Post by David ThornleyPost by edward ohareReferring to the invasion force ships here. I doubt any fancy sailing
was required. B17s and other heavy bombers proved time and time again
their ineffectiveness against ships.
Against *maneuvering* ships.
Well, gee, that's what we're talking about here!
Post by David ThornleyIf you look at the photos taken from
B-17s during the bombing, you will notice curved wakes, showing that
they were dodging.
Dodging what? The attacks of the dive and torpedo bombers, whose
attack intentions they could clearly determine? Or dodging unseen
bombs from B17s two miles up?
Post by David ThornleyMoreover, B-17s were quite effective against stopped ships. One
Japanese destroyer captain in the Solomons pulled up to assist another
ship dead in the water, looked up and disregarded the B-17s, and was
promptly sunk.
Yes, and as I recall the general commentary on this was "to everyone's
surprise". Is this not the first and last instance of an IJN warship
being sunk by B17? Also note "dead in the water".
Post by David ThornleyAll the B17s did at Midway was
Post by edward ohareconsume a lot of fuel. They should have been considered additional
search aircraft, not combat aircraft.
They also hindered the Japanese from forming up a strike. All the
various attacks before the big one kept the Japanese from getting
a strike going at the US carriers.
IJN continued arming and refueling during the strikes. Some
hinderance there!
Post by David ThornleyPost by edward ohareUh... the IJN didn't even notice some of the B17 attacks.
They apparently noticed the ones at Midway, from the wakes in the
photographs.
That does not prove what they were dodging.
Post by David ThornleyPost by edward ohareTrue. Like dive and torpedo bombers that could have been fairly
successful against the invasion transports.
Assuming the invasion transports would have been stationary while
unloading, B-17s could have hit them hard. B-17s had been designed
well to hit targets not moving relative to the ground, after all,
and while they repeatedly demonstrated their inability to hit
maneuvering ships they could be deadly against stationary ones.
Assuming the invasion transports were stationary, the B17s would have
been gone under Nimitz instruction to bring out the heavies if Midway
was in danger of falling. Furthermore, IJN would not have beached
trasports if the Midway airfield was still operating aircraft.
So where is the proof that B17s... or any high altitude bombers, for
that matter... were deadly against stationary ships? (Noting here
that the argument of the effectiveness of B17s against stopped ships
is more or less an admission they weren't effective against moving
ones, which is the real point here.) If high altitude bombing was
actually effective, why was it necessary for the SW Pac to invent skip
bombing?
Also interesting is that the training for the atomic bomb strikes, for
which the best of the best were recruited, was that the bomb be
dropped within a circle of 700 foot radius. How many IJN transports
can fit within a circle of that size? Bombing ships isn't like
bombing cities, where the USAAF could claim a hit if the bombs dropped
anywhere within 10 miles of the center of the target.
I'll stick with this, from Miracle at Midway, concerning the US having
a numerical advantage of 23 aircraft: Therefore, in actual numbers of
aircraft available, the Americans had the slight edge of twenty-three.
Oddly enough, these represented exactly the number of Army bombers
stationed on Midway. In view of the results, these Army aircraft
might well be ranked as neglibible factors, or even as liabilities,
because they consumed enourmous amounts of space, fuel, and man-hours
which could have been used more profitably elsewhere. -- pp 129-30
Its really sad that almost 64 years after the fact, the initial
reports that the USAAF won the battle of Midway have only been
downgraded, in the eyes of some, to the point the USAAF made a
significant contribution.