Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
unsinkable_sam_

AP bombs logic?

12 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
122 posts
13,235 battles

Iowa have  weak 38 mm deck armor and   16 - 25 mm upper citadel armor -  AP bombs cause pitiful dmg. Possible overpen? ?

Friedrich der Grose,  50-80 deck, +  100 mm citadell deck   - AP  bombs cause  heavy dmg.

 

How to works these AP bombs?

And one more thing, i tryed AP bombs on live server,  with Enterprise against FDG,  and never get 50 k dmg. Buffed AP bombs on PT?

 

 

shot-17.11.26_10.11.41-0401.jpg

shot-17.11.26_10.48.04-0355.jpg

shot-17.11.26_10.44.06-0247.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
723 posts
5,774 battles

It would make sense if an over-penetration would cause flooding, but I guess the logic is that the bombs were calculated to explode after going through thick armor and then after a few fractions of a second, so they'd hit the citadel, but if the ship has inadequate armor, it will not arm the bomb, so the bomb is just a big heavy object that crashes into the ship and stays there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
122 posts
13,235 battles
21 minutes ago, Commander_Cornflakes said:

AP bombs work the same way as AP shells. If the deck armor is too thin, you only get overpens.

Hm.  Thanks.  Then need side effects to  AP bombs, if overpen you get flooding and engine incapacitation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HAERT]
Players
414 posts
5,926 battles
21 minutes ago, SmartassNoob said:

It would make sense if an over-penetration would cause flooding, but I guess the logic is that the bombs were calculated to explode after going through thick armor and then after a few fractions of a second, so they'd hit the citadel, but if the ship has inadequate armor, it will not arm the bomb, so the bomb is just a big heavy object that crashes into the ship and stays there.

 

Can you imagine being one of the sailors on that ship, down below when you're hit by an AP bomb that penetrates the top deck but then just lies down there rolling around.... on the one hand you're thankful at your luck it didnt go off, on the other hand you're wondering if it might go off right now!!  Run!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLOBS]
Community Contributor
921 posts
3,618 battles

USN Battleships (Tier 8-10) and British Battleships (tier 8-10) have additional ~150mm deck armour that the current armour viewer doesn't display. As such, the AP bombs are unable to reach the citadel, dealing regular penetration damage inside the casemate.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
122 posts
13,235 battles
32 minutes ago, StuntMan0369 said:

USN Battleships (Tier 8-10) and British Battleships (tier 8-10) have additional ~150mm deck armour that the current armour viewer doesn't display. As such, the AP bombs are unable to reach the citadel, dealing regular penetration damage inside the casemate.

WOW. Where from you know? Why not show in armour viewer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
723 posts
5,774 battles
1 hour ago, Hawg said:

 

Can you imagine being one of the sailors on that ship, down below when you're hit by an AP bomb that penetrates the top deck but then just lies down there rolling around.... on the one hand you're thankful at your luck it didnt go off, on the other hand you're wondering if it might go off right now!!  Run!!

The 2001 movie Pearl Harbor shows a similar situation, but there the bomb was triggered by a small propeller that stopped spinning due to lack of wind around bomb.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
4,203 posts
6,775 battles
1 hour ago, longley89 said:

WOW. Where from you know? Why not show in armour viewer?

 

That's how US BBs are built, I think it's called the "bomb deck" or something like that

Basically US BBs are very layered making that bomb less effective

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POP]
Weekend Tester
533 posts

There is no real logic to AP bombs in the game. Realism is not exactly a guiding principle in the design of this game but most things kind of make sense (like bigger shells do more damage, hitting vital parts of a ship is worse than hitting flag posts, more powerful AA shoots planes down more effectively and so on). The AP bombs, however, do not.

 

First of all, I don't think anyone would drop anything but AP bombs on warships. In the battle off Samar the US escort carriers were expecting to fly ground attack missions and thus had contact fuse bombs on their planes, making them largely ineffective against the Japanese warships bearing down on them. Also one of the factors that delayed the launch of one of the Japanese attack waves in the battle of Midway was their bombers being armed with contact fuse bombs for ground attack purposes - which made them basically not suitable for attacking ships.

 

An even bigger problem is that the whole overpenetration thing makes no sense whatsoever. First of all, an AP bombs' inertial fuse would be triggered by a hit on a warship's structure unless it was a dud and if it didn't, it would absolutely certainly be triggered when it hits water underneath the ship, because that's how they were designed. After all, most bombs would miss and the designers wanted near misses to have a chance of doing damage (which they often very much managed to do). And if a bomb made it all the way though a ship, punched a hole through the ship and exploded underneath it that would be just about the most devastating thing imaginable, not a harmless overpenetration. A magazine detonation would leave the crew less chance of escape, but a massive explosion directly underneath a ship would be almost as likely to sink it. Submariners suffered a number of duds due to unreliable magnetic fuses (real life deep water torpedoes I guess) just because they wanted the holy grail shot of an underwater explosion underneath a ship directing all the energy (due to water not compressing) upwards to the ship's hull.

 

Realism aside, the way AP bombs work now makes less sense than Svyatozar's vampiric regeneration.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
265 posts
17,486 battles

AP bombs work kinda like AP shells yes... thing is WG dont tell you ingame what its armor pen is... (which is kinda a must know for players so we can use the things properly)

 

For example, enterprise AP bombs need 70mm armor to arm fuse... so if the ship you are hitting doesnt have any layer of armor equal or bigger then 70mm it will only do overpen damage.

Now this calculation is not cumulative... for example you hit a bismark that have a single 80mm armor layer and bombs arm, but if you hit a carolina the bombs never arm cause it doesnt have any layer bigger then 70mm (game doesnt sum the different layers... either the ship have a single layer over 70mm or it doesnt matter if it have 10 layers of 60mm, it will overpen them all)

 

Also remember that even if the bomb gets over a 70mm layer and arms the fuse you can still do a penetration or a citadel hit. To get those 50k hits on BB's you need to be doing citadels and not just penetrations. (just like with an AP shell, a citadel is 100% max damage but a normal pen is only 33% of that)

 

Now you can go check ship armors to see what targets you should or not go for with AP bombs.

 

P.S.- And the fact that overpens dont cause flooding is by WG choice... since they think players couldnt handle the extra flooding caused by bombs

        Also why they removed flooding from being hit by shells bellow waterline...

        So yeah having an AP bomb overpen an entire ship and coming out of the bottom without causing flood makes no sense but its like that by game choice to "improve" gameplay

Edited by SunSkaRe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
3,762 posts
10,662 battles
2 hours ago, longley89 said:

Hm.  Thanks.  Then need side effects to  AP bombs, if overpen you get flooding and engine incapacitation.

Again, while not as ridiculous as "AP overpens should cause flooding", this still applies to bombs: A HOLE OF A BOMB GETTING STRAIGHT THROUGH THE SHIP IS IRRELEVANT COMPARED TO DAMAGE THAT CAUSES FLOODING.

Have you seen what a ship hit by a torpedo looks like?

This is a ship that received a hit by a plane-dropped torpedo:

fa099ca533efb27da9e19408b253aa18--bougai

 

Do you know what (properly exploding, there are no duds in this game) airdropped torpedo has? It has a CHANCE of causing flooding. And it's not a very big chance either - the reality of a CV player is that MOST TORPS WON'T CAUSE FLOODING, at least unless you use the signal that increases flooding chances pretty significantly. And even the biggest, baddest IJN ship-based torps, that are great at causing flooding (one of their big strengths) are not guaranteed to cause floods.

So. Look at this hole. Imagine that it had like (let's be generous) 50% that it will result in flooding. And look at the people next to the hole. And imagine the tiny hole caused by a shell or AP bomb that went clean through without detonating. And something like that should cause floodings? Good joke...

 

The approach of this game, for balance reasons more so than reality, I'd say, takes liberties at picturing how torps interact with ships. And so a torp is never a dud (unless launched from too close), it would never bounce off a vesel, it's extremely easy to spot etc. And it CAN cause flooding, sometimes. But this last design choice, along with how devastating unchecked flooding is in this game, clearly sets flooding as not "captain, some water is getting through the hull". It's more like "captain, our ship is breaking apart and the sea is inside now". And to cause that kind of damage... the only thing that could do so without detonating would be another ship that just crushes into you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×