RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships

RE: 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

mlees -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/27/2008 9:40:19 PM)
Does anybody have a link to some data for bombs? I was frustrated just last night, watching my LBA bounce 40-50 500lb and 1000lb General Purpose bombs off the deck of the Kinugasa. Not a single penetration, even though I probably wiped out a lot of deck guns. For example, how much armor will a 1000 lb GP bomb penetrate at various altitudes? Ditto 500lb, 250lb, etc...

Akos Gergely -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/27/2008 9:53:46 PM)
quote: 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. They already have, I think from late 1942 they start to carry AP versions as well, decided by a dice roll as well. What's more this is completely historical AFAIK, the USN lacked 1000 pounder AP bombs in the early month in the war. At Midway all the DBs carried GP bombs (though in that case perhaps that was the better choice :) ). On the other hand the Japanese attack againt Yorktown with 250kg GP bombs would have done little more than put some nice little holes into the flight deck and perhaps some local fires in the hangerdeck (as the Yorktown's hangerdeck were armoured so not further penetration).

John Lansford -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/27/2008 10:22:57 PM)
The photos of Mikuma's superstructure basically destroyed by Enterprise's DB's at Midway, but the hull still remaining relatively intact, appear to indicate that the effects of DB weaponry in 1942 in WiTP are fairly accurate. IIRC she did not sink from the damage, but because the plane that crashed into her started a fire that was sucked into the engine room, killing everyone in there and disabling the ship. In fact, how many warships were sunk IRL by USN divebombers early in the war? Other than the four carriers at Midway, Mikuma and Kinugasa (sunk off of Guadalcanal), were there any others? Hiei was scuttled more because of the damage done to her during the night surface action than the pounding by DB's in the daytime, but were there any other CA's sunk by dive bombers in 1942?

Akos Gergely -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/27/2008 10:31:41 PM)
I'm not saying that DB weaponry was ineffective just that it's not correct that after only one-two initial hits the hit rate jumps to nearly 100% almost always... You brought up Mikuma: just check how many SBDs attacked her for maybe 4 or 5 clean hits and the damage would have been much less had the damage-control officer taken the step to jettison her Long Lances (as did Mogami's thus saving his ship). So USN SBDs with GP bombs would be hard pressed to kill alone a battleship in 1942 ('cos BBs were lightyears bette armoured on their horizontal) and that's what I think the japs realized after their Midway defeat and this put the BBs in to the forward van for the coming SoPac CV battles. Doing so at Midway could have impacted the strikes on their CVs in a great way...but again this is an other topic I guess :)

niceguy2005 -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/27/2008 11:16:29 PM)
All this discussion about how ineffective bombs are against BBs yet with the advent of carriers BBs were essentially dead as a surface fighting ship (too big, too slow, too expensive, it only took that one lucky hit). The fact is BBs were pretty vulnerable to air power of all types. They might not be easily sunk, but they could be rendered ineffective. I don't see this modeled in the game, IMO.

Zebedee -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/28/2008 1:13:58 AM)
I remember from my reading on Bomber Command that US gp bombs were a lot less effective than the RAF ones primarily because they had a substantial amount less explosive in them. But for piercing armour, they surely must have been more effective. Also, how effective is skipbombing? Very few people seem to try it from the AARs I've read. Oh, not against armour plate, but these are the guideline depths for unexploded bombs used by the MOD (Britain): Assumptions: >5000m (c.15000') release, velocity impacy of 340 m/s, no retarder devices on bomb, soil is wet sand, dry chalk or dry clay Weight of bomb (kg) Depth of Penetration (m) 50 - 3.7 100 - 4.6 500 - 9.1 1000 - 10.7 2000 - 12.2 4000 - 15.2 (amazing what scraps you pick up from trade papers - that's from one about building underground railways!)

Feltan -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/28/2008 6:03:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: niceguy2005 All this discussion about how ineffective bombs are against BBs yet with the advent of carriers BBs were essentially dead as a surface fighting ship (too big, too slow, too expensive, it only took that one lucky hit). The fact is BBs were pretty vulnerable to air power of all types. They might not be easily sunk, but they could be rendered ineffective. I don't see this modeled in the game, IMO. Quite true. In fact, US Battleships (and other nations I am sure too) suffered a number of electrical and communication malfunctions when firing thier own broadsides. After a few volleys, these ships were basically unable to use most of their communications gear. When I was on active duty, I saw a 500 lbs bomb hit. One time. About two miles away. Dry land. Let me tell you, the thump you feel in your chest is palpable at that distance. I can't imagine the shock of one hitting a ship, let alone a bomb twice that size. It may not penetrate thick armor, but I bet it would have the aforementioned affect on electronics, and knock equipment off its mounts, and cause casualties from the sheer shock and blast affects. Not being a Navy guy, I am extrapolating experience here. Perhaps one of our seafaring collegues can tell us the secondary affects of a large explosion on board ship. Regards, Feltan

Feinder -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/28/2008 6:16:43 AM)
I think most folks don't use skip-bombing because - 1. The exp requirement is too high. You get zip under 70 exp, and begin to results over 80. You're better served just dropping level bombs from 12 - 15k (whatever your house rules). In point of fact, the whole point of skip bombing was to create a method that was could be quickly taught and learned, that would prove more accurate than level-bombing. If anything, the exp requirement to achieve par hits with level bombing should be substantially -lower-, as that was entire point of the excersise. 2. Big hit to morale and much greater flak losses, means you don't fly as often and take more losses when you do. 3. If you think trying to penetrate the deck armor with a 500# GP is tough to do from level bombing, what 'til you try to roll vs. the BELT armor doing a skip-bombing attack. Essentially, skip-bombing is completely useless in WitP. THAT would be why folks don't use it. [;)] -F-

witpqs -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/28/2008 6:25:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Feltan In fact, US Battleships (and other nations I am sure too) suffered a number of electrical and communication malfunctions when firing their own broadsides. After a few volleys, these ships were basically unable to use most of their communications gear. I only ever heard of this on South Dakota during a Solomon Islands battle. Where there any other examples?

Nikademus -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/28/2008 7:40:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mlees Does anybody have a link to some data for bombs? I was frustrated just last night, watching my LBA bounce 40-50 500lb and 1000lb General Purpose bombs off the deck of the Kinugasa. Not a single penetration, even though I probably wiped out a lot of deck guns. For example, how much armor will a 1000 lb GP bomb penetrate at various altitudes? Ditto 500lb, 250lb, etc... Your not likely to find any hard figures because GP/HE bombs wern't designed to penetrate substantial armor , thus no serious testing was done. In reality the type has very little chance of doing so. Same goes for most SAP types as well in terms of finding hard figures for pen. GP/HE weapons were prized for their heavy blast and destructive ability to lighter structures, devices and of course....crew. (Also good against wooden flight decks!) Their "penetrative" characteristics were well characterized when striking Japanese carriers. For AP though, there are some estimates available. The USN Mark I AP bomb of 1600lbs was estimated at being able to defeat 7inches of US Class B armor from 10,000 feet. From 4500 feet the estimate was 5 inches. The more standard USN Mk 33 1000lb AP bomb mentioned in this thread (and others) was rated to be able to penetrate a 5inch deck (US class B) from 10,000 feet or from 6500 feet in 300kt 60degree dive. For Japan, the Type 99 no.80 Mk 5 used at Pearl Harbor was rated at 5.9inches from 10k. The Type 2 No.50 Model 1 SAP bomb of 491kg (1,082lb) was rated at 3.15inches armor plate 10k

Nikademus -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/28/2008 7:52:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: Feltan In fact, US Battleships (and other nations I am sure too) suffered a number of electrical and communication malfunctions when firing their own broadsides. After a few volleys, these ships were basically unable to use most of their communications gear. I only ever heard of this on South Dakota during a Solomon Islands battle. Where there any other examples? Her sister Massachussetts suffered a similar failure during Torch. I wouldn't label all battleships as overly vulnerable to this phenomenum. The SoDak's did have to compromise on space in order to get the desired level of armor protection on a limited displacement though it appears that it might have been a more general problem in modern US BB's. After the two incidents, all 10 modern US BB's received modifications to their electrical switchboards to prevent a future occurance. BB's would continue to suffer problems with their delicate radars from time to time when the big guns were fired repeatedly. Hence the need for backup systems and radars.

Akos Gergely -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/28/2008 9:47:26 AM)
quote: All this discussion about how ineffective bombs are against BBs yet with the advent of carriers BBs were essentially dead as a surface fighting ship (too big, too slow, too expensive, it only took that one lucky hit). The fact is BBs were pretty vulnerable to air power of all types. They might not be easily sunk, but they could be rendered ineffective. I don't see this modeled in the game, IMO. Sorry to say but you put up here is exactly true for all other type of surface ships (of course the lesser sized ones are better off). Carriers are also too big, too expensive too slow and they really can't take even that one lucky hit so to speak. Of course slow is relative but when you have to outrun a 300+ mph dive bomber coming at you it does not really matter if you can make 21 or 31 knots... CVs very also extremely velnurable to each other until perhaps late 1943-1944 when USN CAP tactics, radars and sheer number allowed the sort of AEGIS effect so well present in the stock game. Before that they were like battlecruisers: they had very powerful aramamen but lacked the protection both active and passive. On the other hand the real BB killer was the torpedo bomber and going back to the "too slow" expression, these old USN BBs could very well out-turn the USN CVs, especially the turbo-electircally driven Big Five. Also I don't think that the newer treaty type BBs were that much slower from CVs and that few knots difference was more than compensated for by the much heavier AA armament.

herwin -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/28/2008 11:27:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: csatahajos I'm not saying that DB weaponry was ineffective just that it's not correct that after only one-two initial hits the hit rate jumps to nearly 100% almost always... You brought up Mikuma: just check how many SBDs attacked her for maybe 4 or 5 clean hits and the damage would have been much less had the damage-control officer taken the step to jettison her Long Lances (as did Mogami's thus saving his ship). So USN SBDs with GP bombs would be hard pressed to kill alone a battleship in 1942 ('cos BBs were lightyears bette armoured on their horizontal) and that's what I think the japs realized after their Midway defeat and this put the BBs in to the forward van for the coming SoPac CV battles. Doing so at Midway could have impacted the strikes on their CVs in a great way...but again this is an other topic I guess :) As I recall, the statistics were that nine dive bombers surviving to bomb release would get (on the average) two hits on a target at sea. Kamikazes were about 50% more effective. Small targets (barges) were about twice as hard to hit as larger ones (DD and up). Non-manoeuvring carriers, cruisers, and battleships were hit about twice as often as manoeuvring ones, but non-manoeuvring DDs were less often hit (because their AA was more effective). On the average, there was no difference in hit rate between DDs and larger ships. In other words, YMMV.

herwin -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/28/2008 11:30:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: csatahajos I'm not saying that DB weaponry was ineffective just that it's not correct that after only one-two initial hits the hit rate jumps to nearly 100% almost always... You brought up Mikuma: just check how many SBDs attacked her for maybe 4 or 5 clean hits and the damage would have been much less had the damage-control officer taken the step to jettison her Long Lances (as did Mogami's thus saving his ship). So USN SBDs with GP bombs would be hard pressed to kill alone a battleship in 1942 ('cos BBs were lightyears bette armoured on their horizontal) and that's what I think the japs realized after their Midway defeat and this put the BBs in to the forward van for the coming SoPac CV battles. Doing so at Midway could have impacted the strikes on their CVs in a great way...but again this is an other topic I guess :) During the war, this was well known. VTs were the preferred aircraft for missions against armoured ships.

Zebedee -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/28/2008 3:50:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Feinder I think most folks don't use skip-bombing because - 1. The exp requirement is too high. You get zip under 70 exp, and begin to results over 80. You're better served just dropping level bombs from 12 - 15k (whatever your house rules). In point of fact, the whole point of skip bombing was to create a method that was could be quickly taught and learned, that would prove more accurate than level-bombing. If anything, the exp requirement to achieve par hits with level bombing should be substantially -lower-, as that was entire point of the excersise. 2. Big hit to morale and much greater flak losses, means you don't fly as often and take more losses when you do. 3. If you think trying to penetrate the deck armor with a 500# GP is tough to do from level bombing, what 'til you try to roll vs. the BELT armor doing a skip-bombing attack. Essentially, skip-bombing is completely useless in WitP. THAT would be why folks don't use it. [;)] -F- That would certainly explain things. Thanks Feinder. [&o]

mlees -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/28/2008 5:18:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus quote: ORIGINAL: mlees Does anybody have a link to some data for bombs? I was frustrated just last night, watching my LBA bounce 40-50 500lb and 1000lb General Purpose bombs off the deck of the Kinugasa. Not a single penetration, even though I probably wiped out a lot of deck guns. For example, how much armor will a 1000 lb GP bomb penetrate at various altitudes? Ditto 500lb, 250lb, etc... Your not likely to find any hard figures because GP/HE bombs wern't designed to penetrate substantial armor , thus no serious testing was done. In reality the type has very little chance of doing so. Same goes for most SAP types as well in terms of finding hard figures for pen. GP/HE weapons were prized for their heavy blast and destructive ability to lighter structures, devices and of course....crew. (Also good against wooden flight decks!) Their "penetrative" characteristics were well characterized when striking Japanese carriers. For AP though, there are some estimates available. The USN Mark I AP bomb of 1600lbs was estimated at being able to defeat 7inches of US Class B armor from 10,000 feet. From 4500 feet the estimate was 5 inches. The more standard USN Mk 33 1000lb AP bomb mentioned in this thread (and others) was rated to be able to penetrate a 5inch deck (US class B) from 10,000 feet or from 6500 feet in 300kt 60degree dive. For Japan, the Type 99 no.80 Mk 5 used at Pearl Harbor was rated at 5.9inches from 10k. The Type 2 No.50 Model 1 SAP bomb of 491kg (1,082lb) was rated at 3.15inches armor plate 10k Wiki states that the Kinugasa had an armored deck of 36mm (which is 1 1/2 inches to me). Are you saying that a 1000lb GP bomb won't penetrate that? Edit: I know that GP bombs are built slightly less sturdy than an AP bomb, but they are no slouches either. I think a 36mm deck would keep out a 250lb bomb, and I might be convinced of it keeping out a 500lb bomb, but a 1000lb bomb? I'm a little dubious.

Nikademus -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/28/2008 5:26:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mlees Wiki states that the Kinugasa had an armored deck of 36mm (which is 1 1/2 inches to me). Are you saying that a 1000lb GP bomb won't penetrate that? Assuming the bomb reaches the armored deck intact, it could damage it enough to vent some of the blast and shrapnel (including pieces of the deck) into the spaces below. But it would not be an absolute in all cases. A good number of 1000LB GP's launched by the US exploded on or near impact with any structure, including wooden flight decks. Mikuma suffered at least two large bomb hits where damage reached two engine rooms and direct hits on the lightly protected gunhouses of both Mogami and Mikuma were taken out by GP hits. Chukuma at Santa Cruz, suffered horrendous superstructure/bridge casualties when a pair of GP's exploded on contact with the upper decks sending the blast and shrapnel into those upper structures. Kingugasa, if memory served was primarily done in by 1-2 very close near misses which blew in side plating and started massive flooding. So while a GP, esp a larger one will have a small intrinsic armor penetration capability, its neither going to be great nor will it be as cosnistant as with a dedicated AP projectile. In game terms....the 1000lb GP was intentionally given a pen rating of 70 to allow it to "penetrate" pretty much anything up to but not including a battleship or armored carrier (UK type) (I should know....i was responsible for the value seen in WitP Stock) Thus, a CA's vulnerability to the 1000lb in certain situations is abstractly represented by the bomb's ability to "penetrate" and do some serious damage. Its not completely accurate....but its more accurate than a non penetration. Same goes for the BB. Its not completely accurate to have no pen thus almost zip chance of damage (Fires though and device destruction), but its more accurate than a penetration otherwise you have the phenomenum that was seen in early UV where even a Yamato could be taken out by 5-6 penetrating 1000 GP hits.

herwin -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/28/2008 5:28:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zebedee quote: ORIGINAL: Feinder I think most folks don't use skip-bombing because - 1. The exp requirement is too high. You get zip under 70 exp, and begin to results over 80. You're better served just dropping level bombs from 12 - 15k (whatever your house rules). In point of fact, the whole point of skip bombing was to create a method that was could be quickly taught and learned, that would prove more accurate than level-bombing. If anything, the exp requirement to achieve par hits with level bombing should be substantially -lower-, as that was entire point of the excersise. 2. Big hit to morale and much greater flak losses, means you don't fly as often and take more losses when you do. 3. If you think trying to penetrate the deck armor with a 500# GP is tough to do from level bombing, what 'til you try to roll vs. the BELT armor doing a skip-bombing attack. Essentially, skip-bombing is completely useless in WitP. THAT would be why folks don't use it. [;)] -F- That would certainly explain things. Thanks Feinder. [&o] Skip-bombing was hard to pull off successfully against a ship with belt armour or (harder yet) bulges. The goal was basically to land a mine on the ship's side. It worked well against merchant vessels and destroyers, but it had to be positioned just right to damage a ship with side protection.

crsutton -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/28/2008 5:34:04 PM)
I would expect that a lot of this would be corrected in AE. Of course, I expect that will then give us a whole new batch of topics to bitch about...giving us and this forum a whole new lease on life.. [;)]

mlees -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/28/2008 5:39:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus quote: ORIGINAL: mlees Wiki states that the Kinugasa had an armored deck of 36mm (which is 1 1/2 inches to me). Are you saying that a 1000lb GP bomb won't penetrate that? Assuming the bomb reaches the armored deck intact, it could damage it enough to vent some of the blast and shrapnel (including pieces of the deck) into the spaces below. But it would not be an absolute in all cases. A good number of 1000LB GP's launched by the US exploded on or near impact with any structure, including wooden flight decks. Mikuma suffered at least two large bomb hits where damage reached two engine rooms and direct hits on the lightly protected gunhouses of both Mogami and Mikuma were taken out by GP hits. Chukuma at Santa Cruz, suffered horrendous superstructure/bridge casualties when a pair of GP's exploded on contact with the upper decks sending the blast and shrapnel into those upper structures. Kingugasa, if memory served was primarily done in by 1-2 very close near misses which blew in side plating and started massive flooding. So while a GP, esp a larger one will have a small intrinsic armor penetration capability, its neither going to be great nor will it be as cosnistant as with a dedicated AP projectile. In game terms....the 1000lb GP was intentionally given a pen rating of 70 to allow it to "penetrate" pretty much anything up to but not including a battleship or armored carrier (UK type) (I should know....i was responsible for the value seen in WitP Stock) Thus, a CA's vulnerability to the 1000lb in certain situations is abstractly represented by the bomb's ability to "penetrate" and do some serious damage. Its not completely accurate....but its more accurate than a non penetration. Same goes for the BB. Its not completely accurate to have no pen thus almost zip chance of damage (Fires though and device destruction), but its more accurate than a penetration otherwise you have the phenomenum that was seen in early UV where even a Yamato could be taken out by 5-6 penetrating 1000 GP hits. Ah. I'm not playing stock. All of my 1000lb hits failed to penetrate. They just started deck fires. It's frustrating, because now there are cruiser death stars raoming about, bombarding with impunity.

Nikademus -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/28/2008 5:44:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mlees Ah. I'm not playing stock. All of my 1000lb hits failed to penetrate. They just started deck fires. It's frustrating, because now there are cruiser death stars raoming about, bombarding with impunity. Yes....its a sad reality that since UV, "Fire" levels in the game have never been satisfactory. They worked very well in Carrier Force.....but not here and it was later acknowledged that it was a weak point. I came up with an enhanced damage model years back that would have addressed the issue of FIRE along with other things but it was too code changing heavy. I resubmitted a refined version of it for AE. Some small aspects of it apper to have made it in. (Engine damage seperated somewhat from "SYS" damage to represent topside vs below the waterline damage/penetrations) but not all regrettably. in regards to the mod your playing....well if 1000lb GP's can't "penetrate" the CA's 'gamewise', your example at least serves to validate the design decision i was involved in for stock regarding the 1000GP's rating. [;)]

engineer -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/28/2008 5:48:03 PM)
I'd vouch for Herwin's VT comments. I played a late campaign game of WPO and in even that relatively primative era the premier ship killer in that game was the Langley's VT squadron. In the WitP/WPO system, the old truism that torpedoes let in water and bombs let in air is alive and well.

Nikademus -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/28/2008 6:04:31 PM)
USN standard doctrine prewar/start of war was that the torpedo squadron was considered to be the carrier's primary "Anti-heavy ship" asset. Same went for the Japanese.

herwin -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/28/2008 6:15:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus quote: ORIGINAL: mlees Wiki states that the Kinugasa had an armored deck of 36mm (which is 1 1/2 inches to me). Are you saying that a 1000lb GP bomb won't penetrate that? Assuming the bomb reaches the armored deck intact, it could damage it enough to vent some of the blast and shrapnel (including pieces of the deck) into the spaces below. But it would not be an absolute in all cases. A good number of 1000LB GP's launched by the US exploded on or near impact with any structure, including wooden flight decks. Mikuma suffered at least two large bomb hits where damage reached two engine rooms and direct hits on the lightly protected gunhouses of both Mogami and Mikuma were taken out by GP hits. Chukuma at Santa Cruz, suffered horrendous superstructure/bridge casualties when a pair of GP's exploded on contact with the upper decks sending the blast and shrapnel into those upper structures. Kingugasa, if memory served was primarily done in by 1-2 very close near misses which blew in side plating and started massive flooding. So while a GP, esp a larger one will have a small intrinsic armor penetration capability, its neither going to be great nor will it be as cosnistant as with a dedicated AP projectile. In game terms....the 1000lb GP was intentionally given a pen rating of 70 to allow it to "penetrate" pretty much anything up to but not including a battleship or armored carrier (UK type) (I should know....i was responsible for the value seen in WitP Stock) Thus, a CA's vulnerability to the 1000lb in certain situations is abstractly represented by the bomb's ability to "penetrate" and do some serious damage. Its not completely accurate....but its more accurate than a non penetration. Same goes for the BB. Its not completely accurate to have no pen thus almost zip chance of damage (Fires though and device destruction), but its more accurate than a penetration otherwise you have the phenomenum that was seen in early UV where even a Yamato could be taken out by 5-6 penetrating 1000 GP hits. An unarmoured 65000 ton hull would have required 16 1000 GP hits or 8 (6 on one side) torpedo hits (on the average) to sink.

Cavalry Corp -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/28/2008 6:16:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Historiker 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... Not any Stuka!!!!!!!! but one flown by ... a man they could make films about that no one would believe Hans-Ulrich Rudel The most highly decorated German serviceman of the war. Michael

Nikademus -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/28/2008 6:21:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin An unarmoured 65000 ton hull would have required 16 1000 GP hits or 8 (6 on one side) torpedo hits (on the average) to sink. Maybe. Maybe not in regards to the GP hits.

mlees -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/28/2008 6:38:35 PM)
quote: An unarmoured 65000 ton hull would have required 16 1000 GP hits or 8 (6 on one side) torpedo hits (on the average) to sink. I dunno... There was an old thread around here, many moons ago (by Feinder?) that attempted to ask whether there any ships (other than Yamato and Musashi) that required three or more torps to sink. Interestingly, IIRC, all warships cruiser sized and smaller were effectively sunk with two (or even one). (Any further hits were merely overkill.) There were a few big ships (like HMS Ark Royal) that were sunk by a single hit. Yamato and Musashi are no where near to being considered unarmored or unprotected.

Nikademus -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/28/2008 6:44:43 PM)
In battleship terms, no. I recall this because back in Pacwar days torpedoes were so lame that it took about 20 to seriously damage any BB and some thought that was "normal". I begged to differ. [;)] Outside of Yamato and Musashi, no BB hit by 3 or more torpedoes escaped being either crippled or sunk. Unfortunately in the case of the two beasties....they can't take more than 5-6 torps in the game without being crippled and/or sunk because of the way the code works.

Speedysteve -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/28/2008 6:47:37 PM)
I may change my sig soon to read "Death to Nik the Torp Fanboy"[;)]

Mynok -> RE: 1000 Pounders versus Battleships (2/28/2008 6:51:13 PM)
Surely you meant "Death to Nik the Dumbass Torp Fanboy".......

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.75