Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve




S-3 guys teaching about 4E low level attacks? Maybe I should teach S-3 CV ASW? Sorry Sandman. I can only agree with you on about 50% of your post. And haven't got the time right now to go into detail. But in short , the argument is "fact specific" as lawyers would say. One quick example is that not all bomb bays are slow. And depending on the enviroment , for some aircraft the lower (and faster ) you fly , the safer. Stand on the deck of a a destroyer and see how much time you have to track a fast moving, low flying aircraft. I've surprised modern (late 1980's) radar equipped warships by coming in low and fast.
I'd like to debate you point by point , but I've got to go now. I'll see if I can get back to you later.

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I think your a little rough there Mike, skip bombing was not used as much as people think, the number one reason, the 50 cal's in the nose was enough to cripple a ship like a junk, steamer and even destroyers. My friends dad flew A-20's and recalled using the spots on the hull turning cherry red as an aiming point. The B-25's and A-20's most times just used their nose guns to knock them out of commission and then hit them with a low level bomb run to put them down.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I think your a little rough there Mike, skip bombing was not used as much as people think, the number one reason, the 50 cal's in the nose was enough to cripple a ship like a junk, steamer and even destroyers. My friends dad flew A-20's and recalled using the spots on the hull turning cherry red as an aiming point. The B-25's and A-20's most times just used their nose guns to knock them out of commission and then hit them with a low level bomb run to put them down.

Well, he was being silly. And you are right..., as the "gunships" got more powerful armament the need to use the bombs decreased. But ask your friend's Dad just how difficult this attack profile was to master compared to trying to hit a ship while level bombing. My original point was that the designers of AE have made the prerequisits for this type of attack far to difficult in the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Hate to break it to you Sandman, but the A-20's and B-25's crippled DD's and other escorts. The 50 cals could punch thru the armor when 12 of them were all hitting in the same area if they were making a beam attack or destroy the topside if they were attacking from the bow or stern. Since they didn't have proximity fuses the smaller caliber guns were the threat if the crews could survive the strafing attack. Off the top of my head, I don't remember reading of any attacks on heavy cruisers. The light cruisers were nothing more than over sized destroyers so I guess the atk bombers would make short work of them too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK


I bet for every Bismark Sea there was an equivalent failure with heavy losses. NO..., THERE WASN'T.

Someone asks why not skip bomb on land, bombs dont bounce through jungle well, and in Europe Barnes Wallis had to get scientific to design a decent (land) bouncing bomb (HiBall??) ON LAND THE ALLIES USED "PARA-FRAG" BOMBS FOR LOW LEVEL ATTACKS. VERY EFFECTIVE..., ESPECIALLY AGAINST AIRFIELDS.

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Your right Erkki, there are few places the plane could be hit without something being damaged, the trick is hitting it. With 12 to 14 mg's blazing away at the unprotected gun crews it had to be a pretty scary place to be.

Mynok, I am not aware of any B-25's attacking Atlanta class CL's. My comments were Allied bombers hitting Japanese ships.

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

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

quote:

Dili, very interesting. Could you elaborate on this?

quote:

Skip bombing was a low-level bombing technique developed by Italian pilot Giuseppe Cenni[1] flying German Junkers Ju 87 Stuka aircraft during attacks on Allied ships off the coast of North Africa, between May and October of 1941. After Pearl Harbor (December 1941), it was used against Imperial Japanese Navy warships and transports by Major William Benn of the 63rd Squadron, 43rd Bomb Group (Heavy), Fifth Air Force, United States Army Air Forces in the Southwest Pacific area theater during World War II. General George Kenney has been credited with being the first to use skip bombing with the U.S. Air Force.[2][3]

quote:

During this campaign he flew 46 combat missions and was awarded with two Medaglia d’argento al valore militare.

After this campaign the unit briefly patrolled the Mediterranean and during this period he developed the tactic of skip-bombing by pulling out of a dive very low to fly horizontally at the target, thus giving the released bomb added momentum to skim the surface into a ship’s hull. The technique demanded very accurate flying.

quote:

I bet for every Bismark Sea there was an equivalent failure with heavy losses.

quote:

The proof is there - first week of May 1943, U-boats shot down 23 for 22 sunk. Many of those sunk were 2v1 as the 4E's got smart. One would suppress, the other drop. A few boats actually managed to hold off multiple aircraft of the non 4E type. A 1E aircraft is much more survivable in this role. He has options - he is presenting a smaller and more nimble target. And again, the SOP was not to attack a flak U-boat (what a ridiculous concept). You waited for naval support or went after it with multiple 4E's providing suppressing fire.

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

The proof is there - first week of May 1943, U-boats shot down 23 for 22 sunk. Many of those sunk were 2v1 as the 4E's got smart. One would suppress, the other drop. A few boats actually managed to hold off multiple aircraft of the non 4E type. A 1E aircraft is much more survivable in this role. He has options - he is presenting a smaller and more nimble target. And again, the SOP was not to attack a flak U-boat (what a ridiculous concept). You waited for naval support or went after it with multiple 4E's providing suppressing fire.

22 U-boats with 70 =/- trained men each representing 6 months of industrial output for 23 aircraft. What exactly is proved?

http://www.uboat.net/history/aircraft_losses.htm

Supposedly all Allied aircraft losses to Uboats (120) are described in the link.

The first week of May 1943 is hardly a time frame to describe U-boat success as Doenitz very shortly thereafter withdrew at U-boats from the Atlantic convoy routes conceding failure in the boats primary mission. Sounds an awful lot like a decisive defeat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

But isn't the biggest problem for boresight armed bomber the fact that it can't aim the guns until the actual staffing / bombing run moment whilst the gun crews on ships had all the time to train their guns against incoming bomber?

Leo "Apollo11"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jaroen
I just love source material!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

It may not have been rocket science, but it took practice to hit the ship with a skipping bomb, and not hit the ship with the plane or get caught in the blast. I agree its too hard in AE.

after reading Fortress Rabaul, i'd disagree. True skip bombing as introduced/perfected by the 5th AF required major modificaitons to the aircraft but more importantly a serious testing, proving and training period. As it was from UV days....you could set "anyone" (including Player 1) to "skip bomb" with any aircraft by simply setting the altitude to 100 feet.

Given the detail control level of this game, the more restrictive path tends to be better to prevent exploits. Historically speaking, i'm not aware of the Japanese performing it in the manner Kenney's men developed. They did in places employ "mast height" level bombing in places, like the RAF did during the early stages of the Malayian campaign. This at times is loosely (and inaccurately) labeled 'skip bombing' but in reality it was simply ultra low level bombing.

Edit. Technically in the most ad-hoc way, yes Japan did skip bomb. There were one or two recorded incidents whereby a Japanese bomber pilot litterly tried to "fling" or toss his ordinance at a ship wat near wave level height (one using a torpedo!) with no success of course. Had it hit it would have been the one of the most bizzare successful attacks of the war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

And my testing showed me that vs light warships and merchies, moderately well trained straffers do decent damage with bombs anyways. I have yet to see them skip bomb but that does not mean that I am not seeing results. I am not losing sleep over this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erkki

Heres the frontal silhouette of the B-25:



There is not a single place a 25mm HE or larger shell would not knock out an engine, kill at least half of the crew, pierce/flame a fuel tank or shred the tail control surfaces. It was extremely rare for a 2 engine plane to make it home with an engine lost over target let alone other combat damage on top of that.

Its the same thing with every other WW2(or post WW2) single or 2 engine warplane - none of them have a place where to detonate a pressure grenade equivalent and not lethally or potentially lethally damage the plane - structures, systems or the crew. But whos likely to hit whom first - the warship with half a dozen + AA stations with one to 4 cannons each or the attacking aircraft, and can the attacker knock out them all before he passes the ship or gets hit? BTW, youtube has lots of guncam records of that and it doesnt look like aiming was too easy for the pilot. Against practically unarmed merchies on the other hand...

quote:

and http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/digital/pdf/book/b_0096_rodman_war_of_their_own.pdf (recommended anyway!)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
As for myself, I am going to be in the bottom of the tub, making myself as small as possible while trying to not lay in my on urine....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Your right Erkki, there are few places the plane could be hit without something being damaged, the trick is hitting it. With 12 to 14 mg's blazing away at the unprotected gun crews it had to be a pretty scary place to be.

Mynok, I am not aware of any B-25's attacking Atlanta class CL's. My comments were Allied bombers hitting Japanese ships.

But isn't the biggest problem for boresight armed bomber the fact that it can't aim the guns until the actual staffing / bombing run moment whilst the gun crews on ships had all the time to train their guns against incoming bomber?


Leo "Apollo11"