|
Post by abclark on Feb 15, 2019 12:40:52 GMT -6
A 5” HE round (mounted on a stick or not) is going to make quite the mess out of any unarmored position. So they should be effective against any class of ship, just unlikely to seriously damage armored positions or sink anything with armor.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 15, 2019 15:23:48 GMT -6
A 5” HE round (mounted on a stick or not) is going to make quite the mess out of any unarmored position. So they should be effective against any class of ship, just unlikely to seriously damage armored positions or sink anything with armor. I assume you are referring to the 500-pound daisy cutter which was an improvised weapon in the SW Pacific. The Vietnam War had its version with fuse extenders on MK 82 500lb. The improvised version in the SW Pacific had sections of steel reinforcing rods welded together around its waist and a section of rod added to the contact fuse to detonate the bomb at waist height above the ground. The purpose was to throw out shrapnel in all directions. Anything within a 100 yards was dead. It cut limbs off of trees that were two inches thick. The noise was terrifying according to captured japanese soldiers. The blast dispersion of bomb are dependent on the angle that the bomb hits. At 70 feet, the total number of fragments from a frag bomb is about 14,940 with the average number of fragments per sq. ft at .398. SAP bombs are not generally better but have a much narrower use or range of circumstances than a GP bomb. GP or SAP bombs with delay fuses do no withstand impact on heavy armor. It leads to deformation and breakage of the case but they are good against light armor. A 500 lbs. GP can penetrate about 1.5 inches with a slow fuse and 3 inches with a quick fuse. Level bombing at 5000 feet is necessary for good results or dive bombing at 60 degrees, 350 mph at any altitude. The type of armor is important.
|
|
|
Post by abclark on Feb 15, 2019 15:48:13 GMT -6
I assume you are referring to the 500-pound daisy cutter which was an improvised weapon in the SW Pacific. Nope. People were doubting the effectiveness of a 5” HE shell against lightly or unarmored targets. I wanted to point out that they’re quite potent, even if they’re being used as the warheads of rockets (as in the first mentioned case). 40+ pounds of steel splinters propelled by 7+ pounds of Comp B is a nasty thing. Nothing like the daisy cutter bombs you mentioned, but nasty nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by corsair on Feb 15, 2019 16:22:36 GMT -6
From the linked article: "However, because there were no ejection seats, their chance of survival was only 10 percent."
Interestingly, that was about the survival rate of crews in Lancaster bombers which were shot down; Halifax bomber crews fared better (29.0% chance versus 10.9% chance in the Lancaster).
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Feb 16, 2019 7:48:12 GMT -6
As I recall, Japanese planes taking off with the specific intention of launching a kamikaze strike were loaded with as much fuel as possible, or a large bomb, basically anything that would explode after impact, or worsen the subsequent fire. They would also have anything unnecessary removed. Further, they even used craft specifically designed for the role, like the Ohka, basically a manned glide bomb, or the Ki-115 Tsurugi, a very cheap, wood-and-steel plane with no gun armament but the ability to carry a single 1800lb bomb. Even the landing gear would detach immediately after take-off, to be re-used.
In other words, kamikaze strikes are very different from individual choice.
The motivation behind the Kamikaze or choosing to crash a damaged plane deliberately is the same and most Kamikaze pilots were volunteers, making it an individual choice for them as well. They all knew that flying normal non-kamikaze missions they wouldn't be coming back alive either, but that if flying Kamikaze they could inflict many times more damage to the enemy. In fact many of the skilled Fighter Aces of Japan were not allowed to sign up for Kamikaze attacks even when they wanted and tried to do so, because they were much more valuable escorting the rookies that did the attack to give them a greater chance of getting through. I agree with you that the preparation is very different, but the reason and motivation is the same: The pilot is not likely to be able to return home alive, so he can sacrifice himself and do more damage to the enemy instead of trying to get home. The preparation just follows naturally based on having this knowledge before launching, instead of after. For RTW2 a minimal implementation suggestion of Kamikaze could be something as follows: - New mission unique to Japan unlocked if Japan is behind X in warscore - Allows you to fly fighters in a dive bombing mission which expends the aircraft on attack attempt. - Releases an "incendiary/HE bomb" ( reuse same mechanic ) if they can make a hit and the bomb is considered to be X% of the planes weight. Optional: - Increase accuracy and damage of smaller caliber AA on the ship being attacked by X% ( due to the plane approaching much closer than a normal attack ) - Double maximum range of mission ( no need for return flight ) - Increased damage and chance to set fires based on how much fuel the plane have left - Ability to use both bombers and fighters - Special kamikaze "missiles" (Ohka) for Medium bombers and "torpedoes" (Kaiten) for large submarines. To clarify my point from earlier. The decision by an individual pilot to ram and the decisions by kamikaze pilots to ram are not necessarily different, but the tactics in which the attacks is carried out are.( I’d also like to point out that kamikaze pilots are not necessarily willingly volunteers in the truest sense. But motivation of these pilots are not really the topics of the discussion) Kamikaze attacks are organized and therefore coordinated to an degree, pilots will attack one ship from different angles in hopes of making through its AA fire. A desparte pilot will likely only ram if his plane becomes damaged, this is not the case with a kamikaze pilot. Also kamikaze are not always a one-way trip, the planes do return if they are unable to find suitable targets to attack( that is Not to say this is always done). Also kamikaze attackers are generally far harder to intercept compared to normal bombers by aa fire, given thr possibility of erratic flight paths(no need to aim bomb/torpedo) and that a disabled plane may still complete the run anyways(though the same goes for any desparte rammer, coordinated nature’s of kamikaze attackers makes it much more likely for a plane to make it) The Luftwaffe use of plane ramming is more towards strategic bombers, so I didn’t consider it quite the same as kamikaze, but I suppose the risk and desparation involved is the same. Lastly, as brought up by others earlier, kamikaze is a topic that should be approached with care. I don’t think it’s appropriate to portray these pilots as glorious patriot or crazed madman. But I think it is not unacceptable to give a fair depiction of these acts of desparation that could happen in these desperate times. While the topic is certainly highly controversial in japan, I think japan’s effort to give an more accurate portrayal of these pilots through films and accounts of survivors really served to help us understand what it was really like.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Feb 16, 2019 10:19:29 GMT -6
Again folks, this thread is about 'multiple bombs'.
Lets drop the suicide attack discussion, it will go nowhere as I have already stated the likely position it may have in RTW2.
|
|