Matrix Games Forums

Those B-17's are powerful!!

I have been using them against Japanese airports and seaports.
Three or four squadrons at 35,000 will just decimate an airfield and the Japs have very little that can affect B-17's. The Jap CAP can intercept and damage small numbers of B-17's. But the cost in Zero's is huge and prohibitive. Japs seem to run out of Zeros before B-17's. It is extremely difficult to stop B-17's.

I am curious. Were B-17's at 35,000 ft that accurate? I know the plane had the super duper Norden site. But does it make the B-17 more accurate than a regular bomber at 12-14,000 ft. Didn't clouds and smoke have a pretty significant impact on bombing accuracy regardless of site.

I am just curious. The B-17 seems to be a bit of an uber weapon against fixed targets from 35,000 ft.

I have also noticed that the Bettys and Nells don't seem to be able to hit fixed targets over 14-15,000 ft. At 30,000 ft, forget it.

I suggest you read the Strategic Bombing Survey.

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey (Pacific War) - Truman Library original copy 1 July 1946

According to Gary's previous effort the B-17 cant hit anything
at that altitude AND the crew will freeze.

The optimal height for the B-17 was around 28000.
(according to an ex-crewman I just asked)

In TOHBTR you wont accomplish much of anything bombing from
that altitude (35k) in fact I dont think you can set the bomber that high. So one or the other game is in error.


IF UV is letting you do that, you can obtain realistic results by
simply lowering their attack altitude.

Originally posted by Chiteng
The optimal height for the B-17 was around 28000.
(according to an ex-crewman I just asked)

Was he in the ETO?

All things considered 28K was good...though in Europe they tended to stack down from 25k up to 30k. In the PTO there weren't any bomber boxes because of shortages. Also flak wasn't as heavy. So the best bombing was to be had at lower altitutes compared to the ETO.

Push onto the B-29 raids late in the war...and low altitude was prefered overall in the PTO.

I now forget, but in the handy dandy historical section in Bombing the Reich mentions the 88mm altitude range was about 29K. That is if anyone actually read that thing...nor noticed the author.

Worr, out

I have been using my B-17's at 35,000 ft. And they are uber weapons. Take 18-20 B-17's and they will absolutely devastate an airfield. I can put Rabaul out of action in about 8-10 days. And the Japs will suffer massive unsustainable Zero losses with their interceptions. Anti-aircraft can't touch them. There is nothing that can stop them except operational losses and morale drops.

And B-17's are very useful against smaller airfields. In one turn, you can take out a level one airfield. Completely plaster it. Any aircraft on the field won't be able to take off after a big assault. Not to mention the on the ground aircraft kills. They are great.


I believe the b-17 is the super weapon of the game. If you are capable of denying the enemy his use of land based aircraft, you have won. The B-17 can do that.

Whether it could do that in real life with 18-20 B-17's at 35,000 ft is another question. And I know they didn't do it in 42 in the southwest Pacific.

The B-17, with the most accurate bombsight in the world at the time, was designed to do precisely this kind of thing : high altitude precision bombing. Whether used to hit runways, factories, etc, this was what it was designed for. Those of you with some knowledge of history will probably come back and say : hey, bombing by the 17 wasn't THAT accurate, just look at Schwienfurt.

You are looking at the problem with the hindsight of history, and at the same time forgetting the realities of that time. No one clamied that the Norden bombsight was 100% accurate all the time. But, given sufficient numbers of B-17 aircraft in a raid, a certain percentage of bombs dropped from high altitude with experienced crews would in fact land within a very small (for that time) strike radius - about 200 feet from 30K altitude. Schweinfurt and other precision raids weren't "successful" by modern standards with our "in a garbage can from 1000 miles" satellite targetting, but for 1942 it was really a wonder weapon. Precision raids were dropped as the main method of strategic bombing attacks NOT because they couldn't hit the target and knock it out, they did and did, but because knocking out specific targets like ball bearing factories did not have the desired industrial effect because the enemy dispersed the production.

The Japanese solution to the Uber weapon is not to fight the American's battle. You can't effectively intercept B-17s used this way; even if you do the 17s will take down more zeros than you can afford. Turn off your cap and let them come, but keep PLENTY of engineers on hand to rapidly repair the airfields.

The Airpower Museum Exhibit on the Norden Bombsight

One thing you might not readily find out about the Norden bombsight : the crosshairs were actually made out of a woman's hair. She was one of hundreds of women who had submitted their hair for use in the device, but only hers appeared to have stability characteristics that resulted in very little expansion or compression at various temperature and altitude. For the duration of the war, this woman had a 24-hour military guard!

I've been using them low like 5-7,000 the seem pretty effective but the morale drops quickly even though most of the losses are damage not destroyed. I was very disappointed in there results at medium altitude like 15,000 .

Does 30,000 really work better?

I just took PM (as the allies) which I had bombed with 50-60 B17 a lot, but the last week I switched to bombing ground targets. When I took over the airfield I found the runway damage was still 90%, and the aircraft service damage was 100%. This explains why he still had 50 planes on the field that weren't flying. They were all in the repair pool and there was no way they were being repaired!!

Consistently throughout WWII wargames be they board or computer or flight simulator, the B-17 has had the the serious problem of being one of the most overrated weapons systems.

There's just so much romance and mythology surrounding the aircraft (helped along by a tremendously effective USAAF propaganda campaign) that it does seem to seep into gaming.

Heck, one major problem has been the B-17 being given more bombload and/or range than the B-24, which was a problem in various recent iterations of the Pacific War database Other than being easier to fly, and somewhat more durable (due to the thin collapsable wing of the B-24) the B-24 was superior in every way to the B-17, which was why more of them were built.

What's really needed here is a JAPANESE perspective on the effectiveness of B-17 bombing on airfields in 1942-1943. If anyone has any sources, I'd be interested in reviewing them.

The reality is that the B-17 was designed(oddly enough) precisely for the job that it was so bad at - hitting enemy ships at sea.

The Norden was interesting for its hype but on several VERY noteworthy raids was removed for fear of the enemy getting a copy. My responce is - if you cant use it what good is it?

But the bomber itself was a weapon of the 30's and the war was fought in the 40's.

Its cost in fuel for tonnage delivered to target was very poor. It was expensive and because it was so usefull for so many things it was constantly misused for jobs it was not designed to do,
and that had better planes that WERE designed for them.
Compare the Lancaster to the B-17 some time for bomb tonnage
delivered to target.

The B-24 (which DID manage to hit ships) was much less costly
in both production and useage.

Only the B-29 has a more expensive record(with good reason)

Surely its best use was in hitting static targets that could not be
hidden. Even then there were exceptions. Rail lines (never mind the hype) were not totally destroyed by strategic bombers.
Sub pens in France proved tougher than expected.

I would argue that if you took 400 Civil war cannon, lined them hub to hub, and shot at a football field say 800 yards away,
some shells would land in the field some would not. If you used
4000 cannon I suspect ALOT more shells would land in the correct
target zone.

Numbers DO matter, and that is what eventually made the weapon system work. We had the numbers needed.

I have decided that if the Japanese don't take Port Moresby, they are finished. 3 to 4 squadrons of B-17's will over a one to one and half month time frame, completely flatten Rabaul, Lunga, Shortland Islands and Lae. And the B-17 losses will be acceptable. The Japanese losses in Zeros won't be. That is just in May 42. By Jun or July, the Japanese will have to surrender. A little exageration but not by much....

The B-17's can be massed for decisive results w/i UV against fixed targets, in particular airfields.

My understanding is that B-17's were incorrectly used in the SW Pacific-primarily recce work in 42. But even if they were used correctly, I just can't see them with the massive effect they have now.

Originally posted by Chiteng
The reality is that the B-17 was designed(oddly enough) precisely for the job that it was so bad at - hitting enemy ships at sea.

What source do you have which states that the design purpose of the B-17 was anti-shipping?

I have never read anywhere that the purpose for which the B-17 was designed was specifically for bombing ships. There was some talk in the Army Air Corps of the 1930s that the B-17 would "sweep the seas", but this talk should not be confused with the design purpose. As most major air forces of the 30s were doing -- based on the theories of Giulio Douhet, the B-17 was designed as a heavy strategic bomber. The Navy's product of the 1930s to "sweep the seas" was, oddly enough, the PBY Catalina.

The source is a book about airplane production and utilization.
The author argues with some conviction that ENGINES were
the limiting factor for warplane design not lack of recognition.
He states that Hitler(for example) knew full well that a four engine bomber was more usefull but that it was just as easy to shoot down as the TWO two engine bombers you could make
with the same engines. Numbers are what he wanted. He was
a politician after all.

He also shows alot of figures on replacement parts showing that
the USA produced 15 engines per frame and the Japanese
were 'lucky' to reach five per frame.

Sadly as I said the book is buried in a bunch of boxes in Mn.
I will endevor to get the authors name. I have not read the book
in at least Nine years. If the source (or lack) bothers you then by all means feel free to ignore my input =)

As for the B-17 I suspect it is a case of who you are asking what it was designed to do. In this book the author states that
Arnold wanted a plane that could sink enemy ships far away
from the coast. The PBY could carry bombs but its kinda fragile.

Well I have been very happy with my B-17's.

Now finally, I have received the vaunted B-24 Liberator-huge range, larger bombload than the B-17. Now I am really going to take names.

Sent them in at max altitude of 32,000 ft at Rabaul's airport. Nice easy test run since it is already annihilated.

Duhhhh. They are just like Bettys and Nells. At max altitude, they can't hit an island much less the airfield. Hummmm....I'll try them at 12,000 ft and see what happens.

Sounds like I am back to relying on B-17's for when I need a nuclear strike.

Let's see how those B-24 Liberators do on their second mission. Experience at 63, good morale, 12,000 ft, no Rabaul Cap and they are ready to go.

Minor flak results in 2 of 6 Liberators damaged but they release anyway. Results: one airbase hit and six runway hits. Not bad. Not great. About the same as the Bettys and Nells.

Those B-17's are priceless.

Hmm, send my B17 at this 35.000f, but they scored only 1 Airbase hit and 2 into the Runway...and this raid was composed of 40 B17 and 20 B24..

Ok, they were unstoppable for the Flak, but hitting is bad:-(((

Can you tell me whats wrong?

Wow! Those results are really poor. Is the leadership, morale, supply or experience really low?

Here are the results of two consecutive turns of airfield attacks on a defended Rabaul. This is the 4 and 5 Aug turns of the Turning Tide scenario. These are very typical results for me.


Flying out of Port Moresby at altitude of 35,000 and partly cloudy weather for each attack. Attacks on Rabaul airfield. Experience low 60's. Didn't check morale but probably around 50-55. Plenty of supply.

First attack:

27 B-17's met by CAP of 38 Zeros and no anti-aircraft guns.

7 Zeros destroyed and 1 Zero damaged.
4 Vals destroyed and 1 Val damaged on the ground.
1 Betty destroyed and 2 Bettys damaged on the ground.
157 men killed on ground.
1 Gun destroyed on ground.

7 B-17's damaged by Zero CAP

Airfield suffers:
22 airbase hits
1 airbase supply hit
46 runway hits

----------------------------
Second attack

19 B-17's met by CAP of 27 Zeros and no anti-aircraft guns.

2 Zeros destroyed and 0 damaged.
30 men killed on ground.
I think the enemy started dispersing his aircraft to other airfields at this point.

7 B-17's damaged.

Airfield suffers:
7 Airbase hits
1 airbase supply hit
37 runway hits.

These are the types of results I see consistently and I have used B-17's now quite a lot. The numbers of runway hits (46 and 37) makes a huge impact over a fairly short time frame. As does the loss of planes on the ground. In this particular case, Rabaul with a very large airbase and port was abandoned by both air and ship units after about 10 days of attacks.

Level one airfields are particularly vulnerable even to a single air attack by B-17's. Later in this same game, I standed about 40 Jap bombers at a level one field in a single attack. I keep them standed there until I could launch an amphibious assualt on that base. It was only defended by air base personnel. All the bombers were destroyed on that base because they couldn't take off.

Try the B-17's a couple more times. You should get good results.

Leadership is ok by me, but Morale is somewhat down (40-50)

Average skill is up to 80.

I wonder that i cant assign an air commander like in PacWar.

Odin, that is weird. Just for kicks, try breaking the B-17's away from the B-24's. Have the B-17's attack separately. I am curious what the results might be.

My planes aren't near 80 experience levels. Yours should actually do better.

Here is one last example. I just did this one. It is an attack on a level one airfield on Shortland Islands out of Port Moresby. Altitude 35,000 again.

28 B-17's vs 18 zeros and 5 Oscars and no anti-aircraft fire.

Zeros: 2 destroyed 8 damaged
Oscars: 7 destroyed 4 damaged--overkills?
B17's: 3 damaged

26 men on the ground killed
6 airbase hits
2 airbase supply hits
39 runway hits.

I didn't have recce so I am not sure the condition of the field yet. Probably over 50% damage since it is level one and out of action.

Still trying it, i play the Operation Cardwheel scenerio right now, i have plenty of B17 at PM, of course the target of choice is Rabaul.

I will withdraw the B24 from PM to let the B17 fly alone.

What is still frustrating is that fatigue of the crews. What kind of warriors are they when they fly a single mission, their fatigue raises to 40-50, which forces them to ground for a couple of days to recover

Thats a problem for me, on the first day i have a 40-50 plane strike, the next only 12.

An automatic behavior will be nice, lets say a"dont-fly-any missons-with-the-fatigue-more-then-25"-toggle

****, it seems to work!!:eek:

The only difference was there were no B24 in the flight.

35000 feet, 28 B17....they scored 7 Base hits, 1 Supply hit and 58 Runway hits!!

Now, i have still that fatigue problem