Did Japanese employ skip-bombing?

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

and http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/digital/p ... ir_own.pdf (recommended anyway!)

Jaroen, amazing stuff!

Yep, everyone following this thread should read this. Very well written and answers a lot of questions.

[sandman455]

http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/digital/p ... ir_own.pdf

OMG, INCREDIBLE STUFF.
[&o]

Thank you very much Jaroen. And forget what is posted here - waste of time given that the PDF explains everything.

[oldman45]

It is a great piece. Shame it doesn't work so well in the game with light/medium bombers. My planes tend to get pretty beat up by flak or too much time being repaired with not a lot of return.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: oldman45

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Your right Erkki, there are few places the plane could be hit without something being damaged, the trick is hitting it. With 12 to 14 mg's blazing away at the unprotected gun crews it had to be a pretty scary place to be.

Mynok, I am not aware of any B-25's attacking Atlanta class CL's. My comments were Allied bombers hitting Japanese ships.

But isn't the biggest problem for boresight armed bomber the fact that it can't aim the guns until the actual staffing / bombing run moment whilst the gun crews on ships had all the time to train their guns against incoming bomber? [;)]

To answer your question, pilot had a simple aiming device and he would just aim the bow of the plane at the ship and physics did the rest. I don't know how many yards in front of the plane they were bored sighted to but when they made their first run, I know they tried to make it fore and aft so they could kill the gun crews and smash the bridge.

I think we misunderstood... [;)]

What I was trying to say was that whilst approaching low and slow the bombers could not fire on targeted ship because the were flying level - only very near target they could aim at targeted ship itself!

The AA on ship, meanwhile, had all that time to target the approaching bomber!


Leo "Apollo11"

[sandman455]

ORIGINAL: Jaroen


@sandman455: class dismissed!  [;)]

I just love source material!

I will try to get through all your sources but I'm still on Matthew Rodman's book which I thought to be the best by far.

I'm through 45 pages and he has been doing nothing but supporting my post. Although he is trying hard to muddying the water by using unsupported references and conclusions. Some examples:

Page 32-33 - He outlines the low vs skip bombing tactic, and on page 33 he give a story of pilots doing low level bombing at dawn. They bombed stationary targets in Rabaul. They hit 2 merchants and a destroyer at dawn using a "20 second run straight and level" after breaking out of "weather at 2500 feet." Results were "fantastic" but as far as I can tell they only did minor damage to the Tenryu - 17 days to fix in Rabaul. I couldn't find any other IJN ship with damaged that day. None of the targets were named. No matter. . .

They didn't skip bomb and the 4E's used the very things I stated must be present for them to hit targets down low and survive.

Page 34 - He's got two NIGHT missions on ships in port at Rabaul used to support his "low-altitude and skip bombing" success. End of discussion as far as I'm concerned. Because clearly they would have had more accuracy if they attacked DURING THE DAY. I think we all know why it was done at night.

Also, he is pulling quotes from the book "Skip Bombing" which are not sustantiated by any IJN or USN loss list. I couldn't even find a record of them damaging anything on 23 October 1942. He's got sinkings on 15 November 1942, yet they aren't listed in any of the sources I checked. And of course they are unnamed which is fine for hits, but you start claiming sunks - the USN will document it and there is no excuse for not naming the ships sunk. Doing this kind of stuff really detracts from what he is trying to convey which is good stuff, but if it's not generating results please say so - otherwise he's leading the reader to false conclusions which is what I think he's trying to do. For instance:

He references the Admiral Scheer's attack by 2E's on the first day of the war as the first "decisive use" of skip bombing tactics. Here are the "decisive" results:

First 5 Blenheims attack an unalerted German CA Scheer - 1 aircraft shot down, 3 hits but all bombs failed to arm. Yes, its hard to miss when you are that low. Just ask a Uboat crew. Second group of five aircraft moments later (AA crews were ready) - 4 of 5 Blenheim's were shot down. No hits.

Scheer was undamaged and it was stationary. 50% loss rate of aircraft on a totally surprised vessel on the very first day of the war. "Decisive" was the word he used. I'm detecting a little bias here.

But hey there was still a useful quote for me to use in those first 40 pages:

"After all, a single lumbering B17 just a few hundred feet above the water made an easy target for antiaircraft fire."

Can't argue with that at all. [;)]


And as for your Uboat reference - its the exact one I used. I think you need to examine the data for what it is. Uboats shot down a confirmed 120 aircraft thru May 1943. They were specifically ordered not to stay up after that. Adm Donitz actions tell it better than I ever could. He was briefly convinced that his boats had a chance because a few (most Uboats dove everytime) of his crews reported having plenty of success against 4E's. He thought wrong only because the playing field changed in a matter of 24-48 hours. The 4E's saw the new tactic and wisely changed theirs. It is noteworthy to me at least, that the 4E's new tactics pointed out in my post, mirror what is outlined in diagrams in Matthew Rodman's book (pg 110).

[8D]

[FatR]

Answering to the OP (not sure if this is already said in the thread): there is about one confirmed example of Japanese successfully using masthead-level bombing - the sinking of USS Twiggs (often incorrectly attributed to a torpedo attack). In general, skip/masthead bombing made little sense to Japanese. It is a cheaper equivalent of torpedo bombing, more effective and economical against small (harder to hit with a torpedo) and weakly armed targets, less effective against warships, which both have a higher chance of shooting the attacker's down and often need more damage than a single bomb does (strafing had no real chance of seriously damaging anything bigger than a patrol boat, it served primarily to suppress flak). It carries the same inherent problem of vulnerability to flak as torpedo attacks. It was mostly adopted by USAAF in SWPac because it had neither torpedo bombers nor dive bombers available. Neither it was exceptionally successful, even against super weak (until late 1943) Japanese shipboard flak - USN and USMC squadrons using traditional divebombing and torpedo bombing + shallow dive attacks by fighter bombers later in the war, achieved superior results. So, there was little reason for Japanese to adopt this attack method, particularly as they faced very heavy AAA, except for relative simplicity of this attack method. But shallow dive attacks were equally simple, so that's why they were used by Japanese later in the war instead (for example, that's how fighter-bomber Zeros were supposed to attack).

[witpqs]

I am NOT pulling for either side in this. I want the truth, and I can handle it! [:D]

I've started reading Rodman's book but have not gotten to the Scheer attack.

ORIGINAL: sandman455
...For instance:

He references the Admiral Scheer's attack by 2E's on the first day of the war as the first "decisive use" of skip bombing tactics. Here are the "decisive" results:

First 5 Blenheims attack an unalerted German CA Scheer - 1 aircraft shot down, 3 hits but all bombs failed to arm. Yes, its hard to miss when you are that low. Just ask a Uboat crew. Second group of five aircraft moments later (AA crews were ready) - 4 of 5 Blenheim's were shot down. No hits.

Scheer was undamaged and it was stationary. 50% loss rate of aircraft on a totally surprised vessel on the very first day of the war. "Decisive" was the word he used. I'm detecting a little bias here.

Observations:
- I suspect he used the word "decisive" in light of three bomb hits. He's looking at the level of success of the attack profile (am I using that term correctly?), not the specific battle's outcome. Bomb fusing could get better later (a 'lesson learned').
- 50% loss rate under those circumstances is frightful, and indicates that soft targets are much more appropriate.
- Going by what I've seen in AE, the Blenheim does not have adequate guns to make AA crews duck and cover. A poor platform for that sort of attack.

[Yaab]

ORIGINAL: FatR

Answering to the OP (not sure if this is already said in the thread): there is about one confirmed example of Japanese successfully using masthead-level bombing - the sinking of USS Twiggs (often incorrectly attributed to a torpedo attack). In general, skip/masthead bombing made little sense to Japanese. It is a cheaper equivalent of torpedo bombing, more effective and economical against small (harder to hit with a torpedo) and weakly armed targets, less effective against warships, which both have a higher chance of shooting the attacker's down and often need more damage than a single bomb does (strafing had no real chance of seriously damaging anything bigger than a patrol boat, it served primarily to suppress flak). It carries the same inherent problem of vulnerability to flak as torpedo attacks. It was mostly adopted by USAAF in SWPac because it had neither torpedo bombers nor dive bombers available. Neither it was exceptionally successful, even against super weak (until late 1943) Japanese shipboard flak - USN and USMC squadrons using traditional divebombing and torpedo bombing + shallow dive attacks by fighter bombers later in the war, achieved superior results. So, there was little reason for Japanese to adopt this attack method, particularly as they faced very heavy AAA, except for relative simplicity of this attack method. But shallow dive attacks were equally simple, so that's why they were used by Japanese later in the war instead (for example, that's how fighter-bomber Zeros were supposed to attack).

Thanks, FatR. This answers my original question. Were fighter-bomber Zeros any good in the Pacific? Did they succesfully bomb ships using the shallow dive technique you mentioned?

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Yaab
Thanks, FatR. This answers my original question. Were fighter-bomber Zeros any good in the Pacific? Did they succesfully bomb ships using the shallow dive technique you mentioned?

Zero's were excellent long-ranged escorts..., but had two problems as fighter-bombers. Small bomb load, and NO protection against defensive fire.

[oldman45]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: oldman45

ORIGINAL: Apollo11



But isn't the biggest problem for boresight armed bomber the fact that it can't aim the guns until the actual staffing / bombing run moment whilst the gun crews on ships had all the time to train their guns against incoming bomber? [;)]

To answer your question, pilot had a simple aiming device and he would just aim the bow of the plane at the ship and physics did the rest. I don't know how many yards in front of the plane they were bored sighted to but when they made their first run, I know they tried to make it fore and aft so they could kill the gun crews and smash the bridge.

I think we misunderstood... [;)]

What I was trying to say was that whilst approaching low and slow the bombers could not fire on targeted ship because the were flying level - only very near target they could aim at targeted ship itself!

The AA on ship, meanwhile, had all that time to target the approaching bomber!


Leo "Apollo11"

Take a look at this link http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/digital/pdf/book/b_0096_rodman_war_of_their_own.pdf It shows how the approach was not slow at all.

[Sredni]

I must say, after reading a bunch of the stuff from this thread I find myself more impressed by how integral strafing was to attack bomber type stuff. Emphasizes more and more how gimped things are by making us train up strafing in fighters separately and then moving those pilots to bombers to train low bombing. And having lowN and lowG separate skills also seems off, from the reading I did the training for either, and how they worked were very similar.

It takes a looong time to train up an attack bomber pilot to acceptable levels in straf, lowN, and lowG (plus a lot of finicky pilot management), and those pilots in turn get shot down in droves ingame.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

and http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/digital/p ... ir_own.pdf (recommended anyway!)

Jaroen, amazing stuff!

Useful for learning about techniques and tactics, combat operations description is generally worthless, if you already knew about the main milestones of 5th AF's career.

[Jaroen]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Jaroen
I just love source material!

I just love google search warriors. Try reading your links. The Scheer port attack was a low alt attack. Not skip bombing. See Shores "Fledgling Eagles" for details of the attack.

True enough. Actually I wasn't referencing to that specific Scheer attack but it's on that same page 13 of
http://ebooks.gutenberg.us/AU_Press_Col ... n/gann.pdf
This as what Hap Arnold was told and he found useful.

Although I certainly would say it's a weak reference to skip bombing by the British, it is definately there.
Next question could be to find out if this was really about skip bombing and not low level attacks . . . ?!

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Sredni

I must say, after reading a bunch of the stuff from this thread I find myself more impressed by how integral strafing was to attack bomber type stuff. Emphasizes more and more how gimped things are by making us train up strafing in fighters separately and then moving those pilots to bombers to train low bombing. And having lowN and lowG separate skills also seems off, from the reading I did the training for either, and how they worked were very similar.

It takes a looong time to train up an attack bomber pilot to acceptable levels in straf, lowN, and lowG (plus a lot of finicky pilot management), and those pilots in turn get shot down in droves ingame.

In the Betas you can train bomber pilots in strafing: 100', ground attack training.

[Nikademus]

I own Bomber Command by Harrison...which is listed as one of the sources in your googled PDF for the 'weak' comment you refer too. It meerly says Scheer was attacked "at low level." It was not a dedicated 'skip bombing' attack as the technique would be taught, refined and practiced as a deliberate tactic by Kenney's special group. You now have two book source citations. Low level attacks by the RAF were not uncommon and were used very much during the initial assault on Malaya. None of these "mast height"/low level attacks are described by Shores as "Skip bombing" Low level bomb runs do not equate to skip bombing by default.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: Yaab
Thanks, FatR. This answers my original question. Were fighter-bomber Zeros any good in the Pacific? Did they succesfully bomb ships using the shallow dive technique you mentioned?

The hit on South Dakota in Philippine Sea (often attributed to a Judy divebomber, there were no Judies in Ozawa's first wave, only 45 A6M2 modified as fighter bombers and some Jills, which, AFAIK, served as formation leaders, rather than torpedo bombers). Ki-43 fighterbombers wrecked British DD Pathfinder. It is still not totally clear whether the aircraft that bombed Franklin was D4Y or P1Y, but if the latter, it most likely attacked from a shallow dive (P1Y was not capable of steep dives). Can't tell about possible hits on transports and landing ships.

In general, by the time Japanese widely accepted this technique, odds were so stacked against the attackers regardless of their approach, that it, in a modified form, was mostly used for kamikaze attacks (kamikaze were supposed to drop their bombs before crashing, to maximize damage, just from altitude that excluded successfully pulling out from the dive).

[Sredni]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

In the Betas you can train bomber pilots in strafing: 100', ground attack training.

ahh now that's a nice change to see. I can't wait for the beta patch to finish and become the current release. So many awesome changes.

But it still leaves us with the problem of attack bomber pilots taking much longer to train up then other pilot types, as long as carrier bomber pilots in my experience. Imagine your navy pilot pools if your dive bombers and torpedo bombers suffered the sorts of losses that attack bombers do.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Sredni

I must say, after reading a bunch of the stuff from this thread I find myself more impressed by how integral strafing was to attack bomber type stuff. Emphasizes more and more how gimped things are by making us train up strafing in fighters separately and then moving those pilots to bombers to train low bombing. And having lowN and lowG separate skills also seems off, from the reading I did the training for either, and how they worked were very similar.

It takes a looong time to train up an attack bomber pilot to acceptable levels in straf, lowN, and lowG (plus a lot of finicky pilot management), and those pilots in turn get shot down in droves ingame.

In the Betas you can train bomber pilots in strafing: 100', ground attack training.

Not a beta feataure, always have been able to. 100 feet, airfield, ground or naval will train up straffing in Attack bombers, fighters and possibly any bomber but I can't recall.

[Jaroen]

ORIGINAL: sandman455


I will try to get through all your sources but I'm still on Matthew Rodman's book which I thought to be the best by far.

"After all, a single lumbering B17 just a few hundred feet above the water made an easy target for antiaircraft fire."

Can't argue with that at all. [;)]

Was happy with that Rodman book and found it great source material on the subject. Some old hands with the forum know it was used for pictures to name! Parafrag bombs anyone? It isn't advocating skip bombing unduly positive. About that 4e bombers doing skip bombing I believe he shows some examples later on. It was certainly done as the http://www.jollyrogersweb.com/Docs/Vol129May2011.pdf picture shows. Assuming those people know a B24 from a B25 or something such. That picture would have been great for the "name this" series.

And you were fully correct with your clarification on aircraft attacking submarines. [:)]
It was a dangerous job and I personally was surprised by the figures. Although these still don't show the actual number of attacks made which were all together really successful in forcing the subs down to preserve the convoys.

Couldn't find anything on the Japanese doing skip bombing attacks. Tried that immediately after the OP's question and found it annoyingly escaping me. Even the earlier mentioned USS Twiggs DD-591 reference is unclear, without sources showing it really was a bomb striking the Twiggs. So I figure the 5th AF was almost alone in putting it into some kind of regular practice. But not quite alone.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Sredni

I must say, after reading a bunch of the stuff from this thread I find myself more impressed by how integral strafing was to attack bomber type stuff. Emphasizes more and more how gimped things are by making us train up strafing in fighters separately and then moving those pilots to bombers to train low bombing. And having lowN and lowG separate skills also seems off, from the reading I did the training for either, and how they worked were very similar.

It takes a looong time to train up an attack bomber pilot to acceptable levels in straf, lowN, and lowG (plus a lot of finicky pilot management), and those pilots in turn get shot down in droves ingame.

In the Betas you can train bomber pilots in strafing: 100', ground attack training.

Not a beta feataure, always have been able to. 100 feet, airfield, ground or naval will train up straffing in Attack bombers, fighters and possibly any bomber but I can't recall.

In the Beta, yes, any bomber. Prior to Michael fixing it, no, even attack bombers would not train their pilots in strafing.