Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Karnak on June 16, 2012, 11:53:03 AM
-
I have been, slowly, working on some performance stats for fighters (I made an exception and included the A-20G) that can be used as fighter-bombers. For my purposes I originally put the low end at needing 2000lbs or more but when the P-40N was added with three 500lbers and some people said they were going to make it their primary fighter-bomber I lowered the limit to 1000lbs. Last night I was going over the aircraft list and checking to make sure my spreadsheet had all of the qualifying aircraft when I noticed the FM2 could carry two 100lb bombs and six 5" HVAR rockets. I tentatively added it to the spreadsheet and did a few flight tests on it, but I am not sure that quite reaches 1000lbs of destruction. Does anybody know?
My list as it stands now:
A-20G
A-26
Beaufighter
Bf110C-4b*
Bf110G-2*
F4U-1
F4U-1A
F4U-1C
F4U-1D
F4U-4
F6F-5
FM2*
Fw190A-5
Fw190A-8
Fw190F-8
Hurricane Mk IIc*
Ki-43-II
Ki-45
Ki-61-I-Tei*
Ki-84-I-Ko
Ki-102
Me410
Mosquito Mk VI
N1K2-J
P-38G
P-38J
P-38L
P-40N
P-47D-25
P-47D-40
P-47N
P-51B
P-51D
P-61B
Pe-2
Spitfire Mk XVI
Tempest Mk V
Tu-2
Typhoon Mk Ib
Italics = Placeholder for aircraft not yet added to Aces High
* = Aircraft not yet upgraded to 2.0 standards
-
Last night I was going over the aircraft list and checking to make sure my spreadsheet had all of the qualifying aircraft when I noticed the FM2 could carry two 100lb bombs and six 5" HVAR rockets. I tentatively added it to the spreadsheet and did a few flight tests on it, but I am not sure that quite reaches 1000lbs of destruction.
It does. The 5" rocket has a damage equivalent of 156lbs. Together with the two 100lb bombs you get over 1000.
-
It does. The 5" rocket has a damage equivalent of 156lbs. Together with the two 100lb bombs you get over 1000.
Thank you much, Lusche.
EDIT:
Does anybody see any oversights on that list?
One thing I would note here is that the Pe-2, should it be added, is extremely tentative due to its very weak fixed guns. If it is there, perhaps the Boston Mk III ought to be as well and I just don't see it as a serious air-to-air combat aircraft.
-
Boston III
Ju-88G (IIRC)
Bf-109G's carrying the WGr21's and the 250kg bomb might barely make it up over 1000lbs of ord.
Really, I feel the list shouldn't be based on ord capacity.
-
Boston III
Ju-88G (IIRC)
Bf-109G's carrying the WGr21's and the 250kg bomb might barely make it up over 1000lbs of ord.
Unless they hit way harder than other rockets I don't think they make it.
Really, I feel the list shouldn't be based on ord capacity.
What would you base it on?
-
Unless they hit way harder than other rockets I don't think they make it.
What would you base it on?
210mm vs 127mm for the HVAR's, and they're also intended to destroy aircraft through a near-miss.
And I think it should be based on overall ability as a ground attack plane. I mean lets face it, the FM-2 isn't really a GAP, nor is a 109. A Ju-88G isn't really one either, though it would (again, IIRC) fit onto your list.
If we had things such concentrated infintry, 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.
-
210mm vs 127mm for the HVAR's, and they're also intended to destroy aircraft through a near-miss.
Well, if they are I will add them, but I hope they are not. It takes a long time for me to get all the numbers for each aircraft. While I have partial data for many aircraft, I have only completed a single German, single Japanese and a handful of American aircraft.
And I think it should be based on overall ability as a ground attack plane. I mean lets face it, the FM-2 isn't really a GAP, nor is a 109. A Ju-88G isn't really one either, though it would (again, IIRC) fit onto your list.
If we had things such concentrated infintry, 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.
I'm looking at it merely from a "Could this be used with at least some effectiveness as a fighter-bomber." and nothing more detailed.
-
210mm vs 127mm for the HVAR's, and they're also intended to destroy aircraft through a near-miss.
And I think it should be based on overall ability as a ground attack plane. I mean lets face it, the FM-2 isn't really a GAP, nor is a 109. A Ju-88G isn't really one either, though it would (again, IIRC) fit onto your list.
If we had things such concentrated infintry, 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.
How can a 50kg bomb be as effective as a 250kg bomb on concentrated infantry? :confused:
-
How can a 50kg bomb be as effective as a 250kg bomb on concentrated infantry? :confused:
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.
-
127MM = 156 lbs
so after a little math
210MM = ~257 lbs
So 500 lb bomb + 2x257 lb rockets = ~1014 Lb of ords a 109G can carry ...
:angel:
-
127MM = 156 lbs
so after a little math
210MM = ~257 lbs
So 500 lb bomb + 2x257 lb rockets = ~1014 Lb of ords a 109G can carry ...
:angel:
Don't think it actually works that way. :p
I know that the smaller bombs in AH are more efficient than the larger ones. Two 500lbers do more than one 1000lber and four 250lbers do more than the two 500lbers.
-
IN MY HEAD IT DOES DAMNIT... Let me have my moment :mad:
:P
-
127MM = 156 lbs
so after a little math
210MM = ~257 lbs
Last time I tested the Wgr the actual damage value was 93lb. But someone could retest it to check it.
-
I know that the smaller bombs in AH are more efficient than the larger ones. Two 500lbers do more than one 1000lber and four 250lbers do more than the two 500lbers.
nominal / actual damage value
100lb / 156
250lb / 313
500lb / 563
1000lb / 1000
2000lb / 1719
4000lb / 3125
-
And what does the damage threshold's go by?
Will it take more than 2 4000lb bombs to sink a CV, since they only do 3125lbs of damage?
-
Will it take more than 2 4000lb bombs to sink a CV, since they only do 3125lbs of damage?
Yes.
-
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....
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
We were discussing bombs, and all of our bombs in Aces High are impact-fuzed, with a 1000yd safety.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
I have been, slowly, working on some performance stats for fighters (I made an exception and included the A-20G) that can be used as fighter-bombers. For my purposes I originally put the low end at needing 2000lbs or more but when the P-40N was added with three 500lbers and some people said they were going to make it their primary fighter-bomber I lowered the limit to 1000lbs. Last night I was going over the aircraft list and checking to make sure my spreadsheet had all of the qualifying aircraft when I noticed the FM2 could carry two 100lb bombs and six 5" HVAR rockets. I tentatively added it to the spreadsheet and did a few flight tests on it, but I am not sure that quite reaches 1000lbs of destruction. Does anybody know?
My list as it stands now:
A-20G
A-26
Beaufighter
Bf110C-4b*
Bf110G-2*
F4U-1
F4U-1A
F4U-1C
F4U-1D
F4U-4
F6F-5
FM2*
Fw190A-5
Fw190A-8
Fw190F-8
Hurricane Mk IIc*
Ki-43-II
Ki-45
Ki-61-I-Tei*
Ki-84-I-Ko
Ki-102
Me410
Mosquito Mk VI
N1K2-J
P-38G
P-38J
P-38L
P-40N
P-47D-25
P-47D-40
P-47N
P-51B
P-51D
P-61B
Pe-2
Spitfire Mk XVI
Tempest Mk V
Tu-2
Typhoon Mk Ib
Italics = Placeholder for aircraft not yet added to Aces High
* = Aircraft not yet upgraded to 2.0 standards
190D-9, in AH she carrys up to a single 500kger (~1,100 lbs, I think).
Your addition of the A-20 is confusing.... technicaly in the same category as Fighter/Bomber would be many carrier aircraft (TBMs, SBDs, etc.) and even the Stuka. The A-20 is just very late war in comparison to those others, but at the onset of WWII the early-model stuka, with its horn and twin forward-BBs (and well over 1000lb ordnance options), was considered the deadliest ground-support aircraft in the world.
-
190D-9, in AH she carrys up to a single 500kger (~1,100 lbs, I think).
I don't recall so, no. I recall it being in the same group as the Bf109K-4, P-47M, Spitfire Mk XIV and Ta152H-1, giving up the ordnance carrying abilities of its predecessors. I will check again though.
-
I don't recall so, no. I recall it being in the same group as the Bf109K-4, P-47M, Spitfire Mk XIV and Ta152H-1, giving up the ordnance carrying abilities of its predecessors. I will check again though.
She does. But, find me a single Luft AAR, picture or document prooving it was actually used in actual combat as it is in AH. Just because their external accesory (drop tank) racks could carry 250kg and 500kg bombs, I have found no such documented use as such. But, look in the AH hangar, she is capable of bomb trucking.
Given what's missing from the ordnance options on the F-8 though and the infamous neverending AH-A8 bickering, and one is best to assume that the 190 lineup just needs an eventual ordnance/loadout rework/love session from the powers that be.
Anywho, see my edit above to my first post, this list has some potential for getting very complicated.
-
As I said, I don't feel it should be based on just the ordnance capacity and AH- plane designation.
-
I included the A-20G simply because people insist on using it as a fighter as well. Basically the list is supposed to be of multi-role aircraft that can do both air-to-air and air-to-mud with some expectation of success.
As I said, I don't feel it should be based on just the ordnance capacity and AH- plane designation.
The AH plane designation has literally no effect on my selection. My choices, other than humoring the A-20G fans, has been simply what I consider at least minimally effective multi-role fighters. If you have any constructive or specific feedback, including reasoning, I am interested in reading it.
EDIT:
I have removed the placeholder Pe-2 from my list. Its guns are not nearly adequate to have a reasonable expectation of success as a fighter given its likely maneuverability.
If I can get the PDE numbers for all of the weapons I will add a note as to the PDE of each loadout, not including rifle caliber machine guns.
-
nominal / actual damage value
100lb / 156
250lb / 313
500lb / 563
1000lb / 1000
2000lb / 1719
4000lb / 3125
A question Lusche,so a 500lb bomb does 562 damage but does the 250 kg do the same? Also what about the 500kg does it do 1000 also?
TIA
:salute
-
I don't recall so, no. I recall it being in the same group as the Bf109K-4, P-47M, Spitfire Mk XIV and Ta152H-1, giving up the ordnance carrying abilities of its predecessors. I will check again though.
Karnak II/JG26 flew 190D's and carried either 250 or 500 kg bombs.
-
Karnak II/JG26 flew 190D's and carried either 250 or 500 kg bombs.
Fw190D-9 added to the list.
Placeholder for Ju88G added to the list.
-
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.
Geez, it's infantry, not infintry.... :rolleyes:
By the way, I've killed many tanks with bombs and guns in 109s and the FM-2 with six rockets and two 100 lb bombs can be used effectively against ground targets, especially lightly armored vehicles (and PTs), as well as static, soft base targets (ordnance, barracks and radar).
-
Geez, it's infantry, not infintry.... :rolleyes:
FINARY!
-
Geez, it's infantry, not infintry.... :rolleyes:
By the way, I've killed many tanks with bombs and guns in 109s and the FM-2 with six rockets and two 100 lb bombs can be used effectively against ground targets, especially lightly armored vehicles (and PTs), as well as static, soft base targets (ordnance, barracks and radar).
Yeah, and I've killed tanks, LVT's and PT's, guns, ord, baracks, etc with an F4F-4. But does that mean its a ground attack fighter? No.
I'm not saying the FM-2 isn't capable of ground attack, I'm saying its not really a true attacker. Neither is the 109, in my opinion.
-
Tank-Ace,
You've said you don't think the criteria (1000+lbs PDE of ordnance and at least passable for air-to-air combat) I am using is as good as it could be. What do you think would be good criteria and how could it be applied evenly? Rather than saying what isn't great let us know your idea for what would be better.
As I said, my original plan was to do 2000+lbs PDE of ordnance and at least passable for air-to-air combat but lowered it to 1000lbs based on several people's enthusiastic response to the P-40N's three 500lb bombs.
-
1) The ability to carry 1000lbs of ordnance or more, with at least 250lbs of that ABLE to be distributed into a single bomb or rocket, regardless of limits imposed on overall capacity by doing so.
2) maintain at least useable air-to-air preformance once ordnance is dropped.
-
The only change that would have to the list is to eliminate the FM2.
It seemed like you thought the list was more flawed than that.
Personally I think the two 100lb bombs are nigh useless, but the six 5" HVAR rockets make up for that quite a bit. I'd honestly be torn to pick which was better for ground attack, the FM2 with its two 100lb bombs and six 5" HVARs or the Spitfire Mk XVI with its one 500lb and two 250lb bombs or one 500lb bomb and two 60lb rockets.
-
HVAR's are nice, and really the only reason you could POSSIBLY add the FM-2. However, since the 2 100lb bombs kick it up over the 1000lb bomb limit, I would say that it shouldn't really count.
Also, might the P40 E and F make it in, if we ever get HVAR's for them (it WAS the E and F models that could mount HVAR's, correct?).
-
Karnak II/JG26 flew 190D's and carried either 250 or 500 kg bombs.
Source, please.
-
The Bf 109 K-4 did not give up bomb carrying abilities, it had even greater abilities. The K-series was able to carry a 500kg bomb, all previous series maxed out at 250kg.
The WGr. 21 carried ~41kg of explosives. Total weight for rocket and tube is given as 112 kg, couldn't find a weight for just the rocket.
-
Also, might the P40 E and F make it in, if we ever get HVAR's for them (it WAS the E and F models that could mount HVAR's, correct?).
I have seen no evidence that HVARs were ever fitted for testing on P-40s, much less HVARs ever being deployed operationally on the type.
-
Infintry would dig fox holes, or trenches if they knew they would be there a while (Atlantic Wall, Siegfried Line, Maginot Line, etc).
Just felt that this needed to be pointed out, foxholes and trenches are worlds apart. The Altanic Wall, Siegfried Line, and Maginot Line are pretty useless as examples here because they were neither foxholes nor trenches, all three were in actuality a series of defensive works most notably bunkers. They were not actual walls or trenches so much as hardened defensive bunkers linked together.
On another note, WWII was an extremely mobile war and nothing akin to the war of attrition fought in WWI. Trenches were exceedingly rare however were used to some degree, but not nearly in the same way as WWI trenches because they were basically foxholes that were linked together, foxholes were much more common but as I mentioned earlier a completely different animal than a trench, please note the difference in depth of a WWI trench, WWII 'trench', and a foxhole for a good example.
-
A question Lusche,so a 500lb bomb does 562 damage but does the 250 kg do the same? Also what about the 500kg does it do 1000 also?
TIA
:salute
Per my recent tests:
PB1 rockets: 93.5
HVAR 5" rockets: 159.5
RP-3 60lb rockets: 187.5
500lb bomb: 562.5
250kg bomb: 618.7
1000lb bomb: 1000
500kg bomb: 1100
-
So, on planes like the B-26, where you can split the load into 8 500lb bombs, or 4 1000lb bombs, taking the 500lb bombs both increases your carrying capacity, and is more efficient when hitting hangers, and clustered targets?
And correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems like the 500lb range of bombs is the most efficient in terms of weight vs lethality.
That is to say, even if you can carry 8 250lb bombs, taking 4 500lb bombs would be a better option, because the blast radius and kill radius are sufficiently greater, that more buildings will be destroyed /clumped-vehicles killed despite a smaller number of bombs, and a lesser theoretical kill limit.