Aft Torpedoes Fire!

[dizzy]

getyarn.io/yarn-clip/embed/662f6000-002a-45d6-8e04-627c3bc62dbb?

I'm having some success with large CL's (11k+ tons) in the Dreadnought era before fire control gets better and was thinking of adding Aft Torps on my CL's, something I've not done... Considering how I'm maneuvering them in and out of B formations, I think it might be nice to have an aft torp. Anyone know the effective arc of these weapons?

[tbr]

In my experience the aft submerged torpedo tube is the last one to be fired (after the four lateral and the forward one). The problem is that, unless you are fleeing from a pursuing enemy, the firing solutions for the aft tube are usually valid only for very short instances.

Howerver: IMO the "submerged tube" penalty of inability to fire beyond (IIRC) 25kn platform speed should not apply to aft tubes (definitely) and to forward tubes. Perhaps should inlcude this in the RTW2 discussion, together with torpedo course presetters as a 1912 technology (i.e. torpedoes that can be set to a run course different from the tube bearing, effectively widening the firing angles massively, included e.g. in the German H8)

[dizzy]

That is a really good point!

[randomizer]

So, the water churned up by the super-cavitation of screws at speed would have zero effect on torpedoes fired through the wake? Cavitating propellers in the RTW era could even affect the stern of the largest ships by measurable amounts so imagine what that turbulence might do to the course of a torpedo passing through. Submarine stern tubes exist in a different dynamic as they will almost never be cavitating during a torpedo attack and the tubes are usually above the propeller axis. The current penalty in RTW might just be understated.

[dizzy]

Good point as well.

[tbr]

Feb 14, 2019 13:46:25 GMT -6 randomizer said:

So, the water churned up by the super-cavitation of screws at speed would have zero effect on torpedoes fired through the wake? Cavitating propellers in the RTW era could even affect the stern of the largest ships by measurable amounts so imagine what that turbulence might do to the course of a torpedo passing through. Submarine stern tubes exist in a different dynamic as they will almost never be cavitating during a torpedo attack and the tubes are usually above the propeller axis. The current penalty in RTW might just be understated.

No, for a torpedo which gets launch impetus (air pressure or black powder charge) the transit through there is short enough to avoid such influences. Also keep in mind that the screws/props would be well ahead of the aft tube axit point.

[MateDow]

The roiled water for a ship at high speed has to have at least as disruptive an effect as the slipstream along the sides of a vessel. It might not be the force shearing the body of the torpedo, but it will still be disruptive to the track of the weapon.

You might be able to fire the weapon, but you won't know what random heading changes were induced by the wake.

[rimbecano]

Feb 15, 2019 0:46:09 GMT -6 MateDow said:

The roiled water for a ship at high speed has to have at least as disruptive an effect as the slipstream along the sides of a vessel. It might not be the force shearing the body of the torpedo, but it will still be disruptive to the track of the weapon.

You might be able to fire the weapon, but you won't know what random heading changes were induced by the wake.

Torpedoes with gyroscopes had already been introduced by the turn of the century, so any disruption to the heading caused by the wake would be corrected as soon as the fish was clear of the wake.

[cwemyss]

It would absolutely stabilize and run straight.... but would it track back to the intended heading, or would it go off dead-straight in whatever random direction the wake pushed it to?

[tbr]

Torpedoes with gyroscopes could be set to a course relative to the gyro's orientation when it is spun up in the tube (Gradlaufapparat), so the would correct for this effect. The limit on speed for launch from submerged side-tubes has nothing to do with "slipstream" and any dispruptive effect but everything to do with the difficulty of launching a 5-8m cylinder from a tube that is subjected to a powerful bending force... There is too much danger of damaging (warping) the torpedo or even outright jamming it in the tube. Tody stern launch is standard for heavyweight torpedoes (albeit with above water tubes), and they enter the water not far from the center of the quoted "turbulence".

[dizzy]

So what's the consensus here? Seems like the 25kn speed for aft launched torps should be removed.