Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

AP bombs can't start fires?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> AP bombs can't start fires? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
AP bombs can't start fires? - 4/15/2016 3:10:50 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 4081
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
An 800kg AP bomb hits an xAKL ship in Pearl Harbor, starting 1 fires. Was the ship lucky or AP bombs can't start fires greater than 1?

Post #: 1
RE: AP bombs can't start fires? - 4/15/2016 3:27:42 PM   
Fallschirmjager


Posts: 6778
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

An 800kg AP bomb hits an xAKL ship in Pearl Harbor, starting 1 fires. Was the ship lucky or AP bombs can't start fires greater than 1?





It is luck
Probably also good Allied damage control.

But really, an AKL has such low durability that an 800 kg bomb should have wrecked it from stem to stern.

_____________________________


(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 2
RE: AP bombs can't start fires? - 4/15/2016 3:38:42 PM   
Ol_Dog


Posts: 317
Joined: 2/23/2003
From: Southern Illinois
Status: offline
Probably the water from the flood damage put out most of the fires

_____________________________

Common Sense is an uncommon virtue.
If you think you have everything under control, you don't fully understand the situation.

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 3
RE: AP bombs can't start fires? - 4/15/2016 3:51:04 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 4081
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
Uhm, that is strange. When you compare SAP and AP bombs, the AP bombs gain little in Effect category. Allied 500kg SAP bomb is Effect 440, while Allied 2000lb (circa 1000 kg) bomb has effect 480. It seems those high-end AP bombs are designed to pierce armor, and have less TNT than hypotetical SAP bombs of the same weight.

It is not the first time I see a muted effect of Jap 800kg AP bomb in raising fires on ships hit solely by this kind of bomb. Some time ago, in Hong Kong attack tests, Allied ships there were hit by experienced Jap squadron from Takao armed exclusively with 800kg AP bombs, and the ships did register little fire damage as well.

I guess it is actually advisable to mix bombers on such attacks and bring some SAP bombs to the fray.

< Message edited by Yaab -- 4/15/2016 3:54:41 PM >

(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 4
RE: AP bombs can't start fires? - 4/15/2016 3:58:13 PM   
Fallschirmjager


Posts: 6778
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Status: offline
They are designed to crack armor and do not carry much TNT or Tritinol or Torpex.
SAP are a mix, less armor cracking but more explosive power. GP bombers are your standard bombs with thin casing that use pure kinetics to defeat armor and have the highest amount of explosive.

_____________________________


(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 5
RE: AP bombs can't start fires? - 4/15/2016 4:03:58 PM   
btd64


Posts: 6879
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline
As far as the hit goes, location, location, location. Probably hit the front somewhere and knocked over a couple cans of paint....GP

< Message edited by General Patton -- 4/15/2016 4:06:30 PM >


_____________________________

Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,1920x1080

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

I don't like paying for the same real estate twice..Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 6
RE: AP bombs can't start fires? - 4/15/2016 6:15:28 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
I think once a bomb hits and penetrates-no matter the type, then the explosion is just numeric factor and there is no other consideration. Any explosion can start a fire. The greater the explosive number then the greater the chance. Of course fuel cargo can be a factor. Not sure if carriers are designed to burn more easily than other ships.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 7
RE: AP bombs can't start fires? - 4/15/2016 7:47:54 PM   
Fallschirmjager


Posts: 6778
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Patton

As far as the hit goes, location, location, location. Probably hit the front somewhere and knocked over a couple cans of paint....GP



Just the concussion effect of a 800 KG bomb would damage and twist the frame of an AKL for the entire length of the ship if it hit any part of it even at the extreme front.
AKLs are just a few thousand tons and most of them in game are WW1 era or earlier converted from coal.
Most still have triple expansion engines.

_____________________________


(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 8
RE: AP bombs can't start fires? - 4/15/2016 8:43:19 PM   
Revthought


Posts: 522
Joined: 1/14/2009
From: San Diego (Lives in Indianapolis)
Status: offline
Well, in life, I could very easily explain this. You used a 500kg AP bomb on a merchant ship, meaning in all likelihood, the bomb passed completely through the ship before it detonated. :D

_____________________________

Playing at war is a far better vocation than making people fight in them.

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 9
RE: AP bombs can't start fires? - 4/16/2016 2:08:25 AM   
sanch

 

Posts: 382
Joined: 10/30/2004
Status: offline
Or the xAKL is so thin-skinned the AP-bomb went entirely through and out the bottom without ever exploding. Maybe it skinned a can of turpentine on its way which started the fire level 1.

_____________________________


(in reply to Revthought)
Post #: 10
RE: AP bombs can't start fires? - 4/16/2016 2:08:20 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 4081
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Revthought

Well, in life, I could very easily explain this. You used a 500kg AP bomb on a merchant ship, meaning in all likelihood, the bomb passed completely through the ship before it detonated. :D


I checked if the bombs has a dud rate, but its dud rate is 0. Actually, all GP/AP/SAP bombs have dud rate of 0. Actually, shouldn't the bombs have positive dud rates as well?

Look here. Japanese 551 lb bomb was a somewhat unreliable weapon
http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/B/o/Bombs.htm

(in reply to Revthought)
Post #: 11
RE: AP bombs can't start fires? - 4/16/2016 3:01:55 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4589
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanch

Or the xAKL is so thin-skinned the AP-bomb went entirely through and out the bottom without ever exploding. Maybe it skinned a can of turpentine on its way which started the fire level 1.


Precisely. An heavy AP bomb againt a non armored target most probably will not explode.

(in reply to sanch)
Post #: 12
RE: AP bombs can't start fires? - 4/17/2016 2:19:25 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5253
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
quote:

It is not the first time I see a muted effect of Jap 800kg AP bomb in raising fires on ships hit solely by this kind of bomb.


An AP bomb/shell has a much reduced explosive charge...it is designed to penetrate armor and the overwhelming majority of its weight is composed of inert steel. It 'requires" armor to slow it down sufficiently to activate its fuzing (which is at the back of the shell). USS Gambier Bay got hit by at least 1 18.1 incher off Samar...the shell was well below the keel by the time it went off...essentially all it did was make a 18.1 inch hole from top to bottom through the ship.

quote:

I checked if the bombs has a dud rate, but its dud rate is 0. Actually, all GP/AP/SAP bombs have dud rate of 0. Actually, shouldn't the bombs have positive dud rates as well?


According to A.Zimm in his operational analysis of the Pearl Harbor attack ("Attack on Pearl Harbor: Strategy, Combat, Myths, Deceptions") the 800 kg AP bomb had a terrible dud rate/low order of detonation rate of the same order as that attributed (rightly) to USN torpedoes. One bomb caused catastrophic damage to one US BB (Arizona) but most of the rest of the hits did negligible damage to other BBs (Maryland, Tennessee and West Virginia [ torpedoes sank her]). Both of the two hits on AR Vestal passed right through the ship without detonating (like Gambier Bay). It seems the modification of the AP shells used as the basis for the bomb (shaving off part of the shell casing) caused them to break apart in any but a dead-on hit which resulted in ignition of the (small) explosive charge rather than detonation.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 13
RE: AP bombs can't start fires? - 4/17/2016 3:53:00 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 4081
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
Interesting. Seems dud rates for bombs (say 1-2 value) would make the game resemble RL more.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 14
RE: AP bombs can't start fires? - 4/17/2016 5:35:58 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 5901
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab


... I checked if the bombs has a dud rate, but its dud rate is 0. Actually, all GP/AP/SAP bombs have dud rate of 0. Actually, shouldn't the bombs have positive dud rates as well? ...



No, they should not.

Dud rates are not there for the purpose you seem to believe is their purpose.

To try to introduce dud rates to bombs would not only be a difficult data gathering exercise, it would require the combat algorithms to be redone.

And after all that work, the result would essentially still be no different from what it is now.

Alfred

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 15
RE: AP bombs can't start fires? - 4/17/2016 10:18:48 PM   
Revthought


Posts: 522
Joined: 1/14/2009
From: San Diego (Lives in Indianapolis)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab


quote:

ORIGINAL: Revthought

Well, in life, I could very easily explain this. You used a 500kg AP bomb on a merchant ship, meaning in all likelihood, the bomb passed completely through the ship before it detonated. :D


I checked if the bombs has a dud rate, but its dud rate is 0. Actually, all GP/AP/SAP bombs have dud rate of 0. Actually, shouldn't the bombs have positive dud rates as well?

Look here. Japanese 551 lb bomb was a somewhat unreliable weapon
http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/B/o/Bombs.htm


Probably; however, I have no idea if what I mention is modelled--i.e. the bomb goes off fine, after it passes (penetrates) completely through the ship.

In life this happened, particularly with fast falling AP munitions.

_____________________________

Playing at war is a far better vocation than making people fight in them.

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 16
RE: AP bombs can't start fires? - 4/18/2016 1:26:48 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5253
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
quote:

No, they should not.

Dud rates are not there for the purpose you seem to believe is their purpose.

To try to introduce dud rates to bombs would not only be a difficult data gathering exercise, it would require the combat algorithms to be redone.

And after all that work, the result would essentially still be no different from what it is now.


So explain why the historically justified USN torpedo dud rates should be so carefully modeled but the historically justified nearly complete failure of the 800 kg bomb at Pearl Harbor should be completely ignored...just curious as to the logical processes used.

(in reply to Revthought)
Post #: 17
RE: AP bombs can't start fires? - 4/18/2016 5:24:25 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 14437
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

No, they should not.

Dud rates are not there for the purpose you seem to believe is their purpose.

To try to introduce dud rates to bombs would not only be a difficult data gathering exercise, it would require the combat algorithms to be redone.

And after all that work, the result would essentially still be no different from what it is now.


So explain why the historically justified USN torpedo dud rates should be so carefully modeled but the historically justified nearly complete failure of the 800 kg bomb at Pearl Harbor should be completely ignored...just curious as to the logical processes used.

It was not intended to be an exact simulator of historical criteria. The defective torpedoes were kept to give the Japanese player a chance to do his initial six month expansion without devastating losses from subs. The effective bombs were likely left that way for much the same reasons - to keep the game from becoming a rout too early and discouraging players from taking the Japanese side.


_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 18
RE: AP bombs can't start fires? - 4/18/2016 5:32:48 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 4081
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
How about a game option on the start screen? "Japanese reliable bombs"?

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 19
RE: AP bombs can't start fires? - 4/18/2016 2:22:16 PM   
Revthought


Posts: 522
Joined: 1/14/2009
From: San Diego (Lives in Indianapolis)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

No, they should not.

Dud rates are not there for the purpose you seem to believe is their purpose.

To try to introduce dud rates to bombs would not only be a difficult data gathering exercise, it would require the combat algorithms to be redone.

And after all that work, the result would essentially still be no different from what it is now.


So explain why the historically justified USN torpedo dud rates should be so carefully modeled but the historically justified nearly complete failure of the 800 kg bomb at Pearl Harbor should be completely ignored...just curious as to the logical processes used.


For me, the biggest discouragement from taking the Japanese side is the added layer of complexity that is the Japanese economy. Otherwise, I would have at least given them a shot already.

I think losing the war as the Japanese is a forgone conclusion that wouldn't necessarily stop people from playing them in PBEMs. For example, look at War in the West. Germany in 1943 is at an even more desperate and hopeless place, but there are no shortages of people willing to play the Axis in WiTW PBEMs.

_____________________________

Playing at war is a far better vocation than making people fight in them.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 20
RE: AP bombs can't start fires? - 4/18/2016 8:23:14 PM   
Fallschirmjager


Posts: 6778
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili


quote:

ORIGINAL: sanch

Or the xAKL is so thin-skinned the AP-bomb went entirely through and out the bottom without ever exploding. Maybe it skinned a can of turpentine on its way which started the fire level 1.


Precisely. An heavy AP bomb againt a non armored target most probably will not explode.



Would it not explode under the keel of the ship once hitting water?
Water is a very hard surface for high velocity objects. High velocity AP shells skip is fired short.

_____________________________


(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 21
RE: AP bombs can't start fires? - 4/18/2016 10:55:04 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 6039
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
Well I'm in my fourth(?) game as Japan v the AI. My Pearl Harbor attack went in with 800kg bombs, exclusively as I recall. I looked to check the damage the next day and was surprised to see how little damage was done to the US BB's. Even when all were hit 3 or more times by said bombs. So to me at least these bombs are not extreme ship killers.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 22
RE: AP bombs can't start fires? - 4/18/2016 11:12:38 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5253
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
The USS Vestal was hit by 2 x 800 kg bombs during the Pearl Harbor attack and was subsequently beached but that was due to the resulting flooding. Since it was more or less just collateral damage from bombs "aimed" at the adjacent USS Arizona Zimm doesn't spend a lot of effort describing what sort of damage the ship suffered although he tends to indicate it was flooding damage. That may well have been caused by the mining effect of the AP bombs exploding under the ship after passing through it. Doesn't appear that the damage was caused by fire though.

Interestingly, the mining effect of any SAP or GP bomb exploding close alongside a ship is essentially ignored in the game. Three IJN battleships were sunk in Kure harbor late in the war by the mining effect of near misses with 500 lb bombs. In the game, the effectiveness of Allied 500 lb bombs is all but nil (except for 1 pt of fires)...flotation damage to IJN BBs is impossible with 500 lbers (and Allied air strikes almost invariably target IJN BBs if they're "available".

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 23
RE: AP bombs can't start fires? - 4/18/2016 11:30:32 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 6039
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

Interestingly, the mining effect of any SAP or GP bomb exploding close alongside a ship is essentially ignored in the game.


Most probably the result of coding issues in attempting to do something like this.

IRL a near miss on Akagi caused big problems.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 24
RE: AP bombs can't start fires? - 4/19/2016 12:16:45 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 18158
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
I just hit an enemy ship with two 800 kg sap and left her with heavy fires.

What is not mentioned is the great port and naval support active at Pearl Harbor.

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 25
RE: AP bombs can't start fires? - 4/19/2016 5:06:46 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9095
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
It probably had more fires than 1, but they were simply mostly put out before you had a chance to look at the ship after the replay.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 26
RE: AP bombs can't start fires? - 4/20/2016 8:10:28 PM   
Revthought


Posts: 522
Joined: 1/14/2009
From: San Diego (Lives in Indianapolis)
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

Interestingly, the mining effect of any SAP or GP bomb exploding close alongside a ship is essentially ignored in the game.


Most probably the result of coding issues in attempting to do something like this.

IRL a near miss on Akagi caused big problems.


Not just the Akagi. Near misses were often as devastating to the seaworthiness of combat ships during WW2 as direct hits were. There was just less fire and immediate death that resulted from them.

The shock wave propagating through the water near a ship hull acts just like a depth charge does on a submarine's hull. In fact, my understanding (I'm no expert) is that some modern torpedo systems rely totally on shock wave damage to a ships hull, and are designed to detonate immediately under the hull without making any contact at all.


< Message edited by Revthought -- 4/20/2016 8:12:01 PM >


_____________________________

Playing at war is a far better vocation than making people fight in them.

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 27
RE: AP bombs can't start fires? - 4/20/2016 11:41:18 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5253
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
quote:

The shock wave propagating through the water near a ship hull acts just like a depth charge does on a submarine's hull. In fact, my understanding (I'm no expert) is that some modern torpedo systems rely totally on shock wave damage to a ships hull, and are designed to detonate immediately under the hull without making any contact at all.


Modern torpedoes circa 1941...that was how the magnetic fuze was supposed to work on the Mark 14 that our subs used in 1941...confidence in that particular technological "wonderment" was probably one of the reasons that the USN spent so little effort making sure that their contact fuze worked too. Thus a double whammy and the 80% dud rate.

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 28
RE: AP bombs can't start fires? - 4/21/2016 3:04:58 PM   
Revthought


Posts: 522
Joined: 1/14/2009
From: San Diego (Lives in Indianapolis)
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

The shock wave propagating through the water near a ship hull acts just like a depth charge does on a submarine's hull. In fact, my understanding (I'm no expert) is that some modern torpedo systems rely totally on shock wave damage to a ships hull, and are designed to detonate immediately under the hull without making any contact at all.


Modern torpedoes circa 1941...that was how the magnetic fuze was supposed to work on the Mark 14 that our subs used in 1941...confidence in that particular technological "wonderment" was probably one of the reasons that the USN spent so little effort making sure that their contact fuze worked too. Thus a double whammy and the 80% dud rate.



I did not know that! I swear, I learn more about the time period from reading these forums than anywhere else.

I also wanted to add that near misses from shells worked the same way, and that sometimes near misses in naval gunnery battles were actually hits. For example, one of the main conjectures about the loss of HMS Hood is that one of Bismark's shells, which missed by 8 feet, actually traveled through the water and penetrated hood beneath her belt armor, was the fatal shell.

If I am not mistaken, Japanese shells were actually designed with this fact in mind; however, a 14, 15, 16 or 18 inch near miss need not actually penetrate the hull to do damage.

Like with bombs, if a shell detonates in close enough proximity to the hull, the explosive shock wave propagating through the water is more than enough to damage the structure of a ship, and depending on where that explosion is placed when it explodes, critical damage is possible.

Edit

The torpedo that is reported to have sunk ROKS Cheonan in 2010 was a no contact torpedo designed to detonate under a ship's keel and break it's back.

< Message edited by Revthought -- 4/21/2016 3:09:29 PM >


_____________________________

Playing at war is a far better vocation than making people fight in them.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 29
RE: AP bombs can't start fires? - 4/21/2016 7:05:14 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 14437
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
Like AP bombs, shells must devote most of their weight to a thick steel case to withstand the stress of firing and maintain shape in the air. A 2000 lb naval shell might only have 150 lbs of high explosive in it. So shellfire was much less likely to cause a mining effect than a GP or AP bomb with a much greater weight of explosive.
However, in the book "The Battle of the Barents Sea" the author makes it clear that shell splinters from CA Hipper did most of the damage to the British DDs and were the main reason that DD Acasta sank. HMS Onslow - the escort flagship and hero ship of the story took three 8" hits but most of the problems were from the multitude of holes around the water line from near misses.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Revthought)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> AP bombs can't start fires? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.172