New Bombs (Two SBD's or B5N's Can Now Destroy a Shore Battery!)

[Saxman]

Shouldn't there be more difference between "hard" and "soft" targets to make the differences with these new bomb types more practical? Hitting an unhardened structure like the hangars as modeled on our airfields with an AP or SAP bomb strikes me as if it would do LESS damage (compare using an AP or SAP against a battleship, vs. the same thing hitting a destroyer. IRL, the bomb was more likely to pass THROUGH than to actually be set off by the thin-skinned destroyer). A GP or HC bomb would strike me as being much more effective for taking out such a structure.

[Babalonian]

I see the importance of now having every aircraft the ability to arm themselves with specialty ordnance, I certainly see new value in the SBD.     However, allowing the 190F-8 the ability to carry the 250 and 500 kg SAP bombs (as well as the 8/50kg GP bombs), would separate it from the other three 190's.  As it currently stand, it really only offers the 12 ant-armor Pb1 rockets and nothing more (save for the 4/50kg GP bombs) than the other three 190 models, it is the ugly ducking of 190's for it's only real value is the anti-armor role (and it is not easy to use in that role, either).

The second thing I did was to check and see if the P51's had AP bombs (I was happy to see they didn't).  The first thing I did was check the 190F-8 and I was a bit disappointed.    [/b]

Thirded.   

The Stuka D was given an overhaul of its ord, too.  Previously to this update it was not able to carry 3/250kg bombs, now it can.  Also, it too can carry the German SAP bombs.  As far as the 190F-8 goes, I'm going to dig into a few sources but I know I've read of it carrying SAP/AP bombs for hammering hardened targets.  I'm also really hoping HTC will give it the ability to mount 4/50kg bombs under the fuselage for a total of 8/50kg bombs.  There is a photo of that somewhere here in the forums.  I hope others can present some of the info and pics, I'm sure there are other fans of the 190F-8 out there. 

The stuka got a proper adjustment and even boost, you can carry its wing-mounted 250kgx2 loadout with any and ALL other loadouts (or not).

Why no F8 love, still?

(190 F-8 love, pwwwweeeeasssseee +cherries )

[Ack-Ack]

still no napalm... 

In order to have napalm, other changes need to be made to the game such as modeling fire damage to objects.

ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

Don't know why they're limiting AP and semi-AP to only dive bombers.  It wasn't uncommon for US fighters to use AP or semi-AP bombs when in the fighter-bomber role, especially towards the end of the war when fighters started to take over ground attack/support role from dive bombers.

ack-ack

[Lusche]

Don't know why they're limiting AP and semi-AP to only dive bombers. 

My guess the original intention is to promote flying of dive bombers instead of the standard heavy fighter bomber. However, the way it is implemented there is still no situation where the hy Jabos aren't much superior in terms of striking power (in addition to higher survivability).

[Karnak]

Don't know why they're limiting AP and semi-AP to only dive bombers.  It wasn't uncommon for US fighters to use AP or semi-AP bombs when in the fighter-bomber role, especially towards the end of the war when fighters started to take over ground attack/support role from dive bombers.

ack-ack

They've never modeled all loadouts.  They may also think that the heavy US fighters already get enough use without any additional encouragement to make it Mustangs High.

[Lusche]

Shouldn't there be more difference between "hard" and "soft" targets to make the differences with these new bomb types more practical?

That's what I thought too. I hoped for a more, excuse the term, "realistic" modeling of AP bombs, giving them a true armor penetration value, depending on their size and impact speed (mostly depending on altitude). Against a hard target like the SB the standard GP bombs (as well as HE rockets) would do almost nothing, while AP and SAP bombs could penentrate and apply their explosive damage to the full extend. Just like shells in tank combat do.
On cruisers (and even more on possible future battleships), HE bombs could do heavy damage vs none or only lightly armored structures on deck (guns), while AP bombs would be better suited to actually sink the ship. We could also expand that concept to ammo bunkers on fields, requiring SAP or AP hits (or very large HE bombs) to be destroyed. More targets like that could be added in the future.
Then we would end up with a multitude of different targets, where plannign your mission ahead, chosing the right loadout would really matter, instead of just grabbing the biggest load your plane can carry.

Some numbers:
CV planes that now can carry AP bombs and the resulting increased lbs dmg equivalent:
B5N (bomb)   2165
D3A   927
SBD   1968

In comparison, carrying the good old GP loadout:
F4U-D   3248

And against area targets like the town, the increased damage of AP bombs is more than just countered by the reduction of the blast radius to only 20%.

[Motherland]

Do bombs fall differently now or was it just a graphical change?

[Saxman]

I think they said that bombs do indeed fall differently.

Oh, and can we have Tiny Tims now?

500lb SAP bomb with a rocket strapped on it. :-D

[bangsbox]

+1 snailman ...I really want ap and toros to really be the ship sinkers/ ammo bunker killers. I'm even for only 1 ammo bunker and it needs an ap bomb to kill it. The whole near miss rocket/gp bomb or 1 plane strafe is really way to gamely. You shouldn't be able to kill 8 inches on ca or Sb with gp bombs either.  I'd like to see ap bombs do either 200 to 300% more dmg than gp. As it stands 150% is not worth it "risk reward" wise

[SmokinLoon]

That's what I thought too. I hoped for a more, excuse the term, "realistic" modeling of AP bombs, giving them a true armor penetration value, depending on their size and impact speed (mostly depending on altitude). Against a hard target like the SB the standard GP bombs (as well as HE rockets) would do almost nothing, while AP and SAP bombs could penentrate and apply their explosive damage to the full extend. Just like shells in tank combat do.
On cruisers (and even more on possible future battleships), HE bombs could do heavy damage vs none or only lightly armored structures on deck (guns), while AP bombs would be better suited to actually sink the ship. We could also expand that concept to ammo bunkers on fields, requiring SAP or AP hits (or very large HE bombs) to be destroyed. More targets like that could be added in the future.
Then we would end up with a multitude of different targets, where plannign your mission ahead, chosing the right loadout would really matter, instead of just grabbing the biggest load your plane can carry.

Some numbers:
CV planes that now can carry AP bombs and the resulting increased lbs dmg equivalent:
B5N (bomb)   2165
D3A   927
SBD   1968

In comparison, carrying the good old GP loadout:
F4U-D   3248

And against area targets like the town, the increased damage of AP bombs is more than just countered by the reduction of the blast radius to only 20%.

GP bombs = %100 dmg and %100 splash
AP bombs = %150 dmg and %20 splash
SAP bombs = %125 dmg and %33 splash
HC bombs = %75 dmg and %125 splash

%150 of the SBD's 1600 lb AP bomb = 2400 lbs of GP bomb damage.
The B5N's 800 kg AP bomb (1760 lbs) = 1200 kg (2640 lbs) of GP bomb damage.
The D3A's 250 kg AP bomb (550 lbs) = 375 kg (825 lbs) of GP bomb damage.
The Me410's 250 kg SAP bombs (550 lbs) = 312 kg (687 lbs) of GP damage.

Or... am I missing something?

FWIW: I applaud HTC's effort in expanding the ordnance, it is certainly a welcome change.  As Looshy said, I too *really* hope to see HTC work on the OBJ hardness and adjust accordingly.  Obviously, it should take a bit more to destroy a reinforced concrete bunker than a plywood and canvas built barrack.  Likewise, the armor on a naval ship should account for something and the damage done to the exterior structure (guns, radar) should be different than damage registered to the hull.  Only HTC knows how the coding could be adjusted for that, but what is certain is that adjustments can be made because of HTC can have the shore battery shrug off MG rounds then it can do the same to ammo bunkers as well.    

[Lusche]

Or... am I missing something?

You are taking the bomb weight for the calculations, not the actual explosive power.

A standard 1000lbs bomb does 1000lbs of damage, but a 200lbs bomb only 1719lbs, while a standard 500lbs bomb does 562lbs of damage. The bigger the bomb, the less effective it is.

[SmokinLoon]

You are taking the bomb weight for the calculations, not the actual explosive power.

A standard 1000lbs bomb does 1000lbs of damage, but a 200lbs bomb only 1719lbs, while a standard 500lbs bomb does 562lbs of damage. The bigger the bomb, the less effective it is.

on a pound for pound basis, yes.

Did you actually do the testing offline or are you applying the already known GP bomb damage data?

[Lusche]

Did you actually do the testing offline or are you applying the already known GP bomb damage data?

Both. I did a lot of tests, wich were then valified by a list of bomb power HiTech himself posted about 2 or 3 years ago (using an internal format).

[SmokinLoon]

Both. I did a lot of tests, wich were then valified by a list of bomb power HiTech himself posted about 2 or 3 years ago (using an internal format).

So based on the chart you have, what are you showing for damage from a 1600 lb GP bomb? (checking to see you and I have the same chart)

Dmg for a 500 lb GP?
Dmg for a 1000 lb GP?
Dmg for a 2000 lb GP?

just to be sure, I', not asking for damage "points", I'm asking for the damage as compared to the 1000 lb bomb standard, as in how many lbs does it take to destroy a hanger, etc.