|
Post by Adseria on Feb 5, 2019 14:29:19 GMT -6
As I recall, many Japanese destroyers (eg Fubuki-class) had their torpedo launchers mounted in turrets to give them some protection against splinters and the like. I suggest having this as a simple tickbox in the ship design window, and if ticked, the torpedo launcher(s) is (are) less vulnerable to splinter damage and possibly very small shells/bombs, but, obviously, weigh more and are more expensive.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Feb 5, 2019 15:42:47 GMT -6
I always wondered what those boxy things around Japanese torp launchers were, interesting to know. I wonder how effective they were in practice?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 5, 2019 15:48:20 GMT -6
You are referring to the type 92 tube mount that had four tubes and was designed to fire 24” Type 93 oxygen torpedoes. It was used on destroyers and on light and heavy cruisers. Total weight of the mount minus torpedoes was 15 tons with a spray shield on destroyers but omitted on cruisers. With the shield the tube mount weighed 18 tons. It was possible to reload in three minutes. The tube was made of mild steel plate, .197 “thick with steel guides, 2” wide, running the length of the tube on each side and along the bottom. The crew was normally nine men. Source: Naval Technical Mission to Japan dated 1946 O-01-3 Japanese Torpedoes and Tubes Above-water tubes. web.archive.org/web/20141022175245/http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ%20Reports/USNTMJ-200D-0530-0549%20Report%200-01-3.pdf
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Feb 5, 2019 15:59:16 GMT -6
I do believe that the idea was to protect the torpedo tubes from a plunging shot from above. However, off the top of my head, I cannot recall an instance where this saved a ship.
The main danger with torpedoes was that the warhead detonates on the ship. The torpedo tubes themselves would provide splinter protection, assuming they were made of tough-ish metal and the odds of a direct hit not penetrating a turret from above are not high enough to justify the added weight. In fact, my grandfather was on a torpedo crew on a destroyer in the Royal Navy and he always said that the torpedo mount had to be flimsy in order to train it quickly and return it to loading position as soon as possible. A hunk of shielding on what are glorified metal tubes would not help this in the slightest. In fact, it may be even more dangerous as it may mean munitions are exposed on deck for longer, if training is poor.
Of course, this only stands for above-deck tubes. With lower deck or submerged tubes, the deck armour and decks are in the way.
All torpedo mounts have to have a hole in the front for the torpedo to exit from, whether in a turret or not.
In my opinion, a few inches of steel on top would not be enough to stop a lucky shot and therefore I would argue against the inclusion in RTW 2, purely because any 'benefits' would be so slight as to be negligible.
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Feb 5, 2019 16:11:32 GMT -6
I highly doubt anyone thought of these as giving any more protection than a shielded turret at most for example, certainly not against direct hits. Maybe it was used against splinters, maybe the weather, maybe the own armament's shockwave, but _some_ sort of ""armor"" was not unique to the japanese ships, thinking about the blast hood of the Mk.15 quint. mount for example. Plus ultimately, in my book I love RtW for the fact that it's largely up to the player to decide what "benefit is negligible".
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Feb 5, 2019 16:21:50 GMT -6
I highly doubt anyone thought of these as giving any more protection than a shielded turret at most for example, certainly not against direct hits. Maybe it was used against splinters, maybe the weather, maybe the own armament's shockwave, but _some_ sort of ""armor"" was not unique to the japanese ships, thinking about the blast hood of the Mk.15 quint. mount for example. Plus ultimately, in my book I love RtW for the fact that it's largely up to the player to decide what "benefit is negligible". I am not denying that there were *some* real-world benefits of some kind of covering such as weatherproofing and sonic percussion protection, but these effects are not modelled to such detail in RTW. The player must always decide on benefits of certain things but there is a point where this becomes ludicrous as the coding is not worth the impact on the game. I fear that a blast shield for torpedo tubes *just* falls into this category.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Feb 5, 2019 16:22:32 GMT -6
Sounds like a cool option for hull mounted torpedo launchers in RTG.
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Feb 5, 2019 17:03:54 GMT -6
I highly doubt anyone thought of these as giving any more protection than a shielded turret at most for example, certainly not against direct hits. Maybe it was used against splinters, maybe the weather, maybe the own armament's shockwave, but _some_ sort of ""armor"" was not unique to the japanese ships, thinking about the blast hood of the Mk.15 quint. mount for example. Plus ultimately, in my book I love RtW for the fact that it's largely up to the player to decide what "benefit is negligible". I am not denying that there were *some* real-world benefits of some kind of covering such as weatherproofing and sonic percussion protection, but these effects are not modelled to such detail in RTW. The player must always decide on benefits of certain things but there is a point where this becomes ludicrous as the coding is not worth the impact on the game. I fear that a blast shield for torpedo tubes *just* falls into this category. I noticed in the dev log (I think) that carrying catapult aircraft without a hangar can result in them being damaged at the start of a battle from the effects of weather. Maybe this presents an opportunity to extend that to other ship components?
|
|
|
Post by cwemyss on Feb 5, 2019 17:09:25 GMT -6
Fletcher Class had a shield on the aft mount... its not intended to protect from enemy fire, its intended to protect the crew against own-ships gun blast.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Feb 5, 2019 17:16:31 GMT -6
Thanks oldpop2000 for the reference. It states that the spray shield was .118 inches (3 mm) of sheet steel. Doesn't seem like it would provide much protection from splinters and none from shells. I don't think it was intended for that, just to protect the crew and firing/training mechanisms from sea spray and the elements as the name describes. Perhaps from blast effects as well as cwemyss described above.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 5, 2019 17:24:29 GMT -6
Thanks oldpop2000 for the reference. It states that the spray shield was .118 inches (3 mm) of sheet steel. Doesn't seem like it would provide much protection from splinters and none from shells. I don't think it was intended for that, just to protect the crew and firing/training mechanisms from sea spray and the elements as the name describes. Perhaps from blast effects as well as cwemyss described above. I agree that the thickness would not stop splinters or anything, but since destroyers are moving faster and rolling, pitching and yawing more, the salt spray would have to be eliminated. As to the blast effects, it really depends on where the torpedo tubes were place, for almost all their ships, they were on the sides, so I don't think blast effects has much to do with it. As with any naval specification, it is driven by requirements and those are driven by strategy and doctrine. The Japanese naval strategy of interceptive operations pushed the tacticians to begin to plan surface daylight torpedo warfare in two phases. The first was long-range torpedo salvos by cruisers and then a close-in assault by the destroyer flotillas. In the mid-1930’s the strategy changed to night combat again using the destroyer flotillas and cruisers. My assessment is that the enclosed torpedo tube concept was based on the close-in attacks, again battle doctrine drives requirements and those drive specifications.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Feb 5, 2019 17:38:38 GMT -6
From prior research, I long-ago concluded that the 3-5mm mild steel spray shields mentioned would not stop the vast majority of splinters that were large enough to seriously damage a torpedo installation, so in effect they do not act as any sort of armor protection for a mount & would not be added as such in RTW2.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Feb 5, 2019 21:50:12 GMT -6
Did some digging and Japanese discussion seems to refer these things as "Water-proofing Shields". Besides the Type-92 mounts they are also often fitted to many earlier models of torpedo mounts. Sadly my Japanese skill does not allow me to dig up any useful primary sources or official documents on these. But they are almost certainly not aimed to actually protects the torpedo mounts.Notably they are excluded from mounts on all the Japanese heavy cruisers, whose mounting location already shields them from worst of the spray. I have to say they look pretty cool tho.
Curious though that no other country seems to have adopted similar design for their torpedo mounts.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 5, 2019 22:18:01 GMT -6
Did some digging and Japanese discussion seems to refer these things as "Water-proofing Shields". Besides the Type-92 mounts they are also often fitted to many earlier models of torpedo mounts. Sadly my Japanese skill does not allow me to dig up any useful primary sources or official documents on these. But they are almost certainly not aimed to actually protects the torpedo mounts.Notably they are excluded from mounts on all the Japanese heavy cruisers, whose mounting location already shields them from worst of the spray. I have to say they look pretty cool tho. Curious though that no other country seems to have adopted similar design for their torpedo mounts. I did find that the Chokai was hit amidships from a 5 in gun of the carrier White Plains and this set off the eight deck mounted type 93 long-lance torpedoes which did have pure oxygen which is volatile along with the warhead. The damage knocked out her rudder and engines then US aircraft used her for target practice. She went dead in the water and was scuttled by torpedoes from a destroyer. Seems those torpedo tubes were not that good at protecting the ship. I did read that the side armor on those Type 92's was 5mm thick and in action would be turned facing forward for some protection. I don't think that helped much though.
|
|
|
Post by hrcak47 on Feb 6, 2019 5:33:07 GMT -6
Will we see quintuple and (theoretically) larger mounts in RtW 2?
|
|