ORIGINAL: testarossa
ORIGINAL: Oznoyng
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.
There was another hit by B-17 on destroyer during Guadalcanal, although not lethal. I'll dig for exact information. I don't think that anyone here tries to say that level bombers are good in anti-shipping role. But should they have to have a chance to hit something from time to time? I think Yes. And it works for both sides. Some of the G4Ms harassing Guadalcanal were in fact using bombs not torpedoes and achieved hits on moving targets. Don't remember the name of the APD sunk, unfortunately.
As WitP works right now it's a number of bombs, experience and altitude. I'm pretty sure if I start using B-29s on 1000 ft naval strikes I will obliterate all the shipping encountered.
I agree. I don't believe that the chances should be nil, but dive bombers only achieved a 20-25% hit rate in the best of situations, LBA should be worse given that they are both less manueverable and generally dropping bombs from higher up. AA intensity, the presence of CAP, weather/clouds at the target, target speed and size, aircraft manueverability and speed, bomibing method (glide/level/dive), pilot skill, and fatigue should all impact the hit probabliities. So far, the overwhelming influence on hit probability seems to be pilot skill and number of bombs - to the point were LBA seems overpowered compared to DB's.
An excerpt from
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/even ... mid-4d.htm :
"Then, somewhat after 0800, fifteen Army B-17s struck, raining down sticks of bombs from high altitude. Much was expected of this kind of attack, but no hits were scored, a result that further war experience would demonstrate was all-too-typical. On the other hand, the "Flying Fortresses" were little damaged by Japanese anti-aircraft fire and fighters. They made several fine photographs of the Japanese carriers maneuvering far below, an indication of the true role of these heavy bombers in contemporary maritime warfare: long-distance reconnaissance by aircraft capable of defending themselves."
Contrast this view with the following combat narrative describing the effects of the B-17's attacking IJN CV's from
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/USN ... ay-10.html :
You will note that
"At 0900 Lt. Col. Sweeney had reported that the B-17 attack was completed and one enemy carrier had been damaged."
"Consequently, it was decided to attack a heavy cruiser. They reported that at least one hit was scored, and the ship was left smoking heavily. A transport was also attacked, with unobserved results. "
"Bombing from 9,600 feet, the B-17's reported that they hit a battleship twice and dropped two more bombs on a damaged carrier."
"The Fortresses reported that they scored a hit on a damaged carrier and on a destroyer and strafed the decks of several ships as they passed. "
Had I been given reports indicating damage to carriers, BB's, and CA's as the report above indicates, I would continue to send them out on attacks against naval forces too.
