1000 Pounders versus Battleships (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Feltan -> 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/26/2008 11:19:46 PM)

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



Tiornu -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/26/2008 11:28:36 PM)

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.



Nikademus -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/26/2008 11:35:28 PM)

+ 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)



crsutton -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/27/2008 12:10:34 AM)

In game terms, it is going to bounce every time. It can knock out guns and do system damage. No penetration though.



saj42 -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/27/2008 12:31:35 AM)

IIRC Later in the war your medium bombers have the chance to carry 2000lb AP bombs[;)]




Feinder -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/27/2008 1:29:04 AM)

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- 



Historiker -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/27/2008 1:57:24 AM)

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...



Ron Saueracker -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/27/2008 2:23:30 AM)

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.



marky -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/27/2008 3:59:37 AM)

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 [:D]

[image]http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d85/mrky84/Fuel.jpg[/image]

[image]http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d85/mrky84/Ammo2.jpg[/image]

fuel AND mag explosion [:D]

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

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



marky -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/27/2008 6:48:36 AM)

except in some cases of course like poor Arizona [:(]



bradfordkay -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/27/2008 6:55:26 AM)

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?



Tiornu -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/27/2008 7:24:40 AM)

quote:

The Marat was hit by a 1000kg AP bomb

Ah! I did not know that. Thanks.



Feltan -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/27/2008 8:00:44 AM)


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



Zebedee -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/27/2008 8:52:01 AM)

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

Leave my BBs alone! [:'(]



witpqs -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/27/2008 9:28:34 AM)

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.



castor troy -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/27/2008 12:40:18 PM)


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.



SireChaos -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/27/2008 12:55:09 PM)


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.



Historiker -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/27/2008 1:24:42 PM)

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...

[image]local://upfiles/25688/0F71AE6ABBD5419A8ABBD05B6A0643B0.jpg[/image]



Ron Saueracker -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/27/2008 2:45:00 PM)


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.



herwin -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/27/2008 4:47:59 PM)


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.



Feinder -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/27/2008 6:03:00 PM)

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

[:(]

-F-



Panther Bait -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/27/2008 6:09:50 PM)


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.




Ron Saueracker -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/27/2008 6:10:54 PM)


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?



Mynok -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/27/2008 6:39:24 PM)


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.



Nikademus -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/27/2008 6:42:42 PM)

Japanese torp capable aircraft roll for use of torps or 800kg when on port attack.



bradfordkay -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/27/2008 6:58:45 PM)

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?



Nikademus -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/27/2008 7:00:40 PM)

either torp or 800kg. This is for torp capable bombers only.



Akos Gergely -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/27/2008 7:23:23 PM)

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....



John Lansford -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/27/2008 8:34:02 PM)

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.




niceguy2005 -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/27/2008 8:44:54 PM)

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.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
9.421875