Author Topic: dive bomb proposal  (Read 986 times)

Offline Pannono

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1101
dive bomb proposal
« on: March 13, 2008, 09:41:30 PM »
i propose that the SBD gets an armor piercing bomb to put it to more use against ships like in real life
the usual "F6F bombing the CV and killing everything on it" is gettin old. isnt it a bomber's job to sink the CV?
Pannono
Proud Member of Pigs On The Wing
8 Player H2H: 2006-07
MA Tours: 87, 97-113, 143-144, 160-Present
FSO: JG54

Offline Arado381

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 177
Re: dive bomb proposal
« Reply #1 on: March 13, 2008, 09:53:10 PM »
i propose that the SBD gets an armor piercing bomb to put it to more use against ships like in real life
the usual "F6F bombing the CV and killing everything on it" is gettin old. isnt it a bomber's job to sink the CV?

that would be cool :aok ....and bombers do drop on cvs more than fiters just look at all those dive bombin noobs in b17s
i <3 skuzzy :rock

Offline Strip

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3319
Re: dive bomb proposal
« Reply #2 on: March 13, 2008, 09:55:38 PM »
Not really....jabos were mostly used in the PT to hit ships. Perfect example is Pearl dont think there were very many level bombers there. Of course they used Divine Wind in the later stages. Problem with buffs in RL is exactly what we have here. Take the cv for a few loops and it makes it real tough to bomb effectively. See the realistic ordnance post.....asking for similar stuff there.

There were exceptions to the rule tho. Turpitz...

Strip(er)

Offline Serenity

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7313
Re: dive bomb proposal
« Reply #3 on: March 14, 2008, 03:41:59 AM »
Not really....jabos were mostly used in the PT to hit ships. Perfect example is Pearl dont think there were very many level bombers there. Of course they used Divine Wind in the later stages. Problem with buffs in RL is exactly what we have here. Take the cv for a few loops and it makes it real tough to bomb effectively. See the realistic ordnance post.....asking for similar stuff there.

There were exceptions to the rule tho. Turpitz...

Strip(er)

He wasnt asking for AP on level bombers, but rather SBDs and other dive bombers. Which I TOTALLY agree with.

Also, on Pearl Harbor, there were: A6M Zero fighters, D3A Val Dive Bombers, and B5N Kate Level bombers, as well as several other types. So yes, there WERE level bombers.

Offline DiabloTX

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9592
Re: dive bomb proposal
« Reply #4 on: March 14, 2008, 04:13:38 AM »
.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2008, 04:16:54 AM by DiabloTX »
"There ain't no revolution, only evolution, but every time I'm in Denmark I eat a danish for peace." - Diablo

Offline Ghosth

  • AH Training Corps (retired)
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8497
      • http://332nd.org
Re: dive bomb proposal
« Reply #5 on: March 14, 2008, 07:58:13 AM »
Well Serenity I think You'll find most of the Kates (B5n's) were loaded with torpedo's.

However he is right in that they were there. And that they did have Armor piercing bombs.
Like the one that got the Arizona.

Offline Bodhi

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8698
Re: dive bomb proposal
« Reply #6 on: March 14, 2008, 12:13:04 PM »
I'd like to see AP bombs as a perked ord option.  Be good for the hilltop pill boxes too.
I regret doing business with TD Computer Systems.

Offline Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: dive bomb proposal
« Reply #7 on: March 14, 2008, 03:35:12 PM »
I'd like to see AP bombs as a perked ord option.  Be good for the hilltop pill boxes too.

How would an AP bomb be more effective in-game?  Would it have to be given a 1.5X damage mod or something?  So, in effect, a 1,000 lb bomb that hits like a 1500 lb bomb?  Anyone know how much explosive was in the AP bomb compared to a 1,000 lb GP bomb?  I know it was smaller dimensionally than the GP.
"Can we be incorrect at times, absolutely, but I do believe 15 years of experience does deserve a little more credence and respect than you have given from your very first post."

HiTech

Offline Spikes

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15850
    • Twitch: Twitch Feed
Re: dive bomb proposal
« Reply #8 on: March 14, 2008, 04:39:53 PM »
How would an AP bomb be more effective in-game?  Would it have to be given a 1.5X damage mod or something?  So, in effect, a 1,000 lb bomb that hits like a 1500 lb bomb?  Anyone know how much explosive was in the AP bomb compared to a 1,000 lb GP bomb?  I know it was smaller dimensionally than the GP.

Can it not be modeled just like our HE and AP tank rounds to some effect?
i7-12700k | Gigabyte Z690 GAMING X | 64GB G.Skill DDR4 | EVGA 1080ti FTW3 | H150i Capellix

FlyKommando.com

Offline Pannono

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1101
Re: dive bomb proposal
« Reply #9 on: March 14, 2008, 04:53:21 PM »
How would an AP bomb be more effective in-game?  Would it have to be given a 1.5X damage mod or something?
it could punch thru the deck and blow the object up from the inside out
maybe model it as 2x damage? the SBDs bomb could then kill the cruiser in 1 hit like in real life if right place is hit
HTC would have to model where the ammo storage is and what you have to hit to punch in there
Pannono
Proud Member of Pigs On The Wing
8 Player H2H: 2006-07
MA Tours: 87, 97-113, 143-144, 160-Present
FSO: JG54

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: dive bomb proposal
« Reply #10 on: March 14, 2008, 05:06:12 PM »
I think an interesting trade-off for using AP to hit a cruiser should be that if you don't sink the ship, you don't clear it of guns either.

Drop HE on it now, and you clear the deck of guns, even if you don't sink it.

Exploding below deck would take out hardly any guns, unless of course it landed right on top of 'em to hit the ship.

Offline Serenity

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7313
Re: dive bomb proposal
« Reply #11 on: March 14, 2008, 08:36:28 PM »
I think an interesting trade-off for using AP to hit a cruiser should be that if you don't sink the ship, you don't clear it of guns either.

Drop HE on it now, and you clear the deck of guns, even if you don't sink it.

Exploding below deck would take out hardly any guns, unless of course it landed right on top of 'em to hit the ship.

Brilliant! Sounds like an excellent trade to me.

And Ghosth, I know they carried torps, but the B5N1 was billed as a level bomber, with the B5N2 being the first SPECIFICALLY torpedo bomber. Semantics entirely, but then again semantics ARE my favorite game ;)

Offline trigger2

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1342
Re: dive bomb proposal
« Reply #12 on: March 15, 2008, 03:48:02 AM »
i propose that the SBD gets an armor piercing bomb to put it to more use against ships like in real life
the usual "F6F bombing the CV and killing everything on it" is gettin old. isnt it a bomber's job to sink the CV?

Well...
If you wanna get 'technical'
Then we need the SB2C helldiver for CV's hehe :]

Great plane...




Sometimes, we just need to remember what the rules of life really are: You only
need two tools: WD-40 and Duct Tape. If it doesn't move and should, use the
WD-40. If it shouldn't move and does, use the duct tape.
*TAs Aerofighters Inc.*

Offline Serenity

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7313
Re: dive bomb proposal
« Reply #13 on: March 15, 2008, 04:03:34 AM »
Well...
If you wanna get 'technical'
Then we need the SB2C helldiver for CV's hehe :]

Great plane...



What role does this fulfill regarding AP bombs that the SBD didnt? Granted, this just did the job better, but it was still the same job.

Offline Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: dive bomb proposal
« Reply #14 on: March 15, 2008, 04:09:19 AM »
Exploding below deck would take out hardly any guns, unless of course it landed right on top of 'em to hit the ship.

From a technical standpoint, the turret systems exist below decks:  powder magazines, projo storage, hoists, hydraulics, etc.  A bomb not penetrating the turret specifically can still have an effect on it.

I know what you mean--just making the point that AP wouldn't necessarily need to "sweep the decks" to be effective against the surface features of the ship.
"Can we be incorrect at times, absolutely, but I do believe 15 years of experience does deserve a little more credence and respect than you have given from your very first post."

HiTech