Need new graphic for Zero vs B-17 interception

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Post Reply
User avatar
Kwik E Mart
Posts: 2447
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 10:42 pm

Need new graphic for Zero vs B-17 interception

Post by Kwik E Mart »

Attachments
ae.jpg
ae.jpg (127.51 KiB) Viewed 114 times
Kirk Lazarus: I know who I am. I'm the dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude!
Ron Swanson: Clear alcohols are for rich women on diets.

Image
User avatar
freeboy
Posts: 8969
Joined: Sun May 16, 2004 9:33 am
Location: Colorado

RE: Need new graphic for Zero vs B-17 interception

Post by freeboy »

I cannot remembe rthe title, BUT in witp research, I remember reading about attacks using PHOSPEROUS against 4E bombers over Japan...
"Tanks forward"
User avatar
redcoat
Posts: 1034
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 9:48 am
Location: UK

RE: Need new graphic for Zero vs B-17 interception

Post by redcoat »


Phosphorus bombs from Time Life’s The Road to Tokyo.

Image

Caption: Heading home from a raid on Iwo Jima, B-24s pass through a shower of incendiary fragments from two phosphorus bombs dropped by Japanese fighters flying high above. Though this spectacular weapon damaged many planes, it failed to knock down a single Liberator..

Another photo from Time Life.

Image


“‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’”

George Orwell, 1984
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Need new graphic for Zero vs B-17 interception

Post by wdolson »

The Germans tried the same thing.  Dropping bombs on formations of heavy bombers turned out to be mostly a waste of explosives.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
User avatar
Kwik E Mart
Posts: 2447
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 10:42 pm

RE: Need new graphic for Zero vs B-17 interception

Post by Kwik E Mart »

would still make a cool graphic in the combat replay [X(]
Kirk Lazarus: I know who I am. I'm the dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude!
Ron Swanson: Clear alcohols are for rich women on diets.

Image
User avatar
CapAndGown
Posts: 3078
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Virginia, USA

RE: Need new graphic for Zero vs B-17 interception

Post by CapAndGown »

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The Germans tried the same thing.  Dropping bombs on formations of heavy bombers turned out to be mostly a waste of explosives.

Bill

I suppose. But wouldn't it be possible for one of these "bombs" to be more accurate than AAA? Course, you can't deploy as many of these bombs as you can cannons on the ground.

Dili
Posts: 4713
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: Need new graphic for Zero vs B-17 interception

Post by Dili »

Italians tried the same thing at time of Sicily Invasion. The air to air bomb problems are mostly due to diffculty of launching the bomb correctly for the fuze set time.
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Need new graphic for Zero vs B-17 interception

Post by wdolson »

With AA, a heavily defended site will have possibly 100+ guns all firing multiple rounds a minute.  If they have the fuse set to the right altitude, that's a lot of shrapnel among the bombers with the occasional direct hit or near miss that can be devastating.  With bombs used for AA, there are only one, or maybe a couple per plane.  The pilot needs to judge his altitude above the bombers to drop his bombs for his fuse settings.  Being off be 500 feet means all bombs miss by a significant margin.

AA guns can just put more steel in the area of the target than aircraft dropping bombs and there is more room for correction as they fire.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
bklooste
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:47 am

RE: Need new graphic for Zero vs B-17 interception

Post by bklooste »

yep 120 lb zero bomb is about the same a 6 88mm rounds in weight ( and the rounds would cover more area). The fuse would be a royal pain.


ORIGINAL: wdolson

With AA, a heavily defended site will have possibly 100+ guns all firing multiple rounds a minute.  If they have the fuse set to the right altitude, that's a lot of shrapnel among the bombers with the occasional direct hit or near miss that can be devastating.  With bombs used for AA, there are only one, or maybe a couple per plane.  The pilot needs to judge his altitude above the bombers to drop his bombs for his fuse settings.  Being off be 500 feet means all bombs miss by a significant margin.

AA guns can just put more steel in the area of the target than aircraft dropping bombs and there is more room for correction as they fire.

Bill
Underdog Fanboy
Swenslim
Posts: 437
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 7:34 pm
Location: Odessa, Ukraine

RE: Need new graphic for Zero vs B-17 interception

Post by Swenslim »

Why they didnt use non-guided rockets ?
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Need new graphic for Zero vs B-17 interception

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: Swenslim

Why they didnt use non-guided rockets ?

The Germans did. They had very limited success - not really effective.
xj900uk
Posts: 1342
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:26 pm

RE: Need new graphic for Zero vs B-17 interception

Post by xj900uk »

Don't 4get the British and their para-bomb, which was dusted off the invention scrap-heap and got ready for the feared Seelowe.
Apparently this was absolutely lethal and caused loads of casualties, but only to the ground crews who had to prepare and launch the thing...
John Lansford
Posts: 2664
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 12:40 am

RE: Need new graphic for Zero vs B-17 interception

Post by John Lansford »

The Germans also dropped smaller bombs attached to parachutes when attacking the big bomber formations.  The parachutes drifted through the formations and while few if any bombers ever hit them, they had to break formation to avoid them and often that was all they wanted anyway.
 
Same with the 8cm rockets they'd fire at the bombers.  A single rocket would destroy a bomber, but they were very effective in breaking up the formation and reducing their mutual supporting firepower. 
Fishbed
Posts: 1822
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:52 am
Location: Beijing, China - Paris, France

RE: Need new graphic for Zero vs B-17 interception

Post by Fishbed »

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

Don't 4get the British and their para-bomb, which was dusted off the invention scrap-heap and got ready for the feared Seelowe.
Apparently this was absolutely lethal and caused loads of casualties, but only to the ground crews who had to prepare and launch the thing...

Actually they also had a much simpler system in use for airfield defense too: they would have rocket cable sent in the sky at the approaching bombers - and in the same fashion as barrage balloon, a low-alt plane's wing catching the wire would bring it with itself and trigger parachutes opening at both ends, destabilizing the plane and sending it to the ground. It actually worked pretty well from an AAR I read about a low-alt attack that went really very wrong for a staffel of Do-17z
User avatar
redcoat
Posts: 1034
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 9:48 am
Location: UK

RE: Need new graphic for Zero vs B-17 interception

Post by redcoat »


The Japanese also used some air-to-air rockets. The IJN and IJA both developed rockets although I suspect that the IJN used more of them in combat.

These rockets were armed with white/yellow phosphorus – like the air-to-air bombs developed by the Japanese.

A picture from an AAF intelligence report showing a failed attack on a B-29 with such a rocket.

Image

A photo of a Ki-43 Hayabusa with an air-to-air rocket. Taken during a test.

Image
“‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’”

George Orwell, 1984
User avatar
morganbj
Posts: 3472
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:36 am
Location: Mosquito Bite, Texas

RE: Need new graphic for Zero vs B-17 interception

Post by morganbj »

Politicians have put more planes on the ground than anything.
Occasionally, and randomly, problems and solutions collide. The probability of these collisions is inversely related to the number of committees working on the solutions. -- Me.
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Need new graphic for Zero vs B-17 interception

Post by Chickenboy »

I wonder what some of those IJ pilots would be thinking if they were trying to air-bomb over their home turf. I'd feel pretty bad watching a stick of bombs (or parachute bombs, whatever) that I dropped miss the Allied bombers and drift into some residential neighborhood that I'm trying to protect.
Image
Dili
Posts: 4713
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: Need new graphic for Zero vs B-17 interception

Post by Dili »

London had 7000 casualities due to own flak.
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Need new graphic for Zero vs B-17 interception

Post by wdolson »

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I wonder what some of those IJ pilots would be thinking if they were trying to air-bomb over their home turf. I'd feel pretty bad watching a stick of bombs (or parachute bombs, whatever) that I dropped miss the Allied bombers and drift into some residential neighborhood that I'm trying to protect.

When attempts were made to drop bombs as AA, the bombs were usually altitude fused so they would go off before hitting the ground.

There still would be shrapnel raining from the sky though.

I once knew a guy who's father was a fighter pilot near the end of WW II and he had been assigned ground spotting duty with the infantry. He would direct the fighters in on ground attack missions. When the fighters went over, they would open up over their own lines and there would be a hail of .50 caliber shell casings. Everybody would duck for cover. He didn't recall anybody being seriously hurt, but everyone was covered with bruises. Air resistance would slow the casings down some, but they were still probably traveling over 100 mph when they hit.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”