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's

 
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's Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
B-17's - 7/1/2002 10:32:36 AM   
Jagger2002

 

Posts: 674
Joined: 5/20/2002
Status: offline
Does anyone know how many IJN ships were sunk by B-17's in 1942 in the SW Pacific?

Just curious. I think I have an invasion force that is about to be shredded by ultra long range B-17's....
Post #: 1
- 7/1/2002 7:13:09 PM   
thantis

 

Posts: 185
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Cooksville, MD
Status: offline
A Japanese destroyer was hit by a B-17 once.....once.....

So few ships were hit by level bombers during the Pacific Campaign that the chances of scoring a successful hit were actually less than chance.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 2
- 7/1/2002 7:22:11 PM   
Spooky


Posts: 816
Joined: 4/1/2002
From: Froggy Land
Status: offline
However, just a few B-17 were used in the South Pacific before being replaced by B-24.

BTW, B-17 are really not that effective against ships when used by the AI (6,000 feet altitude) ... but human players commonly use them in a much more agressive way (ie : 1,000 feet altitude)

Spooky

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 3
- 7/1/2002 8:53:12 PM   
Huskalator

 

Posts: 212
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline
I had 3 B-17s (3000 ft I think) make it through my entire carrier fighter screen and plant a bomb on the Shokaku. :( :mad:

_____________________________

SW Episode 2:Good movie, bad love story

Happiness is the only good. The time to be happy is now. The place to be happy is here. The way to be happy is to make others so.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 4
should be fixed - 7/1/2002 11:00:20 PM   
brisd


Posts: 614
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: San Diego, CA
Status: offline
It seems the game designers bought the hype of the original boosters of the B-17 pre WW2, that it was capable of defending the USA from enemy fleets. It failed miserably in that role in the Phillipines, Midway and the South Pacific. Three heavy four engine bombers flying at 1000 ft get two bomb hits against a tiny MSW is fantasy but it happens in this game. It is one of the few areas left to address. Perhaps a penalty effecting 4 engine bombers below a certain altitude? They should be allowed to make attacks, that is historical but their effectiveness at low altitudes against shipping is highly questionable IMHO.

_____________________________

"I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer."-Note sent with Congressman Washburne from Spotsylvania, May 11, 1864, to General Halleck. - General Ulysses S. Grant

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 5
I don't know about that.... - 7/1/2002 11:16:26 PM   
doomonyou

 

Posts: 144
Joined: 6/26/2002
Status: offline
IIRC historical b-17 bombers (and all level bombers) tried very high level bombing against ships. I imagine that if someone had had the balls to send in flying fortresses against ships at a thousand foot hieght, they probably would have knocked off plenty of ships (especially slow vulnerable transports). they also would have probably lost many more planes that they did (as I have).

Conversely as the japanese sub commander I have recieved a letter from Donitz requesting that I send my people to the Fatherland to train his people in the incredibly savage sub warfare technique I have used to strangle the allies.

Its all in how you use the stuff and in many games we do tend to use it ahistorically (and a lot smarter with all the hindsight we have, although the Jap sub doctrine should have looked pretty stupid to them right from teh start.)

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 6
- 7/1/2002 11:17:03 PM   
Sabre21


Posts: 8231
Joined: 4/27/2001
From: on a mountain in Idaho
Status: offline
I was playing scen 19 as the allies and on turn 2 the B17s that I positioned in Cooktown located an AP TF forming at Rabaul and hit 3 or 4 of the ap's. I had forgot to change their mission and they went in at 6000 feet and they only suffered 1 destroyed and 2 damaged. Turns out it was the TF for Gili cuz they came limping down with several damaged ap's..1 sinking enroute. That TF never made it to Gili.

Andy

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 7
- 7/2/2002 12:03:26 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
This is a questions that hinges on your philosophy of game design. B17s used in skip-bombing atatcks were quite effective. B17s used against stationary ships were quite effective. B17s almost never engaged TFs at sea from low altitude until skip-bombing was introduced. Could they have been more effective from 3000-6000 feet? Probably, since as with all unguided things ballistic (from shells to topredoes to bombs) accuracy is heavily affected by the amount of time the weapon is in transit. So, if you don't like the "alt-B17s" effectiveness, you might want a "house rule" that they stay above 18,000 feet.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 8
- 7/2/2002 4:05:47 AM   
DSandberg

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 6/19/2002
From: MN
Status: offline
[QUOTE]if someone had had the balls to send in flying fortresses against ships at a thousand foot hieght, they probably would have knocked off plenty of ships (especially slow vulnerable transports). they also would have probably lost many more planes that they did (as I have). [/QUOTE]

I also read recently about the fact that medium bombers with forward-firing MGs were more effective at low level because they could partially suppress AA fire. And I wonder if it also could have been because they are a little faster, limiting their time of exposure to AA fire, and because they also make slightly smaller targets?

So perhaps [I]that[/I] is the element that needs to be addressed in UV. B-17s lumbering in at low level might very well be able to deal out massive punishment to surface vessels, as can already been seen in the game ... but such aircraft should first have a tough time surviving a lengthy and withering level of AA fire at that altitude during their approach. This latter element seems to be what is missing in UV ... a handful of Forts regularly penetrate into well-defended TFs with only some moderate damage being dealt to them, and usually without any Forts being shot down at all. The higher-caliber AA of surface ships against a small number of big, slow targets like B-17s seems like it should be much more effective than it currently is.

- David

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 9
- 7/2/2002 4:51:38 AM   
IMJennifer

 

Posts: 28
Joined: 6/4/2002
From: Rural Wisconsin, U.S.A.
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by thantis
[B]A Japanese destroyer was hit by a B-17 once.....once.....

So few ships were hit by level bombers during the Pacific Campaign that the chances of scoring a successful hit were actually less than chance. [/B][/QUOTE]

I recall reading, I think it was in Morrison, that the only Japanese ship hit by a B-17 was a destroyer stopped dead in the water picking up survivors. The Captain, knowing that B-17s 'never' hit ships, ignored the B-17s and one bomb actually hit the destroyer. The story may be apocryphal, but it's a good one.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 10
- 7/2/2002 4:51:53 AM   
strollen

 

Posts: 159
Joined: 5/18/2002
Status: offline
This weekend I reread the account of the Battle of Bismarck Sea by Lawrence Cortesi.

The first group of 28 B17 attacked at 5,000 the first flight scored a hit with a 1,000 lb on a transport. Than another dropped to 3,000' and scored 4! more 1,000 lb hits on the same transport. Needless to say it was sanoyora (sp) for that Maru.

In total the 28 B17 sunk one transport and scored near misses hits/glancing blows cause moderate damage to one other transport and one destroyer and severe damage to a 2nd transport and another destroyer. One B17 was lost to flak and many were damaged.

Interestingly enough the skip bombing in some ways was an act of desperation because the "worlds most unpredicable weather" resulting in ceilings of 500-1,000', and the Beauforts failed to score a single hit.

The 26 skip bombers (15 A20, 11 B25) sunk 2 DD, 2 Transports, and 2 freighters, without a loss. Actually Cortesi lists one ship the Shirayuki as a cruiser but Gary has it as a destroyer.

One thing I don't get the Admiral Masatomi Kimura was called the eel of the Pacific, and showed great skill in eluding the American's. Yet in UV he has a very medicore ratings.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 11
- 7/2/2002 5:02:03 AM   
Huskalator

 

Posts: 212
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline
I was thinking, should zeros be more effective against low flying bomber formations? I would think that it would be very easy to get above them and dive.

_____________________________

SW Episode 2:Good movie, bad love story

Happiness is the only good. The time to be happy is now. The place to be happy is here. The way to be happy is to make others so.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 12
- 7/2/2002 5:17:58 AM   
juliet7bravo

 

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline
I've never seen anything anywhere that would support the conclusion that "B17's were quite effective" operationally, in either the skip bombing or anti-ship role in any way. A few isolated anecdotes, they tested the concept, used it in combat ops a few times, yadda yadda ect, but to baldly state they were "quite effective"...no. Historically, in the Pacific, the B17 more or less receives a big wet raspberry.

So where do these waves of B17's single-handedly annihilating convoys, or shutting down Truk come from? Seems to be conspicuously absent from any account of the Pacific war I've ever read. Is there a book out I missed; "How 3-4 dozen B17's annihalated the Japs", or "The Bomber Group that single-handedly won the war"?

"The Captain, knowing that B-17s 'never' hit ships, ignored the B-17s and one bomb actually hit the destroyer. The story may be apocryphal, but it's a good one."

He saw the B17's overhead, crew wanted to get underweigh, and he blew them off with the comment "B17's never hit anything". Bang, ship is sunk, and while he's standing there dripping (with everyone glaring at him I imagine) after getting pulled from the water, he makes the comment "Even a B17 can get lucky once"...not verbatim, but that's the gist. Telling account of what the guys underneath the B17's thought of them...

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 13
- 7/2/2002 5:22:37 AM   
IMJennifer

 

Posts: 28
Joined: 6/4/2002
From: Rural Wisconsin, U.S.A.
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by juliet7bravo
[B]"The Captain, knowing that B-17s 'never' hit ships, ignored the B-17s and one bomb actually hit the destroyer. The story may be apocryphal, but it's a good one."

He saw the B17's overhead, crew wanted to get underweigh, and he blew them off with the comment "B17's never hit anything". Bang, ship is sunk, and while he's standing there dripping (with everyone glaring at him I imagine) after getting pulled from the water, he makes the comment "Even a B17 can get lucky once"...not verbatim, but that's the gist. Telling account of what the guys underneath the B17's thought of them... [/B][/QUOTE]

Thank you for the confirmation J7B -- I almost didn't post that because I couldn't remember where I'd read it :D. You wouldn't happen to recall the source for this would you?

Jennifer

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 14
- 7/2/2002 5:28:01 AM   
strollen

 

Posts: 159
Joined: 5/18/2002
Status: offline
Getting above a B17 wasn't difficult for a Zero cause they have an excellent rate of climb. However, I don't think that attacking from the top is the right approach. The Zero would have at least 4 .50 on him 2 from the Top and 2 from tail gunners, plus possibly one .50 from the radio operator and one .50 from a waist gunner, so 6 .50 machine guns would make life short for the zero.
The Germans did best attacking the B17 from the front where they only faced the nose gunner.

The problem is the Zero and almost Japanese fighters lacked the fire power to take out a tough B17s.

The same books talks about how much the Japanese hated the B17s and how hard it was to shot them down.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 15
B-17 skip-bombing effectiveness - 7/2/2002 5:34:57 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
Here is an excerpt from the air force veteran's association. I've read the details before (there are a couple of recent personal biographies and unit histories for B17s in the PTO). The link is: [url]www.afa.org/magazine/valor/1290valor.html[/url]


The quote, which gives at least a couple of anecdotal examples of B17s being effective as skip-bombers (I'll presume that faster tactical bombers were preferred when available) is as follows:

By John L. Frisbee, Contributing Editor
Skip-Bombing Pioneer
In the fall of 1942, a better way of sinking Japanese ships had to be found. Ken McCullar was one of the first to master the new tactic.
A priority task for the few Fifth Air Force B-17s of the 19th and 43d Bombardment Groups during the summer of 1942 was interdicting the Japanese sea line of communications from Rabaul, New Britain, to enemy forces on New Guinea. AAF doctrine then held to bombing from altitude with nine-plane (when that many were available) squadron formations. Results had not been good, especially against maneuvering ships. Only about 1 percent of bombs dropped were hitting their targets. Clearly a better way had to be found.

Promising experiments with skip bombing were under way in the US, based on RAF experience. Lt. Gen. George Kenney, commander of Fifth Air Force, was enthusiastic about the new technique. The 63d Squadron of his 43d Bombardment Group set to work in September, testing skip bombing with B-17s against a wrecked ship in Port Moresby Harbor. Approaching the target at 200 mph, aircraft released bombs at 200 feet or lower, about 300 yards from the hulk. The bombs would skip across the water into the side of the ship--if airspeed, altitude, and range were properly coordinated. Modified Australian fuzes were used in the absence of suitable US stock.

Capt. Kenneth McCullar already was credited with sinking or damaging four Japanese vessels, using conventional tactics. He soon became one of the most proficient practitioners of skip bombing, with 60 percent hits in practice runs. Skip bombing looked like the answer, but it added another element of danger to the normal hazards of combat. Chief among these was the nerve-racking experience of flying at point-blank range directly into the muzzles of deck guns on enemy ships. Since the older B-17s didn't have enough forward firepower to keep those guns down, early skip-bombing attacks were made at night, by the light of the moon or flares.

The Japanese were introduced to skip bombing at Rabaul Harbor on the night of Oct. 23, 1942. While six B-17s of the 64th Squadron bombed from 10,000 feet, six 63d Squadron bombers came in at 100 feet to skip their bombs into the sides of Japanese ships. McCullar reported sinking a destroyer with two hits amidships. Two nights later the 63d returned to Rabaul with eight B-17s, about a third of the Fifth Air Force's operational heavy bombers at the time. McCullar was one of four to score hits.

McCullar flew many more skipbombing missions; one of the most notable was on the night of Nov. 24, when he and other B-17 crews attacked an enemy convoy by flare light. His first run at 200 feet scored a near miss on a destroyer. On his second run, McCullar set the destroyer afire.

Coming back once more, his No. 1 engine was knocked out by flak, and the propeller couldn't be feathered. Too badly shot up for another low attempt, McCullar made a conventional bomb run at 1,200 feet and again was hit. He then climbed to 4,000 feet for a fifth attack and lost No. 3 engine to enemy fire. With only two engines running and three wounded men aboard, he was faced with a return to Port Moresby over 13,000-foot peaks. No. 3 finally was brought in at greatly reduced power. "Two and a half hours later," McCullar reported, "we were at 10,000 feet, our ceiling, and luckily we found a pass to sneak through, landed OK, and forgot about it."

Twice more McCullar brought his B-17 home on two engines, once from nearly 600 miles from Rabaul where he was on a photo-reconnaissance mission. Seventy miles short of Rabaul, a supercharger blew up, killing both engines on the left wing. McCullar completed the mission on two engines and flew back to Port Moresby with excellent photos of the Rabaul area. Two days later, on Dec. 7, he helped turn back a Japanese convoy, returning with more than 100 machine-gun and 20-mm holes in his B-17.

McCullar, by this time a major, led a charmed life, it would seem. His skill as a pilot and his determination to complete every mission regardless of the odds had earned him a Distinguished Service Cross. Then, as with so many other combat heroes, the odds caught up with him. On April 12, 1943, while taking off for an attack on a convoy, his B-17 crashed in flames.

"His exploits were already legends that would be told and retold long after the war," Kenney said. McCullar was a symbol of valor i n the dark days of the Pacific war. His courage and resolution

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 16
- 7/2/2002 5:41:38 AM   
strollen

 

Posts: 159
Joined: 5/18/2002
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by juliet7bravo
[B]I've never seen anything anywhere that would support the conclusion that "B17's were quite effective" operationally, in either the skip bombing or anti-ship role in any way. A few isolated anecdotes, they tested the concept, used it in combat ops a few times, yadda yadda ect, but to baldly state they were "quite effective"...no. Historically, in the Pacific, the B17 more or less receives a big wet raspberry.

[/B][/QUOTE]

I don't know 28 B17 attacking from 5,000 sinking one transport and damaging 2 more and 2 DDs. While dodging Zero's and taking flak isn't a bad score. In fact it is a lot better than any results I've had in the game with B17 against ships.

I tend to use my B17 against bases in the game, cause I think they are more effective against them. I haven't seen more than one claimed hit from Any B17 raid at altitudes between 5,000-8,000.. Seems like the game has it about right. Also I find that B17 require a lot more rest than other bomber units, so while there individual strikes maybe pretty potent, I'm lucky to get 2 raids a week from them.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 17
- 7/2/2002 5:43:07 AM   
DSandberg

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 6/19/2002
From: MN
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by strollen
[B]The problem is the Zero and almost Japanese fighters lacked the fire power to take out a tough B17s.

The same books talks about how much the Japanese hated the B17s and how hard it was to shot them down. [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree ...I've read the same thing. Only thing I'll add is that this is Japanese fighter pilots specifically that had a hard time dealing with the Fort. As indicated elsewhere in this thread, Japanese naval forces did not have nearly the same level of concern about them, and for good reason. I also think it is safe to say that the size and number of AA weapons on surface vessels would have much less trouble in bringing down B-17s than the Japanese fighters did ... that is, if the B-17s had presented themselves as big, close, attractive targets by doing level bombing at low altitudes.

I hope this will be rectified in the game at some point. I greatly dislike experiencing the syndrome of "well, a massed attack by 50+ dive bombers from my carrier TF didn't score a single hit on the enemy TF, but I know once the nine B-17s arrive the tables will be turned!" It feels very, very unrealistic, and is my single biggest problem with the game at this point.

- David

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 18
- 7/2/2002 5:47:34 AM   
DSandberg

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 6/19/2002
From: MN
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by strollen
I don't know 28 B17 attacking from 5,000 sinking one transport and damaging 2 more and 2 DDs. While dodging Zero's and taking flak isn't a bad score. In fact it is a lot better than any results I've had in the game with B17 against ships.

I tend to use my B17 against bases in the game, cause I think they are more effective against them. I haven't seen more than one claimed hit from Any B17 raid at altitudes between 5,000-8,000.. Seems like the game has it about right.[/QUOTE]

At that altitude you could be right. But try naval attacks with your B-17s down at 2000 or 3000 feet instead and watch the enemy ships go boooom. I've gotten as many as seven hits on a single vessel from a raid of no more than half a dozen B-17s. Not right at all.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 19
- 7/2/2002 6:40:43 AM   
Sonny

 

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by strollen
[B].... Than another dropped to 3,000' and scored 4! more 1,000 lb hits on the same transport. ..... [/B][/QUOTE]

Are you sure? Even as low as 3000' it is hard to imagine that with a release of all the bombs at once that four of them would hit the same ship.:)

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 20
- 7/2/2002 7:13:21 AM   
juliet7bravo

 

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline
Jennifer..."Japanese Merchant Marine in WW2" maybe? Wealth of detail BTW, well researched and annotated, layout is a little disjointed. Or Dull, one or the other I think...only 2 I've been reading recently.

"I don't know 28 B17 attacking from 5,000 sinking one transport and damaging 2 more and 2 DDs. While dodging Zero's and taking flak isn't a bad score. In fact it is a lot better than any results I've had in the game with B17 against ships."

Zeros's not really a factor due to overwhelming fighter CAP, most of the transports were basically unarmed, and I believe the convoy was doing less than 10 knots. I'd imagine B17 crews flying missions over Europe would've gladly traded places. Real damage was done the second day once the range closed by medium bombers "skip bombing". It wasn't a battle, it was an execution, they couldn't run, and couldn't hide. 28 B17's dropping bombs under more or less perfect conditions, and sinking one wallowing pig of a transport ship ain't nothing to point to as an example of the B17's effectiveness.

"The problem is the Zero and almost Japanese fighters lacked the fire power to take out a tough B17s. The same books talks about how much the Japanese hated the B17s and how hard it was to shot them down."

Mostly derived from comments by Sakai...who was effectively out of the war about the time UV starts. He was flying Zero's with 2 rifle calibre MG's, 2 slow firing, low velocity 20mm cannons, and a limited ammo supply. Not to mention not having any armor of any kind, or self-sealing fuel tanks. World of difference between making a deliberate attack on a B17 bristling with guns and popping some guy tooling around in a obsolete fighter from behind...especially when one .50 cal hit almost anywhere on your plance could potenially kill you. I'd been peeing down my leg. Almost every advantage Sakai had via exceptional skill and a plane optimized for dogfighting negated going against a B17.

Being tough doesn't make it effective, and no one is disputing that it was a tough SOB. It definitely had a role due to its range and "toughness". But it didn't sink alot of ships, and a few dozen didn't shut down Rabaul singlehandedly as you can do in UV.

mdiehl...I've yet to see any hard numbers or an in-depth analysis of the effectiveness of the B17 in a skip bombing anti-ship role. Almost undoubtedly because its contribution was, at best, marginal. Given the amount of stuff in print on the B17, if it was widely used or even moderately effective in this role, I suspect we wouldn't be quoting anecdotal evidence from 50 year old articles. This is at least the 3rd time that article's been cut/pasted into this forum to support the B17's performance...is that the sum of the supporting evidence? In a level bombing anti-ship role, it was basically useless as noted in the article. The guy was a hero, suicidal, but a hero. That doesn't make any statements about the effectiveness or widespread use of the B17/skip bombing in the hands of "Cpt. Joe Average Pilot", who was neither as skilled, or as crazed.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 21
- 7/2/2002 7:14:43 AM   
strollen

 

Posts: 159
Joined: 5/18/2002
Status: offline
Well from the book
after the first 2 B17 hit the transport with 1,000 lb

"A third B17 ... dropped to a dangerous 3,000 despite the rattle of 5" guns. The B17 came within 1,000 yard before releasing his bombs... afterward the pilot veered the big Fort upwards like an overgrown fighter plane.
The desperate helmsman could not manuever the ship and the raked the wounded vessel from stern to bow. The first explosion opened the stern, the second tore apart the bridge..., the 3rd detached the smoke stacks; and the fourth hit the AA magazine storage area" The vessel fell apart in a series of disintegrating explosions.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 22
- 7/2/2002 7:50:02 AM   
strollen

 

Posts: 159
Joined: 5/18/2002
Status: offline
J7B

I basically agree with you that B17 was a best a mediocore anti-ship weapon when deployed at low level and completely useless at high level which is where it was commonly used. The 5th Air force B17s were decent against merchant shipping and effective against land based targets, primarily because they used them like 4 engine medium bombers.

I guess the question is how effective they are in the game. I always use the hard setting against the AI so that probably skews my results. But I have found that 20-30 plane raids from PM to Shortlands are only marginally useful, and against Rabual (with a level 9 base and 200-250 fighters) they are completely worthless. Its true I can shut down the level 4 base at Lae with minimal fighter opposition with B17, but I don't think that is unrealistic.

I'll try setting them to Naval attack at 3,000 feet and see what happens.

It is going to be a long time before I get 30 B17 in my PBEM games.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 23
- 7/2/2002 9:55:45 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
"mdiehl...I've yet to see any hard numbers or an in-depth analysis of the effectiveness of the B17 in a skip bombing anti-ship role. Almost undoubtedly because its contribution was, at best, marginal."

Sorry to have bothered you with that link. I must have missed it in this thread. It's not the first time I've read something along that lines by 5th AF and, as I mentioned, I know I've seen a recently published book on the subject. I don't view the particular bio as unique among 5th AF in being able to hit ships in low leve runs from B17s. He seems unique in his persistence, however.

You wouldn't want to routinely use B17s for that sort of thing if medium bombers were available. In a/c at least, "speed saves." 17s were relatively expensive, and their large payload was no big advantage: flying ground attack you would not want to have to make multiple passes, it's just asking to get nailed. Finally, they have better uses as scouts and good old fashioned installation wreckers. You won't see a lot of analysis on it because they were rarely used in that role, or ebcause until lately calling the B17 "useless against ships" has been a summary that all have been willing to accept at face value. Until recently people thought that IJN pilots were better trained and flying a better plane than the USN pilots through 1942. Thanks to Lundstrom it's now clear that both generally accepted myths are completely untrue.

Back to the B17: the question for me was not "how" *were* they used but how might they be used and how effective *might* they have been. In low level attacks against slow targets they're not the same utterly ineffective anti-ship weapon that they were from 20,000 feet. If you think that's unfair, agree on a house rule that restricts them.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 24
I agree - 7/2/2002 10:12:41 PM   
doomonyou

 

Posts: 144
Joined: 6/26/2002
Status: offline
many of the weapons in WWII could have been deployed better than they were. Part of that is hindsight and part of it is that some people in WWII were remarkably stupid.

Low level high experience crews blowing the snot out of ships in B-17s is very similar to when I placed four S boats in Lunga harbor and the Japanese invaded the stupid ungarrisoned island I vaporized half a dozen APs loaded with troops and supplies and two destroyers to boot because I used a completely ahistorical tactic (ambushing wolfpacks of US submarines are not to my knowledge normal) but it is a feasible tactic.

The problem I have always seen in any simulation is that we try different tactics than those that were used. I have in other games run roughshod over the soviet union in WWII because unlike hitler and his ridiculous henchmen, I execute what the German staff wanted which was a fighting retreat from Stalingrad, saving most of my equipment and men from that utterly pointless meatgrinder (I like to sit outside the city and just shell it to the ground with long range arty.) But if you analyzed that tactic and said "German long range artillery was never that devestating in the Soviet Union" You'd be right, but Hitler never stripped the whole of eastern and western europe bare of 155mm or larger, put all his arty in big rings around the 'grad and defended his exposed beaches with roving elements of heavy tanks who were free to pounce at will on any assault and almost ungarrisoned fixed defenses.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 25
another hit by the mighty B17 tactical bombers! - 7/2/2002 10:18:24 PM   
brisd


Posts: 614
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: San Diego, CA
Status: offline
In a current pbem game: Solo strike from OZ (how appropriate) : 6 B17's attacking at 6000 ft, 29 Zero's on CAP, 1 500 bomb hit on Shokaku. It is enough to make me stop playing.

If B17's can do this, then let Betty's have armor plating and 1000 lb bombs too. Disgusted...

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 26
- 7/2/2002 10:42:54 PM   
thantis

 

Posts: 185
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Cooksville, MD
Status: offline
At least carriers would be easier to hit than a destroyer (much more deck space).....

The US used a dozen B-17's at the Battle of Midway against a large formation of Japanese ships and didn't get a single hit.

Zero's were notoriously underarmed in the first couple of years of the war. They had a lot of trouble dealing with US Heavy Bombers (unlike the much more heavily armed German interceptors in Europe).

In UV I find the accuracy of bombers above 10K feet to be pretty piss-poor anyway.

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 27
- 7/2/2002 10:45:34 PM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline
Responses and comments to various posters / postings about B17s.

1. The B-17s original role, designed in the early 30s, was in fact an anti-ship platform. The Norden bombsight was also designed with the idea of hitting ships from high altitude. This is not to say that some of the proponents of and origins of the B-17 were based on the Douhet theories, they were. Because we today look at the whole history of WW2 where the B17 was a dominant strategic bombing weapon in Europe, we forget that before the war the naval aspect was a strong design goal during the "germ of the concept".

2. It turned out that B-17s could not hit a manuvering ship from high altitude, because the bomb fall took so long the ship would be nowhere near the strike point when the bombs hit. Why anyone actually thought this was even possible can be chalked up to "folly" (Folly has many chalk marks). Note : a manuvering ship is NOT one that is stopped, anchored or in port. Those could be and were hit.

3. In October, 1942, B17s used the skip bombing tactic for the first time anywhere. This was done for a number of reasons at this time : B17s were not proving their worth so there was a component of desperation for the B17 proponents and airgroups to actually get into the war; for several months prior to October 1942 Kenney had had some of his crews trying out and practicing new techniques, skip bombing among them -- by October they felt they could use some of these tactics in combat. There were other reasons to, but the bottom line is that B17s were actually the first aircraft to use this tactic effectively, as Mdiehl has pointed out.

4. It further turned out that B17s were not as effective as medium bombers at skip bombing, due, as has been said, to the superior speed, manuverability, AA suppression forward firing guns on these craft, and smaller size which made them less of a target for AA. Once medium bombers had shown they could do this, the B17s were no longer used in this role because they were too expensive as compared to a medium.

5. B17s are very stout aircraft that are extremely dangerous to shoot down for enemy fighters. There is nothing disgusting or wrong or ahistorical suggested by a game result of 6 or so B17s scoring one hit on a carrier defended by 20+ Zeros. Carriers are large targets, and not very manuverable. Zeros would have a hard time shooting down a B17, even at lower altitudes such as 6000 feet, due to the durability of the 17, the amount of AA fire the 17 could throw at the Zero, and the gossamer construction of the Zero which could literally blow up from a single bullet hit. A Zero pilot would be well advised to be extremely cautious in any attack on a 17.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 28
- 7/2/2002 10:47:50 PM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by thantis
[B]

The US used a dozen B-17's at the Battle of Midway against a large formation of Japanese ships and didn't get a single hit.

Zero's were notoriously underarmed in the first couple of years of the war. They had a lot of trouble dealing with US Heavy Bombers (unlike the much more heavily armed German interceptors in Europe).

[/B][/QUOTE]

True, and agree. However, at Midway the 17s were used against the transport group at very high altitude (see my above post).

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 29
- 7/2/2002 10:54:51 PM   
dgaad

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by strollen
[B]Getting above a B17 wasn't difficult for a Zero cause they have an excellent rate of climb. However, I don't think that attacking from the top is the right approach. The Zero would have at least 4 .50 on him 2 from the Top and 2 from tail gunners, plus possibly one .50 from the radio operator and one .50 from a waist gunner, so 6 .50 machine guns would make life short for the zero.
The Germans did best attacking the B17 from the front where they only faced the nose gunner.

The problem is the Zero and almost Japanese fighters lacked the fire power to take out a tough B17s.

The same books talks about how much the Japanese hated the B17s and how hard it was to shot them down. [/B][/QUOTE]

Absolutely correct. Anything within a 30 degree circular arc of the rear of a 17 had to face 2-3 times as much firepower than most fighters had, and with separate gunners for 4 separate gun mounts. This was no accident, either, but a intentional design.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Jagger2002)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> B-17's Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
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

0.953