Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

The destruction of B-17 Fortress

 
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 >> The War Room >> The destruction of B-17 Fortress Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 1/21/2011 3:01:03 PM   
Judykator


Posts: 182
Joined: 7/28/2009
From: Poland
Status: offline 		How best to destroy the B-17 Fortress? What aircraft will be to use the best (1942-45) and what altiude?
Post #: 1
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 1/21/2011 3:09:16 PM   
scott64


Posts: 4019
Joined: 9/12/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline 		I have a little success with Nicks and Tonys.

_____________________________

Lucky for you, tonight it's just me


Any ship can be a minesweeper..once !! :)

http://suspenseandmystery.blogspot.com/

(in reply to Judykator)
Post #: 2
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 1/21/2011 3:35:41 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Nobody is going to be flying the Fortress past 1943.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to scott64)
Post #: 3
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 1/21/2011 4:38:34 PM   
Puhis


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

ORIGINAL: Judykator

How best to destroy the B-17 Fortress? What aircraft will be to use the best (1942-45) and what altiude?


Almost only way to destroy E-G model B-17s is airfield attack. So use your bombers and hit the airfields.

Your fighters won't do much, but in 1942-43 Ki-45 Nick is propably the weapon of choice.

(in reply to Judykator)
Post #: 4
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 1/21/2011 6:46:40 PM   
mattep74

 

Posts: 90
Joined: 12/11/2010
Status: offline 		What did i did wrong in my first B17 attack then? In every thread you say how good they are at defeating japanese interceptors. I sent 40 B17s at 100 feet to destroy a airfield. 10 destroyed and 20 damaged.

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 5
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 1/21/2011 6:52:09 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Judykator

How best to destroy the B-17 Fortress? What aircraft will be to use the best (1942-45) and what altiude?

They are susceptible to OPS losses when they encounter increasingly capable (cannon-armed) interceptors, particularly at a distance. See Cap_N_Gown's AAR for an effective counter 4EB combined defensive strategy.



_____________________________


(in reply to Judykator)
Post #: 6
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 1/21/2011 7:51:06 PM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mattep74

What did i did wrong in my first B17 attack then? In every thread you say how good they are at defeating japanese interceptors. I sent 40 B17s at 100 feet to destroy a airfield. 10 destroyed and 20 damaged.


At 100 feet they probably flew into a mountain( a very short one at that).

_____________________________


(in reply to mattep74)
Post #: 7
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 1/21/2011 7:52:08 PM   
Kwik E Mart


Posts: 2447
Joined: 7/22/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mattep74

What did i did wrong in my first B17 attack then? In every thread you say how good they are at defeating japanese interceptors. I sent 40 B17s at 100 feet to destroy a airfield. 10 destroyed and 20 damaged.


at 100', they probably blew themselves up with their own ordnance...

_____________________________

Kirk Lazarus: I know who I am. I'm the dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude!
Ron Swanson: Clear alcohols are for rich women on diets.

(in reply to mattep74)
Post #: 8
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 1/21/2011 7:53:08 PM   
Kwik E Mart


Posts: 2447
Joined: 7/22/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad


quote:

ORIGINAL: mattep74

What did i did wrong in my first B17 attack then? In every thread you say how good they are at defeating japanese interceptors. I sent 40 B17s at 100 feet to destroy a airfield. 10 destroyed and 20 damaged.


At 100 feet they probably flew into a mountain( a very short one at that).


more like a hill...

_____________________________

Kirk Lazarus: I know who I am. I'm the dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude!
Ron Swanson: Clear alcohols are for rich women on diets.

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 9
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 1/21/2011 8:39:09 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart


quote:

ORIGINAL: mattep74

What did i did wrong in my first B17 attack then? In every thread you say how good they are at defeating japanese interceptors. I sent 40 B17s at 100 feet to destroy a airfield. 10 destroyed and 20 damaged.


at 100', they probably blew themselves up with their own ordnance...


Think that's operator error...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Kwik E Mart)
Post #: 10
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 1/21/2011 8:42:51 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mattep74

What did i did wrong in my first B17 attack then? In every thread you say how good they are at defeating japanese interceptors. I sent 40 B17s at 100 feet to destroy a airfield. 10 destroyed and 20 damaged.


The serious answer to your question is that at 100 feet you were hit by every available enemy anti aircraft weapon. Not a smart decision.

In both game and real world terms, flying at 100 feet = straffing height. No Allied Heavy Bomber was ever designed to straff.

Alfred

(in reply to mattep74)
Post #: 11
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 1/21/2011 9:01:50 PM   
wildweasel0585

 

Posts: 60
Joined: 12/31/2010
Status: offline 		100'?? I think they would have done better at 50'.
but seriously... do you not like your bombers?

(in reply to mattep74)
Post #: 12
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 1/21/2011 9:25:00 PM   
augustinus

 

Posts: 83
Joined: 8/21/2010
Status: offline 		Kawasaki Ki-45 KAIa Toryu (Allies called it Nick) came out in 1942 and proved itself against bomber streams of B-17's at night, but that was later in the war, because, it was used for other tasks during most of the war. Nick was best suited for night fighting according to the authors of World War II Planes, Vol. 2, Messrs. Enzo Angelucci and Paolo Matricardi. One plane I would love to have against bomber streams of B-17s in 1942-43 would be "George" in either the N1K1-J Shiden or the N1K2-J Shiden Kai version.

(in reply to Judykator)
Post #: 13
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 1/21/2011 9:26:19 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Try B-29s...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to augustinus)
Post #: 14
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 1/21/2011 9:28:31 PM   
mattep74

 

Posts: 90
Joined: 12/11/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wildweasel0585

100'?? I think they would have done better at 50'.
but seriously... do you not like your bombers?


Yes i like them wery much thank you. But i also like them to hit the town they are flying over. Or the airfield.

Flying bombers towards an airfield at 100 feet, kill enemy aircraft on the ground. Flying at 20 or 30 000 feet dont kill any aircrafts on the ground.

Flying bombers toward a city at 100 feet=thousands of fires. FLying bombers towards a city at the operational cealing, less damage.

Using B29s at 100 feet against 5 TKs = 0 TK after raid. At much higher alt the japanese say "We see you, and avoid the presents you dropp"

And then there is the japanese ASW, to good in game since it wasnt that good OTL

(in reply to wildweasel0585)
Post #: 15
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 1/21/2011 9:34:32 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		If you're going to do something that stupid, you deserve all the losses you take.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to mattep74)
Post #: 16
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 1/21/2011 10:44:20 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		You are right, the lower the altitude at which your bombers make their runs, the greater the damage they will cause. However, the lower the altitude, the more bombers you will lose since more AA will be able to hit them. It's a trade-off that only you can determine if it is worthwhile. But to complain that your losses are too high when sending B17s in to "strafe" an airfield (that is how the game system treats a 100' air attack) does seem a little too much...

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 17
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 1/21/2011 10:52:19 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

If you're going to do something that stupid, you deserve all the losses you take.


For once I have to agree with you "Termi"..., flying B-17's over land targets at 100 feet is suicidally stupid.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 18
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 1/21/2011 11:58:57 PM   
TheElf


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

ORIGINAL: mattep74


quote:

ORIGINAL: wildweasel0585

100'?? I think they would have done better at 50'.
but seriously... do you not like your bombers?


Yes i like them wery much thank you. But i also like them to hit the town they are flying over. Or the airfield.

Flying bombers towards an airfield at 100 feet, kill enemy aircraft on the ground. Flying at 20 or 30 000 feet dont kill any aircrafts on the ground.

Flying bombers toward a city at 100 feet=thousands of fires. FLying bombers towards a city at the operational cealing, less damage.

Using B29s at 100 feet against 5 TKs = 0 TK after raid. At much higher alt the japanese say "We see you, and avoid the presents you dropp"

And then there is the japanese ASW, to good in game since it wasnt that good OTL




quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

If you're going to do something that stupid, you deserve all the losses you take.


For once I have to agree with you "Termi"..., flying B-17's over land targets at 100 feet is suicidally stupid.


ahhh a teachable moment...

I don't think stupidity is the issue, my esteemed colleagues are a little harsh in that respect. I think, hope, this is more an issue of being uninformed or uneducated about the realistic implications of flying a 40 plane B-17 raid against a target at 100'.

If you are:
a) aware that this might have negative results in terms of Aircraft losses and unit morale and...
b) willing to risk those types of losses to achieve a specific short term goal at great cost to the B-17 units then...
c) you shouldn't need to ask what you did wrong.

Therefore I have to assume that "a" is not true and likely neither is "b" since clearly "c" is true.

Simply put, what you did wrong mattep74, is you flew your B-17s at 100'. If you don't want to see results like you did read up a bit on how B-17s were actually employed and then accept that if you want to repeat that raid that you need to accept the possibility (especially against a heavily defended target) that they might suffer untoward losses.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to mattep74)
Post #: 19
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 1/22/2011 2:48:24 AM   
Patbgaming

 

Posts: 103
Joined: 2/28/2010
From: Houston, Texas
Status: offline 		IIRC flying that low also can cause you to hit barrage balloons. If your pilots can't hit the broadside of a barn at 10k I would consider dropping to 7k but not below that. I usually fly my Heavy Bombers at 15k for daytime bombing and 10k for night bombing. This is after I have them trained so most of the pilots in the unit have at least a 70 skill for Grd Bombing. Just my 2 cents.

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 20
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 1/22/2011 8:24:14 AM   
mattep74

 

Posts: 90
Joined: 12/11/2010
Status: offline 		Ahh, thanks for the info. Now i understand why my bomberunits average 15-20 planes from B29 and B17s and 2 planes for units with a max of 12.

Now, were to park all thouse lousy carrieraircrafts that makes the field of Ivo, Guam etc red. They cant hit anything from there anyway. Think i park them on Luzon

(in reply to Patbgaming)
Post #: 21
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 1/22/2011 8:45:11 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Nobody is going to be flying the Fortress past 1943.



Because of? PBEM in 4/44 and I´ve got 60 of them available (B-17E and F that is).

_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 22
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 1/22/2011 8:46:07 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mattep74

What did i did wrong in my first B17 attack then? In every thread you say how good they are at defeating japanese interceptors. I sent 40 B17s at 100 feet to destroy a airfield. 10 destroyed and 20 damaged.



At 100ft? They were taken down by stone throwing children.

_____________________________


(in reply to mattep74)
Post #: 23
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 1/23/2011 2:25:10 AM   
stuman


Posts: 3907
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Elvis' Hometown
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: mattep74

What did i did wrong in my first B17 attack then? In every thread you say how good they are at defeating japanese interceptors. I sent 40 B17s at 100 feet to destroy a airfield. 10 destroyed and 20 damaged.



At 100ft? They were taken down by stone throwing children.


Now castor, you know children do not have the range to hit bombers at 100 ft merely throwing rocks. They must upgrade to slingshots to be effective !

_____________________________

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 24
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 1/25/2011 3:18:35 AM   
bigred


Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

You are right, the lower the altitude at which your bombers make their runs, the greater the damage they will cause. However, the lower the altitude, the more bombers you will lose since more AA will be able to hit them. It's a trade-off that only you can determine if it is worthwhile. But to complain that your losses are too high when sending B17s in to "strafe" an airfield (that is how the game system treats a 100' air attack) does seem a little too much...

Well, maybe Mattep74 wanted to straf the air field w/ his .50 cal guns as well as drop bombs? Could be a good gun platform if they survive the flak, just like "c47 puff". If not any AA on hex then the b17 should be able to "straf". IIRC the .5 had a straight line bullet range of 1.5miles..side, bottom and top turrents could all "fix on" a target.

< Message edited by bigred -- 1/25/2011 3:30:12 AM >

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 25
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 1/25/2011 4:28:23 AM   
1EyedJacks


Posts: 2244
Joined: 3/12/2006
From: The Eastern Sierras
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bigred

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

You are right, the lower the altitude at which your bombers make their runs, the greater the damage they will cause. However, the lower the altitude, the more bombers you will lose since more AA will be able to hit them. It's a trade-off that only you can determine if it is worthwhile. But to complain that your losses are too high when sending B17s in to "strafe" an airfield (that is how the game system treats a 100' air attack) does seem a little too much...

Well, maybe Mattep74 wanted to straf the air field w/ his .50 cal guns as well as drop bombs? Could be a good gun platform if they survive the flak, just like "c47 puff". If not any AA on hex then the b17 should be able to "straf". IIRC the .5 had a straight line bullet range of 1.5miles..side, bottom and top turrents could all "fix on" a target.


- I just about busted a gut at your reference to Puff! Of course Puff flies a tad bit above the 100ft level... <grin>

But I can just picture the light bulb going off in someone's head as they watched a B17 strafing an airfield... "You know - if we put a bunch of gattling guns in a C-47..." And thus the design concept for the Magic Dragon was born.

I guess the actual idea for the AC-47 came from Captain R. W. Terry watching DC-3s delivering mail. It's amazing where some people get their inspiration from.

"Puff the magic Dragon,
a bird of days long gone,
Came to fly the evening sky
In a land called Vietnam."

Author unkown



Ttfn,

Mike



< Message edited by 1EyedJacks -- 1/25/2011 4:30:13 AM >

_____________________________

TTFN,

Mike

(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 26
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 1/25/2011 12:15:18 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

If you're going to do something that stupid, you deserve all the losses you take.


For once I have to agree with you "Termi"..., flying B-17's over land targets at 100 feet is suicidally stupid.


ahhh a teachable moment...

I don't think stupidity is the issue, my esteemed colleagues are a little harsh in that respect. I think, hope, this is more an issue of being uninformed or uneducated about the realistic implications of flying a 40 plane B-17 raid against a target at 100'.




I don't know "Elf"..., it's hard to imagine anyone with an ounce of common sense thinking that B-17's bombing airfields at 100 feet was a good idea. About the only time during the real war something like this was tried was at Ploesti---and that certainly doesn't seem like a successful recommendation. "Stupid" may have been harsh..., but so is flying a four-engined strategic bomber over a target at so low an altitude that it's bombsight is worthless and it's vulnerable to everyone on the ground mad enough to throw a rock...

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 27
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 1/25/2011 12:42:25 PM   
5thGuardsTankArmy


Posts: 89
Joined: 1/23/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Nobody is going to be flying the Fortress past 1943.



Not true, I shot down so many B24's that my opponent had to start using B17's agian.
Now we are in December 1944 and he is flying B29's.. but it goes a week between the raids.

I fly Frank and George.... soon however I have KI94 II... 50000ft... 440mph ^^ 2x 30mm + 2x 20mm's iiiooommmi I like '' bye bye bombers!


My Opponent has just landed on Southern Phillepine island, we are both static now will see how it goes.


< Message edited by 5thGuardsTankArmy -- 1/25/2011 2:01:22 PM >

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 28
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 1/25/2011 8:56:02 PM   
mattep74

 

Posts: 90
Joined: 12/11/2010
Status: offline 		OK, i found a page about B29 bombing. No wounder no hits are made from 33k feet since they didnt hit anything IRL either from that alt. Next time i will switch them to 6-7500 feet since apperantly they operated on that alt. Also, no daylight bombingraids anywere and avoid Tokyo seems like a good idea.

Yesterday i took my cv and cves out for a cruise near Ivo again on my "kill as many japanese planes before January 46 and then invade" plan in Downfall. Result? 500 japanese airplane shot down, 85 allied planes.

Its not even October yet and the japanese have lost 5000 planes.

(in reply to 5thGuardsTankArmy)
Post #: 29
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 1/29/2011 12:00:03 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Well, the best weapon with which to destroy the B29s is the 250Kg GP bomb dropped by IJAAF bombers at night. Same answer as with all the US heavies.

Failing that anything with centre-mounted cannons.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to mattep74)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> The destruction of B-17 Fortress Page: [1] 2   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

2.938