|
Oznoyng -> RE: Betty Bombers (1/19/2006 5:53:42 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Feinder
Now I see the miscommunication. I read your post to mean that 500# bombs were the most effective anti-shipping weapon (including torpedos).
Ships that can shrug off a 500# bomb = (your list)
Ships that can shrug off a torpedo = none.
But I see you were comparing between 500# and 1000# bombs.
You gotta realize tho, that in level-bombing attacks vs. ships, the entire bomb-load is resolved as a "stick". You don't get 8 rolls to hit with 8 bombs. You get one roll to hit, whether you're carrying 2 bombs or 12. Originally, they -were- separate hit rolls, but it was changed to allow only one hit (for the better I feel). But that being the case, 4x 1000# bombs, or 8x 500# bombs, you're still only gonna get one roll against one target. So it would actually be better to carry the 1000# bombs (since quantity doesn't matter).
I do not agree. Quantity does matter. It is an exercise in probability. Each additional chance you get to hit means that your chance of obtaining a hit is higher. Let's say that a Accuracy (in the editor) means the chances in 1000 that a hit will be obtained. Now, my chances of obtaining a hit with a string of 2x1000 lb bombs is 1 - (950/1000)^2 = 9.75%. My chances of hitting with a 4x500 lb bomb string is 1 - (975/100)^4 = 18.5 %. Even though only one "hit" is recorded, my chances of recording a hit are 2 times as great with the smaller bomb, even accounting for accuracy. The reason is that doubling my opportunities to hit makes a hit far more likely. Take a flight of 24 bombers attacking a TF. If each 4x500lb bomber has an 18.5% chance to hit what it aims at, the expected result will be 4-5 ships damaged. With a 2x1000 bombload, the expected number of hits will be 2. If all my targets are BB's and CA's, then I will take the 2x1k load. However, there are perhaps 20 ships that would benefit from a 2x1k load as compared to hundreds for the 4x500 load.
My question to you is: which do you want, a higher likelihood of hitting, or a higher amount of damage if you hit. My opinion is against the IJN, I want the hit. I've seen how badly a single 500 lber can hurt an IJN ship. I'd much rather do some damage (and slow the ship too), than whiff on some and pound a few. The key for me is that the ones I pound with 1k's are not that 2x more likely to sink than the ones I hit with 500 lbers.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Feinder
What's the point of skip bombing? You're most likely to hit the belt armor of a ship, which means the only ships you're gonna hurt with 500 pounders are DDs and smaller. And if the code still treats it as a stick (only on hit possible), I can't see the reason. You're taking more flak, a morale hit, and more likely to hit thicker armor. Now if it allows you pickle them out one at a time, allowing for more attacks, that would possibley make it worth while. But otherwise, I can't see the point.
Because skip bombing is far more effective than level bombing. Accuracy estimates for LBA from altitude was about 1%. Skip bombing accuracy was estimated at 72%... The problem, as you point out, is that skip bombing is not an attack to be conducted against BB's or CA's anyway. If you think Torpedo planes get slaughtered by AA, consider that the torpedo planes (IJN at least ) could conduct their attacks from a range of 1500 yards, while skip bombing required closing to less than 350 feet. An additional 10 seconds of AA fire under adverse conditions (the "size" of the target at 1500 yards is 1/5th the "size" at 100 yards and is therefore far easier to hit) means few bombers attacking a CA or BB would make it close enough to launch their bombs. Furthermore, the bombs were set with a 4-5 second fuse. Those that did not go through the armor by themselves "bounced off and sank below the ship before exploding. That sounds bad until you consider that it put the explosion below the waterline like a torpedo. In some cases, the angle of attack could put the explosion below the ship, where no armor existed at all.
|
|
|
|
