Matrix Games Forums

Come and see us during the Spieltagen in Essen!New Screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTYCommand: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTY is now available!Frontline : The Longest Day Announced and in Beta!Command gets Wargame of the Year EditionDeal of the Week: Pandora SeriesPandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 1/30/2011 1:29:21 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4055
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: online
Try them out at 8000'. 

Heavy bombers are a bit wasted at low level, half the bombload and all.  And they are plenty accurate at 8000' if the crews are halfway competent.


_____________________________


(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 31
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 1/30/2011 6:03:58 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 14806
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Try them out at 8000'. 

Heavy bombers are a bit wasted at low level, half the bombload and all.  And they are plenty accurate at 8000' if the crews are halfway competent.



I thought half the bombload was only when low level against ships?

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 32
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 1/31/2011 2:31:57 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12271
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Try them out at 8000'. 

Heavy bombers are a bit wasted at low level, half the bombload and all.  And they are plenty accurate at 8000' if the crews are halfway competent.



I thought half the bombload was only when low level against ships?



exactly, only on naval attack below <6000ft is bomb load halved. You can attack an airfield at 100ft with full bomb load.

_____________________________


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 33
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 1/31/2011 5:31:42 PM   
traskott

 

Posts: 1154
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline
IIRC, IRL, B-29s made night low level attacks at japanese industry on 1945..Is this a valid option in WitPAE?

PS: The best option to the B-17F is landing next to the target and strafe it...Well, I did that on the (very) old Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe...

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 34
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 2/5/2011 12:30:44 AM   
T_Patch

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 1/29/2011
Status: offline
edit

< Message edited by T_Patch -- 2/5/2011 12:31:42 AM >

(in reply to Patbgaming)
Post #: 35
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 2/5/2011 1:43:45 AM   
bigred


Posts: 2893
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline
FYI-PUFF---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_AC-47_Spooky.

I have always wondered if any WW2 armamant could have been fitted onto a DC3.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigred

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

You are right, the lower the altitude at which your bombers make their runs, the greater the damage they will cause. However, the lower the altitude, the more bombers you will lose since more AA will be able to hit them. It's a trade-off that only you can determine if it is worthwhile. But to complain that your losses are too high when sending B17s in to "strafe" an airfield (that is how the game system treats a 100' air attack) does seem a little too much...

Well, maybe Mattep74 wanted to straf the air field w/ his .50 cal guns as well as drop bombs? Could be a good gun platform if they survive the flak, just like "c47 puff". If not any AA on hex then the b17 should be able to "straf". IIRC the .5 had a straight line bullet range of 1.5miles..side, bottom and top turrents could all "fix on" a target.


- I just about busted a gut at your reference to Puff! Of course Puff flies a tad bit above the 100ft level... <grin>

But I can just picture the light bulb going off in someone's head as they watched a B17 strafing an airfield... "You know - if we put a bunch of gattling guns in a C-47..." And thus the design concept for the Magic Dragon was born.

I guess the actual idea for the AC-47 came from Captain R. W. Terry watching DC-3s delivering mail. It's amazing where some people get their inspiration from.

"Puff the magic Dragon,
a bird of days long gone,
Came to fly the evening sky
In a land called Vietnam."

Author unkown



Ttfn,

Mike





< Message edited by bigred -- 2/5/2011 1:46:40 AM >

(in reply to 1EyedJacks)
Post #: 36
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 2/5/2011 11:47:20 AM   
Dobey

 

Posts: 398
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: traskott

IIRC, IRL, B-29s made night low level attacks at japanese industry on 1945..Is this a valid option in WitPAE?

PS: The best option to the B-17F is landing next to the target and strafe it...Well, I did that on the (very) old Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe...





LOL.

I think EVERYONE did, at least once.

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 37
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 2/6/2011 7:56:22 AM   
thegreatwent


Posts: 3009
Joined: 8/24/2004
From: Denver, CO
Status: offline
quote:

"Puff the magic Dragon,
a bird of days long gone,
Came to fly the evening sky
In a land called Vietnam."

Author unkown


I learned that as


"Puff the magic Dragon/
killed the Vietcong/
and frolicked in the Autumn mist/
in the hills outside Saigon"

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 38
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 2/11/2011 3:26:41 PM   
Erkki


Posts: 1444
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
By the way... I understand that by the time the Japanese get the Ki-67 it might not make it to production because fighters are much more important, and I know this could be tested quick using the editor.. But looking at the stats only, shouldnt the Ki-67 be almost as difficult to down as the B-24, or at least much, much more difficult than the G3M and G4M? I am yet to see the Netties get a kill despite the 20mm tail gun, but they might just not survive long enough. Does anyone have experience on how well or bad the Ki-67 survives against Allied fighters, especially those with only 4 HMGs such as FM-2 and P-51B?


(in reply to thegreatwent)
Post #: 39
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 2/11/2011 3:38:28 PM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 8597
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline
well, altitude is a key then, and seriously... sending planes over just to clear out fighters.. say in the k to k area.. is a proven strategy...
Send two or three raids a day for a week, then send some tactical bombers in to acheive better on the ground results with lower lossees to air.. still AA is a fctor at lower altitudes...
good luck

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 40
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 2/11/2011 3:53:39 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12271
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erkki

By the way... I understand that by the time the Japanese get the Ki-67 it might not make it to production because fighters are much more important, and I know this could be tested quick using the editor.. But looking at the stats only, shouldnt the Ki-67 be almost as difficult to down as the B-24, or at least much, much more difficult than the G3M and G4M? I am yet to see the Netties get a kill despite the 20mm tail gun, but they might just not survive long enough. Does anyone have experience on how well or bad the Ki-67 survives against Allied fighters, especially those with only 4 HMGs such as FM-2 and P-51B?





Peggy is better than Mrs. Nell or Mrs. Betty but not even close to a B-24 when it comes down to taking hits from fighters. Just look at the durability of the two aircraft. The Peggy is only four points more durable than a Lightning for example.

_____________________________


(in reply to Erkki)
Post #: 41
RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress - 2/11/2011 5:55:21 PM   
Erkki


Posts: 1444
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
I'll take that as a no. I need a plan to steal some Allied 4Es...

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 42
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: The destruction of B-17 Fortress Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.082