Near misses

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: herwin

See my comment here.

Can't:

This message has been deleted or moved, and therefore not available.

[bradfordkay]

I click the link and get this:

This message has been deleted or moved, and therefore not available.



I'm getting slower day by day... beat by 15 seconds this time!

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Harry, I understand everything in your post except for that last bit... how does an underwater near miss, causing the hull plates to buckle, increase the chance for a magazine explosion? Boyle's Law?

Typically, the near miss causes flooding - and flooding the magazines is a tactic used to prevent explosions.

Please help me understand. [&:]

A near miss produced a hot gas bubble expanding at supersonic speed. It was the shock of that bubble hitting the hull plates that caused the damage. If the shock wave got beyond the hull, you hoped that the underwater protection system (UPS) prevented it from getting into whatever was behind the UPS, such as the magazine. (Note cruisers and smaller carriers lacked a UPS.) If the shock wave damaged the magazine, you prayed for flooding.

[herwin]

OK, here and go to the last message. (The forum management software converted a pound sign in the URL to a number...8()

[Nomad]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

I'm pretty sure I have seen bombs return the message that they scored a belt armor hit. That always seemed to me to be a near miss. To me the problem is that they never seem to penetrate the belt armor of warships.

I know it is unusual to quote yourself, but I wanted to highlight the work seem in my last post. It is hard to tell exactly what does happen in witP-1 because of the messges. A part of the problem in WitP-1 is that the messages are somewhat short on information. And to be complete, I was not trying to make a complaint, but to provide my viewpoint that near misses do occur, they just don't have an explicit message and that it is hard to see if they do have an effect.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Harry, I understand everything in your post except for that last bit... how does an underwater near miss, causing the hull plates to buckle, increase the chance for a magazine explosion? Boyle's Law?

Typically, the near miss causes flooding - and flooding the magazines is a tactic used to prevent explosions.

Please help me understand. [&:]

A near miss produced a hot gas bubble expanding at supersonic speed. It was the shock of that bubble hitting the hull plates that caused the damage. If the shock wave got beyond the hull, you hoped that the underwater protection system (UPS) prevented it from getting into whatever was behind the UPS, such as the magazine. (Note cruisers and smaller carriers lacked a UPS.) If the shock wave damaged the magazine, you prayed for flooding.

How often were ships actually sunk by near misses in the war? Especially from magazine explosions? I don't think it's a matter of what CAN happen but of how often DID it happen in reality. I assume the chances of a near miss translating into a magazine explosion would be relatively rare. Ships weren't just blowing up from magazine explosions left and right in the war, were they? And I believe WITP-AE factors in things like magazine explosions. Who is to say that some of those magazine explosions are not due to near misses?

[GaryChildress]

I just think the tendency is to overcompensate for relatively rare occurances when you start to factor in things like near misses. From the sounds of it you would think there would be a lot of near misses and hence a lot of magazine explosions. But I don't think that was the case in reality was it?

[spence]

I just think the tendency is to overcompensate for relatively rare occurances when you start to factor in things like near misses. From the sounds of it you would think there would be a lot of near misses and hence a lot of magazine explosions. But I don't think that was the case in reality was it?

IIRC "Shattered Sword" remarks on an attempt to provide extra protection for HIJMS Akagi by filling one or more voids in the ship's structure with concrete. In this particular case the concrete filled void provided a perfect medium for transmitting the shock wave of the near miss close astern through the ship's structure to the steering gear (which jammed "hard over" shortly after the attack when trying to evade what turned out to be a bomb-less approach by a retiring SBD). The loss of steering on Akagi certainly contributed to the eventual loss of the ship (scuttled the following day).

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: spence

IIRC "Shattered Sword" remarks on an attempt to provide extra protection for HIJMS Akagi by filling one or more voids in the ship's structure with concrete. In this particular case the concrete filled void provided a perfect medium for transmitting the shock wave of the near miss close astern through the ship's structure to the steering gear (which jammed "hard over" shortly after the attack when trying to evade what turned out to be a bomb-less approach by a retiring SBD). The loss of steering on Akagi certainly contributed to the eventual loss of the ship (scuttled the following day).

Heretofore it has been generally reported that Akagi was struck by two bombs, one amidships, and the second on the rear of the flight deck. However, in “Shattered Sword” we (Jon Parshall & Anthony Tully) make the case that the available facts indicate the bomb aft did not detonate on the flight deck, but exploded close beside the fantail. For this reason, Akagi was in fact mortally wounded almost certainly by one hit alone, although the rudder damage did frustrate salvage efforts to an important degree.

http://combinedfleet.com/Akagi.htm

Of all the bombs dropped and hits scored at Midway I see only one near miss mentioned at Combined Fleet as having done any damage and that was to the rudder, presumably not the most well armored piece of a ship to begin with.

[spence]

presumably not the most well armored piece of a ship to begin with.

Actually the steering/rudder compartment of a warship receives as much protection as can be afforded by the naval architect who designs the ship. In the case of Akagi the steering compartment was protected by the full thickness of the armored main deck (which as we all know is impervious to 1000 lb GP bombs). But the rudder posts of the Akagi were braced directly to the main framing of the outer shell plating. Thus a direct route existed for the force of an underwater explosion to be applied to the (port) rudder post of the ship.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: spence

presumably not the most well armored piece of a ship to begin with.

Actually the steering/rudder compartment of a warship receives as much protection as can be afforded by the naval architect who designs the ship. In the case of Akagi the steering compartment was protected by the full thickness of the armored main deck (which as we all know is impervious to 1000 lb GP bombs). But the rudder posts of the Akagi were braced directly to the main framing of the outer shell plating. Thus a direct route existed for the force of an underwater explosion to be applied to the (port) rudder post of the ship.

But was it the steering/rudder compartment or the rudder itself that got damaged? The rudder isn't exactly tucked away under armored belts. It has to stick out of the hull to effect the flow of water under the ship. [&:]

[John Lansford]

Damaging near misses against cruisers or larger warships should be rare simply because they were protected against them.  Even a large bomb exploding as a near miss next to a heavy cruiser or battleship shouldn't do much more than start some easily controlled flooding in void areas. 
 
However, I've not seen much evidence that damaging near misses happen against even unarmored warships or merchantmen, even though they would be very effective against them. 

[witpqs]

How was skip bombing damaged primarily achieved - by penetrations or the bomb exploding outside the hull in the 'near-miss' effect?

[Subchaser]

Suzuya was sunk by a single near miss that sent her to the bottom. The bomb missed to the starboard side, causing torpedo in her No. 1 tube to cook off. Fires rage about the ship and ten minutes later remaining torpedoes exploded. With a damaged starboard engine room and the no.7 boiler room flooded the order to abondon ship was given. At 1315 Suzuya rolled onto her starboard side and began the final trip to the bottom of the ocean.

******************

On 1st March 1942 nine Vals from Kaga and Soryu attacked US supply tanker Pecos (14,800tons) near Tjilatjap, they scored 3 near misses and 1 direct hit (250kg bombs), direct hit wiped Pecos gun crew but did little else while 3 near misses caused fatal damage, both boilers out, 20ft hole in her side and ablaze, she started to sink by the bows and took a 15-degree list to port within 5 minutes, although it took two more strikes to finally dispatch her.

****************

Report on the sinking of HMS Cornwall by air attack on Sunday, 5th april 1942
(ADM199/2067, PRO, Kew, London). Acting Commander John Fair, RN.

Commander Fair gave his opinions about what types of bombs were used, describing them as of three types, normal HE, Oil bomb and –

“A form of “B” bomb. Described as a depth charge with a pointed nose and small vanes. Fell as near misses. After a brief pause there followed a tremendous explosion, which caused great underwater damage and threw up a big column of water. Consider that these were responsible for sinking the ship.”

Vals that sunk Cornwall used 250kg bombs exclusively (!) no depth charges. From 15 bomb hits described in the report only 6 were near misses, these opened up the hull, shut down boilers and caused critical damage to the ship. If there were only 9 direct hits, heavy cruiser, although badly damaged, could make it home.

“Bomb #1. Near miss port side abreast bridge. Flooded large sections of port bulges and accentuated the list caused by putting rudder hard-a-starboard. The port low power room was wrecked and electric power supplies all over the ships were dislocated. Power to No.1 steering motor failed, the rudder was put hard-a-starboard by No.2 steering motor which also then stopped.

Bomb#5. Direct hit which entered between forward and centre funnel and partially wrecked ‘A’ boiler room fan flat.”


***********************

Australian DD Vampire that was also sunk by Vals, suffered two direct hits, but fatal damage was done by first 5 near misses.


That’s to begin with…

[GaryChildress]

Hundreds of ships were sunk or bombed in the war. 4 doesn't yet make an epidemic. Before anyone goes off tinkering with the game engine let's make sure we're not creating a rule out of an exception. Besides I still say "near misses" should be considered as already being factored into the damage reports to begin with. It's either a hit or a miss and the game takes this into account. How could the game factor in "near misses" better? Maybe change the eye candy/combat messages to say, "Near miss, engine damage" occasionally where they would normally just say "engine damage" or something?

[bradfordkay]

It appears that many people have missed this post by witpqs earlier in this thread:

"And Don Bowen looked at the code (in response to the angst being expressed in this thread) and has confirmed that so-called near-misses are included in the 'hit-or-not' calculations. He went on to say that the damage model doesn't fully account for them the way they've been described here, and that it doesn't account for various other levels of detail (like partially armored decks, armored decks with unarmored flight decks above, etc.) But still they are hits and have a chance to penetrate armor and cause critical hits."

Thus, some of the "hits" we see are in fact "near misses".

[Subchaser]

I do not advocate near misses game modifier idea, you’ve asked how often did it happen in reality, well pretty often in fact, if I’ll look thru more sources, I’ll find facts for much more than 4 ships sinking.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Subchaser

I do not advocate near misses game modifier idea, you’ve asked how often did it happen in reality, well pretty often in fact, if I’ll look thru more sources, I’ll find facts for much more than 4 ships sinking.

OK. Point conceeded. You are right and I was wrong. [:o] But I've also stated several times that the game could be considered to take near misses into account already. It seems like a rather moot point to discuss near misses at this stage. Does the game not award damage to ships frequently enough in attacks? Are air attacks or even surface engagements not deadly enough as it is?

[Subchaser]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Subchaser

I do not advocate near misses game modifier idea, you’ve asked how often did it happen in reality, well pretty often in fact, if I’ll look thru more sources, I’ll find facts for much more than 4 ships sinking.

OK. Point conceeded. You are right and I was wrong. [:o] But I've also stated several times that the game could be considered to take near misses into account already. It seems like a rather moot point to discuss near misses at this stage. Does the game not award damage to ships frequently enough in attacks? Are air attacks or even surface engagements not deadly enough as it is?

I don’t know about AE, in witp near miss routine (or lack of it) never was a critical issue. On the other hand, I think that there is something here that definitely should be look at more closely in any future projects like WITP2 or anything we will get by 2020

[John Lansford]

Suzuya didn't sink from near miss damage, she was sunk because her Long Lance torpedoes exploded in the tubes as a result from a bomb setting them off. I kind of doubt that would be duplicated in any naval simulation...