Skip Bombing

Talon

Members +
I saw a thread in one of the other forums that B-17's Skipped bomb during the war in the Pacific.Well I decided to do some research on it.What I foundout was it's true and B-17's actually sank 3 ships at the Battle of the Bismarck Sea using skip bombing.Also doing my research I foundout that B-17's also did low level attacks on ships in harbor as did B-24's.

Now you know I couldn't pass up trying to skip bomb in a B-17 in CFS2.I setup one of the Donationware B-17E's to see if it would work using 8 of Pen32Wins skipbombs.It works great and releases 2 at a time.I did the same thing with the AI B-17's using 4 of the skip bombs and it also attacks with 2 bombs at a time.They will also do low level bomb attacks ( Glide bomb ) for harbor attacks.


Talon
 
Skip bombing

Cool beans Al.

Can you post a quck tutorial on how to set this up with any plane (say B-25s and A-20s) as well as your B-17 dp file for a guide? I'd like to update some of my Bismarck Sea missions to reflect the skip bombing.
 
Dave

I've just finished the A-20,it carries 2X1000lb bombs and 2 skipbombs.It will attack with Skipbombs first and than with 1000lb bombs.I'm going to put 4 skipbombs on it also without the 1000lb bombs.

There already are B-25's made by TR and Pen32Win that skipbomb.I used them to figure out how to setup the other planes.

When I have everything setup the way I want I will post how it's done.It's not really that hard.


Talon
 
Thanks Al. I'll look into Pen's and TR's files for a clue or two. Can't really do much other than research in my current situation, but hopefully I'll get CFS 2 cracking again towards the end of the year.
 
Thanks Al. I'll look into Pen's and TR's files for a clue or two. Can't really do much other than research in my current situation, but hopefully I'll get CFS 2 cracking again towards the end of the year.

Jagd, if I remember my history correctly, George Kenney's pilots in the Pacific had skip bombing, along with parafragging, down to an art in their B-25 Strafers, one of TR's B-25s would be a perfect historical representation of them. Kenney is a hero of mine; he took what he had and applied a little Clint Eastwood(Improvise, Overcome, Adapt) and created a murderous tactical weapon that had strategic consequences.

Sure, I love my Nicks and Irving night fighters, I'm looking forward to attacking Truk with TR's B-25sa nd see just how much dmage I can do.

Check six my friend

Bones
 
Actually Tonybones it was Pappy Gunn who made the B-25 into a gunship while in combat and not Kenney.He started with more machine guns than added the cannon.He also came up with the Skipbombing.Later the B-25's were made to carry what Gunn had already done.


Talon
 
Tony,

For a CFS 2 campaign with General Kenny's 5th Air Force, download the "Battle of the Bismarck Sea" when the library opens up again. I should probably update it when I return from this assignment to get it back up to speed with the newer aircraft (TR's B-25 and A-20), skip bombing techniques, ships and scenery.
 
Actually Tonybones it was Pappy Gunn who made the B-25 into a gunship while in combat and not Kenney.He started with more machine guns than added the cannon.He also came up with the Skipbombing.Later the B-25's were made to carry what Gunn had already done.


Talon

Talon, friends often contend over WW2 history due to the fact that WW2 was, among many things, the most well-documented war in all history. The documents still have not been sorted out. History is hasty sometimes, as with the Yamamoto shoot-down,which was in essence, an assassination. It's now recognized that Rex Barber shot down the Admiral. I've spoken to many rank and file history buffs over the years, to them, Pappy Gunn was in command of the 5th AF and Kenney was merely a figurehead. Pappy was as much a soldier as Kenney was, the issue of who originated what may be cloudy. I hold the position of the USAF, the USAF Museum, and many historians past and present that Gen. George Kenney originated the "commerce destroyer" aircraft, the armament, and skip bombing. If history shows Gunn originated them they would have stayed locked in his brain, only Kenney could order them to be carried out.

Sam McGowan, writing for History.net states:

"Another of Kenney's requests was for 3,000 parafrag bombs to be sent to Australia, where he thought they might come in handy against the Japanese. While en route to Australia with his aide, Major William Benn, in July 1942, the two discussed low-altitude bombing. During a layover at Nandi in the Fijis, Kenney and Benn requisitioned a Martin B-26 Marauder bomber and went out to test a theory--that a bomb could be made to skip along the water like a stone. Their theory proved to be correct and the technique of skip bombing was born."

Kenney had a nose for talent:

"In the Pacific, Kenney found himself in a forgotten theater of war. Europe had priority for new aircraft and personnel. MacArthur's forces were expected to fight a holding action to protect Australia from the advancing Japanese. Kenney quickly organized his new command so that every available asset could be put to good use. He went through his command with a fine-tooth comb, weeding out officers who were not "operators" and sending them home to be replaced by men who were. He reassigned Benn to work as a Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress squadron commander, and Benn began teaching his pilots the new skip-bombing techniques he and Kenney had worked out during the trip over from the States. While visiting the newly arrived 3rd Attack Group, General Kenney discovered a former Navy enlisted pilot by the name of Paul I. Gunn--"Pappy" to the younger men around him."

Kenney, Gunn, and the pilots and ground crew under them quickly drew blood:

"While the B-25 was proving successful as a skip bomber in attacks upon Japanese shipping, Kenney reasoned that the technique really needed a heavily armed "commerce destroyer" equipped with a firepower package that could devastate the enemy's defenses during a high-speed, low-level attack. He put Pappy Gunn to work packing as many .50-caliber machine guns as possible into the nose of a B-25. Gunn modified an entire squadron of 12 bombers as "commerce destroyers." The 12 planes were placed under the command of Major Ed Larner in late February 1943, just in time for the Battle of the Bismarck Sea.

On March 1, 1943, a reconnaissance B-24 spotted a convoy of eight Japanese transports escorted by six destroyers 150 miles west of the Japanese base at Rabaul. The next morning the convoy was again located and attacked by B-24s and B-17s. One transport was sunk and another damaged. Over the next 24 hours, the convoy was under constant attack. The commerce destroyers got 17 direct hits, while 12 skip-bombing A-20s put another 11 bombs into the sides of the Japanese ships. Within 20 minutes every single transport was sunk or sinking, along with one destroyer sunk and three others badly damaged. The Battle of the Bismarck Sea was the first in a long series of successes for Kenney's "kids," as he called the young pilots and crewmen. MacArthur duly noted these successes and dubbed Kenney "the Buccaneer."


I met one of Kenny's "kids" the year he died in 1977. They more than revered him, they worshipped the ground he walked on.Bruce was a gunner on board one of these B-25s, he said when they strafed, all the guns going off was like "...standing in the doorway to hell." He also showed me some rather grisly pictures of the aftermath of the Battle Of The Bismark Sea that never made the history books. He told me also of a somewhat lively debate that took place among the pilots of his squadron regarding the strafing of survivors in the water. Given the times and memory of Pearl Harbor, it's not unusual that it would be lively. What brought WW2 to life for me was knowing so many people who were there and lived those times, several from my own family.


Bones
 
Tony

Members of this forum know me for a long time and the research I do_One of the reasons they like my missions is because of the research.I look at all sides of things.It takes longer for my research than to make the missions.

Your Quotes only tell part of the story and they are Quotes as I've been in the same sight they were taken from.There's always another side to everything and I have looked at them.The question is have you?If not here's some of the things that Gunn did before Kenney was even in the Pacific starting with one of your Quotes.

Now back to Kenney and Gunn.

While en route to Australia with his aide, Major William Benn, in July 1942, the two discussed low-altitude bombing. During a layover at Nandi in the Fijis, Kenney and Benn requisitioned a Martin B-26 Marauder bomber and went out to test a theory--that a bomb could be made to skip along the water like a stone. Their theory proved to be correct and the technique of skip bombing was born."

First Skip Bombing attack was done March 1942 by Pappy Gunn with a B-25 against Japanese shipping in the Philippines from the East Indies.

That seems to be about 4 months before Kenney discussed it.

Back in Australia he put fixed 50 cal machine guns in the Bombardier location on the B-25.He could only do 3 at the time because of shortages.

When the A-20's arrived he saw the potential of them for attack aircraft and modified them with 4x50's fixed in the nose.

This was all done taking the guns off unflyable planes.

When Kenney arrived in the area and saw Gunn's innovations he ordered him transfered to his staff and later claimed Pappy Gunn was his secret weapon.

So as you can see Pappy Gunn started most everything before Kenney was even in the Pacific.Kenney may have gotten the credit for it but it was Gunn who was the innovator of it all.


Talon
 
Yes Collin I know, you mentioned it to me earlier.I'm glad you put up that site because I couldn't find any info on it.


Talon
 
Fuel on the Flames

While digging thru an old backup HD tonight, I found a treasure trove of saved CFS2 thread info from the early to mid 2003 - 07 years... While I don't remember who most of the authors were, this one caught my eye - enjoy:
=========================
Farmboy's AI Commentary - 08/28/04:

The AI behavior as it relates to the flight model can be solved pretty easily, in terms of what modifications need to be done to flight model itself. The problem is that you have to begin with a good flight model and then make the needed changes. The problems related to taking off like rocketships or not taking off at all are all related to having a good flight model. The MOIs of course need to correct but these are easily calculated with a number of programs available out there, or can be estimated quite accurately by evaluating a similar aircraft. The lift and moment curves for the wing need to be correct, the horsepower needs to be right, and the thrust curves for the prop need to be right. If these things are whacked out the plane will fly accordingly, that is to say, whacky.

The best way to make a good flight model for a CFS2 plane, if you want it to be a good AI performer, is to begin with a stock flight model from a similar plane. The stock flight models, despite a lot of criticism from some folks, have a lot going for them. They have the basics down, and with some modifications will do very well as a basis for any similar aircraft. I did some testing on the stock Zero, it had both the engine horsepower and top speed at altitude nailed, right on the button. And the general flight charactistics are quite good. The same is generally true for most of the other planes although there are some odd things going on with a couple of them.

To do a good, quick and dirty .air file for your plane, just change a few parameters in the stock .air file that is most like the plane you are building and use that. Enter new information for the wing and tail feathers, engine locations, and engine/propeller, make sure you put good information into the aircraft.cfg file about the weight and balance, and generally get the basics squared away. This approach will work real well for most folks.

All that said, it is entirely possible to build a custom "boutique" flight model with great accuracy in all parameters, and still have it perform beautifully as an AI. I'm just finishing up a P-51D, a custom job, and it flies "by the book", matching up with all the published data for the plane's performance, including time to altitude as well as the initial climb rate, which is what most folks take to be the only meaningful climb parameter (not so!). Flat spins and accelerated stalls are also part of the package, as well as stall, roll, acceleration, and dive characteristics. But the plane works extremely well as an AI unit. I've been testing it extensively and thus far it just behaves beautifully; takeoffs are very realistic, it's rock stable as a wingman, and it attacks and destroys assigned targets as it should.

There is one parameter in the .air file -- and ONLY one, as far as I have determined -- that affects an AI aircraft's ability to attack and destroy its target. I'm sure some folks have come across an add-on aircraft or two that seem OK as AI, but they just dive at the target, failing to release their ordnance or attack properly. I did a lot of research in determining what field was the culprit, cutting/pasting/changing fields one by one until I landed on the guilty party. Turns out it's pretty simple. The main wing needs to have 1.0 degree of incidence. Nothing else had any effect. The .dp file, of course, needs to be set up properly as well, but that's easy enough to do, by just copying the misc data from a similar plane and only changing the parameters that need to be changed, such as the number of crew, speeds, altitudes, and such. The unit family and category are key here. The gun button needs to be set to "guns" and not "cannons", also.

There were some comments earlier about .air file modification that I want to remark on. First, I would say that there are few, if any, "hard" settings in a flight model. The simulation engine is flawed in certain respects, at least in terms of accurately duplicating aircraft behavior over a wide range of conditions. Thus, manipulation of parameters that would appear to be carved in stone is often necessary in order to arrive at accurate behavior and performance. One of these areas is the way power is developed by the engine as the aircraft climbs. At a steady power setting, say 50 inches and 2600 RPM for a given aircraft, the measured horsepower will gradually increase with altitude rather than remaining constant. So if you set your engine HP to the specified number at sea level (for example, 1,200 HP at 49" of boost for an R-1830), that engine will make something like 1,300 HP at 25,000 feet at the same power setting. This appears to be due to the fact that the air temperature decreases with altitude, creating a denser charge at a given manifold pressure. This makes sense in terms of pure physics but on the real aircraft, carburetor/inlet air temperature was kept within a narrow band, which meant essentially consistent performance regardless of altitude. This variation changes depending on the type of induction system you choose (either fuel injected, carbureted, or pressure carbureted) but it is there nonetheless. The problem with this is that the rate of climb does not fall off as it should, because the thinner air and decreasing prop efficiency is compensated for by the increasing horsepower. The only way around this is to decrease the propeller thrust accordingly in Section 511, a value that normally should be a "hard" number. This applies to just about everything in the flight model.

The other bit had to do with drag figures. Drag figures for quite a few WWII-era aircraft are available; for example, the P-51D has a zero-lift drag value of 0.016, while the B-24 comes in at 0.0406, and the B-29 at 0.0241. The Mustang is about the slipperiest airplane out there, in terms of prop fighters. In the absence of an actual value, there is a way to calculate Cd0, but it's just as effective to estimate drag based on the range of values and types of aircraft they apply to. Figure most fighters to be in the range of 0.025-0.035, and bombers to be from 0.035-0.055. Take a good look at the aircraft, see how many guns, blisters, and other protrusions it has, and find out what sort of wing it uses. Radial engines add a lot of drag as compared to inline liquid-cooled types, so figure another 20-25 percent drag for this type of engine compared to the inlines. Most of the stock aircraft use identical Cd0 figures and adjust the top speed using Section 430, not such a good way to do it but "quick and dirty" all the same.

==========================
Comments ?
SC

:kilroy:
 
Tony,

For a CFS 2 campaign with General Kenny's 5th Air Force, download the "Battle of the Bismarck Sea" when the library opens up again. I should probably update it when I return from this assignment to get it back up to speed with the newer aircraft (TR's B-25 and A-20), skip bombing techniques, ships and scenery.


It will be one of the first things I grab Jagd, thank you. I'll play the missions as they are and wait for you, no rush and I'll get some skip bombing practice in. I'm very much into ship-attack and strafing in general, this should be an enjoyable little battle for me.

Bones
 
Every historical figure has their partisans, and discussions as these usually break down into My Historian Versus Your Historian. I wasn't there and the matter is not a point of argument. Gunn is no less deserving of reverence than Kenney, without Kenney in the command spot his ideas, whatever the origin, would have stayed in his head. Both men within the context of the conflict could safely be categorized as a little more than human: They were vicious weapons of war as much as the machines they originated and of the same class as Douglas Bader, Saburo Sakai, Bong, Zeitzev, Zukhov, and Adolf Galland.

Bones
 
Tony

The difference is I did extensive research on both Kenney and Gunn.So I just didn't use 1 historical site,I used several on each of them.The facts I found correlated what I posted earlier.

I posted the facts as I found them so feel free to believe what you want.

This will be my last comments on the historical origins of USA skip-bombing


Talon
 
Skip bombing was actually invented by Lucius Metellus in 136 BC when he hurled a discus from a Roman trireme and it skipped across the water and struck and killed a Carthaginian rower. :jump:
 
Tony

The difference is I did extensive research on both Kenney and Gunn.So I just didn't use 1 historical site,I used several on each of them.The facts I found correlated what I posted earlier.

I posted the facts as I found them so feel free to believe what you want.

This will be my last comments on the historical origins of USA skip-bombing


Talon

I was a volunteer tour guide at the USAF Museum, I had the original documents upstairs when the Internet was DARPA Net, and like you, this is my last post on the topic.

Bones
 
Back
Top