PDA

View Full Version : 1x1000lb bomb vs. 2x500lb bombs



The_Stealth_Owl
01-23-2010, 12:19 PM
S! All! How are you guys doing? Haven't been around for a while. Busy with school, skins, and flying. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I have a question.

VF-17_Jolly
01-23-2010, 12:36 PM
Rockets

rnzoli
01-23-2010, 12:40 PM
No doubt, the 500lbs are much better. The US Navy did extensive testing in August 1943 and found that in low level attacks, the biggest risk is the bombs detonating while still on the aircraft. Therefore a lot of calculations and ground tests, including destructive tests went into verifying that carrying 2 x 500 lbs gives longer time for the pilots to bail out in case of premature bomb explosion due to anti-aricraft fire. The 1000 lb bomb will destroy the airplane and kill the pilot instantly, the 2 X 500 lbs will of course cause structural damage, but leaves more chance to the pilots to bail.

Actually this issue was debated a lot a few years ago with version 3.04 (in relation to the weak .50 cals), and it turned out that Oleg modelled the bombs in IL-2 partly right, that is the blast effects, but his bombs are unfortunately vulnerable to machine gun fire from behind also, when in reality this shouldn't be the case. I think was corrected in 4.03 patch.

Frankthetank36
01-23-2010, 01:59 PM
Doesn't the P-47 carry a much heavier bombload than that (thought it was at least 2000lbs)? Given the Thunderbolt's loadout options I would prefer rockets against tanks and strafing against soft targets. Single, heavy bombs are really overkill against small targets, I would only use them against ships and stuff that actually take more than one bomb to go down.

Stiletto-
01-23-2010, 02:21 PM
Cassettes. You have to fly the IL-2 though.

Romanator21
01-23-2010, 03:27 PM
Rnzoli, I thought the reasoning behind having 500s vs 1000s is that they were ultimately more destructive. In Doolittle's autobiography, he describes that the blast area of a single bomb was less than the area of two bombs at half its size.

Erkki_M
01-23-2010, 04:15 PM
Vs. tanks, 1000lbs, vs. softies, 2 x 500lbs, though usually best to just take 1000 + 2x 500. Rockets only if you are 100% sure the airspace is going to be free of E/A....

thefruitbat
01-23-2010, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by Erkki_M:
Vs. tanks, 1000lbs, vs. softies, 2 x 500lbs, though usually best to just take 1000 + 2x 500. Rockets only if you are 100% sure the airspace is going to be free of E/A....

+1

Frankthetank36
01-23-2010, 05:44 PM
If you come in FAST, you can strafe and rocket stuff even if there are enemy planes.

jarink
01-23-2010, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by Romanator21:
Rnzoli, I thought the reasoning behind having 500s vs 1000s is that they were ultimately more destructive. In Doolittle's autobiography, he describes that the blast area of a single bomb was less than the area of two bombs at half its size.

That's not just Doolittle's theory, it's also proven fact. It's one of the reasons later models of ICBMs were given MRVs (Multiple Reentry Vehicles) or MIRVs (Multiple Independently-targetable Reentry Vehicles).

PF_Coastie
01-23-2010, 09:58 PM
http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/PF_Coastie/Blastradiustable.jpg

AndyJWest
01-23-2010, 10:15 PM
That's an interesting graphic, PF_Coastie, but without knowing where it came from, or what it is supposed to mean, I don't think it helps that much.

I suspect that 'one large bomb' rather than 'two small ones' depends on so many factors that a simple A or B answer doesn't help. I know the RAF did a lot of research on this during WWII, without ever really coming up with a better answer than 'mix them up': A 20,000 lb Cookie and a fistful of incendiaries probably worked as well as anything else if your target was a district, whereas when dealing with smaller tactical targets accuracy was probably more important than anything else.

BillSwagger
01-24-2010, 12:13 AM
I find the belly bombs easier to aim, but your left with a pylon that slows the plane down. The 500lb bombs use pylons already included in the drag model.

Just something i noticed.


Bill

Frankthetank36
01-24-2010, 12:20 AM
If multiple smaller bombs were better, then why did they ever develop the Tallboy and Grand Slam? Also wouldn't the blast radii from the small bombs just overlap each other?

TheGrunch
01-24-2010, 12:27 AM
Originally posted by Frankthetank36:
If multiple smaller bombs were better, then why did they ever develop the Tallboy and Grand Slam? Also wouldn't the blast radii from the small bombs just overlap each other?
Tall Boy and Grand Slam are quite different in that they're designed to penetrate the soil and deliver a blast that undermines foundations. Or go through bunkers' ceilings.

MD_Titus
01-24-2010, 03:26 AM
if a straight choice between using 2x500lb or 1x1000lb bomb, on a p47, then it is in most circumstances a case of "the bigger the better". there is no cumulative increase in blast radius from using two 500lb bombs, so it is nearly as good as just dropping one. thusly - the bigger the better.

the excepon is if you are bombing along a road, skip bombing at that, then you can (mostly by sheer luck) plant one bomb in a leading vehicle and skip the other along the tarmac. this means you have two different detonation locations, and more targets killed. unless the skipping bomb flies past the lead vehicle and just kills an anthill. works on runways as well.

thefruitbat
01-24-2010, 05:08 AM
Originally posted by AndyJWest:
That's an interesting graphic, PF_Coastie, but without knowing where it came from, or what it is supposed to mean, I don't think it helps that much.



If i recall correctly, that's been around for quite a few years now, where someone (can't remember who) took the time to actually test the radius's of the bomb blasts in il2, in the fmb.

i've certainly seen it before. It's relativly easy to check, just time consuming. set yourself up in the fmb, with various targets, soft and hard fanning out from your spawn point at 10m intervals, drop bombs, and watch the results...

AndyJWest
01-24-2010, 06:53 AM
...It's relativly easy to check, just time consuming. set yourself up in the fmb, with various targets, soft and hard fanning out from your spawn point at 10m intervals, drop bombs, and watch the results...

Thanks, fruitbat. I'd never have thought of testing that way!

It looks like 1 target: 1 bomb is the way to go in ground attack, though in level bombing multiple smaller bombs will have a greater chance of doing damage on spread-out targets, as in real life.

The_Stealth_Owl
01-24-2010, 07:09 AM
I chose the rockets. They are actualy quite good for enamy planes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Edit: Testing my avatar

Erkki_M
01-24-2010, 07:24 AM
Against AI Rookie fiat CR.42s perhaps...

Against a human pilot, nearly no matter how bad, you're toast, if you carry the rocket tubes. They slow you down so much, that if you were flying clean just barely faster than 109s and 190s, you are carrying them 40-50kmph slower and heavier. Relatively, you'll be flying vs. aircraft that are La-7s and Ki84s now if they used to be only mid war 190s and 109s. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The_Stealth_Owl
01-24-2010, 07:33 AM
Yes but I don't fly online. If I did fly online anymore, it would be easy to destroy lots of people, becuase as I said, they stay on the deck. Offline is much better. I also figured out, that if you dive, and lunch the rockets, they have much more velocity and penatrate anything. ((Saw this on the movie "Stealth") Great movie to)

It would be cool if they had the rotary Hell-Fire rocket pods to.

Hey, why don't we have HVAR's on the jug?

Erkki_M
01-24-2010, 07:54 AM
Because it didnt have them in real life? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


If I did fly online anymore, it would be easy to destroy lots of people, becuase as I said, they stay on the deck. Offline is much better.

Uhh... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You couldnt be much more wrong.

AllorNothing117
01-24-2010, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by VF-17_Jolly:
Rockets

(Y) That made me laugh.

Well done your officialy a forum user! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

PF_Coastie
01-24-2010, 09:32 AM
The chart was done by Hanglands(it's actually printed on the chart if you look closely) It is a good guide for bomb blast radius IN THIS GAME.

Anyone reading the poll would have to assume we are talking about in game.

The biggest problems with rockets are loss of speed due to the racks AND time spent on scene. So yeah, you can kill multiple tanks with rockets, but that means you are spending more and more time in a hostile area. With each pass you increase your chances of getting shot down exponentially(sp?). In an online environement, this is a huge nono.

thefruitbat
01-24-2010, 09:37 AM
ahh Hanglands, couldn't remember who'd done it.

If i remember correctly he also posted some great vids of the effect of dropping cannister bombs on to a formation of heavy bomberrs with spectacular results!!

found a link to original thread,

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...283/m/3231029284/p/1 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/3231029284/p/1)

rnzoli
01-24-2010, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by Romanator21:
Rnzoli, I thought the reasoning behind having 500s vs 1000s is that they were ultimately more destructive. In Doolittle's autobiography, he describes that the blast area of a single bomb was less than the area of two bombs at half its size. You are right Sir. I know for sure because my post was constructed of total utter bull****, really http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

M_Gunz
01-24-2010, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by The_Stealth_Owl:
Yes but I don't fly online. If I did fly online anymore, it would be easy to destroy lots of people, becuase as I said, they stay on the deck.

Noobie servers.

Airmail109
01-24-2010, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
No doubt, the 500lbs are much better. The US Navy did extensive testing in August 1943 and found that in low level attacks, the biggest risk is the bombs detonating while still on the aircraft. Therefore a lot of calculations and ground tests, including destructive tests went into verifying that carrying 2 x 500 lbs gives longer time for the pilots to bail out in case of premature bomb explosion due to anti-aricraft fire. The 1000 lb bomb will destroy the airplane and kill the pilot instantly, the 2 X 500 lbs will of course cause structural damage, but leaves more chance to the pilots to bail.

Actually this issue was debated a lot a few years ago with version 3.04 (in relation to the weak .50 cals), and it turned out that Oleg modelled the bombs in IL-2 partly right, that is the blast effects, but his bombs are unfortunately vulnerable to machine gun fire from behind also, when in reality this shouldn't be the case. I think was corrected in 4.03 patch.

What?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a6c_1243817436

^^^ 500lb bomb. I don't think anyones surving one going off next to their aircraft.

Although 1000lbers do make a more satisfying bang

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e0e_1193765012

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Frankthetank36
01-24-2010, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by Erkki_M:
Against AI Rookie fiat CR.42s perhaps...

Against a human pilot, nearly no matter how bad, you're toast, if you carry the rocket tubes. They slow you down so much, that if you were flying clean just barely faster than 109s and 190s, you are carrying them 40-50kmph slower and heavier. Relatively, you'll be flying vs. aircraft that are La-7s and Ki84s now if they used to be only mid war 190s and 109s. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I actually took out a George the other day with my Corsair's rockets on a ground attack mission. Was about to intercept a bomber but then ended up in a headon pass with the escort and jettisoned all my rockets in his face. If you are getting bounced, get rid of them quickly to improve your performance, but you can occasionally get lucky against an unsuspecting fighter (and it is pretty easy to use them on bombers). Do the planes with tube-style rockets (P-38, P-47) end up with more drag than planes with HVAR rockets after the weapons are fired? Seems to me the problem with using rockets against planes is that half the servers don't allow them (see my other thread).

Terrenceflynn
01-24-2010, 07:36 PM
Actually, I thoroughly enjoy bombing with The Betty 2X250KG and 1X500KG. Just drop your bombs on the spawn point from high altitude with a 10 second delay.

Oh! Make sure you yell Banzai too.

Erkki_M
01-25-2010, 02:43 AM
Originally posted by Frankthetank36:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Erkki_M:
Against AI Rookie fiat CR.42s perhaps...

Against a human pilot, nearly no matter how bad, you're toast, if you carry the rocket tubes. They slow you down so much, that if you were flying clean just barely faster than 109s and 190s, you are carrying them 40-50kmph slower and heavier. Relatively, you'll be flying vs. aircraft that are La-7s and Ki84s now if they used to be only mid war 190s and 109s. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I actually took out a George the other day with my Corsair's rockets on a ground attack mission. Was about to intercept a bomber but then ended up in a headon pass with the escort and jettisoned all my rockets in his face. If you are getting bounced, get rid of them quickly to improve your performance, but you can occasionally get lucky against an unsuspecting fighter (and it is pretty easy to use them on bombers). Do the planes with tube-style rockets (P-38, P-47) end up with more drag than planes with HVAR rockets after the weapons are fired? Seems to me the problem with using rockets against planes is that half the servers don't allow them (see my other thread). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup. Rails in F4U and F6F have minimal increase in drag, if they increase it at all. Visually, they both have the rails even if you took default guns only armament, but I am not sure about it. Never bothered to test it, though. Notice the HVARs are a bit different thatn other rockets... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Frankthetank36
01-25-2010, 12:21 PM
I had always seen pictures and models of the P-38 with HVAR rocket trees and the plane was modelled that way in MCFS, why does it use the bazooka style tube rockets in IL-2?

The_Stealth_Owl
01-25-2010, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by Frankthetank36:
I had always seen pictures and models of the P-38 with HVAR rocket trees and the plane was modelled that way in MCFS, why does it use the bazooka style tube rockets in IL-2?

Only the early versions of the 38 in IL2 have bazokas. But hey, what you got against bazokas??? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

sgtfcamp67
01-27-2010, 10:03 PM
it would be easy to destroy lots of people, becuase as I said, they stay on the deck

I am afraid you are mistaken, most of your more experienced pilots choose altitude over being on "the deck" Altitude converts to speed, and its a fair trade in dog fighting. Try going into a co-op or a campaign style battle, there are plenty of experienced pilots to dispute your claim.