Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks...

Gary Grigsby's strategic level wargame covering the entire War in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945 or beyond.

Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

el cid again
Posts: 16984
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks...

Post by el cid again »

The second is that it is much easier to produce plutonium-239 in the type of natural uranium reactor required to produce U-233 from thorium (but which also allows the greatest concentration of thallium-208). If a country possesses a reactor capable of making enriched uranium (which is the best kind for producing U-233), it is already capable of turning natural uranium into U-235. U-233 can be produced using a cyclotron but the output of usable U-233 is so miniscule that it would take years to produce enough to make one bomb. This is probably why no country, through military or civilian means, has produced enough U-233 to make a viable bomb. There are so many other easier ways to do so.

I see you skipped Nuclear Power School.

Reactors do NOT "turn natural uranium into U-235"!! They BURN the U-235 in either natural or enriched uranium - that is how they work!

You have two choices: use a special moderator (heavy water, graphite, dry ice) OR you enrich the uranium BEFORE you put it into a reactor.
At 2% or so you get good reactor fuel for regular water as a moderator.

BOTH Plutonium and U-233 are made in a reactor. The U-238 which is most of natural uranium becomes Pu-239. If you put Th-232 into a reactor- it converts to U-233. We prooved at Shippinport that U-233 is more efficiently converted than plutonium is - not less. The best thing to do - and it was a Japanese idea - is just leave the plutonium - or plutonium and U-233 - inside the reactor - to replace the burned U-235 - extending the life of the fuel. No muss, no fuss, no cooling period, not expensive chemical separation process. But also no bomb fuel. IF you make plutonium or U-233 for bombs - you separate it chemically from the regular uranium (for plutonium) or thorium (for U-233) - easier than physical enrichment of U-235 inside U-238.
el cid again
Posts: 16984
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks...

Post by el cid again »

While I have no doubt that Germany and Japan were researching nuclear weapons, it is my opinion that neither, by themselves, were capable of doing so prior to 1950. And of course the war ended well before then. Japan's difficulty in making a bomb wasn't so much a lack of scientific knowledge as it was a lack of infrastructure (reactors) and materials (U-233, U-235) capable of supporting a viable bomb-making program.

The second part is correct: Japan was fatally short of fuel. It took until 1945 to get a primary urnanium mine in production - that is normal by the way - and it is the mine North Korea uses now! But Japan did an evaluation of the situation in 1942 and found they were better off than Germany was in scientific terms. Japan had three cyclotrons - Germany had none - the latest a copy of the worlds biggest in the USA. They had a better set of scientists - although I am sure Japanese attitudes were prejudiced on this - they happen to be right. Japanese scientists often figured out things using theory we needed much time to figure out imperically (we had put an impericist in charge after all). Japan invented many ideas first - even including conception of the hydrogen bomb. Nishina was the most famous scientist - it is true - but he was not the senior one - that was a Professor Nagano of Tokyo Imperial University - and he was not the most brilliant. There is a theory he may have been used as cover - we did bomb his Rikken Institute where there was a diffusion separator experiment after all. Watching the most famous of physicists - one well known to us - meant we missed the major works in Korea and Manchuria and China.

On the other hand, you are assuming Japan went for a bomb like Little Boy. While they did design one - it is very similar - also based on a 3 inch AA gun - they had a 250 kg radiological bomb - something we didn't develop until AFTER we studied theirs. [But - during the war - Fermi did propose a radiological weapon to Oppenheimer - and I have a letter by Oppi forwarding the concept to higher if you want to see it. They thought in terms of dropping dust on German crops - to kill at least 100,000 people.] That seems to be what the cargo of U-234 was related to.

Also, unlike us, Japan seems to have wanted reactors for power. It makes sense - if Uranium is scarce - and you are energy poor - why blow it up? They built a reactor at Konan which was operated by the Russians until 1948 - and from which radiological material was regularly shipped to Russia. They also build a submarine reactor - one of which (unfueled) was captured and sent to Russia - and became the basis of one of the Soviet reactor concepts.

It may be that this division of resources was fatal to getting ANYTHING completed. It is typical of the Axis - the Germans did the same thing - too many projects - too few resources for each one - not enough progress to produce results in most cases during the war.
el cid again
Posts: 16984
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks...

Post by el cid again »

I would have no problem with the torp routine changed a bit, but could we then INCREASE the damage of the japanese 250 KG AP bomb?. As it stands now, ships (especially AK/AP) are WAY to resistant against bombs, modifying the torp routine would leave the japanese player with NO effective shipkiller.....

You are right!!! While all other bombs are rated properly, Japanese 100 kg and 250 kg bombs are NOT rated by the WITP system. A 250 kg bomb is a 552 pound weapon - MORE than a US 500 pounder - so effect should be 552. But it was rated at effect = 350. I keep finding stuff like that. What a gyp. EVERY OTHER bomb but these two is rated correctly.
You asked for it - you got it - the 100 kg bomb is 221 and the 250 kg 552 - as from this second - in RHS.
User avatar
Andrew Brown
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Hex 82,170
Contact:

RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks...

Post by Andrew Brown »

ORIGINAL: el cid again
They had a better set of scientists - although I am sure Japanese attitudes were prejudiced on this - they happen to be right.

There were 20 or so Nobel Laureates (present or future) working on the Manhattan Project. In my opinion the claim that the Japanese had a "better set of scientists" is ludicrous.
Information about my WitP map, and CHS, can be found on my WitP website

Image
Mike Scholl
Posts: 6187
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks...

Post by Mike Scholl »

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
ORIGINAL: el cid again
They had a better set of scientists - although I am sure Japanese attitudes were prejudiced on this - they happen to be right.

There were 20 or so Nobel Laureates (present or future) working on the Manhattan Project. In my opinion the claim that the Japanese had a "better set of scientists" is ludicrous.

Even if CID's claim were true (and I'm definately with Andrew on this), they didn't have the engineering talent or the precision tools necessary to produce the fisionables or the bombs. Not to mention the budget.
User avatar
treespider
Posts: 5781
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:34 am
Location: Edgewater, MD

RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks...

Post by treespider »

I can't resist... Which movie are we talking about this time?
Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910
Big B
Posts: 4642
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:41 pm
Location: Cali
Contact:

RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks...

Post by Big B »

Could the 250kg bomb have been rated at 350 because of design? Lower bursting charge, etc.?

B

ORIGINAL: el cid again
I would have no problem with the torp routine changed a bit, but could we then INCREASE the damage of the japanese 250 KG AP bomb?. As it stands now, ships (especially AK/AP) are WAY to resistant against bombs, modifying the torp routine would leave the japanese player with NO effective shipkiller.....

You are right!!! While all other bombs are rated properly, Japanese 100 kg and 250 kg bombs are NOT rated by the WITP system. A 250 kg bomb is a 552 pound weapon - MORE than a US 500 pounder - so effect should be 552. But it was rated at effect = 350. I keep finding stuff like that. What a gyp. EVERY OTHER bomb but these two is rated correctly.
You asked for it - you got it - the 100 kg bomb is 221 and the 250 kg 552 - as from this second - in RHS.
Drongo
Posts: 1391
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2002 1:03 pm
Location: Melb. Oztralia

RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks...

Post by Drongo »

ORIGINAL: Big B

Could the 250kg bomb have been rated at 350 because of design? Lower bursting charge, etc.?

B
I would say that's what it is.

The Allied 500lb GP bomb in the game has 30% more Effect than the 250kg (552 lb) AP bomb but the AP bomb has 45% better armour penetration in return.

Similar for the Japanese 100kg and 800 kg AP bombs (and the Allied 2000lb AP) in comparison to their Allied GP equivalents.

It's a trade off.
Have no fear,
drink more beer.
bradfordkay
Posts: 8686
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 8:39 am
Location: Olympia, WA

RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks...

Post by bradfordkay »

"Hi, I think the "check for torpedo" like the 2000lb AP bomb is good for WITP but for WITP II I think nothing less then a complete ammo production and location system will solve all our problems."


Russ, this is what I have been arguing since the beginning of the thread. This should definitely affect all torpedo carrying aircraft, with a major bonus to those based on carriers (higher probability of having torpedoes available on a carrier) and to those bases with triple supply needs (don't they already need double required supply just to load normal loads - as opposed to extended range loads?).
fair winds,
Brad
juliet7bravo
Posts: 893
Joined: Wed May 30, 2001 8:00 am

RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks...

Post by juliet7bravo »

Anyone have the "Handbook of Japanese Explosive Ordnance" in electrons? I'm ashamed to admit that I don't own a copy...
User avatar
Mike Solli
Posts: 16760
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2000 8:00 am
Location: the flight deck of the Zuikaku

RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks...

Post by Mike Solli »

tc464 might. He's into that kind of stuff. EOD types.....
Image
Created by the amazing Dixie
juliet7bravo
Posts: 893
Joined: Wed May 30, 2001 8:00 am

RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks...

Post by juliet7bravo »

Well, the actual numbers for comparing fillers and penetration of all their bomb types, and cross check them against Allied types are all readily available for use. Be easy enough to give all the hardware realistic performance figures. If that didn't happen in the original stats.
User avatar
ChezDaJez
Posts: 3293
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:08 am
Location: Chehalis, WA

RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks...

Post by ChezDaJez »

I see you skipped Nuclear Power School.

You are correct, I never went. All I know about it is from reading open-source material and from taking a college level course on nuclear power generation. Oh, that and studying Soviet nuclear reactor propulsion design as part of my job in the Navy for 26 years.

I may not be an expert nor even considered highly knowledgeable on the subject. But I do know enough to be very, very dangerous!

Chez
Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98
el cid again
Posts: 16984
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks...

Post by el cid again »

I may not be an expert nor even considered highly knowledgeable on the subject. But I do know enough to be very, very dangerous!

I see that - or in this case not dangerous. U-235 is the fuel that burns in a uranium reactor. There have been a few Plutonium fueled reactors - and given the thousands of tons of Plutonium on the planet that may become normal (Japan has bought most of it - I think for power plants - but it also threatened China it would "field more than a thousand nuclear weapons" if it didn't stop threatening its neighbors). And there are experiments with U-233 - which is very attractive - and quite superior reactor fuel - but it is not economic to start a fuel cycle. India and Israel are most likely to start that one day - because it allows thorium to be a source of fuel. Uranium is not abundent in South and East Asia - one of Japan's problems.

Anyway, uranium and plutonium is not really suitable for radiological weapon use BEFORE you put them in a reactor (after is a different subject - but that is not exactly a good application - there are better ways to get there). Further, radiological materials are problematical: they decay - they don't sit well on a shelf without losing potency - they are not very effective - are subject to conditions like wind - and they cost MORE per casualty (by far) than using the same reactor time to make atom bomb fuel. Which is why they did not catch on after the US and USSR did lots of tests on the Axis idea in the 1950s. [I have ALL the US test reports - if anyone wants to see them.]

U-233 is pretty hot - or rather it comes with other isotopes that are pretty hot - so it is almost like radiological material even if intended as bomb fuel. In fact, the best way to use U-233 is something like a CANDU reactor: the Canadian system makes plutonium in a reactor and just lets it sit there - becoming fuel. You can put thorium in the core and it will convert to U-233 - and that then becomes more reactor fuel - replacing the "burned" U-235. And that - by the way - is a WWII era Japanese idea - one that one day may turn out to matter: they may make plutonium fired power reactors and put thorium in there - generating U-233 to replace the plutonium. When they run out of plutonium, they can probably keep the cycle going with U-233 alone. But the wartime Japanese program had these machines:

a sub critical reactor experiment (similar to ours with graphite, this used heavy water) - so they could design a reactor knowing critical mass requirements with their chosen moderator - this is described in the report by Dr Nagano at the Navy Park meeting in July 1942

a prototype reactor - it used the fuel and heavy water from the previous experiment in part - at Konan - this reactor was used until 1948 by the Russians with some of its Korean staff - and it was first described open source in Japan's Secret War (now in rewrite - and I am helping the author with the technical interpretation of archival materials he and others have found)

a first generation submarine reactor design - 12,000 hp more or less - and no less than three were built - but only one likely ever got fueled. The third was not far along, but the second was siezed in 1945 and sent to Russia - which interestingly adopted this same size (12,500 hp) for its first generation submarine reactors - but that was a different technology.

The Japanese tried to make natural uranium reactors work - only France ever tried that for a submarine outside Japan. Sub reactors otherwise use very highly enriched U-235 - higher than bomb grade - to achieve high power density and low cost (by not needing heavy water by the ton).
There is some evidence they got one to work - for a short period. At that time materials could not work with high temperatures found in modern sub reactors with highly enriched fuel - so they needed a lower pressure lower temperature design. But they DID trade with Germany in zirconium - an alloy ONLY used for reactor fuel elements - and something still used ONLY that way. IF Germany and Japan didn't need this alloy - why did they invent it and trade in it at great diffiiculty during the war (see MAGIC intercepts tracking it)? If they did need it - what for?
Post Reply

Return to “War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945”