B-17s in Pacific during WW2 hypothetical

"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)

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

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

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)

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

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

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 ?

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

"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

Thanks for all the answers.