Page 2 of 3
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress
Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 6:24 am
by mattep74
Ahh, thanks for the info. Now i understand why my bomberunits average 15-20 planes from B29 and B17s and 2 planes for units with a max of 12.
Now, were to park all thouse lousy carrieraircrafts that makes the field of Ivo, Guam etc red. They cant hit anything from there anyway. Think i park them on Luzon
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress
Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 6:45 am
by castor troy
ORIGINAL: Terminus
Nobody is going to be flying the Fortress past 1943.
Because of? PBEM in 4/44 and I´ve got 60 of them available (B-17E and F that is).
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress
Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 6:46 am
by castor troy
ORIGINAL: mattep74
What did i did wrong in my first B17 attack then? In every thread you say how good they are at defeating japanese interceptors. I sent 40 B17s at 100 feet to destroy a airfield. 10 destroyed and 20 damaged.
At 100ft? [X(] They were taken down by stone throwing children.
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress
Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 12:25 am
by stuman
ORIGINAL: castor troy
ORIGINAL: mattep74
What did i did wrong in my first B17 attack then? In every thread you say how good they are at defeating japanese interceptors. I sent 40 B17s at 100 feet to destroy a airfield. 10 destroyed and 20 damaged.
At 100ft? [X(] They were taken down by stone throwing children.
Now castor, you know children do not have the range to hit bombers at 100 ft merely
throwing rocks. They must upgrade to
slingshots to be effective !
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:18 am
by bigred
ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
You are right, the lower the altitude at which your bombers make their runs, the greater the damage they will cause. However, the lower the altitude, the more bombers you will lose since more AA will be able to hit them. It's a trade-off that only you can determine if it is worthwhile. But to complain that your losses are too high when sending B17s in to "strafe" an airfield (that is how the game system treats a 100' air attack) does seem a little too much...
Well, maybe Mattep74 wanted to straf the air field w/ his .50 cal guns as well as drop bombs? Could be a good gun platform if they survive the flak, just like "c47 puff". If not any AA on hex then the b17 should be able to "straf". IIRC the .5 had a straight line bullet range of 1.5miles..side, bottom and top turrents could all "fix on" a target.
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 2:28 am
by 1EyedJacks
ORIGINAL: bigred
ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
You are right, the lower the altitude at which your bombers make their runs, the greater the damage they will cause. However, the lower the altitude, the more bombers you will lose since more AA will be able to hit them. It's a trade-off that only you can determine if it is worthwhile. But to complain that your losses are too high when sending B17s in to "strafe" an airfield (that is how the game system treats a 100' air attack) does seem a little too much...
Well, maybe Mattep74 wanted to straf the air field w/ his .50 cal guns as well as drop bombs? Could be a good gun platform if they survive the flak, just like "c47 puff". If not any AA on hex then the b17 should be able to "straf". IIRC the .5 had a straight line bullet range of 1.5miles..side, bottom and top turrents could all "fix on" a target.
[:D][:D] - I just about busted a gut at your reference to Puff! Of course Puff flies a tad bit above the 100ft level... <grin>
But I can just picture the light bulb going off in someone's head as they watched a B17 strafing an airfield... "You know - if we put a bunch of gattling guns in a C-47..." And thus the design concept for the Magic Dragon was born.
I guess the actual idea for the AC-47 came from Captain R. W. Terry watching DC-3s delivering mail. It's amazing where some people get their inspiration from.
"Puff the magic Dragon,
a bird of days long gone,
Came to fly the evening sky
In a land called Vietnam."
Author unkown
Ttfn,
Mike
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:15 am
by mike scholl 1
ORIGINAL: TheElf
ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
ORIGINAL: Terminus
If you're going to do something that stupid, you deserve all the losses you take.
For once I have to agree with you "Termi"..., flying B-17's over land targets at 100 feet is suicidally stupid.
ahhh a teachable moment...
I don't think stupidity is the issue, my esteemed colleagues are a little harsh in that respect. I think, hope, this is more an issue of being uninformed or uneducated about the realistic implications of flying a 40 plane B-17 raid against a target at 100'.
I don't know "Elf"..., it's hard to imagine anyone with an ounce of common sense thinking that B-17's bombing airfields at 100 feet was a good idea. About the only time during the real war something like this was tried was at Ploesti---and that certainly doesn't seem like a successful recommendation. "Stupid" may have been harsh..., but so is flying a four-engined strategic bomber over a target at so low an altitude that it's bombsight is worthless and it's vulnerable to everyone on the ground mad enough to throw a rock...
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:42 am
by 5thGuardsTankArmy
ORIGINAL: Terminus
Nobody is going to be flying the Fortress past 1943.
Not true, I shot down so many B24's that my opponent had to start using B17's agian.
Now we are in December 1944 and he is flying B29's.. but it goes a week between the raids.
I fly Frank and George.... soon however I have KI94 II... 50000ft... 440mph ^^ 2x 30mm + 2x 20mm's iiiooommmi I like '' bye bye bombers!
My Opponent has just landed on Southern Phillepine island, we are both static now will see how it goes.
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 6:56 pm
by mattep74
OK, i found a page about B29 bombing. No wounder no hits are made from 33k feet since they didnt hit anything IRL either from that alt. Next time i will switch them to 6-7500 feet since apperantly they operated on that alt. Also, no daylight bombingraids anywere and avoid Tokyo seems like a good idea.
Yesterday i took my cv and cves out for a cruise near Ivo again on my "kill as many japanese planes before January 46 and then invade" plan in Downfall. Result? 500 japanese airplane shot down, 85 allied planes.
Its not even October yet and the japanese have lost 5000 planes.
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress
Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2011 10:00 am
by Nemo121
Well, the best weapon with which to destroy the B29s is the 250Kg GP bomb dropped by IJAAF bombers at night. Same answer as with all the US heavies.
Failing that anything with centre-mounted cannons.
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress
Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 11:29 am
by EUBanana
Try them out at 8000'.
Heavy bombers are a bit wasted at low level, half the bombload and all. And they are plenty accurate at 8000' if the crews are halfway competent.
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress
Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:03 pm
by witpqs
ORIGINAL: EUBanana
Try them out at 8000'.
Heavy bombers are a bit wasted at low level, half the bombload and all. And they are plenty accurate at 8000' if the crews are halfway competent.
I thought half the bombload was only when low level against ships?
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:31 pm
by castor troy
ORIGINAL: witpqs
ORIGINAL: EUBanana
Try them out at 8000'.
Heavy bombers are a bit wasted at low level, half the bombload and all. And they are plenty accurate at 8000' if the crews are halfway competent.
I thought half the bombload was only when low level against ships?
exactly, only on naval attack below <6000ft is bomb load halved. You can attack an airfield at 100ft with full bomb load.
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 3:31 pm
by traskott
IIRC, IRL, B-29s made night low level attacks at japanese industry on 1945..Is this a valid option in WitPAE?
PS: The best option to the B-17F is landing next to the target and strafe it...Well, I did that on the (very) old Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe...
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress
Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:30 pm
by T_Patch
edit
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress
Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 11:43 pm
by bigred
FYI-PUFF---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_AC-47_Spooky.
I have always wondered if any WW2 armamant could have been fitted onto a DC3.[:D]
ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks
ORIGINAL: bigred
ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
You are right, the lower the altitude at which your bombers make their runs, the greater the damage they will cause. However, the lower the altitude, the more bombers you will lose since more AA will be able to hit them. It's a trade-off that only you can determine if it is worthwhile. But to complain that your losses are too high when sending B17s in to "strafe" an airfield (that is how the game system treats a 100' air attack) does seem a little too much...
Well, maybe Mattep74 wanted to straf the air field w/ his .50 cal guns as well as drop bombs? Could be a good gun platform if they survive the flak, just like "c47 puff". If not any AA on hex then the b17 should be able to "straf". IIRC the .5 had a straight line bullet range of 1.5miles..side, bottom and top turrents could all "fix on" a target.
[:D][:D] - I just about busted a gut at your reference to Puff! Of course Puff flies a tad bit above the 100ft level... <grin>
But I can just picture the light bulb going off in someone's head as they watched a B17 strafing an airfield... "You know - if we put a bunch of gattling guns in a C-47..." And thus the design concept for the Magic Dragon was born.
I guess the actual idea for the AC-47 came from Captain R. W. Terry watching DC-3s delivering mail. It's amazing where some people get their inspiration from.
"Puff the magic Dragon,
a bird of days long gone,
Came to fly the evening sky
In a land called Vietnam."
Author unkown
Ttfn,
Mike
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 9:47 am
by Dobey455
ORIGINAL: traskott
IIRC, IRL, B-29s made night low level attacks at japanese industry on 1945..Is this a valid option in WitPAE?
PS: The best option to the B-17F is landing next to the target and strafe it...Well, I did that on the (very) old Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe...
LOL.
I think EVERYONE did, at least once.
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress
Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2011 5:56 am
by thegreatwent
"Puff the magic Dragon,
a bird of days long gone,
Came to fly the evening sky
In a land called Vietnam."
Author unkown
I learned that as
"Puff the magic Dragon/
killed the Vietcong/
and frolicked in the Autumn mist/
in the hills outside Saigon"
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress
Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 1:26 pm
by Erkki
By the way... I understand that by the time the Japanese get the Ki-67 it might not make it to production because fighters are much more important, and I know this could be tested quick using the editor.. But looking at the stats only, shouldnt the Ki-67 be almost as difficult to down as the B-24, or at least much, much more difficult than the G3M and G4M? I am yet to see the Netties get a kill despite the 20mm tail gun, but they might just not survive long enough. Does anyone have experience on how well or bad the Ki-67 survives against Allied fighters, especially those with only 4 HMGs such as FM-2 and P-51B?
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress
Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 1:38 pm
by freeboy
well, altitude is a key then, and seriously... sending planes over just to clear out fighters.. say in the k to k area.. is a proven strategy...
Send two or three raids a day for a week, then send some tactical bombers in to acheive better on the ground results with lower lossees to air.. still AA is a fctor at lower altitudes...
good luck