Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: B-17s and Warships

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> RE: B-17s and Warships Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/28/2005 4:18:48 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		Yep. The interviews I've read, said that the B-17s and 24s (and likely most bombers), had a "salvo" switch, that allowed them to drop them all at once or in some weight approate pairing or singles. In the case of 17s and 24s, salvo was the far more common usage.

I was actually talking about a formation of B-17s lining up and pickling out one bomb. Then turning around, and making another run on the target. The turning radius of a B-17 is measured in -miles-. Executing a maneuver like that in formation would be very dangerous. That's to say nothing of the fact that the Flak at the target will be that much more intense.

-F-

< Message edited by Feinder -- 7/28/2005 4:20:24 AM >

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 91
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/28/2005 6:03:28 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		Well, I thought this was interesting. This is an account of skip-bombing mission by B-17s of the 43rd Bomb Group (taken from a diary). Evidently, they did "pickle them out" one at time (in this case at least), and on this mission made 5 runs on the target. And on this mission, 7 B-17s managed to disable to 2 destroyers (might well have been PGs in game terms, who knows).

Interesting reading tho...

By 24 November 1942, when the 65th Squadron knocked out enemy gun positions at Sanananda Point in support of ground forces, the entire 43rd Group had been committed to combat. On that same day the 63rd Squadron attacked enemy shipping in the Huon Gulf. The dangers involved in those shipping strikes, not to mention the skill and endurance of the aircrews is clearly illustrated in the following account. Just before midnight on 24 November, seven B-17's of the 63rd Squadron --five of which had participated earlier that day in two missions aimed at supply dumps at Sanananda Point-- took off to attack five enemy destroyers reported in the Huon Gulf. After spotting the ships, the planes climbed to 3,500 feet, then dropped to 200 feet to make their first run. At that point antiaircraft fire bursting around the planes penetrated the tail gunner's post of the B-17 piloted by Captain "Ken" McCullar, exploding "about 70 shells and starting quite a fire." Sergeant Reser, the tail gunner, succeeded in smothering the flames with winter flying equipment. McCullar made a second run. That time the radio operator and two other members of the crew were scratched by flying shrapnel. On the third run "the number 1 motor was hit and all controls shot away." The fourth run brought only minor damage to the plane, but as the bomber sought out a target for the fifth time, number 3 engine sputtered and finally "cut out." By now, one destroyer was burning fiercely and another was seriously disabled; so with the bombardier and navigator in the back compartment of the ship "in case the prop flew off or we had to set it down," Captain McCullar fought for sufficient altitude to clear the Owen Stanley Mountains. Fortunately, number 3 engine began to function again, and after two and one half hours, according to the pilot, the crew "found a pass to sneak through, landed o.k. and forgot about it."

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 92
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/29/2005 2:47:47 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline 		I've done a little investigating on the issue of heavy bombers vs ships; specifically IJN destroyers. Checked out the IJN DDs at Combined Fleet.com one by one. Only Mutsuki's Record of Movement specifically mentions 'death by B-17'. There are 5-6 others that specifically cite 'death by B-26/B-25 and a then another 3-4 citing 'death by unspecified Army bomber' and then a dozen or so citing 'death by air attack (NFI)'. THE PART I LIKE BEST IS THE FACT THAT ALMOST ALL OF THEM HAVE SOME KIND OF 'DEATH CERTIFICATE'. Anyway, it occurred to me that neither the IJN "Ban the Bomber (B-17)" types nor the Allied "CAN TO" types mentioned the Battle of the Bismarck Sea.
Checking out several accounts there are claims and then there are claims and the records are confused but it appears that the following occurred:
1) On the first day (3/02/43) the majority of the anti-shipping strikes were carried out by B-17s and B-24s with the light and medium bombers making supporting strikes on local IJA/IJN airfields. Several transports were so disabled that the IJA troops were offloaded onto DDs and transported to Lae thereon that night with the DDs rejoining the main convoy by morning. The next day B-17s/B-24s/Beauforts made the initial strikes. The Beaufort torpedo attack appears to have been completely unsuccessful. Two IJN DDs: Arashio and Tokitsukaze were hit and got hurt bad by the heavies: didn't sink but they were unmanueverable when the B-25s/A-20s made the 3rd strike of the day (skip-bombing); arguably the most successful anti-shipping strike in history. Although the strike was crippling for all the transports and half the escorts there were continued strikes for the remainder of the day and into the next that finished off all the cripples.
Final Score:
IJN: 3 fighters, 2 bombers shot down, many a/c damaged
USAAF/RAAF: 4 DDs, 8 AP/AK sunk

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 93
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/29/2005 2:49:27 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline 		OT: Oh by the way; 2 IJN DDs show cause of death as being running into minefields while manuevering to avoid attack by PT boats.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 94
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/29/2005 4:51:18 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		Actually, i'm quite familiar with the Battle of the Bismark Sea. Launched in fact by "Ken's Men" of the 5th Air Force, including the 43rd Bomb Group. They struck the convoy first, with 17s, logically because of thier range. Initialy strikes by something like 18 heavies, and damged 2 ships. THey were the 1st strikes, so no question that the heavies clobbered the first ships. More air attacks for about 3 - 4 days in March(?) vs. a Japanese convoy of about 8 transports and 6 escorts. A-20s, P-38s, and B-25s. Lots of them. Clobbered the whole thing, and 12,000 IJA went down with it.

But that's just the top of my head...



But if I had posted the Bismark Sea, it would be written off as, "Bah. Just another convoy attack. Nobody knows who hit what. Why did it take 150 aircraft to sink just 14 ships." Blah. Blah. Blah.

It was in fact a major victory for the the 5th AF, and essentionally sealed the fate of New Guinea. But in WitP, you see mega-convoys landing 4 Divisions. So a "paltry" 14 ships and 12,000 casualties are nothing.

I also find it amusing that, according the debriefs, skip bombing was considered great for INEXPERINECED crews to be effective vs. shipping. Not the elevated 80 exp like you see in WitP. It was in fact, exactly opposite in real life, than what we see in WitP. But imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth if you made skip bombing MORE effective, by allowing crews with exp in the 50s to be effective at it.

If you're interested tho, a very good site (including considerable documentation), is

Ken's Men, official site of the 43rd Bomb Group

< Message edited by Feinder -- 7/29/2005 4:57:17 AM >

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to spence)
Post #: 95
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/29/2005 10:10:38 AM   
Rainerle

 

Posts: 463
Joined: 7/24/2002
From: Burghausen/Bavaria
Status: offline 		Sorry to say that, but all the sinking reports and the bismarck sea operation were carried out by low flying planes. The initial rant was about B-17 bomb hits from 15000 ft. or something and so far I've seen no proof that in the whole war there was just one of those hits on a moving ship.

_____________________________


Image brought to you by courtesy of Subchaser!

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 96
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/29/2005 10:58:14 AM   
testarossa


Posts: 952
Joined: 9/24/2004
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainerle
... and so far I've seen no proof that in the whole war there was just one of those hits on a moving ship.


Morning of Aug 19, 1942. Kagero, Hagikaze and Arashi were shelling Tulagi.
While they were thus occuppied, three (!!!) B-17 passed overhead releasing sticks of bombs. Three of these (bombs?) scored direct hits on Hagikaze's stern that killed 33 of her crew and wounded 13. Tanaka ordered her to withdraw from the area under escort of Arashi; Kagero remained to watch the area...


_____________________________

Dr. Miller: I should've called the marines!
Dalton: They're few, they're proud... And they ain't here!!!


(in reply to Rainerle)
Post #: 97
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/29/2005 11:47:24 AM   
Rainerle

 

Posts: 463
Joined: 7/24/2002
From: Burghausen/Bavaria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: testarossa

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainerle
... and so far I've seen no proof that in the whole war there was just one of those hits on a moving ship.


Morning of Aug 19, 1942. Kagero, Hagikaze and Arashi were shelling Tulagi.
While they were thus occuppied, three (!!!) B-17 passed overhead releasing sticks of bombs. Three of these (bombs?) scored direct hits on Hagikaze's stern that killed 33 of her crew and wounded 13. Tanaka ordered her to withdraw from the area under escort of Arashi; Kagero remained to watch the area...


Very nice report but what altitude were those B-17 passing overhead ?
I am not questioning that when level bombers fly low that they can score hits. I'm questioning that when level bombers stay high up (outside the reach of puny IJN AA) that they can score the hits they seem to achieve in the game. There have been lots of misson reports posted so far but most lack altitude descriptions.

edited for spelling

< Message edited by Rainerle -- 7/29/2005 11:48:15 AM >

_____________________________


Image brought to you by courtesy of Subchaser!

(in reply to testarossa)
Post #: 98
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/29/2005 5:27:18 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		As much of a heavy bomber fan-boy as I am, I readily agree that the accuracy of the heavies is over-stated at altitude. What gets my gall up is
a. People insinuating that heavy bombers never hit anything, and should not be allowed to be set for Naval Attack. Utter non-sense. They were used in the anti-shipping role frequently, and hit their targets with a success rate that warrented keeping in that role for 12 years.
b. Those same people whining about heavies, have no problem with the fact the Betties and Nells are completely unhistorically represented. I am more than happy to have an intelligent disucssion with somebody who can be objective about the the situation. I will readily admit that the heavies are are more accurate than historical. But the detractors want to completely eliminate their anti-shipping ability, and at the same time indicate that nothign is wrong witht the portrayal of Japanese LBA in WitP. And when I produce a plethora of historical documentation, and others simply say, "I don't believe it." Oh well. Discussion is over. For those that choose to be ignorant, I won't waste my time.
c. If the accuracy of heavys at alt is to be reduced, I'm all for fit (believe it or not). But if you do that, please improve the portrayal of them a low altitudes. Make skip-bombing accessable to where it is an accurate portrayal of history.

I compeltely understand that there are two schools of thought here.
I. I am of the school that wants a realistic wargame, that harkens back to the card-board counter days. That offers historically accurate protrayals. The game can end up going in any direction, whether it's a compelte reversal of Midway or whatever. But everythign that does occur, should occur within the framework of what was historcially POSSIBLE.
II. Then there are those, that want WitP to play out like "Axis & Allies". Let's romp thru history with our "uber-iffic" KB +3, and blow the crap out the Allies.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to Rainerle)
Post #: 99
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/29/2005 6:03:38 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

I am more than happy to have an intelligent disucssion with somebody who can be objective about the the situation


quote:



I compeltely understand that there are two schools of thought here.
I. I am of the school that wants a realistic wargame, that harkens back to the card-board counter days. That offers historically accurate protrayals.
.
II. Then there are those, that want WitP to play out like "Axis & Allies". Let's romp thru history with our "uber-iffic" KB +3, and blow the crap out the Allies.


I'm not a moderator (on this board) but I have to comment that stating that one is interested in a objective, thoughtful discussion, then turning around and implying that anyone who doesn't agree with your view point is not interested in a historical game is contradictory, not to mention insulting.

Just a thought. Not trying to pick on you F.




< Message edited by Nikademus -- 7/29/2005 6:08:46 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 100
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/30/2005 2:46:33 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainerle

Sorry to say that, but all the sinking reports and the bismarck sea operation were carried out by low flying planes. The initial rant was about B-17 bomb hits from 15000 ft. or something and so far I've seen no proof that in the whole war there was just one of those hits on a moving ship.


Yes, but part of the rant (either initial or modified during the discussion) was that Allied heavies should be abstracted to only have the (low) chances of hitting moving ships that they had when used at high altitude.

I want the hit chances to be realisitic for teh tactic, and the player to choose the tactic. If you want to go in low for better chances of hitting then you risk more flak, etc. If you want to avoid those risks then you go in high, etc.

(in reply to Rainerle)
Post #: 101
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/30/2005 2:53:49 AM   
irishman


Posts: 256
Joined: 6/13/2004
From: Emerald Isle
Status: offline 		As a Japanese player I try to make my criticisms balanced. In my experience the B-17 is by far the most effective Allied LB Naval bomber. The criticism is that it should not be as effective, especially at 15000ft but I will also argue that the Blenheims, Hudsons and other smaller but more agile LBs rarely hit anything (in my experiences). It seems that bombload is the main factor. I don't have the historical evidence but surely the other (non B-17) Allied LBs in the early stages of the war were a bit more effective than in the game?

_____________________________

The greater the difficulty, the greater the glory - Cicero

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 102
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/30/2005 4:37:45 AM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline 		Agree with irishman.

Historically it was always very dangerous to operate within range of LBA. I don't think transports were ever sent into range of LBA without at least some attempt at providing fighter cover. In the game this is quite possible and I've seen large transport forces just brave the bombers, take a few hits and land whole divisions with no fighter cover.

If the heavy bombers are a bit overpowered it only compensates for all the other bombers being underpowered in their effect. IRL an unescorted transport fleet would be savaged by SBD's and fighter-bombers flying 5 or 6 missions a day. Submarines and small surface craft would be sent in their path and could and likely would sink multiple transports each.

The tranports would have no chance and would almost certainly have aborted and headed for home. But in the game my DB's and FB's get a couple hits. My subs might get one shot if lucky. Its a miricle if you get a non-base surface intercept.

If people really want to change the heavy bombers at this point fine. But then lets be sure and rebalance the whole rest of the system which already is quite easy on the attacker.

(in reply to irishman)
Post #: 103
RE: B-17s and Warships - 7/30/2005 8:13:41 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		irishman,

I agree with you also. I'm not sure if the combat model could support making things more accurate without significant re-write, which it seems is not in the cards.

By the way, I do see the LB's you mention get pretty good hits once the pilots get experience (like the Dutch during the attacks on DEI). They are better at hitting transport types than warships, probably due to the difference in maneuverability of the targets.

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 104
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> RE: B-17s and Warships Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.453