[Milsurplus] Training Is Our Problem

[WA5CAB at cs.com]

When it comes to discussing level bombers, there are no real differences in 
the techniques used whether the aircraft has one, two, three, four, six or 
eight engines.  The only exception I can think of involves nuclear weapons, 
which weren't an issue until 1945.  The Japs and Germans didn't have any 
heavies, anyway.

I think what you are trying to say is that the B-24 and PB4-Y antishipping 
raids in the Pacific were ineffective.  My Father-in-law, who flew several, 
agrees with you.  The B-17, because of its limited range, was a particularly 
poor choice for them.  But of course, there weren't any B-24's available at 
Midway.

However, all of the techniques available during the first few months of the 
War were pre-war.  I always get PO'd whenever I see someone applying 20-20 
hindsight to anything.

And my take on the battle of Midway is that were it not for mistakes or 
incompetence at the squadron level, it would have been even more one-sided than 
it was.

In a message dated 7/12/2009 11:37:44 PM Central Daylight Time, 
n9zsv at magtel.com writes: 
> None of these were -heavy-  4 engine bombers like 
> B-17's and B-24's.  The technique they used was 
> un-escorted high altitude formation saturation 
> bombing by numerous planes so that no matter 
> which way the ships turned some one would get 
> them.  The idea was pre war and like so many 
> other pre war plans it just didn't work.  At 
> Midway the heavy bombers scored not one single hit on any Japanese ship.
> Combined carrier raids were devastatingly 
> effective at least when the different types of 
> aircraft were well coordinated.  They even 
> managed to pull it off at Midway by pure dumb 
> luck.  By all odds we should have lost that 
> battle.  Those Swordfish torpedo bombers that 
> crippled the Bismark's rudder survived mainly 
> because the Germans anti aircraft gun sights 
> wouldn't properly track such a slow target.  In 
> WWII navel battles the dive and torpedo bombers 
> did all of the work.  B-25 bombers using the skip 
> bombing technique and sometimes equipped with 75mm cannons in the nose
> were particularly effective on transports and 
> other merchant ships.  They did a -lot- of damage 
> at Rabaul and to war ships too.  But a B-25 is not a heavy bomber.
> Your turn, this is fun.    73  Gary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 10:52 PM 7/12/2009, Ryan Gill wrote:
> >>At 10:10 PM -0500 7/12/09, Gary Pewitt wrote:
> >>bombers and torpedo bombers.  Yes the Arizona was sunk by a level
> >>bomber but that was a single engine plane and the Arizona was at
> >>anchor.  British Lancaster bombers dropping 10,000 lb
> >>Tallboy bombs finally did sink the Tirpitz in a Norwegian fiord after
> >>numerous failed attempts with carrier planes and heavy bombers.  But
> >>she was at anchor too.  OK all you military buffs let me know if I'm
> >>wrong.  I'll be very interested in any good "war stories".
> >>73  Gary  N9ZSV
> >
> >Let me see...
> >
> >Force Z, HMS Repulse and Prince of Wales were
> >attacked by JApanese bobmers and torpedo aircraft
> >(11 reconnaissance, 34 bombers, and 52 torpedo
> >carrying aircraft). They were level bombed and
> >torpedoed. Three waves of the level bombers, 
> >HMS     I wonder how many hits (if any) were by the level bombers?
> >repulse took one bomb. Then they were attacked by
> >the Torpedo aircraft, three waves each with POW
> >taking one torpedo in the first attack, and
> >Repulse one in the second. Then the third wave
> >scored multiple torpedo hits.
> >
> >Force Z was asteam, in open sea. The loss of both
> >ships was a serious blow for the RN.
> >
> >Yamato was sunk by carrier aircraft at sea under
> >steam. In this case 280 US carrier aircraft 
> >were                          All dive bombers and torpedo bombers.
> >sent after Yamato and her escorts. Yamato took 10
> >torpedos and 7 bombs.
> >
> >Convoy PQ 17 was attacked by U-Boats, 
> >Aircraft                      Stukas, and some Focke Wolf patrol bombers.
> >and Ships on the passage to Archangel.
> >
> >Several other convoys had bad dealings with the KM and Luftwaffe.
> >
> >Then there's Bismark's undoing by the RN with
> >stringbags. Several waves of very 'advanced'
> >biplanes with a top speed all of 140mph 
> >scored                            One torpedo 
> >hit on the rudder but that was enough.
> >several key torpedo hits on him which made
> >maneuvering nearly impossible (Germans ships are
> >masculine).
> >
> >Also, what of Taranto?
> >
> >More interesting is the sinking of the RM (Reggio
> >Marina, aka Italian Navy) by 12 German 
> >DO-217s                       Still no heavy 
> >bombers and they did use early smart bombs.
> >using Fritz-X Radio Controled Glide bombs. Roma
> >took two of the Fritz-X bombs. RM Littorio was
> >also damaged.
> >
> >
> >How's that for Air to Surface Naval attacks?
> >--
> >--
> >Ryan Gill              rmgill at SPAMmindspring.com
> 

Robert & Susan Downs - Houston
wa5cab dot com (Web Store)
MVPA 9480