dahermit

US air crews reported that a common tactic for 109 pilots was to approach the bomber in an upside down attack as they came in from the rear of bomber. They would fire at the bomber and pass underneath. Although I think that I know why they did this, I would like someone who knows to confirm my hypothesis. Anyone know why they chose this method of attack?

USViking

It sounds especially hair-raising.

My guess is that flying upside down might give 2m or so more
clearance in passing under the target, since the Me 109's guns
were located on the wings, and the wings were attached to the
bottom of the fuselage.

What is your hypothesis?

__________________
From the fury of the Northmen, Good Lord deliver us.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

There were two main variants of the B-17, to my knowledge. The F version with no frontal chin turret, and the G version with the chin turret.

The weakness of the early variant was to attack it head on. German fighter pilots exploited this to great effect. This led to the addition of the chin turret.

I can't see what advantage flying upside down would offer the German fighter. MAYBE it would allow it to dive faster, since normally a rightside up wing creates lift, and conversely and upside down wing would reverse the principle having the lift reversed and thus pulling downwards faster (increasing the speed of the aircraft). Increasing the speed of the aircraft would make it a bit harder to hit, although it would also give less time to fire.

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

B-17F



B-17G




I got a question: why did the B-17 have that glass dome in the front? That's a pretty big vulnerability.

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

USViking

That's pretty good WEB. I doubt there are 1000 people in the
country having no USA(A)F service who know that.

I was thinking of my own guess, and it occurred to me that if
clearance under the target was the reason then interceptors
approaching head-on should also have adopted the upside down tactic.

Furthermore, flying over the target rightside up would provide
the same clearance as flying under upside down.

So I'm afraid I'm back at the drawing board.

__________________
From the fury of the Northmen, Good Lord deliver us.

dahermit

This is what I think too. Right side up and they would be fighting lift forces. Upside down, they would be able to dive away after shooting faster. The 109 pilots had a saying: "...attacking a B-17 was like trying to make love to a porkipine..."
This is just my hypothesis...I have never heard that this was the reason from pilot interviews though.

dahermit

For the Nordin bomb sight and visibility for the bomber to detect incoming fighters...he had to use the two .50 cals. on either side of the glass nose in the event of frontal attack.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

Well, I played this old game a lot: Allied General, and that kind of helped my WWII knowledge of different variants of aircraft. Also, I had a poster in my room of a B-17G and the chin turret was clearly visible. I think it also had a caption about that being a special upgrade to the B-17.

I also played a lot of Aces Over Europe, a PC game and I played as the Germans a lot (because you could get into an Me-262 and kick a lot of ass). I usually went for a head on pass on B-17 formations and used rockets.

Coming from behind usually lead to me getting shot up.

Well, I'm not pilot but I think that it might be a bad idea to flip over. I mean, if you are doing a head on pass, then you are closing at a really fast speed, perhaps ~500mph and you are able to aim less well if you are upside down. I would be concentrating on putting bullets into the cockpit, and not thinking about my getaway.

I guess we would have to do some research to see how German fighters attacked allied formations after the introduction of the B-17G. I'm guessing that the front is still the preferred option, since the Germans carried heavy cannons (20mm for Fw-190's and a 30mm for Me-109 and 4 30mm for the Me-262) and the front is more vulnerable than the rear.

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

dahermit

Although the German fighters did have a frontal attack method the inverted attacks I am referring to were from the rear of the bombers. As you noted, frontal attacks would have a combined speed way in excess of 500mph., while attacks from the rear would be MUCH slower in closing speed. Speed of the fighter minus the speed of the bomber.

dahermit

The glazed nose did not add to the vulnerability. The skin of the B-17 was no defense against flack or fighter projectiles...they went through the skin of a B-17 like a hot knife through butter according to the crewmen of the bombers.