Airgroups altitude (Full Version)

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



Message


paolorossi -> Airgroups altitude (9/2/2016 1:24:15 PM)

Dear sirs,

just a short question regarding altitude of airgroups

I usually use the following
fighters: around 10k or higher
level bomber: 10-15k
dive bombers: 10k
torpedo bombers: 5k

Is it right? does anyone has a different approach?

and what about planes in asw roles?
I read some letting them flight at very low altitude (100m) and others between 1 and 5k
which is the best option?

Many thanks
Paolo




m10bob -> RE: Airgroups altitude (9/2/2016 2:01:17 PM)

Generally fighters should be at 6000 feet if you want them to protect your ships.
If I am on a base where only one fighter group is available, I may divide them, keeping one group at 6000 for day at 30% for CAP, another section higher, and another section for night ops (if that is an issue.)...

Keep them supplied and supported or your losses will never get refilled.

If using LRCAP to protect ships exclusively, set them for LRCAP at 20-30% and at least 20% on "rest" or the fatigue rate will kill morale and increase losses and crashes.

I keep my dive bombers at 16000 feet to aid in their ability to hit enemy ships in one attack.
Setting them lower will cause the one flight to attack multiple times, which may or may not be good.
(I would rather get 3 hits on one CV than 1 hit on 3 separate ships.

4 engine bombers cost more to replace so I keep them higher than flak if possible.

Torpedo bombers work well at 5000 feet.

Any bomber marked "Attack" type will just cause horrific damage to enemy shipping at 100 feet, skimming the waves, without much of a hit on morale, but losses may be a bit high as well.

FYI..."Pappy" Gunn first tried his low level attacks using B 17's...It proved the concept was valid, but the losses were too costly to keep those heavies that low.

ASW planes do well at 1000 feet and do not suffer from morale.

NOTE:It has been my experience that flying regular missions AND keeping all flights set to "train" 20% will train your pilots just as well as setting a unit at 70% training...Just my opinion.




PaxMondo -> RE: Airgroups altitude (9/2/2016 2:04:24 PM)

You want to search for air coordination, there is a lot written about it.

If you have a strike package, you want them ALL at the same altitude. That way the game AI will know they are supposed to fly together and support each other. The altitude you choose depends ... and you need to know that some aircraft types (DB's in particular) with have mission profile change based upon altitude. All of this in the manual ...




paolorossi -> RE: Airgroups altitude (9/2/2016 2:58:37 PM)

Great
Many thanks
Paolo




wdolson -> RE: Airgroups altitude (9/3/2016 1:40:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Generally fighters should be at 6000 feet if you want them to protect your ships.
If I am on a base where only one fighter group is available, I may divide them, keeping one group at 6000 for day at 30% for CAP, another section higher, and another section for night ops (if that is an issue.)...

Keep them supplied and supported or your losses will never get refilled.

If using LRCAP to protect ships exclusively, set them for LRCAP at 20-30% and at least 20% on "rest" or the fatigue rate will kill morale and increase losses and crashes.

I keep my dive bombers at 16000 feet to aid in their ability to hit enemy ships in one attack.
Setting them lower will cause the one flight to attack multiple times, which may or may not be good.
(I would rather get 3 hits on one CV than 1 hit on 3 separate ships.

4 engine bombers cost more to replace so I keep them higher than flak if possible.

Torpedo bombers work well at 5000 feet.

Any bomber marked "Attack" type will just cause horrific damage to enemy shipping at 100 feet, skimming the waves, without much of a hit on morale, but losses may be a bit high as well.

FYI..."Pappy" Gunn first tried his low level attacks using B 17's...It proved the concept was valid, but the losses were too costly to keep those heavies that low.

ASW planes do well at 1000 feet and do not suffer from morale.

NOTE:It has been my experience that flying regular missions AND keeping all flights set to "train" 20% will train your pilots just as well as setting a unit at 70% training...Just my opinion.


They never used B-17 skip bombers operationally. It wasn't losses that prevented their use, but their rarity. B-17s were the only long range bomber available in theater, supply was low, and there were already noises that the supply chain was going to dry up with all B-17s going to Europe. By the time the skip bombing concept was being tested, most of the remaining B-17s were being used for recon. It was the only long range recon plane the 5th AF had.

B-24s were not suitable for skip bombing. You need a highly maneuverable plane with wings that can take the stresses of a high g pull out after bomb release. The B-17, B-25, and A-20 all had strong enough wings, the B-24 didn't. The Davis wing was well suited for a long range bomber, it was very efficient, but it was also more fragile and the B-24's wings would fold up at some of the maneuvers a B-17 could pull.

The B-24 was also very sluggish on the controls, you moved the control column and it would takes several seconds to get a response. The B-17 was very quick response to the controls, as was the B-25. The Russians loved the B-25 because it maneuvered like a large fighter. When some Russian pilots came to the US to test out the B-25 they just about gave the Americans a heart attack because they went up and pushed the plane to its limits throwing it around the sky like a fighter.

The B-17 could have made a pretty awesome skip bomber. Imagine loading the nose of a B-17 with 0.50 caliber guns and go in on a surface ship. The field modified B-25s had 8 0.50s fixed forward, the B-17 could have had 12-16 easily.

Bill




geofflambert -> RE: Airgroups altitude (9/3/2016 4:03:04 AM)

A lot of players swear that ASW should occur at 1 to 3 k but I set them at 5 or 6 k and get what seems to me good results. Remember that naval search planes will attack submarines when they spot them. I generally (but not always) set search planes to 6k. They seem to get plenty of good hits on both subs and surface ships from that altitude (they dive down of course). Morale has been mentioned in this thread but fatigue is a factor if you set operations at a low altitude. Also to reinforce what has been said here, setting a unit to a mission of whatever type is generally as effective at improving their experience and efficiency as having them just train at it. That's an important thing not to forget, nothing beats experience but experience. If you are into micromanagement (and you wouldn't be reading this if you weren't) using actual front line squadrons in training, cycling through pilots (crews) in operations is usually, in my view, not a bad idea. There will be some zones where things are just too intense for rookies or half-trained crews. The point is, having squadrons where everyone is 70+ on experience is usually not a good idea and wasteful as far as the training opportunity goes.




GetAssista -> RE: Airgroups altitude (9/3/2016 8:08:01 AM)

> fighters: around 10k or higher
So much to say here. Everything depends on your airframes, your enemy airframes, whever you are on attack or defence, whever you are sweeping or escorting bombers

> level bomber: 10-15k
The lower the more accurate and the more flak. LCUs w/o supply can be bombed from 6k with impunity

> dive bombers: 10k
That's about it most of the time

> torpedo bombers: 5k
When in CV strike package send everything at the same altitude for better coordination.





crsutton -> RE: Airgroups altitude (9/3/2016 5:46:54 PM)

My carrier fighters fly CAP around 18,000 feet. They seem to do just fine vs all types of attacks. In escort they fly with the attacking aircraft and I have no problem with coordination. LBA my fighters always fly at 25k which is the max allowed in our email game. Once again they seem to attack just about anybody below them. Sometimes attack aircraft will get in if they are flying low but in DaBabes any Japanese bomber attacking low is dead meat to flak. I want my scarce Allied fighters to be above or at the same level as the enemy fighters. As for escort, I never fly escort with LBA attack. Always LRCAP over the target. It works and with my low fighter production rates I just do see sending precious frames off to die as escorts.

As for coordination. With a sweep or two preceding and LRCAP over the target I find that multiple packets of heavy bombers can be quite advantageous. Hitting the target and also shooting down lots of enemy CAP.

Just the way I do it.




Alpha77 -> RE: Airgroups altitude (9/3/2016 8:05:56 PM)

One thing is clear set escort to the same height as bombers. And DBs need a 10k - 12k to really dive. And if you wanna strafe set them to 100. All other things depend on to many factors [;)] Eg. you do not want to bomb an airfield at 2k when their is lots of AA (esp. 40mm Borfors), or if you really desperate to hit the field and dont worry about the losses (eg. the Lily bomber is pretty numerous and also not the best, so you could try this no so worthwhile plane and if half the raid goes down it is not as bad as you had chosen eg. Betties)

Btw: I is there a disadvantage to set torp bombers to 1k ? Often times flying this low they will not be detected eary enough. But guess AA will be worse also as if you set them to eg. 12k. The question can be targeted already before they go down to torpedo drop? I assume in WW2 it was also true like in the 80ties and 90ties you need to go down to be not detected early (not only by Radar but also sound would travel more in bigger heights).




geofflambert -> RE: Airgroups altitude (9/3/2016 11:20:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

One thing is clear set escort to the same height as bombers. And DBs need a 10k - 12k to really dive. And if you wanna strafe set them to 100. All other things depend on to many factors [;)] Eg. you do not want to bomb an airfield at 2k when their is lots of AA (esp. 40mm Borfors), or if you really desperate to hit the field and dont worry about the losses (eg. the Lily bomber is pretty numerous and also not the best, so you could try this no so worthwhile plane and if half the raid goes down it is not as bad as you had chosen eg. Betties)

Btw: I is there a disadvantage to set torp bombers to 1k ? Often times flying this low they will not be detected eary enough. But guess AA will be worse also as if you set them to eg. 12k. The question can be targeted already before they go down to torpedo drop? I assume in WW2 it was also true like in the 80ties and 90ties you need to go down to be not detected early (not only by Radar but also sound would travel more in bigger heights).


I should think there would be a disadvantage for any escort with the TBDs. The TBs have to come down regardless once they're in range to begin their attack. I see no advantage to having them come in that low beforehand, though. It will increase fatigue if you do that.




Alpha77 -> RE: Airgroups altitude (9/4/2016 12:36:03 AM)

Advantage would be a) later detection and b) can slip under the CAP .....maybe force the enemy to have a VL cap up that than can not intercept your high bombers. For the record, B26s slip under my Zero cap at 3000, the CAP was at 10000. So I guess even smaller torp planes could slip at 1000 even more. Of course this is for situations without escort (eg. small islands without fighters), or the enemy CAP is too strong to bring escorts at all.




geofflambert -> RE: Airgroups altitude (9/4/2016 3:29:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

My carrier fighters fly CAP around 18,000 feet. They seem to do just fine vs all types of attacks. In escort they fly with the attacking aircraft and I have no problem with coordination. LBA my fighters always fly at 25k which is the max allowed in our email game. Once again they seem to attack just about anybody below them. Sometimes attack aircraft will get in if they are flying low but in DaBabes any Japanese bomber attacking low is dead meat to flak. I want my scarce Allied fighters to be above or at the same level as the enemy fighters. As for escort, I never fly escort with LBA attack. Always LRCAP over the target. It works and with my low fighter production rates I just do see sending precious frames off to die as escorts.

As for coordination. With a sweep or two preceding and LRCAP over the target I find that multiple packets of heavy bombers can be quite advantageous. Hitting the target and also shooting down lots of enemy CAP.

Just the way I do it.


I think that's actually rather high for CV CAP. It seems to me that incoming attacks may be missed until too late if they are 5k or more lower. Your only chance against TBs will be radar.

There's a general subject here I'd like to comment on, and it applies more to land based AC. Sometimes players get into a contest to see how high they can place their fighters to have that advantage (which is not insignificant). I don't like playing that game. If someone is trying to sweep over your base and raises his altitude to maintain an advantage, just lower yours so he misses your fighters altogether but your fighters don't miss his bombers. It's war; sometimes you have to cede the advantage in order to do the job properly.




m10bob -> RE: Airgroups altitude (9/4/2016 3:12:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Generally fighters should be at 6000 feet if you want them to protect your ships.
If I am on a base where only one fighter group is available, I may divide them, keeping one group at 6000 for day at 30% for CAP, another section higher, and another section for night ops (if that is an issue.)...

Keep them supplied and supported or your losses will never get refilled.

If using LRCAP to protect ships exclusively, set them for LRCAP at 20-30% and at least 20% on "rest" or the fatigue rate will kill morale and increase losses and crashes.

I keep my dive bombers at 16000 feet to aid in their ability to hit enemy ships in one attack.
Setting them lower will cause the one flight to attack multiple times, which may or may not be good.
(I would rather get 3 hits on one CV than 1 hit on 3 separate ships.

4 engine bombers cost more to replace so I keep them higher than flak if possible.

Torpedo bombers work well at 5000 feet.

Any bomber marked "Attack" type will just cause horrific damage to enemy shipping at 100 feet, skimming the waves, without much of a hit on morale, but losses may be a bit high as well.

FYI..."Pappy" Gunn first tried his low level attacks using B 17's...It proved the concept was valid, but the losses were too costly to keep those heavies that low.

ASW planes do well at 1000 feet and do not suffer from morale.

NOTE:It has been my experience that flying regular missions AND keeping all flights set to "train" 20% will train your pilots just as well as setting a unit at 70% training...Just my opinion.


They never used B-17 skip bombers operationally. It wasn't losses that prevented their use, but their rarity. B-17s were the only long range bomber available in theater, supply was low, and there were already noises that the supply chain was going to dry up with all B-17s going to Europe. By the time the skip bombing concept was being tested, most of the remaining B-17s were being used for recon. It was the only long range recon plane the 5th AF had.

B-24s were not suitable for skip bombing. You need a highly maneuverable plane with wings that can take the stresses of a high g pull out after bomb release. The B-17, B-25, and A-20 all had strong enough wings, the B-24 didn't. The Davis wing was well suited for a long range bomber, it was very efficient, but it was also more fragile and the B-24's wings would fold up at some of the maneuvers a B-17 could pull.

The B-24 was also very sluggish on the controls, you moved the control column and it would takes several seconds to get a response. The B-17 was very quick response to the controls, as was the B-25. The Russians loved the B-25 because it maneuvered like a large fighter. When some Russian pilots came to the US to test out the B-25 they just about gave the Americans a heart attack because they went up and pushed the plane to its limits throwing it around the sky like a fighter.

The B-17 could have made a pretty awesome skip bomber. Imagine loading the nose of a B-17 with 0.50 caliber guns and go in on a surface ship. The field modified B-25s had 8 0.50s fixed forward, the B-17 could have had 12-16 easily.

Bill



B 17 used as skip bombers:

"Kenney and Benn decided to see if the B-17 could be used in low altitude anti-ship attacks. They’d read reports of the British using such techniques to bounce bombs across the surface of the water and into the sides of Italian ships in the Mediterranean Sea and thought that might be workable. Others in the 5th Air Force, including the legendary Paul “Pappy” Gunn, had concluded through experience that wavetop attacks were the only way to take out Japanese ships.

Kenney sent Benn to command the 63rd Bomb Squadron, 43rd Bomb Group, which was used as an incubator for such tactics. Simultaneously, the 3rd Attack Group also began working on the technique. Soon other units began training on the new tactics as well.

That fall, the B-17’s of both the 43rd Bomb Group and the 19th began launching night skip bombing attacks against Japanese vessel. Operating in small numbers, or sometimes as lone wolves, the B-17’s prowled the night skies over the northern coast of New Guinea and New Britain in search of targets. They repeatedly struck heavily defended Simpson Harbor, Rabaul, which was the main Japanese base in the area.
Flying from bases in Northern Australia, the B-17 crews would stage out of Seven Mile Drome at Port Moresby, New Guinea, before heading out against their assigned targets or patrol areas. The attacks proved to be far more successful than all previous B-17 anti-shipping raids done from altitude. The 5th Air Force later estimated the hit rates against shipping increased from 1% to over 70%. Nevertheless, using Forts like this was a stopgap measure at best. Low and large, they were vulnerable to Japanese anti-aircraft fire, and they lacked the firepower needed to suppress those defenses during bomb runs. To counter that, the crews learned to make fast approaches from two thousand feet. They would dive down, level off below five hundred, pickle their bombs and run for home on the deck.
Eventually, the A-20 and B-25 gunships became the 5th Air Force’s primary anti-ship aircraft, along with Australian Beaufighters and Beauforts. The B-17’s were replaced by longer-ranged B-24’s which were mainly used for conventional bombing from altitude. Still, for a brief period in late 1942-43, Kenney’s Fort crews carried out some of the most unusual B-17 attacks of the war.

The thing that really got me so involved in the study of Pappy Gunn was a guy named Tommy Thompson, who had been one of Gunn's pilots.
Tommy had flown everything in the USAAC and USAAF from the late thirties till around 1950.
He taught me how to fly on a WW2 era Piper J3 in the mid 60's.



https://theamericanwarrior.com/tag/b-17/

[image]local://upfiles/7909/AACE9790BC984F4FA93A0AA3AB9FA4B4.jpg[/image]
“The Old Man,” one of the 19th Bomb Group B-17’s. During a photo recon mission over Gasmata, New Britain in March of 1943, this Fort was intercepted by thirteen Japanese Zero fighters. The A6M’s made repeated runs on the bomber, wounding both pilots, the top turret gunner, the navigator and bombardier. The top turret gunner, who had washed out of flight school back in the states, ended up landing the B-17 with the help of one of the pilots back at Dobodura. When the forward hatch was opened, blood poured out onto the ground. Miraculously, everyone lived. The Old Man was repaired and later became General Whitehead’s personal aircraft.





geofflambert -> RE: Airgroups altitude (9/4/2016 6:31:12 PM)

This is kinda OT but I was reminded of it by this last post. I think I read it in Atkinson, that the German AT gunners using 88s in North Africa would bounce the shells off the sand on the way to the target so that they couldn't miss. Wow!




wdolson -> RE: Airgroups altitude (9/5/2016 8:41:14 AM)

I guess I stand corrected about the B-17 not being used operationally as a skip bomber.

Bill




m10bob -> RE: Airgroups altitude (9/5/2016 1:34:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

I guess I stand corrected about the B-17 not being used operationally as a skip bomber.

Bill


As you stated, the shortage and expense out-weighed continued use of that big plane and they did go to a recon role, also as you stated.

I share a wealth of info I have learned from you over the years.




Bearcat2 -> RE: Airgroups altitude (9/5/2016 2:22:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

This is kinda OT but I was reminded of it by this last post. I think I read it in Atkinson, that the German AT gunners using 88s in North Africa would bounce the shells off the sand on the way to the target so that they couldn't miss. Wow!



As a former tanker, doubt that was done on purpose. It would go against basic gunnery skills, why bounce when it was easier to just hit the target, not to mention less penetration if the AP did hit.
Try skipping a rock off ground as compared to water

Sorry for OT.





Alpha77 -> RE: Airgroups altitude (9/5/2016 5:48:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

This is kinda OT but I was reminded of it by this last post. I think I read it in Atkinson, that the German AT gunners using 88s in North Africa would bounce the shells off the sand on the way to the target so that they couldn't miss. Wow!


Nice story, just like the one "bouncing" MG rounds from fighters to the underbelly of tanks [:D]




Yakface -> RE: Airgroups altitude (9/6/2016 10:29:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termite2


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

This is kinda OT but I was reminded of it by this last post. I think I read it in Atkinson, that the German AT gunners using 88s in North Africa would bounce the shells off the sand on the way to the target so that they couldn't miss. Wow!



As a former tanker, doubt that was done on purpose. It would go against basic gunnery skills, why bounce when it was easier to just hit the target, not to mention less penetration if the AP did hit.
Try skipping a rock off ground as compared to water

Sorry for OT.




It's worth mentioning that sand might act more like a liquid that solid ground.

If it's true it's very suprising. I would have thought that striking the sand would have caused the projectile to tumble




geofflambert -> RE: Airgroups altitude (9/6/2016 8:32:03 PM)

Well, you would aim for somewhere short of the target. Two skips, hit; three skips, hit; four skips etc.




geofflambert -> RE: Airgroups altitude (9/6/2016 8:34:13 PM)

Yakface made an interesting comment, but the right way to think of it is that water, because of it's non-compressible nature, is more like sand than other liquids.




Anachro -> RE: Airgroups altitude (9/6/2016 9:03:19 PM)

Can someone remind me? How do you do skip-bombing in game? Set altitude to 100 feet as a level bomber?




geofflambert -> RE: Airgroups altitude (9/6/2016 9:10:49 PM)

I think skip bombing is not available in the game. There are a number (that's really helpful isn't it, "a number") of things that actually happened (a little)which cannot be done in the game. I believe that's one of them.




geofflambert -> RE: Airgroups altitude (9/6/2016 9:13:51 PM)

You can do glide bombing. Why? I have no idea why you would opt for that. Somebody will pipe up and say it's one of their favorite tactics.




geofflambert -> RE: Airgroups altitude (9/6/2016 9:20:37 PM)

Case in point: (Don't make me try and find a source for this) A B-17, sometime in '42 dive bombed a ship anchored at Rabaul. The plane and the crew (all I believe) survived, but it was a many hour ordeal getting there and then leaving and they shot down a number [:'(] of Zeroes in the process but got riddled with cannon and mg fire. I believe the mission was recon but they were armed with some bombs and the captain decided to use them in a way no one had ever been trained for.




witpqs -> RE: Airgroups altitude (9/6/2016 9:32:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anachro

Can someone remind me? How do you do skip-bombing in game? Set altitude to 100 feet as a level bomber?

IIRC, yes, that's how.




BBfanboy -> RE: Airgroups altitude (9/7/2016 6:43:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I think skip bombing is not available in the game. There are a number (that's really helpful isn't it, "a number") of things that actually happened (a little)which cannot be done in the game. I believe that's one of them.


They don't call it skip bombing, but a low level naval attack (below 2000') by an attack bomber gets a boost in hit probability which pretty much equates to skip bombing results. I don't know if the hits obtained are all hull side hits or the usual deck penetrations as well.
So my understanding is that either 1000' or 100' Low Naval Attack will work, but the attack bomber type is also key.

EDIT: Just remembered - there is (IIRC) also a minimum skill requirement for the crew in LowN skill, but I cannot remember what the level was. I am guessing 50.




wdolson -> RE: Airgroups altitude (9/7/2016 7:41:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Case in point: (Don't make me try and find a source for this) A B-17, sometime in '42 dive bombed a ship anchored at Rabaul. The plane and the crew (all I believe) survived, but it was a many hour ordeal getting there and then leaving and they shot down a number [:'(] of Zeroes in the process but got riddled with cannon and mg fire. I believe the mission was recon but they were armed with some bombs and the captain decided to use them in a way no one had ever been trained for.


I never heard of a B-17 dive bombing, but there was a famous B-17 recon mission that had two crew get the Medal of Honor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_666




Buckrock -> RE: Airgroups altitude (9/7/2016 10:44:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Case in point: (Don't make me try and find a source for this) A B-17, sometime in '42 dive bombed a ship anchored at Rabaul. The plane and the crew (all I believe) survived, but it was a many hour ordeal getting there and then leaving and they shot down a number [:'(] of Zeroes in the process but got riddled with cannon and mg fire. I believe the mission was recon but they were armed with some bombs and the captain decided to use them in a way no one had ever been trained for.


I never heard of a B-17 dive bombing, but there was a famous B-17 recon mission that had two crew get the Medal of Honor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_666


There was a B-17 mission against shipping at Rabaul on the night of Sep 23, 1942 where a pilot (Maj. J. Dougherty) won the Silver Star for a low level attack on several Japanese ships in the harbor. The attack involved throttling back the engines to reduce sound, diving from 4000ft to 1500ft so as to get below a bank of low clouds, then leveling out to approach a group of Japanese vessels in order to deliver a low level bombing run.

As described, the attack was a low level bombing run but since the pilot reportedly used the words "let's dive bomb the b*stards" before the action, it may have led to the mission being confused for one where a B-17 performed an actual dive-bombing run.

The mission was mentioned in Sheehan's "A Fiery Peace" (pages 36-38), which covers the career of (Gen.) Bernard Schriever, who was the co-pilot of the B-17 during that action.




m10bob -> RE: Airgroups altitude (9/7/2016 1:55:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Case in point: (Don't make me try and find a source for this) A B-17, sometime in '42 dive bombed a ship anchored at Rabaul. The plane and the crew (all I believe) survived, but it was a many hour ordeal getting there and then leaving and they shot down a number [:'(] of Zeroes in the process but got riddled with cannon and mg fire. I believe the mission was recon but they were armed with some bombs and the captain decided to use them in a way no one had ever been trained for.



Dive bombing in a B 17!!(Good grief!)

http://www.dba-oracle.com/dive_bombing_b_17.htm




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.203125