Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say?

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say?

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? - 8/8/2009 9:33:42 PM

Mozo

Posts: 96
Joined: 7/28/2009
Status: offline

I disagree.

I was frustrated my 4EBs from PM weren't hitting any naval targets from 19,000 so I tried it during my first CV battle - I figured they had nothing to lose. 12 hits! Yeah they were 500lb but 12 hits from 5 planes!?! And the zeros were useless. Seems a bit strange to me but I'll take it.

What do you think?

Mozo

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Mozo -- 8/8/2009 9:37:12 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? - 8/8/2009 9:40:36 PM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

...I thought a level bomber could only hit a ship with one bomb maximum, and that more bombload just meant more likelihood of a hit?

Looks seriously broken to me anyway.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mozo)

Post #: 2

RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? - 8/8/2009 9:45:14 PM

pad152

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline

B17's or B24's droping 500lbs bombs at a 100ft would likly blow themselves up, if the fuses were set correctly.

One would have hoped this was fixed.

(in reply to Mozo)

Post #: 3

RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? - 8/8/2009 9:48:13 PM

gunnergoz

Posts: 447
Joined: 5/21/2002
From: San Diego CA
Status: offline

I can see this level of damage happening if the Forts flew through the hangar bay as they were dropping the ordnance...at 100 ft, they could just about do it.

_____________________________

"Things are getting better!
...Well, maybe not as good as they were yesterday, but much better than they will be tomorrow!"
-Old Russian saying

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 4

RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? - 8/8/2009 9:58:52 PM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

I thought skip bombing in AE (as presumably that is what this is) was essentially limited to attack bombers, and that was the whole reason to have the attack bomber as a new aircraft classification?

_____________________________

(in reply to gunnergoz)

Post #: 5

RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? - 8/8/2009 10:11:22 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

I thought skip bombing in AE (as presumably that is what this is) was essentially limited to attack bombers, and that was the whole reason to have the attack bomber as a new aircraft classification?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0275945405/thewolfboutique

Product Description
Murphy was one of a very small number of volunteer pilots who, with their flight crews, started bombing at low altitudes in B-17 flying fortresses in the Southwest Pacific. The aircraft were flown at a 200-foot altitude and at 250 miles per hour at night. One-thousand pound bombs, equipped with four-to-five second fuses, were dropped from the B-17s.

Skip bombing was invented by using B-17s.

http://books.google.com.mt/books?id=ajQgDfPxKYYC&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=B-17+skip+bombing&source=bl&ots=z2wAqnbEwM&sig=9dStSw8opgwNnqAkSj1q1DSSRsY&hl=mt&ei=Hup9Sq2nNdmM_Ab7-L3oBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8#v=onepage&q=B-17%20skip%20bombing&f=false

See Chapter 3, "Ken's men".

And:

http://www.kensmen.com/skipbombing.html

http://www.kensmen.com/combatlessons6.html

< Message edited by Sardaukar -- 8/8/2009 10:14:50 PM >

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 6

RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? - 8/8/2009 10:18:08 PM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

I thought skip bombing in AE (as presumably that is what this is) was essentially limited to attack bombers, and that was the whole reason to have the attack bomber as a new aircraft classification?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0275945405/thewolfboutique

Product Description
Murphy was one of a very small number of volunteer pilots who, with their flight crews, started bombing at low altitudes in B-17 flying fortresses in the Southwest Pacific. The aircraft were flown at a 200-foot altitude and at 250 miles per hour at night. One-thousand pound bombs, equipped with four-to-five second fuses, were dropped from the B-17s.

Skip bombing was invented by using B-17s.

http://books.google.com.mt/books?id=ajQgDfPxKYYC&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=B-17+skip+bombing&source=bl&ots=z2wAqnbEwM&sig=9dStSw8opgwNnqAkSj1q1DSSRsY&hl=mt&ei=Hup9Sq2nNdmM_Ab7-L3oBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8#v=onepage&q=B-17%20skip%20bombing&f=false

See Chapter 3, "Ken's men".

And:

http://www.kensmen.com/skipbombing.html

http://www.kensmen.com/combatlessons6.html

Sure, I know about skip bombing.

I'm talking about game design. I thought that in AE skip bombing was more or less limited to specially trained bomber squadrons who would be referred to as 'attack bombers'.

But that was a very long time ago, and I didn't really follow AE development all that much - just the bit I /really/ wanted, ie surface forces reacting.

_____________________________

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 7

RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? - 8/8/2009 10:19:23 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

Besides, it might be bit too early for skip bombing...and AFAIK, B-17s did it during the night usually.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 8

RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? - 8/8/2009 10:34:05 PM

Mozo

Posts: 96
Joined: 7/28/2009
Status: offline

Well I'll keep doing it and let you know if I get similar results. I'd be interested in hearing from Matrix whether this is intended or something that needs to be addressed in some future patch.

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 9

RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? - 8/8/2009 10:57:09 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mozo

I disagree.

I was frustrated my 4EBs from PM weren't hitting any naval targets from 19,000 so I tried it during my first CV battle - I figured they had nothing to lose. 12 hits! Yeah they were 500lb but 12 hits from 5 planes!?! And the zeros were useless. Seems a bit strange to me but I'll take it.

What do you think? I think it sounds about right. Apparently you found some pilots angry enough and brave enough to come in on the deck. In testing I found it almost useless to try to get heavies to come in below 9,000..., units simply wouldn't fly the mission. But the real reason why Allied heavies generally flew at 17-24,000 feet in the Pacific is that they were used in small numbers and generally for reccon. The altitude protected them from any Japanese fighters they might encounter. This was obviously a "backs-to-the-wall" situation, so tried the unexpected and slipped in under the CAP.

Mozo

(in reply to Mozo)

Post #: 10

RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? - 8/8/2009 10:57:52 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mozo

I disagree.

I was frustrated my 4EBs from PM weren't hitting any naval targets from 19,000 so I tried it during my first CV battle - I figured they had nothing to lose. 12 hits! Yeah they were 500lb but 12 hits from 5 planes!?! And the zeros were useless. Seems a bit strange to me but I'll take it.

What do you think? I think it sounds about right. Apparently you found some pilots angry enough and brave enough to come in on the deck. In testing I found it almost useless to try to get heavies to come in below 9,000..., units simply wouldn't fly the mission. But the real reason why Allied heavies generally flew at 17-24,000 feet in the Pacific is that they were used in small numbers and generally for reccon. The altitude protected them from any Japanese fighters they might encounter. This was obviously a "backs-to-the-wall" situation, so they tried the unexpected and slipped in under the CAP.

Mozo

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 11

RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? - 8/8/2009 11:00:00 PM

dpstafford

Posts: 1910
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Colbert Nation
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152
B17's or B24's droping 500lbs bombs at a 100ft would likly blow themselves up, if the fuses were set correctly.
One would have hoped this was fixed.

Yes, I thought this sort of gamey crap was going to be "handled" better in AE.

_____________________________

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 12

RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? - 8/8/2009 11:04:52 PM

Barb

Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline

FOW on or off?

_____________________________

(in reply to dpstafford)

Post #: 13

RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? - 8/9/2009 12:51:56 AM

khyberbill

Posts: 1941
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline

This is something that can easily be handled by House Rules.

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to Mozo)

Post #: 14

RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? - 8/9/2009 2:23:44 AM

Scott_USN

Posts: 715
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: Eagle River, Alaska USA
Status: offline

Even *gasp* personal rules against the AI.

Just because there is an easy way doesn't mean we have to exploit it. AI is not that smart I have no reason to cheat it.

(in reply to khyberbill)

Post #: 15

RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? - 8/9/2009 6:08:00 AM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dpstafford

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152
B17's or B24's droping 500lbs bombs at a 100ft would likly blow themselves up, if the fuses were set correctly.
One would have hoped this was fixed.

Yes, I thought this sort of gamey crap was going to be "handled" better in AE.

Well, DP I guess you can chock this one up as a personal victory...congratulations. How does it feel?

What are you going to do now that you've defeated the entire AE team and proven that nothing has changed, since WitP?

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to dpstafford)

Post #: 16

RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? - 8/9/2009 7:55:21 AM

dpstafford

Posts: 1910
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Colbert Nation
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
Well, DP I guess you can chock this one up as a personal victory...congratulations. How does it feel?

What are you going to do now that you've defeated the entire AE team and proven that nothing has changed, since WitP?

I'm going to Disney World......

_____________________________

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 17

RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? - 8/9/2009 8:12:05 AM

AttuWatcher

Posts: 489
Joined: 6/25/2009
From: Hex 181, 36
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dpstafford

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
Well, DP I guess you can chock this one up as a personal victory...congratulations. How does it feel?

What are you going to do now that you've defeated the entire AE team and proven that nothing has changed, since WitP?

I'm going to Disney World......

too late...my B-17s just bombed it to smithereens at 100ft.

(in reply to dpstafford)

Post #: 18

RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? - 8/9/2009 9:11:13 AM

Puhis

Posts: 1737
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mozo

I disagree.

I was frustrated my 4EBs from PM weren't hitting any naval targets from 19,000 so I tried it during my first CV battle - I figured they had nothing to lose. 12 hits! Yeah they were 500lb but 12 hits from 5 planes!?! And the zeros were useless. Seems a bit strange to me but I'll take it.

What do you think?

Mozo

I think that a CV should be able to out manuever a few big 4E bombers so easily. One steep turn should be enough.

(in reply to Mozo)

Post #: 19

RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? - 8/9/2009 12:17:16 PM

seydlitz_slith

Posts: 2036
Joined: 6/16/2002
From: Danville, IL
Status: offline

Yeah, but what they didn't tell you was the ball gunner was killed when the B-17 flew over the deck at 100 feet and the executive officer lopped the ball turret off with his samurai sword.

(in reply to Puhis)

Post #: 20

RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? - 8/9/2009 1:35:47 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis
I think that a CV should be able to out manuever a few big 4E bombers so easily. One steep turn should be enough.

Isn't this a bit counter-intuitive? I mean that by your logic a big 4-engined bomber should be able to out manuever a few nimble fighters as well? And what are the CV's choices? Be skip bombed from the side? Or allow the bomber to walk a salvo of bombs down the deck?

(in reply to Puhis)

Post #: 21

RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? - 8/9/2009 2:03:38 PM

Titanwarrior89

Posts: 3283
Joined: 8/28/2003
From: arkansas
Status: offline

How can it be gamey crap! IF they did it in the war? It sounds like we want real but not too real. Now that, is gamey.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

I thought skip bombing in AE (as presumably that is what this is) was essentially limited to attack bombers, and that was the whole reason to have the attack bomber as a new aircraft classification?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0275945405/thewolfboutique

Product Description
Murphy was one of a very small number of volunteer pilots who, with their flight crews, started bombing at low altitudes in B-17 flying fortresses in the Southwest Pacific. The aircraft were flown at a 200-foot altitude and at 250 miles per hour at night. One-thousand pound bombs, equipped with four-to-five second fuses, were dropped from the B-17s.

Skip bombing was invented by using B-17s.

http://books.google.com.mt/books?id=ajQgDfPxKYYC&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=B-17+skip+bombing&source=bl&ots=z2wAqnbEwM&sig=9dStSw8opgwNnqAkSj1q1DSSRsY&hl=mt&ei=Hup9Sq2nNdmM_Ab7-L3oBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8#v=onepage&q=B-17%20skip%20bombing&f=false

See Chapter 3, "Ken's men".

And:

http://www.kensmen.com/skipbombing.html

http://www.kensmen.com/combatlessons6.html

_____________________________

"Before Guadalcanal the enemy advanced at his pleasure. After Guadalcanal, he retreated at ours".

"Mama, There's Rabbits in the Garden"

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 22

RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? - 8/9/2009 2:24:40 PM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mozo
I was frustrated my 4EBs from PM weren't hitting any naval targets from 19,000 so I tried it during my first CV battle - I figured they had nothing to lose. 12 hits! Yeah they were 500lb but 12 hits from 5 planes!?! And the zeros were useless. Seems a bit strange to me but I'll take it.

Just curious as to when this was and what the Pilot experience levels were?

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Mozo)

Post #: 23

RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? - 8/9/2009 3:07:14 PM

dpstafford

Posts: 1910
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: Colbert Nation
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FAsea

quote:

ORIGINAL: dpstafford

I'm going to Disney World......

too late...my B-17s just bombed it to smithereens at 100ft.

the inglorious bastards!!!

_____________________________

(in reply to AttuWatcher)

Post #: 24

RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? - 8/9/2009 3:33:28 PM

Mozo

Posts: 96
Joined: 7/28/2009
Status: offline

quote:

Just curious as to when this was and what the Pilot experience levels were?

Erik,

It was around May 1, 1942. From what I can tell the pilots experience levels were between 54 and 51.

btw - I didn't mean to make this a flame thread - I love the game and appreciate everything the team has done. Just in case this wasn't supposed to happen, I thought I'd bring it to your attention.

Regards,

Mozo

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 25

RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? - 8/9/2009 3:54:45 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

It's the reason why most of us have the house rule of no 4Es on naval strike below 10k feet.

Its not that low level bombing was a-histroical, its the fact that they get too many hits in game doing it. 1 B-17 squadron can single handedly wipe out a task force when set that low.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Mozo)

Post #: 26

RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? - 8/9/2009 4:09:36 PM

Apollo11

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

Hi all,

The low flying 4 engine bomber is slow, poorly maneuverable and BIG juicy target for any navy man-of-war ship with serious AA on board... the attacking bombers should have been wiped out with AA...

Atacking unarmed merchants is different story though!

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 Shark7)

Post #: 27

RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? - 8/9/2009 4:13:43 PM

Apollo11

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

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

http://www.kensmen.com/combatlessons6.html

This quote is from here (i.e. the link above):

quote:

7. Precautionary Measures:

Skip bombing with heavy bombardment aircraft must be considered an attack of opportunity. Any attempt to skip bomb a war vessel in the light, unsupported, would probably be particularly hazardous because of lack of speed and manoeuvrability and small amount of forward fire power. Successful daylight attacks have been made on unescorted merchant vessels by heavy bombers, and light bombers heavily armed forward with .50 cal machine guns have been highly successful against war vessels. This success of light bombers was due to surprise, coordination, and heavy forward fire, none of which are likely to exist in a daylight attack on warships by heavy bombardment. Repeated skip bombing attacks in the same area would result in some form of protection designed to defeat it. It is, however, when the opportunity presents itself, an ideal surefire method of hitting the target.

Just as I posted in my message before this one... they avoided attacking armed navy ships... it would be suicidal!

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 Titanwarrior89)

Post #: 28

RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? - 8/9/2009 4:24:30 PM

AW1Steve

Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

It is easy to hit targets with a 4 engine bomber from 100'. I've been in one at 200' (the minimum allowed by Navy regs) and done it. . The problem with 100' in an aircraft with a 100' wingspan, well, you do the math.

All aircraft drop slightly in a turn (except for VERY high powered , high performance aircraft doing climbing turns). So what this means is that a B-17 sacrafices ALL maneveability for accuracy. (Sort of like they did in Europe-a B-17 , one minute out from IP-initial point- not only couldn't manuever, the bombardier was flying the aircraft.). So the problems are bomb fuzing (an easy fix) and crew training (a time consuming fix).

As has been mentioned before, B-17s were the 1st aircraft to do skip bombing, at the end of the PI campaign. But why endanger 10 men in a half million dollar aircraft when you can do it with 5 or less men in a much,much cheaper aircraft? I've always felt that skip bombing for heavies was a very viable tactic, if the allied side is willing to risk VERY heavy losses. I have always felt that a lot of people screaming "gamey" are confusing historical with possible. How many times was a "possible " tactic not used by a "nervous" commander afraid what would happen to him when it went wrong? Even Curtis LeMay had 2nd thoughts about low level firebombing raids over Japan with stripped down B-29's. But we don't consider it "gamey". If some commander in the South Pacific had said "set the B-17's at 100' ", we would not be having this conversation today.

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 29

RE: Setting B-17s to 100ft is crazy you say? - 8/9/2009 4:27:14 PM

AW1Steve

Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

The low flying 4 engine bomber is slow, poorly maneuverable and BIG juicy target for any navy man-of-war ship with serious AA on board... the attacking bombers should have been wiped out with AA...

Atacking unarmed merchants is different story though!

Leo "Apollo11"

Or if the warship is caught napping! A bomber at top speed at 100' gives almost no time for the warship to react!. I've done it in real life at 200' to both NATO and Soviet ships. If you can get away with it in the 1980's , surely you can do it in the 1940's!

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 30