pcasey
Junior Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by pcasey on Jun 28, 2019 18:33:21 GMT -6
So in the game I can have two types of carrier borne bombers.
Torpedo bombers have limited ammunition (2 torps each), but do a lot of damage and rarely have enough time in any given scenario to get more than two sorties in so the ammunition limit rarely matters.
Dive bombers have unlimited ammunition, but do a lot less damage. According to the doc, they are more accurate, especially against small ships.
In practise, I'm finding that in virtually every in game situation, the torpedo bomber is strictly better since its better at killing capital ships.
The fact that the dive bomber is better at killing DD and CL is really irrelevant since:
A) DD and CL don't contribute many victory points so if they all get away its sort of like who cares.
B) DD and CL are really vulnerable to mid range fire if they don't have the support of heavy units so if you really want to clean them up you can send in your cruisers and heavy units to take them out at 15-20k range and just turn away if they try to charge to torpedo you.
In "real life" you could argue that dive bombers were good against carriers, especially unarmored carriers, since they were very accurate and tended to wreck flight decks, producing a mission kill even if they didn't sink the carrier in question.
In game though it rarely seems to matter since each sides carrier aircraft are usually busy trying to sink each others gunline rather than trying to find the carrier hiding in back.
All in all I'd think the dive bombers need some sort of a buff from a game balance perspective, otherwise I'd argue that a rational player should simply ignore them in all cases and just stack torpedo bombers.
|
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Jun 28, 2019 18:35:22 GMT -6
I'm not sure how late you've played but late game torpedo bombers are usually massacred by AA and a 2000 pound bomb from a dive bomber is extremely deadly.
|
|
pcasey
Junior Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by pcasey on Jun 28, 2019 20:13:40 GMT -6
I'm not sure how late you've played but late game torpedo bombers are usually massacred by AA and a 2000 pound bomb from a dive bomber is extremely deadly. I've played 6 or 7 games to completion (1955) and haven't yet seen the case where torpedo bombers are rendered combat ineffective by AA. Not saying you haven't run into that situation, just making an observation based on my own gameplay. I actually started another thread arguing that late war AA is too weak, but that's another issue  . |
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Jun 29, 2019 0:29:10 GMT -6
I think the real underlying issue, that has been discussed in the thread dedicated to the topic, is the lack of carrier vs carrier battles, which you have mentioned already. The most important role of the dive bomber, as you've said, ought to be wounding enemy carriers and rendering them combat ineffective if not killing them, so that torpedo strikes can finish them off.
|
|
|
|
Post by klavohunter on Jun 29, 2019 16:27:25 GMT -6
As said, bombing the decks of CVs puts them out of action the way that a stray torpedo doesn't. This would be more notable in effect if the AI's CVs were more effective, or if player planes didn't usually find and attack the enemy battle line between them and enemy carriers.
Dive Bombers do a very nice job of cleaning up smaller ships. Reading how a near miss from a bomb buckles the hull and sinks a destroyer anyways NEVER gets old.
|
|
|
|
Post by orkel on Jun 29, 2019 16:39:24 GMT -6
Mid to late game AP bombs eat up BB/BC engine rooms for breakfast. They go through most decks and usually knock out several knots of speed with an engine hit.
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 29, 2019 16:49:03 GMT -6
Mid to late game AP bombs eat up BB/BC engine rooms for breakfast. They go through most decks and usually knock out several knots of speed with an engine hit. Question is how penetration of bombs is calculated. In reality it was by release height (higher better but worse accuracy), speed of aicraft (higher better), angle of bombing run (steeple angle is better), weight of bomb. |
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Jun 29, 2019 17:33:12 GMT -6
dorn is correct: bomb type, weight, and release altitude are the three primary factors that determine penetration, other factors like release speed / etc can have a lesser effect.
|
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Jun 30, 2019 10:29:25 GMT -6
Mid to late game AP bombs eat up BB/BC engine rooms for breakfast. They go through most decks and usually knock out several knots of speed with an engine hit. Not with my 7" decks. "Was that someone dropping a spanner, lieutenant?" "No sir, it was a 1400lb AP bomb" "Oh. What's for breakfast today then?" |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 30, 2019 10:46:46 GMT -6
Mid to late game AP bombs eat up BB/BC engine rooms for breakfast. They go through most decks and usually knock out several knots of speed with an engine hit. Question is how penetration of bombs is calculated. In reality it was by release height (higher better but worse accuracy), speed of aicraft (higher better), angle of bombing run (steeple angle is better), weight of bomb. I would add fuse type because this is what caused the bomb to penetrate without exploding, then with a timed delay, allows it penetrate, then explode. I have some data on US fuses in my terminal ballistics data. |
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Jun 30, 2019 10:56:02 GMT -6
Mid to late game AP bombs eat up BB/BC engine rooms for breakfast. They go through most decks and usually knock out several knots of speed with an engine hit. Not with my 7" decks. "Was that someone dropping a spanner, lieutenant?" "No sir, it was a 1400lb AP bomb" "Oh. What's for breakfast today then?" A 1600 lb AP bomb when dropped by a dive bomber will typically completely penetrate about 5.5" (+-) of armor, so 7 inches of deck will usually reduce the below-decks damage by a rather significant degree, yes.
You could however get a partial penetration in uncommon cases, and of course with the listed deck armor being the maximum 'through' armor thickness it is possible to hit a location that is not quite as well protected if you are (un)lucky. |
|
|
|
Post by lrodgy on Jun 30, 2019 11:55:07 GMT -6
Not with my 7" decks. "Was that someone dropping a spanner, lieutenant?" "No sir, it was a 1400lb AP bomb" "Oh. What's for breakfast today then?" A 1600 lb AP bomb when dropped by a dive bomber will typically completely penetrate about 5.5" (+-) of armor, so 7 inches of deck will usually reduce the below-decks damage by a rather significant degree, yes.
You could however get a partial penetration in uncommon cases, and of course with the listed deck armor being the maximum 'through' armor thickness it is possible to hit a location that is not quite as well protected if you are (un)lucky. Most of my DBs tend to max out at around 1000lb, I've had a few that go to 1400lb, one upgraded that went to 1500lb, but even in the sixties 1000lb seems to be the norm. Is this intended? |
|
|
|
Post by trenton59 on Jun 30, 2019 12:06:20 GMT -6
I've had dive bombers with 2,000lb loads before, usually by '48 or so, although it seems a bit more common for them to have 2x1,500lb a lot of the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 30, 2019 12:38:00 GMT -6
Not with my 7" decks. "Was that someone dropping a spanner, lieutenant?" "No sir, it was a 1400lb AP bomb" "Oh. What's for breakfast today then?" A 1600 lb AP bomb when dropped by a dive bomber will typically completely penetrate about 5.5" (+-) of armor, so 7 inches of deck will usually reduce the below-decks damage by a rather significant degree, yes.
You could however get a partial penetration in uncommon cases, and of course with the listed deck armor being the maximum 'through' armor thickness it is possible to hit a location that is not quite as well protected if you are (un)lucky. I expect that crew quality have effect on accuracy, ability to make a dive bombing run. On top of that I expect that crew quality has effect on releasing height so indirectly on penetration power and accuracy in way that less experienced crews release ordnance at higher heights.
There is some interesting info from armored carrier website if somebody does not know showing expectation penetration related to weight of bomb and release height:
My experience in RTW2 (still limited by time playthrough) is that turret top should be protected at least 7" of armour but protecting deck of capital ships against heavist bombs (1600 lbs, 2000 lbs AP) is just too costly and they were never too aicrafts to really jeopardize 40000-50000 tons battleship. To have so many hits to jeopardize large battleships by bombs only there is need completely airsuperiorty and dozens of bombers attacking one target. However as soon as any ship is damaged, it could be detached and if remaining fleet change course against potential threat it took less than hour than battleship is far enough not to have attention of most of bombers. If I remember well only 2 times were my large ships in dangerous. Once when old carrier was hit by 5 torpedoes and the second one when cumulative damage of gunfire, torpedoes and bombs made enough damage decrease speed significantly and made ship low in water.
|
|
|
|
Post by orkel on Jun 30, 2019 13:14:51 GMT -6
Not with my 7" decks. "Was that someone dropping a spanner, lieutenant?" "No sir, it was a 1400lb AP bomb" "Oh. What's for breakfast today then?" A 1600 lb AP bomb when dropped by a dive bomber will typically completely penetrate about 5.5" (+-) of armor, so 7 inches of deck will usually reduce the below-decks damage by a rather significant degree, yes.
You could however get a partial penetration in uncommon cases, and of course with the listed deck armor being the maximum 'through' armor thickness it is possible to hit a location that is not quite as well protected if you are (un)lucky. The game simulates penetration depth? So a bomb penetrating thick armor might not actually reach the engine room, whereas thinner deck armor might let it go deep enough to knock out the boilers? Does this also apply to general AP shells vs belt/deck armor? |
|
.
