PDA

View Full Version : Missing Bomb Ordinance



LEBillfish
11-11-2005, 09:34 AM
This is a reprint of something I posted on the PF forum......Personally it's something I'd like to see made happen before this all folds up for BoB but will not even ask directly, feel free to pass this along to 1c any of you B25 fans.....What I'd like is simple, bomb loads be corrected. In that regard it should be easy as I'm not asking for new planes or even versions of we desperately need......Just certain bombs (and I fly Japanese so would be fighting these not even be using them).

Parafrags....Should be 23# & have a optional loadout of "207 per plane" dropped in 3's.

Parademo's....Simply 100, 250, & 500# bombs with a chute.

Napalm & Phosphorous bombs......

Daisy Cutters (optional...but range of destruction should be greater to softer targets..planes, vehicles, buildings, etc.)

Big wish but least expected would be the Japanese "anti-bomber bombs"....WOuld be tough to make and make work.


The Missing Ordinance:
(know I am no expert on U.S. ordinance, yet some info I ran across)

The following information is from many sources, yet the lions share of this segment comes from "Capt. M.K.Rodman's, A War of their Own, Bombers Over the Southwest Pacific".....An excellent read that goes into great detail as to the 5th Air Force Bombers and their various configurations, weapons and tactics. (lots and lots on ship bombing as well).

Missing Japanese Bombs:

Though weapon creativity seemed to be lacking mostly due to the light loadouts and inferior planes of the Japanese Army and Navy, one weapon is sorely missing here. That being the "Anti-Bomber Phosphorous Bomb".

Though I am trying to gather more detailed information (and at this time is sketchy so not to be considered accurate), essentially the bomb I believe came in 30 & 50kg constructions and came in 2 types. Sticks of incendiaries bound together would be dropped into a formation of bombers. The first type would break up in the fall spreading out...The second would drop as a bundle then discharge casting out the sticks before their detonation.

The effects due to accuracy were iffy at best. Though documented losses of B25's, 24's, 17's, & 29's are known.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/NewGuinea/Phosphorous_Bomb.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/NewGuinea/Phosphorousbomb.jpg

They were also used in New Guinea toward the end of the conflict......(as a side note, before Kamikaze against ships and Taiatari (bomber ramming) were known or used over the home islands, they were actually extensively used in New Guinea though no doubt some accidents claimed to be the "ultimate sacrifice").

Missing U.S. Medium Bomber Gun Configurations:

We have many of them as AI, yet sadly some of the most extensively used aircraft in New Guinea are missing from the sim. Most notably the various B-25's who's strafing and anti-shipping efforts really are what won the air war in New Guinea/Britain.

Naturally the nose filled with .50 caliber guns guns is what did most of the work, yet others with various cannons also contributed greatly. Though we all know of the B25-G with the 75mm gun, they also came with lighter cannons and all had their place.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/NewGuinea/B25Gdwg.jpg

Yet there was more. B25's, A-20's and A-26's also carried a vast array of rockets, cannon, and machine gun armaments that truly contributed to the "precision" attacks these aircraft were used for vs. the almost "high altitude" role relegated to here.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/NewGuinea/A20-rockets.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/NewGuinea/A26-guns.jpg

These planes till simply equipped properly are far from how they were really used.

Missing U.S. Bombs, the criticals:

So the B-25 & A-20 are to be bombers, ok lets talk bombs. One of the more notable missing and simple to have is Napalm. Though not used till the end of the campaign, it never the less was by both to actually much more effective ends then phosphorous type weapons (though they are sorely missing discussed next)....Napalm toward the end of the war became quite a mainstay for most direct ground attack aircraft. The B25 & A20 no exception.

Phosphorous bombs however were much more then what we give them credit for here. Initially using smoke generating bombs...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/NewGuinea/phosphorous-bomb.jpg

Quickly it was discovered the devastating effect they could have on men, equipment and buildings...which from the book above the author notes "Their construction was simple. The €œ€˜Kenney Cocktail€ . . .was a standard M-47 100-pound bomb loaded with white phosphorus which, when it burst, flung out streamers of
burning incendiary material in all directions for 150 feet [fig. 7]. Its effect upon man and machine was deadly.€50 Even before the end of 1942, €œthe Beast,€ as Radio Tokyo dubbed Kenney
and his air force, would give the Japanese in the Southwest Pacific more cause for concern."

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/NewGuinea/pre1_topl.jpg

Often detonated above the ground, the white hot debris would actually cut through man and machine setting all it came in contact with afire.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/NewGuinea/pre1_botr.jpg

Phosphorous bombs were used extensively in New Guinea, and a dab of burning phosphorous on a fuel truck, plane or hut could often totally destroy it.

However, being we are destined to be medium to high alt bombers, where is the real weapon used by all medium and heavy bombers that really had the lions share of effect. The "Daisy Cutter" as quoted from the book above:

"Fifth Air Force modified larger bombs from those on hand to create weapons known as daisy cutters. €œTo cut up aircraft on the ground we had wrapped these bombs [300 lb. and 500 lb.]
with heavy steel wire, and we dropped them with instantaneous fuses on the end of a six-inch pipe extension in the nose. They looked good. The wire, which was nearly one-quarter inch in diameter, broke up into pieces from six inches to a couple of feet long, and in the monstration it cut limbs off trees a hundred feet away which were two inches thick.€51 Unlike
well-constructed industrial complexes, exposed targets in the open did not necessarily require attacks by large formations of bombers laden with high-explosive bombs. Smaller fragments proved more than enough to ignite aircraft and machinery as well as absolutely devour ground personnel unlucky enough to be within the fragmentation pattern."

These weapons though average in actual weight are noted to literally clear 150 yard diameter swaths taking out everything within it's radius. Dropped in combinations of instantly detonating to some lingering up to 48 hours to keep crews clear of the airfields, they if you read any amount of information were used almost as extensively as standard bomb loads.

However, we do have one actual saving grace, the Parafrag.....Or do we?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/NewGuinea/parafragbomb.jpg

The parafrag was used extensively by B-25 crews (as they strafed) to great effect. Initially B-25's having to remove their belly turret to utilize an "internal drop tank" for fuel taking up space caused other innovations to be made to make the best use of loadouts....We I believe get 40 parafrags....Yet here is a description of a system used to drop them and spread them out......

"To facilitate the use of these weapons, Pappy Gunn €œcame up with the €˜squirrel cage€ for the B-25. This was a metal rack that looked just like a cage with columns of rods. It held parafrags in fours stacked on top of the other, nose to tail. I recall that the cage carried about 200 23 pounders and the idea was that when you were over a target you toggled the whole lot.€42 By late August 1942, planes from the 3d BG were equipped with bomb racks for parafrags, and less than a month later, these bombs made their first operational appearance".

200.....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/NewGuinea/parafrag-sally.jpg

One important aspect of this was the parafrag often tended to not go off (the problem made worse later by parademo's (next part)). Though the fuse sometimes failed to work, the effect the parafrag had on the New Guinea Air operations cannot be overstated.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/NewGuinea/parafrag-dud.jpg

Better fuses made, the parafrag became a mainstay and inspired even larger parachute restraining bombs...the Parademo's.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/NewGuinea/parafragfuse.jpg

Parademo's;

With the success the Parafrag had, we all know bigger must be better right? So soon larger weapons were produced with explosive force not fragments or burning phosphorous being the key. So as noted below using what was learned from Parafrags, Parademo's were made.....

"Starting in August 1943, with the idea of preventing ricochet of bombs by means of a parachute, [and] a parachute adapter capable of field production . . .[the parademo] was developed and first used on a combat mission in September 1943.€12 The fact that parademos took their parachutes directly from 23-pound parafrags simplified the process of creating a new weapon. A 100-pound bomb had one chute; the 250-pound version carried two; and the 500-pounder carried either two or four of the standard tail-mounted chutes. Developed late in the summer of 1943."

As noted coming in 100#

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/NewGuinea/100parademo.jpg

250#

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/NewGuinea/250parademo-1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/NewGuinea/250parademo-2.jpg

& 500# configurations,

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/NewGuinea/500parademo.jpg

The parademos were designed to work both like parafrags & or Daisy Cutters. Sometimes instantaneous fuses used, the parachute besides granting accuracy and allowing the bomb to drop straight down to avoid bouncing off revetments, they were sometimes timed for long delays as well.

Unfortunately they had their own teething problems with fuses....Quite often failing till understood why...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/NewGuinea/parademo-dud.jpg

Yet eventually moving to contact fuses, the parademo now had the same low level accuracy as the parafrag without worry of being fragged by your own bomb or worse still having it bounce back up skipping and bite you (which had happened).


We love our fighters here, and seem to love those low level fights. The missing ordinance for both sides is almost required to the precise ground attack theme of IL2 Sturmovik, and to make the combat here like so many like it to be. A low alt brawl.

Oddly, that's just how it often was in New Guinea.

p1ngu666
11-11-2005, 10:48 AM
yeah would love more bombs and stuff http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Tater-SW-
11-11-2005, 10:50 AM
Parafrags....Should be 23# & have a optional loadout of "207 per plane" dropped in 3's.

The number on each plane is really hard to pin down. I have seen the high number you suggest, along with lower numbers like 72. They did drop in groups of 3, however, all accounts agree on that. From a practical standpoint, 4 planes dropping 40 each is a major FR hit, I cannot imagine 2000 in the air at once from a squadron. 40 might be a good compromise, lol.


Parademo's....Simply 100, 250, & 500# bombs with a chute.

The chute on parademos didn't brake the bomb to let the plane get away, but to ****** the bomb so it wouldn't skip when dropped at low alt and high speed (I have pics of 500lb bombs bounced off the ground to near the alt of the plane that dropped them). The dropping plane got away due to a long delay fuse on the bombs. If added, they would need 8-11 second delay fuses. Note that if they ever added this, the chute should never fully brake the bomb, the chute would be beind it (like frags when first dropped). If the current bombs don;t bounce on ground, then you could fake it with a delay fuse of 8-11 seconds for the AI planes. Of course AI planes won't drop from an alt low enough to make parademos actually needed, so it's kinda moot (players can add whatever delay they like and fake it).


Napalm & Phosphorous bombs...

Would be cool, particularly the latter. US heavy bombers routinely dropped a mix with HE and some incendiaries as well, odd there are no M17 or M19 bombs for the US heavies.


Daisy Cutters (optional...but range of destruction should be greater to softer targets..planes, vehicles, buildings, etc.)

Japanese used these, too.


Big wish but least expected would be the Japanese "anti-bomber bombs"....WOuld be tough to make and make work.

Not too bad to do, they'd work just like the anti-bomber rockets for the LW. Call them "rockets" (but with no power) so they could use the rocket delay parameter. Whether or not the AI would be able to use them is another story. OTOH a mission designer could have the AI fly over the formation and gattack with them (if they were treated as bombs with a fixed delay from drop instead of as "rockets" with no motor).

tater

csThor
11-11-2005, 11:07 AM
We won't even get Panzerblitz 1 AT rockets even if they were just modified R4M with an AT warhead. It was "too much work" (OT Oleg). Go figure how much chances your request has http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

cmirko
11-11-2005, 11:37 AM
what a great wish http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
i would like those http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, great post.....
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

hi all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LEBillfish
11-11-2005, 12:03 PM
Actually, from many accounts I've read they ran high numbers of parafrags OR some with other ordinance added....40 alone is nothing compared.

As to Parademos, yes, to get away and "brake them" as the bombs being they came in at such low level would sometimes bounce back up and strike them and those behind, the other benefit being causing them to drop more verticaly. That way revetments and such would not have the tendancy to bounce them over the enclosre including the more controlled accuracy.

Not my words hon, of those who were there.

Tater-SW-
11-11-2005, 01:05 PM
Don't get me wrong, the chutes certainly slowed them down. What I was getting at was that it wasn't enough to just ****** them to get the plane out of range. I think I read in Warpath that they usually used 8 to 11 second delays on the parademos to get the plane out of blast range. Without ******ing the bomb, they'd be bouncing along behind the plane, slowing down with each bounce, but they'd likely need an even longer delay, lol.

tater

LEBillfish
11-11-2005, 02:36 PM
Oh absolutly, in fact though going to contact fuses still meant nothing more then starting the timer....More so, I have read where they would often drop 500, 1,000 pounders and have them set to go off an hour, 2 10 even 48 hours later simply to either try and nail crews working to rebuild fields....Yet more often to keep them away as they never knew when it would go off.

What I and the author above is stating is not that it slowed/******ed the bomb so they could get away from the blast........Yet so they could get away from the physical bomb hitting them and also to control placement.

For those not getting this discussion it's not like dropping even from 500' or higher where the bomb is likely to dig in...It's trying to make it not skip along like a stone on water as from say 50' the angle is so shallow due to the speed (not giving gravity time to pull it into a steeper one)....That I've read where planes literally had their engines struk by 250#'s bouncing back up and hitting them or the plane behind.

Tater-SW-
11-11-2005, 03:31 PM
They also used 1000 and 2000 lb bombs with timed fuses so they would detonate after falling a certain time. This was for airbursts of those huge bombs. They's wrap them sereral times with wire for schrapnel effect. The idea was to mitigate the effectiveness of slit trenches. That would be a load the B-24 should get.

tater

ImpStarDuece
11-11-2005, 03:32 PM
There is heaps of ordanace loadouts missing in the game;

All Spitfire Vs should have the option to carry either 1 500 lb bomb on a centre line mount or 2 250 lb bombs on wing mounts.

The Spitfire VIII should have the option to mount a 500lb bomb on the centreline and 2 250 lb bombs on the wings, or either.

The P-47 shoud mount 1000lb bombs on the wings and a 500lb bomb on the centreline, not the other way around.

The Hurricane IIc should be able to mount 2 250 lbrs or 2 500 lbrs on the wings.

Me-109Fs should be able to mount a 250 kg bomb on a centreline mount and have various droptank options.

rugame
11-11-2005, 04:46 PM
SWOTL had air bombs for the Fw190, it also had those experimental rockets fitted to the Me163 which were triggeed as you went underneath a plane.

We all know how complex that engine was......

Tater-SW-
11-11-2005, 07:40 PM
I wanna see incendiary cluster bombs that have a small individual, but long time frame effect. They'd make a tiny fire, and it would grow into a small difuse cloud of fire and stay that way for a while. A pretty long while, too.

What's the point of the B-29 without M19 clusters of napalm, anyway? The Betty got incediaries. Just give us the betty version, but with maybe 10 times as many.

tater

LeadSpitter_
11-15-2005, 08:20 AM
just about ever us ac is missing half of its ordinances, rocket tubes hvars bombs etc.

Also the b25 and a20s do not have thier 5000lb max limit but 2500lbs which were used for very long range 100 fuel missions.

theres alot of combat reports showing ordinance in the med with b25s and 5000lb payload.

then germans have alot of extremely rare and experiment payloads but the ones used are not in game like panzerblitz etc which makes no sense.

It would also make alot of sense to increase bomb strenghts 500lbs and below are virtually useless and guns can be used on them much more effectiveley,

then cannon and mg do nothing to cargo ships? and takes so many hits to sink a wooden sailboat?

rugame
11-15-2005, 02:25 PM
Re the panzerblitz, and pls correct me if i am wrong, but i thought i read that oleg said to include these in the game would require a new external model of the Fw ?

And if i am correct in what i read.....Why?

I make stuff for ofp, if i want new bomb etc on an a/c i simply just create the model for the wep, i dont build the whole plane around the weps system.

Flakwalker
11-18-2005, 11:53 AM
I want B-25 with solid nose flyable (including B-25J) altough ships are invulnerable against hmg. But the 75mm will be enough http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tater-SW-
11-18-2005, 01:05 PM
The B-25G and H require entirely new cockpits. Ain't gonna happen. The field-mod J strafer would be easy. Stick 4 50 cal barrels out the external model, and delete the internal bombadier section. The flex nose gun also gets fixed forward. Paint over the glass. DONE.

As for missing loads, yeah many planes have problems. I think that when the problem loadout was the principal loadout of the plane, however, it needs to be addressed. The SBD's have impossible loadouts on the wings, for example, and lack the 100lb bombs they actuallt carried there. That's not an obscure loadout, that's the standard loadout for an SBD.

The lack of incendiaries for the B-29 is a similar flaw.

Parademos for the B-25s, another staple loadout for them in RL.

tater

Siwarrior
11-18-2005, 05:04 PM
SBD-5 should have the option of a 500lb bomb under the centre and 2x100lb bombs under the wings
SBD DID NOT carry 1600lb and 3x500lb bombs off carriers only the land base A-24 did that and that was rare!

there should also be the option of 50cal gunpods on the wing racks for the sbd-5

LeadSpitter_
11-18-2005, 05:46 PM
and the 100 and 250lb bombs should be the strenght of the 1000lb bomb in game

LEBillfish
11-18-2005, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
and the 100 and 250lb bombs should be the strenght of the 1000lb bomb in game

DOn't know if you're joking or not but IMLTHO most of the bombs here don't have the results of what you see in old clips......Yet that is one feature I REALLY do not expect to see changed.

LeadSpitter_
11-19-2005, 12:43 AM
no im not joking this time bf, but any thing the 50 100 250lbers can destroy a simple burst of guns can too making them useless to use. Its not worth the weight and fm penalty from racks and bombs.

the p47s 2 500lbers for example "really should be 2 1000lb wing mounted and 500lb centerline actually but anyways they hit like one 500lb and have to be directly on the tank then you real stukas bombfootage with 1 250kg flipping armor in the air or burrying it in a ditch even the 4 50s did great damage.

I think all bomb strenghts really need to be stronger. whats funny is drop the p11s bombs while on the ground, it damages your plane a little then fire one mk108 shot and it makes an explosion like a 500lber and will explode the p11 from 1 strike.

csThor
11-19-2005, 02:03 AM
It's not the strength of the bombs but the objects to hit that distort the picture. If a single 12cm gun hit ten meters away can destroy a bunker then it's obvious that there is a single class of objects - all of which can be destroyed easily (far too easily IMO).

Vipez-
11-20-2005, 10:20 AM
What I like to see the most:

Heinkel H-2/H-6 able to carry 8x SC-250 (like it did) and 109F4/B with SC250/4xsc70/4xsc50..

Tater-SW-
11-20-2005, 10:23 AM
Yeah, a single bomb wipes out way too many buildings for example.
The SBD shouldn't carry 500lbers under the wings period. Those hardpoints were only rated for 375 lbs.


tater

Aaron_GT
11-20-2005, 02:00 PM
just about ever us ac is missing half of its ordinances, rocket tubes hvars bombs etc.


Leadspitter, it is true of LW and RAF aircraft too. And there are probably missing options from VVS planes too.

LEBillfish
05-11-2006, 09:36 AM
An additional "Anti-Bomber" bomb used by the Japanese in addition to the Phosphorous bomb shown in the originating post.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/IL2/arielbomb.jpg

Lordbutter4
05-11-2006, 08:13 PM
The japanese planes are the hardest hit by this lack of ordinance. Its sad that a val can only carry a max of 1 250 and two 60's, but a ki-61 can carry 2 250kgs. It makes japanese dive bombers almost usless. Playing a map such as coral sea as the japanese tends to stink because it just takes far too many runs and hits to even hurt a carrier, yet alone sink one.

LEBillfish
05-12-2006, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by Lordbutter4:
The japanese planes are the hardest hit by this lack of ordinance. Its sad that a val can only carry a max of 1 250 and two 60's, but a ki-61 can carry 2 250kgs. It makes japanese dive bombers almost usless. Playing a map such as coral sea as the japanese tends to stink because it just takes far too many runs and hits to even hurt a carrier, yet alone sink one.

Actually......That's all they could carry. The D3A series only used a single 250kg & 2 30 or 60 Kg bombs. What you have to remember is though, a 250Kg bomb "through the deck" of a ship is MUCH more effective then say a 500 against the hull, or a torpedo even in some cases. The reason is simple. Wooden decks are easily penetrated often to vital area's, wherein armored hulls are not......

Nice thing is though, the ships HAVE been modeled this way it's my understanding, so it takes less hits to the deck then the hull to sink them.

Unfortunately however.....As much as I like bombing with the Ki-61-I we have in the sim.....In contrast to R. Bueschel's book on the Ki-61 and other sources it is highly doubted that the 1a-1c (Ko, Otsu, Hei) ever carried bombs......That reserved till the 1d or Tei was built. Now, that doesn't mean they didn't.....In fact, if they could carry a 150l. drop tank and drop it on each wing they clearly could carry a modest amount of weight....They just simply didn't. Even the "Phosphorous" anti-bomber bombs used in NewGuinea were believed to be used more by Ki-43....The Ki-61 left to a "pure" fighter role.

However, we know later models carried and used bombs....So to a small degree it makes up for the loss of the Tei and Ki-61-II series missing somewhat. We also know once in the home islands "older" models used anti-bomber bombs showing they had the "ability"......Yet in truth it's not historical on the models we have.

What the Ki-61 however (if we had the Ki-61-I-Tei) needs to be complete however would also be the addition of a 30kg & 100kg bomb, and both the phosphorous incindiary stick and HE cluster bombs shown above to be complete.


BTW, we're also missing x2 15 or 30kg bombs on the Ki-43 plus the anti bomber phosphorous bombs. The Ki-43-II they state we may get should have x2 30kg or 250kg, plus the anti bomber phosphorous bombs.

ElAurens
05-12-2006, 05:17 PM
We can only hope Billfish.

Oh, and when was the last time a single 250kg. bomb from a Val did any significant damage to a US carrier in the game? It should make a heck of a mess of the deck if nothing else, but it does not. The best you can hope for is to catch an enemy aircraft on deck and destroy that.

LEBillfish
05-12-2006, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Oh, and when was the last time a single 250kg. bomb from a Val did any significant damage to a US carrier in the game? It should make a heck of a mess of the deck if nothing else, but it does not. The best you can hope for is to catch an enemy aircraft on deck and destroy that.

Actually that is not quite true........Visually you see little which is a shame but would require numerous damage models to show all the possibilities.......However, they do indeed do damage.

It's my understanding (not fact yet have heard) that the ships are broken up into possibly thirds or quarters....Damage an area bad enough, and damage shows to finally the ship sinking. Now just for arguments sake (faking the numbers) Lets say it takes 4,000kg of explosives PER area, to sink a ship......Put all 4,000 in the same area, down it goes, spread it out over 2, and you suddenly need to hit one of those spots with 2,000 more and so on.

In kind, it takes more hits to the hull to sink it then the deck......So just as in real life (as I doubt we get lucky hits say into magazines or boilers and such).....You send out numerous planes to hit the same ship.

Nothing new there in real life, as often it took numerous torpedos to sink war ships (not cargo).....Naturally it also took numerous bombs the lucky single shots rare.

Try a QMB.......The one thing we have to be careful of though in the sim is how short the "repair time" is as damage gets negated after so long and you must start over.

So granted, we don't get to see the damage till X point.....But it's happening.

LEBillfish
05-15-2006, 11:59 PM
bump

JG53Frankyboy
05-16-2006, 03:45 AM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:


It's my understanding (not fact yet have heard) that the ships are broken up into possibly thirds or quarters....Damage an area bad enough, and damage shows to finally the ship sinking. Now just for arguments sake (faking the numbers) Lets say it takes 4,000kg of explosives PER area, to sink a ship......Put all 4,000 in the same area, down it goes, spread it out over 2, and you suddenly need to hit one of those spots with 2,000 more and so on.

.

i highly doubt that from my missionbuilding and online playing experience. ships have a specific needed total bombload to sink - and moslty after the half of that load they are smoking.

well the game doesnt put the japanese in a favorite situation in naval air antiship warfare http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

the japanese have sometimes strange loadoutoptions.

the most for me is the missing "two droptanks and one 250kg bomb"(the idea behind these two wing droptanks WAS to be able to carry droptanks AND a bomb http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) and "one 500kg bomb" in the A6M7 fighterbombers.
the posibility that all Zeros can carry a 250kg bomb is weird on dogfighterservers - the first action with bombloaded Zeros was AFAIK in june 1944 , A6M2 fighterbombers on board Admiral Ozawas Carriers. and sure than later as Kamikazes.

i hope for Bombs and Tanks for the comming Oscar II , but the chances are very low !
also for some light bombs (4x25kg)on the Ki-27Otsu- also low chances http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Capt.LoneRanger
05-16-2006, 04:20 AM
Yeah, I noticed that, too. A twin-column of Sherman-tanks along the road and if you drop 2x2000kg bombs right in the middle of it, you are lucky, if you get more than 2 tanks. That's a bit ridiculous, sometimes.

telsono
05-18-2006, 02:48 PM
I was reading in:

Wreaking Havoc: A Year in an A-20 (Texas a & M University Military History Series, 91.)
by Joseph W. Rutter

That by the middle of 1944 the A-20's in New Guinea had removed the rear firing belly gun (and crew member) and replaced it with a camera. The top turret gunner would set the camera rolling as soon as the bomb run commenced. These films were checked after missions for accuracy of the attack. Some of the stills shown in here of parafrags were probably taken in this manner.
At this time in the war the Japanese fighters were seen less and less. During his year flying the A-20 in combat, Rutter did not encounter a single enemy fighter. His missions included the conclusion of the New Guinea campaign, the invasion of the Philippines and also at least one raid on Taiwan (Formosa). Many of the raids he participated on were against airfields.

Nimits
05-20-2006, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
We can only hope Billfish.

Oh, and when was the last time a single 250kg. bomb from a Val did any significant damage to a US carrier in the game? It should make a heck of a mess of the deck if nothing else, but it does not. The best you can hope for is to catch an enemy aircraft on deck and destroy that.

Actually, that part is farily accurate. The 250kg anti-ship bomb was, in fact, not a particularly effective ship killer. It required several bombs to do any significany damage to US heavy warship. I cannot recall of any US capital ship or cruiser sunk from bombs alone (other than the magazine explosion on the Arizona at Pearl Harbor, and that was an extrordanairy circumstance). In the Indian ocean, D3As did overwhelm the light carrier Hermes and 2 County class heavy cruisers, but that required full deckloads of D3As from 5 carriers concentrating on a couple of ships each time. Against a capital ship with any sort of defensive screen, it required a concentrated attack of dive bombers and torpedo planes for a Japanese carrier strike to accomplish anything.