Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

1000 Pounders versus Battleships

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> 1000 Pounders versus Battleships Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/26/2008 11:19:46 PM   
Feltan


Posts: 1160
Joined: 12/5/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline 		Q: In a CMH game in early '42, some Dauntless dive bombers out of Port Moresby hit the BB Matsu with 3 one thousand pound bombs. I was dismayed at the results. One hit each to deck, turret and belt armor, but none penetrated. Apparently, no significant damage. Is this fog of war, or normal/expectd behavior? If it is normal, what is a person to do since IIRC the thousand pounder is the largest ordanance available?

Regards,
Feltan
Post #: 1
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/26/2008 11:28:36 PM   
Tiornu

 

Posts: 1126
Joined: 4/1/2004
Status: offline 		Historically, dive bombers were not a great choice for attacking battleships, which are designed to defeat much larger projectiles traveling at much higher speeds. The exception that proves the rule is Marat. A Stuka hit her with a 500kg bomb and detonated her forward magazine. (The other three turrets were all back in action within a month.) Deck protection on the Sevastopols was poor by pre-WWI standards; a typical WWII light cruiser might be better off.
Of all the bombs that hit Yamato and Musashi, how many caused serious damage? Some sections of Mutsu's deck armor rate as the most bomb-resistant of any battleship ever built; amidships, though, the decks are weaker than you'd find in an unmodernized US standard.

(in reply to Feltan)
Post #: 2
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/26/2008 11:35:28 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		+ 1000'bers used in WitP (early 42) are GP (HE) types not designed to penetrate heavy armor. If in harbor and shallow water, a good close near miss would be a better thing than a direct hit for the mining effect on the hull. (not represented in the game however)

_____________________________


(in reply to Tiornu)
Post #: 3
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/27/2008 12:10:34 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		In game terms, it is going to bounce every time. It can knock out guns and do system damage. No penetration though.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 4
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/27/2008 12:31:35 AM   
saj42


Posts: 1125
Joined: 4/19/2005
From: Somerset, England
Status: offline 		IIRC Later in the war your medium bombers have the chance to carry 2000lb AP bombs


(in reply to Feltan)
Post #: 5
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/27/2008 1:29:04 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		While historically your bomb would have some chance of penetrating and hitting a vital somewhere, in WitP it's an all-or-nothing roll.  WitP assumes that the entire deck is completely armored and uses it's highest rating (instead of tapering to either end, much less having any weak spots at all).

All WitP does is, roll penetration vs. armor.  If Penetration >= armor, you can do damage based on the effect rating.  If penetration < armor, you might as well be dropping ping-pong balls.

-F- 

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to saj42)
Post #: 6
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/27/2008 1:57:24 AM   
Historiker


Posts: 4742
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline
quote:

The exception that proves the rule is Marat. A Stuka hit her with a 500kg bomb and detonated her forward magazine. (The other three turrets were all back in action within a month.) Deck protection on the Sevastopols was poor by pre-WWI standards; a typical WWII light cruiser might be better off.

The Marat was hit by a 1000kg AP bomb, not a 500kg. Moreover, some sources quote that it was a 1800kg AP bomb...

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 7
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/27/2008 2:23:30 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		Big problem with damage model is the fact that the ship paint may as well be the armor. Hopefully the AE damage model corrects this.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 8
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/27/2008 3:59:37 AM   
marky


Posts: 5780
Joined: 3/8/2004
From: Wisconsin
Status: offline 		bombs dont work too well on BBs. they slow em down and do damage but not really good at sinking em outright. though against the AI once i sank the Mutsu in a raid on Kwajalein with a 1000 pounder IIRC

however, the same problems dont exist against carriers of course





fuel AND mag explosion

all 1000 pounders, this was against Swift IIRC a cpl days ago

all in all bombs dont really kill BBs, torps kill BBs


_____________________________


(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 9
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/27/2008 6:48:36 AM   
marky


Posts: 5780
Joined: 3/8/2004
From: Wisconsin
Status: offline 		except in some cases of course like poor Arizona 

_____________________________


(in reply to marky)
Post #: 10
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/27/2008 6:55:26 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		Feltan wrote: " Q: In a CMH game in early '42,"

The Company of Military Historians has developed a mod for WITP? Is there a link to it on their website? Or is it merely a game between CMH members?

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to marky)
Post #: 11
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/27/2008 7:24:40 AM   
Tiornu

 

Posts: 1126
Joined: 4/1/2004
Status: offline
quote:

The Marat was hit by a 1000kg AP bomb

Ah! I did not know that. Thanks.

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 12
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/27/2008 8:00:44 AM   
Feltan


Posts: 1160
Joined: 12/5/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Feltan wrote: " Q: In a CMH game in early '42,"

The Company of Military Historians has developed a mod for WITP? Is there a link to it on their website? Or is it merely a game between CMH members?



Hahhahaa......oh Lord. I was thinking of work things when I wrote that. The acronym police are going to be after me now!

Regards,
Feltan

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 13
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/27/2008 8:52:01 AM   
Zebedee


Posts: 535
Joined: 8/30/2005
Status: offline 		Every IJ player knows the pain of bouncing 250kg (c.500lb) bombs off the British CVs' armoured decks...

Leave my BBs alone!

(in reply to Feltan)
Post #: 14
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/27/2008 9:28:34 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: marky

except in some cases of course like poor Arizona


Arizona was hit with a battleship AP projectile converted to a bomb. They were specifically intended to penetrate the deck armor of battleships. They also carefully worked out the correct altitude from which they had to be dropped to achieve the needed velocity upon impact.

Edited to add: I'm uncertain if they were even used anywhere other than Pearl Harbor.

< Message edited by witpqs -- 2/27/2008 9:29:06 AM >

(in reply to marky)
Post #: 15
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/27/2008 12:40:18 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zebedee

Every IJ player knows the pain of bouncing 250kg (c.500lb) bombs off the British CVs' armoured decks...

Leave my BBs alone!



I guess I´ve seen more Allied bombs bounce off Japanese ships than Japanese bombs bounce off Allied ships. Japanese 250kg AP bombs penetrate every deck armor of every Allied ship class except BBs and British CVs. In stock and several mods, 500 lb bombs don´t even penetrate a Japanese CL´s deck armor, let alone CA´s armor.

_____________________________


(in reply to Zebedee)
Post #: 16
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/27/2008 12:55:09 PM   
SireChaos

 

Posts: 710
Joined: 8/14/2006
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zebedee

Every IJ player knows the pain of bouncing 250kg (c.500lb) bombs off the British CVs' armoured decks...

Leave my BBs alone!



I guess I´ve seen more Allied bombs bounce off Japanese ships than Japanese bombs bounce off Allied ships. Japanese 250kg AP bombs penetrate every deck armor of every Allied ship class except BBs and British CVs. In stock and several mods, 500 lb bombs don´t even penetrate a Japanese CL´s deck armor, let alone CA´s armor.


That´s because - AFAIK - the Allied 500lb bomb is GP, not AP. And BTW, 250kg is 551lb, not 500lb - not that this would make much of a difference on its own.

Though you are right, it is awfully frustrating to have your carriers strike at the KB, and then see all those 500lb bombs bounce of Shokaku´s or Akagi´s flight deck like hailstones.

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 17
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/27/2008 1:24:42 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4742
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline 		That don't look that inffective to me...
Every time, TBs were involved in the battles as well, and every time, I (Allied) sank him at least as much he He sank me...




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to SireChaos)
Post #: 18
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/27/2008 2:45:00 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

While historically your bomb would have some chance of penetrating and hitting a vital somewhere, in WitP it's an all-or-nothing roll.  WitP assumes that the entire deck is completely armored and uses it's highest rating (instead of tapering to either end, much less having any weak spots at all).

All WitP does is, roll penetration vs. armor. If Penetration >= armor, you can do damage based on the effect rating. If penetration < armor, you might as well be dropping ping-pong balls.

-F- 


What was needed was a much more realistic damage model, which included such things as differentation between flight deck and main deck armour (magazine armour 4 decks down should not make the wooden flight deck armour plated) basically making CVs with internal protection armoured flight deck with full a/c capacity, differentation between armoured and non armoured areas of the hull and superstructure...c.mon, if a shell hit an unarmoured spot like say, the bow, it should penetrate, not bounce off because the belt is a certain thickness. Flooding, hull and superstructure damage should have been more permanent requiring serious yard time as should machinery damage. Crew factors needed to finally make it into a game which deals with individual pilots and weapons for a change too.


_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 19
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/27/2008 4:47:59 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: marky

except in some cases of course like poor Arizona


Arizona was hit with a battleship AP projectile converted to a bomb. They were specifically intended to penetrate the deck armor of battleships. They also carefully worked out the correct altitude from which they had to be dropped to achieve the needed velocity upon impact.

Edited to add: I'm uncertain if they were even used anywhere other than Pearl Harbor.


They weren't. They were specially adapted for the Pearl Harbor attack to deal with the line of battleships that could not be hit with torpedoes.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 20
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/27/2008 6:03:00 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		Except for the fact that in WitP Japanese torpedo bombers always carry the 800kg AP bomb or Torpedo on Port Attack.



-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 21
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/27/2008 6:09:50 PM   
Panther Bait


Posts: 654
Joined: 8/30/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

What was needed was a much more realistic damage model, which included such things as differentation between flight deck and main deck armour (magazine armour 4 decks down should not make the wooden flight deck armour plated) basically making CVs with internal protection armoured flight deck with full a/c capacity, differentation between armoured and non armoured areas of the hull and superstructure...c.mon, if a shell hit an unarmoured spot like say, the bow, it should penetrate, not bounce off because the belt is a certain thickness. Flooding, hull and superstructure damage should have been more permanent requiring serious yard time as should machinery damage. Crew factors needed to finally make it into a game which deals with individual pilots and weapons for a change too.



Do remember that the unarmored sections of the big ships were generally considered non-crucial areas. So, while hits there should penetrate, they should be limited in their effect on the ship. Probably SYS damage and maybe fires, but probably little FLD damage and no critical hits (at least for BBs).

Hits in these areas should send the BB to the yard, but probably never be a serious danger to sink it.



_____________________________

When you shoot at a destroyer and miss, it's like hit'in a wildcat in the ass with a banjo.

Nathan Dogan, USS Gurnard

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 22
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/27/2008 6:10:54 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Except for the fact that in WitP Japanese torpedo bombers always carry the 800kg AP bomb or Torpedo on Port Attack.



-F-


Yeah, especially whacked when they almost always carried smaller AP and GP bombs. This is a problem with all torp bombers in the game. Am I to understand that in AE torpedoes will be a production item like mines?


_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 23
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/27/2008 6:39:24 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Except for the fact that in WitP Japanese torpedo bombers always carry the 800kg AP bomb or Torpedo on Port Attack.



-F-


Always!?!? Are you 100% certain of that? I don't use animations, so I never noticed this.

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 24
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/27/2008 6:42:42 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		Japanese torp capable aircraft roll for use of torps or 800kg when on port attack.

_____________________________


(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 25
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/27/2008 6:58:45 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		Nik, are you saying that they will only get either the 800kb AP bomb or the torpedo, or that there is also a chance that they'll use a lesser bomb in the port attack?

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 26
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/27/2008 7:00:40 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		either torp or 800kg. This is for torp capable bombers only.

_____________________________


(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 27
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/27/2008 7:23:23 PM   
Akos Gergely

 

Posts: 733
Joined: 4/8/2004
From: Hungary, Bp.
Status: offline
quote:

What was needed was a much more realistic damage model, which included such things as differentation between flight deck and main deck armour (magazine armour 4 decks down should not make the wooden flight deck armour plated) basically making CVs with internal protection armoured flight deck with full a/c capacity, differentation between armoured and non armoured areas of the hull and superstructure...c.mon, if a shell hit an unarmoured spot like say, the bow, it should penetrate, not bounce off because the belt is a certain thickness. Flooding, hull and superstructure damage should have been more permanent requiring serious yard time as should machinery damage. Crew factors needed to finally make it into a game which deals with individual pilots and weapons for a change too.


Not to add to the rant but IMHO as it stands divebombers are way to effective espeically if they have crack crews and especially if a ship had already been jit in that round of attack. So it is quite common that a ship can evade 2-3 bombers in feirst wave then it gets hit then every single bomber coming down after it places a hit again....so I think this is partly compensated for with the bouncing 500 pounders of the wooden flight decks (which btw have a very strong steel plating and girder system under them of ocurse ;). So that is why the game sometimes produces really odd hit numbers, in my recent CHS PBEM Repulse had been hit by 100+ 250kg bombs, simply because after the first 1 or 2 hits all the bombers scored....

_____________________________



My blog: https://warshipprojects.com/

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 28
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/27/2008 8:34:02 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		I have seen horizontal bombers target a crippled Shokaku and repeatedly bounce 500 pound bombs off her flight deck, even though it was only lightly armored.  Aside from the fires, the only other damage they'd cause was to weapons and the bridge.  OTOH, those same horizontal bombers found Hiyo and put 20 500# bombs onto her, and HER flight deck was completely unarmored...

The Allied dive and horizontal bombers should have some chance to carry an AP version of their standard 500 and 1000 pound bombs.  They were available (especially for the carrier based planes) but there're none in the game.

What's odd is if your level bombers hit those same ships while they're in port, they generate a lot more damage to them.  I've sunk heavy cruisers with 500# bombs when they're in port, even though those same bombs hitting them at sea do nothing at all.


(in reply to Akos Gergely)
Post #: 29
RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships - 2/27/2008 8:44:54 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline
quote:

Not to add to the rant but IMHO as it stands divebombers are way to effective espeically if they have crack crews and especially if a ship had already been (h)it in that round of attack.


This is a very good point IMO. I could see how a critical hit could make a significant difference, but a single hit early in an attack and a ship is toast.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to Akos Gergely)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> 1000 Pounders versus Battleships Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.203