Can i use Canon slots for airplane Bombs?

[Dili]

Anyone knows?

[DuckofTindalos]

Do you mean aircraft cannon? Should be able to, although it will probably interfere with the AI.

[el cid again]

Yes

[Dili]

Yes i mean aircraft canons. I have been studying Aircraft bombs and i need slots for the British bombs (MK IV series) of first half of War 1940-1942. They were crap (10-15% unexploded rate) and very low Charge to Weight ratio(30%) and i need to model it.
 
Thanks

[Dili]

I know that slot 197 is for Ohka. I dont need it, but i dont know if i case use for a comon bomb
Slot 198 is for 1000lb AP bomb. AI needs it to decide if it use it or not.
Slot 209 is for 800kg Anti Harbour bomb
 
Anything more i need to know?
 

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

I know that slot 197 is for Ohka. I dont need it, but i dont know if i case use for a comon bomb
Slot 198 is for 1000lb AP bomb. AI needs it to decide if it use it or not.
Slot 209 is for 800kg Anti Harbour bomb

Anything more i need to know?

Yeah - forget that slot. It is hard coded with wierd effects: for example only a tiny number of planes will ever fly using a device in that slot (on any single mission). Probably other things too. I did extensive testing of it - so did Nemo - when modeling German and Japanese guided missiles - and we had to use other slots. Ultimately I kept it as is - it is the only thing the slot seems able to do properly. If there is no Okha in your situation - ignore the slot.

[Dili]

Yes i am using Fritz-X in Slot 247 and Hs293 in slot 249.

[el cid again]

I have defined both - although in the event we don't use Fritz X at all - and the 293 only in EOS - in case you want to look at the technical definition - for use in RHS.

[Dili]

Thanks. I already definited both. Hs293 against light ships and Fritz-X armor piercing.

[el cid again]

So goes the theory. They are so heavy the both work fine against armored ships.

But they were not effective once radio countermeasures destroyed their data links. How do you address that?

[Dili]

They are so heavy the both work fine against armored ships.

 
 
Nopes, Hs293 was build around 500kg GP SC500 bomb  while Fritz-X was build with PC1400 1400kg armor piercing bomb. Germans were unhappy with Hs293 because of that. They started the Hs295 with an AP warhead.
 
 

But they were not effective once radio countermeasures destroyed their data links. How do you address that?

 
WITM40 will end in 1 Jan 1944. Right now i have put them with a dud rate of 25%. It was that number malfunction/loss of guidance they had. After i get a sense of hits achieved i might reduce or increase that number.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

They are so heavy the both work fine against armored ships.

 

Nopes, Hs293 was build around 500kg GP SC500 bomb  while Fritz-X was build with PC1400 1400kg armor piercing bomb. Germans were unhappy with Hs293 because of that. They started the Hs295 with an AP warhead.

REPLY: This is fine as technical history goes. But I was referring to the game. I did both because Nemo wanted them as weapons for the Me-264. We found that it hardly mattered which was used in terms of effect - but that it mattered a good deal in terms of when they were available and what they cost. As you may note from air strikes, 500 kg (1100 pound) bombs do not do nice things to ships!

But they were not effective once radio countermeasures destroyed their data links. How do you address that?

WITM40 will end in 1 Jan 1944. Right now i have put them with a dud rate of 25%. It was that number malfunction/loss of guidance they had. After i get a sense of hits achieved i might reduce or increase that number.

The problem was that they became very nearly ineffective vs any ship with countermeasures - the dud rate plus the countermeasures rate apparently exceeded 100%.

In game mechanics terms, this is very hard to address: they remain perfectly effective vs a ship without countermeasures (or a ship where the attack has not been spotted). But AI will tend to attack the hardest targets available - the ones most likely to have many lookouts, radar, countermeasures, etc.

I think you have either stated or implied a solution too: put some sort of statistical factor into the dud rate. Need to look at that in more detail. Intentional or not - you answered the question- thanks.

[Dili]

They were still hitting in Anzio. Only in Normandy they were innefective but i suspect much of that was because air cover.

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-s/cl42-l.htm   CL Savannah photo being hit in Salerno landings. And pics of external damage.

[Mifune]

Dili is correct about air coverage being too effective providing only few leakers to get in. If in doubt go ask the Italians about the effectivieness of said weapons. As far as counter-measures go, the Germans were constantly working (as with the same concerning radar) with countering the Allied counter-measures. There are variations showing such work on these and other similar devices.

[el cid again]

The way they teach it in Navy technical schools about ECM, they were effective only for a very brief period - the countermeasures were very simple and rapidly taught - without the usual requirement for some special equipment custom made for the task. Apparently the original system used a radio command, and not on an exotic frequency - so not only could you use a jammer - you could improvise one from any transmitter.

It is true the Germans experimented with wire guidance and other concepts that - many years later - became significant factors on the battlefield. [They even came up with a wire guided torpedo - used from land coast defense stations in France - but there is no known instance of it actually working - and it was never used on subs or surface craft like it is today]

There is indeed a celebrated case where an Italian battleship was sunk. This, however, should not have happened, and is taught as revealing that the Purgalese protection scheme was woefully defective rather than guided missiles were greatly effective. Imagine the same small number of hits on an Iowa: her captain in 1968 - facing Styx missiles - was unafraid even if we let them leak. He both believed in his AAA and in his protection. [I agreed with him - it was radical to suggest guns for anti-missile work in 1967 - when I did so - but in 1973 the IDF was able to show that they were outstanding hard kill systems - when about 54 missiles were fired at them. All those not stopped by countermeasures were shot down. In the Falklands a RN frigate also claims an Exocet kill by a 4.5 inch gun - although almost no one believes it - I do. Guns are actually better at shooting missiles than planes - because missiles of the past were very predictable targets.] Anyway - sinking one battleship is momentarily effective - but it remains an isolated matter - and does not establish the system as effective. The only reason to think they were really effective in any sense is their value vs undefended merchant ships. Against a properly organized naval escorted task force - they are likely to have all failed - and did on several occasions.

The Japanese came up with an idea (at Tokyo Imperial University) of using the sound of AAA to home on. It appears to have worked - but the system was not put into production. [Imagine - the only "countermeasure" is you don't fire your AAA guns. Even if you figured it out - would you do it?]

[Dili]

This, however, should not have happened, and is taught as revealing that the Purgalese protection scheme was woefully defective rather than guided missiles were greatly effective.

 
?. One hit the machinery and the other hit went to B turret amno and the explosion broke the ship in two, it hit the deck . It had nothing to do with Pugliese anti torpedo that wasnt so good as intended but wasnt also a liability. We just have to read how many torpedos hit the Littorios in Pugliese.
The Italia(ex-Littorio) also took one got 3000t of water and went on. Warspite took 1 in machinery and 2 close calls and needed to be towed.
 
The luck of Savannah above is that the overmatch penetration of Fritz-X just went trough the bottom and the water flooded the amno.
 
 

  Imagine the same small number of hits on an Iowa: her captain in 1968 - facing Styx missiles - was unafraid even if we let them leak. He both believed in his AAA and in his protection. 

 
Fritz is a bomb that hits the deck in >90% of cases when it hits. Stix is a surface to surface missile that hits at sides.
 
I have no doubt that some would be hit by AAA since they were big 3.0t missiles at 800-900kph. If 10 were sent against Iowa i have also no doubt that the battleship would also be gravely damaged.
 
The Latakia naval battle had 0-2 Stix downed by 76mm Guns, that's the maximun i have read. All the others where handled by deception and chaff.
 
The Latakia Naval battle had 3 Soviet made missile boats with 4 Styx each. So at max only 12 missiles were sent against israelis.
 

In the Falklands a RN frigate also claims an Exocet kill by a 4.5 inch gun - although almost no one believes it - I do

 
I dont believe it. 4.5 inch is a crap gun. Not even was effective against Argentinian planes. 
From the British i only know of a Sea Dart missile that downed a Styx in Persian Gulf.
 

Anyway - sinking one battleship is momentarily effective - but it remains an isolated matter

 
 
Just at glance:
 
3 Battleships hit
4 Cruisers hit
>4 destroyers hit
 
 
All made by 2-3 squadrons in a little more than a year. And all ships gravely damaged or sunk.
 
Seems a good result.

[Dili]

Btw can i add drop tanks to air canon slots? I need a bunch of them for bomber recon versions and for planes that use same drop tank but have a bigger cruise speed (like Ju87 Vs Bf110)?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

This, however, should not have happened, and is taught as revealing that the Purgalese protection scheme was woefully defective rather than guided missiles were greatly effective.

?. One hit the machinery and the other hit went to B turret amno and the explosion broke the ship in two, it hit the deck . It had nothing to do with Pugliese anti torpedo that wasnt so good as intended but wasnt also a liability. We just have to read how many torpedos hit the Littorios in Pugliese.
The Italia(ex-Littorio) also took one got 3000t of water and went on. Warspite took 1 in machinery and 2 close calls and needed to be towed.

The luck of Savannah above is that the overmatch penetration of Fritz-X just went trough the bottom and the water flooded the amno.

  Imagine the same small number of hits on an Iowa: her captain in 1968 - facing Styx missiles - was unafraid even if we let them leak. He both believed in his AAA and in his protection. 

Fritz is a bomb that hits the deck in >90% of cases when it hits. Stix is a surface to surface missile that hits at sides.

I have no doubt that some would be hit by AAA since they were big 3.0t missiles at 800-900kph. If 10 were sent against Iowa i have also no doubt that the battleship would also be gravely damaged.

The Latakia naval battle had 0-2 Stix downed by 76mm Guns, that's the maximun i have read. All the others where handled by deception and chaff.

The Latakia Naval battle had 3 Soviet made missile boats with 4 Styx each. So at max only 12 missiles were sent against israelis.

In the Falklands a RN frigate also claims an Exocet kill by a 4.5 inch gun - although almost no one believes it - I do

I dont believe it. 4.5 inch is a crap gun. Not even was effective against Argentinian planes. 
From the British i only know of a Sea Dart missile that downed a Styx in Persian Gulf.

Anyway - sinking one battleship is momentarily effective - but it remains an isolated matter

Just at glance:

3 Battleships hit
4 Cruisers hit
>4 destroyers hit


All made by 2-3 squadrons in a little more than a year. And all ships gravely damaged or sunk.

Seems a good result.

The technical material we studied indicated the Italian battleship's armor protection became disconnected and "peeled" off - exposing vast numbers of compartments to flooding - all on one side - leading to capsizing. This seems not to be something one can say indicates a well designed system. But possibly we had different materials than whatever authors you are reading had. It is true a Styx might hit the side of a ship - or the superstructure. ASCMs cause the most likely thing to render a ship useless - fires. Even when the warhead does not go off it can be fatal to a modern ship. But not likely an Iowa.

[Dili]

There is no reference of any armor disconnected in Italian ships. Pugliese is not armor. Pugliese is a TDS. 
 
-Littorio take three torpedo hits in the Taranto Attack the 11-12th Nov 1940 .Time of reparation 4 1/2 months.

-Vittorio Veneto take a torpedo from a Albacore of the carrier HMS Illustrious in the Battle of Matapan near the backboard propellers the 28th March 1941.Time of reparation:3 months.

-Vittorio Veneto take a torpedo of the submarine HMS Urge the 14th December 1941 also in the backboard side and near of the propeller shafts.Time of reparation:4 months.

-Littorio take a bomb hit and a torpedo hit in the starboard side front of turret A the 6th June 1942.Time of reparation:3 months.

http://kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?=&p=8306

 

[el cid again]

The material I refer to was in German. It compared the protection scheme of Soviet captial ships building at Nikolaev with the Italian one - and it is indeed a torpedo defense system. During the Cold War, we didn't study the Soviets like the Germans did - and about 80% of the material was never translated into English. Anyway - the technical analysis of the damage to Italian ships was considered so good we studied it 20 years after the fact. While the scheme indeed is one of compartmentation, it of necessity is integrated with structural and armored members, and it seems not to have worked well in the event.