Bombing Rabaul from Cooktown

[Hartley]

I only just noticed that B17s can do it in UV.

Is that something that actually happened ?

[grraven2004]

Not sure if that happened in real life but would advise against it in the game as the operational losses would be hard to overcome.

[crsutton]

Actually, they Allies did not fly all the way from Cooktown to bomb Rabaul. I suppose they could with reduced loads and extra fuel but B17s were very expensive and impossible to replace. Operational losses would have been high when pushing the planes to their limit.

Instead the Allies shuttled the bombers to Port Morsby with a full bomb load. They were then refuled at PM where they then flew on to Rabual. On the return leg they dropped off at PM to gas up on the way home. In the early stages of the campaign it was considered to risky to leave the 17s at PM due to the threat of enemy bombers.

[barbarrossa]

But if you can get cheap hits on a flattop in port from 20,000 ft it's worth it! Heh-heh

Seems a bit long-legged a mission though.

[Hartley]

ORIGINAL: barbarrossa

But if you can get cheap hits on a flattop in port from 20,000 ft it's worth it! Heh-heh

Exactly. A few B17s for a 500lb hit on the Zuikaku is a nice tradeoff.

[barbarrossa]

If you can do it, why not?![:D]

[marky]

a mission from guam, or tinian, or the marianas all the way to japan and back was a long mission

but from late 44 onwards, thats wat the b-29s were doing

LONG missions

15 + hours

and if i remember, op losses werent that bad

and enola gay came from guam, if i remember

o, btw


the movie Hiroshima was just on

anyone see it?

it was on a movie channel

3 hours 10 minutres long


really good and historical movie tho

[denisonh]

Yes,

The Allies did fly missions to Rabaul from northeast Australia until B-17s were stationed at PM. A significant number of missions, I think.

[tsimmonds]

a mission from guam, or tinian, or the marianas all the way to japan and back was a long mission

but from late 44 onwards, thats wat the b-29s were doing

LONG missions

15 + hours

and if i remember, op losses werent that bad

and enola gay came from guam, if i remember

One reason for taking Iwo Jima was to have a place for B29s to land that were experiencing trouble during their missions to JApan. I believe that there were more than 2400 B29 landings on Iwo....what would the losses have been like without Iwo I wonder?

[Feinder]

The IJN never actually based their carriers at Rabaul. It was (rightfully) considered too close to LBA threat. They always sailed from Truk. I don't even think they refueled at Rabaul (altho not positive of that). You can find a detailed listing of each CV's deployment at CombinedFleet.Com.

The fatigue rules in UV a bit on the high side, but either way, flying from Cooktown to Rabaul would be prohibative because of operational losses. Once you've got firm control of the airspace over PM, stock it with supplies and pound Rabaul flat with your heavies. Pretty much, it's game over then.

-F-

[Maserati]

I've caught an IJN CV in Rabaul exactly once. The Junyo hit a mine leaving Truk and went into Rabaul for repairs instead of turning back. Two other CVs raided my shipping near Guadalcanal with very little result. I spotted a CV in Rabaul and put on a port attack. Heavy bombers from Gili-Gili made the strike, almost 100 bombers. The Junyo took 15 500lb bomb hits and was never seen again. She turned up in a loss report a couple of week later.

I felt *real* good about that mission.

[marky]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

a mission from guam, or tinian, or the marianas all the way to japan and back was a long mission

but from late 44 onwards, thats wat the b-29s were doing

LONG missions

15 + hours

and if i remember, op losses werent that bad

and enola gay came from guam, if i remember

One reason for taking Iwo Jima was to have a place for B29s to land that were experiencing trouble during their missions to JApan. I believe that there were more than 2400 B29 landings on Iwo....what would the losses have been like without Iwo I wonder?

thats very true

by the end of the war, about 25 THOUSAND american airmen owed their lives to Iwo Jima

but they had op losses their too

if u ran out of runway their, u went ovver a cliff

and boom

iwo was a little small for a runway

but, if u NEED to land, then thats wat u do

[Feinder]

Speaking of B-29 losses.

What caused them?

Seriously tho. In Europe it was mostly Flak. Sure, many B-17s in Euope were downed by enemy fighters, but Flak accounted for most of the downed aircraft.

But wasn't the B-29 a fairly sturdy aircraft (compared to the B-17, which was already a solid aircraft). B-29 certainly dwarfed the B-17 in size. Usually size equates to sturdy, or at least difficult to knock down.

Weren't the B-29 raids conducted at much higher altitudes than the in Europe? Wouldn't that mitigate a lot of flak losses?

And considering the quality of Japanese fighters and pilots in by 1944, it would seem that if the Germans had trouble knocking down B-17s, that the Japanese would have had a helluva time taking out B-29s.

I'm not disagreeing that many B-29s were damaged or destroyed. I seriously asking to what their major adversary was, because I'm not at all familiar with the strategic bombing campaign in the Pacific.

Thanks,
-F-

[Rendova]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Speaking of B-29 losses.

What caused them?

Seriously tho. In Europe it was mostly Flak. Sure, many B-17s in Euope were downed by enemy fighters, but Flak accounted for most of the downed aircraft.

But wasn't the B-29 a fairly sturdy aircraft (compared to the B-17, which was already a solid aircraft). B-29 certainly dwarfed the B-17 in size. Usually size equates to sturdy, or at least difficult to knock down.

Weren't the B-29 raids conducted at much higher altitudes than the in Europe? Wouldn't that mitigate a lot of flak losses?

And considering the quality of Japanese fighters and pilots in by 1944, it would seem that if the Germans had trouble knocking down B-17s, that the Japanese would have had a helluva time taking out B-29s.

I'm not disagreeing that many B-29s were damaged or destroyed. I seriously asking to what their major adversary was, because I'm not at all familiar with the strategic bombing campaign in the Pacific.

Thanks,
-F-

The B-29 was a problem child in the beginning. It had ALOT of operational issues and many were lost for mechanical reasons. Also yes they did fly higher, which caused huge wear and tear on the planes, particulary the engines. Plus they could radar bomb which meant that they flew in weather that would have kept B-17's in Europe grounded, which in turn caused weather related accidents to go up. Basically the USAAF found out it was actually safer, easier, and better to fly low over Japan then higher, because the jap flak was better the operational issues of flying higher. Also While Japanese AAA wasn't the best it could still hurt and the Japanese did manage to put up enough intercepters to cause B-29s problems, until the B-29 staring going in at night, which pretty ended the interceptor threat. the book DOWNFALL talks a great deal about the problems of the B-29s. Mostly though it was teething problems, and once sloved, became an awsome weapon, that gutted much of Japan.

[Mr.Frag]

Mostly though it was teething problems, and once sloved, became an awsome weapon, that gutted much of Japan.

Hmm, not so sure about that point. It caused damage, not debate there, but the post war studies commissioned by the USAAF found that most of Japan's industry was still relatively intact and functional. Japan just ran out of materials to produce stuff with, they didn't really loose the ability of production...

[PzB74]

I consider port bombing the biggest bug in UV.
It's so far from reality as one can get...

US heavies were lucky if they hit within 5000 yards of their intended targets from 20000 feet in 1942-43.
Yet, they score hit after hit on ships in port in UV, both at day - and what's worse - at NIGHT!
Somehow they got a magic bomb sight that selects the high value targets and guides them home with pinpoint accuracy.

Sincerely hope that this isn't the case in WitP - I have suggested to most of my opponents in UV to disband night bombing of ports altogether. It's kinda difficult to to the same with day bombing of ports, but at least it's possible to put 80 fighters and a lot of flak in bases that are within range of the heavies during the day.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Mostly though it was teething problems, and once sloved, became an awsome weapon, that gutted much of Japan.

Hmm, not so sure about that point. It caused damage, not debate there, but the post war studies commissioned by the USAAF found that most of Japan's industry was still relatively intact and functional. Japan just ran out of materials to produce stuff with, they didn't really loose the ability of production...

I agree with Raymond.

The B-29 was believed to be ultimate weapon that was to be every US air force bomber general's "wet dream" but it never turned out to be that way against Japan (just as Lancaster and B-17 weere believed to be in Europe)...


BTW this same story repeats itself all over again when every new weapon becomes available from 1920's and Italian general Douhet's theory that large fleet of high flying bombers would crush enemy and that war will be over just for that.

This theory remained just theory but from WWII onwards air force bomber generals still believe that it is true and that air force is all that matter and that air force is what will decide the war.

Unfortunately, as we can learn from history, there were wrong then (in WWII) and they are wrong now - while air force can do massive and devastating blows to the enemy the war is still depending on grunts at ground fighting the enemy at close range...


Leo "Apollo11"

[grraven2004]

I just had a situation develop in a game I'm playing. My opponent insists on parking his CV's at Rabaul. We are in scenario 19 and I have lost 3 CV's he has lost none. I have bombed Rabaul 4 times now and got lucky twice. First time got three hits on the Shoho. Second time one hit on Hiryu. Now he is saying that he wants me to stop bombing Rabaul. Talks about it being unsporting. I wouldn't do it if he removed those CV's away from there. But its just too tempting not to try and keep those CV's out of action until I get my other ones. Need some advice guys.

[tsimmonds]

As long as you aren't skip-bombing with your B17s, I don't see that he has anything to complain about. If he doesn't want his CVs bombed, he should base them someplace else.

[denisonh]

He should place them at Kavieng or Shortlands. The IJN historically did not operate CVs out of Rabaul for that very reason. Even before the 5th AF moved B-17s to PM.

Now let me say that I hope you are bombing him during the day. Night bombing of ports is a little too effective in UV, so I usually agree with my opponent to limit it to day attacks.

Of course, if he has Lunga up and running, he can just keep visiting Noumea at night with Bettys and Nells.

ORIGINAL: grraven2004

I just had a situation develop in a game I'm playing. My opponent insists on parking his CV's at Rabaul. We are in scenario 19 and I have lost 3 CV's he has lost none. I have bombed Rabaul 4 times now and got lucky twice. First time got three hits on the Shoho. Second time one hit on Hiryu. Now he is saying that he wants me to stop bombing Rabaul. Talks about it being unsporting. I wouldn't do it if he removed those CV's away from there. But its just too tempting not to try and keep those CV's out of action until I get my other ones. Need some advice guys.