Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!pacbell.com!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: IO00672@maine.maine.edu (Sloth)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: B17 Frontal attack
Message-ID: <1990Nov2.200555.26660@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 2 Nov 90 20:05:55 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 26
Approved: military@att.att.com



From:    IO00672@maine.maine.edu (Sloth)
Iskander Taib writes:
>The Japanese actually had a pretty healthy respect for
>the B-17s. Saburo Sakai describes how they would re-
>peatedly shoot at them, all the while dodging 50 cal
>shells, and the things would just keep on flying. It
>took them a long time before they discovered that a
>head-on attack was devastatingly effective. Apparently
>shells coming head-on would set off the bombs and one
>burst was often enough.

The Germans adopted the tactic of attacking head-on mainly because
they discovered that's where the least amount of defensive fire can
be brought to bear on the attacker. This is why models after the -F
had twin .50s in a chin turret below the nose.

Why would a frontal assault be more likely to set off the bombload
than, say, an attack from the side or bottom of the bomber?
---
Malcolm Fuller                     Email: MALCOLMF@MECAN1.BITNET
Surveying Engineering Department          IO00672@MAINE.MAINE.EDU
University of Maine

       Malo Periculosam Libertatem Quam Quietam Servitutem