I've read Sakai.
Nothing in it suggests to me that B-17's were "uber" and one must keep in mind that during Sakai's tenure at Lae, it was essentially an undeveloped base with little in the way of intrinsic defense other than the fighters stationed there.
Eric Bergerud's analysis of the SoPac campaign would indicate that it took far more than 4 bombers, B-17 or otherwise to badly damage and keep down an airbase. It also did not suggest in any way that level bombers, B-17 or otherwise, scored such consistant pinpoint accuracy against land targets. Otherwise the campaign would not have developed into the slogging match that it did
A quick list of pro-USN bias.
Moderators: Joel Billings, Tankerace, siRkid
-
madflava13
- Posts: 1501
- Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Alexandria, VA
Nik,
I understand what you're saying, and I agree in part. The airbase itself (the field) was never knocked out for a day, but the planes and facilites were trashed numerous times. That took its toll. I was responding more to the people who were complaining about high casualties and damaged aircraft because that was a reality. It's not hard to hit a base even from high altitude, and 48 500lb. bombs is gonna do a ****-**** no matter what. That's why I think the B-17 is still an uber weapon. There aren't enough of them for the Allies to swing the campaign with them (just like reality - otherwise it would have been 100 B-17s and not the 4 Sakai talks about), but they are accurate (against land), long ranged and heavily armed/armored aircraft, just like in real life.
I know Chiteng and others have expressed concerns about accuracy over water. I personally have not experienced that, so I don't see it as a problem. If it's happening to people and they can reproduce it in a save game, I'll join that camp instantly - B-17s could hit ships, but it was very rare. Any save game that shows B-17s as incessant ship-killers would indicate a problem to me.
Over land I see no problems besides the ineffectiveness of flak disruption. High losses to the Japanese are normal - we're talking a lot of bombs being dropped after all. Low losses to the B-17s (total loss, not talking about damage) is also normal - not many were shot down. I concur flak needs to be looked at, but most Japanese bases aren't going to have a lot of high altitude flak because there just wasn't that much to go around. Those bases are going to take losses from B-17s as a result.
That's my take on it, anyways.
I understand what you're saying, and I agree in part. The airbase itself (the field) was never knocked out for a day, but the planes and facilites were trashed numerous times. That took its toll. I was responding more to the people who were complaining about high casualties and damaged aircraft because that was a reality. It's not hard to hit a base even from high altitude, and 48 500lb. bombs is gonna do a ****-**** no matter what. That's why I think the B-17 is still an uber weapon. There aren't enough of them for the Allies to swing the campaign with them (just like reality - otherwise it would have been 100 B-17s and not the 4 Sakai talks about), but they are accurate (against land), long ranged and heavily armed/armored aircraft, just like in real life.
I know Chiteng and others have expressed concerns about accuracy over water. I personally have not experienced that, so I don't see it as a problem. If it's happening to people and they can reproduce it in a save game, I'll join that camp instantly - B-17s could hit ships, but it was very rare. Any save game that shows B-17s as incessant ship-killers would indicate a problem to me.
Over land I see no problems besides the ineffectiveness of flak disruption. High losses to the Japanese are normal - we're talking a lot of bombs being dropped after all. Low losses to the B-17s (total loss, not talking about damage) is also normal - not many were shot down. I concur flak needs to be looked at, but most Japanese bases aren't going to have a lot of high altitude flak because there just wasn't that much to go around. Those bases are going to take losses from B-17s as a result.
That's my take on it, anyways.
"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."
and i see what your saying as well mud (perhaps thats the more signifigant aspect of our exchange, the proof that two people can debate in honesty and civility 
)
But i do disagree on the what is essentially a "look at the number of bombs dropped" aspect of viewing the problem. I do not doubt that on a number of occasions, heavy bombers (or any bombers) did cause sig damage to a base
However i felt the need to point out that Lae by itself serves as a poor example as it was small and under-maintained (which was why it was quickly abandoned once the PM mission failed initially)
Bergerud as mentioned specifically documented numerous times when bombing attacks, both against airbases and ground targets simply and often did not yeild tangible or long lasting results based on a variety of variables, including flak and CAP. Often many an air bombardment (and shore bombardment for that matter), yielded zero results which neccessitated the need for repeated and continuous strikes. His analysis also showed quite well that it was a very hard proposition to knock out and keep knocked out, an airbase (and I agree too with Mr Frag that the ease in which engineers and AA guns are disabled is way too easy, contributing further, to the two day knock out a large airbase tactic in UV)
I agree on your comments about the flak. Thats exactly my point. The Japanese were weak in the area of high alt flak. Yet in the game, they can attack at whim at any altitude, low altitude in particular, because even at low level, AA cannot disuade bombers, not just heavy bombers from attacking and quickly taking out all in their path, from guns to men to supplies. An Allied player never has to attack at higher alts if he doesn't really want too, there's no true danger.
It just didn't happen that way in real life.
Ironically what truely made airbases untendable is not represented well in the game. That tendancy is the aircraft themselves. They are not vulnerable enough on the ground and in the air they repair too quickly allowing players to keep up their high pace tactics.
)But i do disagree on the what is essentially a "look at the number of bombs dropped" aspect of viewing the problem. I do not doubt that on a number of occasions, heavy bombers (or any bombers) did cause sig damage to a base
However i felt the need to point out that Lae by itself serves as a poor example as it was small and under-maintained (which was why it was quickly abandoned once the PM mission failed initially)
Bergerud as mentioned specifically documented numerous times when bombing attacks, both against airbases and ground targets simply and often did not yeild tangible or long lasting results based on a variety of variables, including flak and CAP. Often many an air bombardment (and shore bombardment for that matter), yielded zero results which neccessitated the need for repeated and continuous strikes. His analysis also showed quite well that it was a very hard proposition to knock out and keep knocked out, an airbase (and I agree too with Mr Frag that the ease in which engineers and AA guns are disabled is way too easy, contributing further, to the two day knock out a large airbase tactic in UV)
I agree on your comments about the flak. Thats exactly my point. The Japanese were weak in the area of high alt flak. Yet in the game, they can attack at whim at any altitude, low altitude in particular, because even at low level, AA cannot disuade bombers, not just heavy bombers from attacking and quickly taking out all in their path, from guns to men to supplies. An Allied player never has to attack at higher alts if he doesn't really want too, there's no true danger.
It just didn't happen that way in real life.
Ironically what truely made airbases untendable is not represented well in the game. That tendancy is the aircraft themselves. They are not vulnerable enough on the ground and in the air they repair too quickly allowing players to keep up their high pace tactics.
I am not sure about Midway, but in well over a 100 sorties against *SHIPPING* in the Philipines, NEI, and the SOPAC, B-17s and B-24s used almost exclusively 500lb bombs.Originally posted by Chiteng
The standard anti-shipping bomb at Midway for the B-17 was one
2000pound bomb.
Please note the 'anti-shipping' preface.
I am well aware it had a variety of ordinance. But that was for
ground attacks.
Come to think of it, I seem to recall an aerial photo the Hiryu or Soryu manuvering wildly to avoid rows of bombs from a B-17 attack. Those particular bombers at least were not carrying single 2000lbs bombs.
The proof is in the pudding. I challenge anyone here to read Sakai's book and tell me how UV has it wrong regarding B-17 attacks against bases...
I didn't get the impression from Sakai that that B-17 was more or less effective than the B-25 and B-26.
I didn't get the impression from Sakai that that B-17 was more or less effective than the B-25 and B-26.
"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan
"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket
"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the
"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket
"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the
-
madflava13
- Posts: 1501
- Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Alexandria, VA
Snigbert,
True the majority of the attacks he was exposed to were from the Med bombers at low level, many times at night. But B-17 attacks were effective and it was much more difficult to defend against them because of the heavy armament/toughness they exhibited. That was the message I was trying to get across.
True the majority of the attacks he was exposed to were from the Med bombers at low level, many times at night. But B-17 attacks were effective and it was much more difficult to defend against them because of the heavy armament/toughness they exhibited. That was the message I was trying to get across.
"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."
-
Bobthehatchit
- Posts: 838
- Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2003 7:15 pm
- Location: GREAT BRITAIN
B17's
Regardless of how many time people re-argue this point, the B17 was cable of hitting ships, and it did historically within the period of uv and during the rest of war in the pacific.
So it is clear the B17 has the capability to drop bombs on and damage enemy shipping if the player so wishes?
If ten b17's drop strings of 500 pounders on a transport tf the likelyhood is you are goning to get a few hits, this is not that unrealistic, how many times do they go out on a raid and hit nothing?
I find the ijn Betty's and nells to be much more effective ship killers even with cap flying cover they usually score big when ever they get the chance. They carry less muntions, are less durable than a B17, which is a well armoured stable platform..
I mean a heavily loaded transport is not going to be that manoeuvrable so its going to struggle to avoid bombs that are dropped on it.
So it is clear the B17 has the capability to drop bombs on and damage enemy shipping if the player so wishes?
If ten b17's drop strings of 500 pounders on a transport tf the likelyhood is you are goning to get a few hits, this is not that unrealistic, how many times do they go out on a raid and hit nothing?
I find the ijn Betty's and nells to be much more effective ship killers even with cap flying cover they usually score big when ever they get the chance. They carry less muntions, are less durable than a B17, which is a well armoured stable platform..
I mean a heavily loaded transport is not going to be that manoeuvrable so its going to struggle to avoid bombs that are dropped on it.
"Look at yours before laughing at mine". Garfield 1984.
Wanted: ISDII Low millage in Imperial gray.
Just my 2 pence worth.
I might not be right.
Hell I am probaby wrong.
But thats my opinion for what its worth!
Wanted: ISDII Low millage in Imperial gray.
Just my 2 pence worth.
I might not be right.
Hell I am probaby wrong.
But thats my opinion for what its worth!
What it takes to put the pickle in the barrel
At the bottom of this message is an excerpt, straight from the B-17 Pilot Training Manual found at that hopefully will suffice for even the most stubborn grogs. It's a bit long to read, but it is very illuminating on this subject if you take the time to understand a bit about the physics of the task at hand.
It's clear that B-17's can - and did - hit shipping targets both while underway and while in port during the course of the war. It wasn't easy to get a hit, especially on a target at sea where there is much less available with which the bombardier can estimate crosswinds that affect both bomb drift and speed over ground(or sea) because of lack of good ground references. Getting the target speed right might still have been the easiest part since you'd know about how long a Maru, etc. is so you could get pretty close on this one. Proper altitude settings are also critical to accurate bombing. For the non-pilots in the group, in those pre-GPS days, you mainly calibrated your altimeter based on a known altitude at the home field and a with Barometric pressure reading taken at ground level. These are provided shortly before takeoff and sometimes updated in-flight when the data is known. Since there weren't generally going to be friendly weather reports coming out of "Injun Country", in-flight updates while over the target are very unlikely or innaccurate at best so a big swing in the weather between takeoff and tarhget really is a problem.
BUT if you are dropping a bomb every 1/10th of a second in a salvo mode, for instance, at a cruise speed of 170mph, then you are letting one go every 25 feet traveled. Thus, eight 500lb bombs dropped "in a vacum in space" should land in a string that is roughly 200 feet long. Therefore, getting the windage, altitude and airspeed calibrated correctly is still important, but the bomb pattern provides a "cushion" against any bad settings. Keep in mind that in UV we are also generally talking about raids carried out at well under the 20,000 feet assumed in the example below, so modify the circural error probability proportionately for an idea of what the pilot and bombardier were really up against at a given altitude and then draw your own conclusions. (This ought to be good for another 5000+ posts from a few of the whiny posters, but at least this time they'll actually have some real info to work with.
)
If there was an area where we might realistically degrade Level bomber performance, I personally think it might be against overwater targets that are further from friendly bases and most particularly when the weather is marginal/bad and Barometric pressures would have been literally and figuratively "all over the map". So....
"Consider the following conditions which affect the bomb dropped from an airplane:
ALTITUDE: Controlled by the pilot. Determines the length of time the bomb is sustained in flight and affected by atmospheric conditions, thus affecting the range (forward travel of the bomb) and deflection (distance the bomb drifts in a crosswind with respect to airplane's ground track).
TRUE AIRSPEED: Controlled by the pilot. The measure of the speed of the airplane through the air. It is this speed which is imparted to the bomb and which gives the bomb its initial forward velocity and, therefore, affects the trail of the bomb, or the distance the bomb lags behind the airplane at the instant of impact.
BOMB BALLISTICS: Size, shape and density of the bomb, which determines its air resistance. Bombardier uses bomb ballistics tables to account for type of bomb.
TRAIL: Horizontal distance the bomb is behind the airplane at the instant of impact. This value, obtained from bombing tables, is set in the sight by the bombardier. Trail is affected by altitude, airspeed, bomb ballistics and air density, the first three factors being controlled by the pilot.
ACTUAL TIME OF FALL: Length of time the bomb is sustained in air from instant of release to instant of impact. Affected by altitude, type of bomb and air density. Pilot controls altitude to obtain a definite actual time of fall.
GROUNDSPEED: The speed of the airplane in relation to the earth's surface. Groundspeed affects the range of the bomb and varies with the airspeed, controlled by the pilot. Bombardier enters groundspeed in the bombsight through synchronization on the target. During this process the pilot must maintain the correct altitude and constant airspeed.
DRIFT: Determined by the direction and velocity of the wind, which determines the distance the bomb will travel downwind from the airplane from the instant the bomb is released to its instant of impact. Drift is set on the bombsight by the bombardier during the process of synchronization and setting up course.
....HOLDING ALTITUDE AND AIRSPEED: As the bombardier proceeds to set up his course (synchronize) , it is absolutely essential that the pilot maintain the selected altitude and air- speed within the closest possible limits. For every additional 100 feet above the assumed 20,000-foot bombing altitude, the bombing error will increase approximately 30 feet, the direction of error being over. For erroneous airspeed, which creates difficulty in synchronization on the target, the bombing error will be approximately 170 feet for a 10 mph change in airspeed. Assuming the airspeed was 10 mph in excess, from 20,000 feet, the bomb impact would be short 170 feet."
It's clear that B-17's can - and did - hit shipping targets both while underway and while in port during the course of the war. It wasn't easy to get a hit, especially on a target at sea where there is much less available with which the bombardier can estimate crosswinds that affect both bomb drift and speed over ground(or sea) because of lack of good ground references. Getting the target speed right might still have been the easiest part since you'd know about how long a Maru, etc. is so you could get pretty close on this one. Proper altitude settings are also critical to accurate bombing. For the non-pilots in the group, in those pre-GPS days, you mainly calibrated your altimeter based on a known altitude at the home field and a with Barometric pressure reading taken at ground level. These are provided shortly before takeoff and sometimes updated in-flight when the data is known. Since there weren't generally going to be friendly weather reports coming out of "Injun Country", in-flight updates while over the target are very unlikely or innaccurate at best so a big swing in the weather between takeoff and tarhget really is a problem.
BUT if you are dropping a bomb every 1/10th of a second in a salvo mode, for instance, at a cruise speed of 170mph, then you are letting one go every 25 feet traveled. Thus, eight 500lb bombs dropped "in a vacum in space" should land in a string that is roughly 200 feet long. Therefore, getting the windage, altitude and airspeed calibrated correctly is still important, but the bomb pattern provides a "cushion" against any bad settings. Keep in mind that in UV we are also generally talking about raids carried out at well under the 20,000 feet assumed in the example below, so modify the circural error probability proportionately for an idea of what the pilot and bombardier were really up against at a given altitude and then draw your own conclusions. (This ought to be good for another 5000+ posts from a few of the whiny posters, but at least this time they'll actually have some real info to work with.
)If there was an area where we might realistically degrade Level bomber performance, I personally think it might be against overwater targets that are further from friendly bases and most particularly when the weather is marginal/bad and Barometric pressures would have been literally and figuratively "all over the map". So....
Here's the straight dope from the USAAF
"Consider the following conditions which affect the bomb dropped from an airplane:
ALTITUDE: Controlled by the pilot. Determines the length of time the bomb is sustained in flight and affected by atmospheric conditions, thus affecting the range (forward travel of the bomb) and deflection (distance the bomb drifts in a crosswind with respect to airplane's ground track).
TRUE AIRSPEED: Controlled by the pilot. The measure of the speed of the airplane through the air. It is this speed which is imparted to the bomb and which gives the bomb its initial forward velocity and, therefore, affects the trail of the bomb, or the distance the bomb lags behind the airplane at the instant of impact.
BOMB BALLISTICS: Size, shape and density of the bomb, which determines its air resistance. Bombardier uses bomb ballistics tables to account for type of bomb.
TRAIL: Horizontal distance the bomb is behind the airplane at the instant of impact. This value, obtained from bombing tables, is set in the sight by the bombardier. Trail is affected by altitude, airspeed, bomb ballistics and air density, the first three factors being controlled by the pilot.
ACTUAL TIME OF FALL: Length of time the bomb is sustained in air from instant of release to instant of impact. Affected by altitude, type of bomb and air density. Pilot controls altitude to obtain a definite actual time of fall.
GROUNDSPEED: The speed of the airplane in relation to the earth's surface. Groundspeed affects the range of the bomb and varies with the airspeed, controlled by the pilot. Bombardier enters groundspeed in the bombsight through synchronization on the target. During this process the pilot must maintain the correct altitude and constant airspeed.
DRIFT: Determined by the direction and velocity of the wind, which determines the distance the bomb will travel downwind from the airplane from the instant the bomb is released to its instant of impact. Drift is set on the bombsight by the bombardier during the process of synchronization and setting up course.
....HOLDING ALTITUDE AND AIRSPEED: As the bombardier proceeds to set up his course (synchronize) , it is absolutely essential that the pilot maintain the selected altitude and air- speed within the closest possible limits. For every additional 100 feet above the assumed 20,000-foot bombing altitude, the bombing error will increase approximately 30 feet, the direction of error being over. For erroneous airspeed, which creates difficulty in synchronization on the target, the bombing error will be approximately 170 feet for a 10 mph change in airspeed. Assuming the airspeed was 10 mph in excess, from 20,000 feet, the bomb impact would be short 170 feet."
Semper Fi,
Craig
It's always pilot error. Sometimes the idiot just doesn't know how to fly a broken aircraft.
Craig
It's always pilot error. Sometimes the idiot just doesn't know how to fly a broken aircraft.
Re: B17's
Originally posted by Bobthehatchit
Regardless of how many time people re-argue this point, the B17 was cable of hitting ships, and it did historically within the period of uv and during the rest of war in the pacific.
So it is clear the B17 has the capability to drop bombs on and damage enemy shipping if the player so wishes?
If ten b17's drop strings of 500 pounders on a transport tf the likelyhood is you are goning to get a few hits, this is not that unrealistic, how many times do they go out on a raid and hit nothing?
I find the ijn Betty's and nells to be much more effective ship killers even with cap flying cover they usually score big when ever they get the chance. They carry less muntions, are less durable than a B17, which is a well armoured stable platform..
I mean a heavily loaded transport is not going to be that manoeuvrable so its going to struggle to avoid bombs that are dropped on it.
I see no reason to accept that B-17 routinely dropped 500pound
anti-shipping bombs. In fact the posts from madflava indicate
that actually they did use the 2000pound bomb in the few cases
they hit something. The idea that the B-17 was dropping cluster bombs on shipping is hardly proven. In fact it may be wishfull thinking from the 'pro-B17 people'
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Re: B17's
Originally posted by Bobthehatchit
Regardless of how many time people re-argue this point, the B17 was cable of hitting ships, and it did historically within the period of uv and during the rest of war in the pacific.
So it is clear the B17 has the capability to drop bombs on and damage enemy shipping if the player so wishes?
If ten b17's drop strings of 500 pounders on a transport tf the likelyhood is you are goning to get a few hits, this is not that unrealistic, how many times do they go out on a raid and hit nothing?
I find the ijn Betty's and nells to be much more effective ship killers even with cap flying cover they usually score big when ever they get the chance. They carry less muntions, are less durable than a B17, which is a well armoured stable platform..
I mean a heavily loaded transport is not going to be that manoeuvrable so its going to struggle to avoid bombs that are dropped on it.
Bettys can be shot down. It isnt as big a problem.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Wouldn't it be nice...
...if there was a verifiable fact sprinkled in some of these "poor me" whines every now and then.
Two words come immeadiately to mind SORE LOSER.
Two words come immeadiately to mind SORE LOSER.
Semper Fi,
Craig
It's always pilot error. Sometimes the idiot just doesn't know how to fly a broken aircraft.
Craig
It's always pilot error. Sometimes the idiot just doesn't know how to fly a broken aircraft.
Re: Wouldn't it be nice...
Originally posted by CraigDeaton
...if there was a verifiable fact sprinkled in some of these "poor me" whines every now and then.
Two words come immeadiately to mind SORE LOSER.
One can only wonder what your talking about.
What is being lost?
What is being won?
Who is saying 'poor me'?
Sounds like your erecting a straw man. =)
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Verifiable Fact
Chiteng,
Fact, the B17's at Efate under then Col. LaVerne Saunders bombed convoys coming down the slot regularly. It was not terribly accurate but there are several verified hits against Transports, barges, destroyers and at least one on a light cruiser.
2000lb bombs on a B17: as far as i know these were very rarely used and i can find no confirmation they were used at Midway. (I am not saying they were not, but i can find no evidence) The B17's bomb bay was poorly arranged and when they carried large bombs they had to be external not internal which would limit their range and speed due to drag. I do not know if this is true for every model.
Chiteng, did you ever notice that during the war the Japanese never exposed their carriers to LBA except in the first two months of the war. The US rarely did so till late '43. Hmmm, I wonder why??? Could it be that they realized that LBA could potentially hit them? wow!
You might want to think through some things before you decide you have any clue what you are talking about. You are one of those twits who follows ahistorical strategies and then pisses and moans that something ahistorical happened. I do not believe I have ever attacked another poster on a message board. You are a first that I could have done without. I actually agree with you on one or two of your ideas but your attacking of other posters, rudeness, and general bad attitude are just ugly.
grow up.
Mike
Fact, the B17's at Efate under then Col. LaVerne Saunders bombed convoys coming down the slot regularly. It was not terribly accurate but there are several verified hits against Transports, barges, destroyers and at least one on a light cruiser.
2000lb bombs on a B17: as far as i know these were very rarely used and i can find no confirmation they were used at Midway. (I am not saying they were not, but i can find no evidence) The B17's bomb bay was poorly arranged and when they carried large bombs they had to be external not internal which would limit their range and speed due to drag. I do not know if this is true for every model.
Chiteng, did you ever notice that during the war the Japanese never exposed their carriers to LBA except in the first two months of the war. The US rarely did so till late '43. Hmmm, I wonder why??? Could it be that they realized that LBA could potentially hit them? wow!
You might want to think through some things before you decide you have any clue what you are talking about. You are one of those twits who follows ahistorical strategies and then pisses and moans that something ahistorical happened. I do not believe I have ever attacked another poster on a message board. You are a first that I could have done without. I actually agree with you on one or two of your ideas but your attacking of other posters, rudeness, and general bad attitude are just ugly.
grow up.
Mike
Tae Kwon Leep is the Wine of Purity
not the Vinegar of Hostility.
not the Vinegar of Hostility.
-
madflava13
- Posts: 1501
- Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Alexandria, VA
Chiteng,
My comments re: Midway loads was simply me giving you the benefit of the doubt. I don't know what the B-17s carried in that battle as I've never read any detailed accounts of their actions at Midway. I assumed you had. Everything I have read about B-17s in anti-shipping strikes indicates they used the 500 pounders though. Midway may be different, I simply don't know.
I really wish I had my big volumes with me, but they're unfortunately in Minnesota while I'm stuck in Philly... Otherwise I'd offer more verifiable facts than I have on hand.
My comments re: Midway loads was simply me giving you the benefit of the doubt. I don't know what the B-17s carried in that battle as I've never read any detailed accounts of their actions at Midway. I assumed you had. Everything I have read about B-17s in anti-shipping strikes indicates they used the 500 pounders though. Midway may be different, I simply don't know.
I really wish I had my big volumes with me, but they're unfortunately in Minnesota while I'm stuck in Philly... Otherwise I'd offer more verifiable facts than I have on hand.
"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."
Re: Re: Wouldn't it be nice...
Originally posted by Chiteng
One can only wonder what your talking about.
Sounds like your erecting a straw man. =)
I don't recall referring to a "man"at all, or anyone in particular for that matter. Just the incessant pointless whining without verifiable facts to back up anything.
But if the shoe fits....
Semper Fi,
Craig
It's always pilot error. Sometimes the idiot just doesn't know how to fly a broken aircraft.
Craig
It's always pilot error. Sometimes the idiot just doesn't know how to fly a broken aircraft.
-
madflava13
- Posts: 1501
- Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Alexandria, VA
A little OT, but...
Since we've got a bunch of people reading and commenting here anyways, I wanted to bring up one thing that always bugs me with UV.
Historically during UV's time period and area, both sides operated night strikes on a regular basis. I'm not talking "Washing Maching Charlie" single plane strikes, I'm talking multiple B-26/B-25 hits on Lae from PM, etc. PBYs flew every night with much success as well. Currently, UV only has night strikes like these if a unit has high experience, but in the war, all units could attack at night. I'd love to see the chance to launch increased considerably, with the chance to hit tied into experience. Obviously lower skill units will suffer more operational losses, but they should at least launch as historically happened almost every night in this theater...
That seems more realistic and normal to me.
Can I get an Amen?
Historically during UV's time period and area, both sides operated night strikes on a regular basis. I'm not talking "Washing Maching Charlie" single plane strikes, I'm talking multiple B-26/B-25 hits on Lae from PM, etc. PBYs flew every night with much success as well. Currently, UV only has night strikes like these if a unit has high experience, but in the war, all units could attack at night. I'd love to see the chance to launch increased considerably, with the chance to hit tied into experience. Obviously lower skill units will suffer more operational losses, but they should at least launch as historically happened almost every night in this theater...
That seems more realistic and normal to me.
Can I get an Amen?
"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."
Re: Verifiable Fact
Originally posted by decourcy
Chiteng,
Fact, the B17's at Efate under then Col. LaVerne Saunders bombed convoys coming down the slot regularly. It was not terribly accurate but there are several verified hits against Transports, barges, destroyers and at least one on a light cruiser.
2000lb bombs on a B17: as far as i know these were very rarely used and i can find no confirmation they were used at Midway. (I am not saying they were not, but i can find no evidence) The B17's bomb bay was poorly arranged and when they carried large bombs they had to be external not internal which would limit their range and speed due to drag. I do not know if this is true for every model.
Chiteng, did you ever notice that during the war the Japanese never exposed their carriers to LBA except in the first two months of the war. The US rarely did so till late '43. Hmmm, I wonder why??? Could it be that they realized that LBA could potentially hit them? wow!
You might want to think through some things before you decide you have any clue what you are talking about. You are one of those twits who follows ahistorical strategies and then pisses and moans that something ahistorical happened. I do not believe I have ever attacked another poster on a message board. You are a first that I could have done without. I actually agree with you on one or two of your ideas but your attacking of other posters, rudeness, and general bad attitude are just ugly.
grow up.
Mike
I notice that alot of people that dont wish to see the B-17 model changed attempt to use this 'the japs didnt risk it' argument.
Even if that argument was valid(I dont agree, AND it cant be proven valid)that doesnt mean fear of LBA was the reason
'they didnt risk it'
You know NOTHING of how I play any game, or what strategy I may or may not use. Your assumptions are invalid.
I do not attack other posters, I do however defend myself when attacked. They could of course avoid attacking me, could they not?
As far as Rudeness I dont agree =) I am always civil and I make no personal attacks. Bad Attitude is something someone claims
when someone else disagrees with them. How surprising.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Re: Re: Re: Wouldn't it be nice...
Originally posted by CraigDeaton
I don't recall referring to a "man"at all, or anyone in particular for that matter. Just the incessant pointless whining without verifiable facts to back up anything.
But if the shoe fits....
It all depends on what you define as facts.
I have posted several AAR that clearly prove my position.
They were of course ignored.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
That is unlikely. Sources frequently disagree. What is likely is thatOriginally posted by madflava13
Chiteng,
My comments re: Midway loads was simply me giving you the benefit of the doubt. I don't know what the B-17s carried in that battle as I've never read any detailed accounts of their actions at Midway. I assumed you had. Everything I have read about B-17s in anti-shipping strikes indicates they used the 500 pounders though. Midway may be different, I simply don't know.
I really wish I had my big volumes with me, but they're unfortunately in Minnesota while I'm stuck in Philly... Otherwise I'd offer more verifiable facts than I have on hand.
you dont wish to see the model changed, and would attempt
to find a source that would prevent that. That is all that is likely.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Ahh I misunderstood:Originally posted by madflava13
Chiteng,
My comments re: Midway loads was simply me giving you the benefit of the doubt. I don't know what the B-17s carried in that battle as I've never read any detailed accounts of their actions at Midway. I assumed you had. Everything I have read about B-17s in anti-shipping strikes indicates they used the 500 pounders though. Midway may be different, I simply don't know.
I really wish I had my big volumes with me, but they're unfortunately in Minnesota while I'm stuck in Philly... Otherwise I'd offer more verifiable facts than I have on hand.
My comments as to your posts were some source you listed
of B-17 attacks against shipping. The source listed the number
of planes and the tonnage dropped. Dividing the tonnage by the number of planes gave 2000pounds.
It wasnt Midway, it was some transport convoy.
As for Midway, yes indeed I have read all about it.
The B-17 bombed from a high altitude, missed and went home.
End of story.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic