Jennifer..."Japanese Merchant Marine in WW2" maybe? Wealth of detail BTW, well researched and annotated, layout is a little disjointed. Or Dull, one or the other I think...only 2 I've been reading recently.
"I don't know 28 B17 attacking from 5,000 sinking one transport and damaging 2 more and 2 DDs. While dodging Zero's and taking flak isn't a bad score. In fact it is a lot better than any results I've had in the game with B17 against ships."
Zeros's not really a factor due to overwhelming fighter CAP, most of the transports were basically unarmed, and I believe the convoy was doing less than 10 knots. I'd imagine B17 crews flying missions over Europe would've gladly traded places. Real damage was done the second day once the range closed by medium bombers "skip bombing". It wasn't a battle, it was an execution, they couldn't run, and couldn't hide. 28 B17's dropping bombs under more or less perfect conditions, and sinking one wallowing pig of a transport ship ain't nothing to point to as an example of the B17's effectiveness.
"The problem is the Zero and almost Japanese fighters lacked the fire power to take out a tough B17s. The same books talks about how much the Japanese hated the B17s and how hard it was to shot them down."
Mostly derived from comments by Sakai...who was effectively out of the war about the time UV starts. He was flying Zero's with 2 rifle calibre MG's, 2 slow firing, low velocity 20mm cannons, and a limited ammo supply. Not to mention not having any armor of any kind, or self-sealing fuel tanks. World of difference between making a deliberate attack on a B17 bristling with guns and popping some guy tooling around in a obsolete fighter from behind...especially when one .50 cal hit almost anywhere on your plance could potenially kill you. I'd been peeing down my leg. Almost every advantage Sakai had via exceptional skill and a plane optimized for dogfighting negated going against a B17.
Being tough doesn't make it effective, and no one is disputing that it was a tough SOB. It definitely had a role due to its range and "toughness". But it didn't sink alot of ships, and a few dozen didn't shut down Rabaul singlehandedly as you can do in UV.
mdiehl...I've yet to see any hard numbers or an in-depth analysis of the effectiveness of the B17 in a skip bombing anti-ship role. Almost undoubtedly because its contribution was, at best, marginal. Given the amount of stuff in print on the B17, if it was widely used or even moderately effective in this role, I suspect we wouldn't be quoting anecdotal evidence from 50 year old articles. This is at least the 3rd time that article's been cut/pasted into this forum to support the B17's performance...is that the sum of the supporting evidence? In a level bombing anti-ship role, it was basically useless as noted in the article. The guy was a hero, suicidal, but a hero. That doesn't make any statements about the effectiveness or widespread use of the B17/skip bombing in the hands of "Cpt. Joe Average Pilot", who was neither as skilled, or as crazed.
B-17's
Moderators: Joel Billings, Tankerace, siRkid
Well from the book
after the first 2 B17 hit the transport with 1,000 lb
"A third B17 ... dropped to a dangerous 3,000 despite the rattle of 5" guns. The B17 came within 1,000 yard before releasing his bombs... afterward the pilot veered the big Fort upwards like an overgrown fighter plane.
The desperate helmsman could not manuever the ship and the raked the wounded vessel from stern to bow. The first explosion opened the stern, the second tore apart the bridge..., the 3rd detached the smoke stacks; and the fourth hit the AA magazine storage area" The vessel fell apart in a series of disintegrating explosions.
after the first 2 B17 hit the transport with 1,000 lb
"A third B17 ... dropped to a dangerous 3,000 despite the rattle of 5" guns. The B17 came within 1,000 yard before releasing his bombs... afterward the pilot veered the big Fort upwards like an overgrown fighter plane.
The desperate helmsman could not manuever the ship and the raked the wounded vessel from stern to bow. The first explosion opened the stern, the second tore apart the bridge..., the 3rd detached the smoke stacks; and the fourth hit the AA magazine storage area" The vessel fell apart in a series of disintegrating explosions.
J7B
I basically agree with you that B17 was a best a mediocore anti-ship weapon when deployed at low level and completely useless at high level which is where it was commonly used. The 5th Air force B17s were decent against merchant shipping and effective against land based targets, primarily because they used them like 4 engine medium bombers.
I guess the question is how effective they are in the game. I always use the hard setting against the AI so that probably skews my results. But I have found that 20-30 plane raids from PM to Shortlands are only marginally useful, and against Rabual (with a level 9 base and 200-250 fighters) they are completely worthless. Its true I can shut down the level 4 base at Lae with minimal fighter opposition with B17, but I don't think that is unrealistic.
I'll try setting them to Naval attack at 3,000 feet and see what happens.
It is going to be a long time before I get 30 B17 in my PBEM games.
I basically agree with you that B17 was a best a mediocore anti-ship weapon when deployed at low level and completely useless at high level which is where it was commonly used. The 5th Air force B17s were decent against merchant shipping and effective against land based targets, primarily because they used them like 4 engine medium bombers.
I guess the question is how effective they are in the game. I always use the hard setting against the AI so that probably skews my results. But I have found that 20-30 plane raids from PM to Shortlands are only marginally useful, and against Rabual (with a level 9 base and 200-250 fighters) they are completely worthless. Its true I can shut down the level 4 base at Lae with minimal fighter opposition with B17, but I don't think that is unrealistic.
I'll try setting them to Naval attack at 3,000 feet and see what happens.
It is going to be a long time before I get 30 B17 in my PBEM games.
"mdiehl...I've yet to see any hard numbers or an in-depth analysis of the effectiveness of the B17 in a skip bombing anti-ship role. Almost undoubtedly because its contribution was, at best, marginal."
Sorry to have bothered you with that link. I must have missed it in this thread. It's not the first time I've read something along that lines by 5th AF and, as I mentioned, I know I've seen a recently published book on the subject. I don't view the particular bio as unique among 5th AF in being able to hit ships in low leve runs from B17s. He seems unique in his persistence, however.
You wouldn't want to routinely use B17s for that sort of thing if medium bombers were available. In a/c at least, "speed saves." 17s were relatively expensive, and their large payload was no big advantage: flying ground attack you would not want to have to make multiple passes, it's just asking to get nailed. Finally, they have better uses as scouts and good old fashioned installation wreckers. You won't see a lot of analysis on it because they were rarely used in that role, or ebcause until lately calling the B17 "useless against ships" has been a summary that all have been willing to accept at face value. Until recently people thought that IJN pilots were better trained and flying a better plane than the USN pilots through 1942. Thanks to Lundstrom it's now clear that both generally accepted myths are completely untrue.
Back to the B17: the question for me was not "how" *were* they used but how might they be used and how effective *might* they have been. In low level attacks against slow targets they're not the same utterly ineffective anti-ship weapon that they were from 20,000 feet. If you think that's unfair, agree on a house rule that restricts them.
Sorry to have bothered you with that link. I must have missed it in this thread. It's not the first time I've read something along that lines by 5th AF and, as I mentioned, I know I've seen a recently published book on the subject. I don't view the particular bio as unique among 5th AF in being able to hit ships in low leve runs from B17s. He seems unique in his persistence, however.
You wouldn't want to routinely use B17s for that sort of thing if medium bombers were available. In a/c at least, "speed saves." 17s were relatively expensive, and their large payload was no big advantage: flying ground attack you would not want to have to make multiple passes, it's just asking to get nailed. Finally, they have better uses as scouts and good old fashioned installation wreckers. You won't see a lot of analysis on it because they were rarely used in that role, or ebcause until lately calling the B17 "useless against ships" has been a summary that all have been willing to accept at face value. Until recently people thought that IJN pilots were better trained and flying a better plane than the USN pilots through 1942. Thanks to Lundstrom it's now clear that both generally accepted myths are completely untrue.
Back to the B17: the question for me was not "how" *were* they used but how might they be used and how effective *might* they have been. In low level attacks against slow targets they're not the same utterly ineffective anti-ship weapon that they were from 20,000 feet. If you think that's unfair, agree on a house rule that restricts them.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Didn't we have this conversation already?
I agree
many of the weapons in WWII could have been deployed better than they were. Part of that is hindsight and part of it is that some people in WWII were remarkably stupid.
Low level high experience crews blowing the snot out of ships in B-17s is very similar to when I placed four S boats in Lunga harbor and the Japanese invaded the stupid ungarrisoned island I vaporized half a dozen APs loaded with troops and supplies and two destroyers to boot because I used a completely ahistorical tactic (ambushing wolfpacks of US submarines are not to my knowledge normal) but it is a feasible tactic.
The problem I have always seen in any simulation is that we try different tactics than those that were used. I have in other games run roughshod over the soviet union in WWII because unlike hitler and his ridiculous henchmen, I execute what the German staff wanted which was a fighting retreat from Stalingrad, saving most of my equipment and men from that utterly pointless meatgrinder (I like to sit outside the city and just shell it to the ground with long range arty.) But if you analyzed that tactic and said "German long range artillery was never that devestating in the Soviet Union" You'd be right, but Hitler never stripped the whole of eastern and western europe bare of 155mm or larger, put all his arty in big rings around the 'grad and defended his exposed beaches with roving elements of heavy tanks who were free to pounce at will on any assault and almost ungarrisoned fixed defenses.
Low level high experience crews blowing the snot out of ships in B-17s is very similar to when I placed four S boats in Lunga harbor and the Japanese invaded the stupid ungarrisoned island I vaporized half a dozen APs loaded with troops and supplies and two destroyers to boot because I used a completely ahistorical tactic (ambushing wolfpacks of US submarines are not to my knowledge normal) but it is a feasible tactic.
The problem I have always seen in any simulation is that we try different tactics than those that were used. I have in other games run roughshod over the soviet union in WWII because unlike hitler and his ridiculous henchmen, I execute what the German staff wanted which was a fighting retreat from Stalingrad, saving most of my equipment and men from that utterly pointless meatgrinder (I like to sit outside the city and just shell it to the ground with long range arty.) But if you analyzed that tactic and said "German long range artillery was never that devestating in the Soviet Union" You'd be right, but Hitler never stripped the whole of eastern and western europe bare of 155mm or larger, put all his arty in big rings around the 'grad and defended his exposed beaches with roving elements of heavy tanks who were free to pounce at will on any assault and almost ungarrisoned fixed defenses.
another hit by the mighty B17 tactical bombers!
In a current pbem game: Solo strike from OZ (how appropriate) : 6 B17's attacking at 6000 ft, 29 Zero's on CAP, 1 500 bomb hit on Shokaku. It is enough to make me stop playing.
If B17's can do this, then let Betty's have armor plating and 1000 lb bombs too. Disgusted...
If B17's can do this, then let Betty's have armor plating and 1000 lb bombs too. Disgusted...
"I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer."-Note sent with Congressman Washburne from Spotsylvania, May 11, 1864, to General Halleck. - General Ulysses S. Grant
At least carriers would be easier to hit than a destroyer (much more deck space).....
The US used a dozen B-17's at the Battle of Midway against a large formation of Japanese ships and didn't get a single hit.
Zero's were notoriously underarmed in the first couple of years of the war. They had a lot of trouble dealing with US Heavy Bombers (unlike the much more heavily armed German interceptors in Europe).
In UV I find the accuracy of bombers above 10K feet to be pretty piss-poor anyway.
The US used a dozen B-17's at the Battle of Midway against a large formation of Japanese ships and didn't get a single hit.
Zero's were notoriously underarmed in the first couple of years of the war. They had a lot of trouble dealing with US Heavy Bombers (unlike the much more heavily armed German interceptors in Europe).
In UV I find the accuracy of bombers above 10K feet to be pretty piss-poor anyway.
Never Underestimate the Power of a Small Tactical Nuclear Weapon.....
Responses and comments to various posters / postings about B17s.
1. The B-17s original role, designed in the early 30s, was in fact an anti-ship platform. The Norden bombsight was also designed with the idea of hitting ships from high altitude. This is not to say that some of the proponents of and origins of the B-17 were based on the Douhet theories, they were. Because we today look at the whole history of WW2 where the B17 was a dominant strategic bombing weapon in Europe, we forget that before the war the naval aspect was a strong design goal during the "germ of the concept".
2. It turned out that B-17s could not hit a manuvering ship from high altitude, because the bomb fall took so long the ship would be nowhere near the strike point when the bombs hit. Why anyone actually thought this was even possible can be chalked up to "folly" (Folly has many chalk marks). Note : a manuvering ship is NOT one that is stopped, anchored or in port. Those could be and were hit.
3. In October, 1942, B17s used the skip bombing tactic for the first time anywhere. This was done for a number of reasons at this time : B17s were not proving their worth so there was a component of desperation for the B17 proponents and airgroups to actually get into the war; for several months prior to October 1942 Kenney had had some of his crews trying out and practicing new techniques, skip bombing among them -- by October they felt they could use some of these tactics in combat. There were other reasons to, but the bottom line is that B17s were actually the first aircraft to use this tactic effectively, as Mdiehl has pointed out.
4. It further turned out that B17s were not as effective as medium bombers at skip bombing, due, as has been said, to the superior speed, manuverability, AA suppression forward firing guns on these craft, and smaller size which made them less of a target for AA. Once medium bombers had shown they could do this, the B17s were no longer used in this role because they were too expensive as compared to a medium.
5. B17s are very stout aircraft that are extremely dangerous to shoot down for enemy fighters. There is nothing disgusting or wrong or ahistorical suggested by a game result of 6 or so B17s scoring one hit on a carrier defended by 20+ Zeros. Carriers are large targets, and not very manuverable. Zeros would have a hard time shooting down a B17, even at lower altitudes such as 6000 feet, due to the durability of the 17, the amount of AA fire the 17 could throw at the Zero, and the gossamer construction of the Zero which could literally blow up from a single bullet hit. A Zero pilot would be well advised to be extremely cautious in any attack on a 17.
1. The B-17s original role, designed in the early 30s, was in fact an anti-ship platform. The Norden bombsight was also designed with the idea of hitting ships from high altitude. This is not to say that some of the proponents of and origins of the B-17 were based on the Douhet theories, they were. Because we today look at the whole history of WW2 where the B17 was a dominant strategic bombing weapon in Europe, we forget that before the war the naval aspect was a strong design goal during the "germ of the concept".
2. It turned out that B-17s could not hit a manuvering ship from high altitude, because the bomb fall took so long the ship would be nowhere near the strike point when the bombs hit. Why anyone actually thought this was even possible can be chalked up to "folly" (Folly has many chalk marks). Note : a manuvering ship is NOT one that is stopped, anchored or in port. Those could be and were hit.
3. In October, 1942, B17s used the skip bombing tactic for the first time anywhere. This was done for a number of reasons at this time : B17s were not proving their worth so there was a component of desperation for the B17 proponents and airgroups to actually get into the war; for several months prior to October 1942 Kenney had had some of his crews trying out and practicing new techniques, skip bombing among them -- by October they felt they could use some of these tactics in combat. There were other reasons to, but the bottom line is that B17s were actually the first aircraft to use this tactic effectively, as Mdiehl has pointed out.
4. It further turned out that B17s were not as effective as medium bombers at skip bombing, due, as has been said, to the superior speed, manuverability, AA suppression forward firing guns on these craft, and smaller size which made them less of a target for AA. Once medium bombers had shown they could do this, the B17s were no longer used in this role because they were too expensive as compared to a medium.
5. B17s are very stout aircraft that are extremely dangerous to shoot down for enemy fighters. There is nothing disgusting or wrong or ahistorical suggested by a game result of 6 or so B17s scoring one hit on a carrier defended by 20+ Zeros. Carriers are large targets, and not very manuverable. Zeros would have a hard time shooting down a B17, even at lower altitudes such as 6000 feet, due to the durability of the 17, the amount of AA fire the 17 could throw at the Zero, and the gossamer construction of the Zero which could literally blow up from a single bullet hit. A Zero pilot would be well advised to be extremely cautious in any attack on a 17.
Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. 
True, and agree. However, at Midway the 17s were used against the transport group at very high altitude (see my above post).Originally posted by thantis
The US used a dozen B-17's at the Battle of Midway against a large formation of Japanese ships and didn't get a single hit.
Zero's were notoriously underarmed in the first couple of years of the war. They had a lot of trouble dealing with US Heavy Bombers (unlike the much more heavily armed German interceptors in Europe).
Last time I checked, the forums were messed up.
Absolutely correct. Anything within a 30 degree circular arc of the rear of a 17 had to face 2-3 times as much firepower than most fighters had, and with separate gunners for 4 separate gun mounts. This was no accident, either, but a intentional design.Originally posted by strollen
Getting above a B17 wasn't difficult for a Zero cause they have an excellent rate of climb. However, I don't think that attacking from the top is the right approach. The Zero would have at least 4 .50 on him 2 from the Top and 2 from tail gunners, plus possibly one .50 from the radio operator and one .50 from a waist gunner, so 6 .50 machine guns would make life short for the zero.
The Germans did best attacking the B17 from the front where they only faced the nose gunner.
The problem is the Zero and almost Japanese fighters lacked the fire power to take out a tough B17s.
The same books talks about how much the Japanese hated the B17s and how hard it was to shot them down.
Last time I checked, the forums were messed up.
. There is nothing disgusting or wrong or ahistorical suggested by a game result of 6 or so B17s scoring one hit on a carrier defended by 20+ Zeros
But what about one hit on this carrier when it is also defended by a ring of surface AA? The Zekes didn't have the firepower to bring down many Forts, sure, and it was also dangerous for them to get too close. AA from surface ships has neither of these problems, and probably would have had a relatively easy time hitting such a big and slow target.
Just to be clear, I'm not talking about skip bombing effectiveness at 100 feet here ... I'm talking about level bombing at a few thousand feet. With that sort of attack profile the Forts would be exposed close up and in profile to pretty much every AA gun in the fleet (including numerous ones with a lot more capability to bring down a large armored bomber than any fighter carried), and exposed for quite a while at that. I believe that would tend to discourage many such attacks by making them overly costly, and the game currently doesn't reflect that.
"... planning and preparations were made with great efforts with this day as a goal. Before this target day came, however, the tables had been turned around entirely and we are now forced to do our utmost to cope with the worst. Thi
The AAA would be more effective against skip-bombers. I'd say you have to look at what the IJN vessels had available. At 3000-6000 feet ignore anything <40 mm and ignore anything 6" or greater as these were not AAA. You'd expect a VT-fused USN 5"38 to be very dangerous at those ranges, but what about IJN AAA?
You've raised an interesting question. Think I'll do some poking.
You've raised an interesting question. Think I'll do some poking.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Didn't we have this conversation already?
I agree with this comment. AA from a fully decked out carrier task force would be murder to 17s flying low because they are such huge targets basically, and are not effective at suppressing AA on approach to target. AA from a carrier task force consisting of a carrier and 4 destroyers would not be "murderous" but one with at least double that number of ships would be.Originally posted by DSandberg
Just to be clear, I'm not talking about skip bombing effectiveness at 100 feet here ... I'm talking about level bombing at a few thousand feet. With that sort of attack profile the Forts would be exposed close up and in profile to pretty much every AA gun in the fleet (including numerous ones with a lot more capability to bring down a large armored bomber than any fighter carried), and exposed for quite a while at that. I believe that would tend to discourage many such attacks by making them overly costly, and the game currently doesn't reflect that.
Matrix has been "tweaking" the AA effectiveness. The latest tweak is to give diminishing returns of AA firepower for each ship added to a carrier TF over 10 ships.
One problem I can see here, based on this and other comments, is that while the variables which describe planes account for things like climb rate, manuverability, etc., they do not seem to account for their size as a target. I could be wrong, and perhaps Matrix can verify. However, it would seem to me with the current set of variables, for the purposes of AA fire a 17 is just the same in terms of its vulnerability to be hit by AA fire due to size as a P-39, or an Avenger, or a Dauntless. In fact, without a target size variable or something of that nature, a 17 will be MORE likely to survive a low level carrier attack because
1) It is somewhat more likely to get hit by AA due to "manuverabilty" ratings being low as compared to a single or dual engine bomber
2) It has a much higher "durability" rating than any other plane in the game (including the Liberator), so AA will do less damage per hit as a percentage of the plane's total capacity to take damage.
But, the problem here is there is no "target size" variable that I know of. Therefore, on balance, 17s are likely to take a few more AA hits than other planes, but since the durability ratings are so high it means they are more likely to survive these hits than a smaller plane taking proportionately fewer hits.
This, I believe, is in fact a problem. Unfortunately, I know from personal experience that adding a new variable is a pain in the kazoo, so it will be difficult for Matrix to address this if they are even inclined to do so.
Again, I could be wrong about the target size thing, but it would explain the general sameness of the effectiveness of AA versus smaller and larger planes.
Last time I checked, the forums were messed up.
Of course, luck always plays a role. If this happened every single time, I would be rather upset. If it happens once in a blue moon, I chock it up to fate (good or bad).
I've had fifty dive bombers jump a Jap task force and not manage a single hit (and had half of my planes shot down by flak). I've also seen three Betty Bombers get past my 30 F4F-4 CAP & put three torpedoes right into my carrier, so it seems to vary wildly depending on the situation.
Of course, one could say that Wade McCluskey's attack against the 1st Air Fleet (the Kido Butai) was a fluke, given the lack of CAP at high levels (brought down by the US Devastators to wave top level), and the fully loaded flight desks (because of Naguma's indecision in a third strike at Midway or hitting the US carriers).
Everyone has a bad day....seems like UV takes that into account.
I've had fifty dive bombers jump a Jap task force and not manage a single hit (and had half of my planes shot down by flak). I've also seen three Betty Bombers get past my 30 F4F-4 CAP & put three torpedoes right into my carrier, so it seems to vary wildly depending on the situation.
Of course, one could say that Wade McCluskey's attack against the 1st Air Fleet (the Kido Butai) was a fluke, given the lack of CAP at high levels (brought down by the US Devastators to wave top level), and the fully loaded flight desks (because of Naguma's indecision in a third strike at Midway or hitting the US carriers).
Everyone has a bad day....seems like UV takes that into account.
Never Underestimate the Power of a Small Tactical Nuclear Weapon.....
Try staggering your CAP if you have more than one CV. If you are being hit at 6K, set your CAP for 7K (and maybe 8K if you have the groups available).
I find fighters to be more effective diving on their targets, as long as they start within a few thousand feet of each other....
Of course I'm still trying to figure out how to deal with Nells & Bettys coming in at 200ft.
I find fighters to be more effective diving on their targets, as long as they start within a few thousand feet of each other....
Of course I'm still trying to figure out how to deal with Nells & Bettys coming in at 200ft.
Never Underestimate the Power of a Small Tactical Nuclear Weapon.....
STILL Disgusted
"There is nothing disgusting or wrong or ahistorical suggested by a game result of 6 or so B17s scoring one hit on a carrier defended by 20+ Zeros"
Ok, how about this result from a pbem game turn last night:
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/13/42
Air attack on TF at 17,49
Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 21
Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 3
no losses
no losses
Japanese Ships
CV Zuikaku, Bomb hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x B-17E Fortress at 1000 feet
Is this in ANY way historical or possible? I have suffered MORE damage to my IJN CV's in pbem games with B17 strikes than from SBD's!!! WTF? This game is about to be shelved as how can I have a chance of winning if B17's flying at 1000 ft almost always get thru and almost always score hits. IF I were the Allied player, I would ditch all my tactical bombers and ask for more of the heavy slow deadly "shipkillers". I am seriously considering ceasing my pbem games and moving on to a real "fantasy" game like Diablo or Warcraft.
Ok, how about this result from a pbem game turn last night:
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/13/42
Air attack on TF at 17,49
Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 21
Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 3
no losses
no losses
Japanese Ships
CV Zuikaku, Bomb hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
Attacking Level Bombers:
3 x B-17E Fortress at 1000 feet
Is this in ANY way historical or possible? I have suffered MORE damage to my IJN CV's in pbem games with B17 strikes than from SBD's!!! WTF? This game is about to be shelved as how can I have a chance of winning if B17's flying at 1000 ft almost always get thru and almost always score hits. IF I were the Allied player, I would ditch all my tactical bombers and ask for more of the heavy slow deadly "shipkillers". I am seriously considering ceasing my pbem games and moving on to a real "fantasy" game like Diablo or Warcraft.
"I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer."-Note sent with Congressman Washburne from Spotsylvania, May 11, 1864, to General Halleck. - General Ulysses S. Grant
Re: STILL Disgusted
This is what I am experiencing as well. Forget Dive bombers, level bombers at 1 K are much more effective. I dont think it is historically accurate.[
Is this in ANY was historical or possible? I have suffered MORE damage to my IJN CV's in pbem games with B17 strikes than from SBD's!!! WTF? This game is about to be shelved as how can I have a chance of winning if B17's flying at 1000 ft almost always get thru and almost always score hits. IF I were the Allied player, I would ditch all my tactical bombers and ask for more of the heavy slow deadly "shipkillers".
[/B]
virtute omne regatur
Re: STILL Disgusted
I'm no expert but that won't stop me from offering an opinion.Originally posted by brisd
[B...snip...
Is this in ANY was historical or possible?
...snip...
It never happened in the Solomons campaign, but certainly was possible. The easiest fix, if Matrix thinks one is needed, would be to have the flak tear these bombers to shreds like it would have if the tactic were ever tried. That would still leave the Allies free to try it if they want to accept the losses.
We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw
WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester
WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester
