Port Attack 800kg Bomb

[Edward75]

I know (don't remember from) that Torpedo Bombing can Port Attack 800kg Bomb to ships in the ports, if Exp +70 Pilots, Normal Radius, Good Morale and Fatigue, 4+ lvl Airfield, x3 Supply in Port.

My Betty (12th Ku K-1) trying Port Attack Singapore from Saigon, Exp 75+ all pilots, Normal Radius (17 Hexs), Supply 65000+. Morale – 87, Fatigue – 18, 4+ lvl Airfield
Why my Betty can not bomb 800 kg bombs on ships in port? May be reason in Altitude? I use 10-15000.

[BBfanboy]

The 800 KG bomb can be carried by Kates, but not by Bettys AFAIK. Check the "Aircraft Info" text for the Betty squadron and it will show the weapons it can carry.

[Yaab]

From my April 2014 test, scen 1, December 7, 1941. Jap bombers bomb HK port

[geofflambert]

I have heard that at Pearl Harbor some of the Kates carried 14" armor piercing shells with wooden fins attached, rather than the 800kg APC bomb. Not sure why. Also heard they were 16" but as you can see here if a Kate tried to leave the deck with one of those it would've ended up in the drink.

[Edward75]

In addition, there is a 25% chance that the land-based Allied Heavy Bomber (with a normal payload of at least 3 x 500LB bombs), at normal or less range, will use the larger bomb (1000 or 2000lb'ers) in or after 1943 from a base with more supply than is required at the base.

For Japan side i delete english original text, just translate. And there is combat reports about this Port Attacks!

[Yaab]

Edward75, read this thread about 1000lb bombs in WiTP:AE, especially page 3

tm.asp?m=2407582

[pontiouspilot]

Interesting....my belief was that the 800lber was the converted BB shell. Someone will set it straight.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I have heard that at Pearl Harbor some of the Kates carried 14" armor piercing shells with wooden fins attached, rather than the 800kg APC bomb. Not sure why. Also heard they were 16" but as you can see here if a Kate tried to leave the deck with one of those it would've ended up in the drink.

The data for the 16" shell cannot be correct. The US had the heaviest 16" naval shell - the "super-heavy" 2700 lb. AP shell. IIRC the IJN 16" shell was under 2000 lbs.
At 3219 lbs. the figures in that table are about right for the 18.1" guns of the Yamatos.

I have read several sources that state the bomb that sank Arizona was a 16" naval shell at 800 KG.

[geofflambert]

I'm sure you are right on the 18", I added the headers and must've misunderstood what I was looking at.

[geofflambert]

Here is the correct chart




I think they used 14" and I did read that somewhere.

[geofflambert]

Here's where I got that last chart

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_161-45_3ns.php

[geofflambert]

The Wiki on that says they were 16.1". It seems to me that it would have been easier and more effective to add weight to the back end of the 14" than pare that much (200kg) off of the 16".

[geofflambert]

I was just reading that Genda's intent was effective attacks on CVs, which would explain why, if it was possible, it would be better to use the 16" trimmed of 200kg of weight, as the 16" thus modified would easily penetrate and the APC fuse would delay detonation long enough for a juicy target to be reached.

[rustysi]

OK, the Japanese 800kg bomb was in fact a converted naval 16" shell. Never heard or read of a 14" shell used the same way. The intent was to use these against the inboard ships at Pearl as the torps could not reach those. Maybe some others too as the approaches for a torpedo run in the harbor were limited. Weather or not they were in fact targeted that way I don't know.

[Edward75]

My question is not about the historicity of use these bombs.
Why not use my Betty 800kg bomb. This is percentage of random or some of reason?

[rustysi]

First off after Dec. 7 bombers will only attack ships in port 50% of the time if there are 10 or more port. Manual p162. Less than 10 it goes down from there. They will not attack ships anchored in port. To use the 800kg bomb a unit must have a high experience level. Not sure what it is, but its up there. I want to say 80, but someone else will have to confirm that. That being so there's still no guarantee as a number of checks have to be made 'under to hood' to see if they'll drop said bombs. So the bottom line is it won't happen that often, which mimics history. In addition said bombs historically had a high dud rate and I believe this is modeled in game from my experience. I believe you could check this in the editor database. I don't really go in there, so again someone else could confirm the dud rate of this device. In a nutshell that's about it.

[Yaab]

ORIGINAL: Edward75

My question is not about the historicity of use these bombs.
Why not use my Betty 800kg bomb. This is percentage of random or some of reason?

Ary you sure the pilots flying are all 70+ exp? Maybe your units have some guys in 69-65 exp range and they are selected for the flight thus making the average experience of pilots actually flying the mission less than 70 exp? Remove all such pilot from the unit roster, and try flying the attack only if ALL your pilots in the units have 70+ exp.

[spence]

I was just reading that Genda's intent was effective attacks on CVs, which would explain why, if it was possible, it would be better to use the 16" trimmed of 200kg of weight, as the 16" thus modified would easily penetrate and the APC fuse would delay detonation long enough for a juicy target to be reached.

Genda may have wanted to sink/cripple CVs but that was the role and chosen target of many of the Vals with their 250 kg SAP bombs. Yamamoto's intent was to sink/cripple battleships and the 800 kg bombs were targeted at those targets since a) some of the BBs were nested and b) in spite of IJ espionage to the contrary, there was a possibility that the BBs were protected by anti-torpedo nets.

The 800 kg bomb was indeed a shaved 16.1" shell. The "shaving" of the armor piercing casing was not that successful however since over 50% of the actual 800 kg bomb hits at Pearl Harbor failed to penetrate the BB armor or explode as desired due to the removal of that 200 kg of AP casing. The failings of the bomb were obscured by the one spectacular success the bomb had against the USS Arizona. US ordinance experts did however get to evaluate the miserable results obtained by all of the other 800 kg bomb hits.

Given that "shaving" AP steel is likely to be difficult (really hard steel is brittle) how many shells were so modified and what would have been the IJN supply of those shells. I've read that an actual bomb of 800 kg was designed and produced later in the war. Perhaps IJN ordinance experts also evaluated the modified AP shell as ineffective (in the main) leading to this "redesigned" bomb (don't really know about the whys of the redesign).

[Edward75]

My All pilots have Exp 75+, also Bomb skill 75+. ALL!!!

[Yaab]

I give up. See if you can bomb Hong Kong from Takao on Dec 7, 1941. There are 70+ exp air groups in Takao at start.