Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

denisonh -> Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC (5/22/2007 8:10:46 PM)

In the course of researching about my Step father's work with the Low Altitude Bombing System (LABS) on B-24s at Langley Field in WWII, I came across a very interesting paper from the Air War College on Bombers over the Southwest Pacific.

It details the tactical and technological evolution of bombing operations for the 5th AF in a level of detail I had not read before.

http://aupress.au.af.mil/Books/Rodman/rodman.pdf



m10bob -> RE: Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC (5/23/2007 1:11:31 AM)

Thank you denisonh



niceguy2005 -> RE: Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC (5/23/2007 1:44:28 AM)

Yes indeed, Thanks!

I know I'm going to have some comments once I finish the paper. Might even want to run some 4E tests based on what I am reading.



ChezDaJez -> RE: Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC (5/23/2007 7:54:47 AM)

quote:

I know I'm going to have some comments once I finish the paper. Might even want to run some 4E tests based on what I am reading.


Pretty good article. Make sure you read the entire article. Its not all a pretty picture especially in regards to friendly losses.

Chez



castor troy -> RE: Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC (5/23/2007 1:01:17 PM)

very good article and nice to read also for non native speakers! [&o]

Just read a couple of pages so far...

I liked that one:

Despite its prowess, The B-17 had been a stopgap weapon
in the art of low-level antishipping attack. Vulnerable to the
fire of Japanese ships, the Fortress made an easy target, especially
without the forward firepower to keep enemy gunners
ducking for cover.


I couldn´t prevent myself from a little smile... [:D]



or that one:

No one expected a B-25 to make a masthead run with only one gun in the nose, and the
top turret hoping to get in a shot now and then. The first B-25 run on
the convoy was made at 1100 feet. One B-25 crashed into the sea, two
were holed, two had their turret canopies shot away, and they were
forced to jettison their bombs. This demonstration of the potency of Nip
AA caused later runs by B-25s to average over 4300 feet. B-26s averaged
8400 feet for their runs throughout the entire action.21

while attacking freighters...... [X(][X(][X(]




Dive Bomber1 -> RE: Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC (5/23/2007 1:19:51 PM)

What I find fascinating is that the Japanese seemed to have little or no early warning capability. Also, despite having many planes in the NG area in 1943 the Japanese didn't seem to have any counter-doctrine at all against the US airbase build-up plan. Why didn't the Japanese try to close down US air bases in the months when the US had few planes available?

All-in-all, it was a very interesting read. Thanks for the link!



treespider -> RE: Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC (5/23/2007 2:52:55 PM)

Page 29 -
 
"If I put 20 bombers over a target—why, that was a maximum effort there for almost the first year in the Pacific."
 
 
An Interesting little quote which got me thinking about aircraft Durability.
 
I note people are finding in Nik Mod that the higher durabilities of aircraft are causing planes to not repair as quickly as stock...a while ago I reveresed engineered a formula for calculating aircraft Durability used in Stock. It was very accurate for single engine planes however for the 4 engine planes it was off by a large degree....I now wonder if in early testing 4E planes were being grounded to such a degree that they tweaked the calculated DUR to get the 4E planes operational quicker to make for a "funner game". Using my formula I arrived at the following values - note the B-17 was nearly double but the others were within a point or two which could be attributed to rounding:
 



Model	My DUR		Stock
A5M4	23		23
B-17G	124		69
F4U-4	40	F4U-1D	35
A6M6c	26	A6M5	27
P36C	27		28
P-47N	44		36
F4F-4	30		29
P-40N	31		31



Nikademus -> RE: Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC (5/23/2007 4:08:01 PM)

The fighter unservicability bug brought out of the closet by Nikmod 8.0 is dead......dead by dawn. 9.0 and 9.1 eliminated the problem.

Last nite i also sent Andrew reworked CHS with Nik set to 9.1 standards to solve that little bug-a-boo too.




treespider -> RE: Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC (5/23/2007 4:12:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

The fighter unservicability bug brought out of the closet by Nikmod 8.0 is dead......dead by dawn. 9.0 and 9.1 eliminated the problem.

Last nite i also sent Andrew reworked CHS with Nik set to 9.1 standards to solve that little bug-a-boo too.





Is it a bug because it's a bug or is it a bug because its WAD and people didn't like it...



Nikademus -> RE: Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC (5/23/2007 4:16:02 PM)

its a bug because it's not predictible, is not consistant across the board and we couldn't track down "why" it was happening.

That people didn't like it i could understand given for the impacted airgroups it could reduce servicability to less than 30% even with minimal ops settings.



Apollo11 -> RE: Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC (5/23/2007 4:17:54 PM)

Hi all,

Thanks for the book!


Leo "Apollo11"



AmiralLaurent -> RE: Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC (5/23/2007 4:22:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dive Bomber1

Also, despite having many planes in the NG area in 1943 the Japanese didn't seem to have any counter-doctrine at all against the US airbase build-up plan. Why didn't the Japanese try to close down US air bases in the months when the US had few planes available?



Simply because in real life closing an AF for more than some hours was just impossible. And Japan had not enough avaition gas, bombs and spare parts to fly round-the-clock bombing, as had neither the Allied forces before 1944.

By the way Allied airfields were often bombed by Japanese AC.

As for the document pointed by Denisonh (thanks Harvey), it is very interesting but it gives only the Allied point of view. Real Japanese losses (that were not available to the writer at the time, probably) are not indicated only Allied claims.
During the description of the pounding of Wewak base, he writes "even if claims are false to the high ratio of 25%". In fact A2A claims were usually false by 30% (for US) and far more for Japan. Ground claims were far more off the mark for all airforces in WWII.



Apollo11 -> RE: Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC (5/25/2007 3:51:36 PM)

Hi all,

Guys have any of you successfully printed out this PDF?

I am having problems on almost all my printers (regardless of memory installed) - the vector graphics are all screwed up... [:(]

The only printer that prints OK is one printer that has PS (PostScript) but that one is not duplex.


Leo "Apollo11"



timtom -> RE: Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC (5/26/2007 11:30:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

very good article and nice to read also for non native speakers! [&o]

Just read a couple of pages so far...

I liked that one:

Despite its prowess, The B-17 had been a stopgap weapon
in the art of low-level antishipping attack. Vulnerable to the
fire of Japanese ships, the Fortress made an easy target, especially
without the forward firepower to keep enemy gunners
ducking for cover.


I couldn´t prevent myself from a little smile... [:D]

or that one:

No one expected a B-25 to make a masthead run with only one gun in the nose, and the
top turret hoping to get in a shot now and then. The first B-25 run on
the convoy was made at 1100 feet. One B-25 crashed into the sea, two
were holed, two had their turret canopies shot away, and they were
forced to jettison their bombs. This demonstration of the potency of Nip
AA caused later runs by B-25s to average over 4300 feet. B-26s averaged
8400 feet for their runs throughout the entire action.21

while attacking freighters...... [X(][X(][X(]



Yeah...just imagine what Allied AAA would do to miss Betty coming in on the torpedo run.


[image]local://upfiles/8484/663E4B69C1EC4886A85E89F276F0819B.jpg[/image]



Yamato hugger -> RE: Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC (5/26/2007 11:45:49 PM)

Well just goes to show that my cries of AA being way off are valid.



String -> RE: Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC (5/26/2007 11:49:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

very good article and nice to read also for non native speakers! [&o]

Just read a couple of pages so far...

I liked that one:

Despite its prowess, The B-17 had been a stopgap weapon
in the art of low-level antishipping attack. Vulnerable to the
fire of Japanese ships, the Fortress made an easy target, especially
without the forward firepower to keep enemy gunners
ducking for cover.


I couldn´t prevent myself from a little smile... [:D]

or that one:

No one expected a B-25 to make a masthead run with only one gun in the nose, and the
top turret hoping to get in a shot now and then. The first B-25 run on
the convoy was made at 1100 feet. One B-25 crashed into the sea, two
were holed, two had their turret canopies shot away, and they were
forced to jettison their bombs. This demonstration of the potency of Nip
AA caused later runs by B-25s to average over 4300 feet. B-26s averaged
8400 feet for their runs throughout the entire action.21

while attacking freighters...... [X(][X(][X(]



Yeah...just imagine what Allied AAA would do to miss Betty coming in on the torpedo run.




You mean like -this?-



Terminus -> RE: Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC (5/26/2007 11:50:57 PM)

Yes, the record of a single event is a good way to look at thousands of similar events over a five-year period and draw a good general conclusion. Very good way...

No wait, what's that other one? Oh yeah, a very BAD way...



Yamato hugger -> RE: Allied Bombing Tactics in the SWPAC (5/27/2007 12:20:54 AM)

Wasnt a one time occurance. B17s (initially used for skip bombing) stopped doing it because they were too slow and not maneuverable enough to avoid the AA. With the additional guns on the nose of the B-25s combined with their speed and maneuverability made it a viable



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.78125