Damage Model Update - 10/12 - Page 23 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-29-2018, 05:10 PM   #221
xvii-Dietrich
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Pohjoiskalotti
Posts: 129
Default

I have been researching this issue and the impression is that single heavy bombs were effective - but not efficient - against tanks. A single SC500 will knock out a tank if dropped within 4 metres of it. However, this is very difficult to accomplish, given the small, and potentially moving target. It is also risky to the attacking aircraft and is not economical... flying one SC500 per target, compared with deploying an anti-tank gun (whether on the ground or flown).


The Luftwaffe did use a type of "cluster munition" to attack tanks. This is the SD4HL, used from Ju 87 aircraft. The documents suggest that other aircraft were used, but I cannot find any information as to which, so I cannot tell if it is relevant to the DCS planeset (upcoming A-8/F-8 included).




The following are some selected quotes from historical sources on which I have based my conclusions.




According to Fleischer, W., "German Air Dropped Weapons 1919-1945", there are general figures given for cratering, although there is no indication of the ground surface/soil type, nor the altitude from which the bomb was dropped. Crater sizes are given as follows:

Quote:
for SC 50, instantaneous fuze - diameter 2,4 m (6 ft), depth 0,8 m (2,7 ft)
for SC 50, delayed fuze - diameter 5,4 m (18 ft), depth 2,4 m (6 ft)
for SC 250, instantaneous fuze - diameter 4,4 m (14,7 ft), depth 1,5 m (5 ft)
for SC 250, delayed fuze - diameter 9 m (27 ft), depth 3,5 m (11,7 ft)
for SC 500, instantaneous fuze - diameter 5,6 m (18,4 ft), depth 2 m (6,6 ft)
for SC 500, delayed fuze - diameter 10,5 m (34,5 ft), depth 4 m (13,1 ft)
Military reports written shortly after the war comment on the used of bombs for attacking armour. Here are a few references.

Quote:
When the need to combat tanks from the air became more and more urgent in Russian, one first used large 1,100-lbs [= 500kg] mine bombs as an expedient. Since one was fully aware of the difficulty of destroying tanks moving at wide intervals by direct bomb hits from the air, one wanted to use at least bombs with such high pressure waves that the tanks would be immobilized even by near misses. As it turned out, this was effective only if the bomb dropped no farther than 13 feet [= 4m] from the tank and exploded directly above the ground without penetrating, since the pressure would otherwise deflagrate into the air instead of hitting the tank from the side. But such near misses could be obtained with the 1100-lbs bombs only occasionally and accidentally.
Ref: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAFHS/AAFHS-187.pdf , Doc p43 / PDF p48



Quote:
The SD "splinter" of fragmentation bombs are used primarily against personnel, tanks, all types of armored and unarmored vehicles, and against other surface targets which are vulnerable to fragmentation damage.
Ref:http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/...5-2-German.pdf , PDF p7


The SD (Spreng Dickenwand) type used against tanks was the SD4HL, which was a cluster munition, which scattered 4kg bombs with hollow-charge over the battle area. Chance strikes against tanks would be effective According the the AAFHS-187 document (referenced above),
Quote:
armor up to 130-mm (about 6") thick could be pierced with that bomb. In addition, the bomb had also a fragmentation potential so that it could be directed against infantry escorting the tank.
Ref: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAFHS/AAFHS-187.pdf , Doc p43 / PDF p48



Additional secondary references.

http://warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/sd4hl.htm
http://www.wk2ammo.com/showthread.ph...p-vehicle-bomb

Last edited by xvii-Dietrich; 10-29-2018 at 05:11 PM. Reason: Fixed formatting
xvii-Dietrich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2018, 05:20 PM   #222
DD_Fenrir
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 447
Default

Thanks Saburo, never seen that information before. Food for thought.

I admit my arguments are primarily from logical deduction regarding evidence of what other anti-tank weapon systems require for tank killing and the general resistance of tanks themselves to blast damage. Be interesting to know what it was deemed killed the animals...

..and further thanks to Dietrich.

I feel this though is a crucial factor:

Quote:
As it turned out, this was effective only if the bomb dropped no farther than 13 feet [= 4m] from the tank and exploded directly above the ground without penetrating, since the pressure would otherwise deflagrate into the air instead of hitting the tank from the side.
Trouble is, in my understanding, most allied General Purpose bombs had a delay uses of a fraction of a second, thus they would ground penetrate in the event of a near miss, negating some of their effectiveness.

Last edited by DD_Fenrir; 10-29-2018 at 05:24 PM.
DD_Fenrir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2018, 08:38 PM   #223
Captain Orso
Senior Member
 
Captain Orso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,293
Default

Of course, if you are specifically targeting armored and unarmored targets, you would not deploy delayed fuses in your bombs, so....
__________________
When you hit the wrong button on take-off


System Specs.
Spoiler:
System board ... MSI X99A GAMING 9 ACK
CPU ............ Intel Core i7-5820K @ 3800MHz per OC Genie
CPU cooling .... Noctua NH-D15
Memory ......... 16GB DDR4-3000 G.Skill Ripjaw
PSU ............ Corsair AX860i PSU
Graphics card .. Zotac Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Amp! Extreme
System disk .... SanDisk Extreme PRO 480GB SSD
Monitor ........ ASUS MG279Q, 27"
VR ............. Oculus Rift CV1
Captain Orso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2018, 10:28 PM   #224
xvii-Dietrich
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Pohjoiskalotti
Posts: 129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Orso View Post
Of course, if you are specifically targeting armored and unarmored targets, you would not deploy delayed fuses in your bombs, so....
The use of modal verbs indicates the introduction of epistemic possibility... always a sign of concern. If historical references to provide alternative view points or support historical argument (as opposed to speculative predication), they should be posted. My references are as follows:

Contemporary analyses reports the inclusion of mixed fusing in deployment of ordnance. These are referred to as "nuisance fuses" designed to confuse the enemy and cause additional casualties.
Ref: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAFHS/AAFHS-192.pdf , PDF p457ff

Additionally, the advantageous perspective of hindsight does not permit the imposition of armchair tactical doctrine onto historical occurrence. Delayed fuses were used, albeit with ineffective results.
Ref: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAFHS/AAFHS-187.pdf Doc p84, PDF p90

Finally, provision of specific ordnance and fusing does not necessarily match the tactical situation, resulting in non-optimal deployment of munitions. The report states
Quote:
A pre-requisite for being able to employ the bombs that correspond to the designated targets was that these bombs be available at the air bases or emergency fields of the bomb carrying units or that they could at least be moved up. The matter method was time-consuming and possible under certain circumstances only. Since decision concerning types of targets were made at short notice, especially when the attacks were directed against mobile targets, the logisitical support organisation had to take these factors into account.
Ref: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAFHS/AAFHS-187.pdf Doc p85, PDF p91
xvii-Dietrich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2018, 08:27 AM   #225
Captain Orso
Senior Member
 
Captain Orso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,293
Default

Okay, I'll admit that using the test documentation from after the war would certainly not affect deployment during the war.

That delayed fusses were used during the war was a known fact from very early on. But --and I'm only going from where I know they were used, and that from memory-- they were deployed for bombing static targets (building, etc.) so that they would detonate the bombs, while rescue and recovery personnel were on site, to cause additional casualties, and demoralize the population. I also know that there were bombs deployed specifically designed for usage against built-up areas, which were to bore through multi-story building, and detonate only once they reached the ground or cellar, in order to increase structural damage, which had thicker nose-caps and/or casings.

I am not ignoring the cluster munitions mentioned in a different thread I can't locate at the moment, developed by the Germans specifically as anti-tank weapons. But we don't have those in DCS.

But bombs used by tactical units against tactical targets hardly fall under the above categories, and I'd have to see some evidence to the contrary to believe that anti-building bombs were generally deployed at such units.

Also, bombs were not transported with fusses installed. If we're talking about general purpose bombs, you would deploy the fuse required, or set the fuse for the required deployment, as some fuses had various settings; of course again requiring the correct fuses to be available at the required time.

Also, just on a side note, someone posted a few months ago IIRC a link to some document or other --might have even been a video-- describing that far fewer armored vehicles were actually destroyed by aircraft than had been claimed by tactical airforces. I don't recall if they mentioned anything about crews being killed, but the vehicle being recovered and put back into service --I think I would have remembered that-- but specifically that the vehicles destroyed claimed by the XIX Tactical AF for example, while supporting Patton's break-out from Normandy, were far higher than what German records showed, which were recovered after the war.

So even when the DM gets updated and near misses (near hits?) start actually destroying tanks, I don't expect it to be a slaughter-fest of tanks; at least I don't hope to see anything unrealistic.
__________________
When you hit the wrong button on take-off


System Specs.
Spoiler:
System board ... MSI X99A GAMING 9 ACK
CPU ............ Intel Core i7-5820K @ 3800MHz per OC Genie
CPU cooling .... Noctua NH-D15
Memory ......... 16GB DDR4-3000 G.Skill Ripjaw
PSU ............ Corsair AX860i PSU
Graphics card .. Zotac Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Amp! Extreme
System disk .... SanDisk Extreme PRO 480GB SSD
Monitor ........ ASUS MG279Q, 27"
VR ............. Oculus Rift CV1
Captain Orso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2018, 03:26 PM   #226
ACG_IronJockel
Member
 
ACG_IronJockel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 424
Default

Question:

Will we see a "simple" health system for all aircraft parts or ill there some penetration be modeled?
So we have some components that can not be damaged by certain projectiles under certain conditions?
__________________
ACG_IronJockel is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:46 AM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.