Bomber Gunners Stopping German Fighters with Headlight Tracer Bullets - Did they Work or all Hype?
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 07. 2024
- WWII Bomber gunner adopted special M21 headlight tracers to dissuade German aircraft from attacking the formations.
M21 headlight tracers were developed from standard M1 tracers, except they were filled with 100% igniter compound instead of tracer and igniter compound. They were adopted at the end of 1944. M21 tracers were 3 times brighter than standard M1 tracers. Field reports indicate they caused German bomber interceptors to brake away sooner, leading to less aggressive attacks. Post war surveys and interviews indicate some German pilots welcomed tracers as they shown the formation less defended soft spots and were not as frighted as bomber gunners implied. They were not used after WWII, due to these reasons. - Věda a technologie
The British reportedly thought a lack of tracer ammo for the HMS Prince of Wales’ AA guns led to not deterring the Japanese torpedo bombers which sunk her in December 1941.
Well nothing could deter Japanese pilots
@@VictoriaCortes1717 Not at all true. I just hear memories of Japanese fighter pilot who then became kamikaze. And he did on his own words been braking attack to avoid B-29 fire when hit on him - I mean more then once.
Royal Navy doctrine was largely based around their fire control systems. They used HCAS for large caliber guns and a separate system for the pom-pom's. Despite it being constantly updated the version of HCAS they went to war with was a bit slow for modern aircraft, therefore it had a addon system called the Auto Barrage Unit. AA doctrine was based on setting up a barrage patterns to deter or throw of the aim of attacking airplanes. The older versions of the pom-pom directors had been kind of abysmal so those too had always been mainly used in a deterring role.
I point this out to say that Royal Navy early war AA doctrine was based entirely around deterrence. A lack of tracer ammo would have been a huge problem. Although I seem to remember that this lack stemmed from the fact that the pom-pom ammunition aboard was compromised by the tropical climate.
On the other hand any reporting on the incident would be done from the mindset of:
1. Was doctrine followed?
2. Did anything prohibit doctrine to be followed?
3. Did doctrine hold up?
So given that doctrine is considered to be something that has been developed and tested over a long period of time, the blame will more easily sought at points 1 or 2.
It was The Prince of Wales lack of ability to hit the broadside of a barn that led to her sinking
I think that sounds plausible and not through disrespect to the Japanese pilots. You see a bunch of heavy metal coming to you, it makes you break off...
My grandfather used to tell me stories about being a top turret Gunner....he said it was hard to down a German fighter unless it was head on to his turret....
I love how you present facts AND THE SOURCES FOR YOUR FACTS to back them up. Hopefully, this will become a widespread trend in videos. Thank you again for the very enjoyable content.
I know. I only wish these videos weren't limited to bombers and covered more areas of ww2 because they're so well done. I love the primary sources.
These tracers were loaded '1 in 5' (meaning one tracer every 5 shells) - the UK experimented with '1 in 3' giving the impression that more shells were hitting the German aircraft! This had the effect of being a lot more 'scary' to attackers and was very effective. My Grandfather served as an amourer in WW2 and made up these belts. They also tried this in fighters that used the larger cannons to great effect.
Interesting. I had never heard of *Headlight Tracers.*
I'm not sure the German pilots' claim that they welcomed the tracers negates the gunners statement that the tracers made Germans break off their attach early.
The Germans may have broken the attack from the area where they saw the traces in order to attack a different area. The result would be an appearance that the tracers "scared off" the attack.
I've also yet to read a German fighter pilot's memoir where he admitted to being anything less than a born Sky Knight, anyway. "Tracers! Fah! A sign of weakness I shall immediately exploit!"
In contrast, I've read multiple reports from British, English and Russians who said that you could learn to manage the fear caused by heavy tracer fire, but you never fully "got over" the distraction it induced. You learned to do your job despite it. Having actually been to war, this seems much, much closer to the truth for the average pilot.
@@gastonbell108 Yeah, depended on the mission: your average moderately to poorly trained replacement pilot, was definitely put off by tracers (hell, Werner Schroer, the highest scoring Western Desert JG27 ace who survived the war, was interviewed on World At War; he'd tell his 'kids' to just close your eyes in ignore the tracers) but Sturmstaffel or Sturmgruppe pilots would tough it out because of the upgraded armor their aircraft had)
It sounds to me that the German pilot was probably told in a briefing that he shouldn't concern himself with tracers. And that he should actually be glad they are being fired at him, because they show where the gunfire isn't coming from .
That sounds like nonsense if you think about it twice.
But he wanted to give the "correct" answer to the interviewer.
I've spoken to a Vietnam vet who was an infantryman, and he took fire from both enemy and friendly tracers. He indicated that it concerned him greatly, and prevented his movement.
@@johnharker7194 I was an infantryman who served overseas. I can confirm that tracers are scary. It means there's an MG targeting you, which is bad and needs to be dealt with. They are also extremely useful for pinpointing where the enemy MG is (usually ending in his demise from artillery blowing the building up). You have to be a cold hard combat killer to not get puckered from a big splatter of green tracers going ZEEP about 3 feet over your head before you have time to even drop on your face. It's a reminder you'd be dead before you even heard the shots. Only a fool wouldn't be rattled by that the first few hundred times...
The book "JG26 Top Guns Of The Luftwaffe" talks about the intro of the 8th Airforce and B-17's/B-24s in late 1942. The German fighters weren't very fast above 25k feet where the Americans like to fly. Rear attacks were the only approved attack and resulted in slowly closing with the bomber at that altitude. They were used to ineffective .303 defensive fire. Large .50 cal high velocity, long range, rounds resulted in the Germans breaking off before they were in effective range of their own low velocity canons. They were un-nerved by their cockpits swimming in fireflies (tracers) for a long period of time before getting in range of their own guns.
Later head on attack methods helped that issue. Also, the B-17 seemed so large, vs the British Blenheim, the Germans thought they were in canon range long before they were close enough.
I bet that tracers would scare inexperienced pilots, but not experienced ones. Since a lot of Luftwaffe pilots were inexperienced mid 44 onwards, the tracers might have helped overall.
Tracers are bullets. “I’m not afraid of bullets” said no one ever.
I'm sure plenty of people have said that, but only before getting shot at
@3tvet-398 but they're not the same as armor piercing or explosive bullets. To our fleshy meat sacks, any bullet will mess us up. But to a metal aircraft, small caliber bullets designed to be visible with little stopping power isn't going to do much damage. Hell regular .50 cal bullets struggled to bring down planes.
There's also a big difference in trajectory due to the mass of th tracer vs the other rounds in the belt.
@@3tvetExperienced pilots would know that simply seeing rounds flying near you don't mean its effective fire. Inexperienced pilots would panic seeing tracers close by even if the fire was ineffective. Same logic with suppressive fires. Everyone can be suppressed but not equally so.
Another brillant presentation. Thanks.
Under rated channel for sure
I'm consistently impressed by the use of original source documentation and manuals in this channels videos. Excellent work!
I'm guessing the deterring effect had a lot to do with the experience level of the enemy pilot. That could explain the difference in perceived behavior that the gunners noted as compared to the interviews after the war.
Do you perhaps have an idea if these interviews were conducted broadly with all enemy pilots or where they done with selected pilots, which would probably favor the more outstanding ones? Inexperienced pilots also had a lot lower chances of survival, this may have skewed the reports made after the war somewhat.
Great video by the way. I love the insight that enemy pilots could have used tracer to identify weak points in the formations.
Skill has nothing to do with it unless you’re an idiot you wouldn’t go on a attack of an aware target because continuing their attack makes it very easy for the gunner to lead on them predictively
@@chaosinsurgency6636 You are completely wrong.
It's been thoroughly documented from pilots on every side, Germans, British, Japanese, Italian, American that the more experienced the pilot, the less they were intimidated by tracer rounds fired at them, (by an "aware target") and the more likely the were to press their attacks despite the this.
This goes for attacks against formations of aircraft and warships.
There is more than enough evidence that it's experience that's the differentiator and not fanaticism or courage (although they are a factor of course).
Your idea that it's "very easy for the gunner to lead on them predictively" is just utter tripe. Both participants are moving at speed, at different vectors and at different heights.
Thank you for another very well researched presentation.
Keep up the excellent quality. Your work is appreciated.
Well said and I agree.
☮
I once talked to some fellow Marines who served in WW II.They said one thing they did was to remove tracers from their MG belts. The Japanese tried to provoke MG positions to fire against multiple probes. That id'ed the gun position for a later, stronger more coordinated attack.
That's the reason M25 tracers were developed. It was also a 30-06 round but with an orange rather than red painted tip. It was designed to ignite its tracer element 25 yards away from the gun that fired it. That made determining the location of the gun nearly impossible in the dark.
One of Murphy's Laws of Combat - "Remember, tracers point both ways."
Post war surveys were of surviving pilots - who were either the best and most experienced and therefore least likely to be frightened - or were the ones most easily frightened and who broke off their attacks early enough to survive (and had a convenient excuse).
Classic Survivor Bias, much like bomber damage surveys.
Excellent point. I remember as a child first getting into military history memoirs, and thinking to myself "Boy, those Germans are never afraid of anything, are they? The Americans and British seem so timid and introspective by comparison."
Of course they did - the Americans didn't have nearly as much to gain. Galland & Steinhoff survived the war and thus got to paint their entire unit's portrait singlehandedly. Not losers, not Nazis, Sky Knights who lost because of their crappy leadership.
As always, love the documentation you provide!
Once again, you've set the standard for documentary videos. THANK YOU!
@7:10 - the report from the German gunner makes a lot of sense to me.
When doing multiplayer flight simulation, tracer fire makes it very easy to coordinate wolf-pack style attacks where the flight circles above a target, out of range of defensive guns, while one flight member runs in as if to engage, but breaks off prematurely as soon as tracer fire begins. The rest of the flight can then use this tracer fire to see where the defenders are located and where they have their guns trained, and attack from the opposite side.
If German fighters were using a similar tactic against bomber formations, this would also explain why Allied gunners believed tracers to be effective in "scaring away" German fighters: The gunners are looking at the plane running in, acting as bait. Without knowing that he already plans to turn away as soon as he has drawn fire, it would be easy for the gunners to believe they had scared him off with their tracers, when in reality he's already accomplished his task just by baiting the shot so that his wingmen can close safely to make their own effective attacks.
Stick to your games
@@williamodonnell7053 lawl
I know some people who have been shot at overseas that really disagree with this. Being shot at is fucking terrifying. Baiting fire from a bomber also would not be that effective since they have multiple machineguns facing in different directions. you are only going to draw one or two guns on to you and the other fighters you are trying to cover for are still going to get lit up by all the rest of the guns.
@@TiocfaidhArLa34 okay
You can not hide the gunners in a bomber formation, you know the bombers have guns and you know where the guns is in the bombers... Doing mock attack attracting fire from the bombers to find the gunners by their trasers make absolutely 0 sense. You are confusing MG fire with traces at the ground there these tactics is effective at finding hidden MG positions.
I don’t think it is a matter of experienced or inexperienced German pilots. As one who has taken incoming tracer fire (on the ground), I can honestly say it is one thing when you hear bullets cracking past you, but it is completely different when you can’t see the damned things seemingly coming right at you. You tend to get a lower and a little less brave when you can see death coming at you. 🎉
Excellent presentation, thank you.
Whenever I watch a video from a channel I haven't seen before, I'm always ready to instantly click away if I hear one of those AI voiceovers. Especially on history or aviation videos it's nice to hear an actual person and real research. Not some computer voice reading a Wikipedia article. Keep up the good work!
I learn something every time I watch one of your videos.
Thank you for another great video!
Great stuff!
Very interesting and thorough examination of the topic ….bravo
Excellent research.
Thanks once again for your research
Interesting! Long ago, I read in a WWII history that German pilots described head-on attacks as terrifying as they flew through a 'storm of tracer fire'.
The custom of placing straight tracer load at the last dozen of rounds in the belts to indicate out of ammo in fighter planes was also a double edge sword informing both friend and foe that you’re out of ammo and flying a sitting duck.
That's making a lot of assumptions for the enemy pilot who happened to notice some extra tacer rounds whizzing by. Pretty easy for an armorer to alternate groups of tracer to suit a pilot preference. The enemy pilot dodging bullets might be too preoccupied with keeping their plane moving and not stalling to process some extra tracers going by.
I really enjoyed the dogfight in the movie "Dunkirk" as they showed the rather crude nature of air combat in 1940. Those pilots were juggling a lot of controls, switches, and info in their heads during a dogfight. It was a massive cognitive load that only got easier to handle through combat experience.
Great video...👍
I find most of the videos and content that you're putting out to be quite interesting. If you're ever looking for more topics, could you consider expanding to do a series on medium and light US bombers?
Awesome as always. I could see German fighter pilots, in post war interviews, understating their fear of tracers. I can also see bomber gunners feeling more in control, and therefore being biased towards, headlight tracers. Overall, my guess is that you and AAF are right. Headlight tracers weren't that effective.
Many thanks.
Basically, like so many other fear/deterrance effects, it works best against lower experience opponants versus hugher experience ones who realize being able to see the tracers doesnt actually increase the risk to the attacker.
The quality of your content and research is wasted on Masters of the Air (though I learned a lot!) I really enjoyed your return to format, thank you.
With every combatant moving at high speed and in three dimensions, I would think having tracers flying around from multiple aircraft would make identifying a target more difficult.
A well research video with references.
excellent
I never thought about a tracer being only visible from the back and not the front in some rounds
Fascinating. Just when you think you've heard it all.
The differing accounts from each side could be a lesson in copium.
An invisible big stick is only scary when you get hit by it.
A visible big stick is scary from a distance.
Tracers arc up and look like they are comming right at you... even tho they miss you by a lot...but you know for every one you see , there are 4 you don't.
There were also M63 'sunburst' shells that were actually 25 times brighter than standard tracer rounds. They were designed to temporarily blind German fighter pilots during their attack runs.
They were tried on one mission over Germany.
Unfortunately, although they did blind the German fighter pilots. They also blinded the American crews in their bombers - particularly the pilots. The result was numerous incidents of B-17's flying into each other.
The shells were quietly removed from combat after this.
😉
Seriously, thanks for this video.
☮
Sounds about right. Improvement comes at great costs.
Do you have any sources on that? It sounds pretty interesting and I can't find anything on it
Yeah, no, you made that up. No such round ever existed and it's not possible for a round to be that bright.
@@pyrelogic9876 No, he made the whole thing up.
lol, misinformation on the internet?
What really worked was the M21b MFer round which not only lit up brightly, but swore loudly at the attacking fighter in his native language!
Ex Army here. Machine gun tracers are pretty impressive - problem is they draw a direct line to the machine gun. I don't know what the modern consensus is now but we only used them on the range.
Well, I wouldn't think it was an issue when fired from the bombers
and can start range/grass fires (fond M-60 gunner memory, we put it out) ... but my guess is grass fires aren't a worry at 25,000 feet.
Awesome video and comments as always!
@@johnlovett8341 fellow Australian by any chance?
Interesting 👍
Interesting. It makes one wonder how much of the post war interviews were influenced by fighter pilot bravura. Were they being totally honest? Also, the psychological effects on the bomber gunners must have played a role. Were the gunners more confident as a result of the headlight tracers, and therefore more likely to score hits?
Quarter pounder bullets! Thanks for the info!
Interesting
It sounds like effectiveness was determined by the impressions from aircrews. That doesn't seem like a very objective metric.
How did losses to bombers compare on missions using tracers as opposed to those not using tracers?
Yes there were captured German pilots that said that they were not afraid of the tracers. Yet they admit that the presence of the tracers change their behavior. The point of putting the tracers in the mix was two force a change to the attackers behavior. Whether the pilot was afraid or not is not relevant. imagine the difficulty of tracking whether an incoming aircraft should be led with the bullets or followed with them depending on their flight path in relation to the bombers'. It's nice that you presented the Intel report but the Intel report is merely the a single data point and does not represent real factual data.
If you're looking down from your bf110 and see tracers, maybe it might help guide you a bit, but if the tracers are flying all around your windshield, im sure it's scarier.
From the post war interviews i think that the more experienced Germans would begin by attacking from the front of the formation. Then evaluate the defense by the tracers before committing to their next attack
During the Vietnam War, millions of tracer bullets and shells have been fired against US Air Force aircraft and helicopters from ground positions. It is hard to find a source when this did actually stop an attack. The decision during WWII to stop using such tracer bullets was correct.
Makes sense. Your not going to intentionally fly into dangers path.
thats kinda sounds like the exact opposite of what the germans did. they made special rounds for the 30mm cannons that were less bright to not blind the fighter pilot at night
How much of this was due to the Luftwaffe being pretty much tapped out and depleted (in terms of skilled pilots) by mid-1944?
yeah but what's that in metric?
You never know, it could’ve been that one round position the tracer was taking up which could be the one to take down an enemy aircraft.
You should know that a tracer round is still a bullet.
I wonder what Allied fighter pilots thought about defensive "tracers" ???
Cool video/study/topic
Can you TRULY take the word of a captured enemy on the effect of tracers on pilot psychology?
How effective were the 50.cal guns against German planes?
"Break" away.
👍👍👍👍👍
👍
my guess is that tracers were probably good overall for the united states in ww2 they were probably good vs inexperienced pilots but experienced enemy pilots could take advantage of it also experienced gunners probably lost less as id guess they are less likely to aim based on there tracers
Well since these tracers are three times brighter I would certainly be more careful if I were a German pilot.
For the algorithm.
Most German pilots in late 1944 were poorly trained and inexperienced, i wonder if that was taken into consideration
Well it most likely explained why they lacked proper discipline and would break off early because they’d get skittish
Regarding the tracers confusing gunners into aiming badly ... I wonder if anyone ever tried a headlight-only round, so gunners would not be misled by the tracer. I don't know exactly how tracers and headlight ammo work; do bits of flaming headlight material fall off and leave a tracer trail?
It's a flammable filler that burns inside the bullet, it works like an indicator light so you can "trace" the bullets path. It's not meant to fall out or leave a trail.
No just as a regular tracer the material burns from inside the round. Only the M21 is burning brighter so seems larger and attracts more attention. The Russians did a variation on this theme post war by making every round a tracer on the zsu-23/4. 3 HE x 1 AP all tracers.
Sorry for not being clear. I understand the tracer material burns, but I thought there was a small hole in the back to show the light, and that the headlight tracer added a hole in the tip.
Does the burning tracer actually leave a trail of burnt material behind it, so it can be seen from any direction? That may be where my confusion comes from.
If the only effect of the Headlight Tracer was to make crews more comfortable - then it was worthwhile to provide them…..
Ya early viewer!!
What cracks me up is that the range of the .50 Browning is less than 3x what the box says is the deadly range of .22lr…
👍
I think a 100% tracer loadout would have been best to defend the bombers.
Have to point out, after exposure to a lot of German biography's from WWII, they might be lying about liking tracers rather than being scared of them.
They lied about enough other things, and it is strange how none ever had any Nazi Party affiliation, or were straight out out fought in a battle. Then there is the whole "we would have won except for that Mad Man Hitler" meme, for which there is a reason.
👍
Wasn't the main purpose of tracers to "trace" the aim of the gunner and aid his accuracy? I thought that was the point of tracers.
It generally causes the gunner to not lead their shots enough, when aiming at an incoming aircraft, if they solely rely on tracers for aiming.
It’s probably is more helpful for fixed guns in fighters, especially to get a feel for the ballistics.
Trouble was the ‘leading’. The attack curve meant the fighter would be closer to the bomber’s tail when the bullets arrived at the fighter’s distance out. The bombers speed also carried the shot forward against a static point in space. The gunners were trained to anticipate the fighter apparently creeping in towards the tail but when hosing tracer tracks they always visually leaded towards the wing tip/nose of the bomber.
Yes, and it works just fine when firing from a stationary position. Not when firing from a fast moving platform and at an angle from its direction of travel, and being unable to spot shot impacts because you’re firing at an object in the air and not on the ground.
Gramp Roy was B 17's ETO maybe an EWO? Woody was ETO Africa, Med Battle of Britain as a Candian, ended a Yank with ever Allie in his mix and the french. I Asked Him, he told me "to my face" he hated night fights as he couls see just how close his enemies came to killing him about father''s day 83.
HE HATED TRACERS from the ground or air, he hated tracers at night.
If they had them back then, they could have shot lasers in their eyes.
That grains measurement for weight is so confusing.
15.4 grains in a gram.
comment
So much technical knowledge against 'Hollywood Nonsense ' 👍👍👍...if only the rest of Americans recognised their knowledge instead of ingesting the BS🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
German pilots were notoriously cocky and would never admit fear of an Allied weapon.
Tracer showed the Germans where the bombers were. And on board machine guns did little to protect the bombers. The lower turrets were removed from B17s very early in the war because they had such a small bomb load as it was. A Moscuito's bomb bay was almost as big. 80% of B17 and B24 bomber losses were by flak. 10% due to mechanical failure. 10% to getting lost. The Germans knew the formations were coming when they crossed the coast and their fighters flew up high to plot their height, course, speed. They put up a wall of radar guided flak that the bombers had to fly through and it was carnage.
Lower turret? The ball turret? Which was still present on the last model?
@@hom7998 and the addition of the chin turret on the G model.
@@C4L3D0N yea exactly lol they added another lower turret to the thing, why is bro saying they removed them early in the war
Ànd 80+10+10=100, so NO losses due to fighter interceptors? LOL OK man.....
@@terraflow__bryanburdo4547some people on the internet just have an opinion and make stuff up to make it sound academic and foolproof.
Him claiming statistically no bombers lost to fighters gave that away as just pulled out his azz