quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Did they bomb together or separately at different altitudes? I have seen many B-25 photos bombing airfields with parafrag bombs but almost no 4Es.

quote:

Old 666, B-17E 41-2666 was a World War II B-17 Flying Fortress Bomber which was assigned to the United States' 43rd Bomb Group in 1943...

By 1943, Old 666, tail number 41-2666, had suffered heavy battle damage and had gained a reputation as a cursed bomber, often coming back from missions with heavy damage. Grounded at Port Moresby Airport, it was parked at the end of the runway where other aircrews could cannibalize it for needed parts...

Captain Zeamer, who had been unable to acquire an aircraft of his own, had the bomber towed out of the 'bone yard' and, with enormous effort, not only restored the badly battered aircraft to flight status but made many changes.

They included increasing the number of machine guns from 13 to 19, replacing the waist gunners' standard single guns with twin guns, replacing all .30 cal machine guns with the larger and more powerful .50 cal, and adding a fixed-position gun that could be fired from the pilot's station... These modifications made Old 666 the most heavily armed bomber in the Pacific Theater.

...Zeamer and crew made a skip-bombing run on a Japanese aircraft carrier, swooping within fifty feet of its decks.

A few days later on a daylight bombing raid over Rabaul, Old 666 came in so low it was brushing the roofs of the housetops. On a night mission over Wewak the Japanese gunners on the ground managed to fix the flight of incoming American bombers in the glare of several large searchlights, but, in an audacious display of airmanship, Zeamer dove on the positions, shooting out three lights and damaging two others.

...special mission: an unescorted, single-ship mapping mission over hostile territory. Capt. Zeamer and crew volunteered... 'Old 666' and crew headed for Bougainville, where they were instructed to take reconnaissance of the Japanese controlled island, to determine logistics and enemy strength for the upcoming Invasion of the Solomon Islands.

The flight required flying over 600 miles (970 km) of open sea to reach the target. By 7:40 a.m., with only 22 minutes of flight-time remaining to complete its mission, Old 666 was intercepted by at least 17 Japanese fighters (15 A6M Zeros and 2 Ki-46 Dinahs) of the 251st Kokutai Squadron, commanded by Chief Flight Petty Officer Yoshio Ooki.[2] After making a pass at the heavily armed tail, the fighters came in against the normally lightly armed nose, only to find that this specific bomber possessed much-heavier forward firepower, resulting in two A6M Zeros being shot down. 20mm cannon shells from a third Zero smashed into the cockpit and nose, wounding both Zeamer and Sarnoski before being shot down itself.

...Zeamer, however, was not dead, and lived to receive the Medal of Honor; Sarnoski was awarded his Medal of Honor posthumously. In one of the most decorated flights in history, the rest of the crew received Distinguished Service Crosses.

quote:

In August and September 1942 Major William Benn, who had come to Australia as General Kenney's aide and then given command of the B-17s of 63rd Squadron, 43rd Bombardment Group, began practicing the new skip-bombing technique on a wrecked ship in the harbor at Port Moresby. Rather than releasing their bombs from high above the enemy ship, the plan was for Benn's daring pilots to fly as low as 200 feet, aiming the nose of their bombers directly at enemy targets, and then releasing their bombs on a near horizontal trajectory to skip across the water into the ship's side. Under combat conditions the pilots would be flying directly into the enemy guns at speeds over 200 miles per hour. The bombs were to be released from a distance of 300 yards or less, forcing the pilot to climb quickly to avoid collision. The practice was dangerous and required concentration and nerves of steel.

By October 23, 1942, Benn's pilots were ready to try the concept on actual enemy targets. During a night raid over Rabaul six Flying Fortresses dropped bombs on the enemy harbor from 10,000 feet, while six other B-17s came in at 100 feet to skip their bombs. Piloting the bomber named Black Jack, Captain Ken McCullar sank a destroyer with two hits amidships...

During those late-October missions Captain McCullar flew into Rabaul three times with a particular good friend in the navigator's chair once, and then in the copilot's seat twice. That friend was the most likeable man in the 43rd Bombardment Group, an officer who was generally popular everywhere except in the cockpit.

Until the missions with McCullar no one had wanted to fly with Lieutenant Zeamer. For this reason he had no assigned airplane or crew. Instead, he roved the entire group as a "pilot-at-large". To make matters more complicated, Jay Zeamer wasn't actually even a pilot.

He was, in fact, the most senior non-pilot, pilot in the entire Group.

quote:

In 1944, the group converted from medium, twin engined B-25 Mitchell and B-26 marauder bombers to heavy four engined B-24 Liberator bombers. Following its conversion to B-24 Liberators, on 11 February 1944 the 22d Bomb Group was redesignated 22 Bomb Group, Heavy. Bombed Japanese airfields, shipping, and oil installations in Borneo, Ceram, and Halmahera. Began raiding the southern Philippines in September 1944 to neutralize Japanese bases in preparation for the invasion of Leyte.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Is there a list of substantial 4E raids in the PTO on port/airfields prior to Home Islands bombings?
I am only aware of raids on Truk.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

In 1942 the "heavy bomber" force was lucky to survive:
- Initially the few B-17s of the 7th and 19th Bomb groups were used to hit tactical targets - shipping in ports and captured airfields to slow down Japanese expansion (like Lingayen gulf, Davao, Tarakan, Menado, Balikpapan, etc...). However as most of the planes were older (B-17Ds and first B-17Es), they badly needed overhaul and often part of the strike has to return due to engine problems - so most of the strikes were just 3-6 planes.
- As situation deteriorated and USAAF had to retreat from Java to Australia there were just handful of worn-out planes with almost no spare parts. Most of the flyable planes were thus used for vital Naval Search (as the planes had the legs) - all through the 1942 - B-17s made Naval Search from Luganville to support Guadalcanal campaign.

For example 10th Air Force in India in the end of 1942 had just 10 heavy bombers (B-17Ds and few LB-30s), after best ones were sent to Middle east. These spent the monsoon on airstrips in India waiting for engines/parts.

From the 1943 the situation started to improve:
- In SWPAC heavy bombers lacked industrial targets, so their main targets were airfields and harbours - in true air superiority and interdiction campaigns. Usually a group flew missions together (that means each squadron sent few planes on strike - usually 3-6) giving a usual strike package of 18-21 planes - IRL you do did not need more planes to cover runway with craters to make it unusable for few hours.
- In SEA the few heavy bombers started with strikes against Andamans, Rangoon port, airfields and railways - in an interdiction role. But given the number of available planes these were usually flights of 3-12 planes. And often at night!
- In CENPAC heavy bombers made several attacks on exposed Japanese holdings - Wake, Tarawa, etc. However these were at the extreme range of the planes (they usually flew with extra fuel tanks in bomb bays) with reduced bombloads.

In 1944 it was much better:
- In CENPAC these were used to "soften" island targets before invasions - but usually not more than a group sized missions were flown (so up to 48 planes max) - cratering airfields and striking tactical targets on islands.
- In SWPAC the heavy bombers often flew in air superiority role - targeting airfields on New Britain, Bougainville and New Guinea. Their mission was usually to suppress/divide air defences for the following low level strafers (hitting flak along runways served better than trying to hit airplane hidden in jungle from 10.000 ft). But also usually one bomber group was used.
- In India and Chine heavies continued to strike interdiction targets - railways, ports, supply centers, etc. Rangoon port was quite often visited by Liberators, simply because mediums lacked the range.
- First XXth bomber command started attacks with B-29s from India against Rangoon, Bangkok, Sabang and even Singapore and Saigon usually targeting ports or industry.
- Moving to China (supply permitted) the strikes went against Japanese warehouses and river traffic in interdiction roles with first attacks on Japanese/Manchurian industry targets

Only in 1945 it started to be really a strategic bombing campaign:
- With B-29s moved to Marianas the real "strategic bombing campaign" had really begun targeting industry in Japan. Some missions were flown for support of fleet/amphib invasions like Formosa and Kyushu airfields for Okinawa campaign support.
- B-24s continued their work on air superiority/interdiction campaigns - striking airfields, ports, railways, bridges, warehouses, and other targets... but still usually in 1-2 group size packages - or about 48 heavies for single target (Actually I am laughing and crying at the same time when I see an AAR where 400 heavy bombers are bombing some troops in the middle of jungle, or hitting some small island).

So in the Pacific terms - strategic campaign really was not really the option until late 1944 with first B-29s arriving. Up to that date it was mainly survival (1942) and air superiority/interdiction campaigns - or what one could call "tactical targets". Or in the game terms - strike airfields and ports until you get some real strategic targets into range.

Sources: Air Force Historical Studies:
http://www.afhra.af.mil/studies/numberedusafhistoricalstudies.asp

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

In 1942 the "heavy bomber" force was lucky to survive:
- Initially the few B-17s of the 7th and 19th Bomb groups were used to hit tactical targets - shipping in ports and captured airfields to slow down Japanese expansion (like Lingayen gulf, Davao, Tarakan, Menado, Balikpapan, etc...). However as most of the planes were older (B-17Ds and first B-17Es), they badly needed overhaul and often part of the strike has to return due to engine problems - so most of the strikes were just 3-6 planes.
- As situation deteriorated and USAAF had to retreat from Java to Australia there were just handful of worn-out planes with almost no spare parts. Most of the flyable planes were thus used for vital Naval Search (as the planes had the legs) - all through the 1942 - B-17s made Naval Search from Luganville to support Guadalcanal campaign.

For example 10th Air Force in India in the end of 1942 had just 10 heavy bombers (B-17Ds and few LB-30s), after best ones were sent to Middle east. These spent the monsoon on airstrips in India waiting for engines/parts.

From the 1943 the situation started to improve:
- In SWPAC heavy bombers lacked industrial targets, so their main targets were airfields and harbours - in true air superiority and interdiction campaigns. Usually a group flew missions together (that means each squadron sent few planes on strike - usually 3-6) giving a usual strike package of 18-21 planes - IRL you do did not need more planes to cover runway with craters to make it unusable for few hours.
- In SEA the few heavy bombers started with strikes against Andamans, Rangoon port, airfields and railways - in an interdiction role. But given the number of available planes these were usually flights of 3-12 planes. And often at night!
- In CENPAC heavy bombers made several attacks on exposed Japanese holdings - Wake, Tarawa, etc. However these were at the extreme range of the planes (they usually flew with extra fuel tanks in bomb bays) with reduced bombloads.

In 1944 it was much better:
- In CENPAC these were used to "soften" island targets before invasions - but usually not more than a group sized missions were flown (so up to 48 planes max) - cratering airfields and striking tactical targets on islands.
- In SWPAC the heavy bombers often flew in air superiority role - targeting airfields on New Britain, Bougainville and New Guinea. Their mission was usually to suppress/divide air defences for the following low level strafers (hitting flak along runways served better than trying to hit airplane hidden in jungle from 10.000 ft). But also usually one bomber group was used.
- In India and Chine heavies continued to strike interdiction targets - railways, ports, supply centers, etc. Rangoon port was quite often visited by Liberators, simply because mediums lacked the range.
- First XXth bomber command started attacks with B-29s from India against Rangoon, Bangkok, Sabang and even Singapore and Saigon usually targeting ports or industry.
- Moving to China (supply permitted) the strikes went against Japanese warehouses and river traffic in interdiction roles with first attacks on Japanese/Manchurian industry targets

Only in 1945 it started to be really a strategic bombing campaign:
- With B-29s moved to Marianas the real "strategic bombing campaign" had really begun targeting industry in Japan. Some missions were flown for support of fleet/amphib invasions like Formosa and Kyushu airfields for Okinawa campaign support.
- B-24s continued their work on air superiority/interdiction campaigns - striking airfields, ports, railways, bridges, warehouses, and other targets... but still usually in 1-2 group size packages - or about 48 heavies for single target (Actually I am laughing and crying at the same time when I see an AAR where 400 heavy bombers are bombing some troops in the middle of jungle, or hitting some small island).

So in the Pacific terms - strategic campaign really was not really the option until late 1944 with first B-29s arriving. Up to that date it was mainly survival (1942) and air superiority/interdiction campaigns - or what one could call "tactical targets". Or in the game terms - strike airfields and ports until you get some real strategic targets into range.

Sources: Air Force Historical Studies:
http://www.afhra.af.mil/studies/numberedusafhistoricalstudies.asp

If I recall Kenny found some of his heavy bomber units to be so worn down that the only solution he could see was to disband them and send them home.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

Only in 1945 it started to be really a strategic bombing campaign:
- With B-29s moved to Marianas the real "strategic bombing campaign" had really begun targeting industry in Japan. Some missions were flown for support of fleet/amphib invasions like Formosa and Kyushu airfields for Okinawa campaign support.
- B-24s continued their work on air superiority/interdiction campaigns - striking airfields, ports, railways, bridges, warehouses, and other targets... but still usually in 1-2 group size packages - or about 48 heavies for single target (Actually I am laughing and crying at the same time when I see an AAR where 400 heavy bombers are bombing some troops in the middle of jungle, or hitting some small island).

So in the Pacific terms - strategic campaign really was not really the option until late 1944 with first B-29s arriving. Up to that date it was mainly survival (1942) and air superiority/interdiction campaigns - or what one could call "tactical targets". Or in the game terms - strike airfields and ports until you get some real strategic targets into range.

Sources: Air Force Historical Studies:
http://www.afhra.af.mil/studies/numberedusafhistoricalstudies.asp

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

Only in 1945 it started to be really a strategic bombing campaign:
- With B-29s moved to Marianas the real "strategic bombing campaign" had really begun targeting industry in Japan. Some missions were flown for support of fleet/amphib invasions like Formosa and Kyushu airfields for Okinawa campaign support.
- B-24s continued their work on air superiority/interdiction campaigns - striking airfields, ports, railways, bridges, warehouses, and other targets... but still usually in 1-2 group size packages - or about 48 heavies for single target (Actually I am laughing and crying at the same time when I see an AAR where 400 heavy bombers are bombing some troops in the middle of jungle, or hitting some small island).

So in the Pacific terms - strategic campaign really was not really the option until late 1944 with first B-29s arriving. Up to that date it was mainly survival (1942) and air superiority/interdiction campaigns - or what one could call "tactical targets". Or in the game terms - strike airfields and ports until you get some real strategic targets into range.

Sources: Air Force Historical Studies:
http://www.afhra.af.mil/studies/numberedusafhistoricalstudies.asp

Imagine if you were playing the game from the other side! I've done quite a bit of crying but not much laughing. [;)]

From late 42 on both my opponents have massed all that they could onto big well-supported fields and sent huge waves of 4Es, usually with 2Es mixed in to take advantage of their immensely overrated defensive fire. First 150+, then in 43 up to 300+, then in 44-45 up to 400+.

What can they do? It's the Allies best weapon in game and with this mass you can take out any base, hit every ship in any port, or knock out ALL of the industry of most bases. Should they not do it?

I've read a bit about 4E bombing in the CBI in detail, and raids were usually under 30 planes until late 43. As you mentioned there simply were not enough frames, supplies, parts personnel and other support including aircrews. In Burma they did bomb the sports and rail yards a lot, with some airfields mixed in occasionally.

In game though it works, it's allowed without great penalties, and it's tough to stop. The only method is massing defensive CAP in a very small area and leaving the rest to it's fate. That and a lot of taunting, swearing and aggressive posturing. [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

2) Try to pair Base Forces with flying units - 3rd BG operates from airfield where 3rd Base Force is present, etc (it is harder to organize as some units change names, or base force numbers do not fit - but it is an extra challenge), as well as operating Army planes with army base forces units and Naval Planes with naval base forces in support.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

CRAP! [:@] Once again , let's try to come up with unrealistic house rules for the sole purpose of making life easy for the JFB! The only way I think you could even begin to sell that hair brain idea is to prohibit IJA from landing at IJN bases and vice versa. And lets no let ANY JFB units sail from IJN bases while we are at it! Pretty silly , eh?

Let's start with that means NO USAAF in OZ, or USN or USMC either. As all bases there were RAAF (just like in England the 8th and 9th AF's operated from RAF bases). No USAAF in China either. Or Noumeau (French). Hell the USAAF in Europe even operated from RUSSIAN bases against the Germans.

Now let's also consider that such a rule in reality would mean no lend-lease. And probably no alliance. Yeah , I could just see USA papers saying "Our boys are dying there , and were are providing massive amounts of lend lease and other aid, but we can't land on their precious soil. And we are OK with that". Yeah, right. PP's were already paid. They were called "lend-lease" and "alliance". Then they were further financed in blood.

So before we jump on the band wagon echoing "oh yeah, that's a really freakin' great house rule that we can add to the other 999 we've proposed already" lets take a moment or two to actually THINK of the repercussions.

I've never been a fan of house rules. (Like no one knows this). But I freely acknowledge the possible need for SOME. This rule completely bypasses the
'smell test" and runs right to the "projectile power puke test". It absolutely totally changes the game. Not to mention mugs and rapes reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

CRAP! [:@] Once again , let's try to come up with unrealistic house rules for the sole purpose of making life easy for the JFB! The only way I think you could even begin to sell that hair brain idea is to prohibit IJA from landing at IJN bases and vice versa. And lets no let ANY JFB units sail from IJN bases while we are at it! Pretty silly , eh?

Let's start with that means NO USAAF in OZ, or USN or USMC either. As all bases there were RAAF (just like in England the 8th and 9th AF's operated from RAF bases). No USAAF in China either. Or Noumeau (French). Hell the USAAF in Europe even operated from RUSSIAN bases against the Germans.

Now let's also consider that such a rule in reality would mean no lend-lease. And probably no alliance. Yeah , I could just see USA papers saying "Our boys are dying there , and were are providing massive amounts of lend lease and other aid, but we can't land on their precious soil. And we are OK with that". Yeah, right. PP's were already paid. They were called "lend-lease" and "alliance". Then they were further financed in blood.

So before we jump on the band wagon echoing "oh yeah, that's a really freakin' great house rule that we can add to the other 999 we've proposed already" lets take a moment or two to actually THINK of the repercussions.

I've never been a fan of house rules. (Like no one knows this). But I freely acknowledge the possible need for SOME. This rule completely bypasses the
'smell test" and runs right to the "projectile power puke test". It absolutely totally changes the game. Not to mention mugs and rapes reality.

Wow, relax man, this is not some kind of house rule, this is genuine roleplaying, if players are into it let them live, just say that you find that such role playing is not for you and that's it...

In Barb's example he is clearly talking from the point of view of someon who likes his game to stay slower and smaller than what it tends to become because players optimize... It is very likely that his opponent enjoys the same sort of role-playing as Japan : army support for army only, no combined action of the 2 at tactical level, etc...

The main thing is : let them live, to each his own, this game is flexible and if some guys like to play it in a different way doesn't mean that it fails the "projectile power puke test" or "rapes reality"...

Take a deep breath.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

CRAP! [:@] Once again , let's try to come up with unrealistic house rules for the sole purpose of making life easy for the JFB! The only way I think you could even begin to sell that hair brain idea is to prohibit IJA from landing at IJN bases and vice versa. And lets no let ANY JFB units sail from IJN bases while we are at it! Pretty silly , eh?

Let's start with that means NO USAAF in OZ, or USN or USMC either. As all bases there were RAAF (just like in England the 8th and 9th AF's operated from RAF bases). No USAAF in China either. Or Noumeau (French). Hell the USAAF in Europe even operated from RUSSIAN bases against the Germans.

Now let's also consider that such a rule in reality would mean no lend-lease. And probably no alliance. Yeah , I could just see USA papers saying "Our boys are dying there , and were are providing massive amounts of lend lease and other aid, but we can't land on their precious soil. And we are OK with that". Yeah, right. PP's were already paid. They were called "lend-lease" and "alliance". Then they were further financed in blood.

So before we jump on the band wagon echoing "oh yeah, that's a really freakin' great house rule that we can add to the other 999 we've proposed already" lets take a moment or two to actually THINK of the repercussions.

I've never been a fan of house rules. (Like no one knows this). But I freely acknowledge the possible need for SOME. This rule completely bypasses the
'smell test" and runs right to the "projectile power puke test". It absolutely totally changes the game. Not to mention mugs and rapes reality.

Wow, relax man, this is not some kind of house rule, this is genuine roleplaying, if players are into it let them live, just say that you find that such role playing is not for you and that's it...

In Barb's example he is clearly talking from the point of view of someon who likes his game to stay slower and smaller than what it tends to become because players optimize... It is very likely that his opponent enjoys the same sort of role-playing as Japan : army support for army only, no combined action of the 2 at tactical level, etc...

The main thing is : let them live, to each his own, this game is flexible and if some guys like to play it in a different way doesn't mean that it fails the "projectile power puke test" or "rapes reality"...

Take a deep breath.

What? You think I'm going to hunt them down and hurt them? [:D] Maybe you need to spend more time on this forum. The increadibly prolific birth of more and more restrictive house rules is seldom answered. Everytime some one comes up with a new proposal , the community often responds with "unhuh", like a group of slack jawed inebriated primates who can only see how this would give them a advantage in THEIR play. If my response seems violent and extreme, then GOOD!!!!!! By doing that , I can assume I got your attention. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! [:D][:D][:D] But I serious feel the people who need to "stop and take a break" are those who propose such ridiculous rules without seriously considering all the angles and repercussions. You are right, this something to be considered among TWO players. But with everyone posting such a rule , then nodding "Uh-huh" , you legitimize it. Now every time I try to advertise for an opponent , everyone who doesn't have four stars next to his log on name will require 472 house rules, because that's how many the latest thread has. How many threads have been started with the question "what house rules do I need?". Instead of the ,the more logical question "Do I need any and why?". [:(]
I oppose anyone who tries to legitimize the concept that to run a PBEM you need to take on as many house rules as possible , because , like a young person buying a new car "all the cool kids have them!".

My comments were and are intended to be one thing and one thing only. An old geezer smacking young pups on the head and saying "what's the matter with you? Did you even think before you posted?". Because I'm a geezer. And that's what geezers do. Now wipe your nose , and get off my front lawn ya punk kid![:D][:D][:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

2) Try to pair Base Forces with flying units - 3rd BG operates from airfield where 3rd Base Force is present, etc (it is harder to organize as some units change names, or base force numbers do not fit - but it is an extra challenge), as well as operating Army planes with army base forces units and Naval Planes with naval base forces in support.

To tie specific air units to specific base forces goes a bit to far IMO, but forcing to use Army base forces for Army planes and Navy base forces for Navy planes is on my wish list as well. Plus a nationality check - US planes require US base forces etc. Currently the game allows for a flexibility which did not exist IRL. A toggle would be nice so players could select between the current flexible variant and "Ironman" aviation support.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

2) Try to pair Base Forces with flying units - 3rd BG operates from airfield where 3rd Base Force is present, etc (it is harder to organize as some units change names, or base force numbers do not fit - but it is an extra challenge), as well as operating Army planes with army base forces units and Naval Planes with naval base forces in support.

To tie specific air units to specific base forces goes a bit to far IMO, but forcing to use Army base forces for Army planes and Navy base forces for Navy planes is on my wish list as well. Plus a nationality check - US planes require US base forces etc. Currently the game allows for a flexibility which did not exist IRL. A toggle would be nice so players could select between the current flexible variant and "Ironman" aviation support.

I doubt any change of this kind would make it to the game :D
Anyway it is often hard to keep it all aligned (like ground forces HQ arrangements), but one can keep some control over his own actions - you can fly some missions from base X, but as your home base is Y, you should try to return the planes back to their home station after their mission is accomplished.

It is like using advanced landing grounds IRL - you can fly a 7th BG missions from Port Moresby, but as your home base and "workshops" is at Townswille, once you are done, get the planes back to Townswille for repair and maintenance... Its easy as that [;)]

One can imagine the poor mechanic trained in maintenance of a P-40 fighter (or Allison engine) attending a B-17 (or Wright Cyclone)... [sm=Christo_pull_hair.gif]