High Alt Bombers vs Dive Bombers

[drgondog]

Thanks Dragon, I appreciate the math.

So the dive bomber gives it more speed, imparting more energy at the hit point. But the projectile is smaller (talking the Pearl Harbor bombing here) so the 1600lb bomb might hit with about the same amount of energy as the 800lb bomb.

What about weight against armor and penetrating ability. Will a heavier bomb retain more penetrating ability once it penetrates the deck armor and allow it to penetrate the magazine armor? Does the deck armor take more energy away from a smaller bomb than a large one?

In my opinion - yes - given same basic design of the bomb and the same relative velocities. When the velocity difference is high - a lighter projectile can lay a LOT of energy on a target - visualize a modern AT round on an M1 Abrams.

In general during WWII, the delayed action, heavy armor piercing bomb frequently penetrated surface armor on BB's whereas something like a 500 pound Mk82 might crater but not penetrate.

 

[Theo]

Question: The Val could carry a 500 lb or 500 Kg bomb? I read both figures being used.

 

[syscom3]

Question: The Val could carry a 500 lb or 500 Kg bomb? I read both figures being used.

500 pounds was the payload.

 

[kool kitty89]

I think it was actually a 250 kg bomb, so 550 lbs.

 

[Vincenzo]

afaik max payload was a 250 kg bomb under fuselage and a 60 kg bomb under each wing

 

[Theo]

250Kg yeah that was it.

 

[timshatz]

In my opinion - yes - given same basic design of the bomb and the same relative velocities. When the velocity difference is high - a lighter projectile can lay a LOT of energy on a target - visualize a modern AT round on an M1 Abrams.

In general during WWII, the delayed action, heavy armor piercing bomb frequently penetrated surface armor on BB's whereas something like a 500 pound Mk82 might crater but not penetrate.

Ok DD, kinda figured as much. Mass has a power all it's own.