Air attacks on Railways

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Air attacks on Railways

#1

Post by BDV » 04 Jul 2014, 17:56

Hello,

I was wondering whether attack by cannon fire (e.g. 20 mm Oerlikon) would have been more effective than bombs as means to damage railways, in the WWII timeframe.

My thinking is that a rail, whether blasted by a 50 kg bomb or pierced by a 250 g 20 mm cannon shell, will need changing all the same.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10055
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: Air attacks on Railways

#2

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 06 Jul 2014, 06:03

Hypothetically, yes. My first question is; which type of damage can be repaired faster.


gurn
Member
Posts: 102
Joined: 24 Jan 2010, 19:46

Re: Air attacks on Railways

#3

Post by gurn » 06 Jul 2014, 08:45

I'd think that a bomb would take out the rail and some crossties and a bit of dirt, while perhaps the cannon only gets the rail and crossties.?

User avatar
Fliegende Untertasse
Member
Posts: 180
Joined: 23 Oct 2005, 21:07
Location: Häme

Re: Air attacks on Railways

#4

Post by Fliegende Untertasse » 06 Jul 2014, 12:53

Rails are thin targets. Hitting them with gun is pure luck. And a single 20mm hole will not be even noticed from a train. There were small gaps between rails at butt joints anyway.
Damage assesment fron air would be impossible too.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10055
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: Air attacks on Railways

#5

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 06 Jul 2014, 14:29

My father who was a ordnance officer in a B26 bomber group, left me a few remarks on the subject of interdicting railways. His bomber group was at the center of the anti transportation campaign over France in 1943-44. Since then I've scrounged a bit of reading on the same subject. A few of the things I've teased out of this material:

1. Repairng damage to railroad tracks was relatively easy. Both the tracks and bed could be restored to traffic in a day or two by relatively unprepared maintinace crews. When the Germans realized their enemy was targeting the tracks they organized rapid response repairs and could have traffic restored in less than a day. This included high density locations like marshalling yards where the train cars were sorted & stored. The problem with bombing tracks is that relatively few bombs hit close enough to crater the bed & break the rails. A 500 kg bomb must his within a few meters to damage the bed & rails. Even with the best aircrew of any airforce such precision is problematic.

2. Strafing engines was productive. Either damage from cannon projectiles or a large enough mass of MG rounds would put the locomotive down for a day or two of maintinace. There was also the problem of clearing the track of a stationary train. In theory dropping bombs on a train could create a spectacular train wreck, but my father indicated that was only practical in Marshalling yards with stationary targets.

3. Repair shops were initially lucrative targets, then they were rapidly dispersed, and the sites turned into FLAK traps.

4. Bridges were the most difficult targets, but also the most productive when actually destroyed. It took weeks to months to repair a collapsed span. If the pier was destroyed the bridge might not be repaired at all. Dropping a bridge span required a minimum of a 250 kg bomb hitting a specific point on the bridge, or better a 500kg. Simply bouncing a few off the pavement or guard rails, or churning the mud around the piers did little or nothing. Larger bombs could do damage better, but even with a extremely tight impact patterns volume was required to get the necessary hits with level bombers.

5. Single engine bombers using dive techniques had a higher proportion of critical hits. The down side was higher losses from the low altitude anti air weapons, and damage from fragments of the bombs. The twin engined bombers had the same problem. Low altitude attacks had better results, and larger losses from the small caliber AA weapons.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”