Ordanance damage realism?

[brucerer]

Ok so not bringing this up as a suggestion for change or as a gripe, but..



It takes, what, 3000lb-ish of ord to destroy a fighter hanger?.. anyone know if this is realistic? Sounds like a lot of TNT to knock down a tin shed.

What kind of damage would 3000lb do in real life? Anyone know?

Just interested innit.

[SFCHONDO]

Funny thing is you can straf down ord bunker which is solid concrete with your guns. Pretty amazing huh?

[hubsonfire]

After all this time, I hadn't realized how silly that is when you compare the two.

[FrodeMk3]

Originally posted by hubsonfire
After all this time, I hadn't realized how silly that is when you compare the two.

That's 'cause you don't toolshed enough, Hubs.

I'd venture a guess, that since we have generic airfields, we have to use 3k as an average. During WWII, Lot's of airfields' in the pacific were nothing but tents, and sandbag revetments' covered with Camo netting. However, you could go places' in Japan, where they wheeled the planes' out of tunnels' in a hillside. In the ETO, there were all kinds' of arrangements' for hangars, and some improvised' fields' with nothing at all. Everything from reinforced concrete aircraft bunkers' with roofs' 10-20 feet thick, down to gutted-out barns. In AH, to make it fair and even, we have what we have. Could you imagine a hangar going down with a half-second burst from a LA-7? Playability would cease to exist. But that goes' the other way, as well. A hangar that took 20 to 40k to take out, would make for a doozy of a stoppage to bomber usage, and would be a major damper on your playing options.

[brucerer]

Yep i agree there.. i think the ord damage works in game so we shouldnt change it, but just wondering if anyone knows anything about explosives and if they could quanitfy the kind of damage 3000lb of TNT would actually do?

[kilz]

Originally posted by brucerer
Yep i agree there.. i think the ord damage works in game so we shouldnt change it, but just wondering if anyone knows anything about explosives and if they could quanitfy the kind of damage 3000lb of TNT would actually do?

thats enough to do the same amount of damage the World Trade Center saw.

[Ghosth]

A 500 lber used to take out a hanger. Till one night the bishops decided to have some fun. They had bombers overflying all the front line bases.

Hangers all dropped, no knight or rook could roll a plane within 75 miles of the front. And they KEPT it that way all night. Back then you could drop a bomb on it before it came up, and keep it down for another half hour. All night long the bombs fell, hair was torn out, teeth were gnashed.

A few days later a patch came out, all the hangers took over 2500 lbs to kill.


Been that way ever since, so blame the bishops!

[ROX]

Agreed....considering what a T34 HE shell could do to a concrete building in RL.

[Pyro]

The hardness of airfield targets is just a function of gameplay, i.e. how easy or hard do you want it to be to shut down something at a base.  If we tried to make those damage levels realistic, we'd have to either:

1- Remove their effect from gameplay which would stop people from bombing them in the first place and be pointless.

2- Counter by adding more targets of each type.  Theoretically the best solution, practically it carries a lot of overhead.

3- Decrease down time.  Easiest to implement but messes up balance.

[Mister Fork]

I'm with Pyro on this one. As an Admin in the AvA arena, we adjust hardness not on what we think real life values should be, but on what available assets players have.  Otherwise one side would flatten the other and ruin the ability to play fairly.  We know its not realistic.

If you take a Lancaster in triple formation, and if you set hangars to 500-1000lb bomb, that lone Lanc could cause havoc over a wide range.  If our maps were modelled after an ETO at 10240 x 10240 mile maps, yeah, setting hardness to realistic levels make sense.  Throw in strategic options like resource management, fuel and ammo supply lines, and you may be able to set this up that way.

And you'll need perhaps a multi-million dollar server environment just to support the game engine.  

[brucerer]

And you'll need perhaps a multi-million dollar server environment just to support the game engine.  

Well ive got 10 bucks in my wallet, how about you guys?

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by brucerer
Ok so not bringing this up as a suggestion for change or as a gripe, but..



It takes, what, 3000lb-ish of ord to destroy a fighter hanger?.. anyone know if this is realistic? Sounds like a lot of TNT to knock down a tin shed.

What kind of damage would 3000lb do in real life? Anyone know?

Just interested innit.

a FH or VH goes down with 2k for me.

[SFCHONDO]

Originally posted by Masherbrum
a FH or VH goes down with 2k for me.

2000 tries before you hit it you mean? ......LOL

[Sketch]

Originally posted by SFCHONDO
2000 tries before you hit it you mean? ......LOL

For Karaya..... Yes, 2000... maybe 1995 if he gets a few lucky ones int here.


From my experience with ordnance in real life, a 500lber would take out these hangers as the 'look' of them in the game is just a tin roof and metal skeleton.  A 250lber would cripple it pretty good, but like Pyro said, if it was changed it would change the effects of taking down hangers and such.  Wouldn't take to much then and bases would be flat all the time...

[The Fugitive]

A FH or VH is simulating more than just a building. You need the extra poundage to cover things like parts, equipment, mechanics, the coffee pot..... you know, all those things needed to take care of the planes  or vehicles