B-17's

[brisd]

For me, flak stats and so forth hold no magic. All I know is that 3 B17's are more dangerous to ship's than 60 SBD's. That is my REAL life playing experience till I stopped playing a few days ago.

I care little for the debate or consensus. Here is what counts to me:

The B17 was not used as a shipkiller because IT WAS NO GOOD AT IT. If it was, it would have been used that way. The plane modeled in this game is fantasy, FIX IT. Those heavy bombers were great at plastering land targets and later had some success at low level attacks on slow shipping, not fast warships.
It is more deadly than dive bombers designed specifically for killing ships and that is my point.

[DSandberg]

Originally posted by brisd
[B-17s are] more deadly than dive bombers designed specifically for killing ships and that is my point.

That has been my exact experience as well. It's annoying to see 55 SDBs come up empty on an attack against enemy carriers, and then have half a dozen B-17s waltz in at low level and do the job better. This happens over and over, and makes me want to leave my carriers TFs in their docks as they have comparatively less value in hurting enemy fleets than does LBA, which I'm pretty sure is anything but historical.

[strollen]

Originally posted by brisd
For me, flak stats and so forth hold no magic. All I know is that 3 B17's are more dangerous to ship's than 60 SBD's. That is my REAL life playing experience till I stopped playing a few days ago.

I care little for the debate or consensus. Here is what counts to me:

The B17 was not used as a shipkiller because IT WAS NO GOOD AT IT. If it was, it would have been used that way. The plane modeled in this game is fantasy, FIX IT. Those heavy bombers were great at plastering land targets and later had some success at low level attacks on slow shipping, not fast warships.
It is more deadly than dive bombers designed specifically for killing ships and that is my point.

I understand what you guys are say I am just not seeing results that are anywhere close to what you are saying. In my AI games as the US (Scenario 15, and 19) after the thread started I dropped my B17 from between 1,000 and 3,000 on Naval attack, with very disappointing results, because the B17 took so much flak damage and scored a few small number of hits ~15-20% and ranges between 15-24 hexes. Also it looks like B17 suffer twice the fatigue of other units. So when using them for Naval attacks it makes them have to rest longer to make airfield attacks.

Of course I am playing at hard against the AI some maybe that is why I am having a different results. My request is for people who are complaining to save B17 attacks and either post them or better still summarize them like J7B has done so we can see them.

This is my first PBEM B17 attack. Conditions were optimal Partly cloudy, and a fresh new B17 squadron (fatique 5 Morale 70) operating out of Noumea at ranges of 4 and 2 hex, against the remains of a Jap CV task force. (Devastors and Duantless from the Saratoga sunk it..)

FTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 07/09/42

Air attack on TF at 49,68


Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 6


Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress x 6 damaged

Japanese Ships
CA Tone
DD Wakaba

Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x B-17E Fortress at 3000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress at 3000 feet


Afternoon attacks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 49,68


Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 3


Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress x 3 damaged

Japanese Ships
DD Kagero, Bomb hits 1, on fire

Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x B-17E Fortress at 3000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at 51,68


Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 3


Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress x 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
DD Akigumo

Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x B-17E Fortress at 3000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Checking my squadron I have only 4 operational B17 left 7 damaged. I sure wish my opponent would have let me have 60 SBDs.... instead. Do you really think these results are out of line.

[Nikademus]

another thought occured to me just now....one that might be pertient in the "operational loss" formula.

American heavy bombers proved amazingly resilient when losing even multiple engines after taking heavy damage either from flak or aircraft or both.

However.....a crucial component in being able to nurse your wounded bird back to base under such stressing conditions is "altitude"

If you lose two engines and are attacking at 100-1000 feet......i seriously doubt your going to be able to gain much altitude and might in fact lose altitude and end up ditching.

Navigating home at such low altitudes would be a problem too (landmarks etc)

Worse if your a twin engined bomber and you use an engine to all that flak (if attacking a prickly target)

just a thought

It would help explain why B-17's were pulled off skip bombing duty in the first place........a plane is so much more vulnerable at such low levels and has less breathing space (in the form of altitude) when it comes to major damage

[DSandberg]

Originally posted by Nikademus
another thought occured to me just now....one that might be pertient in the "operational loss" formula.

American heavy bombers proved amazingly resilient when losing even multiple engines after taking heavy damage either from flak or aircraft or both.

However.....a crucial component in being able to nurse your wounded bird back to base under such stressing conditions is "altitude" ...

Another excellent point. I remember reading many, many stories from the war in Europe, of damaged B17s dropping out of formation and slowly descending all the way back to England in order to make it home. If such a big heavy bird takes serious damage, loses a couple of engines and doesn't have that 10K or more feet of altitude to burn (exactly how much altitude is needed depends on how long the return flight to the base is), they'd better start breaking out the life jackets. I have my doubts that this is currently modeled in UV.

[Diealtekoenig]

I am curious. Does anyone here have _strong_ opinions on the efficacy of LBA in the game? <G>

I think that probably the effect of flak is a little under-done as well (I agree with Juliet 7 Bravo). Flak is _very very_ variable in effect US vs IJ and by year, though. And I don't really know that one fast low level pass with no time for the defender to get ready would really result in many more losses than a high level approach with time to see the planes coming and get the range (even radar directed guns will have trouble with 1 pass at 100 feet and the real radar directed guns are only at the end of the period covered).

A big problem here is wargamer-hindsight. We can test things in the game, find something that works but which might not have been tried way back then and then we use it over and over.

I wonder how Ghormley/Halsey/Yamamoto would have done at WWII if they could have played it all the way through 5 or 6 times first to see how all the landing craft and CVs and unrestricted submarine warfare worked and THEN tried the war for real.

We (wargamers in 2002) have this enormous advantage.

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by Diealtekoenig
I am curious. Does anyone here have _strong_ opinions on the efficacy of LBA in the game? <G>

I think that probably the effect of flak is a little under-done as well (I agree with Juliet 7 Bravo). Flak is _very very_ variable in effect US vs IJ and by year, though. And I don't really know that one fast low level pass with no time for the defender to get ready would really result in many more losses than a high level approach with time to see the planes coming and get the range (even radar directed guns will have trouble with 1 pass at 100 feet and the real radar directed guns are only at the end of the period covered).

A big problem here is wargamer-hindsight. We can test things in the game, find something that works but which might not have been tried way back then and then we use it over and over.

I wonder how Ghormley/Halsey/Yamamoto would have done at WWII if they could have played it all the way through 5 or 6 times first to see how all the landing craft and CVs and unrestricted submarine warfare worked and THEN tried the war for real.

We (wargamers in 2002) have this enormous advantage.

Very true...(on the wargamer trying new tactics issue) thats what makes it so hard to judge

I look at it this way. If low level attacks (not just skip bombing) were the way to go, then this tactic would have been enshrined in USN and USAAF doctrine from 43 onward as 'the' miracle tactic of the war....and we could have retired all those carriers and saved some steel. It wasn't. And postwar, weapons were later developed to allow aircraft to be effective at higher altitudes thus giving aircraft a "longer arm" to reach out and do their jobs with extreme predjidice

why was that? It may be simply because low level attacks were *dangerous* and put aircraft at their most vulnerable states.

You dont see that currently in UV, thus, everyone sets their LBA's to 100-1000 feet for naval attack.

[doomonyou]

One thing is in a scenario like 17 midway didn't happen. Since midway essentially broke the back of the Japanese air arm american carrier aircraft were able to roll about the south pacific more or less safe in the knowledge that they were in control..why risk your b-17s at low level when you can have them bomb fixed targets and your carriers can mess with the boats...

[Von Rom]

The B-17s are too powerful in the game.

The 43rd Bomb Wing first began training and flying some antisubmarine patrols along the New England coast with B-17, B-18, A-29 and LB-30 aircraft. In February 1942, it moved to the southwest Pacific and was assigned to Fifth Air Force, where it would operate from August 1942 to Nov. 1944. First equipped with B-17s and LATER CONVERTING TO THE B-24 IN MID-1943, the 43rd operated from bases in Australia, New Guinea and Owi Island, making numerous attacks on Japanese shipping in the Netherlands East Indies and the Bismarck Archipelago.

The group also experimented with skip bombing during this time and used this method for some shipping strikes, including attacks on Japanese vessels during the Battle of the Bismarck Sea March 2-4, 1943, in which repeated air attacks destroyed a large enemy convoy carrying reinforcements to New Guinea. Please note that this convoy was made up mainly of troop transports and about 8 destroyers.

After the Bismarck Sea engagement, "Ken's Men" turned their attention toward the reduction of enemy airdromes in New Guinea and New Britain and destruction of shipping in the neighboring waters. Targets hit in the succeeding weeks included Wewak, Madang, Rapopo, Arawe, and Casmata. Most of those attacks were carried out by a small number of planes because most of the Group's B-17's had been damaged in the Battle of the Bismarck Sea [and this against just destroyers. What would have happened to the B-17s if they had attacked cruisers and battleships with their AA?).

The unit's diary on 19 March noted: Reinforcements have been taking place at all enemy airdromes and General Kenny [Commanding General of the Fifth Air Force] is in Washington trying to get more planes and men over here to help us out. Our planes are badly shot up, but the boys still love 'em."

Few if any of the Group's attacks against Rabaul in 1943 were carried out against shipping because the Japanese were making greater use of the more distant harbor at Kavieng, New Ireland.

The most devastating anti-shipping blow of April and May 1943 was directed against a convoy which had been tracked to Kavieng. In a period of four days beginning on 1 April, 21 B-17's of the 43rd Group and 9 B-24's (probably from the 90th Group) harassed ships AT ANCHOR in Kavieng harbor. The B-24's dropped 500-pound bombs from 5,000 feet and observed large explosions. Some of the 43rd Group's B-17's also attacked from medium altitude, but the Fortresses skip-bombing from 75 to 250 feet caused the greatest damage. The official reports indicated that a 6,000-ton vessel was "left sinking," and two to four destroyers were damaged. That mission, which General Douglas MacArthur described as "a honey," considerably reduced the enemy's capabilities of supplying its beleaguered garrisons in New Guinea.


COMMENT:

In the above, please note that most attacks by B-17s were against merchant shipping, slow troop transports or lightly guarded convoys. Many of these attacks (and the most successful ones) were against Japanese ships AT ANCHOR IN HARBOUR.

I have never been aware in the real war of low level B-17s attacking Japanese cruisers, battleships or aircraft carriers on the open sea and living to tell the tale. . .

Even when the B-17s attacked Japanese destroyers, they took such heavy damage that most of them were out of commission because of needed repairs. Why? Because they were BIG, SLOW moving targets. . .

[Wilhammer]

Ken's Men is a great site.

This article is rather interesting, and one wonders if this crew was not over reporting.

Anyway, flying a B-24 in one mission, this crew damaged two Nells, evaded fighters, sank a 7,000 ton Tanker with skip bombing, and two other ships hit and sunk.

http://www.kensmen.com/homefrontarticle.html

Thes guys even claim that in March 19XX? (I think it is 1945), the 19 - B-24s of this unit had sunk 20 enemy ships and damaged 4!

Who in the heck needs a Navy?

[Von Rom]

Originally posted by Wilhammer
Who in the heck needs a Navy?

Exactly. Especially when one considers the fact that US submarines alone accounted for over 60% of ALL Japanese shipping losses!

[Spooky]

Originally posted by doomonyou
One thing is in a scenario like 17 midway didn't happen. Since midway essentially broke the back of the Japanese air arm american carrier aircraft were able to roll about the south pacific more or less safe in the knowledge that they were in control..why risk your b-17s at low level when you can have them bomb fixed targets and your carriers can mess with the boats...

What scenario are you playing ? In the real Salomons campain, the USN was always very short of CV. Don't forget that the Lex & the York were already sunk ... and the IJN subs managed to quickly put out of order the Wasp & the Saratoga.

So the two remaining US CV for most of the campaign were the Enterprise & the Hornet ... with only a damaged Enterprise at the end !!!! I think any new uber-weapon such as a low altitude B-17 would have been very welcome

[Nikademus]

hmmm just to add fuel to the fire......i briefly played the Operation Cartwheel scenerio a few turns, mainly to see how the 7-day "turn" thing went (yukkkko )

Having never tried the high altitude tactic before i set all my PM B-17's on 30,000 feet airfield attack. I noticed to my suprise that despite the typical B-17 invulnerability in the face of concerted CAP efforts that only about a dozen hits or less were being scored on the runway

Lowering things down to 15,000 feet produced better results. Maybe there is con in place for high altitude attacks after all (if so, good job Matrix!)

On the con side of the B17 (and B-24) argument though......the true "uber" ness comes from their immunity to counter-attack. Talk about helpless. On three occasions Rabaul suffered ship attacks by groups of 3-4 B-24's and 2-3 B-17's, unescorted.
Each time they were intercepted by 30-40 fighters...ranging from Zeros to Nicks to Tonys to Oscars.

For the most part.....only a few runs were made against them causing maybe damage to one or two. The high point was the last attack. The CAP managed to bag one B-24. Unfortunately the big four engined bombers scored 6 bomb hits against two different ships so the exchange was still in favor of the US. (worse....the altitude was left at 6000 feet!)

The thing that disturbed me more than the lack of ability to knock down one of these bombers (since they "were" hard for IJN planes early and mid war to knock down) was that even in such unfavorable matchups (unescorted.....heavily outnumbered), there were no instances of attacks being pressed home so that at least the planes got shot up to the point where disruption and damage would greatly curtail their ability to carry out the mission.

Thats the true uberness

[Wilhammer]

"Thats the true uberness"

Good point.

Do damaged bombers have aborted missions?

I will also add another weakness:

Planes are intercepted going in, but NOT intercepted going out.

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by Wilhammer
"Thats the true uberness"

Good point.

Do damaged bombers have aborted missions?

I will also add another weakness:

Planes are intercepted going in, but NOT intercepted going out.

Happy to report that "yes" aborting bombers do not attack. I had a Japanese raid come in that included a Val group, a Helen group and a Beatty group. Spotted the msg that reported the Val group had "broken off" after taking heavy losses, so when the ground attack report came in i scrutinized it to see if the "Vals" had actually attacked anyway. They didn't.

Unfortunately, even undefended and outnumbered, CAP's dont seem to be able to damage the big bombers enough to trigger this event. They just sail in as if it were say.....a sunny day in Seattle during SeaFair with a vintage B-17G flying over my apt bldg (neat sight!!!!!!)

[Von Rom]

Originally posted by Nikademus
On the con side of the B17 (and B-24) argument though......the true "uber" ness comes from their immunity to counter-attack. Talk about helpless. On three occasions Rabaul suffered ship attacks by groups of 3-4 B-24's and 2-3 B-17's, unescorted.
Each time they were intercepted by 30-40 fighters...ranging from Zeros to Nicks to Tonys to Oscars.

The thing that disturbed me more than the lack of ability to knock down one of these bombers (since they "were" hard for IJN planes early and mid war to knock down) was that even in such unfavorable matchups (unescorted.....heavily outnumbered), there were no instances of attacks being pressed home so that at least the planes got shot up to the point where disruption and damage would greatly curtail their ability to carry out the mission.

Thats the true uberness

Very true.

The Japanese regarded the B-17 as a tough and well-armed opponent, one that was particularly difficult to shoot down. It could absorb an incredible amount of battle damage and still remain flying. It was the most feared and respected American aircraft during the early stage of the war in the Pacific. However, the early B-17s were insufficiently protected against attacks from the immediate rear, a deficiency that the Japanese were quickly to learn to exploit. Fortress pilots were able to compensate somewhat for this weakness by jinking their planes back and forth when attacked from the rear, giving the left and right waist gunners alternatively a shot at the approaching aircraft.

The newer large-tailed B-17Es began to join the depleted force of earlier-model B-17s in the Pacific. The tail gunner of the B-17E was an unpleasant surprise for the Japanese, who had become accustomed to attacking the Fortress from the rear. The crews of pre-B-17E Fortresses often adopted the expediency of rigging sticks in the rear of their planes, hoping to convince the Japanese attackers that tail guns were actually fitted to these planes as well. However, it soon became clear that the remotely-controlled belly turret of the B-17E did not work very well, the complicated system of mirrors being so confusing to the gunner that he could not see anything at all. It was soon replaced on the production line by the famous ball turret.

The B-17 was a tough high level bomber, but it was at the mercy of ship AA at low level bombing. . .


Back to the B-17 Question:

By mid-1943, most Fortresses had been withdrawn from the Pacific in favor of the longer-ranged B-24 Liberator. The B-24 was better suited for operations in the Pacific, having a higher speed and a larger bombload at medium altitudes.

In addition, the losses in Europe were reaching such magnitudes that the entire B-17 production was urgently needed for replacements and training in that theatre. Shortly after the Battle of the Bismarck Sea, it was decided that no more B-17s would be sent to the Pacific. It was to be in the European theatre of operations that the B-17 was to gain its reputation. In fact, the B-17 flew 98 percent of its combat sorties in Europe.

[Kavik Kang]

This is a great discussion, I hope the developers are reading this one.

To reply to a few of the posts since my last. Yes, I have a strong opinion on big bombers. I have played a lot of games, for a very long time, and my favorite are combat games. I break combat games apart into their basic components in my mind while planning, etc. I love this game, and can accept everything I might dislike about it, except the effectiveness of land based air against carriers. It can't be a little too good, because their are so few carriers. You have to err on the side of the carriers because they are so important too the game. Everyone else is talking about naval targets in general, and I believe any change is likely to affect all naval targets, but too me it's the fact that I am simply unwilling to move my carriers within range of land based air in this game. All of my planning revolves around this point, and I don't like the strategies that it forces. I am talking about all land based "big bombers", USN and IJN.

Now... If I pull up too shores of PM I'd expect that those bombers would hit me hard. But when I am at Rabaul I don't expect 6 unescorted big bombers to punch through 50 Zero's plant bombs into 2 carriers. That is my only complaint here. The way the game is now as the Japanesse I believe that you are forced to evacuate Rabaul and relocate your main base to Lunga/Tulagi, taking Luganville away in order to finally have a safe main base in a useful location within the theater. I'd just rather the big bombers not be such a threat to the carriers as to effectively deny any carrier force of less than 6 carriers access to most of the map.

[Chiteng]

What are you talking about?
I will move my CV in range of Bettys any day.

Put four CV in a task force put all the fighters on 100% cap
and they will blow any strike from any base out of the sky.
If they do manage to get thru(unlikely) the USA flak is so destructive that EVEN if they get a hit, they WONT sink it
and the loss in Bettys will cripple the japs for at least a month.

That is NOT what happens to a B-17 strike. I have NEVER
seen more than a loss of three B-17 to CAP. Maybe it can happen
I dont know. But I havent seen it.

[strollen]

Originally posted by Chiteng
What are you talking about?
I will move my CV in range of Bettys any day.

Put four CV in a task force put all the fighters on 100% cap
and they will blow any strike from any base out of the sky.
If they do manage to get thru(unlikely) the USA flak is so destructive that EVEN if they get a hit, they WONT sink it
and the loss in Bettys will cripple the japs for at least a month.

I've lost count of the number of time that Rabaul Betty's have put torpedeos in my carriers operating near Lunga and they have sunk or damaged scores of tranports in Lunga. Now these are well escorted strikes 80-100 Zeros (scenario 19) but my CAP often exceeded 100 F4Fs +30-40 P39s and P40s. They started out as 4 CVs but now I'm done to two...

One time I moved the fleet back to Irau, and decide to rest my CAP out of Zero range. Big mistake 4 unescorted Bettys put 2 torpedo into the Saratoga. The TF had 3 CVs, 3 CLAA, 1 CA, and 5 DD (most with Bofors), sure I shot down 2 bettys but 48 system damage....

[mdiehl]

"If you lose two engines and are attacking at 100-1000 feet......i seriously doubt your going to be able to gain much altitude and might in fact lose altitude and end up ditching."

Not quite accurate. If you're running on two engines you can climb in an empty B17. Your max altitude is around 12000 feet (IIRC) because you start losing sufficient air density. Of course, engines aren't the whole story. If you lose two engines after expending fuel for 800 miles it is different from losing two engines after expending fuel for 200 miles. Lift surface damage has effects as well.

I'm sure that Matrix is in a no-win situation here. The Betties and 17s are too powerful in anti ship role, and CAP is too powerful on defense against SBDs and so forth. The problem is that a single combat model is used for all three types of a/c, despite very different attack profiles and tactics.

Consider a 17 group. A box of B17s is far harder to attack, per plane, than a handful of B17s. So, 40 Zekes vs. an unescorted raid of 9 B17s in a tight box will find themselves at far greater risk than the B17s. 40 Zekes vs. an unescorted raid of four pairs and a singleton of B17s ought to make a mess of the B17s.

I thought that was the basic lesson of 2nd Schweinfurt. *If* you're going to make an unescorted raid, don't let a bomb wing get strung out all over the sky or they're doomed.