GLIP Bombing for Medium Bombers

[oldpop2000]

This is more of a question than a suggestion. Can the medium bombers in the game perform a GLIP bombing. theaviationgeekclub.com/the-b-25-bridge-busters-and-the-glip-bombing-technique/

The JU-88 could actually dive bomber and so could the HE-177. It would be effective for anti-shipping.

[Antediluvian Monster]

How exactly is this different from the mast height bombing practised by US B-25s against naval targets during the war? Presumably this is already included under umbrella of skip bombing in-game (if I have understood correctly this was if anything the main low altitude anti-ship bomb attack technique, even if it's often mixed with skip bombing).

Just like mast height, this GLIP seems to involve an approach at low altitude followed by descent to very low altitude close to target with bombs released with intention of directly hitting the target. The angel of glide and slightly higher release altitude in GLIP might be the only difference?

[oldpop2000]

Mar 1, 2020 11:41:21 GMT -6 Antediluvian Monster said:

How exactly is this different from the mast height bombing practised by US B-25s against naval targets during the war? Presumably this is already included under umbrella of skip bombing in-game (if I have understood correctly this was if anything the main low altitude anti-ship bomb attack technique, even if it's often mixed with skip bombing).

Just like mast height, this GLIP seems to involve an approach at low altitude followed by descent to very low altitude close to target with bombs released with intention of directly hitting the target. The angel of glide and slightly higher release altitude in GLIP might be the only difference?

This is why I asked the question less of a suggestion. This is a dive bombing technique with a skip at the end. The B-25, B-17's, B-26's, B-24's attacks were conducted from about 250 feet above the waves, with a release at the point of pull up to avoid the bomb. This is similar but more effective against bigger ships and other targets like supply dumps, bridges, RR yards, oil plants etc. Its also good against air fields and runways for better accuracy.

[oldpop2000]

Here is are two official diagrams for low altitude and skip bombing in the SW Pacific. 

[oldpop2000]

Here is another set of diagrams from official docs about Matching Target to bombing





Here is the link to the document that this came from at Air University - www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/AUPress/Books/B_0096_RODMAN_WAR_OF_THEIR_OWN.pdf

Attachments:

[dorn]

oldpop2000
There is 1942 tech of skip bombing for aircrafts that were originally doing level bombing, so medium bombers and I think flying boats too (not certain).

[oldpop2000]

Mar 1, 2020 13:48:54 GMT -6 dorn said:

oldpop2000
There is 1942 tech of skip bombing for aircrafts that were originally doing level bombing, so medium bombers and I think flying boats too (not certain).

PBY's could carry torpedoes and did do low level bombing but they were not very accurate.  PBY's were too slow for skip bombing because you have to pull up immediately and climb. Torpedoes can be launched from a much safer distance and you can climb out with extra time and space.

[Antediluvian Monster]

Couple of excerpts from the article above:

"Skip bombing is one of the most important but confusing
topics in the history of Fifth Air Force. Most histories of World
War II give the Fifth the lion's share of credit for the tactic be-
cause it accounted for some of that unit's most spectacular
victories. More correctly, American skip bombing started with
the prewar attack doctrine espoused by Kenney. The British
revived low-level tactics in 1939 in the first antishipping at-
tacks of the war. They continued to use and modify low-altitude
and skipping tactics before America entered the fight. General
Arnold heard of their success and put American research
teams into action at Eglin Field between January and Decem-
ber 1942. After the publication of Training Circular no. 46 but
before the release of the Eglin report, the 63d BS had already
put low-altitude and skip bombing into practice. With the
squadron's success against shipping in Rabaul Harbor in Oc-
tober and November of 1942, the term skip bombing, even if
only partially correct, caught on. The picture has remained
cloudy ever since. Low-altitude bombing sought to deliver
weapons onto a ship in a standard stick but took advantage of
the greater accuracy afforded by lower altitude. Skip bombing
typically took place between 200 and 300 feet above the water
with the intent of ricocheting a bomb up to the side of an
enemy vessel, with or without hull penetration. Mast-height
bombing (see later chapters for a detailed discussion) had not
even been used in the SWPA up to this point. Although Allied aircraft conducted all of these methods in the low-altitude en-
vironment, low-altitude, skip, and mast-height bombing were
very much distinct tactics."

Pp. 39-40

"It became standard practice in the Southwest Pacific to drop
at least two bombs per target ship, the first intentionally dropped
short. Because bombs skipping off the water tended to be less
than completely predictable in either their flight path or capa-
bility to penetrate the hull, crews abandoned this technique as
the primary objective. But as a secondary tactic, it offered an
excellent backup. Ideally, the first bomb would skip to its tar-
get, and the second (primary) bomb would penetrate the ship
at the waterline. Even though this tactic of bracketing-nei-
ther skip bombing nor purely mast-height bombing-was not
fully developed, Fifth Air Force took it into the Bismarck Sea
on March 1943."

P. 61

[oldpop2000]

Just a comparison of climb rates between the PBY and B-25. PBY was 650 feet per minute, while the B-25 was 1666 feet per minute. Quite a difference.

[Antediluvian Monster]

Mar 1, 2020 15:09:58 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

Just a comparison of climb rates between the PBY and B-25. PBY was 650 feet per minute, while the B-25 was 1666 feet per minute. Quite a difference.

Yes, but as per first excerpt above skip bombing can be done at as heigh as 300 feet. I belive PBY would be able to manage that. What it probably couldn't do were these 50 feet above water attack runs that combined both skip bombing and direct impact (with latter the primary objective by Bismarck Sea) in their repertoire that American medium bombers engaged in.

[oldpop2000]

Mar 1, 2020 16:03:24 GMT -6 Antediluvian Monster said:

Mar 1, 2020 15:09:58 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

Just a comparison of climb rates between the PBY and B-25. PBY was 650 feet per minute, while the B-25 was 1666 feet per minute. Quite a difference.

Yes, but as per first excerpt above skip bombing can be done at as heigh as 300 feet. I belive PBY would be able to manage that. What it probably couldn't do were these 50 feet above water attack runs that combined both skip bombing and direct impact (with latter the primary objective by Bismarck Sea) in their repertoire that American medium bombers engaged in.

The Black Cats of the SW did, against direction, did carry a 1000 lbs. bomb under one wing and two 500 lbs. bombs under the other each with a 5 sec. delay. Dropping depth charges was also done, but once, the explosion damaged the planes elevators. This type of unauthorized bombing was done but did cause casualties beyond normal.  So, it could do it, but it was very risky but against merchant ships, it was effective. It was done at night. The plane was very strong and well built, I've been in one or two. My father flew in them off of Guadalcanal in 1943.

[oldpop2000]

Another question rather than a suggestion. If we can't do it, I suggest it be implemented.

Can we develop and conduct aerial mining. Operation Starvation against the Japanese home islands was very effective in later stages of the war. It could be effective in the Baltic, North Sea, Channel, Mediterranean and North East and South East Asia.