RE: Did Japanese employ skip-bombing? (Full Version)

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



Message

sandman455 -> RE: Did Japanese employ skip-bombing? (11/15/2011 6:26:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

[sm=crazy.gif][sm=sign0003.gif][sm=vomit-smiley-020.gif]


S-3 guys teaching about 4E low level attacks? Maybe I should teach S-3 CV ASW? [:D] 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. [:)]


Whatever! LOL
I did qualify it as saying I didn't have a clue about skip bombing. But I challenge you to find someone that does. [:D]

And as I said before. Skipping works great over land. Anyone can tell you that. How come no skip over land? All these retarded (mechanism to imbed the forward progress) bombs, what is up with that? I think you will find the logic doesn't suddenly evaporate just because your target is on water vs land.

So a B25 is fast? Or did you mean a B-17 is fast? [&:] . Down low? Sorry, I'm not buying what you are selling. I don't think the Betty and Nell drivers would have either. Odd how they gotten eaten for breakfast most of the time. And from a mile out too.

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.

You put a 2E/4E up against a destroyer, its not going to end well. It can be done, but I think my original post was that it wasn't much different than a kamikaze attack (what was that success rate - 1 in 10 would make it to the target?) and you would get worse results.



jb1144 -> RE: Did Japanese employ skip-bombing? (11/15/2011 7:17:27 PM)

All I can tell you is that my father did fly a couple of skip bombing missions with Col. (Pappy) Gunn in the Bismark Sea when Col. Gunn took out one of the first 75mm modified B-25's that was converted at Eagle Farm. My dad was a TSGT and he was along to insure that the 75mm was working. As he was one of the men that did the installation at Eagle Farm. What he told me was Col. (Pappy) Gunn was really pushing the performance envelope of the aircraft.

As for my era of flying in the 70's we rountinely went out looking for soviet warships in a B-52. This was the only peace time mission that we flew hot. Live harpoon missiles on the plyons (on the G model), and the 50 cal. tail turret hot (ammunition loaded and guns charged). Typically we would pick up a soviet warship on the BNS Radar and the EWO ECM station first. Then we would drop down form around 30,000 feet to the deck, about 200-300 miles out, and buzz the soviet warship at 350 knots indicated, (about 0.80 mach) at about 50 feet off the deck, bow to stern or stearn to bow. What we never did was cross broadside as that would be an attack vector. This was a giant game of chicken, and these were the only peace time missions we flew hot.

In the D model B-52 it was quite a ride in the tail as the gunner. Both the gunner and the copilot were issued licaflex 35mm camera's and we were asked to shot photos of the soviet ship as we passed by. The little perk to this was we could check the camera out any time and shoot up rolls of film in the guise of practice. That was about the hotest camera going for that time.



Nikademus -> RE: Did Japanese employ skip-bombing? (11/15/2011 7:26:24 PM)

lol! can you imagine the Cold War.....under the digital age? Instead of snapping photos, the two sides would be taking iPhone/Smart Phone videos while buzzing each other's warships.

Some of which would probably end up on You Tube......might have to start a new specific site....call it M-Tube. [:D]



mike scholl 1 -> RE: Did Japanese employ skip-bombing? (11/15/2011 8:21:56 PM)


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.



sandman455 -> RE: Did Japanese employ skip-bombing? (11/15/2011 9:56:58 PM)

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.



Mike

You put some serious cannon on a 2E and you have a beast. Rockets will rule in this mission. All this is very true! She will give a merchant ship or PB a hard time for sure for no other reason than the 2E will be hitting the ship long before the ship hits it and there's really no point in overflying your target. You get lots more flexibility on the approach as well. Against a destroyer or cruiser, I'm not seeing it. I think you would be in for some ugly results because they don't really care that much about your cannons and rockets. Much of their many AA mounts are protected. As far as I know there are no examples of 2E's making rocket or cannon strikes against such heavy AA targets. Maybe someone can find an example. Either way, that's not skip bombing.

To dispute my conclusions you must find a way for big planes to survive overflying AA when the AA can see them for miles. They must fly straight and level and over fly the target or very close by. If you can't suppress the AA, it will kill you more often than not if kamikazes are a reliable indicator.

You know 360kts on the deck when it's coming straight at the gun isn't not much different than 180kts. You get a full minute at 6 miles out to figure out how to hit it. At 180kts you get 2 minutes. At the speed of sound you get 30 seconds. If you can't figure out how to hit a target coming straight at you, on the deck, in 30 seconds then color me stupid. My lands, they can get a CIWS to do it . . . sometimes.



oldman45 -> RE: Did Japanese employ skip-bombing? (11/15/2011 10:09:33 PM)

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.

Mike, I am agreeing with you the game makes it too hard. By the time my crews can do it well, I have killed most of the shipping any way.



Mynok -> RE: Did Japanese employ skip-bombing? (11/15/2011 10:44:49 PM)

Japanese light cruisers were, but Allied ones were not. I defy you to argue anyone would survive skip bombing an Atlanta CLAA. Riiight....oversize destroyer my arse.



Erkki -> RE: Did Japanese employ skip-bombing? (11/15/2011 11:02:35 PM)

Heres the frontal silhouette of the B-25:

[image]http://www.surfacezero.com/g503/data/500/medium/B-25_front_view.jpg[/image]

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...



mike scholl 1 -> RE: Did Japanese employ skip-bombing? (11/15/2011 11:32:35 PM)


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.


You hit the nail on the head. Sandman's speculations are just that, speculation based on wishfull thinking. The truth is that "Gunships" were VERY effective and their loss rate was not at all excessive.



oldman45 -> RE: Did Japanese employ skip-bombing? (11/16/2011 1:55:20 AM)

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.



JeffroK -> RE: Did Japanese employ skip-bombing? (11/16/2011 2:26:35 AM)

[image]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f2/A20BismarckSea.jpg/300px-A20BismarckSea.jpg[/image]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bismarck_Sea



JeffroK -> RE: Did Japanese employ skip-bombing? (11/16/2011 2:38:54 AM)

What the JAAF & JNAF lacked was a high powered 2E bomber with heavy forward firing MG & Cannon, even the B25 pictured by Erkki only has 4-7 FF 50cals. The real commerce destroyer lash ups of the B25 could put 12-14 50cals in the nose/upper turret.
As mentioned in the article above, it was also important to have flak suppression from Beaufighters with 4 x 20mm & 6 x .303s to keep the AAA on the poorly equipped IJN destoyers quiet to help the skip bombers onto the target.

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

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??)

In the game, I wait until 1943 before I allow any sqns to be set at 100ft, and accept the losses because the gains can be worthwhile.



oldman45 -> RE: Did Japanese employ skip-bombing? (11/16/2011 4:19:07 AM)

Jeff that is one of my all time favorite pics of airpower at work.



mike scholl 1 -> RE: Did Japanese employ skip-bombing? (11/16/2011 4:38:41 AM)


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.





JeffroK -> RE: Did Japanese employ skip-bombing? (11/16/2011 7:09:13 AM)

Yep, they and rockets are not in the game.



Apollo11 -> RE: Did Japanese employ skip-bombing? (11/16/2011 7:43:27 AM)

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"



Dili -> RE: Did Japanese employ skip-bombing? (11/16/2011 9:55:46 AM)

quote:

Dili, very interesting. Could you elaborate on this?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skip_bombing

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]



Also the pilot: http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/italy_cenni.htm

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.



spence -> RE: Did Japanese employ skip-bombing? (11/16/2011 11:50:17 AM)

quote:

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


I'm sure they were all reported in extravagant detail by that great wartime journalist: Tokyo Rose.



spence -> RE: Did Japanese employ skip-bombing? (11/16/2011 12:27:00 PM)

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.



msieving1 -> RE: Did Japanese employ skip-bombing? (11/16/2011 1:59:59 PM)


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.


According to that site, in the first week of May 1943 U-boats shot down one aircraft (and damaged another, which crash landed at its base with no casualties). That's a bit less than 23.



Jaroen -> RE: Did Japanese employ skip-bombing? (11/16/2011 3:21:19 PM)

Skip bombing was more than an oddity with the 5th AF!
It was practiced by the British in 1940 against German sea traffic and known by Arnold.
Source: http://ebooks.gutenberg.us/AU_Press_Collection/SAAS_Theses/SAASS_Out/Gann/gann.pdf
Kenney said he already experimented with the idea in real life exercises before the war (same source).
It was also used by the big 4e bombers.
See http://www.jollyrogersweb.com/Docs/Vol129May2011.pdf
and http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/digital/pdf/book/b_0096_rodman_war_of_their_own.pdf (recommended anyway!)
And not 'only' around the Guinea Island but with China BG's as well.
Source: http://www.kued.org/productions/worldwar2/untoldStories/RalphHolding.pdf
Also on the same subject: http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/0826.pdf

I'd say it definately required a well trained crew but was not demanding elite training like the Dam Busters had.
Bomb doors problems are not mentioned. I suppose these were designed to do what they did, open and close most of the time.
But specific fuse settings were of an issue.

Nice source about air-to-sea capabilities regarding anti-sub warfare:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/usaf/docs/afdd/afdd2-1-4.pdf
Together with http://www.uboat.net/history/aircraft_losses.htm it makes a strong case for the huge impact 4e bombers made on German sub warfare. I found no references to the Allied marine patrols suffering big losses to submarines. Edit: 'big losses' as in unsustainable.

@sandman455: class dismissed!  [;)]

I just love source material!







mike scholl 1 -> RE: Did Japanese employ skip-bombing? (11/16/2011 5:03:06 PM)


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"


Why would this be any particular problem? Same is true for medium and high level bombing. Difference is with "skip bombing" the AA crews are under heavy fire themselves..., which anyone who has ever been under fire will tell you makes concentration on your own aiming a LOT more difficult.



Nikademus -> RE: Did Japanese employ skip-bombing? (11/16/2011 5:26:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jaroen
I just love source material!


I just love google search warriors. Try reading your links. The Scheer port attack was a low alt attack. Not skip bombing. See Shores "Fledgling Eagles" for details of the attack.




crsutton -> RE: Did Japanese employ skip-bombing? (11/16/2011 5:38:50 PM)


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.






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.



Nikademus -> RE: Did Japanese employ skip-bombing? (11/16/2011 5:45:37 PM)


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.


Way i see it, from a developer's POV....the real issue is that some vocal players want to be able to dictate the tactic of choice, the one they feel is most effective in gaining their objectives and the whole "historical" schmeer is just the icing, the justificaiton to their want. Was Skip Bombing used? yes. Was it effective? Yes....but with major qualifications. A Developer has to look at the big picture and attempt (not always successfully) what impact allowing player x to do y would be. The frustrating thing about this particular whine....is that we've already SEEN what can happen in UV and early stock WitP. Everyone from day one using any/all 2E/4E bombers in 100 feet "skip bombing" attacks which GG originally programmed as strafe/skip bombing alt setting from Dec 7 onward. AA was not properly balanced nor were the specifics of SB even attempted to be modeled so it was a Con'less PRO that everyone and their kid brother used.

Now i know people will respond and say "THATS NOT WHAT I WANT.....just saying its TOO HARD as is" We'll thats their opinions of course. As i stated earlier though, i'd rather an potential exploit be more restrictive than less because time and again we've seen even loosely historically justified player defined abilities exploited to the hilt. It's the price we pay for a game like this. It makes me long for the days when the only option you had was to set the mission type....and the target sans any other options (bomb loadout.....altitude......aggressive factor etc etc) It's amazing how despite this "primitiveness" that the overall results tended in some cases to be more realistic than the results we see now.

I agree with you though. In my games i'm not seeing a game stopper issue here.



crsutton -> RE: Did Japanese employ skip-bombing? (11/16/2011 5:52:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erkki

Heres the frontal silhouette of the B-25:

[image]http://www.surfacezero.com/g503/data/500/medium/B-25_front_view.jpg[/image]

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...



Hmmm.... I question this analysis since it was not uncommon for some of the planes to strafe and suppress the AA guns while the others followed up with bombing attacks. I don't care how good a gunner is, you stand in a gun tub while your ship is getting sprayed with 50 cal AP rounds and see if you can focus on the target. 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 own urine....[:D]


I remember reading about a unit of Coastal Command beaufighters attacking a German barge convoy off the coast of Norway. It has been a while and I am recalling from memory. It was pretty amazing. German barges were very heavily armed with AA guns and considered very dangerous to attack. About 1/3 of the beaus were equipped with torpedoes, 1/3 rockets and bombs and the rest were reserved for straffing. They all went in on the deck an all went in at the same time. The straffers suppressed, the bombers and torpedo bombers followed and laid their packages and that was it. One pass, line abreast, perhaps a minute of combat. No second passes, they attacked and went home. BTW, the real barge killers were solid metal rockets aimed just below the water line. If aimed right the rockets would deflect into the hull below the water line punching numerous holes and then banging around the machinery spaces killing and creating havoc. But I suppose those guys had to be pretty skilled to pull this off as well.

I may be foggy on the details. There might have been fighters doing the straffing and some beauforts as well. But you get the idea. I am not sure if the Americans used this tactic vs. ships, but do know that they used line abreast low level bombing to hit bases. One sweep with everybody going in line abreast, loosing all hell and then gone in a minute. Low level presented the shortest amount of time for gunners to react and the full unit sweep saturated the gunners with too many targets thus diluting the AA fire.



Yaab -> RE: Did Japanese employ skip-bombing? (11/16/2011 7:01:03 PM)

quote:

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


Jaroen, amazing stuff!



Chickenboy -> RE: Did Japanese employ skip-bombing? (11/16/2011 7:06:32 PM)


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....[:D]

Can I keep this out-of-context quote for future reference, crsutton? Sounds like the aftereffects of a very fruitful Saturday night.



crsutton -> RE: Did Japanese employ skip-bombing? (11/16/2011 8:45:11 PM)

Well, you know, its the fright thing it was referring to..[;)]

But as always my material is provided solely for your home enjoyment and may not used for rebroadcast without the explicit approval of the NFL...



oldman45 -> RE: Did Japanese employ skip-bombing? (11/16/2011 9:55:42 PM)


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"


To answer your question, pilot had a simple aiming device and he would just aim the bow of the plane at the ship and physics did the rest. I don't know how many yards in front of the plane they were bored sighted to but when they made their first run, I know they tried to make it fore and aft so they could kill the gun crews and smash the bridge.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.625