Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

B17

 
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 >> B17 Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
B17 - 6/29/2002 9:56:48 PM   
wmiller159

 

Posts: 34
Joined: 4/26/2001
Status: offline 		Has anyone noticed that the effectiveness of b17 from 35000 ft has been greatly reduced with the version 1.1 patch?
Post #: 1
Re: B17 - 6/29/2002 11:17:18 PM   
Spooky


Posts: 816
Joined: 4/1/2002
From: Froggy Land
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by wmiller159
[B]Has anyone noticed that the effectiveness of b17 from 35000 ft has been greatly reduced with the version 1.1 patch? [/B][/QUOTE]

No, but if it so - it is a very good initiative :) The targets in UV are too small for high altitude bombings to be really effective.

Spooky

(in reply to wmiller159)
Post #: 2
- 6/29/2002 11:58:50 PM   
Slaughtermeyer


Posts: 156
Joined: 5/10/2002
From: Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		I've noticed it but haven't conducted any "scientific" tests to prove it.

(in reply to wmiller159)
Post #: 3
B17s in low alt naval attacks - 6/30/2002 2:45:59 AM   
DSandberg

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 6/19/2002
From: MN
Status: offline 		On a somewhat related topic, isn't it wrong to have B17s be super-effective when bombing ships from low altitudes? I positively decimated a bunch of AKs (at sea, not docked) with B17s flying at 2000 feet yesterday, getting as many as seven 500 lb. bomb hits in a single run. (This is with version 1.11.) But I'm under the impression that in reality this wouldn't have happened, or at least I am not aware of any examples from the war that would indicate such effectiveness on the part of B17s conducting attacks on TFs at sea. I'm also assuming that the Norden bombsight would have been of very little use at such low altitudes, so they'd have had to drop their bombloads "by God and by guess".

Am I off base here, or does this need alteration?

(in reply to wmiller159)
Post #: 4
- 6/30/2002 4:35:08 AM   
sitkis

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 2/23/2001
Status: offline 		I completely agree about low altitude level bombers being *much* more effective than they should be. B17s are death to any TF. I'd rather see a 100 plane carrier strike coming at me over a 12 plane B17 strike.

The problem is that when flying level the relative relationship between the bomber and the target are changing quickly. It would be tough to target something by flying over it and getting your velocity vector, the target velocity vector, bomb drag, relative air velocity, and all that, worked out so that you could hit something by dropping stucff on top of it.

Flying, more or less, at the target, such as a torp bomber or dive bomber would do, would eliminate much of the relative velocity and make hitting something much easier. Skip bombing gives you the same advantage. I thought that was why skip bombing was tried, to give the level bombers the same relative motion advantage that dive and torp bombers enjoyed. As it stands, B17s hit so often at 1000-2000 feet that nobody would have ever thought of trying skip bombing. BTW, the flack isn't all that much worse at 1000 feet compared to 10,000 feet, at least for B17s.

Anyway, just thoughts. Were level bombers ever this effective historicallly?

(in reply to wmiller159)
Post #: 5
- 6/30/2002 5:47:06 AM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by sitkis
[B]I completely agree about low altitude level bombers being *much* more effective than they should be. B17s are death to any TF. I'd rather see a 100 plane carrier strike coming at me over a 12 plane B17 strike.

The problem is that when flying level the relative relationship between the bomber and the target are changing quickly. It would be tough to target something by flying over it and getting your velocity vector, the target velocity vector, bomb drag, relative air velocity, and all that, worked out so that you could hit something by dropping stucff on top of it.

Flying, more or less, at the target, such as a torp bomber or dive bomber would do, would eliminate much of the relative velocity and make hitting something much easier. Skip bombing gives you the same advantage. I thought that was why skip bombing was tried, to give the level bombers the same relative motion advantage that dive and torp bombers enjoyed. As it stands, B17s hit so often at 1000-2000 feet that nobody would have ever thought of trying skip bombing. BTW, the flack isn't all that much worse at 1000 feet compared to 10,000 feet, at least for B17s.

Anyway, just thoughts. Were level bombers ever this effective historicallly? [/B][/QUOTE]


No problem with the B17 accuracy complaint if true, but I don't follow your comments with torpedoes. Air dropped weapons (to a first approx) have horizontal speed equal to the a/c that drops them. Thus the flight time is very short, and you don't need much lead for a moving ship. Torpedoes (once in the sea) move at ship speeds, so you need much more lead, and a better sight. Skip bombing is not like torpedoing - you need a good horizontal speed, otherwise the bomb doesn't skip, it sinks. The reason for skip bombing is the usual one of bomb dropping being much less accurate in range. To avoid this, make the bomb travel approx parallel to the sea, so range much less important. It also means the bomb is likely to hiy just above (or below if you are really lucky) the water line, and let water in, instead of air.

Sorry, not really relevant to the discussion.

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to wmiller159)
Post #: 6
Re: B17s in low alt naval attacks - 6/30/2002 5:57:53 AM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by DSandberg
[B]On a somewhat related topic, isn't it wrong to have B17s be super-effective when bombing ships from low altitudes? I positively decimated a bunch of AKs (at sea, not docked) with B17s flying at 2000 feet yesterday, getting as many as seven 500 lb. bomb hits in a single run. (This is with version 1.11.) But I'm under the impression that in reality this wouldn't have happened, or at least I am not aware of any examples from the war that would indicate such effectiveness on the part of B17s conducting attacks on TFs at sea. I'm also assuming that the Norden bombsight would have been of very little use at such low altitudes, so they'd have had to drop their bombloads "by God and by guess".

Am I off base here, or does this need alteration? [/B][/QUOTE]

B-17s under Major McCullar pioneered the skip bombing technique in October, 1942, and positively decimated Japanese shipping off New Guinea. However, this bombing technique was given over to medium bombers, which proved even more effective at it.

I don't know why you are getting results like this with B-17s at 2000 feet. I have two groups of B-17s at 2000 feet in a PBM game that got only 1 or 2 hits on a cruiser (a very large target).

_____________________________

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

(in reply to wmiller159)
Post #: 7
- 6/30/2002 6:04:27 AM   
DSandberg

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 6/19/2002
From: MN
Status: offline 		At 2K feet my B17s even plastered a wee little destroyer with multiple hits ... really doesn't seem right.

(in reply to wmiller159)
Post #: 8
- 6/30/2002 11:48:04 AM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by DSandberg
[B]At 2K feet my B17s even plastered a wee little destroyer with multiple hits ... really doesn't seem right. [/B][/QUOTE]

You really should read up on the use of B-17s at low level. They were effective, but medium bombers were more "cost-effective". It is possible to score multiple hits with a single stick, if the airspeed is relatively slow and the stick interval is small. If you've ever seen B-17 sticks dropping, you know that two bombs are released basically at once, followed by two more, etc. A stick of 12 bombs can be released in about 5 seconds. Stick intervals can also be adjusted depending on the type of mission.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to wmiller159)
Post #: 9
- 7/1/2002 1:39:49 AM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by dgaad
[B]

You really should read up on the use of B-17s at low level. They were effective, but medium bombers were more "cost-effective". It is possible to score multiple hits with a single stick, if the airspeed is relatively slow and the stick interval is small. If you've ever seen B-17 sticks dropping, you know that two bombs are released basically at once, followed by two more, etc. A stick of 12 bombs can be released in about 5 seconds. Stick intervals can also be adjusted depending on the type of mission. [/B][/QUOTE]

That is my thought on the subject (although subjective, with no back-up). I would expect the B17 to be lethal at 2000ft, but not that much better than a medium, and very vulnerable to AA. 12 bombs from a B17 gets one ship. 4-6 bombs from a medium gets 1 ship. (although marginally less often at comparable crew skills). Also the medium is probably more survivable at low level?

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to wmiller159)
Post #: 10
- 7/1/2002 1:43:48 AM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline 		Yes, medium bombers such as the Havoc, Mitchell and Marauder are better at low level bombing because they are more manuverable, smaller, and have forward firing MGs to supress ship AA. The B-17s pioneered skip bombing bascially to "prove" that B-17s would be useful in the Pacific theater, and to prove it could be done, but they are not the ideal craft to execute the tactic, historically.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to wmiller159)
Post #: 11
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> B17 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

0.688