Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC

 
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] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC - 5/22/2007 8:10:46 PM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline 		In the course of researching about my Step father's work with the Low Altitude Bombing System (LABS) on B-24s at Langley Field in WWII, I came across a very interesting paper from the Air War College on Bombers over the Southwest Pacific.

It details the tactical and technological evolution of bombing operations for the 5th AF in a level of detail I had not read before.

http://aupress.au.af.mil/Books/Rodman/rodman.pdf

_____________________________


"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC
Post #: 1
RE: Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC - 5/23/2007 1:11:31 AM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		Thank you denisonh

_____________________________




(in reply to denisonh)
Post #: 2
RE: Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC - 5/23/2007 1:44:28 AM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline 		Yes indeed, Thanks!

I know I'm going to have some comments once I finish the paper. Might even want to run some 4E tests based on what I am reading.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 3
RE: Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC - 5/23/2007 7:54:47 AM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

I know I'm going to have some comments once I finish the paper. Might even want to run some 4E tests based on what I am reading.


Pretty good article. Make sure you read the entire article. Its not all a pretty picture especially in regards to friendly losses.

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 4
RE: Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC - 5/23/2007 1:01:17 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline 		very good article and nice to read also for non native speakers!

Just read a couple of pages so far...

I liked that one:

Despite its prowess, The B-17 had been a stopgap weapon
in the art of low-level antishipping attack. Vulnerable to the
fire of Japanese ships, the Fortress made an easy target, especially
without the forward firepower to keep enemy gunners
ducking for cover.


I couldn´t prevent myself from a little smile...



or that one:

No one expected a B-25 to make a masthead run with only one gun in the nose, and the
top turret hoping to get in a shot now and then. The first B-25 run on
the convoy was made at 1100 feet. One B-25 crashed into the sea, two
were holed, two had their turret canopies shot away, and they were
forced to jettison their bombs. This demonstration of the potency of Nip
AA caused later runs by B-25s to average over 4300 feet. B-26s averaged
8400 feet for their runs throughout the entire action.21

while attacking freighters......



< Message edited by castor troy -- 5/23/2007 1:09:57 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 5
RE: Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC - 5/23/2007 1:19:51 PM   
Dive Bomber1

 

Posts: 670
Joined: 10/30/2006
Status: offline 		What I find fascinating is that the Japanese seemed to have little or no early warning capability. Also, despite having many planes in the NG area in 1943 the Japanese didn't seem to have any counter-doctrine at all against the US airbase build-up plan. Why didn't the Japanese try to close down US air bases in the months when the US had few planes available?

All-in-all, it was a very interesting read. Thanks for the link!

(in reply to denisonh)
Post #: 6
RE: Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC - 5/23/2007 2:52:55 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
Page 29 -
 
"If I put 20 bombers over a target—why, that was a maximum effort there for almost the first year in the Pacific."
 
 
An Interesting little quote which got me thinking about aircraft Durability.
 
I note people are finding in Nik Mod that the higher durabilities of aircraft are causing planes to not repair as quickly as stock...a while ago I reveresed engineered a formula for calculating aircraft Durability used in Stock. It was very accurate for single engine planes however for the 4 engine planes it was off by a large degree....I now wonder if in early testing 4E planes were being grounded to such a degree that they tweaked the calculated DUR to get the 4E planes operational quicker to make for a "funner game". Using my formula I arrived at the following values - note the B-17 was nearly double but the others were within a point or two which could be attributed to rounding:
 



Model	My DUR		Stock
A5M4	23		23
B-17G	124		69
F4U-4	40	F4U-1D	35
A6M6c	26	A6M5	27
P36C	27		28
P-47N	44		36
F4F-4	30		29
P-40N	31		31


< Message edited by treespider -- 5/23/2007 2:53:43 PM >

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Dive Bomber1)
Post #: 7
RE: Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC - 5/23/2007 4:08:01 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		The fighter unservicability bug brought out of the closet by Nikmod 8.0 is dead......dead by dawn. 9.0 and 9.1 eliminated the problem.

Last nite i also sent Andrew reworked CHS with Nik set to 9.1 standards to solve that little bug-a-boo too.



_____________________________


(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 8
RE: Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC - 5/23/2007 4:12:15 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

The fighter unservicability bug brought out of the closet by Nikmod 8.0 is dead......dead by dawn. 9.0 and 9.1 eliminated the problem.

Last nite i also sent Andrew reworked CHS with Nik set to 9.1 standards to solve that little bug-a-boo too.





Is it a bug because it's a bug or is it a bug because its WAD and people didn't like it...

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 9
RE: Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC - 5/23/2007 4:16:02 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		its a bug because it's not predictible, is not consistant across the board and we couldn't track down "why" it was happening.

That people didn't like it i could understand given for the impacted airgroups it could reduce servicability to less than 30% even with minimal ops settings.

_____________________________


(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 10
RE: Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC - 5/23/2007 4:17:54 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		Hi all,

Thanks for the book!


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to denisonh)
Post #: 11
RE: Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC - 5/23/2007 4:22:48 PM   
AmiralLaurent

 

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dive Bomber1

Also, despite having many planes in the NG area in 1943 the Japanese didn't seem to have any counter-doctrine at all against the US airbase build-up plan. Why didn't the Japanese try to close down US air bases in the months when the US had few planes available?



Simply because in real life closing an AF for more than some hours was just impossible. And Japan had not enough avaition gas, bombs and spare parts to fly round-the-clock bombing, as had neither the Allied forces before 1944.

By the way Allied airfields were often bombed by Japanese AC.

As for the document pointed by Denisonh (thanks Harvey), it is very interesting but it gives only the Allied point of view. Real Japanese losses (that were not available to the writer at the time, probably) are not indicated only Allied claims.
During the description of the pounding of Wewak base, he writes "even if claims are false to the high ratio of 25%". In fact A2A claims were usually false by 30% (for US) and far more for Japan. Ground claims were far more off the mark for all airforces in WWII.

(in reply to Dive Bomber1)
Post #: 12
RE: Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC - 5/25/2007 3:51:36 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		Hi all,

Guys have any of you successfully printed out this PDF?

I am having problems on almost all my printers (regardless of memory installed) - the vector graphics are all screwed up...

The only printer that prints OK is one printer that has PS (PostScript) but that one is not duplex.


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to AmiralLaurent)
Post #: 13
RE: Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC - 5/26/2007 11:30:25 PM   
timtom


Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

very good article and nice to read also for non native speakers!

Just read a couple of pages so far...

I liked that one:

Despite its prowess, The B-17 had been a stopgap weapon
in the art of low-level antishipping attack. Vulnerable to the
fire of Japanese ships, the Fortress made an easy target, especially
without the forward firepower to keep enemy gunners
ducking for cover.


I couldn´t prevent myself from a little smile...

or that one:

No one expected a B-25 to make a masthead run with only one gun in the nose, and the
top turret hoping to get in a shot now and then. The first B-25 run on
the convoy was made at 1100 feet. One B-25 crashed into the sea, two
were holed, two had their turret canopies shot away, and they were
forced to jettison their bombs. This demonstration of the potency of Nip
AA caused later runs by B-25s to average over 4300 feet. B-26s averaged
8400 feet for their runs throughout the entire action.21

while attacking freighters......



Yeah...just imagine what Allied AAA would do to miss Betty coming in on the torpedo run.





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 14
RE: Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC - 5/26/2007 11:45:49 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline 		Well just goes to show that my cries of AA being way off are valid.

(in reply to timtom)
Post #: 15
RE: Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC - 5/26/2007 11:49:11 PM   
String


Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

very good article and nice to read also for non native speakers!

Just read a couple of pages so far...

I liked that one:

Despite its prowess, The B-17 had been a stopgap weapon
in the art of low-level antishipping attack. Vulnerable to the
fire of Japanese ships, the Fortress made an easy target, especially
without the forward firepower to keep enemy gunners
ducking for cover.


I couldn´t prevent myself from a little smile...

or that one:

No one expected a B-25 to make a masthead run with only one gun in the nose, and the
top turret hoping to get in a shot now and then. The first B-25 run on
the convoy was made at 1100 feet. One B-25 crashed into the sea, two
were holed, two had their turret canopies shot away, and they were
forced to jettison their bombs. This demonstration of the potency of Nip
AA caused later runs by B-25s to average over 4300 feet. B-26s averaged
8400 feet for their runs throughout the entire action.21

while attacking freighters......



Yeah...just imagine what Allied AAA would do to miss Betty coming in on the torpedo run.




You mean like -this?-

(in reply to timtom)
Post #: 16
RE: Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC - 5/26/2007 11:50:57 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Yes, the record of a single event is a good way to look at thousands of similar events over a five-year period and draw a good general conclusion. Very good way...

No wait, what's that other one? Oh yeah, a very BAD way...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 17
RE: Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC - 5/27/2007 12:20:54 AM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline 		Wasnt a one time occurance. B17s (initially used for skip bombing) stopped doing it because they were too slow and not maneuverable enough to avoid the AA. With the additional guns on the nose of the B-25s combined with their speed and maneuverability made it a viable

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 18
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.734