B17s vs IJN CAs

Gary Grigsby's strategic level wargame covering the entire War in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945 or beyond.

Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

User avatar
ChezDaJez
Posts: 3293
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:08 am
Location: Chehalis, WA

RE: B17s vs IJN CAs

Post by ChezDaJez »

The best way to illustrate this would have been to tie bomber groups (squadrons also) for both sides to SPECIFIC ground support units. Instead of the generic "Aviation Support Regiments" that we have to work with. Then you could still fly your planes anywhere you liked, but if the support units weren't there to tend to them, you would be flying w/o proper support and take a large hit on operational planes. Kind of like the 17's early in the campaign, until the parts and mechanics caught up with them.

I like your general idea. The separate aviation base forces presented in WitP should only reflect the support personnel manning the fuel and ammo dumps along with the administrative and supply types. It is most unreasonable to assume that these troops were trained in the finer points of maintaining dozens of different aircraft models.

Most air units, allied and Japanese, had indigenous maintenance personnel in each air unit who were trained in maintaining that particular aircraft. So your idea of designating the aviation support units to specific units has merit. Unfortunately, it will never happen as a change but could possibly be handled through house rules between honorable players.

Chez
Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98
User avatar
tabpub
Posts: 1019
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 8:32 am
Location: The Greater Chicagoland Area

RE: B17s vs IJN CAs

Post by tabpub »

So your idea of designating the aviation support units to specific units has merit. Unfortunately, it will never happen as a change but could possibly be handled through house rules between honorable players.

Well, that 2nd to last word is the key there. In my private war vs. Herbie, we can only attack bases with units that have 50 prep for it. Others can be there, but only the 50+ can attack (deliberate or shock). It does tie down the units to more regional areas, as they can't zip around wreaking havoc in the north one week and the south 3 weeks later.
But, we have to trust each other; that, and self police yourself. I had virtual egg on my face one time; moved a large force to attack Hsinyang I think it was. Got there, and as I was checking units, realized they were still set for Ichang.....[&:] Fired one bombardment to say that we did something and slunk back to Ichang....
The usual suspects were rounded up and the virtual firing squads were quite busy for a while.....[X(]
Sing to the tune of "Man on the Flying Trapeze"
..Oh! We fly o'er the treetops with inches to spare,
There's smoke in the cockpit and gray in my hair.
The tracers look fine as a strafin' we go.
But, brother, we're TOO God damn low...
User avatar
tigercub
Posts: 2026
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 12:25 pm
Location: brisbane oz

RE: B17s vs IJN CAs

Post by tigercub »

b17 in the war were flat out hitting any ship at all at sea! even know they had a go many times in the early part of the war, sank 1 DD and damaged some outers for all there work, from what i found out they were not up to the job! so that makes them over rated in ship attack of me.
Image
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life
User avatar
rtrapasso
Posts: 22655
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 4:31 am

RE: B17s vs IJN CAs

Post by rtrapasso »

ORIGINAL: tigercub

b17 in the war were flat out hitting any ship at all at sea! even know they had a go many times in the early part of the war, sank 1 DD and damaged some outers for all there work, from what i found out they were not up to the job! so that makes them over rated in ship attack of me.

The USAAF/USN were still developing bomber tactics early in the war. About the time they started to get things right was about the time they withdrew the B-17 from bombardment duties to things like searches, etc. But, they first started working out skip-bombing tactics the B-17, and the first real successes with that tactic came with the Flying Fortresses, iirc. As mentioned previously, the B-24s became very effective in a ship-killing role, but not in the way modelled in the game: they primarily used night attacks utilizing radar (and probably other tools, although i am still looking for accounts of the actual tactics).
User avatar
ChezDaJez
Posts: 3293
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:08 am
Location: Chehalis, WA

RE: B17s vs IJN CAs

Post by ChezDaJez »

I looked up the Abukuma and you were right. She was hit by B-24s. She sank after her torpedoes exploded. So I was mistaken about heavy bombers NEVER hitting a warship at sea. Of course this one was previously damaged by a torp.

According to the 22nd BS website, 3 B-24s attacked the Abukuma and 2 destroyers. They were carrying 1-1000lb AP and 2-500lb GP bombs each. They claimed 3 hits and several near misses. 3 hits out of 9 bombs seems a bit much but the end result was one sunk ship. Probably just one bomb hit.

Two of the pilots were awarded DFCs for the action (why not the bombadier?!). There is even a picture of the attack. The planes appear to be at about 5000-6000 feet.

Thanks for the info. I couldn't find any other examples though.

Chez

Image
Attachments
WWIIIJNA..gbombed.jpg
WWIIIJNA..gbombed.jpg (17.58 KiB) Viewed 324 times
Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98
User avatar
rtrapasso
Posts: 22655
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 4:31 am

RE: B17s vs IJN CAs

Post by rtrapasso »

Thanks for the info. I couldn't find any other examples though.

According to the "Radar History of WW2" passage i quoted, B-24s out of China sank 3 "cruisers" and 3 "destroyers" in their short (few month) set of attacks from China. They did not mention any names, though. I am looking around for some books about this campaign. These could be claims that weren't verified. I am still checking.

As for Abukuma - the Combined Fleets website also said that she had been hit 3 times by bombs from B-24s in at least 2 separate attacks. They usually have pretty accurate info, and generally cross check with IJN sources. They also gave hit locations (2 aft, 1 near no.3 gun mount). The aft hits started fired causing 4 Long Lance torpedoes to explode, spelling her end.
User avatar
rtrapasso
Posts: 22655
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 4:31 am

RE: B17s vs IJN CAs

Post by rtrapasso »

I found 1 website about the 14th AF out of China - the history was very brief, but they did say that the 14th AF bombers were B-24s.

According to the website:
http://www.341stbombgroup.org/intel/14hist_pg4.htm


"Japanese merchant shipping losses amounted to more than 2,135,489 tons, with 184 ships or 392,440 tons probably destroyed, and 538 ships, or 779,550 tons damaged. Of 99 Japanese naval losses not included in this total damage, 33 were destroyed, 22 probably sunk, and 44 were damaged. A total of 18,888 Japanese river craft, less than 100 feet long, are similarly not quoted herein."
User avatar
rtrapasso
Posts: 22655
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 4:31 am

RE: B17s vs IJN CAs

Post by rtrapasso »

OK - i'm still doing research on this one. According to an article from Airforce Magazine (Online) at this website:
http://www.afa.org/magazine/1990/0490secret.asp

"A lone B-24, using a novel radar bombing technique, sank a Japanese cruiser at night". This aircraft supposedly made 3 attack runs from 1000 feet, repeatedly hitting the 5,100 ton "heavy" cruiser, which supposedly capsized and sank. The attacks supposedly occurred on August 19, 1944. Special bombing techniques were used, "marrying" the B-24's radar to the Norden bombsight. Its a pretty interesting article... but :

Unfortunately, they do not give the name of the cruiser, and cross-referencing with the official USN Chronology of WW2 does not mention any cruiser sunk. I'll keep look into this to see what i can find.

User avatar
rtrapasso
Posts: 22655
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 4:31 am

RE: B17s vs IJN CAs

Post by rtrapasso »

More on the B-24s vs. shipping. Apparently the USN official Chronology is not as encompassing as i had thought.

The 18,865 ton Italian Liner Conte Verde had been scuttled by her Italian crew in Singapore on Italy's surrender to the Allies. The Japanese had salvaged her and were towing it back to Japan to convert to a troopship, when a B-24 using the LAB (Low Altitude Bombing) system (the radar system/Norden bombsight combo) when

"Colonel Hopson and crew attacked on August 8, 1944. With Neiss guiding the plane through the rain and fog of the harbor by radar, Shytle dropped six bombs on the liner, capsizing it and sinking it for the second time. Both Colonel Hopson and Lieutenant Shytle received the Distinguished Flying Cross for the action."

No mention of this is made in the Official USN Chronology, either.
User avatar
ChezDaJez
Posts: 3293
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:08 am
Location: Chehalis, WA

RE: B17s vs IJN CAs

Post by ChezDaJez »

The 18,865 ton Italian Liner Conte Verde had been scuttled by her Italian crew in Singapore on Italy's surrender to the Allies. The Japanese had salvaged her and were towing it back to Japan to convert to a troopship, when a B-24 using the LAB (Low Altitude Bombing) system (the radar system/Norden bombsight combo) when

"Colonel Hopson and crew attacked on August 8, 1944. With Neiss guiding the plane through the rain and fog of the harbor by radar, Shytle dropped six bombs on the liner, capsizing it and sinking it for the second time. Both Colonel Hopson and Lieutenant Shytle received the Distinguished Flying Cross for the action."

Wasn't the Conte Verde.
CONTE VERDE / KOTOBUKI MARU 1923
18,765 gross tons, length 559ft x beam 74.1ft, two funnels, two masts, twin screw, service speed 18.5 knots, accommodation for 230-1st, 290-2nd and 1,880-3rd class passengers. Crew 440. Built by Beardmore, Glasgow, she was launched for Lloyd Sabaudo, Genoa on 21st Oct.1922 and started her maiden voyage from Genoa for Buenos Aires on 21st Apr.1923. First voyage Genoa - New York started 13th Jun.1923. In Jan.1932 she was transferred to 'Italia' Flotta Riunte, Genoa and on 28th Aug.1932 started her first Trieste - Shanghai voyage. Later the same year, her ownership passed to Lloyd Triestino, Trieste and her accommodation was refitted to carry 250-1st, 170-2nd and 220-3rd class passengers. On 2nd Sep.1937 she went ashore on Cape Collinson off Hong Kong in a typhoon, and was refloated with great difficulty. Laid up at Shanghai in 1940, she made a few voyages in 1942 as a prisoner of war exchange ship between Japan and China on charter to the Japanese Government. After the Italian surrender, the ship was scuttled by the crew on 9th Sep.1942 at Shanghai before the Japanese could take possession of it. Salvaged and taken to Japan after temporary repairs, she was refitted as a Japanese troop transport and renamed KOTOBUKI MARU. On 8th May 1945 she was sunk near Maizuru at 34.30N 126.30E following a US air raid (believed sunk by mine laid by aircraft). Refloated in Jan.1949 and scrapped in Japan by Mitsui in 1951.[Great Passenger Ships of the World by Arnold Kludas, vol.2] [The World's Merchant Fleets 1939 by Roger Jordan]

The link is here.

The mines were laid by B-29s as reported by the Official Cronology of the US Navy in WWII
Mines sink Japanese merchant cargo ship Shuncho Maru south of Futaoi Jima, and damage minesweeper W.39, 4.85 kilometers southeast of Futaoi Light. Transport Kotobuki Maru (ex-Italian liner Conte Verde) is damaged by mine laid by USAAF B-29 (20th Bomber Command) off southern Korea, 34°30'N, 126°19'E.

So don't know what ship the B-24 got. I'll keep looking also.

Chez
Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98
User avatar
rtrapasso
Posts: 22655
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 4:31 am

RE: B17s vs IJN CAs

Post by rtrapasso »

Hmmm - found 2 separate web sites claiming the B-24 bombing attack did her in. See also
http://www.rickshaw.org/sinking.htm

Apparently, the B-24 attacks (at night) were so surprising that the attackees never knew they were under attack (according to some stories anyway) and the crews could make several attacks before AA fire started going up. So, if a ship is steaming along at night, and suddenly there is an explosion - did it hit a mine? A sub torpedo hit? Or something like a B-24 bomb drop. BTW - i reread the article, and they said they dropped bombs from 100 feet, not 1000 feet as i wrote.

Anyway, i don't think we will be able to settle the argument unless someone has written something about the (second) wreck.
User avatar
rtrapasso
Posts: 22655
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 4:31 am

RE: B17s vs IJN CAs

Post by rtrapasso »

Looking more for the alleged cruiser sinking: i think the USAAF was claiming the Natori, sunk in the general area that the B-24s were operating in (around the PI) on 18 August. I don't know if they were using local time or Washington time, and so i commonly find dates "off" by a day when reading various sources.

The official USN credit goes to USS Hardhead, though. The Combined Fleets website supports this.

BTW - read through all the fates of the IJN cruisers. It is amazing how many cruisers (according to Combined Fleets, anyway) ultimately were destroyed when their Long Lances went up. Of course, they might have sunk ANYWAY from their injuries, but having these go off certainly hastened their demise.
User avatar
ChezDaJez
Posts: 3293
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:08 am
Location: Chehalis, WA

RE: B17s vs IJN CAs

Post by ChezDaJez »

I found 1 website about the 14th AF out of China - the history was very brief, but they did say that the 14th AF bombers were B-24s.

According to the website:
http://www.341stbombgroup.org/intel/14hist_pg4.htm

The 341st BG was a B-25 group and had the 11th BS, 22nd BS, 491st BS and the 490th BS attached

The 308th BG was the B-24 group assigned to the 14th AF and consisted of the 373rd BS, 374th BS, 375th BS and the 425th BS.

Ship data is very much lacking at the 308th BG website so it is impossible to determine which, if any, ships they sank from the unit histories contained in it.

BTW, the 373rd BS of the 308th had a particularly bad mission to Haiphong on 15 September 1943. All but one bomber were lost with 29 KIA, captured or executed. Here is their story.
Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98
User avatar
ChezDaJez
Posts: 3293
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:08 am
Location: Chehalis, WA

RE: B17s vs IJN CAs

Post by ChezDaJez »

Anyway, i don't think we will be able to settle the argument unless someone has written something about the (second) wreck.

Actually, the fact that the Conte Verde was broken up after the war should indicate she wasn't sunk by B-24s. Regardless, I think that you are right in that it would be very difficult to determine the cause of a sinking as these waters were heavily mined and patrolled by submarine. I do think that the total numbers of ships sunk by B-24s operating at altitude were probably very few and more likely were merchants. That would also explain the lax discipline of the AA crews onboard.

Anyways, I stand corrected (I hate it when that happens![:@]) on my earlier posting that no Japanese warships were sunk by heavies. We can safely say that at least one was sunk and may certainly have been others.[:D]

Chez
Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98
User avatar
rtrapasso
Posts: 22655
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 4:31 am

RE: B17s vs IJN CAs

Post by rtrapasso »

Actually, the fact that the Conte Verde was broken up after the war should indicate she wasn't sunk by B-24s. Regardless, I think that you are right in that it would be very difficult to determine the cause of a sinking as these waters were heavily mined and patrolled by submarine. I do think that the total numbers of ships sunk by B-24s operating at altitude were probably very few and more likely were merchants. That would also explain the lax discipline of the AA crews onboard.

Perhaps... but after reading through some of the TROMs of the IJN Cruisers, i can see how a ship could be sunk by B-24s without being smashed up too much. A lot of the cruisers were mentioned to be severely damaged by near misses (and indeed, may have sunk except they kept getting attacked). A couple of 1000 pound bombs (which were commonly carried on these raids) landing very near a recently salvaged passenger ship could cause her to flood and sink, esp. if in tow.

I just find it strange to say that immediately after being attacked by the USAAF bombers (and the Official Chronology of the USN admits that) - the ship should sink and this be attributed to a MINE. [&:]

BTW, i missed the reference in the Chronology because i was reading a text version, and also because the day was again 1 day different from the other attributed dates. This gives me more confidence that the cruiser (claimed) sunk was Natori. However, i am guessing the USAAF was off on this claim, and they probably hit something else (like a merchantman). This would indeed the lax AA discipline (as you pointed out).

I agree that bombers RARELY hit ships at altitude. Most of the B-24 successes seem to have come from the LAB system - and they dropped 1000 pound bombs from 100 feet (not really a "skip" bomb attack as far as i can tell, but extremely low level). Of course, this sort of thing is not modelled in the game.
John III
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:52 pm
Location: La Salle, CO

RE: B17s vs IJN CAs

Post by John III »

Would it aid all of us to come up with an actual set of House Rules for 4E bombers and the proper use of them?

That Ground Support Model put out by Tabpub doesn't sound TOO bad. What about creating a set of rules regarding the number of 4E bombers that a large AF can handle? Since the designers won't, probably, do anything what can we do to make things more realistic?
User avatar
ChezDaJez
Posts: 3293
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:08 am
Location: Chehalis, WA

RE: B17s vs IJN CAs

Post by ChezDaJez »

Would it aid all of us to come up with an actual set of House Rules for 4E bombers and the proper use of them?

A simple one to use would be to divide the number of planes an airfield could support by the number of engines on the aircraft. For example, an airfield size of 5 can support 250 aircraft engines. So 250 / 4 = 62.5. Round it up to 64 to accomodate 1 64 plane 4E bomber group.

Anyways, I figure let the participants decide how or if they want a house rule limiting the number of bombers.

Chez
Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98
John III
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:52 pm
Location: La Salle, CO

RE: B17s vs IJN CAs

Post by John III »

It just seems to me that the main problem deals with TOO many 4E bombers in the first place. Matrix would need to:
1. Slow down the replacement rate for the planes
2. Change PDU so 2E cannot go to 4E
3. Increase the maintenance (down time) for a 4E plane

Beyond that, House Rules seem the only real answer.
1. Having the right BF present is good.
2. Using the # of enginesxAF Size seems sound and would REALLY slow deployment.

Other ideas?
Freedom205
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 10:00 am
Location: Michigan USA

RE: B17s vs IJN CAs

Post by Freedom205 »

Too many things here to discuss in just one thread (allied level bombers shouldnt be able to attack warships, too many bombers at one base that early in war, too many hits on warships from level bombers, the list can go on) but I can assure you that in the latest patch, those fires will sink those ships in a hurry if the Japanese player doesnt get to port quickly. In a game against PzB, he put about 25-30 500lbrs on the Yamashiro, and at the end of the turn she only had 11 sys. damage, but fires of about 35. The next turn she had sys damage of over 70, and floatation damage near 80!
User avatar
Admiral DadMan
Posts: 3425
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2002 10:00 am
Location: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit

RE: B17s vs IJN CAs

Post by Admiral DadMan »

ORIGINAL: Mike Hall

In a game against PzB, he put about 25-30 500lbrs on the Yamashiro, and at the end of the turn she only had 11 sys. damage, but fires of about 35. The next turn she had sys damage of over 70, and floatation damage near 80!
Ok, but if they're no-penetrating hits, shouldn't they be blowing off weapons and equipment moreso than causing fires?

In a battle off Guadalcanal in November of '42, CA San Francisco was pummelled by non penetrating hits and survived with out a lot of 'flt' damage. Same for BB Hiei, and she was so pummelled that she was able to be sunk the next day. The damage model is just not set up as well as it could be.

OK, now shoot me [8D]
Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:
Image
Post Reply

Return to “War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945”