Matrix Games Forums

 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bismarck_Sea

What the JAAF & JNAF lacked was a high powered 2E bomber with heavy forward firing MG & Cannon, even the B25 pictured by Erkki only has 4-7 FF 50cals. The real commerce destroyer lash ups of the B25 could put 12-14 50cals in the nose/upper turret.
As mentioned in the article above, it was also important to have flak suppression from Beaufighters with 4 x 20mm & 6 x .303s to keep the AAA on the poorly equipped IJN destoyers quiet to help the skip bombers onto the target.
 
I bet for every Bismark Sea there was an equivalent failure with heavy losses.
 
Someone asks why not skip bomb on land, bombs dont bounce through jungle well, and in Europe Barnes Wallis had to get scientific to design a decent (land) bouncing bomb (HiBall??)
 
In the game, I wait until 1943 before I allow any sqns to be set at 100ft, and accept the losses because the gains can be worthwhile.

Jeff that is one of my all time favorite pics of airpower at work.

ORIGINAL: JeffK


I bet for every Bismark Sea there was an equivalent failure with heavy losses. NO..., THERE WASN'T.

Someone asks why not skip bomb on land, bombs dont bounce through jungle well, and in Europe Barnes Wallis had to get scientific to design a decent (land) bouncing bomb (HiBall??) ON LAND THE ALLIES USED "PARA-FRAG" BOMBS FOR LOW LEVEL ATTACKS. VERY EFFECTIVE..., ESPECIALLY AGAINST AIRFIELDS.

Yep, they and rockets are not in the game.

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Your right Erkki, there are few places the plane could be hit without something being damaged, the trick is hitting it. With 12 to 14 mg's blazing away at the unprotected gun crews it had to be a pretty scary place to be.

Mynok, I am not aware of any B-25's attacking Atlanta class CL's. My comments were Allied bombers hitting Japanese ships.

But isn't the biggest problem for boresight armed bomber the fact that it can't aim the guns until the actual staffing / bombing run moment whilst the gun crews on ships had all the time to train their guns against incoming bomber? [;)]


Leo "Apollo11"

Dili, very interesting. Could you elaborate on this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skip_bombing

Skip bombing was a low-level bombing technique developed by Italian pilot Giuseppe Cenni[1] flying German Junkers Ju 87 Stuka aircraft during attacks on Allied ships off the coast of North Africa, between May and October of 1941. After Pearl Harbor (December 1941), it was used against Imperial Japanese Navy warships and transports by Major William Benn of the 63rd Squadron, 43rd Bomb Group (Heavy), Fifth Air Force, United States Army Air Forces in the Southwest Pacific area theater during World War II. General George Kenney has been credited with being the first to use skip bombing with the U.S. Air Force.[2][3]

Also the pilot: http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/italy_cenni.htm

During this campaign he flew 46 combat missions and was awarded with two Medaglia d’argento al valore militare.

After this campaign the unit briefly patrolled the Mediterranean and during this period he developed the tactic of skip-bombing by pulling out of a dive very low to fly horizontally at the target, thus giving the released bomb added momentum to skim the surface into a ship’s hull. The technique demanded very accurate flying.

I bet for every Bismark Sea there was an equivalent failure with heavy losses.

I'm sure they were all reported in extravagant detail by that great wartime journalist: Tokyo Rose.

The proof is there - first week of May 1943, U-boats shot down 23 for 22 sunk. Many of those sunk were 2v1 as the 4E's got smart. One would suppress, the other drop. A few boats actually managed to hold off multiple aircraft of the non 4E type. A 1E aircraft is much more survivable in this role. He has options - he is presenting a smaller and more nimble target. And again, the SOP was not to attack a flak U-boat (what a ridiculous concept). You waited for naval support or went after it with multiple 4E's providing suppressing fire.

22 U-boats with 70 =/- trained men each representing 6 months of industrial output for 23 aircraft. What exactly is proved?

http://www.uboat.net/history/aircraft_losses.htm

Supposedly all Allied aircraft losses to Uboats (120) are described in the link.

The first week of May 1943 is hardly a time frame to describe U-boat success as Doenitz very shortly thereafter withdrew at U-boats from the Atlantic convoy routes conceding failure in the boats primary mission. Sounds an awful lot like a decisive defeat.

ORIGINAL: spence

The proof is there - first week of May 1943, U-boats shot down 23 for 22 sunk. Many of those sunk were 2v1 as the 4E's got smart. One would suppress, the other drop. A few boats actually managed to hold off multiple aircraft of the non 4E type. A 1E aircraft is much more survivable in this role. He has options - he is presenting a smaller and more nimble target. And again, the SOP was not to attack a flak U-boat (what a ridiculous concept). You waited for naval support or went after it with multiple 4E's providing suppressing fire.

22 U-boats with 70 =/- trained men each representing 6 months of industrial output for 23 aircraft. What exactly is proved?

http://www.uboat.net/history/aircraft_losses.htm

Supposedly all Allied aircraft losses to Uboats (120) are described in the link.

The first week of May 1943 is hardly a time frame to describe U-boat success as Doenitz very shortly thereafter withdrew at U-boats from the Atlantic convoy routes conceding failure in the boats primary mission. Sounds an awful lot like a decisive defeat.

According to that site, in the first week of May 1943 U-boats shot down one aircraft (and damaged another, which crash landed at its base with no casualties). That's a bit less than 23.

Skip bombing was more than an oddity with the 5th AF!
It was practiced by the British in 1940 against German sea traffic and known by Arnold.
Source: http://ebooks.gutenberg.us/AU_Press_Col ... n/gann.pdf
Kenney said he already experimented with the idea in real life exercises before the war (same source).
It was also used by the big 4e bombers.
See http://www.jollyrogersweb.com/Docs/Vol129May2011.pdf
and http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/digital/p ... ir_own.pdf (recommended anyway!)
And not 'only' around the Guinea Island but with China BG's as well.
Source: http://www.kued.org/productions/worldwa ... olding.pdf
Also on the same subject: http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/0826.pdf

I'd say it definately required a well trained crew but was not demanding elite training like the Dam Busters had.
Bomb doors problems are not mentioned. I suppose these were designed to do what they did, open and close most of the time.
But specific fuse settings were of an issue.

Nice source about air-to-sea capabilities regarding anti-sub warfare:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/usaf/doc ... d2-1-4.pdf
Together with http://www.uboat.net/history/aircraft_losses.htm it makes a strong case for the huge impact 4e bombers made on German sub warfare. I found no references to the Allied marine patrols suffering big losses to submarines. Edit: 'big losses' as in unsustainable.

@sandman455: class dismissed!  [;)]

I just love source material!

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

But isn't the biggest problem for boresight armed bomber the fact that it can't aim the guns until the actual staffing / bombing run moment whilst the gun crews on ships had all the time to train their guns against incoming bomber? [;)]

Leo "Apollo11"

Why would this be any particular problem? Same is true for medium and high level bombing. Difference is with "skip bombing" the AA crews are under heavy fire themselves..., which anyone who has ever been under fire will tell you makes concentration on your own aiming a LOT more difficult.

ORIGINAL: Jaroen
I just love source material!

I just love google search warriors. Try reading your links. The Scheer port attack was a low alt attack. Not skip bombing. See Shores "Fledgling Eagles" for details of the attack.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: oldman45

It may not have been rocket science, but it took practice to hit the ship with a skipping bomb, and not hit the ship with the plane or get caught in the blast. I agree its too hard in AE.

after reading Fortress Rabaul, i'd disagree. True skip bombing as introduced/perfected by the 5th AF required major modificaitons to the aircraft but more importantly a serious testing, proving and training period. As it was from UV days....you could set "anyone" (including Player 1) to "skip bomb" with any aircraft by simply setting the altitude to 100 feet.

Given the detail control level of this game, the more restrictive path tends to be better to prevent exploits. Historically speaking, i'm not aware of the Japanese performing it in the manner Kenney's men developed. They did in places employ "mast height" level bombing in places, like the RAF did during the early stages of the Malayian campaign. This at times is loosely (and inaccurately) labeled 'skip bombing' but in reality it was simply ultra low level bombing.

Edit. Technically in the most ad-hoc way, yes Japan did skip bomb. There were one or two recorded incidents whereby a Japanese bomber pilot litterly tried to "fling" or toss his ordinance at a ship wat near wave level height (one using a torpedo!) with no success of course. Had it hit it would have been the one of the most bizzare successful attacks of the war.

And my testing showed me that vs light warships and merchies, moderately well trained straffers do decent damage with bombs anyways. I have yet to see them skip bomb but that does not mean that I am not seeing results. I am not losing sleep over this.

ORIGINAL: crsutton

And my testing showed me that vs light warships and merchies, moderately well trained straffers do decent damage with bombs anyways. I have yet to see them skip bomb but that does not mean that I am not seeing results. I am not losing sleep over this.

Way i see it, from a developer's POV....the real issue is that some vocal players want to be able to dictate the tactic of choice, the one they feel is most effective in gaining their objectives and the whole "historical" schmeer is just the icing, the justificaiton to their want. Was Skip Bombing used? yes. Was it effective? Yes....but with major qualifications. A Developer has to look at the big picture and attempt (not always successfully) what impact allowing player x to do y would be. The frustrating thing about this particular whine....is that we've already SEEN what can happen in UV and early stock WitP. Everyone from day one using any/all 2E/4E bombers in 100 feet "skip bombing" attacks which GG originally programmed as strafe/skip bombing alt setting from Dec 7 onward. AA was not properly balanced nor were the specifics of SB even attempted to be modeled so it was a Con'less PRO that everyone and their kid brother used.

Now i know people will respond and say "THATS NOT WHAT I WANT.....just saying its TOO HARD as is" We'll thats their opinions of course. As i stated earlier though, i'd rather an potential exploit be more restrictive than less because time and again we've seen even loosely historically justified player defined abilities exploited to the hilt. It's the price we pay for a game like this. It makes me long for the days when the only option you had was to set the mission type....and the target sans any other options (bomb loadout.....altitude......aggressive factor etc etc) It's amazing how despite this "primitiveness" that the overall results tended in some cases to be more realistic than the results we see now.

I agree with you though. In my games i'm not seeing a game stopper issue here.

ORIGINAL: Erkki

Heres the frontal silhouette of the B-25:



There is not a single place a 25mm HE or larger shell would not knock out an engine, kill at least half of the crew, pierce/flame a fuel tank or shred the tail control surfaces. It was extremely rare for a 2 engine plane to make it home with an engine lost over target let alone other combat damage on top of that.

Its the same thing with every other WW2(or post WW2) single or 2 engine warplane - none of them have a place where to detonate a pressure grenade equivalent and not lethally or potentially lethally damage the plane - structures, systems or the crew. But whos likely to hit whom first - the warship with half a dozen + AA stations with one to 4 cannons each or the attacking aircraft, and can the attacker knock out them all before he passes the ship or gets hit? BTW, youtube has lots of guncam records of that and it doesnt look like aiming was too easy for the pilot. Against practically unarmed merchies on the other hand...

Hmmm.... I question this analysis since it was not uncommon for some of the planes to strafe and suppress the AA guns while the others followed up with bombing attacks. I don't care how good a gunner is, you stand in a gun tub while your ship is getting sprayed with 50 cal AP rounds and see if you can focus on the target. As for myself, I am going to be in the bottom of the tub, making myself as small as possible while trying to not lay in my own urine....[:D]


I remember reading about a unit of Coastal Command beaufighters attacking a German barge convoy off the coast of Norway. It has been a while and I am recalling from memory. It was pretty amazing. German barges were very heavily armed with AA guns and considered very dangerous to attack. About 1/3 of the beaus were equipped with torpedoes, 1/3 rockets and bombs and the rest were reserved for straffing. They all went in on the deck an all went in at the same time. The straffers suppressed, the bombers and torpedo bombers followed and laid their packages and that was it. One pass, line abreast, perhaps a minute of combat. No second passes, they attacked and went home. BTW, the real barge killers were solid metal rockets aimed just below the water line. If aimed right the rockets would deflect into the hull below the water line punching numerous holes and then banging around the machinery spaces killing and creating havoc. But I suppose those guys had to be pretty skilled to pull this off as well.

I may be foggy on the details. There might have been fighters doing the straffing and some beauforts as well. But you get the idea. I am not sure if the Americans used this tactic vs. ships, but do know that they used line abreast low level bombing to hit bases. One sweep with everybody going in line abreast, loosing all hell and then gone in a minute. Low level presented the shortest amount of time for gunners to react and the full unit sweep saturated the gunners with too many targets thus diluting the AA fire.

and http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/digital/p ... ir_own.pdf (recommended anyway!)

Jaroen, amazing stuff!

ORIGINAL: crsutton
As for myself, I am going to be in the bottom of the tub, making myself as small as possible while trying to not lay in my on urine....[:D]

Can I keep this out-of-context quote for future reference, crsutton? Sounds like the aftereffects of a very fruitful Saturday night.

Well, you know, its the fright thing it was referring to..[;)]

But as always my material is provided solely for your home enjoyment and may not used for rebroadcast without the explicit approval of the NFL...

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Your right Erkki, there are few places the plane could be hit without something being damaged, the trick is hitting it. With 12 to 14 mg's blazing away at the unprotected gun crews it had to be a pretty scary place to be.

Mynok, I am not aware of any B-25's attacking Atlanta class CL's. My comments were Allied bombers hitting Japanese ships.

But isn't the biggest problem for boresight armed bomber the fact that it can't aim the guns until the actual staffing / bombing run moment whilst the gun crews on ships had all the time to train their guns against incoming bomber? [;)]


Leo "Apollo11"

To answer your question, pilot had a simple aiming device and he would just aim the bow of the plane at the ship and physics did the rest. I don't know how many yards in front of the plane they were bored sighted to but when they made their first run, I know they tried to make it fore and aft so they could kill the gun crews and smash the bridge.