Nikademus Val Bomb info...

[Brady]

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.

[Nikademus]

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

[Brady]

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.

[Nikademus]

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)

[Brady]

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?

[Nikademus]

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. [:D] 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.

[Brady]

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.

[Nikademus]

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

[Brady]

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.

[Brady]

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.

[Nikademus]

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

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.

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

[Brady]

"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?

[Nikademus]

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.

[Brady]

" 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.

[mogami]

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)

[Brady]

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.

[Zeta16]

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.

[mogami]

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.

[Brady]

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.

[SouthernAP]

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?