No US AP bombs

[Tankerace]

Someone just opened a can of whoop @$$................

Ok boys, place your bets!

[strawbuk]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Uh..oh.............[8D]

I'm with you - if all non-combatants could please edge to walls of the forum... and somebody throw down some sand on that floor

[Tankerace]

\\Insert Irish fighting music from John Wayne's The Quiet Man//

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I do not accept that my statement was proven false. It is your claim that is false. Then, if you would either not lie about my past statements or perhaps refresh your memory, blah blah

What you choose to accept or not accept is irrelevent, and it is not my claim. I have told you time and again to reference a detailed source that specifies the damage and corrects your false claims. You have refused to access this source. My memory of your previous statements are just fine. Forward mag, back mag, direct penetration that starts fire, non-penetration that starts fire. Keep modifying your argument all you want.

You apparently think the Yamato is still floating somewhere, based on theory. Oh well

Where did i say this? Yamato was sunk by massive progressive flooding caused by torpedoes.

[mdiehl]

It's OK, Nik and I just don't agree. He based on some good metallurgical and ballistic theory which ought to be sound, and me based on the fact that something really bad quite clearly happened involving a bomb, a fire, and a magazine.

Sorry for the Axis Fanboy thing Nik. But we just don't agree here. Unless someone strips the superstructure off the wreck and proves there are no (non internally caused) holes in the main deck armor I'm not inclined to believe anyone that says "definitively" that the armor was not penetrated. As I said, something really bad involving a bomb happened. I *hope* for the sake of simplicity that it was an AN-Mk33 that did the hit, because if not it means that for all of Yamato's vaunted unvulnerability she was crticially hit by a mere 1000lb GP or semi-AP bomb.

And yes, progressive flooding caused by torpedoes and bomb hits did for her *first.*

Peace to the noncombatants 'cause I've no more to say.

[Nikademus]

no problem. again, if your truely interested in what killed Yamato. See G&D. It is detailed and precise Yamato's demise was the result of massive progressive flooding and her mags could have been flooded at any time up to the point her being mortally wounded by the torpedoes.

[mdiehl]

Another correction for the sake of honesty. You're right it's been a while. My argument was then (and should be now) that the unquenchable fire between her 155mm and main mags was *aft* near Number 3. This is the one that I feel *would* have done for Yamato had not the flooding sunk her first.

Look, it's not so wildly implausible. It's also a matter of degree. We both seem to agree that bombs could cause progressive flooding damage. The point seems to be whether or not a direct hit over an armored space could cause serious damage in the protected space. That'd be either a penetrating hit or blast damage. When Musashi went down, an overhead bomb *blast* (not an intact charge) penetrated No.8 boiler room.

All I'm saying is that the main deck armor, while thick, did not mean that these ships' protected spaces were invulnerable to direct hits by bombs overhead.

And that fact should be in the game somewhere as both flood damage caused by bombs, and sys damage, on occasion both affecting speed.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Another correction for the sake of honesty. You're right it's been a while. My argument was then (and should be now) that the unquenchable fire between her 155mm and main mags was *aft* near Number 3. This is the one that I feel *would* have done for Yamato had not the flooding sunk her first.

I heartily endorse your switch from "It's documented fact" to "Its my opinion". [:)]

Look, it's not so wildly implausible.

Never said it wasn't. A bomb blast can get into a battleship's citidel if it has a pathway, such as through the armored grates for the boiler uptakes. However if you reference G&D you'll see this clearly was not the case with Yamato and her magazine(s)

All I'm saying is that the main deck armor, while thick, did not mean that these ships' protected spaces were invulnerable to direct hits by bombs overhead.

ok....then stop saying Yamato's deck was penetrated (or maybe penetrated) by a GP/AP bomb of 1000lb. See Cambell's naval weapons of WWII

And that fact should be in the game somewhere as both flood damage caused by bombs, and sys damage, on occasion both affecting speed.

Please see my comments regarding the additional HL's

[mdiehl]

I heartily endorse your switch from "It's documented fact" to "Its my opinion".

There has been no switch. The documented facts are the fire, that said fire was started by a bomb, that said fire was between 155 and main magazines, that said fire had the walls of 155 magazine glowing red hot, and that said fire could not be put out. Many share the opinion that said fire would have sunk Yamato had she not capsized first.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
There has been no switch. The documented facts are the fire, that said fire was started by , that said fire was between 155 and main magazines, that said fire had the walls of 155 magazine glowing red hot, and that said fire could not be put out. Many share the opinion that said fire would have sunk Yamato had she not capsized first.

Incorrect. Please see G&D.

[Feinder]

And just when I thot they were about to kiss and make up...

(* grabs popcorn *)

-F-

[Tankerace]

Man, its like a good movie. Pass the popcorn!

[tsimmonds]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Back to the original point. US CV's DID carry AP bombs for use in the Pacific. Just not to
many of them because there weren't many targets that called for such ordnance. But if
they are attacking a BB, then at least some of the A/C should have AP bombs aboard.
The same is true of 2000 lb Sap and GP bombs. The A/C were designed to and capable
of carrying them, but they don't seem to show up in the game even in normal ranged
strikes.

But those historically relatively rare 800kg bombs used by the IJN do. Hmmmm,,,,

[Mike Scholl]

Back to the original point. US CV's DID carry AP bombs for use in the Pacific. Just not to
many of them because there weren't many targets that called for such ordnance. But if
they are attacking a BB, then at least some of the A/C should have AP bombs aboard.
The same is true of 2000 lb Sap and GP bombs. The A/C were designed to and capable
of carrying them, but they don't seem to show up in the game even in normal ranged
strikes.

[mdiehl]

Back to the original point. US CV's DID carry AP bombs for use in the Pacific. Just not to many of them because there weren't many targets that called for such ordnance. But if they are attacking a BB, then at least some of the A/C should have AP bombs aboard. The same is true of 2000 lb Sap and GP bombs. The A/C were designed to and capable of carrying them, but they don't seem to show up in the game even in normal ranged strikes.

That is all substantially correct. To the point, claims that the USN either lacked an AP bomb or never used one or did not routinely carry some of them on CVs or did not stock them for land based (USMC) units are false. The appropriate ordnance types are listed in my first post. They should be in the mix of weapons used by USN a/c when attacking TF that recon has revealed to include heavily armored ships.

The absence of US AP bombs is a glaring historical inaccuracy.

[panda124c]

You don't have to hit it to sink it. [:D]

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay ... s/AP14.htm

“Once the test was agreed to, Mitchell formed the First Provisional Air Brigade, drawing 150 airplanes and 1,000 people from air bases around the country. Because none of the pilots knew how to sink ships, extensive training was required at Langley Field in Virginia, where practice missions against mock ships were performed. Among the officers attending the practices was Alexander de Seversky, who had served with Russia during the war, dropping bombs on German ships. He taught the pilots that the best way to sink a ship was to drop the bomb near, not on, the ship.”

“The tests began in July off the coast of Virginia. The navy had provided Mitchell with three decommissioned U.S. battleships and three ships obtained from the Germans in the peace agreement--a destroyer, an armored light cruiser, and a dreadnought. All were successfully sunk. The climax of the demonstrations took place on July 21, when the navy brought out the German ship Ostfriedland, a great ship that had been the pride of the German fleet during the war. The vessel was considered unsinkable, and it probably would have been if Mitchell had adhered to the rules. But instead, he had personally overseen the design of a number of 2,000-pound (907-kilogram) bombs, knowing that smaller bombs would not be successful. Martin twin-engine MB-2 bombers dropped six of these bombs in rapid succession. Two scored direct hits and the others landed close enough for the ship’s hull plates to rip open from the force of the explosion. Twenty-one minutes after the test began, the Ostfriedland plunged to the bottom of the ocean. The final plane dropped its bombs into the foam rising from the sinking ship.”

[Ron Saueracker]

No near miss hits in WITP.

[freeboy]

this thread is somewhat strange, if 2000 lbs bombs crush everything they hit, why worry they arrnet ap? really..??
seems like we are argueing over the color of the ships imo

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Back to the original point. US CV's DID carry AP bombs for use in the Pacific. Just not to
many of them because there weren't many targets that called for such ordnance. But if
they are attacking a BB, then at least some of the A/C should have AP bombs aboard.
The same is true of 2000 lb Sap and GP bombs. The A/C were designed to and capable
of carrying them, but they don't seem to show up in the game even in normal ranged
strikes.

This is true Mike. Unfortunately the code doesn't work that way. There can only be one default loadout for normal and one for extended range, and as the GP type bomb is the more proliferant type carried by a CV (exclusively during the early war period save for Enterprise's dozen and a half converted shells), it remains the more proper choice.

Its not like the carriers are giving up their torpedo bombers. They remain the greatest threat to any warship, heavily armored or not.