Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Nikademus Val Bomb info...

 
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 >> Nikademus Val Bomb info... Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Nikademus Val Bomb info... - 2/17/2004 10:32:30 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		Ok hear is a thread that will not burn up your report thread with off topic debating.

I found this report today:

http://www.history.navy.mil/docs/wwii/pearl/ph75.htm

The OOD observerd:

"The first warning of the attack on board was the noise of explosions. The Officer-of-the-Deck the, at about 0755, saw a Japanese dive bomber come in very close and drop a couple of bombs. He sounded general quarters and, as the guns were manned, fire was opened with all A.A. guns, using ammunition from the ready boxes. The machine guns opened up first, and the 3", using preset fuze setting of 2.5 seconds, shortly afterwards. The starboard 3" gun was blanked off through a large arc, by the crane on the dock but managed to fire from time to time. The machine guns on the Motor Torpedo Boats on deck opened fire shortly after the Ramapo. "

The Gunner officer observed:

"First observed that a bombing attack was in progress about 0755. I heard a couple of explosions and rushed out on deck just in time to see a Japanese dive bomber come in very close and drop a couple of bombs"

The Only Dive bombers at Peral were Val's and if the one they observed droped more than one bomb it must of been carying Wing bombs.
Post #: 1
RE: Nikademus Val Bomb info... - 2/17/2004 10:49:34 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		well its vague Brady but i'll give it too you because Pry told me last nite that some Val's did use them during the PH attack. I can accept that since the target in question was a land target and a suprise attack and they were going for maximum effect.

what i'd like, is for you to find me one NAVAL attack, where Vals on KB took on warships armed with 60kg'ers.

I still see this like the F4F situation. If the D3A's did not 'reguarily' arm with them for naval strikes, i see no reason to support their addtion to the OOB which unfortunately, does not support the player selecting different loadouts

_____________________________


(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 2
RE: Nikademus Val Bomb info... - 2/17/2004 11:14:23 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		TY for listing I do appricate it, I would point out that the Vals were atacking the ship in question, or they apeare to be doing so...so this might constitute a Naval atack..it does show they were launced and that the CV's did cary them in their inventory, in another section of the historical center it describes at length the bomb damage taken by one of the BB's (I cant rember which) which was hit by several 12 inch (250KG) bombs and what they (the Navy) described as smaller ones that did not penatrate, it was a bit vauge as well so I did not link it, though now I wish I had...

On ethe wildcat issue, personaly I would think that if a Wildcat or an A6M2 were sent on a Naval strike mishion, one intended to have them Hit ship's that they would indead cary the bombs they could, I know of at least one ocashion whear a Zero did this, and I beleave at Wake island some very Brave and capable men realy messed up the Japanese atack by using Wildcats equiped with 100 pound bombs aganst Ships.

I have an appointment for Friday to go and look at the NavOp 32-3mm, the Oregon Military Museum has a coppy of it.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 3
RE: Nikademus Val Bomb info... - 2/17/2004 11:43:15 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		I would suspect that the 60kg's were armed for the attacks on the airfields since that was what the first wave Val's were assigned to do. I can see the use of these small weapons for use against an airfield expected to be crowded with parked planes but seriously doubt the Japanese would bother to arm them for anti-ship strikes, particularily against battleships. (and supported by Lundstrom's research) These bombs are too small to do much of anything to anything to a warship of any size. (and in UV it took alot just to hurt a DD)

< Message edited by Nikademus -- 2/17/2004 9:43:54 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 4
RE: Nikademus Val Bomb info... - 2/17/2004 11:52:39 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		Well acording to the report the bombs that did not penatrate did damage to open gun mounts and started fires ect, In UV the did seam to do some damage even to BB's I remmber one taking out the dar on an American BB in one of my PBEM games, they did as you say damage DD's and seamed effective aganst shiping as well, and lighter craft.


I will do some more diging, and Like I said on Friday I will get to look at the Navy book on Japanese explosive ordance, it should be interesting to see what it lists for die markers.

The incedent at wake was a great read, it will try and find the link at the historical center and post it...

Not to raise another question, but I take it Wildcats and Zero's cant use their bombs for Naval atack?

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 5
RE: Nikademus Val Bomb info... - 2/18/2004 12:12:13 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		Brady.....we're talkking a 60kg bomblet. Thats about 132 pounds. A 132 pound bomb is not going to do much of anything to a warship "period" Yes if it manages to squarely hit an 'open mount' such as a AA gun or an 20mm Oki it would damage it but thats about all, it would have little blast effect and for carriers, if US damage teams could quickly patch 250kg bomb blasts i dont think they are going to be fazed by these little M-80's. the Japanese wern't looking to pinprick the warships of Pearl, they were going for the knockout blow.

Your "report" says a person on deck said a Val dropped a "couple" of bombs.......who knows what he really saw. Given what Pry told me i can accept some were there but that doesn't mean they were used against ships because of the low yield. They "would" be effective against parked aircraft though.....and as mentioned, that was the mission of the 1st wave D3A's so its a logical argument they were armed for that express purpose with the bomblets. The 2nd wave Val's were anti-ship, but carried big bombs for that. As things turned out their effect was largely blunted attacking the singular Nevada.

If set to Naval attack, Zeros and F4F's will use a 250lb general purpose bomb. Still a bit on the small puny size but its at least respectable if used against a lightly or unarmored warship. The one time F4F's used wing 100lb "bomblets" was during another 'land raid' against an airfield. The bombs were reputed to have been of "little use" as unlike Pearl, the pilots didn't have the benefit of mass stacked planes to set a kindling too.

< Message edited by Nikademus -- 2/17/2004 10:13:30 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 6
RE: Nikademus Val Bomb info... - 2/18/2004 1:05:17 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		Well, their were two different men at diffeent stations that say the Val drop the "Bomb's".

Persoanly I am not so quick to dismiss the blast of a 60 KG bomb, it would certainly kill anyone near it and likely deestroy any open gun mout it landed near, but were digressing hear a bit I think.

I do argee it would be higely effective aganst aircraft and lighter unarmored targets.

The A6M2 should only be able to cary either two 30KG or two 60 KG bombs.

The F4F-3 two 100(prety shure this was the max for the-3) pound bombs.

Later Wildcats two 250 pound bombs or the lighter ones.

p.24 Wildcat the F4F in WW2: Bomb equiped F4F-3 carying 100 pounders hit the fantial of the Kisaragi with a 100 poundr(and MG fire) and set off the depth charges, the destroyer promptly sank with all 150 crewmen.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 7
RE: Nikademus Val Bomb info... - 2/18/2004 1:29:15 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		my mistake....was thinking of the P-40. (this is what i get for posting at work)

Scratch the last on the F4F and A6M2 vis-a-vis 250lb

_____________________________


(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 8
RE: Nikademus Val Bomb info... - 2/18/2004 2:41:34 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		Some New Info has come to my Atention, posted per a request I made on the AH Forum by Pyro:

An excellent well-researched book is "Aichi D3A1/2 Val" by Peter Smith. Here's some things from there to back your side and to cross reference with your other sources.

p. 49 - "The D3A1/2's main weapon was a single 250kg bomb carried in a swing displacement crutch under the central fuselage. Wing loadings were usually of two 60kg light bombs on underwing racks under both wings. These could be released either separately or as one combined bomb load according to target and circumstances."

p.51 - "60kg Bomb - There were two types, one for use against naval targets and the other against land targets. The latter, although known commonly as the '60kg' bomb, was actually of 58kg (128lb) and used an impact firing pin. These were used against parked aircraft on the ground at Ford Island and Hickham Field in the Pearl Harbor strike. Against naval targets, they had a mainly flak-suppression role."

P.73 describing the attack on Wake Island - "The fourteen 'Vals' from Soryu were each armed with a single 250kg bomb, and were commanded by Lieutenent Commander Takashige Egusa. They had an escort of nine Zeros. The fifteen 'Vals' from Hiryu, each of which was armed with four 60 kg bombs (all that were left aboard), were commanded by Lieutenant Michio Kobayashi and had an escort of nine more Zeros."

The interesting thing about this is that it possibly suggests an alternative armament of four 60 kg bombs. I've seen reference to there being 5 bomb racks in all but I've never seen a photo of or description of that that I recall.

p.74 describing a later attack on Wake - "In total, the 'Vals' took part in two separate sorties that day. At 0409, Soryu launched a force of six Vals led by Lt. Masataka Ikeda, escorted by six Zero fighters whose leader Lt. Seiji Suganami, was a classmate of Ikeda. The dive-bombers attacked the island from 0530 to 0545 dropping six 250kg bombs of which four appeared to be direct hits on military targets, with two misses. The Vals then conducted some strafing passes and all returned safely to their carrier at 0718 without damage or casualties.

The second wave consisted of six D3A1s, led by Lieutenant Michio Kobayashi from Hiryu, which launched at 0500 and again had a six-Zero escort. Again, they only had 60kg bombs and they dropped two of these each on military facilities and conducted strafing runs between 0645 and 0650. Bullet holes were found on ten of the Hiryu aircraft but none were lost or put out of action by these hits and there were no injuries. The surviving 5in batteries were the main targets and appeared to have been well hit.

There followed three further attacks by the Kates from both carriers which used up the final stocks of the 60kg bombs on Hiryu."

He states that the raid on the Darwin airfield used only the 60kg bombs as well and there's at least a couple of combat reports in the book that reference the use of the wing bombs, but they weren't generally used.


It would apear that they were used often enough to warent their inclushion, I am still looking for some more instances showing their use howeaver.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 9
RE: Nikademus Val Bomb info... - 2/21/2004 3:22:18 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		I spent the Day at the Oregon Military Museum, Tracy Buckley the Museum Curator was kind enough to assist me in my quest for info relating to this topic. As it turns out they had on hand a Coppy of OPNAV 30-3M on hand.

........................................................................................................................

This From a previous post by Nikademus:

""Contrary to US reports, the aircraft [D3A] did not carry a pair of underwing 60kg bombs. None of the carrier-based kanbaku did. Instead, the underwing containers held aluminum powder to be dropped on the water as a marker to aid the post attack rendevous. Damage control parties wrongly thought that one of these non-existant 60kg bombs had detonated.

John Lundstrom, First Team and the Guad campaign.

footnote that acompanies the paragraph:

The Kodaochoshos are explicit on armament; for the navagational markers and the 250kg bombs, see OpNav 30-3mm, Handbook of Japanese Explosive Ordinance (15 Aug 1945) "

........................................................................................................................


Now their are several points in the above passage that are Not correct.

1) Vals and Kates both did in fact launch on operation sorties with 60KG bombs from Japanese CV's and did so on several ocashions, carying them along with the 250 KG bomb.

2) The Japanese Navy Did Not have an underwing mounted Die Marker. Acording to OPNAV 30-3m, and TM-1985-5, the Die Markers that the Japanese Navy did have were hand deployed devices weighing around 3 pounds (Type 0 Model 1 and Type 0 Model 2), their is also Type Type 2 Model 11 at 18 pounds which is also deployed from withen the aircraft, as it has no bomb mounting lugs.

3) "The Kodaochoshos are explicit on armament; for the navagational markers and the 250kg bombs, see OpNav 30-3mm, Handbook of Japanese Explosive Ordinance (15 Aug 1945) "


This book dscribes the carecter and compasation of these weapons only, in fairly good detail, the series TM-1985-5 does imo a better job of describing the detail and chemical compasation of these deviecres howeaver. That is all it they do, they do not describe the use of these weapons or in anyway sugest how or when they were deployed.
The above statement is misleading, since opnav 30-3m shows clearly that the die markers were not a deployable device in the same since as a bomb, and non of them would look anyting at all like a 60KG bomb on the wing of a Val.


Now I put forth that the 60 KG bombs should be replaced on the Vals and used in the same fashion as in UV in WiTP.

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 10
RE: Nikademus Val Bomb info... - 2/21/2004 3:40:45 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:


1) Vals and Kates both did in fact launch on operation sorties with 60KG bombs from Japanese CV's and did so on several ocashions, carying them along with the 250 KG bomb.


When? Where? with regularity against naval targets? How is Lundstrom incorrect? USN damage control teams thought that a 60kg had hit Hornet, it proved false. None seen at any of the other major carrier battles. were not seen during the Indian ocean attack on Hermes and Dorsetshire and Cornwall......etc etc ad nausium

quote:


2) The Japanese Navy Did Not have an underwing mounted Die Marker. Acording to OPNAV 30-3m, and TM-1985-5, the Die Markers that the Japanese Navy did have were hand deployed devices weighing around 3 pounds (Type 0 Model 1 and Type 0 Model 2), their is also Type Type 2 Model 11 at 18 pounds which is also deployed from withen the aircraft, as it has no bomb mounting lugs.


sigh.....when i said "die marker" brady i was reffering to Lundstrom from memory. On getting home from work and tapping the source the "proper term" was "canister" holding aluminum powder. You can keep beating this dead horse and call me to carpet for saying "Die marker" if you like but its getting rather tiresome.

quote:


3) "The Kodaochoshos are explicit on armament; for the navagational markers and the 250kg bombs, see OpNav 30-3mm, Handbook of Japanese Explosive Ordinance (15 Aug 1945) "

This book dscribes the carecter and compasation of these weapons only, in fairly good detail, the series TM-1985-5 does imo a better job of describing the detail and chemical compasation of these deviecres howeaver. That is all it they do, they do not describe the use of these weapons or in anyway sugest how or when they were deployed.
The above statement is misleading, since opnav 30-3m shows clearly that the die markers were not a deployable device in the same since as a bomb, and non of them would look anyting at all like a 60KG bomb on the wing of a Val.


Now I put forth that the 60 KG bombs should be replaced on the Vals and used in the same fashion as in UV in WiTP.


The point Brady was that it was this canister, not a 60kg was seen at Santa Cruz....not a 60kg bomblet.

Your case is still weak IMO......none of what you've posted proves that this small bomblet was standard armament on a naval D3A which is largely what WitP will feature.

I found myself a better reference that you could have used to better make your case.....from Lundstrom again....it seems that a set of land based D3A's did indeed launch a raid on Lunga carrying the bomblets early on....however again....it was not a STANDARD loadout....they ONLY carried the bomblets vs the "normal" loadout of 1 x 250kg SAP for anti ship work. They attacked and damaged an auxilery vessel. The mission nor the armament was what i would consider 'standard'. the mission was a 1way suicide mission and the armament was improvised and not very effective.

the 60kg was not a standard loadout for a D3A on a naval strike mission. They might use them for a land attack and in a pinch, they might use them if the unit is land based and they wish to rush off as happened early on at Lunga but it remains a non standard loadout

_____________________________


(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 11
RE: Nikademus Val Bomb info... - 2/21/2004 4:08:00 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		"The point Brady was that it was this canister, not a 60kg was seen at Santa Cruz....not a 60kg bomblet"

The canaster did not exist, if they saw someting on the wing it would had to of been a bomb, that Is My point, and the refrences bear that out.

It is clear that the prefered long range load was the Single 250 KG bomb, howeaver on ocashion the 60 KG bomb was carried as well, the load was considered the standard load the Val could cary, as evidanced in nomiours books and in photos. We also have evidance above from pearl that they were used, the incedent on the BB from the naval historical center, and other referances, one you have mentioned clearly show it was used on ocashion aganst Naval targets. Range obvously has some determanation on the max load as it did in UV, and would in WiTP.

Now the big isue hear is the removal of these weapons decreases the total capaity by aprox, 120 Killos for the val aganst any target withen normal range now for a plane that would otherwise be carying only 250 Killos to begine with that is a considerable load reduction, as we have sean evidanced above Vals were often used from land bases with this load, and used from CV's on ocashion with similar loads. Aganst heavy ships this will have no effect and aganst ligher ones only miminal effect, so why remove it?

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 12
RE: Nikademus Val Bomb info... - 2/21/2004 4:12:51 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

The canaster did not exist, if they saw someting on the wing it would had to of been a bomb, that Is My point, and the refrences bear that out.



I dont agree. Your reference does not prove that and neither do i agree that it 'had' to be a bomb. 60kg bombets dont create visible slicks of aluminum powder.

_____________________________


(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 13
RE: Nikademus Val Bomb info... - 2/21/2004 4:20:42 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		" dont agree. Your reference does not prove that and neither do i agree that it 'had' to be a bomb. 60kg bombets dont create visible slicks of aluminum powder. "

Bud, they had no wing mounted Canasters for creating Slicks...(aka die markers) Neiteher book nore any I have ever sean shows this, no pictures I have sean suport this either, the types that they had were hand deploeyed. As we have sean their is a ton of photographic evidance and writen evidance showing the use of the wing mounted 60KG bomb. Lundstrom is sighting the very source I spent the day looking at and have photo coppys of and it simply does not back this asertation, and he made other eronious remarks regarding the use of the 60 KG bomb as well as we have sean above.

If a slick was created when the plane crashed it was because one or more being caried Inside the plane came in contact with the sea, likely the rear gunner would of been the one to deploy this device and his open cockpit woud of created a likely place for this exposhure to hapen apon crash.

< Message edited by Brady -- 2/21/2004 2:31:17 AM >

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 14
RE: Nikademus Val Bomb info... - 2/21/2004 4:41:23 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, Doesn't WITP load a VAL with a 250kg bomb if target is in normal range and 60kg bombs if mission is at extended range? (or if Vals are deployed at airfield too small to support normal operation)

< Message edited by Mogami -- 2/20/2004 9:43:03 PM >

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 15
RE: Nikademus Val Bomb info... - 2/21/2004 4:54:15 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		The Point hear in part is that at normal ranges the Val could carriea load of two 60KG bombs and one 250 KG bomb, that was it's designe speck and it could easly do so, and did do so.




< Message edited by Brady -- 2/21/2004 2:58:12 AM >

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 16
RE: Nikademus Val Bomb info... - 2/21/2004 4:56:29 AM   
Zeta16


Posts: 1199
Joined: 11/20/2002
From: Columbus. Ohio
Status: offline 		Were these bombes carried in major combat often? If not remember this is not a tatical game, we can not change load outs. If it was not used often it should not be a load out.

_____________________________

"Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: 'We the people.' 'We the people' tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us." -Ronald Reagan

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 17
Bomb loads - 2/21/2004 5:04:40 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, Is any one disputing that a Val could carry a 250kg bomb and 2 60kg bombs? (one under each wing) Only that the normal load is a single 250kg bomb. I think range should decide loadouts.
I need programmer help here because I was thinking this was already in effect.

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Zeta16)
Post #: 18
RE: Nikademus Val Bomb info... - 2/21/2004 5:05:03 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		Their are several refrences above to both types being used often, and their is substantial photographic evidance to suport this as well. Particulary so if the case by lundstrum is considered bogus as the evidance would sugest it is.



< Message edited by Brady -- 2/21/2004 3:10:26 AM >

(in reply to Zeta16)
Post #: 19
RE: Nikademus Val Bomb info... - 2/21/2004 6:28:50 AM   
SouthernAP


Posts: 40
Joined: 2/11/2004
From: Haze Grey and Underway
Status: offline 		Does anyone have first source references for the use of 60kg bombs along with 250kg bombs on the D3A/D3A1 that could be used to clear this up?

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 20
RE: Nikademus Val Bomb info... - 2/22/2004 6:41:45 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		Arg...Agin we lost info, how vexing is that:(

Ok in a nut shell...

Nikademus, Lundstrom, Yes we keep going over this, but from whear I sit he is plain wrong on several points he makes, and initialy some of your balnket statemnts in the other thread were as well regarding usage of the 60KG bomb. Since the source Lundstrom sights does not suport his stance on the Canaster issue I was woundering if you could provide a source that in fact shows they did exist, as nothing that I have or have sean does in fact show this, it might clear up this point which so much of your posation seams to be based on.

From whear I sit as well, and as can be sean above their is plenty of evidance to sugest the use of the multiple 60 KG bombs from vals (4-5), and or the Combo of one 250KG and two 60 KG bombs as the plane was designed to use as the primary loadout, in fact photographic evidance shows this for a wide range of times and places, I know you dont see the phots as evidance, but as some one who knows what he is looking at they do work for me. Even if they are as you previously sugested trainig sorties, one would ask why would they train with one 250 KG bomb and two 60 KG bombs if they dident intend to use that load, and further more why not use traing bombs instead, which was common to use during training, which are much smaller and look nothing like the bombs shown in the photos.


Another way to look at this is from the game impact prespective, the reductiuon of the Vals Standard load by 120 KG is substantial when it only carys aprox. 370 KG anyway, your taking aprox. 1/3 of it's standard load away. These 60 KG bombs when deployed aganst Most Naval targets are only going to effect the flack guns as was their designed intent and not hurt the ship realy at all other wise, so realy were talking minamal impact hear. Whear their will be or would be if they are included is agasnt land targets and lighter vessals, whear theier is the most evadance of their use, from CV's and Land bases, this reduction in true capabality will have a signafagant impact, rducing anythings ordance load by 1/3 will.


Not to open another can O worms but what is the Juddys load in the game?

(in reply to SouthernAP)
Post #: 21
Brady Translation - 2/22/2004 7:25:06 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Arg...Again we lost info, how vexing is that:(

OK in a nut shell...

Nikademus, Lundstrom, Yes we keep going over this, but from where I sit he is plain wrong on several points he makes, and initially some of your blanket statements in the other thread were as well regarding usage of the 60KG bomb. Since the source Lundstrom sights does not support his stance on the Canister issue I was wondering if you could provide a source that in fact shows they did exist, as nothing that I have or have seen does in fact show this, it might clear up this point which so much of your position seams to be based on.

From where I sit as well, and as can be seen above their is plenty of evidence to suggest the use of the multiple 60 KG bombs from Vals (4-5), and or the Combo of one 250KG and two 60 KG bombs as the plane was designed to use as the primary loadout, in fact photographic evidence shows this for a wide range of times and places, I know you don't see the photos as evidence, but as some one who knows what he is looking at they do work for me. Even if they are as you previously suggested training sorties, one would ask why would they train with one 250 KG bomb and two 60 KG bombs if they didn't intend to use that load, and further more why not use training bombs instead, which was common to use during training, which are much smaller and look nothing like the bombs shown in the photos.


Another way to look at this is from the game impact perspective, the reduction of the Vals Standard load by 120 KG is substantial when it only carries approx. 370 KG anyway, your taking approx. 1/3 of it's standard load away. These 60 KG bombs when deployed against Most Naval targets are only going to effect the flack guns as was their designed intent and not hurt the ship really at all other wise, so really were talking minimal impact here. Where their will be or would be if they are included is against land targets and lighter vessels, where there is the most evidence of their use, from CV's and Land bases, this reduction in true capability will have a significant impact, reducing anything's ordnance load by 1/3 will?


Not to open another can O worms but what is the Judy's load in the game?

Translation
OK, The VALs normal load was 1x 250kg and 2x60kg (I think it was able to carry this load but 1x250kg was the normal load)
There is no such thing as a canister that mounted under the wing of Val. Anything so mounted would be a bomb. Only 60kg bombs were mounted under wing.

Would adding the 2x60kg have any impact on suppressing AA? (This was the role they were carried for. I would suggest that when so employed only certain Vals carried them not the entire strike) If they would not suppress AA in WITP then they do not need to be worried about. If this effect can be duplicated then they would need to be included. (Do Beaufighters flying low suppress flak? This was their primary role in anti ship strikes)

< Message edited by Mogami -- 2/22/2004 1:24:02 PM >

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 22
RE: Brady Translation - 2/22/2004 7:42:01 PM   
madflava13


Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline 		Translating for Brady is a full-time job that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy...

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 23
RE: Nikademus Val Bomb info... - 2/22/2004 8:52:23 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady


Nikademus, Lundstrom, Yes we keep going over this, but from whear I sit he is plain wrong on several points he makes, and initialy some of your balnket statemnts in the other thread were as well regarding usage of the 60KG bomb. Since the source Lundstrom sights does not suport his stance on the Canaster issue I was woundering if you could provide a source that in fact shows they did exist, as nothing that I have or have sean does in fact show this, it might clear up this point which so much of your posation seams to be based on.



Thats fine Brady....however your assumption is that Lundstrom based his entire statement soley on this reference. Having not accessed it myself and given your description i do not come to the airtight conclusion that he is "wrong". Additionally Lundstrom heavily researched all four major carrier battles in his two books and in not one insance does he record a hit or use of a 60kg bomb, whether against a "flak gun" or anything else. The only recorded instance was a land based Val attack on 8-Aug, which i will reiiterate, was NOT a 1 x 250kg and 2 x 60kg loadout....but 2 x 60kg ONLY which he describes as a land attack loadout. It also does not as i have repeated, make sense for the KB to have wasted prep time (when a carrier is most vulnerable) loading these bombs given their extremely limited usefullness against warships. Further point....Japanse doctrine for warship attack was to mix land and antiship versions of their 250kg bomb, a clear indication that it takes a much larger bomb to make an impact if one is going for HE effect. If i find an additional refrence on the canister i will be sure to post it. In the meantime i would appreciate it if you would provide a source that i've been asking for since near the beginning of this subject.....conclusive evidence that this bomblet was STANDARD loadout for Val's on naval strikes. If said loadout was indeed standard one would think that there would be recorded evidence of their use and the damage they inflicted. You have provided none and i havn't found any.

quote:



know you dont see the phots as evidance, but as some one who knows what he is looking at they do work for me. Even if they are as you previously sugested trainig sorties, one would ask why would they train with one 250 KG bomb and two 60 KG bombs if they dident intend to use that load, and further more why not use traing bombs instead, which was common to use during training, which are much smaller and look nothing like the bombs shown in the photos.



What one is 'seeing' was never the contention....nor was the question of whether the plane COULD be armed with the bomblet. All the photos prove is the above, they do not prove that the bomblet was standard loadout during WWII. Why did they train with them? I can offer one explanation right off the bat besides the obvious point that some prewar tactics either did not make it into WWII or were modified based on experience. In this case, given the KB's heavy involvement and support of operations in China, up to and including transfer of naval bomber squadrons to fight as LAND based squadrons, i can see them using the bomblets in HE missions against land targets just as they were reputed to have done at Pearl Harbor. This, unlike the naval question is a logical course of action.

quote:


Another way to look at this is from the game impact prespective, the reductiuon of the Vals Standard load by 120 KG is substantial when it only carys aprox. 370 KG anyway, your taking aprox. 1/3 of it's standard load away. These 60 KG bombs when deployed aganst Most Naval targets are only going to effect the flack guns as was their designed intent and not hurt the ship realy at all other wise, so realy were talking minamal impact hear. Whear their will be or would be if they are included is agasnt land targets and lighter vessals, whear theier is the most evadance of their use, from CV's and Land bases, this reduction in true capabality will have a signafagant impact, rducing anythings ordance load by 1/3 will.


No, they wont. I've played UV.......60kg hits were not all that frequent and they even less frequently struck flak guns. weapon mount hits in general are less frequent than the standard belt armor or deck armor hits. Even if they did they did not immediately nor signifigantly reduce flak levels in the game. The most frequent result i ever saw from a 60kg hit was a "Deck armor hit" with no penetration and no effect, including fleet carriers, 'armored' or 'unarmored'. But thats really not the point. If there was true evidence that the plane was STANDARD loaded with this 3 bomb combintanation there would be evidence from the naval battles fought with the Aichi. There is none.

Mogami's point has great relevance. Even if, just for the sake of argument, one says that there was indeed a 60kg at Santa Cruz (and i dont believe there was) it is clear that not EVERY D3A carried it thus even in this hypothentical scenerio the loadout you so desire remains non-standard. WitP does not support anything other than a standard loadout.

< Message edited by Nikademus -- 2/22/2004 6:54:19 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 24
RE: Brady Translation - 2/22/2004 8:53:09 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		Aichi D3A1/2 Val" by Peter Smith, and Francillon's Japanese aircraft of the Pacifc war, and Several other books I have all state the normal range load for the Val as one 250 KG bomb and the two 60 KG bombs, the 250 KG bomb was the primary weapon of course, though the plane coud be loaded with other configurations, more 60KG bombs as sighted above for example, in leu of the 250KG.


AA Supreshion figures only for strikes aganst Heavely aremd ships, as was the inteneded role of the lighter Bombs when so carried as noted above as well, for strikes aganst Ligher ships and for airfield and ground atack these would be fairly effective weapons, this is why they are shown above to be used for such strikes, and are shown in photos as well.

Even lighter bombs could be usefull aganst Ships as evidanced by the Sinking of:

A Japanese DD of Wake by a Wildcat armed with 100 pound bombs, which aparently hit the Depth charges and promply sunk her with all hands.

< Message edited by Brady -- 2/22/2004 6:56:19 PM >

(in reply to madflava13)
Post #: 25
Wish list - 2/22/2004 9:16:07 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, Why don't we just let Kid add to wish list

"Change normal range loadout of D3A from 1x250kg bomb to 1x250kg and 2x60kg bombs"

let the programmers decide.

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 26
RE: Wish list - 2/22/2004 9:17:22 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		fine with me.

_____________________________


(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 27
RE: Brady Translation - 2/22/2004 9:19:02 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		Nikademus,

I showed in a former post or two that acording to sources at the Naval Histrical sight, at least two ships at pearl were hit with or bombed with these lighter Bombs, in adation to this their is the land based sortie you sight and the Sant Cruz referance assuming Lundstrum is wrong, while a bit scetchy they do point to their use aganst Naval targets, certainly far more so that say A Wildcat which has the abaility in the Game to be used in a Naval strike capacity even though having done so very few times. Part of the problem with finding a referance to the lighter bombs is the simply the way they work, the larger ones make holes in things that can and could me meashured, the lighter ones simply blow up and would of hit in or near the impact point of the 250 KG bomb, if they did at all. As you say you havent sean the Book I have and that does apear to be a problem for you, If you like I can scan the pages revelent to the subject and post them, but of course it would not be the entire book so they may not be suficent for you either.

Half the Val Photos I posted were clearly of D3A2's, and since these only built during the war they would half to be wartime shot's, of the other D3A1, one was in a paint scheam that was almost ashuradely wartime and the other could of been, I could repost and give detailed descripions of each pick and others if you like. Again, if they were traing they would of likely been using traing bombs, of which I can post scans of, they are very differnt from real Bombs.

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 28
RE: Brady Translation - 2/22/2004 9:21:40 PM   
madflava13


Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline 		Brady, this game will never ship if we try to include every potential or possible load out. We need to focus on the commonly used loads. Just because the Val could have carried it doesn't mean it should be in the game. I must echo Nikademus and Mogami's posts - please provide some conclusive documentation of more than the Aug. 8th battle showing the 60kgs were standard. Unlabeled photos and reference to one potential battle do not cut it in my eyes. I want to see a body of proof before I cast any judgment, and so far all you've provided is circumstantial evidence - and weak circumstantial evidence at that.

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 29
RE: Brady Translation - 2/22/2004 9:27:50 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		Perhaps it would be best for me to put all the evadance and about 4 or 5 picks in just one post and lable them and let you chew on it, it is a bit scatered and some was lost from the recent whatever with the forum...

(in reply to madflava13)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Nikademus Val Bomb info... Page: [1] 2   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

3.422