B-17's

[Jagger2002]

Does anyone know how many IJN ships were sunk by B-17's in 1942 in the SW Pacific?

Just curious. I think I have an invasion force that is about to be shredded by ultra long range B-17's....

[thantis]

A Japanese destroyer was hit by a B-17 once.....once.....

So few ships were hit by level bombers during the Pacific Campaign that the chances of scoring a successful hit were actually less than chance.

[Spooky]

However, just a few B-17 were used in the South Pacific before being replaced by B-24.

BTW, B-17 are really not that effective against ships when used by the AI (6,000 feet altitude) ... but human players commonly use them in a much more agressive way (ie : 1,000 feet altitude)

Spooky

[Huskalator]

I had 3 B-17s (3000 ft I think) make it through my entire carrier fighter screen and plant a bomb on the Shokaku.

[brisd]

It seems the game designers bought the hype of the original boosters of the B-17 pre WW2, that it was capable of defending the USA from enemy fleets. It failed miserably in that role in the Phillipines, Midway and the South Pacific. Three heavy four engine bombers flying at 1000 ft get two bomb hits against a tiny MSW is fantasy but it happens in this game. It is one of the few areas left to address. Perhaps a penalty effecting 4 engine bombers below a certain altitude? They should be allowed to make attacks, that is historical but their effectiveness at low altitudes against shipping is highly questionable IMHO.

[doomonyou]

IIRC historical b-17 bombers (and all level bombers) tried very high level bombing against ships. I imagine that if someone had had the balls to send in flying fortresses against ships at a thousand foot hieght, they probably would have knocked off plenty of ships (especially slow vulnerable transports). they also would have probably lost many more planes that they did (as I have).

Conversely as the japanese sub commander I have recieved a letter from Donitz requesting that I send my people to the Fatherland to train his people in the incredibly savage sub warfare technique I have used to strangle the allies.

Its all in how you use the stuff and in many games we do tend to use it ahistorically (and a lot smarter with all the hindsight we have, although the Jap sub doctrine should have looked pretty stupid to them right from teh start.)

[Sabre21]

I was playing scen 19 as the allies and on turn 2 the B17s that I positioned in Cooktown located an AP TF forming at Rabaul and hit 3 or 4 of the ap's. I had forgot to change their mission and they went in at 6000 feet and they only suffered 1 destroyed and 2 damaged. Turns out it was the TF for Gili cuz they came limping down with several damaged ap's..1 sinking enroute. That TF never made it to Gili.

Andy

[mdiehl]

This is a questions that hinges on your philosophy of game design. B17s used in skip-bombing atatcks were quite effective. B17s used against stationary ships were quite effective. B17s almost never engaged TFs at sea from low altitude until skip-bombing was introduced. Could they have been more effective from 3000-6000 feet? Probably, since as with all unguided things ballistic (from shells to topredoes to bombs) accuracy is heavily affected by the amount of time the weapon is in transit. So, if you don't like the "alt-B17s" effectiveness, you might want a "house rule" that they stay above 18,000 feet.

[DSandberg]

if someone had had the balls to send in flying fortresses against ships at a thousand foot hieght, they probably would have knocked off plenty of ships (especially slow vulnerable transports). they also would have probably lost many more planes that they did (as I have).

I also read recently about the fact that medium bombers with forward-firing MGs were more effective at low level because they could partially suppress AA fire. And I wonder if it also could have been because they are a little faster, limiting their time of exposure to AA fire, and because they also make slightly smaller targets?

So perhaps that is the element that needs to be addressed in UV. B-17s lumbering in at low level might very well be able to deal out massive punishment to surface vessels, as can already been seen in the game ... but such aircraft should first have a tough time surviving a lengthy and withering level of AA fire at that altitude during their approach. This latter element seems to be what is missing in UV ... a handful of Forts regularly penetrate into well-defended TFs with only some moderate damage being dealt to them, and usually without any Forts being shot down at all. The higher-caliber AA of surface ships against a small number of big, slow targets like B-17s seems like it should be much more effective than it currently is.

- David

[IMJennifer]

Originally posted by thantis
A Japanese destroyer was hit by a B-17 once.....once.....

So few ships were hit by level bombers during the Pacific Campaign that the chances of scoring a successful hit were actually less than chance.

I recall reading, I think it was in Morrison, that the only Japanese ship hit by a B-17 was a destroyer stopped dead in the water picking up survivors. The Captain, knowing that B-17s 'never' hit ships, ignored the B-17s and one bomb actually hit the destroyer. The story may be apocryphal, but it's a good one.

[strollen]

This weekend I reread the account of the Battle of Bismarck Sea by Lawrence Cortesi.

The first group of 28 B17 attacked at 5,000 the first flight scored a hit with a 1,000 lb on a transport. Than another dropped to 3,000' and scored 4! more 1,000 lb hits on the same transport. Needless to say it was sanoyora (sp) for that Maru.

In total the 28 B17 sunk one transport and scored near misses hits/glancing blows cause moderate damage to one other transport and one destroyer and severe damage to a 2nd transport and another destroyer. One B17 was lost to flak and many were damaged.

Interestingly enough the skip bombing in some ways was an act of desperation because the "worlds most unpredicable weather" resulting in ceilings of 500-1,000', and the Beauforts failed to score a single hit.

The 26 skip bombers (15 A20, 11 B25) sunk 2 DD, 2 Transports, and 2 freighters, without a loss. Actually Cortesi lists one ship the Shirayuki as a cruiser but Gary has it as a destroyer.

One thing I don't get the Admiral Masatomi Kimura was called the eel of the Pacific, and showed great skill in eluding the American's. Yet in UV he has a very medicore ratings.

[Huskalator]

I was thinking, should zeros be more effective against low flying bomber formations? I would think that it would be very easy to get above them and dive.

[juliet7bravo]

I've never seen anything anywhere that would support the conclusion that "B17's were quite effective" operationally, in either the skip bombing or anti-ship role in any way. A few isolated anecdotes, they tested the concept, used it in combat ops a few times, yadda yadda ect, but to baldly state they were "quite effective"...no. Historically, in the Pacific, the B17 more or less receives a big wet raspberry.

So where do these waves of B17's single-handedly annihilating convoys, or shutting down Truk come from? Seems to be conspicuously absent from any account of the Pacific war I've ever read. Is there a book out I missed; "How 3-4 dozen B17's annihalated the Japs", or "The Bomber Group that single-handedly won the war"?

"The Captain, knowing that B-17s 'never' hit ships, ignored the B-17s and one bomb actually hit the destroyer. The story may be apocryphal, but it's a good one."

He saw the B17's overhead, crew wanted to get underweigh, and he blew them off with the comment "B17's never hit anything". Bang, ship is sunk, and while he's standing there dripping (with everyone glaring at him I imagine) after getting pulled from the water, he makes the comment "Even a B17 can get lucky once"...not verbatim, but that's the gist. Telling account of what the guys underneath the B17's thought of them...

[IMJennifer]

Originally posted by juliet7bravo
"The Captain, knowing that B-17s 'never' hit ships, ignored the B-17s and one bomb actually hit the destroyer. The story may be apocryphal, but it's a good one."

He saw the B17's overhead, crew wanted to get underweigh, and he blew them off with the comment "B17's never hit anything". Bang, ship is sunk, and while he's standing there dripping (with everyone glaring at him I imagine) after getting pulled from the water, he makes the comment "Even a B17 can get lucky once"...not verbatim, but that's the gist. Telling account of what the guys underneath the B17's thought of them...

Thank you for the confirmation J7B -- I almost didn't post that because I couldn't remember where I'd read it . You wouldn't happen to recall the source for this would you?

Jennifer

[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.

[mdiehl]

Here is an excerpt from the air force veteran's association. I've read the details before (there are a couple of recent personal biographies and unit histories for B17s in the PTO). The link is: www.afa.org/magazine/valor/1290valor.html


The quote, which gives at least a couple of anecdotal examples of B17s being effective as skip-bombers (I'll presume that faster tactical bombers were preferred when available) is as follows:

By John L. Frisbee, Contributing Editor
Skip-Bombing Pioneer
In the fall of 1942, a better way of sinking Japanese ships had to be found. Ken McCullar was one of the first to master the new tactic.
A priority task for the few Fifth Air Force B-17s of the 19th and 43d Bombardment Groups during the summer of 1942 was interdicting the Japanese sea line of communications from Rabaul, New Britain, to enemy forces on New Guinea. AAF doctrine then held to bombing from altitude with nine-plane (when that many were available) squadron formations. Results had not been good, especially against maneuvering ships. Only about 1 percent of bombs dropped were hitting their targets. Clearly a better way had to be found.

Promising experiments with skip bombing were under way in the US, based on RAF experience. Lt. Gen. George Kenney, commander of Fifth Air Force, was enthusiastic about the new technique. The 63d Squadron of his 43d Bombardment Group set to work in September, testing skip bombing with B-17s against a wrecked ship in Port Moresby Harbor. Approaching the target at 200 mph, aircraft released bombs at 200 feet or lower, about 300 yards from the hulk. The bombs would skip across the water into the side of the ship--if airspeed, altitude, and range were properly coordinated. Modified Australian fuzes were used in the absence of suitable US stock.

Capt. Kenneth McCullar already was credited with sinking or damaging four Japanese vessels, using conventional tactics. He soon became one of the most proficient practitioners of skip bombing, with 60 percent hits in practice runs. Skip bombing looked like the answer, but it added another element of danger to the normal hazards of combat. Chief among these was the nerve-racking experience of flying at point-blank range directly into the muzzles of deck guns on enemy ships. Since the older B-17s didn't have enough forward firepower to keep those guns down, early skip-bombing attacks were made at night, by the light of the moon or flares.

The Japanese were introduced to skip bombing at Rabaul Harbor on the night of Oct. 23, 1942. While six B-17s of the 64th Squadron bombed from 10,000 feet, six 63d Squadron bombers came in at 100 feet to skip their bombs into the sides of Japanese ships. McCullar reported sinking a destroyer with two hits amidships. Two nights later the 63d returned to Rabaul with eight B-17s, about a third of the Fifth Air Force's operational heavy bombers at the time. McCullar was one of four to score hits.

McCullar flew many more skipbombing missions; one of the most notable was on the night of Nov. 24, when he and other B-17 crews attacked an enemy convoy by flare light. His first run at 200 feet scored a near miss on a destroyer. On his second run, McCullar set the destroyer afire.

Coming back once more, his No. 1 engine was knocked out by flak, and the propeller couldn't be feathered. Too badly shot up for another low attempt, McCullar made a conventional bomb run at 1,200 feet and again was hit. He then climbed to 4,000 feet for a fifth attack and lost No. 3 engine to enemy fire. With only two engines running and three wounded men aboard, he was faced with a return to Port Moresby over 13,000-foot peaks. No. 3 finally was brought in at greatly reduced power. "Two and a half hours later," McCullar reported, "we were at 10,000 feet, our ceiling, and luckily we found a pass to sneak through, landed OK, and forgot about it."

Twice more McCullar brought his B-17 home on two engines, once from nearly 600 miles from Rabaul where he was on a photo-reconnaissance mission. Seventy miles short of Rabaul, a supercharger blew up, killing both engines on the left wing. McCullar completed the mission on two engines and flew back to Port Moresby with excellent photos of the Rabaul area. Two days later, on Dec. 7, he helped turn back a Japanese convoy, returning with more than 100 machine-gun and 20-mm holes in his B-17.

McCullar, by this time a major, led a charmed life, it would seem. His skill as a pilot and his determination to complete every mission regardless of the odds had earned him a Distinguished Service Cross. Then, as with so many other combat heroes, the odds caught up with him. On April 12, 1943, while taking off for an attack on a convoy, his B-17 crashed in flames.

"His exploits were already legends that would be told and retold long after the war," Kenney said. McCullar was a symbol of valor i n the dark days of the Pacific war. His courage and resolution

[strollen]

Originally posted by juliet7bravo
I've never seen anything anywhere that would support the conclusion that "B17's were quite effective" operationally, in either the skip bombing or anti-ship role in any way. A few isolated anecdotes, they tested the concept, used it in combat ops a few times, yadda yadda ect, but to baldly state they were "quite effective"...no. Historically, in the Pacific, the B17 more or less receives a big wet raspberry.

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.

I tend to use my B17 against bases in the game, cause I think they are more effective against them. I haven't seen more than one claimed hit from Any B17 raid at altitudes between 5,000-8,000.. Seems like the game has it about right. Also I find that B17 require a lot more rest than other bomber units, so while there individual strikes maybe pretty potent, I'm lucky to get 2 raids a week from them.

[DSandberg]

Originally posted by strollen
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.

I agree ...I've read the same thing. Only thing I'll add is that this is Japanese fighter pilots specifically that had a hard time dealing with the Fort. As indicated elsewhere in this thread, Japanese naval forces did not have nearly the same level of concern about them, and for good reason. I also think it is safe to say that the size and number of AA weapons on surface vessels would have much less trouble in bringing down B-17s than the Japanese fighters did ... that is, if the B-17s had presented themselves as big, close, attractive targets by doing level bombing at low altitudes.

I hope this will be rectified in the game at some point. I greatly dislike experiencing the syndrome of "well, a massed attack by 50+ dive bombers from my carrier TF didn't score a single hit on the enemy TF, but I know once the nine B-17s arrive the tables will be turned!" It feels very, very unrealistic, and is my single biggest problem with the game at this point.

- David

[DSandberg]

Originally posted by strollen
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.

I tend to use my B17 against bases in the game, cause I think they are more effective against them. I haven't seen more than one claimed hit from Any B17 raid at altitudes between 5,000-8,000.. Seems like the game has it about right.

At that altitude you could be right. But try naval attacks with your B-17s down at 2000 or 3000 feet instead and watch the enemy ships go boooom. I've gotten as many as seven hits on a single vessel from a raid of no more than half a dozen B-17s. Not right at all.

[Sonny]

Originally posted by strollen
.... Than another dropped to 3,000' and scored 4! more 1,000 lb hits on the same transport. .....

Are you sure? Even as low as 3000' it is hard to imagine that with a release of all the bombs at once that four of them would hit the same ship.