wrote in message
oups.com...

I'm aware that B-17s attacked Japanese Shipping during WW2
(battle of Midway comes to mind), but that they were way too
high and didn't hit anything.

Speaking hypothetically, would it have radically improved anthing
if the B-17 attacked from a much lower altitude?


Only if the crews were trained appropriately

I'm thinking that the B-17 was a pretty tough plane, as proven
over bombing raids in Europe. And wonder if it could
survive the AA and CAP that the Japanese put up that so easily
downed the Vindicators? Speed and multiple engines come to
mind.


Get down low and you are much more vulnerable to
flak

Still, would bombing accuracy have improved to a point that
hitting a Japanses CV would have been possible.

I have this (crazy?) picture of a B-17 lining up with a Japanese
carrier (lengthwise) and dropping a stick of bombs on it. Wonder
what the spread would be at different speeds and the intervals
between bombs. Thanks, to the SBDs, this was not needed, but
just curious.


I suspect the Nordern bombsight wasnt well suited to hitting
moving targets. RAF coastal command and the Fleet Air Arm
used a special version of the Course-setting Bomb Sight
(the Mark IXC) which had ground speed bars calibrated in knots
and were optimised for lower altitude work.

Come to think of it, the Carriers would and did perform evasive
movements, so skip that requirement that the B-17 would
line up with the keel of the carriers.


A better approach was normally to drop the stick at
a relatively shallow angle to the ships course so that
at least one bomb would hit the target.

The Lancaster bomber was designed to be able to
attack in a 30 degree dive and had a bomb bay large
enough to take aerial torpedoes although I dont think
were ever actually carried.

Keith