The destruction of B-17 Fortress

[Judykator]

How best to destroy the B-17 Fortress? What aircraft will be to use the best (1942-45) and what altiude?

[scott64]

I have a little success with Nicks and Tonys. [8|]

[Terminus]

Nobody is going to be flying the Fortress past 1943.

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: Judykator

How best to destroy the B-17 Fortress? What aircraft will be to use the best (1942-45) and what altiude?

Almost only way to destroy E-G model B-17s is airfield attack. So use your bombers and hit the airfields.

Your fighters won't do much, but in 1942-43 Ki-45 Nick is propably the weapon of choice.

[mattep74]

What did i did wrong in my first B17 attack then? In every thread you say how good they are at defeating japanese interceptors. I sent 40 B17s at 100 feet to destroy a airfield. 10 destroyed and 20 damaged.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Judykator

How best to destroy the B-17 Fortress? What aircraft will be to use the best (1942-45) and what altiude?

They are susceptible to OPS losses when they encounter increasingly capable (cannon-armed) interceptors, particularly at a distance. See Cap_N_Gown's AAR for an effective counter 4EB combined defensive strategy.

[Nomad]

ORIGINAL: mattep74

What did i did wrong in my first B17 attack then? In every thread you say how good they are at defeating japanese interceptors. I sent 40 B17s at 100 feet to destroy a airfield. 10 destroyed and 20 damaged.

At 100 feet they probably flew into a mountain( a very short one at that).

[Kwik E Mart]

ORIGINAL: mattep74

What did i did wrong in my first B17 attack then? In every thread you say how good they are at defeating japanese interceptors. I sent 40 B17s at 100 feet to destroy a airfield. 10 destroyed and 20 damaged.

at 100', they probably blew themselves up with their own ordnance...[:-]

[Kwik E Mart]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

ORIGINAL: mattep74

What did i did wrong in my first B17 attack then? In every thread you say how good they are at defeating japanese interceptors. I sent 40 B17s at 100 feet to destroy a airfield. 10 destroyed and 20 damaged.

At 100 feet they probably flew into a mountain( a very short one at that).

[:D] more like a hill...

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart

ORIGINAL: mattep74

What did i did wrong in my first B17 attack then? In every thread you say how good they are at defeating japanese interceptors. I sent 40 B17s at 100 feet to destroy a airfield. 10 destroyed and 20 damaged.

at 100', they probably blew themselves up with their own ordnance...[:-]

Think that's operator error...[8|]

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: mattep74

What did i did wrong in my first B17 attack then? In every thread you say how good they are at defeating japanese interceptors. I sent 40 B17s at 100 feet to destroy a airfield. 10 destroyed and 20 damaged.

The serious answer to your question is that at 100 feet you were hit by every available enemy anti aircraft weapon. Not a smart decision.

In both game and real world terms, flying at 100 feet = straffing height. No Allied Heavy Bomber was ever designed to straff.

Alfred

[wildweasel0585]

100'?? I think they would have done better at 50'.
but seriously... do you not like your bombers?

[augustinus]

Kawasaki Ki-45 KAIa Toryu (Allies called it Nick) came out in 1942 and proved itself against bomber streams of B-17's at night, but that was later in the war, because, it was used for other tasks during most of the war. Nick was best suited for night fighting according to the authors of World War II Planes, Vol. 2, Messrs. Enzo Angelucci and Paolo Matricardi. One plane I would love to have against bomber streams of B-17s in 1942-43 would be "George" in either the N1K1-J Shiden or the N1K2-J Shiden Kai version.

[Terminus]

Try B-29s...[8|]

[mattep74]

ORIGINAL: wildweasel0585

100'?? I think they would have done better at 50'.
but seriously... do you not like your bombers?

Yes i like them wery much thank you. But i also like them to hit the town they are flying over. Or the airfield.

Flying bombers towards an airfield at 100 feet, kill enemy aircraft on the ground. Flying at 20 or 30 000 feet dont kill any aircrafts on the ground.

Flying bombers toward a city at 100 feet=thousands of fires. FLying bombers towards a city at the operational cealing, less damage.

Using B29s at 100 feet against 5 TKs = 0 TK after raid. At much higher alt the japanese say "We see you, and avoid the presents you dropp"

And then there is the japanese ASW, to good in game since it wasnt that good OTL

[Terminus]

If you're going to do something that stupid, you deserve all the losses you take.

[bradfordkay]

You are right, the lower the altitude at which your bombers make their runs, the greater the damage they will cause. However, the lower the altitude, the more bombers you will lose since more AA will be able to hit them. It's a trade-off that only you can determine if it is worthwhile. But to complain that your losses are too high when sending B17s in to "strafe" an airfield (that is how the game system treats a 100' air attack) does seem a little too much...

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

If you're going to do something that stupid, you deserve all the losses you take.

For once I have to agree with you "Termi"..., flying B-17's over land targets at 100 feet is suicidally stupid.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: mattep74

ORIGINAL: wildweasel0585

100'?? I think they would have done better at 50'.
but seriously... do you not like your bombers?

Yes i like them wery much thank you. But i also like them to hit the town they are flying over. Or the airfield.

Flying bombers towards an airfield at 100 feet, kill enemy aircraft on the ground. Flying at 20 or 30 000 feet dont kill any aircrafts on the ground.

Flying bombers toward a city at 100 feet=thousands of fires. FLying bombers towards a city at the operational cealing, less damage.

Using B29s at 100 feet against 5 TKs = 0 TK after raid. At much higher alt the japanese say "We see you, and avoid the presents you dropp"

And then there is the japanese ASW, to good in game since it wasnt that good OTL

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: Terminus

If you're going to do something that stupid, you deserve all the losses you take.

For once I have to agree with you "Termi"..., flying B-17's over land targets at 100 feet is suicidally stupid.

ahhh a teachable moment...

I don't think stupidity is the issue, my esteemed colleagues are a little harsh in that respect. I think, hope, this is more an issue of being uninformed or uneducated about the realistic implications of flying a 40 plane B-17 raid against a target at 100'.

If you are:
a) aware that this might have negative results in terms of Aircraft losses and unit morale and...
b) willing to risk those types of losses to achieve a specific short term goal at great cost to the B-17 units then...
c) you shouldn't need to ask what you did wrong.

Therefore I have to assume that "a" is not true and likely neither is "b" since clearly "c" is true.

Simply put, what you did wrong mattep74, is you flew your B-17s at 100'. If you don't want to see results like you did read up a bit on how B-17s were actually employed and then accept that if you want to repeat that raid that you need to accept the possibility (especially against a heavily defended target) that they might suffer untoward losses.

[Patbgaming]

IIRC flying that low also can cause you to hit barrage balloons. If your pilots can't hit the broadside of a barn at 10k I would consider dropping to 7k but not below that. I usually fly my Heavy Bombers at 15k for daytime bombing and 10k for night bombing. This is after I have them trained so most of the pilots in the unit have at least a 70 skill for Grd Bombing. Just my 2 cents.