1000lbs, or equivalent, of ordnance question

[Lusche]

Will it take more than 2 4000lb bombs to sink a CV, since they only do 3125lbs of damage?

Yes.

[Widewing]

I'd imagine it would be a lot closer to the same effectiveness than one would instinctively think based on the size due to the ground directing most of the bomb's energy upwards.

Effectiveness against personnel is generally the result of fragmentation. For WWII bombs under 2,000 lbs, the over-pressure effective radius is a mere fraction of the fragmentation radius. A typical WWII general purpose bomb was fitted with an instantaneous fuze to maximize fragmentation effect. Exceptions would include delayed fuzes for penetration into structures. Most WWII vintage bombs contained approximately 50% explosive by weight (relative to total weight). A larger charge, detonating within a larger case will generate a substantially larger volume of fragments. It is this that creates the majority of infantry causalities. Fragment velocity is generally uniform over a range of bomb sizes (weights) as it is proportional to the strength of the case and the size of the charge ratio. A 250 kg bomb will create almost 500% more fragments (moving at velocities in excess of 4,000 fps) than a 50 kg bomb.

Therefore, when using instantaneous fuzing, the effectiveness of a bomb is directly proportional to the weight of the weapon....

[Tank-Ace]

Yes, but you must remember that blast and fragmetns are greatly diminished by even a dog-leg in a trench line. Even of a 250lb bomb lands right in the trench, once you go past the dogleg, fragments are a non-issue, and blast isn't nearly the killer it would be out in the open.

[Widewing]

Yes, but you must remember that blast and fragmetns are greatly diminished by even a dog-leg in a trench line. Even of a 250lb bomb lands right in the trench, once you go past the dogleg, fragments are a non-issue, and blast isn't nearly the killer it would be out in the open.

Trench lines? For the most part in WWII, it was maneuver warfare. Static defense was not common, because static positions are easily flanked or cut-off in mechanized warfare. Once maneuvering, infantry was extremely vulnerable to fragmentation. 

[Karnak]

Last time I tested the Wgr the actual damage value was 93lb. But someone could retest it to check it.

Thank you for sparing me the need to put the Bf109s on the list.

[Tank-Ace]

Trench lines? For the most part in WWII, it was maneuver warfare. Static defense was not common, because static positions are easily flanked or cut-off in mechanized warfare. Once maneuvering, infantry was extremely vulnerable to fragmentation. 

Doesn't mean they didn't dig trenches, especially if they knew an attack was comming. Just means that they didn't put the same depth of defense into them.

[Widewing]

Doesn't mean they didn't dig trenches, especially if they knew an attack was comming. Just means that they didn't put the same depth of defense into them.

What it means is that your original premise was nonsense, and you've been dancing around trying not to appear silly... Hint: Too late.

[Tank-Ace]

What it means is that your original premise was nonsense, and you've been dancing around trying not to appear silly... Hint: Too late.

Infintry would dig fox holes, or trenches if they knew they would be there a while (Atlantic Wall, Siegfried Line, Maginot Line, etc).

Both significantly reduce the threat from fragments of bomb casing, which leaves blast as the primary killer. In the case of trenches, a dogleg takes care of the blast problem, effectively limiting the damage a bomb can do even if one lands right in the trench.

[save]

I have to agree with Tank-ace on this one , even a short stop close to the front would make soldiers dig a foxhole out of self-preservation.

Fighting an offensive moving battle you would be much more vulnerable, but you take advantage of the terrain in any case, also snow, mud, rough terrain makes causalities go down considerably, being bombed or shelled.

Only in AH we have good weather and no rough terrain, only some trees / houses makes up for the cover.


Weather will affect outcome of an battle more than many believe, for example Napoleon would have a much greater chance of succeeding @ Waterloo, if it wouldn't have been a water infested ground they would fight over, causing cannon shells to do much less damage.

[Widewing]

I have to agree with Tank-ace on this one , even a short stop close to the front would make soldiers dig a foxhole out of self-preservation.

Fighting an offensive moving battle you would be much more vulnerable, but you take advantage of the terrain in any case, also snow, mud, rough terrain makes causalities go down considerably, being bombed or shelled.

Only in AH we have good weather and no rough terrain, only some trees / houses makes up for the cover.


Weather will affect outcome of an battle more than many believe, for example Napoleon would have a much greater chance of succeeding @ Waterloo, if it wouldn't have been a water infested ground they would fight over, causing cannon shells to do much less damage.

Napoleon used smooth-bore, direct fire guns shooting solid iron shot... Not mid 20th century artillery.

18th and 19th century guns could shoot spherical case shot, with a cut-for-time fuze ignited by the propellant charge. Useful for siege work, and bombarding trenches, but almost worthless against advancing infantry. The best round for advancing infantry was cannister and double cannister (think of a 4 inch bore shotgun).

I think that you guys have forgotten air burst fuzing, engineered specifically to be effective against troops in foxholes and trenches. Western Allies had proximity fuzes that detonated at a set specific height. German troops in the Bulge were especially vexed by these rounds. These were not time-burst rounds (as most armies had), but used a miniature radar to determine height.

[Tank-Ace]

We were discussing bombs, and all of our bombs in Aces High are impact-fuzed, with a 1000yd safety.

[Widewing]

We were discussing bombs, and all of our bombs in Aces High are impact-fuzed, with a 1000yd safety.

You're arguing in a circle (no news there, huh?). You stated: "If we had things such concentrated infintry (sic), and defensive works to bomb and attack, where a 50kg bomb is as good as a 250kg bomb, then yeah, I'd say go ahead and include them."

This was nonsense, and it's still nonsense. Moreover, in WWII there were proximity fuzed, air burst bombs used with excellent effect against ground forces.

[Tank-Ace]

No, I'm not arguing in a circle, you just derailed the argument.


We don't have infintry and defensive works where small bombs are about as effective as large ones due to the defensive works protecting the infintry.

Because our ACES HIGH bombs are all impact-fuzed (this is evidenced by the fact that they explode at ground level, not above it), air-bursts limiting the effectivness of defensive works is irrelevent, as we wouldn't have that advantage even if we had infintry and trenches for them to huddle in. This was in response to your post about napoleon and his guns, where you entirely missed the point Save was trying to make.


Now, because we don't have air bursts, a dogleg in a trench would be quite effective in protecting troops on one side even if there was a direct hit on the other. Therefore, multiple 50kg bombs dropped in several strenches of trench work would be more effective than a single 250lb bomb dropped in a single section of a trench.



And to tie it all into my origional comment: Because we lack trenches and infintry, where lighter weapons are still quite effective, I wouldn't put planes like the FM2 or the 109 on the list of ground attack planes, regardless of their full ordnance capacity, because that ordnance is distributed into less usefull weapons packages when compared to something like a 190, or a P-51.

[danny76]

Trench lines? For the most part in WWII, it was maneuver warfare. Static defense was not common, because static positions are easily flanked or cut-off in mechanized warfare. Once maneuvering, infantry was extremely vulnerable to fragmentation. 

I have spent more time than i care to remember digging fire trenches and shell scrapes for 20 seconds of occupation. And that being in a present day armoured unit. surely not all bull factor?

[danny76]

I have to agree with Tank-ace on this one , even a short stop close to the front would make soldiers dig a foxhole out of self-preservation.

Fighting an offensive moving battle you would be much more vulnerable, but you take advantage of the terrain in any case, also snow, mud, rough terrain makes causalities go down considerably, being bombed or shelled.

Only in AH we have good weather and no rough terrain, only some trees / houses makes up for the cover.


Weather will affect outcome of an battle more than many believe, for example Napoleon would have a much greater chance of succeeding @ Waterloo, if it wouldn't have been a water infested ground they would fight over, causing cannon shells to do much less damage.

That and the fact that nosey and his superior and more disciplined proletarian rogues opened a can of whupass on old boney. Whilst I have to assume that climate played a major role, and still does, I would also suggest that this had been taken into account, after all these chaps were walking about on said soggy sods.. Just that Wellington took advantage and capitalised on the battlefield conditions- whereas Napolean did not. As a result he received the mullering that he so richly deserved