Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Krusty on October 16, 2005, 09:19:08 PM
-
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/wwii/photos/gallery_006/Lancaster%20explodes%20after%20a%20flak%20hit%20in%20the%20bomb%20bay.jpg
Caption says "Lancaster explodes after a flak hit in the bomb bay"
As-is, planes are nearly invulnerable from below. No damage is done whatsoever. you can put 120 20mm directly into the belly of a lancaster and NOTHING will happen -- you can't kill the pilot from below so the damage model does nothing.
In fact, the belly was one of the most vulnerable areas, due to bombs, gas, hydraulics, etc..., all being located in the backbone of the ship, and rounds penetrating the belly would do damage to them.
Make a NEW damage item, only it won't show up on the CTRL D screen. Make it the BOMBS. If they get hit BOOM. Make the same also happen for jabo. In a p51D? Take a hit in the bomb (probability would be low, I know, but it would still be possible)? Blow your wing tip off!! For larger bombs just blow the entire plane up! Might make people take 250lb and 500lb if they could survive with just a wingtip lost instead of the whole plane gone.
Like I said one of the best ways to attack bombers is from below. They were historically vulnerable (all of them) from below... and yet in AH it's been overlooked for a long time. There USED to be a bomb load that, when hit, would instantly kill your lancaster. No more. I want to see this idea put into play for TOD, because the LW intercepters are going to NEED a realistic bomber damage model.
-
I could be wrong, but I do believe that the bombs have to be armed for that to happen.
-
No. Arming just means that the impact fuse works. If you shot a bullet into a thousand pounds of TNT the TNT is gonna blow, because the bullet is now the new fuse.
EDIT: At least that's what I understood.
-
Especially an API Machine Gun round or high-explosive Cannon shell.
-
I think you would have to hit with a large caliber round. .303 wont do it and a .50 is going to be questionable. Cannon rounds would do the trick though. Gotta remember that bomb casings are fairly thick hardened steel. Of course if you model the fuel lines and such running through the bomb bays, catch one of those on fire then you run the risk of cooking the bombs off.
It would be interesting to see this. I like it.
-
50cals could go through 1-inch thick steel plates without slowing down. I think they can penetrate a bomb :)
303s... well.. Maybe if you really hit them with ENOUGH, you'd get a lucky one, but I think they should be much less effective.
-
Oh I agree that a .50 hitting a piece of 1 inch plate steel it will punch through no problem. Done it myself a few times. Bombs are round though so it will have more of a tendency to ricochete. Watched a friend of mine ricochete a 50BMG round off a piece of oil rig drill stem pipe that he fired from his Barret bolt action rifle. Second round hit the dent the first round made and that one went through. We were kinda worried for a bit though because we had no idea where the first round went off to:confused:
I think for the .50's it would have to be a 50/50 chance of doing anything to a bomb. Cannon rounds on the other hand would do the trick.
-
great idea krusty all i got to say.:aok
-
Dont forget about DTs.Nice big 75-150gl gastank just waiting to get hit.
-
Well unless it was API I think it would just drain the DTs. Any sane pilot would have dropped them before engaging in combat, anyways...
-
API, tracer, or cannon would make a nice puff of fire.
-
I seem to recall that Sakai claimed the best way to kill a B-17 was to shoot it in the bomb bay.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
In a p51D? Take a hit in the bomb (probability would be low, I know, but it would still be possible)? Blow your wing tip off!! For larger bombs just blow the entire plane up! Might make people take 250lb and 500lb if they could survive with just a wingtip lost instead of the whole plane gone.
Cannt beleive that was said by you who claimed 1000lb must kill anything within hundreds of meters (or something like that). While 500lb exploded in about 2 meters from absolutely unprotected pilot must rip wingtip only. Amazing. (Even 100lb will rip whole wing at least, because bomb pylons placed closer to wingroot then wingtip).
btw, i agree what bombs must be in DM.
-
"50cals could go through 1-inch thick steel plates without slowing down."
Yeah, right. :rolleyes:
I'm not at all sure if an AP bullet hitting a bomb has what it takes to make the bomb explode. Maybe if it hits the detonator, but otherwise I think its unlikely.
-C+
-
.50 ball ammo will go through 1" plate steel all day long at about 300 yrds. I've done it. .50 AP rounds give you a bit more range to hit from. Thats also a flat steel plate, hitting it dead on at 90 degrees. I make handload rounds for my 30-06 that will punch through 5/8" plate steel at 100 yrds.
It's the fact that a bomb is round that presents the problem. It would have to hit it square on to punch through. If not more than likely it will bounce off to either side. Of course a whole mess of .50 rounds bouncing around in a bomb bay at high velocity is going to tear stuff up. If I recall correctly the fuel transfer pumps, oxygen tanks, and hydraulic pumps were located on the top forward bulkhead of the bomb bay on the B-17's. A couple of rounds going into that equipment is going to cause some MAJOR problems.
-
Originally posted by Charge
"50cals could go through 1-inch thick steel plates without slowing down."
Yeah, right. :rolleyes:
I'm not at all sure if an AP bullet hitting a bomb has what it takes to make the bomb explode. Maybe if it hits the detonator, but otherwise I think its unlikely.
-C+
True statement.
Even in WW2, bombs were filled with typically very stable explosives. They had to be stable explosives, otherwise handling and/or transport could set them off. An AP round, likewise, would have a hard time setting off a bomb. It would just put a hole through it.
However, an API round getting inside the casing might set one off. Also, an HE round blasting off the casing could expose the fill to another round to detonate the bomb.
Shooting into a bombay concentrates alot of fire into a small area, which could cause either of those events to happen.
-
blowing up the drop tank will not destroy a fighter. i have seen many gun cam footage of german fighter's DT exploding and they just turn and start fightin. on the other hand, if you explode the ord inside a bomber it will destroy anything in the blast radius.
-
yea it wont go boom like a bomb but itll pop and catch the plane on fire.
-
Originally posted by Charge
"50cals could go through 1-inch thick steel plates without slowing down."
Yeah, right. :rolleyes:
I'm not at all sure if an AP bullet hitting a bomb has what it takes to make the bomb explode. Maybe if it hits the detonator, but otherwise I think its unlikely.
-C+
Charge? It's a fact. The US Navy (I think) set up a steel plate of armor and shot a 50cal through it at 250 yards or so (whatever average distance was) and it sliced through steel plating like it was a hot knife through butter. Somebody posted pics of it on these forums a year or so ago.
-
Originally posted by Larry
yea it wont go boom like a bomb but itll pop and catch the plane on fire.
TK: The question then is.... will that harm the plane? If it's an external fire, it might just consume itself, melt the paint, at worst warp the metal a bit...
And if you're at high speeds I think you'd snuff the fire out, in real life. So I'd be happy if it just leaked like a normal gas tank.
-
Originally posted by Tails
True statement.
Even in WW2, bombs were filled with typically very stable explosives. They had to be stable explosives, otherwise handling and/or transport could set them off. An AP round, likewise, would have a hard time setting off a bomb. It would just put a hole through it.
However, an API round getting inside the casing might set one off. Also, an HE round blasting off the casing could expose the fill to another round to detonate the bomb.
Shooting into a bombay concentrates alot of fire into a small area, which could cause either of those events to happen.
Tails, bombs were flled with TNT and nitroglycerin and other high unstable things. I'd be more inclined to think unstable was better -- as it lent itself to a better weapon. I'd be interested in any sources you have on the matter (I don't know which of us is true on this matter, -- just that historically shooting the bomb bay blew up the bombs).
-
My grandma's cousin died when a bomb on his B-17 exploded just after they took off.
-
I went looking for information on explosive compounds used in WW2 bombs and aparently the british used Torpex explosives heavily in bombs. This in an assumption as I only found a site listing it as the explosive used in the tallboy and grand slam bombs.
* Name: Tallboy
* Type: Deep Penetration Bomb
* Length: 21 ft (6.4 m)
* Diameter: 38 in (0.97 m)
* Weight: 12,000 lb (5,443 kg)
* Warhead: 5,200 lb (2,360 kg) Torpex explosive
* Number Used: 854
* Name: Grand Slam (Earthquake) Bomb
* Type: Deep Penetration Bomb
* Length: 26 ft 6 in (7.7 m)
* Diameter: 3 ft, 10 in (1.17 m)
* Tail Section length: 13 ft, 6 in (4.11 m)
* Weight: 22,000 lb (9972 kg)
* Warhead: 9,135 lb (4144 kg) Torpex explosive
* Number Used: 41
This info is from here
http://www.ww2guide.com/bombs.shtml
and here is an description of Torpex
TORPEX
TORPEX is an explosive based on trinitrotoluene (TNT) that gave a greater blast than TNT, but was more sensitive. It was replaced by HBX or HBX-1 later in WWII. Torpex is RDX/TNT/Aluminum/Wax desensitizer. It was used in several types of torpedoes and mines. Due to it sensitivity to bullet impact, the first weapons loaded were ones for which there would be the least possibility of rifle bullet and fragment attack, namely, submarine delivered mines and torpedoes. The loading stations were advised that they must take adequate care in mixing and loading and in the handling of the loaded items. It was declared that the British had been able to handle it without incident for 2 years and that the risk was worth the advantage gained in its underwater power.
from this site http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/explosives-compositions.htm
Anyway I hope this helps some what :)
-
Originally posted by Flayed1
* Name: Grand Slam (Earthquake) Bomb
* Type: Deep Penetration Bomb
* Length: 26 ft 6 in (7.7 m)
* Diameter: 3 ft, 10 in (1.17 m)
* Tail Section length: 13 ft, 6 in (4.11 m)
* Weight: 22,000 lb (9972 kg)
* Warhead: 9,135 lb (4144 kg) Torpex explosive
* Number Used: 41
dident the lanc have this?
-
A bullet is not going to set off a bomb when it is shot, even if it does make it through the case.... The fuze is what arms the bomb, when the bomb falls the gyro spins a certain number of times and that in turn sets off the next part of the explosive train. You could toss a 1k egg in a fire and burn it and it won't go off. It takes a electrical charge to make it go off. Next thing we know, people are gonna say that you can shoot a block of C4 with a pistol and it will explode... :rolleyes: Just like in the movies!! :rofl
-
Originally posted by ChristCAF
A bullet is not going to set off a bomb when it is shot, even if it does make it through the case.... The fuze is what arms the bomb, when the bomb falls the gyro spins a certain number of times and that in turn sets off the next part of the explosive train. You could toss a 1k egg in a fire and burn it and it won't go off. It takes a electrical charge to make it go off. Next thing we know, people are gonna say that you can shoot a block of C4 with a pistol and it will explode... :rolleyes: Just like in the movies!! :rofl
TNT, torpex are no where near as stable as c4. I am quite sure api would set off TNT , and torpex but not c4.
Also i believe the older the tnt , and torpex the more unstable it becomes.
Same with c4 just a lot longer shelf life.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by viper215
dident the lanc have this?
yes
-
then why dont we :aok
-
because its not american. duh.
-
Didn't some bombs cook-off when a rocket was accidently fired on the USS Forrestal off the coast of Vietnam.
Different war and circumstances but the bombs sure exploded in a fire.
-
I think the fuel on a bomber would explode before the bombs cooked off. He does have a point about the vunerability of the underside of the planes though.
-
Originally posted by fuzeman
Didn't some bombs cook-off when a rocket was accidently fired on the USS Forrestal off the coast of Vietnam.
Different war and circumstances but the bombs sure exploded in a fire.
For some reason I thought that was a bomb that was inadvertently dropped, but I could be totally off-base. Regardless, yeah, that was one hell of a mess.
-
"without slowing down"
This is what I commented on. It will pass that plate but not much else. I bet that if the piece of metal is small enough the bullet may even get stuck in it. I have seen a picture of that, too.
:)
-C+
-
Originally posted by Furball
because its not american. duh.
Your point is? ;)
-
Originally posted by Bronk
TNT, torpex are no where near as stable as c4. I am quite sure api would set off TNT , and torpex but not c4.
Also i believe the older the tnt , and torpex the more unstable it becomes.
Same with c4 just a lot longer shelf life.
Bronk
TNT, maybe... C4, most likely not.... As far as the bomb going off when getting shot I don't believe they would. If the TNT was sweating if for surely go boom. Who really knows, when the belly go shot maybe a fuel line was hit? I just can't see a bullet setting a bomb off...even in WWII.
-
Originally posted by ChristCAF
TNT, maybe... C4, most likely not.... As far as the bomb going off when getting shot I don't believe they would. If the TNT was sweating if for surely go boom. Who really knows, when the belly go shot maybe a fuel line was hit? I just can't see a bullet setting a bomb off...even in WWII.
Umm i believe it states in my post that torpex was highly sensitive to bullet impacts. If they used this for the grand slam and tallboy it might stand to reason that the brits also used this in the smaller bombs also....
And if they did then gun fire to bomb bays especially on british bombers may have a umm how should I put this.. Bad effect???
I will keep looking for more info on the explosives used.....
-
Originally posted by viper215
Your point is? ;)
According to the A-Team series if a car flip on it's back (and if it's empty) it should explode.
As well a car with the fuel gauge at Zero explode like napalm when dropped from a cliff.
is it enought ? ;)
-
C4 is incredibly stable, which is why its used the way it is. Its also very easy to work with, moldable, shapable, etc.
Heat & pressure, pressure and heat. Each explosive has its own tolerance for both. Exceed their tolerance and they go boom.
Anfo (Amonium Nitrate & Fuel Oil) is Incredibly stable, is very tolerant of pressure up to the 2,000lb per sq inch level. Exceed that pressure with a blasting cap & a couple of turns of det cord. And Anfo goes up like a, a, emm, BOMB!
Explosives are set off not by electrial charge, Primers are. Thats just one way of setting off a primer. There are many different kinds of primers.
Can come from a primer attached to any number of diff fuzes.
Can come from dropping it hard enough. (A drop of nitro will explode if it drops from your hand to the floor)
Can come from it catching on fire. That bomb may burn at first if a .50 goes into it.
But ALL of the explosives used in bombs are volitile stuff. They'll all burn WILDLY!
So, you have a bomb with a fire inside, as its cooking off more & more, torpex is heated to the flashpoint, and ignited. All those gas's are trying to escape through one small hole. More pressure is generated, more heat builds up.
What are the odds?
Dunno, I havn't shot .50 api at a rack of bombs lately.
But, if it was me, you'd not catch me sticking around close to a burning 1k bomb.
-
Originally posted by Flayed1
Umm i believe it states in my post that torpex was highly sensitive to bullet impacts. If they used this for the grand slam and tallboy it might stand to reason that the brits also used this in the smaller bombs also....
And if they did then gun fire to bomb bays especially on british bombers may have a umm how should I put this.. Bad effect???
I will keep looking for more info on the explosives used.....
Your right in many ways on this Flayed, but the reason I argue it is because I deal with explosives on a day to day basis. Between mechanical and electrical fuzes, primers and everything in between... I just can't see Torpex or even HBX/HBX-1/HBX-3 going off with a bullet hitting it. I am not saying your wrong, but with all the ordnance just laying around in Europe and around wrecks of planes, you figure at some point there might have been a fire. I checked around online at work and on : At room temperatures, it is a very stable product. It burns rather than explodes, and only detonates with a detonator, being unaffected even by small arms fire. It is less sensitive than pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN). However, it is very sensitive when crystallized, below −4°C.
I am curious about it and will keep looking. Will check in some other resources at work...
-
If a tracer or a cannon hits something thats flamable it will catch it onfire. So if one hits a bomb and penatrates its going to be setoff by the magnesium phosphorus on the tracer or the cannon going off.
-
TK: US 50cal were predominantly incendiary, as well, if I recall.
ChristCAF, I think you're trying to apply modern standards to a very primitive time. Would you drop a vial of nitro from 3 feet to the ground? A small fall. Hell, my cell phone can take that without losing a call... But with nitro? No way. Considering that most explosives of the time were new inventions, and the "old" ones they already had were made with even less-stable stuff, there's no reason to believe ANY of the bombs the made pre-45 were stable! Maybe some more "stable" than others, but like I said, look at the image I linked to: this schtuff happened.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
TK: US 50cal were predominantly incendiary, as well, if I recall.
ChristCAF, I think you're trying to apply modern standards to a very primitive time. Would you drop a vial of nitro from 3 feet to the ground? A small fall. Hell, my cell phone can take that without losing a call... But with nitro? No way. Considering that most explosives of the time were new inventions, and the "old" ones they already had were made with even less-stable stuff, there's no reason to believe ANY of the bombs the made pre-45 were stable! Maybe some more "stable" than others, but like I said, look at the image I linked to: this schtuff happened.
Yes API would be reaking hell on bomb the high rate of fire and being API would mean bomb would be going off if you hit a buff in the bomb bay.
-
Has any of yall seen a film of a P47 (I think) strafing a train and hits a boxcar filled with ord? It did what explosive matter does when lit onfire it blew up.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
TK: US 50cal were predominantly incendiary, as well, if I recall.
ChristCAF, I think you're trying to apply modern standards to a very primitive time. Would you drop a vial of nitro from 3 feet to the ground? A small fall. Hell, my cell phone can take that without losing a call... But with nitro? No way. Considering that most explosives of the time were new inventions, and the "old" ones they already had were made with even less-stable stuff, there's no reason to believe ANY of the bombs the made pre-45 were stable! Maybe some more "stable" than others, but like I said, look at the image I linked to: this schtuff happened.
No offense... all it says is a Flak hit in the bomb bay.....Not, "Hit a bomb and it went off" :noid I have handled TNT that is sweating, so no I would drop some nitro a fricking inch! RDX, Torpex and such used back then were stable
LARRY: If you can find that film I am interested in seeing that because that would be a sight to see. :O
Krusty: Get a new cell phone... :lol
-
Ill go look on my History of Warfare DVDs........ Still havent watched it all 6 hours on each DVD. I know it has a clip of a 109 geting his DT set on fire.
-
I think Ill go with Sketch (ChristCAF) on this one.
First because he is a squadmate and one of my best friends ;)
Second because he working with Bombs, Explosives and the like every day. He is highly trained in this area and his information is pretty solid. Sorry, no offense, But watching a DVD on it isnt probably as good a source.
Im sure gun fire *could* make one go off in the right situation, but I think this would be pretty rare. So modeling part of the DM based on a rare case doesnt make sence.
Besides Bombers are fragil enough and easy to kill to a skilled pilot in the right plane.
-
We need to get a 1k bomb and a 50 cal to settle it.
Any volunteers?
-
Ill buy the .50 cal bullet :)
-
Originally posted by ChristCAF
LARRY: If you can find that film I am interested in seeing that because that
This isnt the one I seen but it will do. The second seine looks kinda like a fuel car from the roundish shape but it may just be the film. It just shows you what API rounds do when they hit flammable/explosive material. IE the contents of a bomb. I think some people think Im talking about hiting or striking a bomb. I'm talking about a API, tracer, cannon hiting a bomb and penetrating. seting fire the the bombs explosive material.
Gun Cam (http://www.geocities.com/linkafi/guns.wmv)
-
Why are Marines using 60s to detonate vehicle and personnell land mines in the field if a bullet supposedly cannot detonate these explosives? Or can the bullet simulate the weight necessary to trip a anti tank mine or is it igniting the primer?
-
The Marines are using good ol' C4 and some blasting caps with a hand detonator....
Fuzeman: I'll bring the 1k egg..... maybe we need two! :noid
-
Umm unless they were loading up the 60 with the items you described then I'd have to say "try again". Then again who knows maybe the video I saw was doctored by the Military Channel so the casual user wouldn't notice anything different than what they see in the movies.
-
Lets think about this experiment..Take a M2, 50calmachinegun, speed it up to 400MPH. Let's put a API every 10th round, and give it a 2 second burst. Now WWII 50's fired 750rpm, lets fly the Pony for this so.. that 6 50's firing at 750rpm that gives us 75 rounds for a 2 sec burst. With a API round every 10th round that's 7 API rounds fired. Now..let's take a 500lb cast iron bomb and put it at 160 mph, and make the 2 pass each other at opposite directions.
Now some one give me the odds of a API round hitting, piercing and denoting the bomb.
Yes a Barret will pierce a 1" steel plate...that's not the question..the question is all about probability, of 67 AP rounds and 7 API rounds fired at 400 MPH at a moving target hitting a Round smooth object at just the perfect angle..after traveling 300 yard's ..piercing a layer of aluminum..then a 1" of Steel. I'm not saying it's impossible and it didn't happen but..come on! You have to be one Unlucky SOB for this!!
Now if you bring up the 20mm..lower Rate of fire and lower muzzle velocity. I would believe the odds would be ALOT worse.
Now flack...It purpose was to fill the sky with shrapnel trying to damage vital components of the Aircraft. Yes Aircraft was hit by Direct flack hits and went down, wings blown off, fuselage ripped in half ect, ect. Once again what percent of AC was destroyed this way?? What's the odds of a piece of shrapnel hitting a bomb and denoting it? Fire in the Aircraft..BAM Fire extinguishers.
Once again..I'm not saying it's impossible and it didn't happen but..come on! You have to be one Unlucky SOB for this!!
Now if anyone doubts my rate of fire or numbers here here's the site I got the numbers from.
http://www.ww2guide.com/guns.shtml#heavym
On a different subject..maybe HT should look at some of the Muzzle velocities and Rounds per Minute.;)
Just my opinion.
-
Originally posted by Scotlvr
With a API round every 10th round that's 7 API rounds fired.
Uhh if Im not mistakin wasnt ALL of the 50cals API.
-
Originally posted by Cobra412
Umm unless they were loading up the 60 with the items you described then I'd have to say "try again". Then again who knows maybe the video I saw was doctored by the Military Channel so the casual user wouldn't notice anything different than what they see in the movies.
So your saying that they load up an M60 and shot the IED Ordnance and it blows up?:confused: The EOD guys roll in and make it a controlled area, they clear it out of any bistandards and and either A) Try to disarm it, Or B) they rig it with some C4, run the wire or remote detonate and do a controlled blast from a safe distance away, usually behind some Hummers or buildings. Not sure what they are showing on TV about it, but shooting it won't do the trick.
Larry: Alot of loadouts were 2x Armour Piercing, 2x API, 1x Tracer
-
Ok so you have a 3:5 chances then.
-
There are many, many accounts of bombers getting vaporized with a well placed shot to the bomb bay from flak or an enemy aircraft's weapons. Bombs can and do explode when hit with bullets and cannon. Anyone who does not believe this needs to read some books on the subject.
g00b
-
Originally posted by g00b
There are many, many accounts of bombers getting vaporized with a well placed shot to the bomb bay from flak or an enemy aircraft's weapons. Bombs can and do explode when hit with bullets and cannon. Anyone who does not believe this needs to read some books on the subject.
g00b
I'm more enclined to listen to the EDO guy (that would be ChristCAF). He deals with this stuff for a living.
EDIT: Either EOD or ammo guy. Knowledge he has says EOD, the bomb insignia in his avatard says Ammo, though...
-
OK, so if I go dig quotes out of my books from bomber crews who witnessed these events 1st hand will you believe it? I'm not going to waste the time and effort if people are going to discount 1st hand accounts by those who saw it personally. There is even an account of one exploding bomber taking several others with it.
g00b
-
Do it goob.. It's the only way they'll ever learn...
-
Umm they weren't IEDs. They were actual land mines and yes they were firing M60s and yes they were detonating land mines from a distance. Problem was that they were being targeted from both sides of the road and the method they had chosen wasn't going quickly enough and wasn't the most accurate method to dispose of the mine field. They exploded atleast 2 mines with the M60 and a third detonated when one of the mines was hit.
They then chose to use MICLICs to finish off the job. The first one cleared some of the mine field but not all of it. The second MICLIC fired and cleared some more of the mines. The third failed to detonate and they had to place a charge to get it to detonate and finish off the mine field. They referred to this action as the medal of honor run.
IYAAYAS :aok :rofl
-
Originally posted by fuzeman
Didn't some bombs cook-off when a rocket was accidently fired on the USS Forrestal off the coast of Vietnam.
Different war and circumstances but the bombs sure exploded in a fire.
I saw the Navy's report about the Forrestal Fire when I went through the Navy Firefighting School in Norfolk, VA a few years ago.
The official Navy reports states that a grounding plug on a Zuni Rocket Pod attached to an A-4 Skyhawk was not properly secured. The rocket pod shorted out and fired a rocket which struck the drop tank on an F-4 Phantom loaded with 6 500lb bombs. The fuel tank exploded and the F-4 was engulfed in flames fed by the jet fuel from the drop tank and leaking fuel from the wing tanks. The extreme temperature of the fire caused the bombs on the F-4 to cook off before fire teams could get water and foam on the fire. As the bombs detonated they blew several holes in the flight deck down into the hanger deck. The Flight deck was crowded with aircraft preparing for a strike, all fully fueled and armed. The chain reaction on the flight deck of leaking fuel and exploding bombs penetrated down in to the heart of the ship, causing massive fires at least 5 decks below the flight deck. If I recall correctly it took over 24 hours to put out the fires onboard the ship. Many mistakes were made and identified after that fire. The Navy report is used a training aid for shipboard fire fighting in the Navy and the Coast Guard.
-
Originally posted by Scotlvr
Lets think about this experiment..Take a M2, 50calmachinegun, speed it up to 400MPH. Let's put a API every 10th round, and give it a 2 second burst. Now WWII 50's fired 750rpm, lets fly the Pony for this so.. that 6 50's firing at 750rpm that gives us 75 rounds for a 2 sec burst. With a API round every 10th round that's 7 API rounds fired. Now..let's take a 500lb cast iron bomb and put it at 160 mph, and make the 2 pass each other at opposite directions.
Now some one give me the odds of a API round hitting, piercing and denoting the bomb.
Yes a Barret will pierce a 1" steel plate...that's not the question..the question is all about probability, of 67 AP rounds and 7 API rounds fired at 400 MPH at a moving target hitting a Round smooth object at just the perfect angle..after traveling 300 yard's ..piercing a layer of aluminum..then a 1" of Steel. I'm not saying it's impossible and it didn't happen but..come on! You have to be one Unlucky SOB for this!!
Now if you bring up the 20mm..lower Rate of fire and lower muzzle velocity. I would believe the odds would be ALOT worse.
Now flack...It purpose was to fill the sky with shrapnel trying to damage vital components of the Aircraft. Yes Aircraft was hit by Direct flack hits and went down, wings blown off, fuselage ripped in half ect, ect. Once again what percent of AC was destroyed this way?? What's the odds of a piece of shrapnel hitting a bomb and denoting it? Fire in the Aircraft..BAM Fire extinguishers.
Once again..I'm not saying it's impossible and it didn't happen but..come on! You have to be one Unlucky SOB for this!!
Now if anyone doubts my rate of fire or numbers here here's the site I got the numbers from.
http://www.ww2guide.com/guns.shtml#heavym
On a different subject..maybe HT should look at some of the Muzzle velocities and Rounds per Minute.;)
Just my opinion.
Just a minor thing. 750/60= 12.5 rounds per second (no half rounds, so 25 rounds every 2 seconds). 6 guns x 25 rounds/2s = 150 rds fired, not 75. Don't know that it changes the odds all that much, given that even with twice as many rounds, a direct hit in a very small area would still seem to be a fairly remote possibility.
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
I saw the Navy's report about the Forrestal Fire when I went through the Navy Firefighting School in Norfolk, VA a few years ago.
The official Navy reports states that a grounding plug on a Zuni Rocket Pod attached to an A-4 Skyhawk was not properly secured. The rocket pod shorted out and fired a rocket which struck the drop tank on an F-4 Phantom loaded with 6 500lb bombs. The fuel tank exploded and the F-4 was engulfed in flames fed by the jet fuel from the drop tank and leaking fuel from the wing tanks. The extreme temperature of the fire caused the bombs on the F-4 to cook off before fire teams could get water and foam on the fire. As the bombs detonated they blew several holes in the flight deck down into the hanger deck. The Flight deck was crowded with aircraft preparing for a strike, all fully fueled and armed. The chain reaction on the flight deck of leaking fuel and exploding bombs penetrated down in to the heart of the ship, causing massive fires at least 5 decks below the flight deck. If I recall correctly it took over 24 hours to put out the fires onboard the ship. Many mistakes were made and identified after that fire. The Navy report is used a training aid for shipboard fire fighting in the Navy and the Coast Guard.
:rofl That is on an AFN commercial over here, they have a survivor of it tlking about it. With some film clips and such. Most likely the reason the bombs did go off was because they were fuzed, and when that goes...the bomb goes. But I have heard of that incident.
g00b: So your telling me that one of these guys that saw a bomber explode first hand, literly saw the bullter strike the bomb and blow up... lived to tell about it? :rofl It is probably accounts of other pilots or crew from other planes.
Cobra: See you didn't say it was mines, those are a different story. Think of the casing on a mine compared to a 1k egg....
Tails: AMMO and I delt with the stuff when I was deployed helping EOD store stuff for travel to get it out of the populated area.
Krusty: Oh....never mined. Heres your cell phone back....:noid
-
No I did say mines.
using 60s to detonate vehicle and personnell land mines in the field
-
All right let's look at odds again. Odds of Flack shrapnel or a Round piercing a internal fuel tank or fuel line's and igniting a fire so fast the AC explodes before the crew could get it under control, compared to to the odds of Flack Shrapnel or a Round hitting a 1k CAST IRON BOMB and it exploding? Someone find us a number cruncher and we can settle this quick!!
Now 1 question I forgot to ask..is this is a Incendiary or a HE bomb? Since incendiary have thinner skin's Odds would be up ALOT, BUT since incendiary are NOT a option in AH it shouldn't be part of the Damage model.
Also thank for correcting my calculations. I was doing it off the top of my head and was a little groggy.
Now goob give us the AC #'s, dates and IF they was with the 8th Air force we can find out their bomb load and that will fix everything.:aok There's a nice web sight out there that has ALL the mission's posted with Squad AC #'s loadout, target's, AC lost ect,ect. This is all Military document's so there's little arguing with them.
Al right I'm done!:D
-
Erm... bombs were not cast iron. They were thin sheet steel, which, especially when filled with a thousand-freaking-pounds of explosive, is already under a lot of stress as it is. It's a FACT people. bullets + bombs = BOOM. Maybe not TODAY (get OVER it, there are different standards at work today) but in WW2 it happened.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Erm... bombs were not cast iron. They were thin sheet steel, which, especially when filled with a thousand-freaking-pounds of explosive, is already under a lot of stress as it is. It's a FACT people. bullets + bombs = BOOM. Maybe not TODAY (get OVER it, there are different standards at work today) but in WW2 it happened.
LOL...I think someone needs some quiet time.
Sorry, unless there is some empirical evidence to support this happening, I think the odds of it would be extrememly, extremely narrow. Otherwise, why wasn't it the primary method of attacking bombers? I mean, why waste time shooting up engines and structures. Just keep making passes at that ole bomb bay until the lucky number comes up. It can happen, I just don't think it could or would happen enough to warrant modelling it in this game.
By the way, my knowledge of explosives comes honestly. I was a combat engineer with the 82nd Airborne Division. I do not say that to brag or claim to be the expert, but I have seen a lot of things with explosives and I have a good idea about the conditions that will create the potential for detonation.
By the way, things are not that different in the explosives game nowadays as compared to WW2. Guidance systems have changes and there is a range of different explosives available, but we are well past the "don't sneeze to hard or it will blow up" stage and have been since the invention of TNT.
-
Originally posted by Blammo
Sorry, unless there is some empirical evidence to support this happening, I think the odds of it would be extrememly, extremely narrow. Otherwise, why wasn't it the primary method of attacking bombers?
Sorry if I'm irate, but it's for good reason.
They DID primarily attack bombers from below! It was the most vulnerable spot, and this has been recorded in many ways in many places, and I honestly don't CARE if you were in the military and dealt with TODAY'S munitions. More power to you. It has nothing to do with this. Totally different standards are at work. People who have read more on the matter agree with me. Only those that are applying modern standards to the (primitive) past technologies don't believe that it happened.
End of story. If you don't want to believe me that's fine. But the people that FOUGHT in WW2 are the ones that said this stuff, I didn't make it up. sheesh. I've made my point. I think it's a clear and logical one. Others have agreed with me on the point that it has been documented and it WAS historically done and DID happen. Whether it's ever implemented or whether YOU believe me I don't care anymore. I'm tired of banging my head against walls on these forums. I'm going to log off for a while.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Sorry if I'm irate, but it's for good reason.
They DID primarily attack bombers from below! It was the most vulnerable spot, and this has been recorded in many ways in many places, and I honestly don't CARE if you were in the military and dealt with TODAY'S munitions. More power to you. It has nothing to do with this. Totally different standards are at work. People who have read more on the matter agree with me. Only those that are applying modern standards to the (primitive) past technologies don't believe that it happened.
End of story. If you don't want to believe me that's fine. But the people that FOUGHT in WW2 are the ones that said this stuff, I didn't make it up. sheesh. I've made my point. I think it's a clear and logical one. Others have agreed with me on the point that it has been documented and it WAS historically done and DID happen. Whether it's ever implemented or whether YOU believe me I don't care anymore. I'm tired of banging my head against walls on these forums. I'm going to log off for a while.
OK, so simple way to resolve this...post some quotes, accounts, pictures, films, whatever. If there is as much evidence as you say, then that should not be difficult to accomplish. Otherwise these are just wild rambling (no offense intended).
Also, it does make a difference that I worked with "Today's munitions" when discussing "primitive" (lol) explosives. Explosives are explosives are explosives. TNT now it the same as TNT then. Torpex now is the same as Torpex then. On and on and one. Also, you have no idea what I have worked with and what I have not. You also have no idea of the training I went through (obviously). You also have no idea of the basic requirements of military grade explosives. Requirements which have been in place since WWI, by the way. Sorry, "primitive" may apply to detonators and the guidance systems, but to the explosives, ehhhhhhhhhh...wrong answer.
Provide the proof, if so much of it exists. That will carry your arguement a lot farther than it is getting right now.
-
Originally posted by Blammo
I mean, why waste time shooting up engines and structures. Just keep making passes at that ole bomb bay until the lucky number comes up. It can happen, I just don't think it could or would happen enough to warrant modelling it in this game.
As Krusty said they were attacked from below, BUT that was mosty 110G4 night fighters vs. brit buffs (since they had no belly guns). 109s and 190s alway made the first attack from above and infront aiming for the cockpit to kill the pilots. In AH you can bleed when you get shot why cant bombs go boom when fire hits the explosive material. I mean thats all that made them blow when they hit.
-
This post makes me laugh. Please continue, I want to see if Krusty can prove Sideshow Bob wasn't the one trying to shoot down the buff from below with an API slingshot.
-
Originally posted by Larry
As Krusty said they were attacked from below, BUT that was mosty 110G4 night fighters vs. brit buffs (since they had no belly guns). 109s and 190s alway made the first attack from above and infront aiming for the cockpit to kill the pilots. In AH you can bleed when you get shot why cant bombs go boom when fire hits the explosive material. I mean thats all that made them blow when they hit.
Hey Larry:
I know they were attacked from the bottom. But they were not attacked from the bottom anymore than from the top, side, front or rear except, as you point out, in the case of the British bombers. However, could it be that the reason they did attack from the bottom was as you said that there were no down pointing guns (thereby making such an attack much safer) and not so much to get a shot in the bomb-bay? Don't know, but I still think if the bombs were so easily set off as to be vunerable to gunfire, that would have been the primary method to bring down a bomber and not just one method. They actually were pretty smart people way back then in WW2 and not quite so primitive as a lot of people believe.
As far as fire hitting explosive material and make it go boom, it has already been pointed out that it takes heat an pressure to make military grade explosives go boom. If you get enough heat, then as the explosive material tries to expand inside the casing it will eventually reach critical level (because the casing resists expansion) and go bang!. You could also set off the detonator which would be much more sensitive to direct heat and sudden impact. However, if you didn't get a direct impact induced explosion, the crew would like just jettison anything they thought a risk of explosion.
It is all about heat an pressure. Without it, you are just hauling around some reasonably stable chemical combinations. If the bullet or cannon strike produces the appropriate levels of both, then you get your boom boom...otherwise, you just get a hole in the ordinance.
By the way, this topic really interested me so I have been doing some research to see if I could find anything on enemy fire causing the bombs in the bomb bay to explode. Aside from the earlier reference in this threat about flack hitting the bomb bay of a Lanc, I have only foundone other that one reference that said, basically, the only way to bring down a bomber quickly was to destroy the flight deck or make the bombs explode. I would agree, those two options would be the quickest. However, it did not indicate in anyway that this was a standard tactic or that there was great success in doing this. My research is by no means comprehensive. I am open to finding any valid accounts of such things happening.
-
I saw an interview a with german fighter pilot who said they attacked the British bombers almost exclusively from the bottom. It wasn't because there were no downward facing guns (although I'm sure that was a bonus) but because the british bombed at night and the only way to see them was when they were silloetted against the night sky. They could not be seen against the background of the earth. They flew low and looked up and flew into their target from below.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Sorry if I'm irate, but it's for good reason.
They DID primarily attack bombers from below! It was the most vulnerable spot, and this has been recorded in many ways in many places, and I honestly don't CARE if you were in the military and dealt with TODAY'S munitions. More power to you. It has nothing to do with this. Totally different standards are at work. People who have read more on the matter agree with me. Only those that are applying modern standards to the (primitive) past technologies don't believe that it happened.
End of story.
So why did the Abbeville Kids (JG26) HO the Bombers? They chose the most vulnerable spot genius.
Slamming SketchCAF for "working in today's military" as an EOD and "not having a clue about WWII munitions", is the most ignorant thing I have ever read on these boards. Show me your credentials as a WWII Explosives/Munitions handler. If you can't, then I suggest you spew your garbage elsewhere.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by ahgod69
This post makes me laugh. Please continue, I want to see if Krusty can prove Sideshow Bob wasn't the one trying to shoot down the buff from below with an API slingshot.
OMFG!!!!!! QUAH!!!!!! :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Karaya