Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: RichardAckermann

Does anyone know about the speed settings of 4-E bombers during approach of an airstrike?
I imagine they would fly the distance at cruise speed, but before bombing, did they speed up to full speed?
If yes, How long did they remain on cruise speed? Or in other words, at what distance to target did they increase speed, if at all?

quote:

"On a moonlight night in November 1942, six B- 17's roared along the deck at full speed into Rabaul Harbor....

quote:

As the result of prolonged practice, pairs of B-25's learned to attack a vessel at a gliding speed of 250 to 275 m.p.h., and knew the fire power of one B-25 would be raking the side of the vessel during the split second that the other strafed and bombed the beam."

quote:

Emphasis should be placed on the fact that in every case the intensity of the fire from the enemy vessels was decreased when the B-25C- Is opened fire on them. The bombing run made by each aircraft was at an altitude of about 10 to 15 feet at an average speed of about 250 MPH.

quote:

According to the 3d BG,
the following procedure in attacking shipping is recommended. High speed approach from medium altitude to a point about three miles from the target at an altitude of 1,000 to 1,500 feet. Then start violent "butterflying" at full throttle (side slips and rapid changes in altitude). At 1,500 yards from the target heavy A/A ceases to be effective and at that point, the plane should be at about 500 feet altitude. Fire one short sighting burst at 1,500 yards, then fire continuously from 1,200 yards in a full throttle, straight beam approach on the target; drop the bombs from between 500 feet and at masthead height when the previously selected reference point (a point on the airplane's nose) crosses the waterline of the ship. The pilots should remember that 50 caliber fire will drop about 100 feet in 1,000 yards when the plane is indicating 240 mph at sea level.

quote:

Training Circular no. 46:

The report fully endorsed the concept and recommended that "training of pilots in these techniques be initiated at the earliest possible moment." Two of the attacks were deemed highly effective:

(1) Quartering front attack on armored surface vessels (more than one [ 1] inch of side armor plate) at maximum level flight speed and one hundred-fifty (150) feet to three-hundred (300) feet altitude, dropping one-thousand (1,000) pound or two-thousand (2,000) pound demolition bombs.

(2) Broadside attack on unarmored or lightly armored surface vessels (less than one [1] inch of side armor plate) at maximum level flight speed and at the minimum altitude necessary to clear the target, dropping demolition bombs of any appropriate size.

quote:

"Accomplish bombing at the lowest altitudes consistent with the type and amount of hostile anti-aircraft and fighter defenses .... In many cases it will be found that the losses from a single medium altitude mission will be less than the cumulative losses from the numerous high altitude missions required to produce comparative results."

quote:

Plus there is Speed VS RPM vs Manifold Pressure

quote:

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

1942

quote:

Training Circular no. 46:

The report fully endorsed the concept and recommended that "training of pilots in these techniques be initiated at the earliest possible moment." Two of the attacks were deemed highly effective:

(1) Quartering front attack on armored surface vessels (more than one [ 1] inch of side armor plate) at maximum level flight speed and one hundred-fifty (150) feet to three-hundred (300) feet altitude, dropping one-thousand (1,000) pound or two-thousand (2,000) pound demolition bombs.

(2) Broadside attack on unarmored or lightly armored surface vessels (less than one [1] inch of side armor plate) at maximum level flight speed and at the minimum altitude necessary to clear the target, dropping demolition bombs of any appropriate size.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: kfmiller41

Am playing Japan in a PBEM and my opponent just bombed my base at truk using about 50 heavy bombers. Date was 29 Dec 42. 5 raids came in at between 14000 to 18000 feet and total planes for all raids were 89. He lost no planes to my 30 zeros. He scored 18 hits, put 8 carriers and 1 battleship out of commission for at least 3-6 months with major damage. While I congratulate him on doing that I also feel like this accuracy is so out of whack I can understand why so many Japanese players call it quits. I mean I want to be competitive but I have nothing to shoot down hordes of 4 engine bombers, even my 2 engine fighters cannot stop them.
Am I just a bad player or is this something that should be house ruled to limit the uncanny accuracy these things have? It is only December 42 and he is already clobbering my bases with these beasts.

If you're looking for some help on settings drop in some screen shots of your fighter CAP settings, the combat report of the strikes, and some info on your pilot experience and skills. Too little here to go on.

That said, it's not out of the ordinary for massed 4Es to do a lot of damage on port strikes, as everyone has basically confirmed.

This uncanny accuracy during daylight is something that might be explained away, but when you see them coming in at night in 0% moonlight and getting multiple hits on pinpoint targets, while shooting down droves of night-fighters to boot without suffering much themselves, then you start wondering...

Thank You LST. I have stayed out of this thread due to my strong feeling on this subject. You, politely, hit the nail on the head.

Add to that the ability of 40-50 4EB to inflict 1,000+ Casualties on troops in Lvl-6 Forts and we're moving farther into the fantasy realms...

If it happens in PBEM, then you and your partner could rengetiate the house-rules and ban 2E/4Es from flying Ground attack missions in combat hexes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Sounds like 2000 foot bombing runs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Sounds like 2000 foot bombing runs.

Sounds like somebody didn't have much in the way of forts. Terrain helps more than forts, but even level 1-2 "field forts" will help prevent bombing damage. I just noticed a significant downtick in damage I was causing to some Chinese units in wooded-rough terrain. The first few turns, it was a lot. I could see when they got their first significant forts level built (presumably just level 1 given the time involved)... in less helpful terrain, you'd need at least forts 2 but possibly more.

There are some cities that are "clear" terrain. Even light urban, with forts 4+, should be enough to prevent wiping out entire divisions in a day with B-29s.

This coming from a guy who's wiped out entire divisions with B-29s. In clear terrain. With no forts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

Plus there is Speed VS RPM vs Manifold Pressure

There's a whole bunch of technical stuff that the pilot of an aircraft has to consider which impacts the tactical operation of his craft (not surprisingly). For planes with variable pitch propellors the pitch of the props greatly affected the range that the plane could fly on a mission. I read an account of a combat mission flown by civilian test pilot Charles Linbergh in WW2 where, flying some model of P-38 against the Japanese he returned from the mission with "half a tank of gas" while all the USAAF pilots were "sucking fumes" when they landed. IIRC it had something to do with propellor pitch and RPMs. He also showed the Marines that it was possible to take off in an F4U with 4000 lbs of bombs attached (presumably a fairly short range mission). Wish I could remember the name of that book (also had a story about the Boston baseball player Ted Williams in an F9F getting shot up over Korea and subsequently ditching).