F15E/1941

"Pete" wrote in message
...

"Bob Urz" wrote

Although i agree the nukes are a "finisher", i was thinking more along
the lines of conventional weapons to make it more interesting.
Would a agm-65 be usable in this situation? laser guided bombs
certainly would.

At this point, all we need to do is kill the flight deck, and disable as
many unlaunched planes as we can.
AGM-65 is probably too small to be effective.
F-15E can carry 8x500 lb (GBU-12 or MK-82). Use those. 2 ea holes in the
flight deck would take it out of action.


Much too short sighted. You want to kill all of the Japanese CVs. Otherwise,
a few hours later, the deck is patched and they're back in operation. At the
worst, all six would be back in business for the battles of 1942. Since the
Japanese CVs weren't armored to speak of, a GBU-10 with a Mk-84 warhead
should be the basic CV ship-killer. Two F-15Es should nail all six CVs with
one bomb per and an extra pair as backup and coup d'gras. I'd nail all CVs
and then pull back to maximum endurance loiter and observe Japanese damage
control efforts. At Bingo, either donate the remaining ordnance to the CVs
in best shape or retire to one of the undamaged fields on Oahu and try and
talk the duty officer out of twenty thousand pounds of kerosene to go back
and finish the job. But that wouldn't be likely to succeed.

This is tough, because a single bomb is really marginal against a large
ship. If the magazines were the aimpoint (with Google handy so that the WSO
could look it up for each ship) then the chances of sinking with a single
bomb goes up. Otherwise, a hit aft could put all four screws and possibly
rudders out of service. The ships killed at Midway were caught with all
manner of munitions and avgas available to help things along because of the
conflict between finishing off the Midway garrison and killing the US
carriers. It's unlikely that the Pearl Harbor strike would be that sloppy.

On Mon, 31 May 2004 17:15:50 -0400, "Paul F Austin"
wrote:

This is tough, because a single bomb is really marginal against a large
ship. If the magazines were the aimpoint (with Google handy so that the WSO
could look it up for each ship) then the chances of sinking with a single
bomb goes up. Otherwise, a hit aft could put all four screws and possibly
rudders out of service. The ships killed at Midway were caught with all
manner of munitions and avgas available to help things along because of the
conflict between finishing off the Midway garrison and killing the US
carriers. It's unlikely that the Pearl Harbor strike would be that sloppy.

I'd put the initial LGB hit aft, so that it takes out the landing area
- almost as good as killing the CVs would be killing most of the Kido
Butai. After all the Japanese were distinctly average after their
seasoned pilots were lost.

Peter Kemp

"Paul F Austin" wrote

Much too short sighted. You want to kill all of the Japanese CVs.
Otherwise,
a few hours later, the deck is patched and they're back in operation.

A few hours later, you have gone to Pearl, and notified HQ of the deal.

At the
worst, all six would be back in business for the battles of 1942. Since
the
Japanese CVs weren't armored to speak of, a GBU-10 with a Mk-84 warhead
should be the basic CV ship-killer. Two F-15Es should nail all six CVs
with
one bomb per and an extra pair as backup and coup d'gras. I'd nail all CVs
and then pull back to maximum endurance loiter and observe Japanese damage
control efforts.

Remember, 1/2 the attack force is already on the way. You need to slow them
down as much as possible.

At Bingo, either donate the remaining ordnance to the CVs
in best shape or retire to one of the undamaged fields on Oahu and try and
talk the duty officer out of twenty thousand pounds of kerosene to go back
and finish the job. But that wouldn't be likely to succeed.

This is tough, because a single bomb is really marginal against a large
ship.

Which is why I thought 16 MK-82 vs 8 MK-84. Smaller warhead, yes, but more
hits.

The real question is, can 2 Strike Eagles sink all 6 carriers? Maybe, maybe
not. There are only two of you, with limited ordnance. Slow them down as
much as possible until you can shake things up at Pearl.

Pete

"Pete" wrote in message
...

"Paul F Austin" wrote

Much too short sighted. You want to kill all of the Japanese CVs.
Otherwise,
a few hours later, the deck is patched and they're back in operation.

A few hours later, you have gone to Pearl, and notified HQ of the deal.

At the
worst, all six would be back in business for the battles of 1942. Since
the
Japanese CVs weren't armored to speak of, a GBU-10 with a Mk-84 warhead
should be the basic CV ship-killer. Two F-15Es should nail all six CVs
with
one bomb per and an extra pair as backup and coup d'gras. I'd nail all
CVs
and then pull back to maximum endurance loiter and observe Japanese
damage
control efforts.

Remember, 1/2 the attack force is already on the way. You need to slow
them
down as much as possible.

At Bingo, either donate the remaining ordnance to the CVs
in best shape or retire to one of the undamaged fields on Oahu and try
and
talk the duty officer out of twenty thousand pounds of kerosene to go
back
and finish the job. But that wouldn't be likely to succeed.

This is tough, because a single bomb is really marginal against a large
ship.

Which is why I thought 16 MK-82 vs 8 MK-84. Smaller warhead, yes, but more
hits.

The real question is, can 2 Strike Eagles sink all 6 carriers? Maybe,
maybe
not. There are only two of you, with limited ordnance. Slow them down as
much as possible until you can shake things up at Pearl.

Let's be clear. Pearl is out of the picture. There's nothing two USAF
"rocket planes" can do to change the outcome there. You aren't going to
divert the first strike and you aren't going to go up through the duty
officer chain and back down in time to set Condition Zebra. You can stop the
launch of the second strike, prevent recovery of any of the aircraft already
lauched and possibly destroy the Japanese carrier force on the first day of
the war. That's worth shooting for even if you exchange the antique
battleline in Pearl to do it.

500 pound bombs aren't ship killers for ships that size. 2000 pound bombs
may be. After thinking about it, a hard target penetrator fuzed to go off
after exiting below the keel may be the most lethal way of attacking large
ships. The explosive fill makes a torpedo look small and there's a fair
chance of breaking the ship's back.

In message , Paul F Austin
writes
500 pound bombs aren't ship killers for ships that size. 2000 pound bombs
may be. After thinking about it, a hard target penetrator fuzed to go off
after exiting below the keel may be the most lethal way of attacking large
ships. The explosive fill makes a torpedo look small and there's a fair
chance of breaking the ship's back.

21" torpedo warheads ran around ~800lb of Torpex at the time (UK Mark
VIII - 640lb Torpex for the US Mark 14), which sounds competitive for
BLU-109/B (if a bit smaller than Mark 84)

That said, if you could get an under-keel detonation with any of those,
it will *hurt* a ship of that era.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Paul J. Adam" wrote
Paul F Austin writes
500 pound bombs aren't ship killers for ships that size. 2000 pound bombs
may be. After thinking about it, a hard target penetrator fuzed to go off
after exiting below the keel may be the most lethal way of attacking
large
ships. The explosive fill makes a torpedo look small and there's a fair
chance of breaking the ship's back.

21" torpedo warheads ran around ~800lb of Torpex at the time (UK Mark
VIII - 640lb Torpex for the US Mark 14), which sounds competitive for
BLU-109/B (if a bit smaller than Mark 84)

That said, if you could get an under-keel detonation with any of those,
it will *hurt* a ship of that era.

You're right about the BLU-109 fill. Thanks for the correction. How does a
modern insensitive explosive fill compare to Torpex?

In message , Paul F Austin
writes
21" torpedo warheads ran around ~800lb of Torpex at the time (UK Mark
VIII - 640lb Torpex for the US Mark 14), which sounds competitive for
BLU-109/B (if a bit smaller than Mark 84)

That said, if you could get an under-keel detonation with any of those,
it will *hurt* a ship of that era.

You're right about the BLU-109 fill. Thanks for the correction.

Thanks for being gracious, I hope I'm as polite when corrected Just
an area where I had some figures in mind and others to hand.

How does a
modern insensitive explosive fill compare to Torpex?

Depends on role (and which 'insensitive fill' you mean). Torpedo
warheads are typically blast weapons, bombs are more interested in
fragmentation, and there are numerous exceptions to both those rules of
thumb.

'Torpex' was IIRC distinguished by its aluminium content to enhance
blast at the expense of brisance. I'm not a warhead expert, and the best
I can do is to suggest that going insensitive cost money but didn't
reduce lethality - and that modern explosive fills are both more
powerful and more stable than Torpex.


I'll stick with my opening gambit - either a 21" torpedo of the period
or a modern 2000lb bomb exploding under the keel of a 1941 carrier puts
into in that delightful Americanism, "a world of hurt".

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 11:04:51 +0100, "Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Paul F Austin
writes
500 pound bombs aren't ship killers for ships that size. 2000 pound bombs
may be. After thinking about it, a hard target penetrator fuzed to go off
after exiting below the keel may be the most lethal way of attacking large
ships. The explosive fill makes a torpedo look small and there's a fair
chance of breaking the ship's back.

21" torpedo warheads ran around ~800lb of Torpex at the time (UK Mark
VIII - 640lb Torpex for the US Mark 14), which sounds competitive for
BLU-109/B (if a bit smaller than Mark 84)

That said, if you could get an under-keel detonation with any of those,
it will *hurt* a ship of that era.

One hit from a US Sub blew the Taiho sky high. The Japanese were
notorious for filling their ships with avgas fumes.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard wrote:
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
In message , Paul F Austin
writes
500 pound bombs aren't ship killers for ships that size. 2000 pound
bombs may be. After thinking about it, a hard target penetrator fuzed to
go off after exiting below the keel may be the most lethal way of
attacking large ships. The explosive fill makes a torpedo look small and
there's a fair chance of breaking the ship's back.

21" torpedo warheads ran around ~800lb of Torpex at the time (UK Mark
VIII - 640lb Torpex for the US Mark 14), which sounds competitive for
BLU-109/B (if a bit smaller than Mark 84)

That said, if you could get an under-keel detonation with any of those,
it will *hurt* a ship of that era.

One hit from a US Sub blew the Taiho sky high. The Japanese were
notorious for filling their ships with avgas fumes.

So were we, at the start of the war. Witness what happened to the
Lexington.

I vaguely recall reading that the real problem with Japanese ships was
that they were using light, sweet crude from the Netherlands East
Indies, _unrefined_, as bunker fuel. This stuff would leak all sorts of
interesting volatiles around the interior of a ship if an attack
broached fuel tanks, and all it took was one spark...

-Marc
--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 20:18:00 -0700, (Marc Reeve) wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote:
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
In message , Paul F Austin
writes
500 pound bombs aren't ship killers for ships that size. 2000 pound
bombs may be. After thinking about it, a hard target penetrator fuzed to
go off after exiting below the keel may be the most lethal way of
attacking large ships. The explosive fill makes a torpedo look small and
there's a fair chance of breaking the ship's back.

21" torpedo warheads ran around ~800lb of Torpex at the time (UK Mark
VIII - 640lb Torpex for the US Mark 14), which sounds competitive for
BLU-109/B (if a bit smaller than Mark 84)

That said, if you could get an under-keel detonation with any of those,
it will *hurt* a ship of that era.

One hit from a US Sub blew the Taiho sky high. The Japanese were
notorious for filling their ships with avgas fumes.

So were we, at the start of the war. Witness what happened to the
Lexington.

I vaguely recall reading that the real problem with Japanese ships was
that they were using light, sweet crude from the Netherlands East
Indies, _unrefined_, as bunker fuel. This stuff would leak all sorts of
interesting volatiles around the interior of a ship if an attack
broached fuel tanks, and all it took was one spark...

-Marc

True, but the Japanese never did figure out that CO2 inerting could save
a carrier. What happened to the Lex involved far more than a single
torpedo hit, the Lex took at least two torpedoes and an unknown number
of bomb hits. The explosions are thought to have been the result of
damaged bunker fuel tanks.

Al Minyard