|
professor_curly posted:Granted, we don't hear about it much, but the B-17 was designed for this exact job in mind (long range bomber flying out into the ocean, dropping bombs on ships before they can get close to shore). Was it really that much of a waste of time? Yes. Level bombing is pretty much not going to hit poo poo unless you just saturate the area with bombers.  Thats how accurate you are with level bombing. Thats the Hiryu being bombed by B-17s. Taking a length of ~750 feet, you have the bombers missing by at least 1000 feet, with some of the sticks going wide by like a quarter to a half mile. This is in almost perfect conditions too - no cloud cover, no AA, and probably no fighters harassment either. Saint Celestine fucked around with this message at 00:44 on May 19, 2016 |
#
?
May 19, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 11:17 |
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Yes. Level bombing is pretty much not going to hit poo poo unless you just saturate the area with bombers. B-17s were virtually useless in the Pacific. Didn't stop the Army from trying, there were even B-17s at Midway, but it's a rare airplane that was at home in both the European and Pacific theaters.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
professor_curly posted:Granted, we don't hear about it much, but the B-17 was designed for this exact job in mind (long range bomber flying out into the ocean, dropping bombs on ships before they can get close to shore). Was it really that much of a waste of time? The speed of a falling WWII bomb varied by type, but call it 1000 feet per second (since that makes calculating easier). At 13,000 feet, it takes a full 13 seconds for the bomb to hit the ground. A freighter could easily be doing ten miles an hour just poking around, while a destroyer at full power could hit 40+. Hard to hit something moving that fast with that long a delay to begin with. Add in the fact that any captain that knows he's under air attack is going to be making random course corrections and speed changes to throw off the aim, and hitting one becomes a matter of luck. What, by the way, is your source on the B-17 being designed for anti-ship patrol. It was an Army aircraft, ships were primarily the Navy's problem, and every source I've ever seen states that it was built from the beginning for the strategic factory-smashing role.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Yes. Level bombing is pretty much not going to hit poo poo unless you just saturate the area with bombers.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:What, by the way, is your source on the B-17 being designed for anti-ship patrol. It was an Army aircraft, ships were primarily the Navy's problem, and every source I've ever seen states that it was built from the beginning for the strategic factory-smashing role. It was in the original specifications that the Army laid out in 1934 for the design competition. A multi-ton bombload, flight ceiling above 24,000 feet, and be able to fly across the continental United States in one go at speeds approaching 250 mph. "It should also be capable of carrying its striking power far out to sea to intercept and destroy any enemy attempting to invade American shores." I haven't ever been able to find a copy of that order specifically, but it is referenced in the US Air Force Historical Study #6, "The Development of the Heavy Bomber: 1918-1944" which is available online through the Air Force Historical Research Agency. Indeed that's what the first YB-17's were used for - finding, intercepting and water-bombing the battleship Utah in a training exercise in 1937 and the more publicized intercept of the Italian cruise liner SS Rex,  It was mostly a smoke screen of course, a way to get funding for long-range bombers which the rest of the War Department didn't really see a need for, but expanded the role/power of the Army Air Corps. Officially though, that was the task that the Army had in mind when it got the B-17.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
Fascinating!
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
There's a book I read in college called "Rhetoric and Reality in Air Warfare:The Evolution of British and American Ideas about Strategic Bombing, 1914-1945" by Tami Biddle which examines the efficacy of strategic bombing in both World Wars. Short version: not particularly, but the doctrine had other uses. It's a great book if anyone wants to follow up on the recent conversation.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
The air force should never have been allowed to get a monopoly on land-based fixed wing aircraft. If I was in charge of the USF they'd only keep air superiority, strategic and interdiction bombing. RA Rx fucked around with this message at 04:58 on May 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:The speed of a falling WWII bomb varied by type, but call it 1000 feet per second (since that makes calculating easier). At 13,000 feet, it takes a full 13 seconds for the bomb to hit the ground. A freighter could easily be doing ten miles an hour just poking around, while a destroyer at full power could hit 40+. Hard to hit something moving that fast with that long a delay to begin with. Add in the fact that any captain that knows he's under air attack is going to be making random course corrections and speed changes to throw off the aim, and hitting one becomes a matter of luck. British Blenheims managed to completely surprise the Kido Butai in the Indian Ocean, but even then didn't hit anything.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 08:40
|
|
|
The british definition of a "hit" whilst strat bombing was very generous. It counted if they hit the city the factory was in. High altitude bombing was not very accurate. Generally they made up for this by volume.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 08:53
|
|
|
Lancasters were able to hit the Tirpitz pretty reliably.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
   Zero's are much better than Nates at this.  Hit!  Now, was she dropping off supplies, or evacking troops/planes?   The big news today is this -  Blood shall flow. Although I shall start with a bombardment.  I find this unlikely. Gort posted:Lancasters were able to hit the Tirpitz pretty reliably. Yeah, but they were Lancasters.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
Gort posted:Lancasters were able to hit the Tirpitz pretty reliably.  Target Tirpitz is a pretty good book, particularly the more insane schemes to sink it, like those poor unlucky midget subs. 
AceRimmer fucked around with this message at 17:51 on May 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
Nah the Tirpitz was targeted by what, six or seven heavy bomber raids over 1942, before the Lancasters finally got two tall boys into it on two different fairly massed raids, while it was stationary with the location exactly pinned down and them all flying over it relatively unmolested. That's off memory, might be wrong on some details, but it still took a fuckload of Lancasters and Halifaxes and then even more albacores and British naval strike craft to even get a hit. It just counted when they did, those Tallboy bombs are shipfuckers alright. Edit: actual details above! I stand corrected. I do know there were more raids before the successful one, where level bombing Lancasters, stirlings and Halifaxes achieved gently caress all Edit 2: holy poo poo the Wikipedia attacks on tirpitz gives you an idea of the accuracy levels! lenoon fucked around with this message at 18:02 on May 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Thats the Hiryu being bombed by B-17s. Taking a length of ~750 feet, you have the bombers missing by at least 1000 feet, with some of the sticks going wide by like a quarter to a half mile. This is in almost perfect conditions too - no cloud cover, no AA, and probably no fighters harassment either. I guess my point is that at Midway you had 4 essentially green bombers trying to attack an aware, evading warship that can go 34 knots and based on the smoke/splash if it had been going straight it would've run into one of those bomb lines. Sending twelve bombers against much slower, less evasive quarry like transports seems like it would have a far greater chance of success. It didn't play out that way in the war, but if somehow the AI has thrown a 2nd Bombardment Group-style unit lead by a Robert Olds into the Pacific I have no reason to doubt they would be able to pull this sort of thing off. 12 Bombers, 96 bombs, 2 hits at 13,000 feet? I don't find it that implausible.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
Tirpitz was essentially an over 800 ft long immobile target, and over the course of the three Tallboy raids they scored a total of 3 direct hits on it (plus a few near-misses). Given the number of bombs dropped, that equates to about a 5% hit rate, and that's with excellent bombing conditions (latter two raids had fairly good weather; all three didn't have to deal with fighter coverage or all that much AA coverage). As mentioned, the Tallboys were simply gargantuan bombs that were going to wreck anything they hit, so the lovely hit rate didn't really matter so long as they eventually hit with something. Case in point, the very first Tallboy that hit Tirpitz went entirely through the ship and exploded on the seabed. I'll repeat, the bomb went entirely through a battleship. 12,000 lb bombs do not gently caress around. Lord Koth fucked around with this message at 22:10 on May 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
Jaramin posted:Short version: not particularly, but the doctrine had other uses. By late 1945, it was pretty effective. .jpg)
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
Realistically the ecpending of heavy ordnance and bomber sorties on Tirpitz was a strategic loss for the force - those planes and heavy bombs could have been used way more efficiently. In other words - anti-shipping missions by general purpose bombers with no úrecision guided munitions were a waste of resources even when they reported some hits.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:By late 1945, it was pretty effective. It was pretty effective at giving the Soviets enough time to win the war against Japan, by destroying all of their remaining armies and crushing their hopes for a diplomatic solution to the war 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
What was the effectiveness of air-dropped torpedos? I know I could never make them work in "Aces of the Pacific"
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Well, they did effectively doom the OTHER battleship in the Atlantic. Then again, Midway had 1 successful offensive torpedo strike all day. And that was not airdropped.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:What was the effectiveness of air-dropped torpedos? Much like submarine torps: It's a function of the target's awareness, their momentum, and the derived turning arc required for avoidance, plus the issue of multiple torpedoes coming in at once from at least marginally different directions. For reference, the Repulse avoided 20 air launched torpedoes while also avoiding air dropped bombs prior to taking a hit in her final engagement.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Keep in mind a big issue with strategic bombers bombing land targets was just finding the drat target they were trying to bomb. No GPS or other advanced navigation systems. They were often off by miles as a result. I'm guessing bombers on a range, with a clearly marked target and no AAA fire, could do a decent job of getting hits close to a target.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Realistically the ecpending of heavy ordnance and bomber sorties on Tirpitz was a strategic loss for the force - those planes and heavy bombs could have been used way more efficiently. In other words - anti-shipping missions by general purpose bombers with no úrecision guided munitions were a waste of resources even when they reported some hits. How so? I thought I recalled the threat of Tirpitz was in its existence forcing the allies to devote additional resources to protect Soviet convoys.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
The Tirpitz was little more than a paper threat. By that point the Reich simply couldn't spare the fuel needed for their heavy units to sortie, not when the same amount of fuel put into submarines would not only do more damage to Allied shipping but have a much lower chance of loss. Even worse, after the loss of the Bismark Hitler became adamant that the heavy ships could only be used against inferior force to avoid the prestige loss that a sunken battleship would carry - even an obsolete WWI tub like the Ramillies would be enough to prevent an engagement, and permission to set out was usually denied because proof of the lack of enemy battleships was impossible to obtain.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Latewar you had a lot better chance of having a BB survive than a sub. After 43 the German subs started to have a REALLY bad time.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
Veloxyll posted:Latewar you had a lot better chance of having a BB survive than a sub. After 43 the German subs started to have a REALLY bad time. You'd lose some subs, yes. But the fuel needed for one sortie of a battleship could put quite a few subs in the water, and you wouldn't lose them all. Sending out a German battleship by 43 generally didn't mean you might lose it, but that you would lose it - the same air forces that were tearing up the U-boats would have no trouble putting paid to a battleship, particularly when Germany didn't possess enough ships to put up a decent AA barrage and Britain could lose six to one in BBs and come out ahead.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
   We begin to soften up Pegu.  We get some good hits in on a sub.   Welp, lets hope they make some foolish attacks on my forces.  Yeah, Like that. Thanks!  Well, Chunking is going to be the bloodbath we expected.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
So are there any reinforcements for Chungking
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
They exceed you in AV, preparation, and supply. You're going to need a strategy that works or you'll be thrown out in short order.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 06:52
|
|
|
Yeah, that lack of supply is going to doom this whole Chunking invasion in short order if you can't get it sorted out, Grey.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 06:59
|
|
|
Correct me if I'm wrong but... if Grey is attacking Chungking, doesn't that mean that supply doesn't leave for other units in China? 
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
Everyone settle in, Chungking will still be a bloodbath by the time Christmas rolls around.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 08:09
|
|
|
Holy moly!
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 08:51
|
|
|
He's got a road open for supply, so it should keep topped up.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
Yeah, I was afraid that something like this would await Grey Hunter at Chungking. Just play it defensively, dig in, and let the AI make mistakes for a while.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
So if Chungking is Japan's Kaifeng, what will be its weird "KIAfeng" nickname? "Chungkilling"?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
How much can the Chungking hex supply itself? Could you cut it off and then just sit there for a few months?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Shock attack Chungking. Do it. It's a great idea.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 11:17 |
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:So if Chungking is Japan's Kaifeng, what will be its weird "KIAfeng" nickname? "Chungkilling"? Chunkilling in the name of duh nuh , nuh nuh nuh nuh 
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 17:17
|
|
