Philippines and 200 B-17's: credible deterrent?

All,

Apparently, the force of 200 B-17's stationed in the Philippines were supposed to deter a Japanese attack.

They represented the biggest concentration of 'heavy-hitters' at that time.

If we look at the Japanese war plans, it is obviously correct that Pearl Harbour was of secondary importance. The big prize was the oil; hence Philippines had to be invaded.

That PH had to be neutralised (e.g. the carriers) was clear if the Japanese logic is followed. That it did not happen testifies to the failure of the Japanese plans.

Not so with the Philippines. Thanks to 'our friend' MacArthur, the Philippines represented a strategic defeat within hours.

The question is: how credible were 200 B-17's at that time? taking into account:

- The B-17 (YB-17A and B-17B) of 1941 was different to the later models B-17F found in Europe in 1943/4
- Less Powerful engines
- Bombing from altitude was still a bit of an art form
- Bombing ships from level flights not developed into what it became later.
- Not the full amount of the 200 B-17's having arrived yet

Did Japan regard the B-17 as a strategic asset at the same level as the US did?

If MacArthur had implemented his 'Rainbow 5' war plan, would it have made a difference?

How effective would the bombing of Formosa have been, taking into account that we are talking 1941 and not the precision bombing of the 1944/5 time frame?

Would he have lost his bomber force to the Zero fighters over Formosa?

As it was the Philippines fell relatively quickly and air power as a strategic asset was not proven this time around.

So, What IF
- there were 200 B-17's
- The Formosa bombing went in according to plan

What would be the consequences in terms of perceiving air force as a strategic asset now proven in combat

The likely outcome on Singapore (which the B-17's was supposed to protect)

Or: WHAT IF
- It was proven that high-level bombing was not accurate
- Bombing of ships is very difficult
- the (early) B-17 could not defend itself against the Zero's
- The loss rate was extremely high

Ivan
 
On the Japanese side they had no radar to speak of so nothing like the raid warning of the British or Germans in late 1941, let alone interception control at a distance, they will rely on standing patrols. I don't know who was responsible for the air defence of Formosa but if it was the Army the Ki43 is woefully underarmed to take on such a large and tough opponent as even the early B17s were. The Zero was better with its pair of low velocity 20mm cannon, but this is nothing like what the German were packing into their fighters a mere 18 months later to take on B17s. One the whole I think a large number of B17s would reach their target, the main problem would be AAA at the target.

As for the Americans, what was standard bombing practice against military targets for Pacific B17s in December 1941? If it was high altitude then their bombs will miss, but if they can get lower they will be more accurate.
 
They didn't HAVE that many B-17s OR P-38s on 12/7/41

These were earlier model B-17s. I suspect with that much exposure the Japanese Zero pilots would have figured out the head on tactic even sooner than OTL.

What they needed was 1000 P-38s.:eek: Complete with multiple levels of replacement parts, lots of aviation fuel, and pilots. Problem: Early on the P-38 pilots would try to dog fight the Zeroes, leading to a lot of destroyed P-38s and dead pilots.
 
Quick answer: Would 200 B-17s in PI be a credible deterrent? Hell Yes! But there weren't 200 there, only about 35 C and D models were assigned on 8 Dec 41. A few new E models were enroute, but were intercepted at Pearl Harbor. Also, no matter how many you have, you need the leadership to allow them to be employed and not be destroyed on the ground some 8 1/2 hours after being warned that the war had begun, like Big Mac did.

Let's look at the specs:

B-17C 323mph at 25,000', ceiling 37,000'
B-17D 323mph at 25,000', ceiling 37,000'
B-17E 317mph at 25,000', ceiling 36,000'


A6M2 Type 0 Model 21 (in use at the time of Pearl Harbor) 331mph at 14,930', ceiling 33,000'

"Japan possessed the best fighter in the world at the time. They'll make short work of B-17s even before they reached Formosa."

Uh, not so fast. Maybe you need to recalibrate? Not such short work at 20,000 and higher, and particularly not if the Zeros had the misfortune of tangling with a B-17 E with the new Sperry ball turret and tail gun positions with twin .50s. At 20,000 feet and above, the Zero would struggle to even keep up with a Flying Fortress.
 
muskeg13

Seconded. In 1941-42, the B-17 was for the Zero what the T-34 was for German AT gunners.:p

The Zero was an incredible air superiority fighter, but as an interceptor? Especially if the B-17s had escorts? Then they sucked. It was NOT a fighter designed to trade potshots with a bomber of the nature of the B-17. At least not after the Flying Forts got their improvements.

They needed the Reppu for taking out the American heavy bombers, and it was a long way away.
 
These were earlier model B-17s. I suspect with that much exposure the Japanese Zero pilots would have figured out the head on tactic even sooner than OTL.

The tail chase method was the bee's Knees for attacking the early Fortress up to B-17D. The B-17E's twin 50s in the tail position changed that, but they originally had a smoke and mirrors belly gun that didn't work. The head-on pass required a lot of set-up and required good shooting in a quick pass. They weren't all good shots.
 
The tail chase method was the bee's Knees for attacking the early Fortress up to B-17D. The B-17E's twin 50s in the tail position changed that, but they originally had a smoke and mirrors belly gun that didn't work. The head-on pass required a lot of set-up and required good shooting in a quick pass. They weren't all good shots.

In the Japanese war film "Zero!" the Zero pilots were having fits trying to figure out the B-17 early on. When they discussed the head on attack, the pilots were less than enthusiastic at the idea. "Sure, you get the plane, but you destroy yourself" was the thinking. So they went with an angled sweep of the nose in a head on attack, but not on such a horizontal plane that you risked a direct collision, which could happen often enough as it was.

The B-17 cockpit was well armored from attack from the rear, as the Zero pilots discovered for themselves when test-firing on the pilot's seats using the wreckage of a downed B-17. The 12.7 mm bullets only made scratches on the rear of the seats. So in the film the pilots reluctantly concluded that the head on assault was their only choice, whatever the risks.
 
....

The B-17 cockpit was well armored from attack from the rear, as the Zero pilots discovered for themselves when test-firing on the pilot's seats using the wreckage of a downed B-17. The 12.7 mm bullets only made scratches on the rear of the seats. So in the film the pilots reluctantly concluded that the head on assault was their only choice, whatever the risks.

Just to niggle; where the tests with 12.7mm MG or the 7.7 (?) most Japanese fighters carried, or with the 20mm cannon they often carried?

The multiple B17 & B26 attacks on Raubal in 1942 are a clear battlefield example of the effectiveness of Japanese fighter planes vs US bombers. Gambles 'Fortress Raubal' Describes many of these attacks in detail. While the US bombers took losses there was never any 'massacre'. The overall heavy loss rate in the South Pacific had to do with a logisitics train wreck, a demanding mission rate required by MacAurthur, and difficult conditions on the air bases. The loss rate from accidents and mechanical failures may have been close to double the combat loss rate. Gamble does not give the same level of detail for Japanese interceptor losses, but it is clear they took some licks from the B17, B26, & later the B25s.
 
Last edited:
...

If MacArthur had implemented his 'Rainbow 5' war plan, would it have made a difference?

How effective would the bombing of Formosa have been, taking into account that we are talking 1941 and not the precision bombing of the 1944/5 time frame?

Would he have lost his bomber force to the Zero fighters over Formosa?

...

If you are speaking of the stillborn attack on 8 December consider why the Japanese bombers were delayed over four hours. They were unable to take off due to a dense and stationary fog. One squadron at a auxillary airfiled did manage takeoff shortly after dawn, and attacked with nine bombers a hour+ late, around 09:30. But, they attacked a couple small auvillary airfields on Northern Luzon. The bulk of the Japanese bombers remained grounded until approximately 09:00 Phillipines time, so they attacked Clark Field & Manilia some four hours late.

There are two possibilities for the US bomber attack.

1. It is launched before dawn and arrived over Formosa before 09:00. Odds are the fog prevents the US bombers from finding significant targets.

2. The US bombers find the fog is a ground fog, they can spot the airfields, & the Japanese have a bad day. I cant say what the odds of this are.

3. The US attack arrives jast as the fog is clearing & the Japanese are concentrated on the taxiways eager to take off. Odds are against this, but it makes for a very bad day for the Japanese.

4. Attack arrives after the Japanese bombers depart. Its a wash. Odds probablly favor this outcome.

Assuming the US air fleet is not caught on the ground having lunch, then it is available for a attritional battle over the next few weeks. Inadaquate logistics preparation will tell and the USAAF PI fleet will melt away by February. the Japanese will take heavier losses, which may affect their thinking when the battle over New Guinea/Raubal/Gudalcannal heats up later in the summer. that is the fever of victory disease may not be so intense.

Best outcome for the US is the Japanese amphib operation is delayed, or builds up slower, allowing a extra few weeks to prepare the supplies in Battan.
 
Not sure it matters about the specifics would the Japanese have even been deterred by 200 B29s ? I'm really not sure they would have...
 
If MacArthur had launched on the first opportunity (Brereton having managed to get to MacArthur, bypassing Sutherland) and MacArthur had actually done what he was supposed to do: Attack according to both plans and War Department (Marshall's) orders, the (few) B-17 would have arrived while the ground fog was still covering the Formosa bases.

The three B-17 ordered on a recce mission might not have spotted the fog timeously enough to delay the launch.

Chucking bombs all over an airfield without visual cues with 1941 technology was just not going to make it happen.

So, the bomber force could have been attacked above the cloud cover by Zero's from other Formosa bases?

The thing is: would/could 200 B-17 have made an impression on Japan. I am not sure either. In which instance the bluff would have been called and we have OTL.

IF the Japanese thought that the existing force (with additional B-17 arriving rapidly) was a significant game changer, Then they had to change plans.

... And what would that have been?

Ivan
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Japan possessed the best fighter in the world at the time. They'll make short work of B-17s even before they reached Formosa.
One of the many myths that still persist about WW II is the superiority of the A6M to every other platform in use at the time. It is, much like the "decks crowded with aircraft" Midway myth, simply wrong.

The A6M was a very good, albeit undergunned, low speed dogfighter (one that had a negative exchange rate with USN F4F) that built a rep against colonial forces which were both undertrained and outnumbered. It was a very, VERY poor bomber interceptor. Its useful armament against a heavy bomber consisted of 120 rounds (60 per gun) of 20mm, with the pair of 7.7mm being entirely inadequete for the mission. The Model 32 increased this to 100 rpg, but the Model 32 was just entering service in late 1941 and very few were available when the war began.

The best bomber interceptor in use in late 1941 was, arguably, the Me-110 which was faster than the A6M, more heavily armed (2x20mm w/180 rpg that could be reloaded in flight by the rear gunner, and 4x7.92mm forward firing machine guns). It was hopeless as a dogfighter, but against bombers it was lethal, and remained so into 1944. Another potential candidate is the Beaufighter, with its 4x20mm (240 rpg), although there is less historical evidence for the Beaufighter and it was seriously restricted with a 19K operational ceiling (the same issue that limited the utility of the early models of the Fw-190 with the BMW C-1 engine, which had vastly reduced performance over 20K). Even the early Spitfire, which lacked cannon altogether, was a better interceptor with 8x.303 cal (7.92mm) guns (350 rpg) compared to the 2x7.7mm (500 rpg) of the A6M.

Overall the Zero was the best fighter in theater in late 1941, not the best in the world. Even in theater it was incapable of inflicting decisive losses against the admittedly inadequete F4F-3/-4, ending the early months of the war with a negative exchange ratio (see Lundstrom for details). It was a poor bomber killer, with its effectiveness limited entirely to the small number of 20mm cannon rounds available and was extremely vulnerable to defensive fire from bombers (it is arguable that the A6M was exactly the sort of aircraft that the B-17E and later marks would have been able to defeat w/o long range fighter escort).
 
Just to niggle; where the tests with 12.7mm MG or the 7.7 (?) most Japanese fighters carried, or with the 20mm cannon they often carried?

The Japanese and Italian 12.7mm guns were among the weakest performers of that size in WWII. They were based off a .50 Vickers cartridge

12.7x81mm Type 1 2560fps
12.7x99mm M2 2890fps
 
...

So, the bomber force could have been attacked above the cloud cover by Zero's from other Formosa bases?...

Mostly the same airfields. The few descriptions I've seen from the Japanese suggest most or all the island was fogged. Less clear how high the overcast was. There must have been some sort of CAP planned, but a large number were designated for the attack on Luzon, & would have had to launch about the same time as the bombers. If anyone has a clear description of the totals present of Formosa, and the mission assignments for 8 Dec it would be really interesting reading.
 
The Japanese and Italian 12.7mm guns were among the weakest performers of that size in WWII. They were based off a .50 Vickers cartridge

12.7x81mm Type 1 2560fps
12.7x99mm M2 2890fps

12.7x81SR Type 1 bullet 37gram energy 11000J
12.7x99 M2 bullet 40 -45 gram energy: 16-17000J
(in other words the 99 has 150% of the performance of the 81)

this 20mm?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_99_cannon

20×72RB - 600 m/s - 22000J
20×101RB - 750 m/s - 40000J
 
Last edited:
Top