quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

It is easy to hit targets with a 4 engine bomber from 100'. I've been in one at 200' (the minimum allowed by Navy regs) and done it. . The problem with 100' in an aircraft with a 100' wingspan, well, you do the math. [:D] All aircraft drop slightly in a turn (except for VERY high powered , high performance aircraft doing climbing turns). So what this means is that a B-17 sacrafices ALL maneveability for accuracy. (Sort of like they did in Europe-a B-17 , one minute out from IP-initial point- not only couldn't manuever, the bombardier was flying the aircraft.). So the problems are bomb fuzing (an easy fix) and crew training (a time consuming fix).

As has been mentioned before, B-17s were the 1st aircraft to do skip bombing, at the end of the PI campaign. But why endanger 10 men in a half million dollar aircraft when you can do it with 5 or less men in a much,much cheaper aircraft? I've always felt that skip bombing for heavies was a very viable tactic, if the allied side is willing to risk VERY heavy losses. I have always felt that a lot of people screaming "gamey" are confusing historical with possible. How many times was a "possible " tactic not used by a "nervous" commander afraid what would happen to him when it went wrong? Even Curtis LeMay had 2nd thoughts about low level firebombing raids over Japan with stripped down B-29's. But we don't consider it "gamey". If some commander in the South Pacific had said "set the B-17's at 100' ", we would not be having this conversation today. [:)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

It is easy to hit targets with a 4 engine bomber from 100'. I've been in one at 200' (the minimum allowed by Navy regs) and done it. . The problem with 100' in an aircraft with a 100' wingspan, well, you do the math. [:D] All aircraft drop slightly in a turn (except for VERY high powered , high performance aircraft doing climbing turns). So what this means is that a B-17 sacrafices ALL maneveability for accuracy. (Sort of like they did in Europe-a B-17 , one minute out from IP-initial point- not only couldn't manuever, the bombardier was flying the aircraft.). So the problems are bomb fuzing (an easy fix) and crew training (a time consuming fix).

As has been mentioned before, B-17s were the 1st aircraft to do skip bombing, at the end of the PI campaign. But why endanger 10 men in a half million dollar aircraft when you can do it with 5 or less men in a much,much cheaper aircraft? I've always felt that skip bombing for heavies was a very viable tactic, if the allied side is willing to risk VERY heavy losses. I have always felt that a lot of people screaming "gamey" are confusing historical with possible. How many times was a "possible " tactic not used by a "nervous" commander afraid what would happen to him when it went wrong? Even Curtis LeMay had 2nd thoughts about low level firebombing raids over Japan with stripped down B-29's. But we don't consider it "gamey". If some commander in the South Pacific had said "set the B-17's at 100' ", we would not be having this conversation today. [:)]

I am 100% with you Steve on this!

If it was possible to do it in WWII - we should have it in WitP-AE - all is OK there!


But, the AA should "chew" those B-17's - the broad daylight attacks against navy man-of-war armed with AA should be suicide mission!


I was in Air Force 20+ years ago doing my army time and I was with SAMs (SA-3). But we also had manually trained 20mm AA guns. Those were more modern versions of the WWII era and they were lethal!

Thus I can almost guarantee you that on broad daylight at open sea there should not be any surprises on well maintained navy ships with lookouts searching the horizon and the skies... the big B-17's starting attack from 2000 ft (that's about 600 meters of altitude) and finalizing at 100-200 ft (that's about 30m) would have been long sighted, avoided and shot down with any properly manned navy man-of-war...


Leo "Apollo11"

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

It is easy to hit targets with a 4 engine bomber from 100'. I've been in one at 200' (the minimum allowed by Navy regs) and done it. . The problem with 100' in an aircraft with a 100' wingspan, well, you do the math. [:D] All aircraft drop slightly in a turn (except for VERY high powered , high performance aircraft doing climbing turns). So what this means is that a B-17 sacrafices ALL maneveability for accuracy. (Sort of like they did in Europe-a B-17 , one minute out from IP-initial point- not only couldn't manuever, the bombardier was flying the aircraft.). So the problems are bomb fuzing (an easy fix) and crew training (a time consuming fix).

As has been mentioned before, B-17s were the 1st aircraft to do skip bombing, at the end of the PI campaign. But why endanger 10 men in a half million dollar aircraft when you can do it with 5 or less men in a much,much cheaper aircraft? I've always felt that skip bombing for heavies was a very viable tactic, if the allied side is willing to risk VERY heavy losses. I have always felt that a lot of people screaming "gamey" are confusing historical with possible. How many times was a "possible " tactic not used by a "nervous" commander afraid what would happen to him when it went wrong? Even Curtis LeMay had 2nd thoughts about low level firebombing raids over Japan with stripped down B-29's. But we don't consider it "gamey". If some commander in the South Pacific had said "set the B-17's at 100' ", we would not be having this conversation today. [:)]

I am 100% with you Steve on this!

If it was possible to do it in WWII - we should have it in WitP-AE - all is OK there!


But, the AA should "chew" those B-17's - the broad daylight attacks against navy man-of-war armed with AA should be suicide mission!


I was in Air Force 20+ years ago doing my army time and I was with SAMs (SA-3). But we also had manually trained 20mm AA guns. Those were more modern versions of the WWII era and they were lethal!

Thus I can almost guarantee you that on broad daylight at open sea there should not be any surprises on well maintained navy ships with lookouts searching the horizon and the skies... the big B-17's starting attack from 2000 ft (that's about 600 meters of altitude) and finalizing at 100-200 ft (that's about 30m) would have been long sighted, avoided and shot down with any properly manned navy man-of-war...

I understand Leo, but I can attest to you that on many,many occasions , I've been in a vintage 50's P-3(a,b, and c models) using late 1940's ESM and time and time again caught warships of all nations totally by surprise ! Needless to say , we never made a second pass![:D] The 1st vessel that I couldn't pull that on were the Ticonderoga Class cruisers (tried, tried and tried again). Part of the trick is you don't start at 2,000 feet. You start lower and keep gradually decending. I'm not going to go into the tactics of RADAR evasion (because , despite being 50 years old, they still work). And of course , no crew, no matter how good , can maintain a tight general quarters (or action stations) forever. People get tired, bored and get lazy. And of course, weather is the attackers friend. Clouds, storms and haze are your best friend. Use them well, and you can be practically invisable.

As far as accurracy goes , we (my squadron) experimented in the late 1980's with trying to put a sono-bouy into a very small ploynia (about the size of a mini bus) from 200' using naked eye-ball and FLIR (I was the FLIR operator). We only missed once in over 70 tests. And that was becasue a gust of wind caught the bouy and slammed it against the canyon before dropping it into the water (breaking it). Had that been a 500 lb bomb , that wouldn't have been a factor. A really good crew can manever at the altitude, but it would be difficult (although not impossible--we had a couple of green crews with us and they did OK).

quote:


So why is it we can except the KB coming out of nowhere to bomb the daylights out of you , but can't accept a gaggle of B-17's doing the same thing? [&:]

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo

"3 April 1943:
Moewe anchorage. Boeing B-17 "Flying Fortresses" of the Fifth Air Force's 43rd Bomb Group attack moored AOBA. The big bombers skip-bomb from between 75 and 250 feet with delayed-action fused 500-lb. bombs. A direct hit on AOBA explodes two Type 93 "Long Lance" torpedoes stored aboard and sets the ship afire while the B-17's .50-cal. machine guns strafe her decks. HATSUZUKI assists in fire-fighting. AOBA is flooded and has to be beached to avoid sinking. Destroyer FUMIZUKI is also damaged lightly by a near-miss. The Americans suffer no losses and the 43rd claims two 'probable cruisers' sunk."

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Leo, let me ask you this, how many u-boats were suprised by B-24's and other long ranged aircraft? The sea bottom was littered with their hulls. Would a U-boat lookout be more complaicent then say a IJN heavy cruiser (which felt it'self to be near invincible?). Having spent thousands  of hours staring at a boring , empty sea, I can tell you it's easy even for a very experinced lookout to be distracted, fixated or simply miss a contact. The easiest way is to stare right at it. You spot distant targets with your perifial vision. You spot movement. Looking at an object coming at you head on in a steady manner is a very easy way NOT to see it. You have to constantly keep turning your head to make sure that doesn't happen. And binoculars will narrow your vision so much , that you will frequently miss a contact. [:(]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis
I think that a CV should be able to out manuever a few big 4E bombers so easily. One steep turn should be enough.

Isn't this a bit counter-intuitive? I mean that by your logic a big 4-engined bomber should be able to out manuever a few nimble fighters as well? And what are the CV's choices? Be skip bombed from the side? Or allow the bomber to walk a salvo of bombs down the deck?

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo

"3 April 1943:
Moewe anchorage. Boeing B-17 "Flying Fortresses" of the Fifth Air Force's 43rd Bomb Group attack moored AOBA. The big bombers skip-bomb from between 75 and 250 feet with delayed-action fused 500-lb. bombs. A direct hit on AOBA explodes two Type 93 "Long Lance" torpedoes stored aboard and sets the ship afire while the B-17's .50-cal. machine guns strafe her decks. HATSUZUKI assists in fire-fighting. AOBA is flooded and has to be beached to avoid sinking. Destroyer FUMIZUKI is also damaged lightly by a near-miss. The Americans suffer no losses and the 43rd claims two 'probable cruisers' sunk."

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

The problem with 100' in an aircraft with a 100' wingspan, well, you do the math. [:D] All aircraft drop slightly in a turn (except for VERY high powered , high performance aircraft doing climbing turns).

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Funny, In WITP everyone considered bombing at 100'ft with 4 engine aircraft gamey, now in AE it's historical.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Funny, In WITP everyone considered bombing at 100'ft with 4 engine aircraft gamey, now in AE it's historical.

AE means Allied Edition. Japan don't have 4E bombers. [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Funny, In WITP everyone considered bombing at 100'ft with 4 engine aircraft gamey, now in AE it's historical.

quote:

Skip bombing was invented by using B-17s.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis
I really don't follow you. Ships can turn much steeper than 4E bomber. It's not my logic, it is a fact.

Five 4E bombers and 10 bomb hits it's just riduculous.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

B17's or B24's droping 500lbs bombs at a 100ft would likly blow themselves up, if the fuses were set correctly.

One would have hoped this was fixed. [8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis
I really don't follow you. Ships can turn much steeper than 4E bomber. It's not my logic, it is a fact.

Five 4E bombers and 10 bomb hits it's just riduculous.

I assume you mean "tightly"..., the only thing ships do steeply is heel over and sink. And you are ignoring the fact that the aircraft is traveling 10 times faster than the ship. As to rediculous, at least 10 hits by five bombers is possible given the bombload, Try explaining the PH results that have the Japs getting 60 "hits" with the 40 "specially modified" torpedoes they carried?

You should really check the results achieved by Sardaukar and Sheytan when they actually tried to test this result instead of complaining about it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis
Well, Sardaukar and Sheytan did their tests after I wrote my post, so I really couldn't check them before "complaining"... [:)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

What I was actually suggesting was that you might well have run some "tests" yourself before leaping in to "hammer" the designers. Just because a result can happen once in 100 tries does not mean the design is automatically biased and broken. History is repleat with 1 in 100 results..., to be accurate a simulation must also include such possibilities.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis
About PH, if japanese really get more hits than they have torpedoes, that is ridiculous too. I haven't tried that yet. And it's not subject of this thread.