Originally posted by wpurdom
In one of the discussions about bombs being too effective against battleships, one of the posters, I believe Nickademus, asserted that Dive bombers should not be able to inflict floatation damage.
Prime examples of floatation damage occurred at the battle of Santa Cruz. At that battle, in the first attack, one 1000 lb. bomb hit the CA Kinugasa "struck the forward part of the bridge..., sliced through the superstructure, and exploded on the lower deck below the waterline.... lowing out big sections of the hull.... Severe flooding soon induced a 10-degree list to port." She later capsized from this floatation damage.
In a second attack, 2 500 lb. near misses knocked out her steering and greatly increased flooding to port.
A third attack inflicted near misses on the CA Chokai, flooded some compartments, and flooded boilers 4 and 6 for a time. The CL Isuzu suffered two near misses that buckled hull plates, flooded firerooms 2 and 3, and affected steering control.
Earlier in the battle, in addition to a direct hit, CA Chikuma suffered two near misses, one of which "opened a 'big hole' in her side, which let water into the starboeard fireroom and reduced her speed. Probably due to her reduced speed, a TBF was able to hit her with a 500 lb. bomb, which hit her aviation section and did severe damage. She was able to retire however at 23 knots and escaped to port. US CLAA San Juan, admittedly lightly armored also suffered significant floatation damage from a penetrating semi-AP bomb and a near miss.
Source: First Team at Guadalcanal.
Since i'm being quoted i should set the record straight. I *never* stated that bombs should not be able to cause floatation damage. What I said, what i've said for a while now, is that bombs, in the game are entirely too powerful in terms of pentetration power.
The principle bombs in the game (500ILB/250kg and 1000ILB) are not even Armor Piercing bombs but general purpose or more commonly (if not entirely accurate) "High Explosive" devices whose AP ability was far far less than expresssed in the game. I have gleaned (from Matrix itself) that the bombs are given penetration ratings of 5 inches for the 500ILB/250kg and a whopping 10 inches for the 1000ILB bomb.
Such ability is patently absurb in the statistical sense. A 12,000 ILB "Tallboy" bomb, dropped from 10,000 feet I could see penetrating 10 inches of armor but not a 1000ILB bomb dropped at low altitude by a DB.
As for the "floatation" aspect. This is not so much a problem of the bomb's overpenetrative qualities as much as it is a fault in the current damage control coding which tends to cause too much damage to all three major DC indicators at the same time. What that means is, when a weapon "penetrates" the target's armor, all too often it will cause a ratio of SYS, FIRE and FLT damage leading to a 'general' fragility and lack of staying power in the ships, even big battleships.
Yes, there are examples of bombs causing floatation damage. Never said there weren't. What is the problem in UV is that penetrations (bombs are just the most notable due to their power) almost *always* cause FLT damage which IMO seriously skews the game.
It is most apparant when addressing battleships. Bombs could and did on occasion hurt battleships, a notable example would be Yamato due to unique aspects of her design (such as having a glass forcastle bereft of any armor protection, even on the deck!) But "in general" battleships did not fear bombs a tenth as much as torpedoes.
why? For the simple reason that torpedoes *always* cause FLT damage. Because torpedoes delivering hundreds of pounds of explosive under the armor and under the waterline tend to magnify the damages caused. Because the progressive flooding caused is an ongoing and building threat that is largely unrepairable outside of a drydock, and because the blasts tend to be closer to the all-important propulsion systems which coupled with the flooding itself can slow a ship and make it more probable with each hit that more hits will be scored as the target's speed and maneuverability are impaired.
Bombs on the other hand.....did not.
No battleship, at sea, was ever sunk by a GP bomb. Of the battleships that were sunk by bombs at all.......Arizona was sunk by a converted 16.1 inch *AP* naval shell dropped at 10,000 feet. It is estimated (or should i say argued) that this bomb could just penetrate her upgraded armor causing the explosion that doomed her (some dispute this, the point is, Arizona's armor was not even half of the 10 inch rating given the *GP* 1000ILB'er)
Marat was sunk by a 2000ILB bomb at her moorings by Hans Rudell (and her deck armor was very thin even at the time she was built much less by 41)
Roma was sunk by a heavy AP 908kg semi guided missile bomb that acted both as a bomb and a torp all in one (thats about 2000ILBs)
Tirpitz was sunk at moorings by a 12,012ILB "Earthquake" bomb designed originally to penetrate up to 3.6 meters of reinforced concrete.
Other BB's were hit by more conventional bombs, some were moderately damaged, most shrugged them off. At Leyte and at Okinawa, Yamato and Musashi were dispatched by torps. Bombs could cause casualties topside and start fires, but they could not stop these behemoths unless under unusual circumstances, Nor were any of their lesser bretheren, with Kurita or Ozawa stopped by bomb hits.
In the example i stated in my 1.4 thread(which i assume you've read) re-read my example. I sank a Nagato class battleship, and a Kongo solely by GP 500ILB and 1000ILB bombs in one battle (TBD's dropped the 500'bers due to range) This is not the first time i've done this either.
CA's and cruisers do fall in a middle ground. Much depends on the specific class. a 2 or 3 inch deck could indeed stop a 1000ILBer (note the thicknesses used for armored carriers) but as your examples highlight, sometimes that doesn't factor as cruisers tend to be much less beamy and stacked as battleships, and some do not have continuous armor coverage so bombs and near hits can cause hull damages that can lead to flooding. Here again, i never advocated making bombs totally impotent. I felt that bombs should be reduced to around 2 inches for 1000ILBers (and thats being generous as even a 1000ILB GP bomb can be set off by a wooden flight deck if it's fuse is set short enough) so that there would be an on again off again chance for serious penetrative damage to cruisers, and that 500ILB bombs should have 1 inch or less (retaining their leathality against unarmored targets such as AP, old CL's, DD's etc) The point of the excercise was to eliminate the current 100% certainly of penetration which, especially in the 1000ILB GP case, always leads to extensive damage, crippling, or downright loss of the ship (especially when tied to very harsh (and fun!) progressive flooding rules.
I have also suggested changes to the damage routine to better reflect the greater probability of bombs to cause topside damage vs FLT damage in the form of FIRE level generation even in the event of non penetration. The all or nothing aspect of penetration vs non-penetration is to blame here, not the bombs themselves. FIRE level generation should be independant of penetration as shown by the experience of many a ship at sea and wooden decked carriers.
So no, i do not advocate eliminating a bomb's ability to cause FLT damage. I do prepose a big curtailment of this aspect (making them "bombs" as opposed to "torpedoes", the game already has torpedoes!) as well as better representing their true penetrative and damage causing qualities.
The soap box is now dismounted from
