Page 6 of 6
RE: Question about 4E Bombing
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 12:24 pm
by spence
Plus there is Speed VS RPM vs Manifold Pressure
There's a whole bunch of technical stuff that the pilot of an aircraft has to consider which impacts the tactical operation of his craft (not surprisingly). For planes with variable pitch propellors the pitch of the props greatly affected the range that the plane could fly on a mission. I read an account of a combat mission flown by civilian test pilot Charles Linbergh in WW2 where, flying some model of P-38 against the Japanese he returned from the mission with "half a tank of gas" while all the USAAF pilots were "sucking fumes" when they landed. IIRC it had something to do with propellor pitch and RPMs. He also showed the Marines that it was possible to take off in an F4U with 4000 lbs of bombs attached (presumably a fairly short range mission). Wish I could remember the name of that book (also had a story about the Boston baseball player Ted Williams in an F9F getting shot up over Korea and subsequently ditching).
RE: Question about 4E Bombing
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 12:48 pm
by RichardAckermann
So under the score "it depends". My favourite answer.
The whole thing is much more complicated than I had feared.
But thanks for all the input. I myself was quite clueless so far.
If the circumstance was that the 4-E formation was attacked by CAP several times enroute to their target, can I assume those bombers would probably run on something like cruising speed rather than full speed?
RE: Question about 4E Bombing
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:18 pm
by Dili
ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn
1942
Training Circular no. 46:
The report fully endorsed the concept and recommended that "training of pilots in these techniques be initiated at the earliest possible moment." Two of the attacks were deemed highly effective:
(1) Quartering front attack on armored surface vessels (more than one [ 1] inch of side armor plate) at maximum level flight speed and one hundred-fifty (150) feet to three-hundred (300) feet altitude, dropping one-thousand (1,000) pound or two-thousand (2,000) pound demolition bombs.
(2) Broadside attack on unarmored or lightly armored surface vessels (less than one [1] inch of side armor plate) at maximum level flight speed and at the minimum altitude necessary to clear the target, dropping demolition bombs of any appropriate size.
Didn't worked in Med. Even barges could be full of AA weapons.
RE: Question about 4E Bombing
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:32 am
by MrKane
ORIGINAL: Yaab
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget
This uncanny accuracy during daylight is something that might be explained away, but when you see them coming in at night in 0% moonlight and getting multiple hits on pinpoint targets, while shooting down droves of night-fighters to boot without suffering much themselves, then you start wondering...
Thank You LST. I have stayed out of this thread due to my strong feeling on this subject. You, politely, hit the nail on the head.
Add to that the ability of 40-50 4EB to inflict 1,000+ Casualties on troops in Lvl-6 Forts and we're moving farther into the fantasy realms...
If it happens in PBEM, then you and your partner could rengetiate the house-rules and ban 2E/4Es from flying Ground attack missions in combat hexes.
My opponent is using B-29 for ground attacks. He has captured several cities simply by completely destroying dig-in Brigade or Division in single strike and sending his paratroopers very next turn. And I mean literally "destroying". There was division (10K man) before attack and next hex is empty at the very end of turn
RE: Question about 4E Bombing
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 1:22 pm
by RichardAckermann
That's gotta hurt. How many B-29 did he send?
RE: Question about 4E Bombing
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 1:31 pm
by Lowpe
Sounds like 2000 foot bombing runs.[:(]
RE: Question about 4E Bombing
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 2:12 pm
by Lokasenna
ORIGINAL: Lowpe
Sounds like 2000 foot bombing runs.[:(]
Sounds like somebody didn't have much in the way of forts. Terrain helps more than forts, but even level 1-2 "field forts" will help prevent bombing damage. I just noticed a significant downtick in damage I was causing to some Chinese units in wooded-rough terrain. The first few turns, it was a lot. I could see when they got their first significant forts level built (presumably just level 1 given the time involved)... in less helpful terrain, you'd need at least forts 2 but possibly more.
There are some cities that are "clear" terrain. Even light urban, with forts 4+, should be enough to prevent wiping out entire divisions in a day with B-29s.
This coming from a guy who's wiped out entire divisions with B-29s. In clear terrain. With no forts.
RE: Question about 4E Bombing
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 2:32 pm
by MrKane
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
ORIGINAL: Lowpe
Sounds like 2000 foot bombing runs.[:(]
Sounds like somebody didn't have much in the way of forts. Terrain helps more than forts, but even level 1-2 "field forts" will help prevent bombing damage. I just noticed a significant downtick in damage I was causing to some Chinese units in wooded-rough terrain. The first few turns, it was a lot. I could see when they got their first significant forts level built (presumably just level 1 given the time involved)... in less helpful terrain, you'd need at least forts 2 but possibly more.
There are some cities that are "clear" terrain. Even light urban, with forts 4+, should be enough to prevent wiping out entire divisions in a day with B-29s.
This coming from a guy who's wiped out entire divisions with B-29s. In clear terrain. With no forts.
Well I have just lost another tank brigade and city in i such operation. It is main Mike's way win terrain plus night bombing airfields with his B-29. But I am not complaining just pointing strength of 4e. Anyway in day light sky belongs to me
even in 8/45
RE: Question about 4E Bombing
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2018 8:26 am
by tarkalak
ORIGINAL: spence
Plus there is Speed VS RPM vs Manifold Pressure
There's a whole bunch of technical stuff that the pilot of an aircraft has to consider which impacts the tactical operation of his craft (not surprisingly). For planes with variable pitch propellors the pitch of the props greatly affected the range that the plane could fly on a mission. I read an account of a combat mission flown by civilian test pilot Charles Linbergh in WW2 where, flying some model of P-38 against the Japanese he returned from the mission with "half a tank of gas" while all the USAAF pilots were "sucking fumes" when they landed. IIRC it had something to do with propellor pitch and RPMs. He also showed the Marines that it was possible to take off in an F4U with 4000 lbs of bombs attached (presumably a fairly short range mission). Wish I could remember the name of that book (also had a story about the Boston baseball player Ted Williams in an F9F getting shot up over Korea and subsequently ditching).
The propeller pitch angle is much like the gears in a car. Except that instead of discrete number of gears you can set it continuously.
So the "right" pitch angle will be different depending on what you need. If you want to cruise (read fuel economy) at certain altitude in certain weather conditions (humidity, air pressure, etc) you will have a certain "perfect" propeller pitch angle.
If you want maximum acceleration at the same conditions you will need different "perfect" propeller pitch angle.
And so forth.
If I recall correctly, FW 190 had automatic pitch control, and I am pretty sure that near the end of the war all modern fighter had it.
Of course, just like in real cars, an experienced pilot using manual pitch can outperform a less experienced one or one using automatic pitch control. The price is that constantly fiddling with it will lower your situational awareness.
RE: Question about 4E Bombing
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2018 9:06 am
by HansBolter
If 2000 foot bombing runs are being made I would assume it was against a target without balloons.
Any base in clear terrain that isn't built up enough to have balloons needs substantial AA to protect troops deployed there.