Author Topic: level bombing of shipping (Read 457 times)

Li`l Snorkey · « **on:** May 27, 2002, 12:06:47 PM »

Which one of you uneducated-boorish-furballing-neanderthals said "buffs were never able to hit ships with bombs" ?

Take your foot and put it in your mouth right now.

taken from http://www.westviewpress.com/fireinthesky/b-17.html:
The first major land-based bomber fielded by the Allies was the Boeing B 17 Flying Fortress. This is not the place for a history of World War II’s most famous strategic bomber. However, the famous aircraft played an unanticipated and successful part in the South Pacific. Aviation historians have not been kind to the B 17 as employed early in the Pacific war. The major sting to its reputation was in the role assigned by USAAF sinking ships which was unsuited to the big bomber at that stage of the war. Unfortunately defending U.S. territory by destroying enemy fleets at sea was exactly the task that bomber enthusiasts pointed to as one of the primary reasons for developing long-range bombers in the first place. Billy Mitchell’s early demonstrations that bombers could destroy stationary and unmanned warships proved, in the event, to be the wrong lesson. And there is much reason to conclude that followers of the bomber cult used the potential of flying coastal defense (read: sinking ships) as a political justification for building bombers meant to strike land targets. Whatever the case, the B 17s sent to the Philippines in the months before Pearl Harbor rarely got an opportunity to implement theory. Whatever chance they had was compromised by inexperienced crews, bad weather, and small numbers. Pummeled on the ground, harassed by fighters, and forced to withdraw from Manila early in the war, the Flying Fortress did not perform as advertised. However, if one judges the B 17 by what it did and not by what overzealous advocates promised prior to Pearl Harbor, a very different picture emerges. Once the Allies caught their breath and began buildups in Australia and New Caledonia, as we shall see, a small number of B 17s proved invaluable in reconnaissance, harassing attacks on major Japanese targets, and developing innovative techniques to strike the enemy in an unusual theater. And to sweeten the bitter pill of burning bombers in December 1941, the Fortress on certain important occasions did prove able to damage and sink Japanese shipping.

and more from http://www.ww2pacific.com/japcv.html
27Jan42. USAAF B-17s bomb and damage Japanese seaplane carrier Sanuki Maru off Balikpapan, Borneo.

10Feb42. USAAF LB-30s bomb and damage Japanese seaplane carrier Chitose in Makassar Strait south of Celebes.

3July42. USAAF B-24s bomb and damage Japanese seaplane carriers Kamikawa Maru and Kimikawa Maru off Agattu Island.

1 Sept42. USAAF B-17s bomb and damage Japanese flying boat support ship Akitsushima

24Sep42. USAAF B-17 damages Japanese seaplane carrier Sanuki Maru off Shortlands Island, Solomons.

30Apr45. USAAF B-24s sink Kunikawa Maru previously damaged by Australian mine.

and more from http://www.afa.org/magazine/kittyhawk/1903-1996.html

December 10, 1941. Five B-17s of the 93d Bomb Squadron, 19th Bomb Group, carry out the first heavy bomb mission of World War II, attacking a Japanese convoy near the Philippines and also sinking the first enemy vessel by US aerial combat bombing.

While the Pacific Fleet took a hammering in Hawaii, to the north Japanese aircraft from Formosa attacked Clark Field on the island of Luzon in the Philippines. Most of the American aircraft were caught on the ground while refuelling, the only B-17s to survive being those dispersed to a small strip at Mindanao.

With the war three days old the surviving 19th Bomb Group B-17s returned to the damaged Clark Field to load bombs. One, skippered by Captain Colin Kelly, had managed only to get three 600lb bombs aboard when the air raid alarm was sounded. Kelly took off immediately, and set about his mission to attack enemy shipping off the coast of Luzon.

Having located a landing force approaching the coast off Appari, Kelly selected the largest ship in the flotilla, the heavy cruiser Ashigara, scoring a direct hit bombing from 22,000 feet. Leaving the cruiser ablaze, Kelly turned towards Clark Field. Descending through broken cloud to 11,000 feet, his B-17 was jumped by a flight of 10 Japanese Zero fighters, attacking one by one in line astern. One burst of enemy fire went right through the middle of the aircraft taking the life of Kelly's flight engineer, and setting the aircraft on fire. With the B-17 mortally damaged and still under attack, Kelly ordered his crew to bail out.

"a direct hit from 22,000 feet!"Enough said.

ps- Lazs, eat your heart out and poop your knickers... the fluffers are coming

and I will enjoy escorting them all the way there and back

Li`l Snorkey
56th FG

Angus · « **Reply #1 on:** May 27, 2002, 12:11:50 PM »

Quite right, many things are possible.
Don't forget, the British bombed Tirpitz from high altitude in Lancasters. Bombs used were 10.000 lbs if I remember right, and they scored!

Li`l Snorkey · « **Reply #2 on:** May 27, 2002, 12:14:40 PM »

That was just the PAC theatre, theres also quite a few accounts of RAF B-24s and other Coastal Command a/c sinking Kreigsmarine U boats, I just can't find a url for that... yet.

Snorkey

hawk220 · « **Reply #3 on:** May 27, 2002, 12:48:00 PM »

Someone please correct me if I've got my facts screwed..but regarding the action pix of the Zero shooting at the B17..I thought that only pre-war planes had the red/white striping on the tail.

thanks

Hawk220

MuadDib of Dune · « **Reply #4 on:** May 27, 2002, 01:24:52 PM »

Im pretty sure that at the beginning of hostilities in the pacific there was a squadron of B17Ds (in the painting, with original tail design) in the Phillipines and that most were destroyed on Dec8 but a few saw action. Cant recall any details at the moment.

Doh!....read the story in thread starter

Hooligan · « **Reply #5 on:** May 27, 2002, 01:34:53 PM »

From “The Imperial Japanese Navy”, Paul S. Dull, 1978 United States Naval Institute, and “History of United states Naval Operations in World War II”, S.E. Morison, Little Brown & Company 1975

According to both Morison and Dull the Sanuki Maru was damaged by shore battery fire on 23 Dec. No mention of any US air attacks on 27 January is made in either book.

Neither Morison or Dull make any mention of the Chitose being damaged by air attacks in this time period.

Kamikawa Maru and Kimikawa Maru: Likewise no mention in Morison or Dull.

Akitsushima: Morison, Vol 5, Pages 117-118

Quote

On 1 September a Flying Fortress on a scouting mission chanced upon seaplane carrier Akitsushima north of Choiseul and showered her with a salvo of bombs which failed to hit but did slight damage as near-misses.

Sanuki Maru: No mention in Morison or Dull.

Kunikawa Maru: No mention in Morison or Dull.

Ashigaga: Pg 31 Dull

Quote

A B-17, piloted by Captain Colin P. Kelly, attacked the heavy cruiser Ashigara of the Northern cover force on 10 December. Captain Kelly, who did not survive the mission, reported by radio before his plane went down that he had hit and set afire a Kongo class Battleship (later claimed by the USAAFFEE to be the Haruna), but the Ashigara was not hit.

Appendix A in Dull’s book lists the fate of every Major IJN warship (destroyers and larger ships). In this list, I could only find only one ship in the open ocean that was sunk by USAAF level bombing, the DD Mutsuki. Here is the description of the Mutsuki’s sinking from Morison, Vol 5, pg 105. When the incident occurred the Mutsuki was rescuing survivors off the Kinryu Maru.

Quote

At 1015 eight Flying Fortresses from Epiritu Santo appeared over Tanaka’s force. Commander Hatano, Mutsuki’s skipper, glanced up at them and casually returned to his rescue work. Consequently, when the “Forts” let go a pattern of bombs, his destroyer was dead in the water. After three bombs had struck, she was dead under the water. Commander Hatano emerged, dripping, to remark quaintly, “Even the B-17s could make a hit once in a while!” He claimed that his ship was the first to be hit by Horizontal bombers during the war.

Some observations: Snorkey has not provided one example of ship actually being sunk by level bombers except in the case of ship previously mined and thus probably unmoving or moving very slowly. In the only example I could find of an IJN warship being sunk by level bombers, it was unmoving. The USAAF claimed many ships both sunk and damaged from their level bombing attacks. Claims of a ship sunk by level bombers were later disproved when the ship in question was located again. Erroneous damage claims however are not disproved by a later sighting of the ship since it may have theoretically been repaired.

For perspective the USAAF claimed the following results against the IJN at Midway: Hits on 3 carriers, 1 cruiser, 1 battleship or cruiser, 1 destroyer and 1 large transport. (Morison Vol 4, pg 159) In actuality the USAAF missed with every single bomb. From the same page:

Quote

The A.A.F. pilots, of course, believed what they said, since it is almost impossible for a high-level bomber to distinguish between a hit and a near miss.

Hooligan

Wotan · « **Reply #6 on:** May 27, 2002, 03:37:16 PM »

some folks brought this up before as evidence of level bombers hitting ships. It was bs then its bs now.

Wait until the new bomb site and we will see how many moving and manuvering cvs are hit from alt in a level bomber.

Quote

Commander Hatano emerged, dripping, to remark quaintly, “Even the B-17s could make a hit once in a while!” He claimed that his ship was the first to be hit by Horizontal bombers during the war.

[/b]

Heinkel · « **Reply #7 on:** May 27, 2002, 03:39:07 PM »

I have read stories, of 100's of B17's being sent out to kill 1 building, and none of them are able too hit it. Now, not only do you have too hit a small target, but it is moving. If a lvl-bomber ever sunk a ship, it was probally more luck then anything.

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #8 on:** May 27, 2002, 04:25:58 PM »

Might as well just give this a rest until 1.10. There will be a change in B-17 accuracy... we just don't know how much of one.

...and... I guarantee that the % of times a buff sinks a CV in AH does not compare to the number of times a buff sank a ship in WW2.

AKDejaVu

Revvin · « **Reply #9 on:** May 27, 2002, 04:36:40 PM »

Quote

...and... I guarantee that the % of times a buff sinks a CV in AH does not compare to the number of times a buff sank a ship in WW2

Not advocating either side of the argument but lets put some perspective on the above comment....AH pilots do many many more sorties than the real life pilots did so to compare percentages to real life would not be entirely accurate.

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #10 on:** May 27, 2002, 05:12:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Revvin

Not advocating either side of the argument but lets put some perspective on the above comment....AH pilots do many many more sorties than the real life pilots did so to compare percentages to real life would not be entirely accurate.

Ummm.... let's put this into perspective...

How many CVs do you see sunk by bombers in AH? What % of the time do bombers do it?

It has nothing to do with experience... anyone can up in a lanc and nail a CV from 10k. Anyone. Technically... our gunners, fighters and attack plane pilots are also much more experienced and well practiced... yet the bombers are the most effective weapons against carriers.

Bombers are currently used in such an ahistorical manner that it really isn't funny. The concessions that are required to get people to fly them... sigh.

I welcome any attempt to return the buff utilization to anything more historical than we currently have. I look forward, very much so, to the release of 1.10.

AKDejaVu

loser · « **Reply #11 on:** May 27, 2002, 05:36:43 PM »

just as 95% or more of all fighter sorties are made ahistorically?

Revvin · « **Reply #12 on:** May 27, 2002, 05:49:08 PM »

The comment was made to yours about their effectiveness once v1.10 comes along, besides there are plenty of concessions made to fighters...people in glass houses....

loser · « **Reply #13 on:** May 27, 2002, 06:01:17 PM »

okay sorry, that was one of those knee-jerk reaction posts.

Deja you deserve an elaboration.
1. How many cvs sunk by bombers and what %:

most if not all. unless the cv is killed after many "softenings" by suicide p38/p51 rocket or bomb runs.

2. No not everyone can do it. Sure a bomb run on a straight steaming undefended cv is a joke. But how often does this happen? Next to never. Unless the CV is 25 to 50 miles away from its "target" (in quotations because the cv is often sent on a pointless and non strategic journey to the nearest thing red) and no one is upping from it, a bomber, nay any plane, will be detected.

Let us take A28 in the Ndisles map.

The north country always snaps this base from the west country minutes after reset. I am north country and A28 is fine because it is so far away from west countries reach. No need for defense and definately no need for cap.

Some west country pilot sends the cv up the west side of the map to A28 because it is the closest enemy base and there is no fuss in regards to moving the cv waypoints to a24, 25 etc.

Ship guns start firing at 28 and base starts flashing before any west countrymen/women decide to up a carrier plane. THe alarm goes out, one or maybe two buffs go up.

West country now realizes they have a cv at 28 and start upping jabo planes. after all, dar bar only shows 2 north cons in sector.

The first f4u from the west country spots the buffs and flips out. He uses extreme caps to rally his team in support of a cv that is basically already dead (because it is so far from home and without support from any land base within 50 miles or more.)

The cv turns in circles madly as all other airborne defense is too low but to make a suicide gut run on the buffs and hope to kill them before or when they die.

Bombers have to guess the turns of the cv and hope for the bes t while shooting or at least scaring the cons rising up from below.

CV is sunk and the bombers are killed as they rtb.

3. Bombers can best kill cvs because of the ack that the task group has. With non specific damage models and one target fixed aaa on the ships, a fighter has little or no chance of killing a cv and rtbing. If a ship could be damaged selectively and its guns diabled as well as engines, magazines, screws,,,this would be different.

4. See my above post. All things in this game are used ahistorically. THis game would be incredibly boring and not worth plaing if anything was remotely historic.

5. Me too, should be fun

Thrawn · « **Reply #14 on:** May 27, 2002, 06:30:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKDejaVu
Ummm.... let's put this into perspective...

How many CVs do you see sunk by bombers in AH? What % of the time do bombers do it?

It has nothing to do with experience... anyone can up in a lanc and nail a CV from 10k. Anyone. Technically... our gunners, fighters and attack plane pilots are also much more experienced and well practiced... yet the bombers are the most effective weapons against carriers.

Bombers are currently used in such an ahistorical manner that it really isn't funny. The concessions that are required to get people to fly them... sigh.

AKDejaVu

Ships in WW2 had a full complement of crew to look for bombers and manuver the ship, in AH they do not. I imagine this also affects the number of ships that die to level bombing in AH.