What king of damage can all those different bombs do?

[Paparazzic]

Hi everyone, 

 

This was probably already explained but I just couldn't find it. I noticed axis have quite a range of different bombs: 50, 250, 500, 1k, 1,8k, 2.5k. Just tried 50's tonight with Me110 and I got AAA, soft targets, trains and even some buildings. What are the other bombs good for? 

 

Cheers!

Edited November 14, 2017 by 51IFGmishomor

[ZachariasX]

 

 

What are the other bombs good for?

 

They are not good for things. They are bad for things.

[Finkeren]

Most bombs in the sim are general purpose high explosive bombs. Meaning they are great at getting buildings and other structures to collapse and semi-good at destroying un-armoured vehicles and equipment.

 

The exception is the PTAB, which is a cluster bomb with 60 shaped charges designed specifically to deal with armoured targets.

 

The really heavy German bombs would historically be reserved for specially picked high-value targets such as bridges and bunker complexes.

 

One thing to keep in mind: Armoured vehicles are extremely ressilient to close proximity hits. With anything but the largest bombs they are pretty much only destroyed by direct hits. It can be a bit disappointing to see a tank completely engulfed by the exploding bomb you just dropped, only to see it drive out from the dust cloud apparently unscathed, but that’s just how it is, tanks are hard targets.

[xvii-Dietrich]

On the German side (I know nothing about Soviet bombs), there is usually no intrinsic difference between the different types.

 

 

Technical details

 

They are mostly SC (= Sprengbombe Cylindrisch) types, which are a general-purpose, high-explosive bomb.

 

There are some exceptions though...

 

The Ju 87 D-3 Stuka can take the SD70 (= Sprengbombe Dickwandig) type, which is specifically an anti-personnel fragmentation bomb.

The MC.202 can take a T-50 or T-100, which are 50- and 100-kg general-purpose bombs respectively.

The Ju 52/3m g4e can take the MAB 250. However, this is a supply canister, not a bomb. Although historically, the Ju 52/3m was used as a bomber, this is not modelled in the game.

 

 

The number refers to the approximate total mass of the bomb in kilograms (kg). The actual quantity of explosives is less, as the casing has considerable mass.

 

Obviously, larger bomb masses have two advantages:

 

• Blast force
• Blast radius

 

The further away from the impact point, the lower the damage, but still a large bomb can cause damage to targets a considerable distance.

 

The different sizes also have an impact on aircraft performance. Apart from the extra weight they add, they also affect the drag on the aircraft, slowing it down or making it less manoeuvrable.

 

Some bombs are small enough to be mounted inside the aircraft. For example, the Ju 88 A-4 can take up to 28 x SC50 mounted internally. This reduces drag, but you then need to have bomb bay doors open to drop them. In game, if you select the bomb in the options sections, you can see what their affect will be on the performance.

 

Details of loadouts can be found here.

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25993-aircraft-flight-and-technical-specifications-and-operational/

 

 

 

 

Tactical choices

 

Thus, from a tactical point of view, the choices are about what is available for your aircraft, what implications it has on performance and what sort of target are you trying to knock out.

 

Generally speaking, you want as many bombs that are just big enough to accomplish the task.

 

 

For example, let's say you wish to knock out a ship with a Ju 88 A-4. You could take 4 x SC500 or 6 x SC250. At first glance, it might seem that the 4x500 is a better option. But if you only need one hit with an SC250, then you get better coverage with the 6x250 option, which means you have contingency if you miss on the first pass, or it allows you to scatter the load a bit.

 

On the other hand, there is no point taking too small bombs for harder targets. The 44 x SC50 loadout seems pretty cool, but if you really need an SC250 to take out the target, you are far better off with the 4 x SC250 load.

 

Another thing to know is that the bomb bay doors were historically only opened for level-bombing runs. Although it is possible to do it in-game, the Ju 88 A-4 should only have the external SC250 or SC500 bombs for dive-bombing.

 

Also take into consideration the bombs of other aircraft. For example, if you are area bombing with some other He 111s, then matching the loadout will help saturate the area uniformly.

 

One common mistake that newcomers will do is to load up the absolute maximim load. One thing I'd serious advise is that you take a smaller load and reduced fuel. The bombers (especially the Ju 88) can be difficult to handle, so cutting down the mass and drag will help a lot when learning. It drastically helps with ground handling and will keep you flying faster, rather than hanging on the edge of a stall the whole flight.

 

Consider also the implications of your maximum altitude if you have a heavy, external load. Most missions - especially online - simply don't have the time for you to climb at a snail's pace up to a decent level bombing altitude.

 

 

 

 

Ultimately, there is also an element of personal choice. Experiment. And use what you find most effective for your preferred aircraft and type of mission.

[CanadaOne]

They are not good for things. They are bad for things.

 

 

You, sir, are a philosopher.

[Chief_Mouser]

For the Soviet stuff, this is useful:

 

http://vvs.hobbyvista.com/Markings/bombs/vvsord.php

http://vvs.hobbyvista.com/Research/Ordnance/FAB50/index.php

http://vvs.hobbyvista.com/Research/Ordnance/Betab/index.php

http://vvs.hobbyvista.com/Research/Ordnance/FAB5000/

 

Cheers.

Edited November 14, 2017 by 216th_Cat

[SYN_Mike77]

This link is from Cat's post above on the Soviet rockets: http://vvs.hobbyvista.com/Markings/bombs/vvsord.php

 

I am at work and can't check but I would like to know, do we have the armor piercing rocket that was developed in '43? If not, why not!

[Paparazzic]

"Generally speaking, you want as many bombs that are just big enough to accomplish the task." 

Question is what kind of bombs certain tasks need? I mean it can certainly be done through trial and error but I was thinking about more concrete examples. Let's say I already found that 50's can destroy AAA, trucks and smaller buildings. I did raid over train-station and they were pretty useful overthere. What 100's can do that 50's can't ... than 250's ... and so on ...? Then if let's say 500kg bomb is needed for something can the same target be destroyed with 5 x 100kg or 10x50's ? 

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

One thing to keep in mind: Armoured vehicles are extremely ressilient to close proximity hits. With anything but the largest bombs they are pretty much only destroyed by direct hits. It can be a bit disappointing to see a tank completely engulfed by the exploding bomb you just dropped, only to see it drive out from the dust cloud apparently unscathed, but that’s just how it is, tanks are hard targets.

 

Bombs and how they interact with armored vehicles isn't correct and is oversimplified from a lot of different modeling perspectives.

 

While it is a case of "how it is" that doesn't inherently assert that it is correct or how it should be - there are a lot of variables lacking representation - the biggest being concussive damage that would kill a crew, flip a tank, damage its tracks, etc.

 

A 50 kilo bomb falling within two meters to the side of a tank should damage its tracks and potentially other systems (it doesn't) and should certainly harm or incapacitate the crew (it doesn't.)

 

The lack of concussive damage from HE/GP bombs is probably closely related to the issues with HE ammunition as well - fragmentation doesn't properly represent concussive force/expanding gases. Combine this with simplified penetration/armor modeling and a HP based DM (like all of the tanks in IL-2) and you get tanks rolling through any size of explosion unless you've planted the bomb directly through the commander's hatch.

[xvii-Dietrich]

"Generally speaking, you want as many bombs that are just big enough to accomplish the task." 

Question is what kind of bombs certain tasks need? I mean it can certainly be done through trial and error but I was thinking about more concrete examples.

 

There are no concrete examples yet.

 

It comes down to a number of factors, such as the exact nature of the target and the ability of the pilot to get a direct hit. Some pilots are needle-precise and and put a SC50 onto an individual tank. But if you are under fire, are not so accurate, there is turbulence, the target is moving, etc. etc., then your ability to put the ordnance exactly where you want it will be lower.

 

I did a series of blast radius test missions back when I used to fly in CloD, but I haven't been able to figure out the BoX mission editor to set up a similar test for it. That seems to me to be the best way to do a proper investigation - apart from getting some internal algorithms from the developers. But, otherwise, you will be working with uncharacterised data or anecdotal evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

Also, here's an Allied reference on German bombs...

 

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/TM/pdfs/TM9-1985-2-German.pdf

[Paparazzic]

Ok, it looks like I'll have to roll my sleeves and find those details myself . Anyway, thank you guys for all responses and some good readings you provided there!

 

Cheers

[Gambit21]

Anyone tested FAB 250's against ships yet?

Curious how the A-20's (with no ability to carry FAB  500's) will do against them.

[taffy2jeffmorgan]

Perhaps one day we can have a Lancaster to fly, and then we can test our skills dropping Grandslams and Tallboys !!

[1./KG4_Ben_C]

As a bomber squadron the standard KG4 mission load is 8 x SC250 (for He-111 H-16) and 4 x SC250, 1 x SC500 (for He-111 H-6).

 

Sure, there are bigger bomb loads, such as the SC1000 and above, but they make the flight laborious and decrease speed & climb rate.  When flying as a group 3 or 4 bombers the SC250's give a good coverage of the target area.

 

Besides, who doesn't enjoy watching multiple bomb drops splash all over the target?    

[Gambit21]

A 500 lb bomb will flip a Tiger over - a 1000 lb bomb can send it ass over tea kettle 3 or 4 times.

This from pilots as well as witnesses on the ground watching 9th Air Force P-47's attack German armor.

 

Not sure about the Russian bombs, but since the Jug is coming I figured I'd throw that in.

Bomb efficacy against armor in real life is understated/underestimated around here at times, and relegated to the

"the pilots didn't know what they were seeing category" almost by default.

Not always.

[hames123]

A 500 lb bomb will flip a Tiger over - a 1000 lb bomb can send it ass over tea kettle 3 or 4 times.

This from pilots as well as witnesses on the ground watching 9th Air Force P-47's attack German armor.

 

Not sure about the Russian bombs, but since the Jug is coming I figured I'd throw that in.

Bomb efficacy against armor in real life is understated/underestimated around here at times, and relegated to the

"the pilots didn't know what they were seeing category" almost by default.

Not always.

Yes, large bombs do actually do lots of damage to tanks if they land close enough. Even if it is not a direct hit, it can easily knock over a tank or kill the crew with concussion.

[Finkeren]

Yes, large bombs do actually do lots of damage to tanks if they land close enough. Even if it is not a direct hit, it can easily knock over a tank or kill the crew with concussion.

How exactly do you know that?

 

I thought the exact same way, but the more I study the subject, the more it looks like tanks are pretty damn resillient to close proximity high explosive detonations - even large ones.

[Gambit21]

Yeah I can speak to the state of the tanks, but those accounts don't say anything about the health of the crew.

I imagine getting tossed end over end in a steel enclosure with sharp corners and such would result in predictable injuries.

Concussion though? That I'd be a bit skeptical about given the isolation of the air mass in the tank and thickness of the armor.

 

The fact that they get upended, overturned, flipped by bombs however is not open for debate.

Edited December 3, 2017 by Gambit21

[Finkeren]

The fact that they get upended, overturned, flipped by bombs however is not open for debate.

Actually, I think it is. I have looked at a ton of images of knocked-out tanks, including dozens, if not hundreds, of tanks flipped on their side or completely upside down.

 

However, apart from a few specific examples, nearly all of these images fall into one of two categories:

 

1: The tank is lying in a crater or a ditch, meaning it most likely rolled down there by accident. It was certainly not blown there by whatever made that crater.

 

2: The tank is lying beside a road, meaning it was most likely knocked out/abandoned in the middle of the road or deliberately left there as an obstacle. In that case, the reason it’s flipped over is most likely, that it was simply done to get the tank out of the way to clear passage. It is easier to flip a tank over than push it out of the way, due to its top-heavyness.

 

What I have yet to see is conclusive evidence of a tank flipped over by a bomb. Something like a heavily wrecked tank lying on its backside right next to a large bomb crater partly covered by debris thrown up by the detonation.

[Gambit21]

Pilots watched them flip over and over.

A 500lb bomb dropped at 400mph plus digs a 5' hole before going off on a delayed fuse - that flipped tanks.

1000lb bombs - even more so. I trust the pilots and ground personnel's word on this.

 

They don't have reasons to lie about watching tanks getting tumbled by bombs - no agenda.

This isn't like "we killed tanks by ricocheting .50 cal off the road underneath the tanks"

That's clearly a misinterpretation of what they're seeing. Watching tanks getting up-ended is another matter.

[Gambit21]

Also while this is a matter settled by pilot accounts and not Google images, I disagree with your conclusions regarding some of those photos. A Tiger doesn't go from upright to on its back on the road to on its back in a crater next to the road because it rolled in and flipped over - its too close to the road still. That bad boy got airborne.

 

Also of all the tanks that those pilots bombed - there are photos of how many?

Even if there wasn't a photo showing evidence of this (which there clearly is IMHO) those Jug pilots' accounts are more than enough.

Edited December 3, 2017 by Gambit21

[ZachariasX]

Indeed. It rally seems that many of the flipped over tanks were turned over in an attempt to clear them of the road.

 

Looking at such footage, you can see what a 100 kg of explosives do to a colum of vehicles. There is no turning over, not even of cars in proximity, but shrapnel ob soft target are lethal.

 

Edit: To flip a tank, the blast had to come from below. A bomb penetrating the ground is however much less dangerous to personell, as the shock is projected upwards away fom soft targets in proximity.

Edited December 3, 2017 by ZachariasX

[Gambit21]

Indeed. It rally seems that many of the flipped over tanks were turned over in an attempt to clear them of the road.

 

Looking at such footage, you can see what a 100 kg of explosives do to a colum of vehicles. There is no turning over, not even of cars in proximity, but shrapnel ob soft target are lethal.

 

Edit: To flip a tank, the blast had to come from below. A bomb penetrating the ground is however much less dangerous to personell, as the shock is projected upwards away fom soft targets in proximity.

First - the bombs did penetrate 5' or more and explode from below as stated above - on a delayed fuse.

Second a 100kg (220lb) doesn't compare in force to a 500lb bomb, let a 1000lb bomb.

 

You'd have to argue with the 9th Air Force pilots on this one.

Also I respect all your opinions, research etc.

I have no attachment here - but I also have my own research and more importantly, no reason to refute the pilot accounts on this.

Edited December 3, 2017 by Gambit21

[ZachariasX]

First - the bombs did penetrate 5' or more and explode from below as stated above - on a delayed fuse.

Second a 100kg (220lb) doesn't compare in force to a 500lb bomb, let a 1000lb bomb.

 

You'd have to argue with the 9th Air Force pilots on this one.

Also I respect all your opinions, research etc.

I have no attachment here - but I also have my own research and more importantly, no reason to refute the pilot accounts on this.

Ah, don't get me wrong on this. Personally, I would have expected more from blast damage. A lot more. I do not know how IEDs compare to bombs of varying size used back then.

 

So, please don't take my finding as a correction to your point, but merely my surprise when looking through pics after reading Finks remark.

[RAY-EU]

AB 250 Splitterbombe ( cluster bomb ) that coul disperse a variety of sub-munitions anti-armour , personel minelets 184 B 1 incendiaries

116 B2 steel-nosed incendiaries butterfly bomb :

 

FW190 F3 From July 1943 .

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_Bomb

Edited December 3, 2017 by RAY-EU

[Gambit21]

Ah, don't get me wrong on this. Personally, I would have expected more from blast damage. A lot more. I do not know how IEDs compare to bombs of varying size used back then.

 

So, please don't take my finding as a correction to your point, but merely my surprise when looking through pics after reading Finks remark.

No worries, and certainly nothing against Fink - just conversation here.

I'm sure that perfect bomb placement and resulting tank-flip was not the norm.

I just see no good reason to refute the guys who were there on this....and refute them based on what exactly?

 

If I had that pilot in front of me, and him saying "the image of that Tiger flipping end over end from that 1000lb bomb was burned into my memory, and made my whole war" (this was a 365th pilot)

 

I'm certainly not going to say "sorry sir, I need photo evidence" because for no particular reason, I'm just skeptical.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Always good to get an idea of what those bombs are capeable of. In this case a SC50 and SC500 (later has 250kg explosives) are demostrated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLCVqOl0Qtk

 

There's more to it than the lack of shock wave modeling though. Lots of things are simplified / unconsidered with the current model ranging from physical deformation of the terrain and physics affected ground vehicles to the point system accounting for 'destroyed' vehicles (atm destroyed referrs to tank has blown up to shreds, not knocked out of combat). Would be nice to see that being improved upon with the tank module.

Edited December 3, 2017 by 6./ZG26_5tuka

[Finkeren]

I'm certainly not going to say "sorry sir, I need photo evidence" because for no particular reason, I'm just skeptical.

There is always reason to be skeptical, of everything, at all times - especially with regard to retrospecrive eye witness testemony involving a heavy emotional bias.

[Eicio]

I've noticed in the game, on tank hunting, that no matter the size of your bomb, a tank can only (or most of the times anyway) be killed if the bomb fall directly on it so I generally take the largest load of SC 50 to cover the largest area possible and have more chance of killing a tank.

 

Moreover I've found that the 50kg bombs are really usefull for any case, raiding a convoy, exploding buildings, annihilate a train or whatever. The quantity over the quality seems to be effective.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

I have this saved on a notepad on my PC, probably copied it from another forum years ago

 

 

From “German Air Dropped Weapons to 1945”

 

Pg 108

-Autumn 1935 test by RLM and HWA at Kummersdorf - target: German Pz-I machine gun Panzer. Bombs used: SC-10 and SC-50 (Minebomben) results of test: “even the lightly armored Sdkfz 101 was still reliably protected from a distance of 5 to 10 meters (16 to 32.5 feet) 

 

(panzer tracks 1-1 says that two guard dogs were inside the panzer I and survived these test without harm, also says that direct hits in Spain by Russian 45mm high explosive shells fused to explode on impact only produced dents in the armor)

 

HWA Wa Pruf conclusion: “…that attacks using air dropped weapons against tanks are not very successful”

 

1942 detonation tests - Udetfield Upper Silesia, north of Beuthen ( Polish spelling “Bytom“)

Targets: ten Russian T-34, one American M-4 Sherman, three British Mark IV Churchill tanks

Bombs used: SC-250

Effect on T-34: remains intact at distance of 3 meters (9.7 feet) animals inside tank killed, diesel fuel set aflame.

Effect on Sherman tank: remains intact at distance 3 meters, animals inside killed.

Effect on Churchill tanks: riveted armor fails at 5 meters (15.5 feet) entire tank torn apart.

 

[Monostripezebra]

From what I make out of it, in game the rule bigger=better works pretty much. Blast radius will be bigger and usually the targets (with exptions of boats and tanks) you can place that radius over are gone. So, if in doubt, go bigger.

[Eicio]

From what I make out of it, in game the rule bigger=better works pretty much. Blast radius will be bigger and usually the targets (with exptions of boats and tanks) you can place that radius over are gone. So, if in doubt, go bigger.

 

It seems that last radius does work on everything but tanks (in the game I mean), you can do the test with 1 He-111, some t34/kv1s and a sc 2500:  drop the bomb into the pack of tanks and you'll see a big explosion, enough to hide the three tanks, however if the bomb wasn't right onto a target you'll just see the three tanks drive like nothing happened.

 

In real life the tanks would be at least incapacited but not here (for now), and I don't know if that would work in real life but dropping a fab 50 right onto a stug III (from 5 meters with a 5s fuse that's what precision means :  closer is not enough  ) kill it.

 

So with what I experienced in game I can't agree with the big bomb thing, you'll be more successful with lighter bombs in a greater number even if it slows you down more than a single bomb.

 

Ps: I don't know about ships and for soft targets bombs will always be dangerous no matter if you drop 5 250kg or 16 50kg. 

[Gambit21]

There is always reason to be skeptical, of everything, at all times - especially with regard to retrospecrive eye witness testemony involving a heavy emotional bias.

We'll agree to disagree there.

[=475FG=Dobs]

126lb warhead on truck

500lb bomb on truck.

126lb warhead on APC

2000lb warhead vs Connex

[Venturi]

Here is a 500lbs bomb. 

https://youtu.be/yNTpKYLK66g?t=1m21s

 

Here is another 500lbs bomb.

http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/air-strikes/500lb-bomb-dropped-on-insurgents/1902408244001#t=20s

 

And another

http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/air-strikes/three-500lb-bombs-in-afghanistan/942934842001

Edited December 6, 2017 by Venturi

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

Long story short..

Bombs Go BOOM!
Some bombs in game only go POP!

They need to implament Crew health for Ai tanks sp you can clear them by cooking crew just from pressure wave.

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

It’s quite likely that the developers will redesign tank protection as part of Tank Crew.

 

Now, the questionable effects of bombs are merely a small inconvenience. When waves of player-controlled tanks appear, these inconveniences will become potentially game-breaking.

[Finkeren]

Long story short..

 

Bombs Go BOOM!

Some bombs in game only go POP!

 

They need to implament Crew health for Ai tanks sp you can clear them by cooking crew just from pressure wave.

 

 

I’d like to see your source detailing how the blast overpressure of a nearby detonation affects the air pressure inside the crew compartment of a closed tank.

[VeryOldMan]

How exactly do you know that?

 

I thought the exact same way, but the more I study the subject, the more it looks like tanks are pretty damn resillient to close proximity high explosive detonations - even large ones.

The tanks can be resilient.. but they have humans inside. They were NOT hermetically sealed. Explode a 500 kg bomb a few meters from a tank  with  view slits and even if it was made of  magical  indestructible adamantium.. the crew would be dead by pressure variation and collapse of their lungs.

 

Also a 500 kg bomb  has enough strength to  turn upside down  any tank.

 

 

IF  tanks from the 80's  can be disabled by arti NEAR MISSES.. as supported by these army conducted study https://imgur.com/gallery/gIjCo a plane bomb that carry MUCH MUCH more payload than  an arti shell surely can do way more.

[Finkeren]

The tanks can be resilient.. but they have humans inside. They were NOT hermetically sealed. Explode a 500 kg bomb a few meters from a tank with view slits and even if it was made of magical indestructible adamantium.. the crew would be dead by pressure variation and collapse of their lungs.

 

Also a 500 kg bomb has enough strength to turn upside down any tank.

 

 

IF tanks from the 80's can be disabled by arti NEAR MISSES.. as supported by these army conducted study https://imgur.com/gallery/gIjCo a plane bomb that carry MUCH MUCH more payload than an arti shell surely can do way more.

Honestly I have been through a multiple page thread just a few months back on this exact topic, and I just don’t feel like going through it all one more time.

 

I just want to point out, that you are grossly over-estimating the fatal range of blast incident overpressure and underestimating the protection offered by being inside a closed off (not tightly sealed) steel box.

 

The distance at which the overpressure created by a 1000kg TNT equivalent explosion causes any lung damage at all to a person standing upright without any protection what-so-ever is around 100feet (that’s 28 meters) and for it to actually be fatal, you’ll have to be even closer. For shrapnel reasons it is very much not recommended to ever stand 100 feet away from a 2000lbs bomb going off, but it won’t be the overpressure that kills you.

 

A tank actually offers pretty good proction against this overpressure. No it is not hermetically sealed, but it doesn’t have to be, because the blast incident overpressure lasts only a small fraction of a second and not long enough for the pressure inside the tank to ever reach the level of the air outside. If you had to be in a tightly sealed box to be protected from overpressure, then you could knock out any bunker or pillbox with a single heavy artillery shell, because they are far, far less sealed off from their surroundings than the crew compartment of a tank.

 

That’s all I’m gonna say on the matter for now.