B-17s in Pacific during WW2 hypothetical

[[email protected]]

I'm aware that B-17s attacked Japanese Shipping during WW2
(battle of Midway comes to mind), but that they were way too
high and didn't hit anything.

Speaking hypothetically, would it have radically improved anthing
if the B-17 attacked from a much lower altitude?

I'm thinking that the B-17 was a pretty tough plane, as proven
over bombing raids in Europe. And wonder if it could
survive the AA and CAP that the Japanese put up that so easily
downed the Vindicators? Speed and multiple engines come to
mind.

Still, would bombing accuracy have improved to a point that
hitting a Japanses CV would have been possible.

I have this (crazy?) picture of a B-17 lining up with a Japanese
carrier (lengthwise) and dropping a stick of bombs on it. Wonder
what the spread would be at different speeds and the intervals
between bombs. Thanks, to the SBDs, this was not needed, but
just curious.

Come to think of it, the Carriers would and did perform evasive
movements, so skip that requirement that the B-17 would
line up with the keel of the carriers.

[[email protected]]

On 5 Oct 2005 12:18:58 -0700, wrote:

>I'm aware that B-17s attacked Japanese Shipping during WW2
>(battle of Midway comes to mind), but that they were way too
>high and didn't hit anything.

Targets moving at 25+ kts. are difficult to hit.

>Speaking hypothetically, would it have radically improved anthing
>if the B-17 attacked from a much lower altitude?

Yes.

>I'm thinking that the B-17 was a pretty tough plane, as proven
>over bombing raids in Europe. And wonder if it could
>survive the AA and CAP that the Japanese put up that so easily
>downed the Vindicators? Speed and multiple engines come to
>mind.

So do 8th AF losses over Europe to flak and fighters.

Of course if the ships are inadequately protected or you can overwhelm
the defenses then you might be able to reprise the fate of HMS PRINCE
OF WALES and REPULSE.

>Still, would bombing accuracy have improved to a point that
>hitting a Japanses CV would have been possible.

Yes, if you were willing to take the casualties.

>I have this (crazy?) picture of a B-17 lining up with a Japanese
>carrier (lengthwise) and dropping a stick of bombs on it. Wonder
>what the spread would be at different speeds and the intervals
>between bombs. Thanks, to the SBDs, this was not needed, but
>just curious.

In horizontal bombing of a moving target you aim your bombs where the
target will be, not where it is. (Query: could the Norden bombsight
factor in target speed, or was it designed to only engage stationary
targets?) The captain of the target is watching the bomber and can
see the release. The ship is also manuevering to deny the bombadier
that nice target line that you desire!

Terminal velocity of the bomb is about 800 ft./sec. (per
naca.larc.nasa.gov/digidoc/report/tr/79/NACA-TR-79.PDF ). So for
every 5000 feet of altitude the bomb has to travel the ship's captain
has about 6.25 sec. to get out of the way. Actually, he has a bit
more because the bomb has to fall some distance to achieve terminal
velocity. Then there's aircraft drift, wind, sea state, etc. to
consider. Not a simple problem, eh? :-)
>
>Come to think of it, the Carriers would and did perform evasive
>movements, so skip that requirement that the B-17 would
>line up with the keel of the carriers.

Ayup. :-)

Here's something to test you math skills:

http://www.saltspring.com/brochmann/math/Ballistic/Ball-1.00.html

Bill Kambic

Who was pretty good glide bombing in a Stoof using "Kentucky Windage"!

[Keith W]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I'm aware that B-17s attacked Japanese Shipping during WW2
> (battle of Midway comes to mind), but that they were way too
> high and didn't hit anything.
>
> Speaking hypothetically, would it have radically improved anthing
> if the B-17 attacked from a much lower altitude?
>

Only if the crews were trained appropriately

> I'm thinking that the B-17 was a pretty tough plane, as proven
> over bombing raids in Europe. And wonder if it could
> survive the AA and CAP that the Japanese put up that so easily
> downed the Vindicators? Speed and multiple engines come to
> mind.
>

Get down low and you are much more vulnerable to
flak

> Still, would bombing accuracy have improved to a point that
> hitting a Japanses CV would have been possible.
>
> I have this (crazy?) picture of a B-17 lining up with a Japanese
> carrier (lengthwise) and dropping a stick of bombs on it. Wonder
> what the spread would be at different speeds and the intervals
> between bombs. Thanks, to the SBDs, this was not needed, but
> just curious.
>

I suspect the Nordern bombsight wasnt well suited to hitting
moving targets. RAF coastal command and the Fleet Air Arm
used a special version of the Course-setting Bomb Sight
(the Mark IXC) which had ground speed bars calibrated in knots
and were optimised for lower altitude work.

> Come to think of it, the Carriers would and did perform evasive
> movements, so skip that requirement that the B-17 would
> line up with the keel of the carriers.
>

A better approach was normally to drop the stick at
a relatively shallow angle to the ships course so that
at least one bomb would hit the target.

The Lancaster bomber was designed to be able to
attack in a 30 degree dive and had a bomb bay large
enough to take aerial torpedoes although I dont think
were ever actually carried.

Keith

[Gord Beaman]

"Keith W" > wrote:
snip
>
>The Lancaster bomber was designed to be able to
>attack in a 30 degree dive and had a bomb bay large
>enough to take aerial torpedoes although I dont think
>were ever actually carried.
>
>Keith
>
Perhaps not in anger but they certainly were carried in practice
runs and in peacetime...we used to drop them (unarmed) from
Lancasters on submarines for ASW practice in the fifties...(mk
43's?). we also dropped live mk54 depth charges from Lancasters
on smoke markers in the same timeframe...

Jeeez, those suckers put up one big geyser of water I'll tell
you...we'd drop one (from about 100 ft) then climb rapidly and
wheel around and watch the entry point near the smoke marker
target...all'd be quiet for a few seconds except for the smoke
and a small white splash point where the charge went in...then,
suddenly a big area of white water would appear, maybe 3-400 feet
across and seconds later a humongous waterspout of solid black
water would shoot straight up from the centre of the white area
maybe 100 feet high...

Spec..frickin..tacular!!..WooHoo!!.

--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[[email protected]]

In the ETO highlevel bombers occasionally hit ships in harbor. But at
sea the bloody things insist on evading once they see the bombs come
out of the bomb bay. BTW wouldn't an artificial wind input to the
Norden bombsight compensate for ship travel? I know you treat target
motion the same as wind in dive bombing and strafe. However, during the
Bismarck Sea episode low-level skip bombing was murderous in every
sense of the word. There were plenty of medium bombers - mostly B25s
with up to 8 50-cal in the nose for SEAD so the heavies weren't needed.
BTW there is a late book out on the Bismarck Sea Battle (q.v.) so root
it out of your local library - very good read.
Walt BJ

[Peter Stickney]

wrote:

> On 5 Oct 2005 12:18:58 -0700, wrote:
>
>>I'm aware that B-17s attacked Japanese Shipping during WW2
>>(battle of Midway comes to mind), but that they were way too
>>high and didn't hit anything.
>
> Targets moving at 25+ kts. are difficult to hit.
>
>>Speaking hypothetically, would it have radically improved anthing
>>if the B-17 attacked from a much lower altitude?
>
> Yes.

A lesser time of fall, certainly.
There were, apparantly some extreme examples. I've hears stories of
B-17s making night skip-bombing raids on Rabaul Harbor.

>>I'm thinking that the B-17 was a pretty tough plane, as proven
>>over bombing raids in Europe. And wonder if it could
>>survive the AA and CAP that the Japanese put up that so easily
>>downed the Vindicators? Speed and multiple engines come to
>>mind.
>
> So do 8th AF losses over Europe to flak and fighters.

It's a big target, and a head-on run at a ship is a zero deflection
shot by its AA gunners.

> Of course if the ships are inadequately protected or you can
> overwhelm the defenses then you might be able to reprise the fate of
> HMS PRINCE
> OF WALES and REPULSE.

Most of the damage to Repulse and Prince of Wales was by torpedoes,
IIRC.

>>Still, would bombing accuracy have improved to a point that
>>hitting a Japanses CV would have been possible.
>
> Yes, if you were willing to take the casualties.
>
>>I have this (crazy?) picture of a B-17 lining up with a Japanese
>>carrier (lengthwise) and dropping a stick of bombs on it. Wonder
>>what the spread would be at different speeds and the intervals
>>between bombs. Thanks, to the SBDs, this was not needed, but
>>just curious.
>
> In horizontal bombing of a moving target you aim your bombs where
> the
> target will be, not where it is. (Query: could the Norden
> bombsight factor in target speed, or was it designed to only engage
> stationary
> targets?) The captain of the target is watching the bomber and can
> see the release. The ship is also manuevering to deny the bombadier
> that nice target line that you desire!

The Norden worked by tracking the target - the Bombardier put the
crosshairs on the target, and started tracking it manually (Twist
knobs to keep the crosshairs on target) When the sight was properly
tracking, it would keep the crosshairs on target by itself. When the
appropriate release point was reached, as determined by the
airplane's altitude, speed, attitude, (You could be climbing or
gliding with a Norden, within certain limits) the ambient conditions,
and the bomb's ballistic characteristics as dialed into the sight, it
would automatically release the bombs.
There was a minimum altitude, which was driven by how fast the sights
tracking motors could drive the crosshairs.
So - since you weren't squinting at a spot on the ground, but
tracking the target relative to the bomber, it would compute for a
moving target. The Norden was developed by the Navy, y'know. I
think they had ships in mind. Every Torpedo Bomber could carry one,
for use in their level bombing role (Which they rarely did), and
every Patrol Bomber carried one.
The drawbacks are that if the ship jinks, it screws up the tracking
solution, and you've got to re-synchronize and let the sight settle.

>
> Terminal velocity of the bomb is about 800 ft./sec. (per
> naca.larc.nasa.gov/digidoc/report/tr/79/NACA-TR-79.PDF ). So for
> every 5000 feet of altitude the bomb has to travel the ship's
> captain
> has about 6.25 sec. to get out of the way. Actually, he has a bit
> more because the bomb has to fall some distance to achieve terminal
> velocity. Then there's aircraft drift, wind, sea state, etc. to
> consider. Not a simple problem, eh? :-)

That speed depends on the bomb. It's about right for a GP bomb shape,
but an Armor Piercing Bomb would fall faster.
But you're right - that bomb's falling a long time. It doesn't take
much to make it miss.

>>Come to think of it, the Carriers would and did perform evasive
>>movements, so skip that requirement that the B-17 would
>>line up with the keel of the carriers.
>
> Ayup. :-)

> Who was pretty good glide bombing in a Stoof using "Kentucky
> Windage"!

The other options are skip bombing (A low fast approach, dropping the
bombs well short, and having them skip off the water into the ship's
side down near the waterline. The problems are that you've got to
fly straight at the target, giving his now highly motivated AA
gunners an easy no-lead shot, and the fact that you and the bomb will
be arriving at the ship at the same time. You can get hot with the
bomb, or, if it fuzes early, it blows up underneath you.
The other option is torpedoes. Army Medium Bombers - the early B-25
and B-26 in particular, could carry torps. The only problem, (Other
than the alien notion that the Army would drop torpedoes) was that
those airplanes really didn't like to slow down to the roughly 90 Kt
airspeed that was necessary to keep the torpedo from breaking up.

--
Pete Stickney
Java Man knew nothing about coffee.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

wrote in message . com>...
>
>I'm aware that B-17s attacked Japanese Shipping during WW2
>(battle of Midway comes to mind), but that they were way too
>high and didn't hit anything.
>
>Speaking hypothetically, would it have radically improved anthing
>if the B-17 attacked from a much lower altitude?

Yes. The problem for the bombers is the similarly radical improvement
in the accuracy of the anti aircraft fire.

At the battle of the Bismarck Sea the Japanese force was 8 destroyers
and 8 transports.

On day 1 the B-17s apparently attacked from 6,500 feet, 2 attacks,
one of 8 the other of 20 B-17s, resulted in the sinking of one transport.
It would appear the smaller strike scored the hit(s). The Japanese
account says the height of the strike that sank the transport was 9,000 feet.

The next day the B-17s were "bombing from medium altitude (about
7,000 feet)" according to the RAAF account. The results of these
strikes are not easily distinguishable from the near simultaneous low
level attacks by Beaufighters, A-20s and B-25s.

Overall result 4 destroyers and 8 transports sunk, including a transport
finished off by PT boats and a destroyer finished off the third day.

>I'm thinking that the B-17 was a pretty tough plane, as proven
>over bombing raids in Europe.

Around twenty 20mm hits to bring down versus 2 to 3 German 30mm hits.

The light AA gun on the IJN ships was a 25mm piece in a triple mount.

>And wonder if it could
>survive the AA and CAP that the Japanese put up that so easily
>downed the Vindicators? Speed and multiple engines come to
>mind.

The B-17s would have survived air attacks better, the simple reality
a bigger aircraft is normally harder to shoot down. The Vindicators
needed to keep their speed down during their glide bombing attack.

>Still, would bombing accuracy have improved to a point that
>hitting a Japanses CV would have been possible.

The trade off is the improved accuracy of the anti aircraft fire
and greater ease of interception by defending fighters.

>I have this (crazy?) picture of a B-17 lining up with a Japanese
>carrier (lengthwise) and dropping a stick of bombs on it.

This requires some co-operation by the carrier, given the sensible
thing is for it to be continually changing course making it hard to
line up.

>Wonder
>what the spread would be at different speeds and the intervals
>between bombs. Thanks, to the SBDs, this was not needed, but
>just curious.

Simply put the higher the speed the greater the spread between
the bombs and the higher the errors.

>Come to think of it, the Carriers would and did perform evasive
>movements, so skip that requirement that the B-17 would
>line up with the keel of the carriers.

The tactical diameter of the USS Enterprise, CV-6, is given as
790 yards at 30 knots, or a circle around 2.25 nautical miles,
traversed in 4.5 minutes or a course change of around 80
degrees per minute, while moving 500 yards per minute. A
4 mile bomb run at 240 mph will take 1 minute.


Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[Keith W]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Keith W" > wrote:
> snip
>>
>>The Lancaster bomber was designed to be able to
>>attack in a 30 degree dive and had a bomb bay large
>>enough to take aerial torpedoes although I dont think
>>were ever actually carried.
>>
>>Keith
>>
> Perhaps not in anger but they certainly were carried in practice
> runs and in peacetime...we used to drop them (unarmed) from
> Lancasters on submarines for ASW practice in the fifties...(mk
> 43's?). we also dropped live mk54 depth charges from Lancasters
> on smoke markers in the same timeframe...
>

Thanks Gord I forgot that the Canadians used them for ASW.
The original spec issued by the Air Ministry envisage them
being used against surface ships.

Imagine doing a torpedo run against the Bismarck in a Lancaster !


> Jeeez, those suckers put up one big geyser of water I'll tell
> you...we'd drop one (from about 100 ft) then climb rapidly and
> wheel around and watch the entry point near the smoke marker
> target...all'd be quiet for a few seconds except for the smoke
> and a small white splash point where the charge went in...then,
> suddenly a big area of white water would appear, maybe 3-400 feet
> across and seconds later a humongous waterspout of solid black
> water would shoot straight up from the centre of the white area
> maybe 100 feet high...
>
> Spec..frickin..tacular!!..WooHoo!!.
>

Sounds fun :)

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 00:56:43 -0400, Peter Stickney
> wrote:

<snipped for brevity here and there>

>> Of course if the ships are inadequately protected or you can
>> overwhelm the defenses then you might be able to reprise the fate of
>> HMS PRINCE
>> OF WALES and REPULSE.
>
>Most of the damage to Repulse and Prince of Wales was by torpedoes,
>IIRC.

You might be right. Of course, the torpedo bombers at Midway suffered
massive casualties because the targets were well protected by fighters
and motivated AA crews. If you can split the defense using a "HI-LO"
sort of attack (which was the tactic, IIRC) then your torpedo aircraft
might fare better.

>The Norden worked by tracking the target - the Bombardier put the
>crosshairs on the target, and started tracking it manually (Twist
>knobs to keep the crosshairs on target) When the sight was properly
>tracking, it would keep the crosshairs on target by itself. When the
>appropriate release point was reached, as determined by the
>airplane's altitude, speed, attitude, (You could be climbing or
>gliding with a Norden, within certain limits) the ambient conditions,
>and the bomb's ballistic characteristics as dialed into the sight, it
>would automatically release the bombs.
>There was a minimum altitude, which was driven by how fast the sights
>tracking motors could drive the crosshairs.
>So - since you weren't squinting at a spot on the ground, but
>tracking the target relative to the bomber, it would compute for a
>moving target. The Norden was developed by the Navy, y'know. I
>think they had ships in mind. Every Torpedo Bomber could carry one,
>for use in their level bombing role (Which they rarely did), and
>every Patrol Bomber carried one.
>The drawbacks are that if the ship jinks, it screws up the tracking
>solution, and you've got to re-synchronize and let the sight settle.

Thanks for info on the Norden. I was not aware of its roots.

>> Terminal velocity of the bomb is about 800 ft./sec. (per
>> naca.larc.nasa.gov/digidoc/report/tr/79/NACA-TR-79.PDF ). So for
>> every 5000 feet of altitude the bomb has to travel the ship's
>> captain
>> has about 6.25 sec. to get out of the way. Actually, he has a bit
>> more because the bomb has to fall some distance to achieve terminal
>> velocity. Then there's aircraft drift, wind, sea state, etc. to
>> consider. Not a simple problem, eh? :-)
>
>That speed depends on the bomb. It's about right for a GP bomb shape,
>but an Armor Piercing Bomb would fall faster.
>But you're right - that bomb's falling a long time. It doesn't take
>much to make it miss.

IIRC an AP has to hit a solid target to detonate. A GP bomb would
often detonate at water entry, or could be fitted with a shallow depth
fuse (I don't know if an AP bomb could be similarly fitted). While a
hit is better than a miss, a near miss by a large GP bomb can still
cause significant damage to a ship by weakening or opening seams.
Multiple near misses can be fatal.

>>>Come to think of it, the Carriers would and did perform evasive
>>>movements, so skip that requirement that the B-17 would
>>>line up with the keel of the carriers.
>>
>> Ayup. :-)
>
>> Who was pretty good glide bombing in a Stoof using "Kentucky
>> Windage"!
>
>The other options are skip bombing (A low fast approach, dropping the
>bombs well short, and having them skip off the water into the ship's
>side down near the waterline. The problems are that you've got to
>fly straight at the target, giving his now highly motivated AA
>gunners an easy no-lead shot, and the fact that you and the bomb will
>be arriving at the ship at the same time. You can get hot with the
>bomb, or, if it fuzes early, it blows up underneath you.

Skip bombing was widely used against merchant targets, but it's more
problematical against a warship due to the volume of AA fire the crew
faces. I see it as VERY costly against a high value military target
surrounded by a screen of escorts in an AA formation.

>The other option is torpedoes. Army Medium Bombers - the early B-25
>and B-26 in particular, could carry torps. The only problem, (Other
>than the alien notion that the Army would drop torpedoes) was that
>those airplanes really didn't like to slow down to the roughly 90 Kt
>airspeed that was necessary to keep the torpedo from breaking up.

Skip bombing and torpedo attacks have the same difficulty: you have to
get in close to the target, slow and at low altititude. Against
merchant ships this is a doable thing. Against a properly protected
high value target you will loose a LOT of aircraft (a la Midway).

Bill Kambic

[Guy Alcala]

wrote:

> On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 00:56:43 -0400, Peter Stickney
> > wrote:
>
> <snipped for brevity here and there>
>
> >> Of course if the ships are inadequately protected or you can
> >> overwhelm the defenses then you might be able to reprise the fate of
> >> HMS PRINCE
> >> OF WALES and REPULSE.
> >
> >Most of the damage to Repulse and Prince of Wales was by torpedoes,
> >IIRC.
>
> You might be right.

He is. All the significant damage was due to torps. IIRR Repulse suffered
either one or two hits by 250kg.bombs, but the damage was relatively minor.
It was the five torp hits that sank her, and the 7 or so (and no bomb hits
IIRC) that did for PoW.

<snip>

>The Norden worked by tracking the target - the Bombardier put the

> >crosshairs on the target, and started tracking it manually (Twist
> >knobs to keep the crosshairs on target) When the sight was properly
> >tracking, it would keep the crosshairs on target by itself. When the
> >appropriate release point was reached, as determined by the
> >airplane's altitude, speed, attitude, (You could be climbing or
> >gliding with a Norden, within certain limits) the ambient conditions,
> >and the bomb's ballistic characteristics as dialed into the sight, it
> >would automatically release the bombs.
> >There was a minimum altitude, which was driven by how fast the sights
> >tracking motors could drive the crosshairs.
> >So - since you weren't squinting at a spot on the ground, but
> >tracking the target relative to the bomber, it would compute for a
> >moving target. The Norden was developed by the Navy, y'know. I
> >think they had ships in mind. Every Torpedo Bomber could carry one,
> >for use in their level bombing role (Which they rarely did), and
> >every Patrol Bomber carried one.
> >The drawbacks are that if the ship jinks, it screws up the tracking
> >solution, and you've got to re-synchronize and let the sight settle.
>
> Thanks for info on the Norden. I was not aware of its roots.

For a history of the Norden as well as most other pre-war US (and allied)
bombsights, see "America's Pursuit of Precision Bombing, 1910-1945", by
Stephen L. McFarland. The book includes details of how it worked, the
political fight between the navy and the Army over control of production
and access to it, development and production issues, German pre-war
espionage that rendered moot most of the elaborate wartime security
measures (they had a similar tachymetric bombsight of their own), accuracy
achieved in test and combat, statistical studies of the factors that
degraded accuracy, and so on.

<snip>

Guy

[Gord Beaman]

"Keith W" > wrote:

>Imagine doing a torpedo run against the Bismarck in a Lancaster !
>
>
Keerist yes!...I think our best defense against the very
motivated AA gunners on the Bismarck would have been their mirth
at seeing the Engineer firing those two puny .303 Brownings from
the front turret as they sawed our wings off between their peals
of laughter!...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[[email protected]]

Gordo - I have read that the Swordfish survived their torpedo runs
against Bismarck because a) the flak gun sights couldn't be set to an
airspeed low enough and b) none of the gunners believed the Stringbags
were so slow during the attack. So - topredo attack speed for a Lanc -
<90 knots? (Not I, thank you!)
Walt BJ

[Peter Skelton]

On 6 Oct 2005 19:08:00 -0700, wrote:

>Gordo - I have read that the Swordfish survived their torpedo runs
>against Bismarck because a) the flak gun sights couldn't be set to an
>airspeed low enough and b) none of the gunners believed the Stringbags
>were so slow during the attack. So - topredo attack speed for a Lanc -
><90 knots? (Not I, thank you!)
>Walt BJ

We get this a lot on SMN.

Swordfish were faster than the target towers the Germans used for
practice. They were also pretty much typical torpedo aircraft for
a couple of years before the action. Even at the time of the
action, the maximum torpedo drop speed was around 100 kts.

Bsimarck missed the Swordfish because of the rotten shooting
conditions (ship and planes bouncing around, poor visibility),
because the gunners were very tired because it's bloody hard to
hit aircraft at the best of times.

Peter Skelton

[Gord Beaman]

wrote:

>Gordo - I have read that the Swordfish survived their torpedo runs
>against Bismarck because a) the flak gun sights couldn't be set to an
>airspeed low enough and b) none of the gunners believed the Stringbags
>were so slow during the attack. So - topredo attack speed for a Lanc -
><90 knots? (Not I, thank you!)
>Walt BJ

Nor I Walt...bloody Lanc was dangerous at any speed & altitude in
my estimation, can you imagine at 50 feet and say 80k? <shudder>
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[WaltBJ]

For Peter Sinclair - 'gunners were bloody tired' - I should think so -
I have read that they were kept at Action Stations for well over 72
hours. The RN can thank Adm Lutjens for his erroneous decisions during
the campaign.
Walt BJ

[Joe Osman]

Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
> wrote in message . com>...
> >
> >I'm aware that B-17s attacked Japanese Shipping during WW2
> >(battle of Midway comes to mind), but that they were way too
> >high and didn't hit anything.
> >
> >Speaking hypothetically, would it have radically improved anthing
> >if the B-17 attacked from a much lower altitude?
>
> Yes. The problem for the bombers is the similarly radical improvement
> in the accuracy of the anti aircraft fire.
>
> At the battle of the Bismarck Sea the Japanese force was 8 destroyers
> and 8 transports.
>
> On day 1 the B-17s apparently attacked from 6,500 feet, 2 attacks,
> one of 8 the other of 20 B-17s, resulted in the sinking of one transport.
> It would appear the smaller strike scored the hit(s). The Japanese
> account says the height of the strike that sank the transport was 9,000 feet.
>
> The next day the B-17s were "bombing from medium altitude (about
> 7,000 feet)" according to the RAAF account. The results of these
> strikes are not easily distinguishable from the near simultaneous low
> level attacks by Beaufighters, A-20s and B-25s.
>
> Overall result 4 destroyers and 8 transports sunk, including a transport
> finished off by PT boats and a destroyer finished off the third day.
>
> >I'm thinking that the B-17 was a pretty tough plane, as proven
> >over bombing raids in Europe.
>
> Around twenty 20mm hits to bring down versus 2 to 3 German 30mm hits.
>
> The light AA gun on the IJN ships was a 25mm piece in a triple mount.
>
> >And wonder if it could
> >survive the AA and CAP that the Japanese put up that so easily
> >downed the Vindicators? Speed and multiple engines come to
> >mind.
>
> The B-17s would have survived air attacks better, the simple reality
> a bigger aircraft is normally harder to shoot down. The Vindicators
> needed to keep their speed down during their glide bombing attack.
>
> >Still, would bombing accuracy have improved to a point that
> >hitting a Japanses CV would have been possible.
>
> The trade off is the improved accuracy of the anti aircraft fire
> and greater ease of interception by defending fighters.
>
> >I have this (crazy?) picture of a B-17 lining up with a Japanese
> >carrier (lengthwise) and dropping a stick of bombs on it.
>
> This requires some co-operation by the carrier, given the sensible
> thing is for it to be continually changing course making it hard to
> line up.
>
> >Wonder
> >what the spread would be at different speeds and the intervals
> >between bombs. Thanks, to the SBDs, this was not needed, but
> >just curious.
>
> Simply put the higher the speed the greater the spread between
> the bombs and the higher the errors.
>
> >Come to think of it, the Carriers would and did perform evasive
> >movements, so skip that requirement that the B-17 would
> >line up with the keel of the carriers.
>
> The tactical diameter of the USS Enterprise, CV-6, is given as
> 790 yards at 30 knots, or a circle around 2.25 nautical miles,
> traversed in 4.5 minutes or a course change of around 80
> degrees per minute, while moving 500 yards per minute. A
> 4 mile bomb run at 240 mph will take 1 minute.
>
>
> Geoffrey Sinclair
> Remove the nb for email.

The 69th Bombardment Squadron (Medium) dropped torpedoes
from B-26 Marauders at Midway.
It says at http://www.afa.org/magazine/valor/0486valor.html
that "Collins and his crews were given sketchy instruction
by the Navy in torpedo bombing, the most nearly suicidal air
tactic of the war,... According to Air Force historians, the
AAF never again sent torpedo-armed bombers into combat."

Later, both the 69th and 70th Bombardment Squadrons
(Medium), which also flew B-26 Marauders, practiced torpedo
bombing, but when they got to Guadalcanal the Navy took all
their torpedos.

The AAF also had some dive bomber squadrons at the beginning
of the war, but dropped the idea because they thought the
planes were too vulnerable during the long dive necessary
for dive bombing.

Joe

[Skyape]

I see the Term Flak used for Anti Aircraft Artillery a lot in this Thread.
I'm used to it, for here in Germany it mean's Flug Abwehr Kanone (~Anti
Aircraft Gun) or short Flak. Is there a different Story behind the use in
the english Language, or was the Term adopted ?

[Yeff]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 04:24:30 +0100, Skyape wrote:

> I see the Term Flak used for Anti Aircraft Artillery a lot in this Thread.
> I'm used to it, for here in Germany it mean's Flug Abwehr Kanone (~Anti
> Aircraft Gun) or short Flak. Is there a different Story behind the use in
> the english Language, or was the Term adopted ?

If the English language sees a word in another language it likes, it'll
threaten that language with a knife until the language turns over the word,
its wallet, and maybe its car keys.

Yes, "flak" was adopted from the German. It's not used to describe the gun
but the in-air explosions of the rounds fired by the guns.

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail fm

[Keith W]

"Skyape" > wrote in message
...
>I see the Term Flak used for Anti Aircraft Artillery a lot in this Thread.
> I'm used to it, for here in Germany it mean's Flug Abwehr Kanone (~Anti
> Aircraft Gun) or short Flak. Is there a different Story behind the use in
> the english Language, or was the Term adopted ?
>
>

It was adopted. It seems to have come into use in the RAF in around 1940
The more generic term at that time was Ack Ack but the term Flak Ship
was certainly used by RAF coastal command pilots in that time frame
to describe AA escorts for German coastal convoys.

Keith

[Skyape]

Thanks for all the answers.