PDA

View Full Version : 100 LB Bombs on the Wildcat



ANGELOFMONS1
09-29-2005, 12:10 PM
Just a small gripe here but after much experimentation at skip bombing, two hits from 100 lb bombs on a Japanese fishing boat fail to sink it. A Wildcat sank a Japanese destroyer at Wake with such ordnance. This is a small issue but I would like to see their effectiveness slightly increased if possible.

ANGELOFMONS1
09-29-2005, 12:10 PM
Just a small gripe here but after much experimentation at skip bombing, two hits from 100 lb bombs on a Japanese fishing boat fail to sink it. A Wildcat sank a Japanese destroyer at Wake with such ordnance. This is a small issue but I would like to see their effectiveness slightly increased if possible.

Tater-SW-
09-29-2005, 12:13 PM
Ships are already too easy to sink. They should all damage more easily, and be harder to sink. Of more concern is the difficulty to damage the Sea Truck (aka "fishing boat") with MGs.

Also, it'd be nice for the SBD to have 100lbers.

tater

ANGELOFMONS1
09-29-2005, 10:35 PM
I wasn't talking about ships in general, just the fishing boat. Two 100 lb'ers should be plenty to sink a boat made of teak and bamboo.

Gibbage1
09-29-2005, 11:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ANGELOFMONS1:
I wasn't talking about ships in general, just the fishing boat. Two 100 lb'ers should be plenty to sink a boat made of teak and bamboo. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not unless the boat is made of Russian "Delta" bamboo and teak. Be sure!

Nimits
09-30-2005, 02:52 PM
MGs should be enough to sink the fishing boat . . . oh well . . .

On a side note, the DD sunk by bombs at Wake was a Mutsuki class, a 1920s upgrade of a WWI era design. A bit newer and a bit larger than the US "four-stackers," they were nevertheless second line ships unsuited for real combat. The only reason it was at Wake was that Combined Fleet considered Wake an easy target requiring only minimum resources (not the decision not to assign even a light carrier to provide air support for the first assault). Most were converted to APDs, and none survived the war. Which is a long way of saying that we are not exactly talking a Fletcher or Kagero here. The USMC pilots accomplished an extrondiary feat, no argument, but one should not base one's evaluation of the PF damage model on the freak sinking (the bombs hit armed depth charges or some other unprotected explosive spot causing a large catostrophic explosion, on a small scale similar to what happened to HMS Hood or USS Arizona) of an under-protected pre-war destroyer.

Tater-SW-
09-30-2005, 04:15 PM
It's not that 2x100lb should do some serious hurt to a Sea Truck, or even sink it. The problem is that they sink so bloody fast, there's no real joy in sinking them. I'd much much rather see all the sinking animations take 5x the current damage amount, and see the smoke effects associated with sinking happen with 1/2 the current damage.

tater

Monson74
10-01-2005, 03:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ANGELOFMONS1:
Just a small gripe here but after much experimentation at skip bombing, two hits from 100 lb bombs on a Japanese fishing boat fail to sink it. A Wildcat sank a Japanese destroyer at Wake with such ordnance. This is a small issue but I would like to see their effectiveness slightly increased if possible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 100 lbs do the damage they should - it's the ninja-boat that is way too tough.