quote:

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

This could be a real punishing turn for Japan, especially if he continues the 2000 foot 4E bombing runs against ships.

Historically, did the US ever use 4E bombers that low? Were the results worth it?

A couple of examples:


Dive Bombing a B-17 http://www.dba-oracle.com/dive_bombing_b_17.htm

Old 666 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_666


"In May, 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 dived on the positions, shooting out three lights and damaging two others."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch

quote:

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

This could be a real punishing turn for Japan, especially if he continues the 2000 foot 4E bombing runs against ships.

Historically, did the US ever use 4E bombers that low? Were the results worth it?

A couple of examples:


Dive Bombing a B-17 http://www.dba-oracle.com/dive_bombing_b_17.htm

Old 666 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_666


"In May, 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 dived on the positions, shooting out three lights and damaging two others."

I mean a whole squadron of 4Es, in or out of formation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I am sticking around Pearl, and I have some things in my favor: poor training, damaged runways, damaged planes, poor leaders and most likely no enemy carrier threat. However, a strike mixing very low 4E bombers, along with very high torpedo carrying Catalina's will certainly penetrate the CAP on the KB and get runs on the carriers.

Very dangerous. I don't even want to think about B29 on low level naval strike. Them on port strike is bad enough.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

The "Combat Box" bombing where the entire unit drops on the lead aircraft was more suited to high altitude bombing. Low altitude bombing puts the when to drop decision on individual aircraft. Plus it allows the use of the plane's guns on ground/sea targets.

Low level heavy bomber bombings was normal. B-24 was better at it and squadrons when possible would switch out B17s for B24s.

Ive started reading this...

"A War of Their Own: Bombers over the Southwest Pacific"



"In the fall of 1942, low-altitude and skip-bombing attacks ran contrary to prewar tactics, aircraft design, and aircrew training-but they worked. B-17s set a precedent for attacking ships from low altitude, increasing accuracy without dramatically increasing danger to the crews. In a theater where ships and shipping lanes represented the closest thing to a vital center that Kenney's planes could reach, these methods justified modifying bomber tactics throughout the Southwest Pacific. "

"But sometimes, especially because of the limited range of smaller planes, coordinated assaults were not an option. In these cases, especially with the B-17s of the 43d BG and the B-24s of the 90th BG, Fifth Air Force still chose low-level attacks on occasion. In April 1943, B-17s attacked a number of ships anchored off New Ireland, making their most successful attacks at low level: "In a period of four days beginning on 1 April, twenty-one B-17's and nine B-24's harassed the ships at anchor, attacking from medium and low altitude. The greatest damage was claimed by B-17's skip-bombing from 75 to 250 feet."

"B-17s had started low-altitude and skip bombing for Fifth Air Force, but by mid-1943 the tactical picture started to change. Low-level antishipping efforts by their smaller counterparts began to take their place"


" Before the results of those tests were officially released in December 1942, Kenney's B-17s attacked ships in Rabaul Harbor (October). Unable to obtain very fast speeds or low altitudes, they literally skipped the bombs up to and underneath the vessels or dropped a standard stick from a slightly higher altitude"


Ive started reading this book in pdf. I will upload if you want a copy

quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

quote:

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

The "Combat Box" bombing where the entire unit drops on the lead aircraft was more suited to high altitude bombing. Low altitude bombing puts the when to drop decision on individual aircraft. Plus it allows the use of the plane's guns on ground/sea targets.

Low level heavy bomber bombings was normal. B-24 was better at it and squadrons when possible would switch out B17s for B24s.

Ive started reading this...

"A War of Their Own: Bombers over the Southwest Pacific"



"In the fall of 1942, low-altitude and skip-bombing attacks ran contrary to prewar tactics, aircraft design, and aircrew training-but they worked. B-17s set a precedent for attacking ships from low altitude, increasing accuracy without dramatically increasing danger to the crews. In a theater where ships and shipping lanes represented the closest thing to a vital center that Kenney's planes could reach, these methods justified modifying bomber tactics throughout the Southwest Pacific. "

"But sometimes, especially because of the limited range of smaller planes, coordinated assaults were not an option. In these cases, especially with the B-17s of the 43d BG and the B-24s of the 90th BG, Fifth Air Force still chose low-level attacks on occasion. In April 1943, B-17s attacked a number of ships anchored off New Ireland, making their most successful attacks at low level: "In a period of four days beginning on 1 April, twenty-one B-17's and nine B-24's harassed the ships at anchor, attacking from medium and low altitude. The greatest damage was claimed by B-17's skip-bombing from 75 to 250 feet."

"B-17s had started low-altitude and skip bombing for Fifth Air Force, but by mid-1943 the tactical picture started to change. Low-level antishipping efforts by their smaller counterparts began to take their place"


" Before the results of those tests were officially released in December 1942, Kenney's B-17s attacked ships in Rabaul Harbor (October). Unable to obtain very fast speeds or low altitudes, they literally skipped the bombs up to and underneath the vessels or dropped a standard stick from a slightly higher altitude"


Ive started reading this book in pdf. I will upload if you want a copy

Yes, I'd like very much please.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I am sticking around Pearl, and I have some things in my favor: poor training, damaged runways, damaged planes, poor leaders and most likely no enemy carrier threat. However, a strike mixing very low 4E bombers, along with very high torpedo carrying Catalina's will certainly penetrate the CAP on the KB and get runs on the carriers.

Very dangerous. I don't even want to think about B29 on low level naval strike. Them on port strike is bad enough.

If his allied commander sends precious Catalinas, with naval attack skill 20, at carrier CAP, I think Roosevelt should begin the search for a new Pacific theater commander.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

MakeeLearn, thanks so much. Downloading now![&o]

Wow, looks really great!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

In the foreward: "flexible, adaptable, opportunistic, and entrepreneurial" in tactics used...sounds like this game!

Great stuff.[&o]

quote:

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

"A War of Their Own: Bombers over the Southwest Pacific"


Download