Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Since each B-17/24 carries at least 10 bombs, you multiple by 16 for each squadron = 160 bombs.
Now how many squadrons does he have on naval attack??
How many barges do you have doing your evacs??

If you figure it all out, he probably is getting less than 5% hit rate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zebedee

Herwin - when and where does the 15% figure for accuracy to within 1000' come from? If it's the USSBS study, then the figures are slightly iffy considering that any bomb landing 3000' or more away from the aiming point was recorded as a 'gross error' and not included in their calculations. [Richard G. Davis, 'Strategic Bombardment in the Gulf War,' ed. R. Cargill Hall, Case Studies in Strategic Bombing also Eliot Cohen et al. Gulf War Air Power Survey: Effects and Effectiveness which states "Against a 50-by-100-foot factory building, calculations based on the Joint Munitions Effectiveness Manuals (JMEM) indicated that over 530 B-17’s, each dropping a string of six 500-pound general-purpose bombs (for a total of over 3,100 bombs), would be required to achieve a 0.8 [80 %] probability of destruction. Since the 1,135-foot CEP ignores the 20-50% of “combat box’ formations whose bombs fell outside 3,000 feet, the JMEM result overstates the B-17’s actual performance."].

quote:



According to the US figures of the time only 7% of all bombs dropped by 8th AF 4EBs came within 1000' of the aiming point in Autumn, 1944. [US Army Air Forces (AAF), Bombing Accuracy Report #2, (8th Air Force: Operational Research Section, 1945), Chart 2, 'Distribution of Effort and Results.'] It then goes on to note that even fighter-bombers dropping from 7000' in a 40 degree dive have a CEP of as much as 1000'... That goes along with the only 20% of bombs dropped getting to within one mile (5280') of the aiming point.

"It took 108 B-17 bombers, crewed by 1,080 airmen, dropping 648 bombs to guarantee a 96 percent chance of getting just two hits inside a 400 x 500 ft. German power-generation plant." - Richard P. Hallion, 'Precision Guided Munitions and the New Era of Warfare,' Air Power History, Fall 1996.

There's definitely a case for naval bombing by 4ebs to improve over the course of the war given new technology. That said, I've no idea whether AE still requires a whole new airframe in order to fit a radar set. Perhaps the new AE ratings for individual airskill components will help out some though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zebedee

Thanks Herwin, will dig it out for a comparison to see where they got their figures from.

Could I possibly beg of you a re-calculation using the alternative figures I've provided? My math sucks

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

The 7% figure is about half mine, so it's in the ballpark. Cohen is also comparable, as is Hallion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zebedee

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

The 7% figure is about half mine, so it's in the ballpark. Cohen is also comparable, as is Hallion.

Thanks Herwin. So that would take your 6.4% down to around 3% too if the alternative figures are to be believed?

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

Yes, about that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

If the Japs had operated barges in massive Dunkirk-type operations in early 1944 close to Allied airfields manned by scores of Allied fighters and 1-, 2-, and 4-engine bombers, the Japs would have been torn to shreds.  So John is losing many barges over several weeks.  That's unrealistic?  Please.

quote:

IN CONCLUSION

And there TA Operation abruptly ended, overtaken by events and the inexorable American advance, as had so many Japanese plans and deployments before it. Ormoc fell to the enemy on 12 December, even as the last of the TA convoys recoiled towards Manila, and Palompon two weeks later. But even more significant were the American landings on Mindoro, at Luzon's very doorstep, on 15 December 1944. These effectively relegated Leyte to backwater status and led General Yamashita to advise General Suzuki on the 18th that he could expect no further succor from Manila. Although mopping-up operations would continue into May 1945, the battle for Leyte was as good as over.

Total Japanese ship losses on the Manila-Ormoc run, TA Nos. 1 through 9, came to sixteen merchantmen of 73,651 tons, three T.1-type naval transports, nine landing ships (T.101s and SS-boats), one light cruiser, eight destroyers, three subchasers, and one each kaibokan, minesweeper and patrol boat. And these figures of course do not reflect the further heavy shipping losses in Manila and Dasol Bays. Nor is it possible to estimate with any degree of accuracy the Japanese aircraft and personnel losses.

But despite these losses, the TA convoys managed to land an estimated 45,000 men and 10,000 tons of provisions in the face of all that the powerful American air and naval forces could throw at them -- an accomplishment all the more noteworthy in that it followed directly on the heels of the Imperial Navy's crushing defeat at Leyte Gulf. And while these reinforcements ultimately proved insufficient to enable the Japanese to hold Leyte, they did manage to deny the island to the Americans far longer than either side had ever expected.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elessar

Did I miss something, honestly I did only fly over half of the thread, but is altitude not a huge issue?

The thread title implies that the heavy bombers are flying at 10,000 ft. They are set to naval search are they? Planes on naval attack would have to fly at 100ft in order to attack barges, do I confuse something?

If they are on naval search it would be logical if they were flying at 6000 ft as I recall this is the best altitude for naval search, again I am just a beginner correct me if I am wrong. And it would be one plane attacking one or more barges most of the time.

Those figures you pulled out, for accuracy of bombings over Germany, would be from much higer altitude more like 30,000 and up. At least thats what they ended up bombing from in the end. So hitting a target from 10,000 feet should be more then three times easier and the CEP thus reduced. But the German generators were stationary the barges move