeing Airborne Laser concept has created renewed interest in this concept. Give the ABL a second turret, an electric laser of equal power, and a bombay - and theoretically it could shoot down any fighter or missile before they could get within range. At least until ground based lasers started cutting the wings off....
 
for the americans - if they had used B29 earlier the germans had produced the Wasserfall in masses... every action cause countermeasures... high level high precision bombing doen´t exist in the 40ties.

Oh, that would be the Wunderwaffe Wasserfall that wasnt even working by 1945, despite it being a rather obviously needed weapon.
What magic to you invoke to get it working and into mass production so much earlier, then??
 
You make bombers tough enough and well armed enough to withstand fighters, and you're going to get hit with rockets, which will tear up anything short of a tank. Also, the Germans did occasionally equip their aircraft with 30mm cannons which were said to be very effective against bombers.
 
To everything, there is a season, and a counter-counter- measure to every counter-measure.

Duncan Sandys, after dabbling in anti-aircraft rockets during the Blitz, announced their primacy in 1957. He was premature. Unguided rockets are inaccurate, and guided rockets were judged developed long before the fact. They must be fired within their envelope and are subject to countermeasures.

Bomber intercepters were heavily armed and armored to fulfill their task. Their performance was sufficiently degraded to enable escort fighters to attrit their numbers adequately.

Mosquitos and Arado 234s were fast and hard to intercept, but could be intercepted. The XB-40, a modified B-17 with extra guns and armor, could be shot down. B-29s flying at max altitude could be shot down by Ki-44 and Ki-45 intercepters, enough to make aces. Fast, or heavly armed and armored, both were not invulnerable.

Winston Churchill believed there were ships which were torpedo-proof, and that battleships with deck armor were "proof against aerial attack". He was mistaken.

Battle cruisers and pocket battleships were supposed to out-shoot smaller ships and out-run larger ships, making them ideal. A mistaken concept.

Il2 Sturmoviks were made of armor and totally immune to small arms fire. 37,000 were built. The numbers built were for the purpose of replacing those which were destroyed. Tough, sure, but still not invulnerable.

The F-117 was invulnerable until it was no longer invulnerable. The B-2 may be invulnerable, but remains untested in a high-threat environment. Certainly, it's price tag should make it invulnerable.

War is heck.
 
Top