Matrix Games Forums

It is theoretically possible that the round was fired in a high trajectory, plunged downward through the funnel, exploded, caused feedback and flash through the engine spaces, ruptured the turbines, stopped the ship, had a trail of minor flames leading to a fuel storage tank, exceeded the flash temperature, ignited the fuel which then spread out of control till it reached a powder room, which due to poor battle stations discipline was left open, resulting in a magazine explosion, which sinks the BB.

Of course having something happen in game such as loosing 4 CVs off some insignificant speck of rock in the mid-pacific would tend to have people screaming that the AI is cheating.  But the sinking of BBs by "small" caliber shore guns seems to be a more legitimate complaint.  Although, I think the effectiveness of CD guns against xAK and the like is too low.

There is no reason why a BB should not be penetrated by some bombs.  A 1000 lb bomb is rated at 8" of armour penetration according to the Dictionary of American Naval Patrol Squadrons (I found this on the web but it seems a legit publication) by Michael D. Roberts for the Naval Historical Centre.  The warspite had a turret penetrated by a 550 lb bomb and a near miss by a 1000 lb bomb cracked her armour belt.

The Marblehead's deck was penetrated by the 500 lb bombs hitting her...my comment was that superstructure (system) damage seems to be possible from bombs or am I misunderstanding the combat report?  It was said in this thread that bombs can't do superstructure damage...is this correct or not?

When we talk of 500 and 1000lbs bombs and their ability to damage BB decks and superstructures, are we talking about HE or AP?

ORIGINAL: usersatch

When we talk of 500 and 1000lbs bombs and their ability to damage BB decks and superstructures, are we talking about HE or AP?

AP or SAP

given that heavier AP bombs such as the Japanese 800kg, and USN AP 1600lb bombs (converted from AP shells) were rated at between 4.1 - 5.7 inches of class B (Homogenous) deck armor (not counting the fuse initiation effects of deck impact prior to contact with the primary armor deck), I would not put alot of faith in any claim of "8 inches" penetration by a 1000lb AP bomb such as the Mk-33.

Warspite's turret machinary was disabled by a FX-1400 bomb hit, not a 550lb bomb. To be fair however, a non-penetrating turret hit "can" cause a turret to be inoperable due to other factors. For example, South Dakota was struck on her turret top by a 550lb SAP bomb which did little more than dent the armor. However, fragments from the bomb did gouge one or two of her 16inch gun barrels resulting in their being restricted from use until accessed and/or repaired to ensure they could withstand the force of firing their own shells. In more numerous cases however, such as a similar impact on Littorio (or VV, not sure this morning which) did no damage to her primary turret.

Such specific secondary possible damage results are not factored into WitP except abstractly via SYS which in non penetration or via FIRE damage.

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

My last bombardment TF had a BB take 77 hits from 8cm to 15cm guns.  Anyone who thinks an 8cm gun should be able to sink a BB, please provide me a real life situation where that happened.  Unless the ship obligingly dropped anchor a few hundred yards away from guns of that size, I refuse to believe they could "destroy" a ship the size of a BB.  A 6" projectile has at best (HE) about 100 pounds of high explosive.  An AP shell has far less than that.  They'd run out of ammo before the ship was unable to retire, and its control systems, main armament and armored areas would still be intact.

John,

have you asked the developers to look at a game save to see if it is working as designed? I don't know if Don Bowen debugs the naval gunfire code, but he is generally very responsive to questions, if he has save to look at...

I see two issues:

1) Why is the BB closing within range of 15cm guns (let alone 8 cm guns).
2) How much damage can a 15cm gun do to a BB (including what is the probability of a "critical hit").

What gets me is those same guns at Mili that chewed up two TF's worth of BB's, managed to sink just 2 LST's and an LCI when my invasion TF's showed up.  Granted, the base was either out of or low on supply, but the landing craft are coming right to the beach and should have been hammered if those same guns were hitting BB's standing off shore dozens of times.  At night, even!

Well I will admit that I could find nothing in a quick google on the penetration of 1000 lb bombs, and the 8" claim was for both the 1000 lb and 1600 lb but beyond listing the reference I can't say more.  The Warspite though from:

http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono ... rspite.htm

May 22, 1942: Under air attacks west of Kithera Channel and hit by 550lb SAP bomb on starboard side which exploded in 6" gun battery causing extensive damageand some fires. 38 of ship's company were killed and 31 injured.

June 23, 1942:  Sustained further damage after 'near miss' by 1,000lb bomb.  Bulge structure fracture caused some flooding.

Sept 16, 1943:  Continued bombardment role and under heavy air attacks with Glider Bombs.  Hit by FX1400 radio controlled glider bomb and near missed by a second.  Bomb penetrated to No 4 Boiler Room and exploded in Reserve Feed Tank.  Near miss caused additional damage in another Boiler Room.  Extensive flooding with total disruption of services.  Ship took in 5,000 tons of water.

I was wrong that the belt was fractured though by the near miss.

From the wikipedia (that font of unbiased and technically correct knowledge) on the Yamoto:  "Yamato avoided being hit for four minutes until, at 12:41, two bombs obliterated two of her triple 25 mm anti-aircraft mounts and blew a hole in the deck. A third bomb then destroyed her radar room and the starboard aft 127 mm mount. At 12:46 another two bombs struck the battleship's port side, one slightly ahead of the aft 155 mm centreline turret and the other right on top of the gun. These caused a great amount of damage to the turret and its magazines; only one man climbed out alive."

I can't say if you could sink a BB with bombs, my personal bias being the best way to sink a BB is with another BB, but you can certainly inflict serious damage on their secondary and AA batteries and superstructure.  But this is not the topic under discussion no?  I really only was asking if, in the game, bombs do in fact do superstructure hits?  I'm perfectly happy with them not bothering to check for it against things like CVs and CAs since 1000 lb bombs might not sink BBs they certainly can sink CAs and CVs (especially those whose decks are loaded with a strike, have two types of bombs sitting around and gas lines everywhere).

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

What gets me is those same guns at Mili that chewed up two TF's worth of BB's, managed to sink just 2 LST's and an LCI when my invasion TF's showed up.  Granted, the base was either out of or low on supply, but the landing craft are coming right to the beach and should have been hammered if those same guns were hitting BB's standing off shore dozens of times.  At night, even!

This is what I don't understand. I've had CD guns fire on a single xAP sitting off shore unloading for 3-4 days, it takes 15 or so hits of either 120 and 75 mm rounds each night. I see critical effects, it is on fire stem to stern and neither is its ability to unload impaired nor is it sunk.

Mind you the IJN raided Bailkapan with BBs and the CD guns didn't fire and they destroyed 2 DDs in the harbor plus inflicted damage to the garrison. So apparently the AI isn't affected by the CD madness in this case.

ORIGINAL: Paul McNeely

I can't say if you could sink a BB with bombs, my personal bias being the best way to sink a BB is with another BB, but you can certainly inflict serious damage on their secondary and AA batteries and superstructure.  But this is not the topic under discussion no?  I really only was asking if, in the game, bombs do in fact do superstructure hits? 

Bomb attacks can hit Deck armor and Belt armor locations only (+ weapon mounts in addition to B/D, every bomb will always strike B or D). Even in non-penetration situations, SYS damage can occur, the greater the chance as hits increase. FIRE damage caused by bombs can lead to further damage via SYS. So in answer to your question, the effects of bomb hits on unarmored portions of a warship are factored into the game.

Keep in mind variability can be very high. Case in point....my last PBEM, I had Saratoga torpedoed by a big sub launched 61cm torp. Damage? To my immense relieve the FLT was a whopping 2% and SYS was 11%. Normally it'd be much higher but the die roll went my way. in "RL" i'd explain it by considering it a forwardmost bow stem hit....blows a nice hole in the bow but otherwise doesn't greatly impede the ship. I've had BB's similarily shrug off a couple bomb hits with 1-2% SYS....and had another limp away with 40% SYS after being peppered by half a dozen non penetrators. While SYS can be repaired quickly, it does still require retirement to a big port or better, a shipyard taking the ship out of service. Hence, sailing BB's happily into harm's way is not a good strategy.

Actually the best way to sink a BB with bombs is to not quite hit her.  That's the instruction Billy Mitchell gave his pilots back in 1922, and it worked fine for the RAF vs. the Tirpitz in 1944 as well.  A near miss turns your bomb into a mine..., and BB's ARE vulnerable to mines.

Thanks, good to know and sorry for the derailing there!

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

Actually the best way to sink a BB with bombs is to not quite hit her.  That's the instruction Billy Mitchell gave his pilots back in 1922, and it worked fine for the RAF vs. the Tirpitz in 1944 as well.  A near miss turns your bomb into a mine..., and BB's ARE vulnerable to mines.

Near misses can cause FLT damage in RL.....sometimes. Not always. Mitchell's tactic worked because Ostfriesland was unmanned and motionless and already damaged prior. All it took was the blowing out of a glass scuttle to start progressive flooding that sank her. Tirpitz was the unique victim of 12,000LB Earthquake bombs with enough explosive potential that yes, even a near miss could create a huge crater in the seabed and badly rattle/warp a hull in shallow water. An actual hit was even worse.

WitP does not have a true "Near miss" location though Belt armor hits by bombs can be considered as such. Unlike past tactical wargames however, there's no % chance of FLT damage even in the event of non-penetration....a minor weakness and an area i would have liked to have expanded on, but the flaw is less so now that FIRE damage effects and non-pen SYS have been enhanced in AE.

"Littorio (or VV, not sure this morning which)"

First one. But if we have dozens hits maybe one of them make real damage. That is why it is impossible that dozen of bombs get same odds of a small damage.
For curiosity carrier Eagle was to go to attack Taranto with Illustrious but near misses by level bombing meant it had to stay in Alexandria for repairs.

Again....its covered. When a bomb rolls to strike a device on a ship (including a main gun turret) it will also strike either the Belt or Deck armor Hit location. So every hit that doesn't penetrate, whether or not it also strikes a device) rolls for a chance of increasing/creating FIRE damage and secondary SYS, like in the example i cited previously in game where one of my battleships suffered no penetrating hits but still left the battle with 40% SYS. SYS directly impacts the efficiency of any warship including the firing of it's primary armament. A warship with substantial SYS will not be effective in a fight and will be at a distinct disadvantage against an intact warship.

A TF of 2 CL's and 2 DD's surprised my CV TF of Lexington and Saratoga just west of Mili last night; in the melee that ensued (I had two BB's in my CVTF) one of the DD's was sunk, but Saratoga got a 61cm torpedo hit that caused the dreaded "fuel storage explosion" result.  When the turn ended I viewed the TF, dreading to see how badly she was hurt, and was surprised to see all the damage #'s were below 20, even flotation!  She wasn't even limited in flight ops since she and Lex pounded Rabaul as they retired south to Lunga for some repairs.

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

A TF of 2 CL's and 2 DD's surprised my CV TF of Lexington and Saratoga just west of Mili last night; in the melee that ensued (I had two BB's in my CVTF) one of the DD's was sunk, but Saratoga got a 61cm torpedo hit that caused the dreaded "fuel storage explosion" result.  When the turn ended I viewed the TF, dreading to see how badly she was hurt, and was surprised to see all the damage #'s were below 20, even flotation!  She wasn't even limited in flight ops since she and Lex pounded Rabaul as they retired south to Lunga for some repairs.

Small sample size, but Lady Lex and Sara are pretty tough compared to the Yorktowns in my experience. I haven't looked at the stats, but I assume their durability is significantly higher.

I just bombarded Truk with 10 Battleships and lost 8 to CD fire. Something is wrong the biggest gun Truk has is 203mm and the battleships were hit 100-200 times. Is there a bug ? I am running Patch 3

che,
 
Sounds similar to what everyone else is finding out; Patch 3 has turned CD guns into battleship killers.  The bombardment mission has been neutered when going up against even mobile CD units, and especially against the fixed fortifications even when the fixed guns aren't big enough to challenge a BB.

Is there a work around ?