Imo, the evidence cited in this thread supports the following:
1) The Betty was a potent anti-shipping platform, provided it was escorted or did not encounter CAP.
2) B-17's attacked shipping, but rarely hit anything.
3) If a ship is moving slowly or not at all, Level Bombing attacks are more likely to hit.
4) If a ship is large, Level Bombing attacks are more likely to hit.
As far as I am concerned, the mission log of the B-17's quoted is useless. It only implies that the aircraft attacked, not that they had any effect. I believe the aircraft would have been used as long as they chain of command thought they were being effective. Any report that came back saying a ship was hit would be counted as being effective. Every pilot there is exaggerates. IIrc, a B-17 pilot in the PI was credited with sinking a BB and awarded the CMoH, but had in fact scored a near miss on a CA. So yeah, I can see B-17's being used to no effect for a long time. In hindsight, we can often know the effects that the planes had. At the time, commanders can only go by the after action reports. An AAR that says "This B-17 sunk the BB xxx" justifies using the B-17 in that role until other data contradicts it.
ORIGINAL: Feinder
You can rest assured that many of those targets were missed entirely. And many of the targets are now reefs.
No I can't. Just because they attacked, doesn't mean they hit a thing. Show me a loss record that states an IJN ship took a bomb hit the same day that a LB force bombed in the area, and I'll accept that the attack method was more effective. As it stands, the records we have are in the category of lucky hits, or no hits.
ORIGINAL: Feinder
If the heavy bombers were so awful at hitting shipping, why do you suppose they continued the anti-shipping mission with heavy bombers, into the even the Korean War?
Because what they believed and what actually happened could be two different things. If Allied records show bomb hits, but the IJN records show no lost ships... I'm inclined to believe the IJN records. Show me the death certificate and I'll believe they sunk the ship. You see, when it comes to the Betty, we have attacks and hits recorded. In the case of the B-17 attacking from altitude, we don't.
ORIGINAL: Feinder
Frankly, the onus is on the detractor to prove that those bombers never hit anything.
No, it isn't. Not in my mind. Verifiable fact wins the day. From any objective standard, the record of the Betty's actual torpedo-armed performance in WWII supports it's in game capabilities. The "gold standard" of data used to project abilities in the game should be "Allied reports say they launched an attack on x with y forces, and reported z losses by the Japanese while sustaining q losses" corroborated by "Japanese forces defended x with a forces and lost b while inflicting c losses upon the Allies". When you compare the reports, I'm inclined to believe the q and b numbers, and not the z and c.
Show me a record if IJN losses in the areas hit by B-17's on the dates mentioned, and we can extrapolate from there to it's actual performance. Right now, I can't credit any hits to B-17's because the cases where it that information is available come down to one: the DD Mutsuki, which was stationary.
ORIGINAL: Feinder
It disgusts me, and belittles the contribution of the heavy bomber crews, that you would suggest that their contribution to the Pacific Campaign was "nil".
This is not about belittling anyone. It is not an attack on the flyers, nor is it an attack on their chain of command. Saying "naval attacks with B-17's did not have an effect" belittles nothing they did. Had I been in one of those planes, and the effect of the mission I was flying was "nil", the only possible solace I could get from it would be if errors were not repeated. You do not serve them, or their memory, by rejecting out of hand the possibility that the B-17 was not effective in that role. Evaluating the success of the hardware and the tactics in no way belittles the courage or sacrifce of the men who employed them. That kind of thinking is precisely what could have kept commanders using the same tactics despite questionable results.
