B-17 Replacements

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

B-17 Replacements

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> B-17 Replacements

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

B-17 Replacements - 6/5/2002 7:33:08 AM

Jagger2002

Posts: 674
Joined: 5/20/2002
Status: offline

I noticed in OP MO that the B-17 replacement rate is zero. I know they are hard to knock down but I do lose one from time to time.

Is the zero replacement rate correct or does it change further on in the scenario?

Post #: 1

- 6/5/2002 8:07:07 AM

von Murrin

Posts: 1760
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: That from which there is no escape.
Status: offline

What month? I'm in Oct '42 right now and I get 7 p/month.

_____________________________

I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!

(in reply to Jagger2002)

Post #: 2

- 6/5/2002 8:15:28 AM

Jagger2002

Posts: 674
Joined: 5/20/2002
Status: offline

May 42. Sounds like the aircraft replacement schedule changes as time goes by...

(in reply to Jagger2002)

Post #: 3

- 6/5/2002 8:27:15 AM

worr

Posts: 901
Joined: 2/7/2001
Status: offline

Aircraft production was pouring into Europe in 1942. When the 8th USAAF in England was receiving B17Fs the B17E (cast off) was going to the PTO. Not until late 43 did things start turning around...especially with regard to the P38 lightening. They started getting first dibs on them in the PTO over the ETO...was North Africa was settled.

That being said....it still seems we lack the lightenings that were historically present in numbers. The B17s were certainly sparse. And the B24 because of its greater range was given preference.

Worr, out

(in reply to Jagger2002)

Post #: 4

- 6/5/2002 8:36:19 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

According to one old source i have on hand, up till Aug 42 the only B-17's in the Pacific were B-17D's, deployed prewar to Hawaii and Clark field in the Philippines

No replacements (B17E's) were made available till late summer 42 given the priority mentioned for the 8th air force.

By 43, B-24's started flowing in as their immense range made them ideal for the Pacific, particularily in ASW ops as in the Atlantic theater.

speaking of the big bombers......given the 17's marginal low altitude preformance......i'm wondering if the big birds (B-24 included) shouldn't recieve a survial penalty when employed at such low altitudes (6,000 feet or less)

I've noticed a few complaints that these level bombers are able to inflict alot more damage via traditional level bomber tactics (not skip bombing) than is probably realistic, mainly because they are employed at such low altiudes. (also, on a more minor note...level bombing at such low altitudes would highly compromise the AP ability of the bombs too.

Skip bombing of course is a different story but that is a field more suited to the mediums such as the B-26 and 25 which were far more maneuverable than the big lumbering four engine giants.

(in reply to Jagger2002)

Post #: 5

- 6/5/2002 1:27:21 PM

von Murrin

Posts: 1760
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: That from which there is no escape.
Status: offline

If you send the big boys in really low, you'll suffer quite a bit more losses than normal. If you do it too much, you won't have any 17's or 24's left, so I don't think a penalty is needed.

Personally, I send them out airfield killing at 15,000 to 20,000 feet. At that height, the flak and CAP hardly touch them, and they still rip up the facilities.

_____________________________

I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!

(in reply to Jagger2002)

Post #: 6

- 6/5/2002 10:06:02 PM

Sonny

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline

This brings up a question. Why do Zeros attack my B-17s flying at 35K feet when the Zero ceiling is 32.8K (or some such number)? They don't do it every time but quite a few times they have knocked down one or two.:confused:

(in reply to Jagger2002)

Post #: 7

- 6/5/2002 11:49:33 PM

von Murrin

Posts: 1760
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: That from which there is no escape.
Status: offline

Haven't seen that happen. It also might depend on what type of Zero you're running into, methinks.

_____________________________

I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!

(in reply to Jagger2002)

Post #: 8

- 6/6/2002 1:30:53 AM

Peeking Duck?

Posts: 96
Joined: 8/30/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE][B]Haven't seen that happen. It also might depend on what type of Zero you're running into, methinks. [/B][/QUOTE]

Actually, this happens quite frequently. I have also been intercepted multiple times @ 35k by Rufes!

(in reply to Jagger2002)

Post #: 9

- 6/6/2002 2:43:13 AM

Sonny

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by von Murrin
[B]Haven't seen that happen. It also might depend on what type of Zero you're running into, methinks. [/B][/QUOTE]

The 2 and the 3 not the Zekes.:)

(in reply to Jagger2002)

Post #: 10

- 6/6/2002 4:54:24 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]

Skip bombing of course is a different story but that is a field more suited to the mediums such as the B-26 and 25 which were far more maneuverable than the big lumbering four engine giants. [/B][/QUOTE]

Its true that most skip bombing was done later in the war by "medium" bombers such as the B-25 and B-26. However, skip bombing was pioneered by B-17 squadrons in October 1942.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to Jagger2002)

Post #: 11

- 6/6/2002 5:03:02 AM

strollen

Posts: 159
Joined: 5/18/2002
Status: offline

Question on the intercepts.

Did those intercept actually cause any damage to the B17. The reason I ask is that my understanding is that the number of intercepts displayed is an exaggeration of the actual number of intercepts. I fly my photorecons at 35,000 feet and don't think I've ever had one shot down..

(in reply to Jagger2002)

Post #: 12

Flyin' high... - 6/6/2002 5:26:13 AM

von Murrin

Posts: 1760
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: That from which there is no escape.
Status: offline

At 20k ft I've yet to lose a 17 or a 24, so I honestly don't know why you guys are experiencing interceptions at that altitude.

_____________________________

I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!

(in reply to Jagger2002)

Post #: 13

- 6/6/2002 5:33:27 AM

Armorer

Posts: 29
Joined: 4/8/2002
From: Englewood, OH
Status: offline

I fly my Forts and Libs at 35K and 32K respectively, and I've also had them intercepted. A6M2's and 3's, as well as Rufes(!), intercept about 2/3 of my missions. Typically, they only manage to damage my bombers, but occasionally will shoot down 1 or 2. Once, they shot down 3 B24s and 2 B17s in one mission, all flying at maximum altitude. :(

(in reply to Jagger2002)

Post #: 14

Re: Flyin' high... - 6/6/2002 9:52:07 AM

Sonny

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by von Murrin
[B]At 20k ft I've yet to lose a 17 or a 24, so I honestly don't know why you guys are experiencing interceptions at that altitude. [/B][/QUOTE]

??? Do you fly them over enemy bases which have aircraft?? :eek:

(in reply to Jagger2002)

Post #: 15

- 6/6/2002 4:43:06 PM

Slaughtermeyer

Posts: 156
Joined: 5/10/2002
From: Pennsylvania
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sonny
[B]This brings up a question. Why do Zeros attack my B-17s flying at 35K feet when the Zero ceiling is 32.8K (or some such number)? They don't do it every time but quite a few times they have knocked down one or two.:confused: [/B][/QUOTE]

According to the bottom of P. 83 this phenomenon is a "feature" and not a bug. Bombers at high altitude might have no or less radar-triggered reinforcing CAP with which to contend, but CAP already in the air will ignore their ceiling because in general "altitude does not impact air to air combat".

(in reply to Jagger2002)

Post #: 16

- 6/6/2002 8:09:38 PM

Sonny

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Slaughtermeyer
[B]

According to the bottom of P. 83 this phenomenon is a "feature" and not a bug. Bombers at high altitude might have no or less radar-triggered reinforcing CAP with which to contend, but CAP already in the air will ignore their ceiling because in general "altitude does not impact air to air combat". [/B][/QUOTE]

Ah, so I just need to read more carefully. Thanks for the info.:)

I can understand CAP not being concerned with altitude if they have a ceiling greater than the bombers but not the other way around.:(

(in reply to Jagger2002)

Post #: 17

Ceilings - 6/6/2002 11:27:38 PM

NorthStar

Posts: 219
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: New York, US
Status: offline

Just some thoughts here, but:

1) Can we be sure the ceilings are "hard". Just because the Zeke is rated as a 32.8 k ceiling, is there anything stopping the pilot from eeking out a thousand or so more? All he would need was a thirty seconds or so above the ceiling to make a pass.

2) Similarly, even though you told the pilots to go in at 35k, all things considered -- weather, instrumentation limitations and such -- it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that the bombers might actually be a few thousand feet lower (or higher I suppose).

That being said, Sonny's original example, where the bombers were about 2200 feet above the fighter ceiling doesn't seem to problematic, assuming it was on occasional occurance. If the bombers were 10000 feet above the ceiling, I wouldn't expect it to happen.

Also, just out of curiosity, are you guys checking the squadron after the mission? Just becasue the combat report says a plane was damaged or destroyed, doesn't make it so. :)

(in reply to Jagger2002)

Post #: 18

Re: Ceilings - 6/6/2002 11:56:08 PM

HARD_SARGE

Posts: 176
Joined: 5/27/2002
From: Cleveland, Ohio
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by NorthStar
[B]Just some thoughts here, but:

1) Can we be sure the ceilings are "hard". Just because the Zeke is rated as a 32.8 k ceiling, is there anything stopping the pilot from eeking out a thousand or so more? All he would need was a thirty seconds or so above the ceiling to make a pass.
:) [/B][/QUOTE]

well for one thing, when you start getting closer and closer to the max alt for a plane, it does turn into a HARD cap, the plane starts to mush out, not enough power or speed to keep the air flow under the wings and all of that good stuff

another fator is the pilot himself, it gets very cold up there, is the plane sealed, pressurized, does his ox system work to the max limit his plane can fly to

there was a story about a GB Spit driver who wanted a GE recon bird who would fly over the middle east every day at the same time, but at such a high alt, no one could get to him, so he went up and climbed and climbed to be with in range, and the bird came in on time, and he got him, but he had trouble trying to land the plane, due to all the frost bite he had suffered during the flight

HARD_Sarge

(in reply to Jagger2002)

Post #: 19

Re: Ceilings - 6/7/2002 12:14:39 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by NorthStar
[B]Just some thoughts here, but:

1) Can we be sure the ceilings are "hard". Just because the Zeke is rated as a 32.8 k ceiling, is there anything stopping the pilot from eeking out a thousand or so more? All he would need was a thirty seconds or so above the ceiling to make a pass.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Ceiling ratings are harder than you realize. A planes ability to reach a ceiling altitude is determined by numerous test flights. Aerodynamic geometry, prop efficiency, drag, and a number of other factors, limit the height a plane can reach. Ceiling ratings are not rated "at speed" but a maximum height that can be "sustained". Usually this sustain is at close the maximum power output that the engine can generate in that density of air (but probably not at a very great speed), and the aircraft is probably already at a pitch angle. Above the ceiling height, the plane cannot generate sufficient lift to sustain the height. If you've ever been in a plane at ceiling or a flight simulator that's actually accurate (few of these), you know that, at best, you can exceed ceiling height by only a few hundred feet for a few seconds before your nose starts to drop and your speed has dropped, no matter HOW you exceeded ceiling height.

Even in level flight within a few thousand feet below the ceiling is difficult. The pitch is increasingly steep to maintain level flight, while manuver usually drops the plane into a stall. Aim is difficult against an active evader.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to Jagger2002)

Post #: 20

Re: Re: Ceilings - 6/7/2002 2:48:57 PM

worr

Posts: 901
Joined: 2/7/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dgaad
[B]Ceiling ratings are harder than you realize. [/B][/QUOTE]

A service ceiling isn't "hard".

For one thing it is a pressure altitude...not an absolute altitude.

For another thing, a service ceiling represents that altitude where the maximum rate of climb is down to 100 FPM.

Temperature and aircraft weight can greatly vary these numbers...making them indeed "soft".

Hence I've had civilian aircraft up over their "service ceilings" and know of other pilots who have too. You simply need the right conditions...and some patience.

But the thought of doing anything dramatic in such a configuration (high AOA, and low speed) is a bit frightening. :)

Worr, out

(in reply to Jagger2002)

Post #: 21