US 1000lb GP bomb test

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

mdiehl
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test

Post by mdiehl »

From what Ive read a single bomb would probably have little chance of damaging the Yamato at all,

Then I submit you need to read a little more. One bomb killed Yamato... or rather, WOULD have killed her except that she turned turtle from torpedo hits first. IIRC one or teh other of Yamato or Musashi was sent back to the yard after a close abroad bomb near miss dropped by a B17 in 1943. Not so surprising as it would, if it hit close enough, had an effect rather more like that of a modest torpedo or mine.
These ships, as other battleships, were designed to withstand ARMOR PIERCING shells from other battleships and 1000 pound general purpose bombs will do alot of damage to unarmored areas, like AA guns but the vitals of the ship will be intact unless it is a lucky hit.

They were designed to withstand AP shells of a certain caliber to a certain degree. No BB was impenetrable to AP shells or larger AP bombs. Someone mentioned something about the bridge being armored. What surprises me is thath the bridge areas of BBs, while armored, weren't very well armored. Yamato's bridge crew could not have lived through the impact of a 14" round. The conning tower is another story... but I wonder what shape the guy in the citidel would be in if a big AP or HE round rang the iron bell in which he was secured. When you look at the AARs of capitol ship engagements it is ironic how quickly the skipper and his bridge entourage were often wiped out. Bismarck's final sortie being a case in point.
Look at the Bismarck, she was smashed up pretty good, all her guns and communications knocked out and she was hit by dozens of 14 and 16" AP shells. And she stayed afloat till scuttled and torp'd. So the game has it right. Use torpedoes to sink battleships.

The Bismarck was sunk by penetrating shell hits that exploded deep in her interior. She had a 15 degree list and was shipping water over her stern deck when the order was given to abandon ship. She sank within ten minutes of the order being given to set the scuttling charges. Given the fact that she was being then commanded by a very junior officer, with little effective internal communications, and given that survivors attest to gaping holes leading from the main deck deep into the interior of the ship full of maelstroms of flame, I find it very much a stretch to pretend that Bismarck was scuttled. Too little time elapsed between the order being given, and far too much else probably preventing many from hearing the order.

Bismarck was on her way to the bottom from progressive flooding before any torps hit her and before she was ordered abandoned. Had she not sunk quickly enough she'd have exploded from the fires. She was sunk, done for, done in, greased, wiped out, waxxed, wasted, crushed, crumpled, destroyed, defeated handily, scrunched, finished, kaput, good night Sally, an ex-Battleship, and she bought the farm and the recondominium -- and 100% of that is attributable Royal Navy gunfire. The rest (torpedoes, rumours of "scuttling") was just the orchestra playing an encore as the curtains came down.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?
hithere
Posts: 432
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 7:52 pm
Location: Atlanta

RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test

Post by hithere »

Had she not sunk quickly enough she'd have exploded from the fires. She was sunk, done for, done in, greased, wiped out, waxxed, wasted, crushed, crumpled, destroyed, defeated handily, scrunched, finished, kaput, good night Sally, an ex-Battleship, and she bought the farm and the recondominium -- and 100% of that is attributable Royal Navy gunfire.

eerr...so ...what are you trying to say?
Quote from one of my drill sergeants, "remember, except for the extreme heat, intense radiation, and powerful blast wave, a nuclear explosion is just like any other explosion"
mdiehl
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test

Post by mdiehl »

I'm trying to say that she was a "dead parrot." [:D]
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?
User avatar
Mr.Frag
Posts: 11195
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Location: Purgatory

RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test

Post by Mr.Frag »

I'm trying to say that she was a "dead parrot."

Well, when you consider what was sent after her, it is amazing that she lasted as long as she did. Chock that one up to the Brits being a little too eager to close range instead of using plunging fire. Frankly, they got off pretty lucky that they didn't suffer any serious damage of their own.

Just something scary about the concept of a 14" gun being used for direct fire! [X(]
mdiehl
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test

Post by mdiehl »

Direct fire. Yeah. It's not so surprising that Bismarck went up quickly. By closing the range the Brits pretty much guaranteed they'd strip Bismarck of every worthwhile piece of equipment quite quickly. And Rodney's crew was rather veteran. IMO on the whole the British were better (more accurate) shots, although Bismarck's ranging was impressive vs. Hood.

Did you ever read a detailed account of the Dieppe Raid? At one point some German tanks were taken under direct fire from RN DDs. According to the accounts when the DDs hit the tanks frontally it blew them to shreddies and sent a sort of furball of wreckage careening like a disintegrating bowling ball hundreds of yards.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?
hithere
Posts: 432
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 7:52 pm
Location: Atlanta

RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test

Post by hithere »

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I'm trying to say that she was a "dead parrot." [:D]

Like in the Monty Python skit???[:'(]
Quote from one of my drill sergeants, "remember, except for the extreme heat, intense radiation, and powerful blast wave, a nuclear explosion is just like any other explosion"
User avatar
Mr.Frag
Posts: 11195
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Location: Purgatory

RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test

Post by Mr.Frag »

Did you ever read a detailed account of the Dieppe Raid? At one point some German tanks were taken under direct fire from RN DDs. According to the accounts when the DDs hit the tanks frontally it blew them to shreddies and sent a sort of furball of wreckage careening like a disintegrating bowling ball hundreds of yards.

Thats something worthy of giving people the feel for naval guns ... poor tanks ... getting picked off by what amounts to 9 Russian Su-152's per DD.
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test

Post by Nikademus »

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

Steve (Nikademus) can you please comment on this thread (since this is your field after all and your hard work finally produced the resluts we are seeing?

BTW, I like the results since the UV had bombs that were actually air dropped torpedoes (which is, of course, wrong)!

Also it is great to see that prolonged fires will cause SYS damage just as it shuld be (i.e. the hull would be intact but superstructure and exposed armamanet would be heavily damaged)!


Leo "Apollo11"

Other posters have pretty much nailed it on the head but i'll resummarize a few points.

GP bombs....otherwise known as "High Explosive" bombs are not designed to penetrate hardened structures, anymore than HE shells are (heavy armor-grade plate is definately a "hardened structures". This is why hard data vis-a-vis how much "armor" one can penetrate is not readily avail if at all. In order for any AP projectile to penetrate heavy or substantial armor, it must have a hardened and specially reinforced case (the nose piece is usually a big dense block of metal) designed to be able to survive impact at extreme velocity so as to keep it's internal fuse/components intact and thus explode properly. If the projectile is damaged or broken up. (even if penetrating the armor in the process) it's blast/damage effect is severely curtailed.

US GP 1000lb bombs, particularily the early war versions were particularily sensitive, but given their "role" in USN carrier doctrine, this was not an issue. These GP bombs were meant to be used against light structure so as the #1 target.....an enemy carrier deck. Read up on any of the four carrier battles......all of the 1000'lber hits exploded either instantly on contact with the wooden flight decks....or punched through to then explode in the hanger. This often caused major topside damage and fires.....but rarely impacted the ship's hull or propulsion.

Thus, 1000lb "GP" bombs are not going to penetrate substantial armor....certainly not battleship armor. The game currently only represents critical damage to a warship in terms of FLT and SYS. SYS is also linked with propulsion, therefore only "critical/penetrating" damage can be considered represented here. A non penetrating hit can indeed cause much carnage topside in non essential and unarmored areas and cause crew causalties (the latter is not represented in the game)

Does this make the 1000'lber useless. Hardly. Take battleships for example...they are the biggest most powerful surface ships but consequently are also the hardest and longest to repair. Another nice aspect of GP type bombs, they cause alot of FIRE levels. FIRE in the game (as has been admitted in the past) is not all it might be, BUT it still does play a part. If you have a ship that only has 3% SYS after 5 bomb hits but has 40 fire levels...you can be assured that after those fire levels are extinquished that the ship wont have 3% SYS. Further, the more bombs that strike, even if they cant penetrate the deck armor, the more chances of a secondary or teritary weapons hit. You might say "big deal" but they too have their importance and more importantly, take time to be repaired in port.

In other words....you can MISSION kill a BB with large GP bombs by causing it light to moderate damage, usually most of it topside. Its not as satisfying as a full Kill with points, but a ship sitting in a repair dock is about as useful as a sunken one. If you really want to sink battleships....you need to do it the way it was mostly done....by using torpedoes....the achillies heel of all warships, including battleships.

As for "All or Nothing" armor designs. There is no need for a "tweak" here. Actually all or nothing simplifies OOB issues vs older "Incremental armor" designs where different thicknesses were found depending on the area. AoN simply uses one thickness...the maximum thickness allowable to protect all the vital areas of the ship. The non vital areas are unarmored.

AP vs GP - The USN, even late war did not reguarily employ AP bombs for carriers. Most of the quotes of using 1000 "AP" bombs are misquotes. At best they might be SAP (which is actually what the Japanese 250kg bomb is, which stands for "Semi-Armor piercing", a bomb more capable of penetrating armor vs a GP but less so than a dedicated AP bomb)

The reason for this was again doctrine....and space. CV magazines can only carry so many bombs...and AP bombs are highly specialized weapons....only suitable for certain targets. But carriers have to be able to deal with a multitude of targets...land and sea...thus as with pre-war doctrine....the US relied mostly on improved torpedoes (with Torpex warheads) for sheer ship killing power while the dive bombers continued to use mostly GP (with some SAP) to strike lightly protected ships and land targets. AP bombs did exist by late war, but as mentioned in another thread....a typical Essex might only have a dozen to a dozen and a half at most.

The current 1000lb GP rating is in reality quite generous in terms of penetration rating. This was done on purpose because of the way the game treats armor vs pen.

A Near miss Hit Location was preposed to factor in the possible light FLT damages that such strikes might cause...but this was axed due to coding difficulties. They can still be simulated by penetrating "belt hit" strikes by bombs but of course you need to be able to penetrate the HL as well.

Testing i have done, and comparing to what i'm seeing here....dont see a problem with the current ratings. Keep in mind too on the FLT issue....if for whatever reason any ship reaches 50% SYS...even at 0 FLT....and it will begin to roll for FLT accumulation.....thats how i lost Akagi on the way back in the Banana AAR, and i nearly lost Hiryu to the same thing.
mdiehl
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test

Post by mdiehl »

Most of the quotes of using 1000 "AP" bombs are misquotes. At best they might be SAP (which is actually what the Japanese 250kg bomb is, which stands for "Semi-Armor piercing", a bomb more capable of penetrating armor vs a GP but less so than a dedicated AP bomb)


Yamato was set irrecoverably afire (and would have sunk had the torps not finished her off first) by a bomb that you claim could not have sunk her and that seems according to the complaint WitP would not allow to sink her. THAT is DEFINITELY a problem. IMO as always.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?
User avatar
Fallschirmjager
Posts: 3555
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:46 am
Location: Chattanooga, Tennessee

RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test

Post by Fallschirmjager »

So everything appears to be ok.

Good...that was all I was asking for in the first place. [8D]


Next topic I bring up is going to be air to ground rockets so beware [:'(]
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test

Post by Nikademus »

ORIGINAL: mdiehl


Yamato was set irrecoverably afire (and would have sunk had the torps not finished her off first) by a bomb that you claim could not have sunk her and that seems according to the complaint WitP would not allow to sink her. THAT is DEFINITELY a problem. IMO as always.

This is incorrect, and has been disproven 5 times by myself, and lastly by Tironu.
User avatar
Mr.Frag
Posts: 11195
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Location: Purgatory

RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test

Post by Mr.Frag »

Also keep in mind that both Floatation and Fire damage can grow. It is controlled by the damage control levels of the respective countries. As you watch the turn execute, you will notice a couple of phases where this is checked to see if it increases or decreases.

You can loose a ship to Fire, it just will not sink. If you've ever managed to get lucky with your PH results, you've probably had some BB's with 90%+ SYS damage. They are not technically sunk, but they will be in a repair yard for in excess of a year worth of repairs.
mdiehl
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test

Post by mdiehl »

This is incorrect, and has been disproven 5 times by myself, and lastly by Tironu.

You are incorrect. Niether of you have disproven same. According to Yamato's survivors, the fire imminently threatening her forward secondary magazine and WOULD by all accounts have set off her forward main magazinge WAS by all survivors accounts and by USN pilot accounts started by the second bomb to strike her forward. All you have done is denied, well, something. I'm not sure what you're denying. Either that the hit happened (which is demonstrably false). Or that it set an uncontrollable fire (that is demonstrably false). Or that it was imminently going to set of the secondary magazine (which is an opinion to which you are entitled but at odds with what the surviving Japanese crewmembers thought). Or that if the 2ndary magazine had detonated that it would not have threatened the main magazine (which is another opinion but certainly not by any remote standard a "proof" -- just a denial and nothing more).

I'm not sure what Tiornu thinks about the conflagration and if he wants to chime in he may.

For interested third parties I again refer the viewer to www.combinedfleet.com Tony Tulley's trom for Yamato. The bomb hit is there for all to read about. I think that fire would have destroyed Yamato.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test

Post by Nikademus »

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
This is incorrect, and has been disproven 5 times by myself, and lastly by Tironu.

You are incorrect. Niether of you have disproven same.

Lol.....whatever you say. If 5 times wasn't enough....i'm certainly not going to waste with a sixth. Like FACEHARD....if you purchase D&G's Axis battleships of WWII, you have avail the most detailed and accurate damage accessment avail for Yamato, much of which i posted prior to the hacker attack and summarily ignored by you.

Its a good book...i highly recommend it
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test

Post by Nikademus »

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

So everything appears to be ok.

Good...that was all I was asking for in the first place. [8D]


Next topic I bring up is going to be air to ground rockets so beware [:'(]

we aims to please...... [;)]
Damien Thorn
Posts: 1107
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 3:20 am

RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test

Post by Damien Thorn »

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

So everything appears to be ok.

Good...that was all I was asking for in the first place. [8D]

Yeah, I also think everything is OK. I don't like the rule where ships with 50+ system damage start making rolls for flooding though. I don't see the rational for it. I hope it doesn't apply to ships in port.

On the whole falacy of Yamato being finished with a single bomb hit... well, its from the same poster who thinks the Sherman tank was better than the Tiger tank so I'll just consider the source and move on. [8D]
mdiehl
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test

Post by mdiehl »

LOL. Like 5 denials constitutes a real proof anywhere. I suggest you read the same book and then actually read an account of Yamato's demise. Talking theory is cheap. The fire was there. It was started by a bomb. It was uncontrollable. Surviving Japanese crew members were sure that the 2nd magazine would blow.

"In theory, Rurulad, we should be immune to attack because our ECM will stop any targeting system." Thwack thwack thwack thwack blaze... "Hey pilot, does ECM stop 20mm?"
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?
mdiehl
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test

Post by mdiehl »

On the whole falacy of Yamato being finished with a single bomb hit... well, its from the same poster who thinks the Sherman tank was better than the Tiger tank so I'll just consider the source and move on.

You, sir, are a liar. I never made the claim that the "Sherman tank was better than the Tiger tank." I think it says loads about the (usual) indefensibility of your arguments on their factual basis that you regularly stoop to egregious straw man fabrications.

Just for the record I'll say it again. The Sherman was more RELIABLE than the Tiger tank, and at moderate to close range a 76 armed Sherman had a reasonable chance of destroying a Tiger tank. On the steppes of Russia or in North Africa, where ranges are of course much greater owing to the open nature of the terrain, the Tiger has a tactical advantage on the battlefield.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?
Damien Thorn
Posts: 1107
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 3:20 am

RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test

Post by Damien Thorn »

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
t... well, its from the same poster who thinks the Sherman tank was better than the Tiger tank...

You, sir, are a liar. I never made the claim that the "Sherman tank was better than the Tiger tank."

Just for the record I'll say it again. The Sherman was more RELIABLE than the Tiger tank, and at moderate to close range a 76 armed Sherman had a reasonable chance of destroying a Tiger tank. On the steppes of Russia or in North Africa, where ranges are of course much greater owing to the open nature of the terrain, the Tiger has a tactical advantage on the battlefield.


Oh come on mdiehl. There was a LONG multi-page thread where you were the sole defender of the Sherman tank. I have no idea if you ever said in a direct quote that the Sherman was "better" but that sure was the point you were trying to make. Everyone who read that thread would agree with me that that was the conclusion you were trying to sell on everyone.

I bet you still haven't even bought the game. If so, you have no stake at all in how the game models bombs, battleships, or anything else. You are just a troll and I should ignore you but hey, it's a slow day at work.
VicKevlar
Posts: 280
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Minneapolis, MN

RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test

Post by VicKevlar »

I suggest the temperature in here cools down a tad please.

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.
The infantry doesn't change. We're the only arm of the military where the weapon is the man himself.

C. T. Shortis

Post Reply

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