The destruction of B-17 Fortress

The destruction of B-17 Fortress (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room

Message

Judykator -> The destruction of B-17 Fortress (1/21/2011 3:01:03 PM)
How best to destroy the B-17 Fortress? What aircraft will be to use the best (1942-45) and what altiude?

scott64 -> RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress (1/21/2011 3:09:16 PM)
I have a little success with Nicks and Tonys. [8\|]

Terminus -> RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress (1/21/2011 3:35:41 PM)
Nobody is going to be flying the Fortress past 1943.

Puhis -> RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress (1/21/2011 4:38:34 PM)
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.

mattep74 -> RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress (1/21/2011 6:46:40 PM)
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.

Chickenboy -> RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress (1/21/2011 6:52:09 PM)
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.

Nomad -> RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress (1/21/2011 7:51:06 PM)
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).

Kwik E Mart -> RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress (1/21/2011 7:52:08 PM)
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...[:-]

Kwik E Mart -> RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress (1/21/2011 7:53:08 PM)
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). [:D] more like a hill...

Terminus -> RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress (1/21/2011 8:39:09 PM)
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...[8\|]

Alfred -> RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress (1/21/2011 8:42:51 PM)
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

wildweasel0585 -> RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress (1/21/2011 9:01:50 PM)
100'?? I think they would have done better at 50'. but seriously... do you not like your bombers?

augustinus -> RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress (1/21/2011 9:25:00 PM)
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.

Terminus -> RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress (1/21/2011 9:26:19 PM)
Try B-29s...[8\|]

mattep74 -> RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress (1/21/2011 9:28:31 PM)
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

Terminus -> RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress (1/21/2011 9:34:32 PM)
If you're going to do something that stupid, you deserve all the losses you take.

bradfordkay -> RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress (1/21/2011 10:44:20 PM)
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...

mike scholl 1 -> RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress (1/21/2011 10:52:19 PM)
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.

TheElf -> RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress (1/21/2011 11:58:57 PM)
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.

Patbgaming -> RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress (1/22/2011 2:48:24 AM)
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.

mattep74 -> RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress (1/22/2011 8:24:14 AM)
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

castor troy -> RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress (1/22/2011 8:45:11 AM)
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).

castor troy -> RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress (1/22/2011 8:46:07 AM)
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? [X(] They were taken down by stone throwing children.

stuman -> RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress (1/23/2011 2:25:10 AM)
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? [X(] 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 !

bigred -> RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress (1/25/2011 3:18:35 AM)
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.

1EyedJacks -> RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress (1/25/2011 4:28:23 AM)
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. [:D][:D] - 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

mike scholl 1 -> RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress (1/25/2011 12:15:18 PM)
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...

5thGuardsTankArmy -> RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress (1/25/2011 12:42:25 PM)
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.

mattep74 -> RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress (1/25/2011 8:56:02 PM)
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.

Nemo121 -> RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress (1/29/2011 12:00:03 PM)
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.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.640625