using transports as bombers?

[unkated]

Originally Posted by cawest

the craft have the most info are would do no worse than an anti ship run from a B-25. that put a few small targets on the bottom. the speed of current "transports" i listed are as fast as a B25.

Speed has little to do with it. Targeting systems (not available in transports) have a lot.

B-25s doing skip bombing did use the targeting system for their fixed guns. It was a method worked out over time - not a matter of just dropping bombs out the back.

Skip bombing BTW does not work on land. Bombs just blow up rather than skip.

Originally Posted by cawest

i also was refering this as a twilight 2000 and manpad SAMs are rare.

Yes. But MMGs and LMGs are not as rare. Hence my point about the danger of flying low enough to have a decent chance of hitting a less than large town-sized target.

But then again, spare fuel for aircraft on bombing missions with a low chance of causing useful damage, as well as working aircraft, are also rare in a T2K environment.

Originally Posted by cawest

or you can fly above 24.000 feet and they would not be able to touch you. just aim for the center of town, that should be good enough.

The USAAF proved hundred of times in WW2 and Korea that it is quite possible to miss small town-sized targets from above 20,000 ft.

My point is that it is entirely possible to do, just not likely to be useful, unless you fly low and slow and are lucky - and willing to accept the danger of flying low over an armed enemy. Flying over an unarmed enemy is easier, of course.

Transports do not make good bombers, but if the other side has no defenses against aircraft and you have fuel to spare, its easy - like having the only tank against men armed only with rifles and machine guns.

Uncle Ted

[simonmark6]

I don't think that transports with conventional bombs would be that effective, too much accuracy is needed for anything other than general terror bombing. There are other options if you have fuel for aircraft in my opinion. It depends on what you want to do tactically:

1) Terror bombing: what about barrel bombs? You could use an improvised FAE and drop it on a reasonably low and fast run. There are many risks but the nature of FAE makes it less necessary to be accurate.
2) Harming civilian population: set up some light aircraft as crop-dusters and dump chemical weapons on them.
3) Taking out point targets:
Equip a transport as a gunship, it comes in low and slow and takes out any enemy AA. This will still leave ground troops, but firing back at something like a Spooky would be scary (well, I imagine so)
Then you bring in your second transport with a barrel bomb or a big conventional bomb modified with a parachute or something to slow down the drop and come in as low and slow as you can, Spooky suppresses the ground fire and you drop the big bomb on the target.

In places like Africa, if I had fuel for aircraft I'd rather use it for scouting for my ground troops than attacks anyway but if you had enough to run a few transports as well I'd go the gunship route.

[Silent Hunter UK]

Originally Posted by unkated

The USAAF proved hundred of times in WW2 and Korea that it is quite possible to miss small town-sized targets from above 20,000 ft.

They also proved it is quite possible to hit the wrong country.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Silent Hunter UK

They also proved it is quite possible to hit the wrong country.

Jeez! Just because we bombed Switzerland during World War Two......twenty-five times.

Although, just how does one miss a target by 254 miles?

Which just goes to show that the Air Force is the only service that claims 100%, after all, what ever falls out of the airplane has to hit the ground...somewhere!!!

[rcaf_777]

I don't see what the issue is! John Wayne AKA The Duke converted a C-47 Transport into bomber in the 1943 Movie The Flying Tigers. He dropped a few make shift bombs on a bridge and then his co star crashed the plane into a Japanese Army train.

Come on if the Duke can do it it's can be successfully done