Advanced Torpedoes (And Technology)

[tbr]

Mar 5, 2021 12:56:41 GMT -6 nimrod said:

Chaosblade,

If logistics came into being, than I would sure think that the more types of what ever which are in service your maintenance costs should go up with decreasing "efficiency" (what ever that looks like in game) due to logistical mishaps.

Depends on the ship and the torps - last ship sunk in combat by a torpedo that I know of was the Argentinian General Belgrano. The British sub used 1920's style torps with heavier warheads as they didn't think the modern Tigerfish torps packed enough punch or were reliable enough for use.

Guns have two sets of randomization applied to their base values - armor type and ammo. Ammo has two technology branches (AP and HE) and the ability to select which to use in the doctrine page. I think this sort of tech / load-out layout (a couple of branches in tech and customization in the doctrine page) would work for torps / missiles / airships / etc. However the customization and randomization found with guided AC development allows for a much greater replay value and country customization in my opinion. I would love to see guided gun development as well; allow me to focus on range, shell weight / penetration and HE effect, gun weight, reliability, reload rate, traverse / gun laying speed, etc. I don't see the programmers changing the guns from a functioning system - lot of calculations in the programing that would need to take care of a much larger number of variables. Missiles, torps and airships are pretty un-developed though; and any fleshing out might be done on a relatively empty plate... Who knows they might have already fleshed them out in manner that guns are; and I would be happy with that!

The Belgrano was sunk by Mark VIII* straight runners because the then new homing Tigerfish was the worst torpedo of the Cold War, in 1982 it hat a failure rate of well above 80% and even with subsequent improvements it never got reliably down below 60%. That's the reason the Spearfish was developed and introduced rather quickly.

Three ships have been sunk since WWII:

in 1971 INS Khukri en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Khukri_(F149)

in 1982 ARA General Belgrano en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano

and in 2010 ROKS Cheonan en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan

One other ship was sunk by HWT after 1945, but this was a Chinese National ship sunk by PLAN torpedo boats in 1948 IIRC, so arguably still within the WWII conflict scope. The USS Liberty was hit by an Israeli MTB fired HWT but survived.

[chaosblade]

Mar 5, 2021 12:56:41 GMT -6 nimrod said:

Chaosblade,

If logistics came into being, than I would sure think that the more types of what ever which are in service your maintenance costs should go up with decreasing "efficiency" (what ever that looks like in game) due to logistical mishaps.

Depends on the ship and the torps - last ship sunk in combat by a torpedo that I know of was the Argentinian General Belgrano. The British sub used 1920's style torps with heavier warheads as they didn't think the modern Tigerfish torps packed enough punch or were reliable enough for use.

Guns have two sets of randomization applied to their base values - armor type and ammo. Ammo has two technology branches (AP and HE) and the ability to select which to use in the doctrine page. I think this sort of tech / load-out layout (a couple of branches in tech and customization in the doctrine page) would work for torps / missiles / airships / etc. However the customization and randomization found with guided AC development allows for a much greater replay value and country customization in my opinion. I would love to see guided gun development as well; allow me to focus on range, shell weight / penetration and HE effect, gun weight, reliability, reload rate, traverse / gun laying speed, etc. I don't see the programmers changing the guns from a functioning system - lot of calculations in the programing that would need to take care of a much larger number of variables. Missiles, torps and airships are pretty un-developed though; and any fleshing out might be done on a relatively empty plate... Who knows they might have already fleshed them out in manner that guns are; and I would be happy with that!

I do like the idea of some degree of logistics in game, so having, say, less type of guns would net players some bonus or malus for the alternative.

more depth to gun development, and shell types, or reliability concerns could add some depth to your gameplay and increase variance of ship designs.

As for torpedoes, yeah, but with increased lethalty in torpedoes, assuming proximity detonation of some form, and enhanced guidance (magnetic, acoustic, wire) make surface combatants more and more perilous, at some point we should have potential Torp visibility (at some level of Sonar development?) specially if we are getting more sub content as well
Hmmm... wonder if an active torp defense could be possible? not just decoys and the like but anti torp torpedoes

[nimrod]

TBR,

Thanks and please forgive the following wall of text. I don't mean to derail from SeaWolfs gameplay / tech suggestions.

I forgot about the Cheonan and I'm unfamiliar with the USS Liberty incident. Thank you for pointing the post WWII sinkings out.

No arguments on the Tigerfish being the worst torpedo in modern history / cold war. I apologize as I thought I had noted the lack of reliability adequately immediately after noting the warhead.

My point which might have been missed (and was an attempt to tie into SeaWolfs OP) was to show a real world example of a ship / sub having access to multiple torpedoes with vastly different characteristics. The use of an ASW or anti-DD torpedo on a capital ship may very well not result in a mission or hard kill. Translating in game, I think different spec torpedoes would be warranted and that we shouldn't just see "new and improved" with every iteration like we do today. I think keeping slow, large warheaded "obsolete" torpedoes around to deal with capital ships and also have smaller nimbler torpedoes around for anti-DD or KE or dare I say ASW work in the 60s and 70s - would be awesome. We get to mix and match our AP / HE / SAP load outs and when they are used; I don't think it a huge stretch to write that this has historical examples for inclusion with torpedoes and missiles as well.

In game from about 1930 on, I notice that my DDs stop mission killing capital ships with a torp or two. It seems to take a good number of them to significantly slow down a capital ship (fairly routinely 4 or more by the mid 40's). A torp or two from a CA seems to still mission kill a BC or BB. As such I do see some in game evidence of different torpedo sizes / base damage based on the launching ship class... It might be 18" torps for DD and 21" for CA and larger like Steam and Iron; but I can't confirm.

Getting away from the game and into history. The original Mark VIII was a 1925-1927 design. Various articles on the sinking of the General Belgrano refer the Mark VIII** (or Mod 4 depending on source ) as WWII torps; which isn't accurate... I kind of think it is like calling the 2020 Ford F-150 a 1970-1980's truck. But the Mark VIII Mod 4 torps were a heavily modified late 1920's style - style in my mind being defined by straight running, large warhead, designed for attacking surface ships exclusively and I might note some things on the engine as well.

I recall the Captain of the sub (Chris) commenting on the heavier warheads (800 lbs) as a significant reason for using it over the Tigerfish with lighter (300 lbs) warheads (might have been a reporter / author putting words in his mouth). The Tigerfish was designed as an anti-sub torpedo and might not even have had the surface attack programing mod / upgrade done at that time. The mod 1 I think officially came into fleet service around 1982-83, but I'm going off of memory here and something is niggling at the back of my mind about an emergency ad-hoc upgrade or rollout pre-fleet acceptance testing in the late 70s. Going from memory again, I recall that a Tigerfish was kept in the fourth tube for anti-DD work as the Mark VIII slower speed made them less than ideal against an alert and nimble foe. Point being, Captain Chris in the reports I've read had been very diplomatic about the un-reliability of the Tigerfish, there were suitability and even usability issues likely at play on the warhead size and speed and that went beyond simple reliability concerns.

The wikipedia article notes that the torpedo bulge was missed on the General Belgrano, yet the internal anti-torp measures held in case of the hit on the bow. The hit on the stern was again off of the torp bulge from what I read and can recall that if she was hit by Tigerfish torpedoes in the same spots it is plausible, approaching reasonable, that the ship would have stayed afloat and potentially been towed back to port.

To quote: "One of the torpedoes struck 10 to 15 metres (33 to 49 ft) aft of the bow, outside the area protected by either the ship's side armour or the internal anti-torpedo bulge. This blew off the ship's bow, but the internal torpedo bulkheads held and the forward powder magazine for the 40 mm gun did not detonate. It is believed that none of the ship's company were in that part of the ship at the time of the explosion.

The second torpedo struck about three-quarters of the way along the ship, just outside the rear limit of the side armour plating. The torpedo punched through the side of the ship before exploding in the aft machine room. The explosion tore upward through two messes and a relaxation area called "the Soda Fountain" before finally ripping a 20-metre-long hole in the main deck. Later reports put the number of deaths in the area around the explosion at 275 men. After the explosion, the ship rapidly filled with smoke. The explosion also damaged General Belgrano's electrical power system, preventing her from putting out a radio distress call. Though the forward bulkheads held, water was rushing in through the hole created by the second torpedo and could not be pumped out because of the electrical power failure. In addition, although the ship should have been "at action stations", she was sailing with the water-tight doors open."

[seawolf]

nimrod , it looks like all surface torps in game are 20", you can check by saving the game while they're running and checking the .sac file

Not sure if that changes over time

Also checked aerial torps and they're 18"

[nimrod]

Thanks SeaWolf! I did not know how to check battle data.

Guess I'll have to come up with another theory then... Might have just been bad luck, but in three different battles in the same war; Japan vs Russia. I twice failed to slow down the same Russian BB. First battle it took a confirmed 3 DD torps in the 2nd battle it slowed down a few knots on the 4th DD torp hit but she again escaped. She sank from 2 torps from a CA in the third battle. I've had similar experiences in other battles with torps from CAs stopping a BB with two torps while those targeted by DDs soak them up like a paper-towel in water. I don't recall the torpedoes are defective event in those wars / battles. I'll pay close attention to the gunfire from the CAs as well; it could be a deciding factor.

Thanks again for checking!

[tbr]

Nimrod, I do not know of mixed load HWT on the same surface ship. Mixed load HWT on submarines was for a time "normal" before true dual purpose (anti-sub and anti-surface) HWT became widely available at the very end of the Cold War. Mixed load LWT was "normal" for navies which, unlike e,g, the USN, had operational responsibility in "true" shallow water where the "standard" LWT of the Cold War, the Mk46, would stick in the mud due to the "spool up" dive taking too long (the Mk46 and other LWT needs about 50m of water depth at entry point). The German Navy and the Royal Navy operated modified Mk44 (called the DM4A1 in Germany) with pre-entry activation for shallow water scenarios in parallel to the Mk46. The royal Navy operated its Mk44 derivate even longer than the Mk46...

[Deleted]

I remember oxygen torpedoes had very minimal effect ingame

Has that been changed?


Any word on being able to mod torpedoes?

[navalperson]

Not sure if this is simulated in the game but maybe make Japanese torpedos a little more dangerous to simulate their effectiveness during World War 2 like the long lance torpedoes?

[christian]

Mar 14, 2021 0:44:16 GMT -6 expendable said:

I remember oxygen torpedoes had very minimal effect ingame

Has that been changed?


Any word on being able to mod torpedoes?

Working on testing it

there have been no patch notes fixing it so im assuming they are still broken since last time i tested them



for anyone wondering oxygen torpedoes offered no range increase or performance in combat when equipped

[seawolf]

Mar 16, 2021 7:38:32 GMT -6 christian said:

Mar 14, 2021 0:44:16 GMT -6 expendable said:

I remember oxygen torpedoes had very minimal effect ingame

Has that been changed?


Any word on being able to mod torpedoes?

Working on testing it

there have been no patch notes fixing it so im assuming they are still broken since last time i tested them



for anyone wondering oxygen torpedoes offered no range increase or performance in combat when equipped

Someone had calculated it was 10% speed and range bonuses at some point

[christian]

Mar 16, 2021 12:01:32 GMT -6 seawolf said:

Mar 16, 2021 7:38:32 GMT -6 christian said:

Working on testing it

there have been no patch notes fixing it so im assuming they are still broken since last time i tested them



for anyone wondering oxygen torpedoes offered no range increase or performance in combat when equipped

Someone had calculated it was 10% speed and range bonuses at some point

Still rather depressing considering how fatal they can be if hit


i will test them this week probably and see if they do anything