Anybody else own "Fortress Against the Sun"?

[Feinder]

Being the proponent of Allied Heavies that I am, this is the -only- book that I've been able to find with any significant information about B-17s in the Pacific. I'm just curious if anybody else has this one. Borders offered to order it for me, for $50. But I found a new copy on Ebay for $15, so guess who got my business... I suppose I'll get it next week.

Anybody else have this one? It any good?

-F-

[Nikademus]

I own it.

Its a good source if you want information on how B-17 ops were conducted, how many fought in the Pacific (it lists every one by serial number), design specs, field mods, and tactics used and how the B-17's fought. It also documents how difficult it was to keep the 17's operating and the slow losing battle being waged in terms of attrition/wear vs the trickle of replacements

It is not reliable source in terms of judging effectiveness in combat however as the author relies on claims made by the crews/pilots and are not cross verified. (or if they are not very well) Missions are often labeled as successful when other sources refute it (such as the famous Rabaul raid during Watchtower) and many claimed "hits" on warships are treated as actual occurances.

I actually gave up tracking the alleged number of Zero kills recorded 5 chapters into the book because had they any semblence of truth the entire So/SWpac area alone would have been denuded of Zeros three times over. Many times in the book a B-17 for example will be credited with shooting down as many 4 Zeros in a single mission.

As mentioned though, as a source for how B-17's preformed, operating conditions/challenges etc etc. its a very good source. Dont rely on it for combat effectiveness.

[Feinder]

The fundamental probelm is that there is so little documentation to begin with. And the fact that it appears to be nearly THE SINGLE (ephasize single with skepticism) source on this topic, available.

When my son's a little older (1st birthday is Saturday!), I'm going to drag him to Dayton, and make an appointment with the achivist there. My understanding is, they have quite a collection of everything from flight logs to post-mission intel reports achived there. A matter of getting a pass, and time, and patience to sort thru it.

-F-

[DuckofTindalos]

Studying history with only a single source is always going to be problematic, but if you go into it with your eyes open...

[Nikademus]

thats why its good to have multiple sources. Had i purchased FATS first (heh...) i'd probably have come away thinking the B-17 was an unsung wonder weapon. Fortunately having also obtained sources such as Bergerud, Shores, Lundstrom, and Frank just to name a few I was able to cross check and make a more measured opnion. In Shores and Lundstrom's case in particular the margins are filled with notes regarding actual confirmed kills.....however after just five chapters of Salecker's book...i threw the pen down as there was just no way even half the claims for downed enemy fighters could be true.

The book does have value. Just take all the bombing results and claims of enemy fighters shot down with a serious (and i do mean serious) grain of salt. The book was invaluable to my mod research in pinning down the exact number of 17's that operated in the theater and in how they were utilized.

That said...i would recommend other resources first before buying it.

[DuckofTindalos]

Sounds like there aren't many other resources on B-17 ops...

[Nikademus]

not devoted specifically to it, no. Salacker's book is the only one i'm aware of that focuses on the one plane in just the Pacific.

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

When my son's a little older (1st birthday is Saturday!), I'm going to drag him to Daton, and make an appointment with the achivist there. My understanding is, they have quite a collection of everything from flight logs to post-mission intel reports achived there. A matter of getting a pass, and time, and patience to sort thru it.

Who'll be doing the work? Senior or junior? You're not planning on just dumbing him there, are you?

[DuckofTindalos]

Yeah, that's not NICE, Feinder! Congrats on your boy, BTW!

[Tophat]

he's getting the book for $15.00 so its a steal and worth the effort right there.Its always good to read differing sources that cover the same material because more often than not the 'truth" is somewhere in the middle.

[timtom]

Yeah, the things people will do to get more time to play WitP!

What's you guys' favorite excuse anyway?

[DuckofTindalos]

Ha! You only need an excuse if you've actually got a LIFE! I don't have one of those, so there's no problem...

[Nikademus]

here i sit in training...wondering if Speedo has sent me my next Witp turn yet....

[DuckofTindalos]

He hasn't! It's not been a good day for poor Speedmeister! [:D] When he logs on, be sure to ask him how England did in tonight's football international. And WHAT team obliterated them utterly! [:D][:D][:D]

[pauk]

dunno[:D]. But Croatia played with Brasil at home. Draw, 1-1[&o]

[jrcar]

The two "Bloody Shambles" Volumes have some references to B17 attacks that are cross referenced to the Japanese accounts.

Thing things that stick in my mind were:

The number that were flown (quite a few against Navy and merchants at sea and in port).

The small numbers of aircraft that participated (often around 9 are sent but only 3-4 actually find the target).

They did actually hit things on occasions, and if they had of been able to launch aircraft in the sorts of masses we see in WITP then a lot more hits would have been gained.

The prevailing doctrine appeared to be lots of small strikes, rather than one big one... some appeared to have suggested more concentrated tactics but this was not done.

The inability to organise strikes in a coherent way, they were intended but rarely did it happen. Most of the time the strike packages do not marry up and conduct the mission on their own in a piece meal fashion.

The high operational losses, not only of B17 but of all aircraft!


Apart from operational losses the WITP model is fairly close... the key descriminator appears to be experiance... with most allied pilots at the time being very green. IRL they didn't operate in big packages as we tend to do. That appears to have been a CHOICE of theirs based on doctrine (the cult of the "Bomber will always get through"), although their capacity to generate large strikes organisationally was poor, again I suspect because of doctrine.

Cheers

Rob

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: jrcar

The two "Bloody Shambles" Volumes have some references to B17 attacks that are cross referenced to the Japanese accounts.

Thing things that stick in my mind were:

The number that were flown (quite a few against Navy and merchants at sea and in port).

The small numbers of aircraft that participated (often around 9 are sent but only 3-4 actually find the target).

They did actually hit things on occasions, and if they had of been able to launch aircraft in the sorts of masses we see in WITP then a lot more hits would have been gained.

The prevailing doctrine appeared to be lots of small strikes, rather than one big one... some appeared to have suggested more concentrated tactics but this was not done.

The inability to organise strikes in a coherent way, they were intended but rarely did it happen. Most of the time the strike packages do not marry up and conduct the mission on their own in a piece meal fashion.

The high operational losses, not only of B17 but of all aircraft!

Apart from operational losses the WITP model is fairly close... the key descriminator appears to be experiance... with most allied pilots at the time being very green. IRL they didn't operate in big packages as we tend to do. That appears to have been a CHOICE of theirs based on doctrine (the cult of the "Bomber will always get through"), although their capacity to generate large strikes organisationally was poor, again I suspect because of doctrine.

The same doctrine was a millstone about the necks of the USAAFE. Since B17s were hidiously expensive in the prewar years, the doctrine stressed utilizing them to the utmost efficiency. Among other things, doctrine stressed relatively small raids because of the visability issue. Only the first few aircraft had the visablity to support the "pickle-barrel" accuracy of the bombsight; smoke and dust would obscure the target for the following aircraft. Also the doctrine writers (referred to as the Maxwell Gang) were true believers that a little high explosive delivered by a bomber could produce the same results as a trained engineer demolition team; it was wasteful to continue to churn the rubble with additional aircraft even if they hit the target. This same belief fostered the notion that there was no need to return to the same targets to insure that they stayed destroyed.

[Oleg Mastruko]

I am OK with unhistorically high number of bombers Allies use in the game, AND Japanese too (if playing with free upgrades ON), I would change just one thing re bomber model...

I would make it so that destroyed bombers score points in relation to number of engines. [&o]

Knowing that every Sally he loses will give 2 points to Allied player, and that every wasted B17 will score 4 points for Japanese enemy, both sides would be more cautious, especially Allies, which would help get things closer to realism.

O.

[TheElf]

I have this book in my collection. Certainly goes a long way toward dispelling the typical B-17 Fanboy propaganda that has fortunately been absent from these forums lo these past few months[:D]

Easy boys, not looking for a fight...[;)]

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_d ... 17~ser=COM

[Feinder]

I would make it so that destroyed bombers score points in relation to number of engines.

I've always thot that would be a great idea.

And Elf, yeah, I saw that Osprey book bundeled with FAtS book for $55. Not a bad price (considering it FAtS was $60 alone at Borders), like getting the Osprey book for free. But I couldn't turn down $15 on Ebay.

It's on the list tho.
-F-