Why DB's should do floatation damage

[wpurdom]

In one of the discussions about bombs being too effective against battleships, one of the posters, I believe Nickademus, asserted that Dive bombers should not be able to inflict floatation damage.
Prime examples of floatation damage occurred at the battle of Santa Cruz. At that battle, in the first attack, one 1000 lb. bomb hit the CA Kinugasa "struck the forward part of the bridge..., sliced through the superstructure, and exploded on the lower deck below the waterline.... lowing out big sections of the hull.... Severe flooding soon induced a 10-degree list to port." She later capsized from this floatation damage.
In a second attack, 2 500 lb. near misses knocked out her steering and greatly increased flooding to port.
A third attack inflicted near misses on the CA Chokai, flooded some compartments, and flooded boilers 4 and 6 for a time. The CL Isuzu suffered two near misses that buckled hull plates, flooded firerooms 2 and 3, and affected steering control.
Earlier in the battle, in addition to a direct hit, CA Chikuma suffered two near misses, one of which "opened a 'big hole' in her side, which let water into the starboeard fireroom and reduced her speed. Probably due to her reduced speed, a TBF was able to hit her with a 500 lb. bomb, which hit her aviation section and did severe damage. She was able to retire however at 23 knots and escaped to port. US CLAA San Juan, admittedly lightly armored also suffered significant floatation damage from a penetrating semi-AP bomb and a near miss.
Source: First Team at Guadalcanal.

[wpurdom]

I continue to concur fully that bombs are way too effective against BB's, but attacks against the effectiveness of bombs have extended way past that central point where the case is much weaker.

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by wpurdom
In one of the discussions about bombs being too effective against battleships, one of the posters, I believe Nickademus, asserted that Dive bombers should not be able to inflict floatation damage.
Prime examples of floatation damage occurred at the battle of Santa Cruz. At that battle, in the first attack, one 1000 lb. bomb hit the CA Kinugasa "struck the forward part of the bridge..., sliced through the superstructure, and exploded on the lower deck below the waterline.... lowing out big sections of the hull.... Severe flooding soon induced a 10-degree list to port." She later capsized from this floatation damage.
In a second attack, 2 500 lb. near misses knocked out her steering and greatly increased flooding to port.
A third attack inflicted near misses on the CA Chokai, flooded some compartments, and flooded boilers 4 and 6 for a time. The CL Isuzu suffered two near misses that buckled hull plates, flooded firerooms 2 and 3, and affected steering control.
Earlier in the battle, in addition to a direct hit, CA Chikuma suffered two near misses, one of which "opened a 'big hole' in her side, which let water into the starboeard fireroom and reduced her speed. Probably due to her reduced speed, a TBF was able to hit her with a 500 lb. bomb, which hit her aviation section and did severe damage. She was able to retire however at 23 knots and escaped to port. US CLAA San Juan, admittedly lightly armored also suffered significant floatation damage from a penetrating semi-AP bomb and a near miss.
Source: First Team at Guadalcanal.

Since i'm being quoted i should set the record straight. I *never* stated that bombs should not be able to cause floatation damage. What I said, what i've said for a while now, is that bombs, in the game are entirely too powerful in terms of pentetration power.

The principle bombs in the game (500ILB/250kg and 1000ILB) are not even Armor Piercing bombs but general purpose or more commonly (if not entirely accurate) "High Explosive" devices whose AP ability was far far less than expresssed in the game. I have gleaned (from Matrix itself) that the bombs are given penetration ratings of 5 inches for the 500ILB/250kg and a whopping 10 inches for the 1000ILB bomb.

Such ability is patently absurb in the statistical sense. A 12,000 ILB "Tallboy" bomb, dropped from 10,000 feet I could see penetrating 10 inches of armor but not a 1000ILB bomb dropped at low altitude by a DB.

As for the "floatation" aspect. This is not so much a problem of the bomb's overpenetrative qualities as much as it is a fault in the current damage control coding which tends to cause too much damage to all three major DC indicators at the same time. What that means is, when a weapon "penetrates" the target's armor, all too often it will cause a ratio of SYS, FIRE and FLT damage leading to a 'general' fragility and lack of staying power in the ships, even big battleships.

Yes, there are examples of bombs causing floatation damage. Never said there weren't. What is the problem in UV is that penetrations (bombs are just the most notable due to their power) almost *always* cause FLT damage which IMO seriously skews the game.

It is most apparant when addressing battleships. Bombs could and did on occasion hurt battleships, a notable example would be Yamato due to unique aspects of her design (such as having a glass forcastle bereft of any armor protection, even on the deck!) But "in general" battleships did not fear bombs a tenth as much as torpedoes.

why? For the simple reason that torpedoes *always* cause FLT damage. Because torpedoes delivering hundreds of pounds of explosive under the armor and under the waterline tend to magnify the damages caused. Because the progressive flooding caused is an ongoing and building threat that is largely unrepairable outside of a drydock, and because the blasts tend to be closer to the all-important propulsion systems which coupled with the flooding itself can slow a ship and make it more probable with each hit that more hits will be scored as the target's speed and maneuverability are impaired.

Bombs on the other hand.....did not.

No battleship, at sea, was ever sunk by a GP bomb. Of the battleships that were sunk by bombs at all.......Arizona was sunk by a converted 16.1 inch *AP* naval shell dropped at 10,000 feet. It is estimated (or should i say argued) that this bomb could just penetrate her upgraded armor causing the explosion that doomed her (some dispute this, the point is, Arizona's armor was not even half of the 10 inch rating given the *GP* 1000ILB'er)

Marat was sunk by a 2000ILB bomb at her moorings by Hans Rudell (and her deck armor was very thin even at the time she was built much less by 41)

Roma was sunk by a heavy AP 908kg semi guided missile bomb that acted both as a bomb and a torp all in one (thats about 2000ILBs)

Tirpitz was sunk at moorings by a 12,012ILB "Earthquake" bomb designed originally to penetrate up to 3.6 meters of reinforced concrete.

Other BB's were hit by more conventional bombs, some were moderately damaged, most shrugged them off. At Leyte and at Okinawa, Yamato and Musashi were dispatched by torps. Bombs could cause casualties topside and start fires, but they could not stop these behemoths unless under unusual circumstances, Nor were any of their lesser bretheren, with Kurita or Ozawa stopped by bomb hits.

In the example i stated in my 1.4 thread(which i assume you've read) re-read my example. I sank a Nagato class battleship, and a Kongo solely by GP 500ILB and 1000ILB bombs in one battle (TBD's dropped the 500'bers due to range) This is not the first time i've done this either.

CA's and cruisers do fall in a middle ground. Much depends on the specific class. a 2 or 3 inch deck could indeed stop a 1000ILBer (note the thicknesses used for armored carriers) but as your examples highlight, sometimes that doesn't factor as cruisers tend to be much less beamy and stacked as battleships, and some do not have continuous armor coverage so bombs and near hits can cause hull damages that can lead to flooding. Here again, i never advocated making bombs totally impotent. I felt that bombs should be reduced to around 2 inches for 1000ILBers (and thats being generous as even a 1000ILB GP bomb can be set off by a wooden flight deck if it's fuse is set short enough) so that there would be an on again off again chance for serious penetrative damage to cruisers, and that 500ILB bombs should have 1 inch or less (retaining their leathality against unarmored targets such as AP, old CL's, DD's etc) The point of the excercise was to eliminate the current 100% certainly of penetration which, especially in the 1000ILB GP case, always leads to extensive damage, crippling, or downright loss of the ship (especially when tied to very harsh (and fun!) progressive flooding rules.

I have also suggested changes to the damage routine to better reflect the greater probability of bombs to cause topside damage vs FLT damage in the form of FIRE level generation even in the event of non penetration. The all or nothing aspect of penetration vs non-penetration is to blame here, not the bombs themselves. FIRE level generation should be independant of penetration as shown by the experience of many a ship at sea and wooden decked carriers.

So no, i do not advocate eliminating a bomb's ability to cause FLT damage. I do prepose a big curtailment of this aspect (making them "bombs" as opposed to "torpedoes", the game already has torpedoes!) as well as better representing their true penetrative and damage causing qualities.

The soap box is now dismounted from

[WW2'er]

Hear, hear! Well said. (Again)

We know Matrix listens so.......perhaps in War In The Pacific?

[EricLarsen]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
I have gleaned (from Matrix itself) that the bombs are given penetration ratings of 5 inches for the 500ILB/250kg and a whopping 10 inches for the 1000ILB bomb.

Such ability is patently absurb in the statistical sense. A 12,000 ILB "Tallboy" bomb, dropped from 10,000 feet I could see penetrating 10 inches of armor but not a 1000ILB bomb dropped at low altitude by a DB.

Nikademus,
You seem to be forgetting the kinetic energy of a 1,000lb bomb dropped by a divebomber that's screaming down 10,000+ feet at about 300 mph before releasing that bomb. That bomb being released from a low altitude is not being released from a dead standstill. Actually that 1,000lb bomb should have more than double the penetration power of a 500lb bomb dropped under the same circumstances as it will gain even more kinetic energy than the smaller bomb.
Eric Larsen

[wpurdom]

Perhaps I am causing misunderstanding by addressing most of my remarks to the issue of damage by bombs to CA's rather than BB's. Nikademus, I have always agreed with your central point, BB's need to be a lot more resistant to bombs. Even with BB's flotation damage may be as common as system damage, however, if not as common as fire. I read about bombs hitting BB's and causing essentially no damage and about near-misses causing some floatation damage, though with BB's, as opposed to crusiers, never apparently enough to endanger the ship or even to slow it down a lot.
I wonder whether a simple fix on the bombs might not be sufficient. If bombs were destructive like 8" shells, despite the very different penetrative qualities of HE bombs and AP shells, they might very well do an historically appropriate amount of damage to ships the size of CA's and below while leaving the BB's largely unimpaired on average. Maybe the appropriate equivalent is between a 6" and 8" shell; I would want to see the results and see if they looked right. I'm not sure it's appropriate to ask Matrix to undertake a whole different system of damage calculation for bombs when a quick and dirty fix might result in damage just as historically appropriate. But in any event, something needs to be done about all these super HE bombs sinking BB's - you are right, right, right on that point.
Since you seem to be more knowledgeable about the penetrative characteristics on bombs than I, perhaps you can enlighten me on the characteristics of the Japanese "semi-AP" bombs. I have noticed in Lundstrom that when the Japs had time to arm a strike against CV's just like they wanted to, they would arm a few DB planes with "land" HE bombs and most of their planes with "semi-AP" bombs. This changeover (as well as the change to torpedoes)at Midway was one of the causes of the extensive explosions after the American attack. But at least when hitting American CV's, it's hard to tell that one was more effective than the others.

[Yamamoto]

I don’t see what’s the big deal about flotation damage. It is ten times easier to repair than system damage. I curse system damage much more than flotation damage. If bombs did more system damage and less flotation damage they would be MORE powerful than they currently are not less, and I don’t think that’s what you’re arguing for.

I think the damage system is fine. It could be made better with more detail added to it, but it’s fine the way it is. I WOULD like to see ships with 99 system damage automatically be scuttled, but that probably won’t happen.

Yamamoto

[wpurdom]

"I don’t see what’s the big deal about flotation damage. ...
I think the damage system is fine."

You are right that the floatation damage is not really a big deal. What is the big deal is that BB's, which were shrugging off bomb hits left and right during the war (and going on until they encountered torpedoes), are so vulnerable to them in the game.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

"Nikademus" did you get any reply from Matrix/2By3 regarding
your quest for more realistic bomb behavior?


Leo "Apollo11"

[XPav]

Follow my logic, grasshopper:

Torpedos cause large amount of floatation damage.
Historically, torpedo-caused damage needed repairs at a major shipyard.
In UV, Floatation damage can be repaired at any old port eventually.
Therefore, "floatation damage" in UV is
a) not what you're thinking -- that is, holes blown in sides of ship, but rather -- flooding caused by damage.
OR
b) just screwed up

So "floatation damage" bears no resemblance to holes blown in ships.

Historically, bombs did not blow holes in ships (not all ships).
Since "floatation damage" does not mean "holes in ships", that means that bombs do not NOT necessarily cause floation damage.

The culprit here is the UV damage model.

[Erik Rutins]

I've found flooding damage and progressive flooding to be modeled well and more specifically that torpedos cause MUCH more than bombs with equivalent effect. I have quite often experienced bomb hits on larger ships that generate only systems and fire damage or so little flood damage that it's in the range of 1-3 points by the time I look at it.

However, we have taken the comments of Nikademus and others to heart. The problem is that making adjustments to this can cause cascading balance effects. Because of that, we've asked Rich to create some test data files for us to run through the balance testing process before any changes get to the public. As a result, this could take a while, but we're definitely looking into it with an eye towards making some adjustments to GP bomb penetration.

Regards,

- Erik

[wpurdom]

Matrix always takes serious comments seriously. Quite right to be concerned about cascading effects. As long as you have decided that something needs doing, I trust the solution will be appropriate.

[Toro]

Erik,

Have we told you guys recently that you rock? I'm utterly impressed with the Matrix team, and SO looking forward to WitP -- UV is such a hoot that grand daddy is going to make me turn into a hermit.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Originally posted by Erik Rutins
However, we have taken the comments of Nikademus and others to heart. The problem is that making adjustments to this can cause cascading balance effects. Because of that, we've asked Rich to create some test data files for us to run through the balance testing process before any changes get to the public. As a result, this could take a while, but we're definitely looking into it with an eye towards making some adjustments to GP bomb penetration.

Thank you guys - we all really appreciate it!!!

I will keep my fingers crossed so that new GP bomb penetrations
adjustment in UV will make things historically right...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Nikademus]

Eric: First off, thanks for the acknowledgement. I figured that Matrix's silence on this (and the whole damage allocation issue) was due to it's sheer level of integration into the game and that it was not something that could simply be changed overnight. That said it's still nice though to get confirmation that the issue continues to be looked at. If anything else its assuring to me that i'm not just beating a dead horse to the point of annoyance.

On the issue of kinetic energy, you are correct. The reason i have downplayed this facet a bit is to bring gamer's attention to the fact that these weapons being discussed are not true Armor Piercing weapons and that for every example of bombs penetrating multiple (non armor grade) steel decks there are also examples of bombs, including 1000ILB GP going off on contact with wooden flight decks and light structure. Yes, the level of kinetic energy is important here, but also equally important is the setting and sensitivity of the fuse. Since the weapon is not true "Armor Piercing", like a HE or common shell, even traveling at a terrific rate they will still have a good if common tendancy to go off after the first true resistance is met.

Not every time, I fully agree....but certainly not *100%* of the time as currently done in UV. This is the acute problem for battleships, and mid-ling problem for more modern cruisers (and some carriers) that sport continuous 2inch + armored decks.

As to the issue of sheer penetration. I tapped sources over at Warships1 who had references that actually quote penetration of the weapons being discussed since hard figures make the best argument vs references to real life explosions. The replies i got are still over on the bug forum. In a nut shell, a 500ILB "General Purpose" bomb would be lucky to punch through a 1 inch armor deck while a 1000ILB GP bomb was quoted at around 2 inches if that. (much indeed would depend on luck, kinetic forces, and the behavior of the fuse. To factor in real life "estimates" The Japanese , in designing the armored carrier "Tahio" estimated that the ship's 3inch armored flight deck would make her immune to 1000ILB GP bombs (or at least highly resistant). This tracks with most thinking on modern battleships which estimated that a STS (Special Treatment Steel or armor grade deck) of between 1.5 and 2.5 inches would be enough to at the very least initiate fuse action on a 1000ILB GP or semi AP bomb dropped from a height of 10,000 feet. (in effect, an insurance policy that the primary armor deck below itwould contain the explosion)

The Japanese used a similar type weapon, called a "semi-AP" which would have similar capability (but less than the 1000ILB) CV Enterprise "Did" carry some limited edition true "AP" bombs for use against heavily armored targets. These were converted from 14 inch AP shells but Enterprise is the only carrier known to have had any and only in a limited amount at that period in time for the USN.

Later in the war more true AP and semi-AP bombs were developed. A good indication of how they would behave can be found in G&D's Allied and Neutral battleships of WWII which documents the action of USAAF bombers (using latewar 500ILB 'semi AP' bombs against the light battleship Strassbourg. None of the bombs penetrated heavy deck armor but did cause considerable topside and upper deck damage. (there were almost a dozen hits all told)

Wpurdom: I agree with you that CA's and cruisers in general are in a grey area. Thats my point of contention. Right now cruisers, 'all' cruisers are too vulnerable to the bombs because right now its a guranteed thing since even a 500ILB GP bomb can penetrate 5 inches of armor (no mean trick, it would take a AP shell fired by a battleship gun to be at extreme range (25,000+ yards from target) for a 1500-2700ILB shell to achieve such a level of penetration). Given the better versions have fairly substantial armor protection they should have a decent chance against GP bombs. This was the incentive for my estimates of bomb penetration. A good 50/50 chance for "penetration" leading to extensive damage under the current model. The only problem is that I dont think the system allows such an argument. (if observations are any indication, a weapon must fully exceed the armor in terms of penetration to get through. A more flexible system would be to allow 50% chance for penetration of armor vs pen are equal (This was a grigsby feature in "Warship")

Yamamooto:

What is the big deal about flotation damage? *Everything*!

Yes, FLT damage is the easiest to repair once a ship gets to harbor. The problem is that the ship first must **get** to a safe harbor!!!!

UV, as mentioned numerous times, is the first operational level wargame to factor in the deadliness of progressive flooding. It is especially dangerous to the IJN which doesn't benefit from a DC bonus but even the USN player can be stung as well. Remember my reference on the Yorktown in my latest campaign. Two bomb hits, both penetrate of course, both caused FLT damage....the ship went from around 50% flood to nearly 90% before i managed to reach port.

By itself not bad, but this happens far too often (bomb penetration to FLT damage)

While Eric is correct that bombs can occasionally do less FLT damage than a torp, this is too infrequent and even more rare an occasion when a bomb (or shell) penetration does 'not' cause some sort of FLT damage. This reduces the value and deadly nature of torpedoes and in particular, benefits the US player which starts the game saddled with a very short range Torpedo bomber. (lack of torp hits was a key facet in Shokaku and Zuikaku surviving so many carrier battles.)

Carriers are as good an example as BB's. Carriers are BIG bombs rarely caused FLT damage to them but you will not see this in UV. Having to constantly deal with all three damage factors again leads to fagile ships. I have yet to see an example where a carrier can get bracketed by a few bomb hits (any size) and not suffer a preportionate one-two-three punch combo of FLT, FIRE, and SYS damage. Again, this reduces the importance of combined assaults by DB's and TB's.

XPav: total agreement. big difference between FLT damage and "holes blown in the side of ships". Here the damage model is the culprit and i would further suggest that some (if not a signifigant amount) of FLT damage caused should be *permanent* outside of a dockyard. Thats part and parcel of the deadly nature of flooding, along with it's mission kill ability, that most under-water compartment damage cannot be addressed outside of a dockyard. "some" draining can be down but not very often. 9 out of 10 times the only recourse is for a ship to "counter-flood" in order to maintain a ship's stability and go on as best one can until the holes can be patched and the compartments drained.

Eric: Has Matrix given any consideration to my suggestions regarding the DC model? I truely believe that, along with bringing bomb pen ratings down to earth, it could address much that has been touched on here, along with the big/medium shell, smaller ship vulnerability issue (present since GGPW)

the three points specifically were

a) Making Fire damage independant of penetration (this would aide GP bombs immeasurably without their having to retain over penetrative powers)

b) addition of a 5th and 6th Hit Location.....i.e. "Superstructure" to act as a bomb and shell "absorber", immune to FLT and SYS damage, but highly vulnerable to FIRE damage (which can cause add'l SYS and weapons damage) The 2nd new Hit location could be a "near miss" which can factor in the FLT causing ability of bombs that fall very close to the hull and in effect act as mines. This HL should not have to fight the ship's belt armor since the bomb is in effect exploding under this layer of protection. Whether or not actual FLT damage is caused could be based on a random and the size of said belt (to reflect the poss of a waterline explosion in which case the belt would act as a cushion)

c) Enhancement to FIRE damage to make it a bit more dynamic (kind of like progressive flooding, i.e. a chance for it to burn higher than a previous turn to represent fires out of control etc)

I'm tempted to post this to the WitP thread but dont want to be repetetive.

[doomonyou]

I believe that the bombs thing should be the fire damage they can cause. While the bombs may not kientically penetrate far, they can start deadly fires on the top decks (the explosions would cause spalling one would imagine through the armor as the explosions blew holes in the deck).

I am almost never afraid of fire in this game. Fires never set off ammo or anything like that. Thats what bombs should do in addition to damaging weapons and targeting systems.

[HARD_SARGE]

Hi Guys
well I guess I don't see the kinds of action you do, as far as I can remember in all of my games, "any" of the BB's that I have sunk with air power, were all basicly returning/retireing from a SA, and already badly damaged

(I did sink the Yamato with only Air Power (plus a sub helped) but I think that was a running 3 day battle, and plenty of Trop hits)

I don't know, at times you could also say that the number of bombs dropped that hit something (near misses can be worse then the hits) is way off, 50 DB's attack and score 3 hits, but the 3 hits are nasty ? (will say offhand, that I have had some good runs and lots of bad runs, think it all adds up in the end)

HARD_Sarge

Hi Guys
well had to go reread my post on that battle with Yamato, to see if my remembering was as good as what happened (nope)

well got the 3 day part right

the Yamato took 13 1000 lb'ers and 2 Trops from the air attacks, a sub put 2 more Trops into her, and then a DD group put 54 shells and another Trop into her, before she went under (early patch, not as many bounced shells back then)

the other BB in the FT , Mustu, took 10 1000 lb'ers and 7 Trops and was seen limping home (never made it)

which to be honest, I think the Yamato went down a little easy, she took a much bigger pounding in real life (but on the other hand, alot of that pounding may of been over kill, as the ship was doomed, but it was still floating, so was still attacked) but the Mustu looks like it took more then was needed to take out

but at the time, it was a impressive battle

(well, at least I was impressed )

okay one last note
204 SBD/TBM's were used in the attacks, with 8 BF's
also looks like I scored 5 500 lb'ers with scout planes during the next day

[Nikademus]

Funny you should mention the Big Yammi Sarge, I just faced both super-ships for the first time yesterday. Talk about shock of my life. My campaign had been going as well as one could want with IJN power all but broken in the South Pacific, but i opened the champagne bottle too soon, for the IJN still had one card left to play.

A nice piece of AI revenge. A Lunga bombardment group headed by the two Yamato's ran straight into a major supply convoy escorted by six destroyers. Just two nights ago a defensive group headed by the North Carolina had firmly repulsed another Japanese CA group, then intercepted a crippled piece of it for heavy losses, then my two remaining operational carriers had chased down the Shokaku and Zuikaku north of Lunga and eliminiated them as well. The coast looked clear to slip the convoy in even if no surface TF was there to protect

As Arnold would say...."Big Mistake"

The only good news was that the sacrifice of all six destroyers allowed most of the convoy to retire with the loss of one transport and damage to a 2nd. If this had been real life though it would have been a fiasco on par with Savo. Fortunately UV does not have a "relieved from command" option

Anyway, the point of all this......I knew the AI would try again, more so given if my tally of broken IJN ships was correct, they were all they had left to bring the heavy hammer down. So when the two biggums set sail again two nights later, Enterprise and Wasp were waiting for them.

An interesting three rounds of air attacks.

No torps hit, but i did land four 1000ILB GP bomb hits on the Yamato, and about 6 on the Musashi.

3 of the Musashi hits struck the "belt" armor and did not penetrate, the rest and all the Yamato hits struck the deck.

*all penetrated*

Musashi 34% SYS damage, 19% FLT

Yamato 44% SYS damage, 47% FLT damage

Pretty incredible given these ships had the most heavy deck armor protection of any ship of the war, up to 9.1 inches on edges (not counting the one to several 25mm decks above the primary armor deck) This system was designed to resist a 3200ILB shell out to 33,000 yards. Scratch the techno-babble. Look at it this way, these two ships have the heaviest deck protection in UV, and even they can be penetrated like pie crust by 1000ILB general purpose bombs

Like i said U-B-E-R bombs. :rolleyes:

It was nice revenge though......gotta get that icecream maker requisitioned for the boys once they get back to Normura.

[doomonyou]

I mean you have the yamamoto with 47% flt from top deck explosions, yet do you have any fire dmage? probably not....

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by doomonyou
I mean you have the yamamoto with 47% flt from top deck explosions, yet do you have any fire dmage? probably not....

There was some small fire levels but at least by the next turn it was negligable.

I'm really hoping the bomb ratings get addressed soon.