Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I am NOT pulling for either side in this. I want the truth, and I can handle it! [:D]

I've started reading Rodman's book but have not gotten to the Scheer attack.

ORIGINAL: sandman455
...For instance:

He references the Admiral Scheer's attack by 2E's on the first day of the war as the first "decisive use" of skip bombing tactics. Here are the "decisive" results:

First 5 Blenheims attack an unalerted German CA Scheer - 1 aircraft shot down, 3 hits but all bombs failed to arm. Yes, its hard to miss when you are that low. Just ask a Uboat crew. Second group of five aircraft moments later (AA crews were ready) - 4 of 5 Blenheim's were shot down. No hits.

Scheer was undamaged and it was stationary. 50% loss rate of aircraft on a totally surprised vessel on the very first day of the war. "Decisive" was the word he used. I'm detecting a little bias here.

Observations:
- I suspect he used the word "decisive" in light of three bomb hits.

The word "decisive" was used in reference to the efforts of Fifth Air Force in the Southwest Pacific, not to the attack on Admiral Scheer. Sandman misread the quote. Here's what was actually said:

Actually, the first use of low-altitude bombing in the war belongs to the British: “Though Fifth Air Force can deservedly
take credit for skip bombing’s first decisive use, the concept did not originate in the SWPA. . . . On 4 September 1939, 15 [British] Bristol Blenheim bombers assaulted enemy vessels [including the pocket battleship Admiral Scheer] near the entrance to Wilhelmshaven [Germany].” In fact, these low-altitude attacks were the first ones made against the Germans, taking place a day after Germany’s invasion of Poland. From 100 feet above the ships, aircraft intended to drop the weapons straight onto the deck—not skip them up to or into the hull of the warships. These first efforts failed, likely because the low altitude offered insufficient time for the weapons to arm before impact. They did, however, demonstrate the uncanny precision available from low altitude. The British continued to use low-altitude techniques and eventually began to incorporate skip bombing into the mix.

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Sredni

I must say, after reading a bunch of the stuff from this thread I find myself more impressed by how integral strafing was to attack bomber type stuff. Emphasizes more and more how gimped things are by making us train up strafing in fighters separately and then moving those pilots to bombers to train low bombing. And having lowN and lowG separate skills also seems off, from the reading I did the training for either, and how they worked were very similar.

It takes a looong time to train up an attack bomber pilot to acceptable levels in straf, lowN, and lowG (plus a lot of finicky pilot management), and those pilots in turn get shot down in droves ingame.

In the Betas you can train bomber pilots in strafing: 100', ground attack training.

can only suggest not to train bombers in lowgrd or straf. Lownav yes, the rest no. Why? Because training them on strafing targets makes no sense with the little effect strafe has and attacking land targets below 6000ft doesn´t make sense either as 6000ft or higher works just perfectly well while minimizing losses. Lownav is something you sure want to train as medium bombers at 1000ft are ship killers. And attack bombers at 100ft still use lownav for bombing while also strafing but I don´t give much on the strafing anyway. With strafing you will have trouble even sinking or severly damaging a barge, let alone anything bigger. Bombs is what you want to hit your targets.

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: oldman45

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

ORIGINAL: oldman45



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.

I think we misunderstood... [;)]

What I was trying to say was that whilst approaching low and slow the bombers could not fire on targeted ship because the were flying level - only very near target they could aim at targeted ship itself!

The AA on ship, meanwhile, had all that time to target the approaching bomber!

Take a look at this link http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/digital/pdf/book/b_0096_rodman_war_of_their_own.pdf It shows how the approach was not slow at all.

Michael, I have that book printed for years... [;)]

BTW, in it the approach speeds listed, IIRC, are slow (i.e. 200 - 250 knots)... [:D]


Leo "Apollo11"

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

BTW, in it the approach speeds listed, IIRC, are slow (i.e. 200 - 250 knots)... [:D]

Leo "Apollo11"

I really hope this comment was meant to be "tongue-in-cheek" Leo...[8D]

BTW, in it the approach speeds listed, IIRC, are slow (i.e. 200 - 250 knots)...

Piece of cake for the Mark I mod 0 Fire Control System. Distractions such as the sudden disintegration of the crewman next to you mattered not all.

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

BTW, in it the approach speeds listed, IIRC, are slow (i.e. 200 - 250 knots)... [:D]

I really hope this comment was meant to be "tongue-in-cheek" Leo...[8D]

Of course... [8D]

ORIGINAL: spence

BTW, in it the approach speeds listed, IIRC, are slow (i.e. 200 - 250 knots)...

Piece of cake for the Mark I mod 0 Fire Control System. Distractions such as the sudden disintegration of the crewman next to you mattered not all.

Yes... that can be distracting...[8D]


But then again, I again put, seriously, several important issues (similar to those I asked 5+ years ago in the time of UV and original WitP) here:

#1
The attacking aircraft are flying parallel to sea and they can't train their front fixed armament on target except in the last diving / strafing part.

#2
The targeted ship can train its AA guns against approaching 2E and 4E bombers all the time.

#3
Those attacking 2E and 4E bombers are big targets in the sky flying on constant approaching course (and it takes time from the moment the alert ship crew spots them till the actual attack time)...


So... were there any documented attacks on properly AA armed and manned (with professional and alert crew) Japanese warships using this type of attack (DDs, CLs, CAs)?



Leo "Apollo11"

Germany used different approach attackinf freighters in the atlantic with FW200 Condors.

The planes came in fast and low and dropped 4 bombs in short order, reaching a high hit propabilitiy.

http://www.germanseaflight.my-place.us/ ... zeuge.html (sorry, source in German)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_200 (English source)

It has to be said, that the Condor was a 4E plane though.
They claimed about 350000to of Allied shipping sunk from June 40 till February 41.

In the Med the B-25 strafers (16 were converted to and returned to nornal after experimenting, the results weren't promising) and skip bombing wasn't much employed by USAAF due to the AA defenses of the ships and barges that in 1942,43 were much improved. Even a siebel ferry barge could have an 88 plus a flakvierling(4x20mm) and more single weapons.

"Strafing work-around" WTF????

Why doesn't anyone tell me about these things?


I would need a personal assitant to keep up with all this. Concisely, can someone tell me how to do this in the Beta?

I don't know of any work-around. But in the Beta, it just works.

Training aircrew/pilots on:
Strafing - set training to ground attack, altitude 100'. They will train on strafe.
LowGrnd - set training to ground attack, altitude 1,000'. They will train on Low Grnd.
LowNav - set training to naval attack, altitude 1,000'. They will train on Low Nav.

Note that the altitude settings are different than before the Beta. Training altitudes are different than actual mission altitudes. For example, a 2EB set to attack at 5,000' will use "low" attack skill and make a low attack. But a 2EB training to attack at 5,000' will train on "high" aka "regular" attack skill and make a high or regular attack.

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

BTW, in it the approach speeds listed, IIRC, are slow (i.e. 200 - 250 knots)... [:D]

I really hope this comment was meant to be "tongue-in-cheek" Leo...[8D]

Of course... [8D]

ORIGINAL: spence

BTW, in it the approach speeds listed, IIRC, are slow (i.e. 200 - 250 knots)...

Piece of cake for the Mark I mod 0 Fire Control System. Distractions such as the sudden disintegration of the crewman next to you mattered not all.

Yes... that can be distracting...[8D]


But then again, I again put, seriously, several important issues (similar to those I asked 5+ years ago in the time of UV and original WitP) here:

#1
The attacking aircraft are flying parallel to sea and they can't train their front fixed armament on target except in the last diving / strafing part.

#2
The targeted ship can train its AA guns against approaching 2E and 4E bombers all the time.

#3
Those attacking 2E and 4E bombers are big targets in the sky flying on constant approaching course (and it takes time from the moment the alert ship crew spots them till the actual attack time)...


So... were there any documented attacks on properly AA armed and manned (with professional and alert crew) Japanese warships using this type of attack (DDs, CLs, CAs)?

From http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_bombers/b25_8.html

One of the more successful field modifications performed on the B-25Cs and Ds were conversions to heavily-armed strafers.

The basic concept for the strafer seems to have originated with B-25 units based in Australia. Medium-altitude bombing attacks against Japanese shipping had not been all that successful, since most of the bombs tended to miss their targets. This was due partly to the fact that medium and high-altitude bombing was subject to inherent errors in accuracy due to uncertain winds and to difficulties in sighting, but also due to the fact that ships could often see the bombs coming their way and had enough time to get out of their path. General Kenney felt that the development of skip-bombing techniques would give a much better chance of success. In skip bombing, the pilot approaches the target ship at a speed of 200 mph and at an altitude no higher than 250 feet off the water. Releasing the bomb at that height or lower caused it to skip off the water and slam into the ship just above the waterline, giving a much better chance of a hit than conventional bombing from medium altitudes. However, this technique required a low-level straight-on approach against intense antiarcraft fire from heavily-armed ships. It was felt that heavy forward-aimed firepower aboard the attacking aircraft was needed to counter this defensive fire.

This technique had already been tried out to a limited extent with the A-20 Havoc, but the A-20 had a relatively low bombload and a limited range. In addition, there was a severe shortage of A-20s in Australia and in the entire South Pacific due to the priority of Lend-Lease deliveries to the Soviet Union. The idea of modifying the B-25 as a "strafer" seems to have originated with NAA field service representative Jack Fox and Major Paul I. "Pappy" Gunn of the 3rd Bombardment Group. Fox and Gunn satisfied General Kenney that this was an idea worth trying, and the General gave them authorization to proceed.

B-25C serial number 41-12437 was chosen for the initial tests. Since in a low-level, high-speed attack the bombs would be released by the pilot, there was no need for a bombardier. Consequently, the bombardier position was removed and replaced with a package of four fixed 0.50-inch machine guns with 500 rpg and aimed directly forward. The guns protruded from a metal plate that replaced the flat bomb-aiming panel. In addition, four more fixed 0.50-inch machine guns were installed in individual external blisters, two on each side of the fuselage. Blast protection from the fuselage blister guns was achieved by using blast tubes on the gun barrels and by mounting large sheet metal plates on the fuselage sides that covered the entire blast area. The plane was appropriately named "Pappy's Folly". In the first tests, the fuselage guns were found to be too far forward for the center of gravity, and were later moved further aft.

Trials were sufficiently impressive for General Kenney to order more strafer conversions. By the end of February 1943, twelve strafers were completed by the Eagle Farms operation in Australia and assigned to the 90th Squadron.

The strafer concept proved particularly effective during the Battle of the Bismarck Sea of early March 1943. USAAF A-20s, B-17s, B-25s along with Australian Beauforts and Beaufighters took part in coordinated and repeated attacks on a Japanese convoy headed from Rabaul to reinforce their forces based at Lae, with P-38s and P-40s flying top cover. The strafer B-25s proved especially effective during this episode, attacking the convoy from nearly masthead altitude using skip-bombing techniques to attack the ships broadside, the withering fire from the eight forward-firing 0.50-inch machine guns preventing any effective return fire. Out of the original convoy of eight destroyers and eight cargo vessels that had departed Rabaul, all the transports and four of the destroyers were sunk or beached. The B-25C/D strafers achieved a 43 percent hit ratio.

Against land targets, these B-25s were rigged with bomb bay cages that contained up to 100 23-pound parachute fragmentation bombs. These bombs were released in great numbers to attack airfield dispersals and flak batteries.

The strafer concept was so successful that by September 1943, 175 B-25Cs and Ds had been converted for low-level strafing by the depot at Townsville, Australia. By that time, five squadrons had been so equipped.

Other commands soon picked up the concept. The 241st Bombardment Group based in the CBI Theatre modified a number of B-25C/D aircraft as strafers with various different nose gun arrangements. They were used with success against railways, marshaling years, highway transport and storage depots. the 41st Bombardment Group of the 7th Air Force in the central Pacific used strafers that were quite similar to those from Townsville.

The concept even reached the Mediterranean theatre of operations, where 16 B-25s were modified by the 26th Air Depot Group in Egypt with a six-gun nose. However, these planes were later returned to standard transparent-nose configuration, which indicates that the "strafer" concept was not all that widely used in the Mediterranean and European theatres.

Following the development of the B-25C/D strafers mounting eight forward-firing guns, Major Paul Gunn developed an experimental installation of three additional guns to the underside of the fuselage between the bomb bay and the forward access hatch. This idea proved to be impractical due to feed belt problems and blast effects to the adjacent structure.

The North American factory came up with the idea of installing a fuselage-mounted module containing two 0.50-inch machine with 225 rpg. The unit fit into the forward access hatch. This installation had the advantage in that servicing of guns and replenishment of ammunition could be done from inside the aircraft, but it had the disadvantage in forcing the crew to enter the aircraft from the aft hatch, then crawl over the bomb bay to get to the forward cockpit. The unit was never ordered into production.

The success of the "strafer" modifications to the B-25C/D led to the B-25G, which was a dedicated factory-built strafer that was succeeded by the more efficient B-25H. However, it was not until the advent of the solid-nosed B-25J that the power of the famous "Townsville" strafers was equalled.

Sources:

B-25 Mitchell: The Magnificent Medium, N. L. Avery, Phalanx, 1992.

Medium with the Mostest--The B-25 Mitchell, Jerry Scutts, Air International, Vol. 44, Nos 2 and 3, 1993.

Boston, Mitchell, and Liberator in Australian Service, Stewart Wilson, Aerospace Publications, 1992.

Famous Bombers of the Second World War, William Green, Doubleday, 1959.

North American's Flying Gun--The Story of the B-25 From Paper Airplane to Legendary Bomber, Jack Dean, Wings, Vol 23 No 4, 1993.

United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989.

North American B-25A-G Mitchell, Aircraft in Profile, Doubleday, 1966.

Jane's American Fighting Aircraft of the 20th Century, Michael J. H. Taylor.

RAAF Official History Battle of the Bismark Sea starts about page 692, prior to that is some interesting comments on training etc.

http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/record ... 1-ch32.pdf


Leo "Apollo11"

I've only been in an aircraft that "skipped" a bomb once. It was totally accidental (we were on the mining range). It was VERY impressive to see. Ironically it put the bomb exactly where we wanted, otherwise we would have score a "miss". [X(][8|][:D]

What I found impressive about the pdf article is the way they combined skip bombing with just normal (low level) bombing. They would drop 2 or 3 bombs and skip the first, place the 2nd on the ship and drop the 3rd just past. Ideally 2 of the 3 would hit, and with the ship bracketed by 3 bombs even if they were off at least one would often hit.

They also could spray their .50 caliber fire back and forth over the whole length of the ship during their run in simply by waggling their plane back and forth with rudder control. And to top it off they operated in pairs with one airplane coming broadside and one lengthwise, both hosing the ship down with machine-gun fire.

There were a number of examples in that pdf of dd's and other small patrol craft being hit by b-25's and a'20s at low levels. I didn't see mention of any big ships though like cruisers or battleships.

The examples of low level airfield attacks were impressive too, with several planes strafing and bombing the airfield and several more on the edges concentrating on AA emplacements. All in a line. Sounded impressive and effective, and safe (relatively). Too bad low ground attacks are suicide in game.

That article made it sound like simplicity itself to conduct low level and skip bombing runs. Safe and easy. Sounded a little too good to be true to my ears but what do I know.

The US Navy got in on the strafing/bombing thing as well with field modifications made to both the PV-1 and PBJ medium patrol bombers to provide for strafing the target while making a masthead attack (I don't believe they ever tried to skip the bomb into the side of the ship the way the USAAF did). The field mod chin pack of 3 x .50 cal apparently became either a standard field modification or perhaps even a factory mod on the PV-1 and was definitely a factory installation on the PV-2. The PV-2D was a further mod definitely designed for strafing with 8 x .50 cals in the nose (along with rockets; no bombs though...only 30 made before the end of hostilities though I think). My father flew the PV-1 during the war and stated that doctrine called for the top turret gunner to train his turret forward during attacks so that the aircraft actually brought 7 x .50 cal to bear on the target on the run in. But as noted the USN tried to land the bomb(s) on top of the ship rather than bounce them into the ship's side.

Navy Liberators and Privateers employed the technique ( or so said flight crews that I interviewed in the 1990's). They also would strafe anything that moved.

Navy Liberators and Privateers employed the technique ( or so said flight crews that I interviewed in the 1990's). They also would strafe anything that moved.

But did they try to land the bomb(s) on top of or into the side of the target ship? (I am not trying to dispute either the low level attack or the strafing parts: those were standard USN doctrine for mediums and 4E's).

Reading up about the attack bombing conducted by the 5th airforce brings up all sorts of interesting stuff.

Like it's really too bad we can't convert old level bomber versions of the b-25 into later gunship versions with all the noseguns like they did IRL. We just end up with a lot of kinda crappy 2e level bombers that we'd rather leave in the pools while we use superior 4e level bombers instead.

ORIGINAL: Sredni

Reading up about the attack bombing conducted by the 5th airforce brings up all sorts of interesting stuff.

Like it's really too bad we can't convert old level bomber versions of the b-25 into later gunship versions with all the noseguns like they did IRL. We just end up with a lot of kinda crappy 2e level bombers that we'd rather leave in the pools while we use superior 4e level bombers instead.

The article also blows away the clamour for house rules limiting the height a 4E can do naval attacks, regular 250ft attacks by the Flying Fort and regular bombing runs between 5000 & 10000ft. Any one could try any tactic, the other side has to work up an alternative or lose, of course Kenney was only being gamey when he used these tactics.

The argument has been that employing 4Es at lower than 10000 ft gives results which are not justified by the actual results obtained by 4Es in the war. The same persons carefully avoid the fact that the Netties and achieved very little after the one famous/infamous attack on Force Z.

Both the 4Es and the IJN torpedo bombers achieved nothing near the results predicted or hoped for before the war. Accepting the propaganda only one of the combatants at face value unduly influences tactics/operations of the other player in a completely unhistorical manner. The 10000+ ft House Rule is as completely bogus as hard-coded IJN 2E torpedo bomber effectiveness.

If you don't like some house rule, don't use it.

If some people agree house rules, that's their business, whether or not those rules have anything to do with "history".