submerged torpedo tubes

[akmatov]

 Having fun looking at the designs and notice some ppl use submerged torpedo tubes and some are deliberately not using them.  AFAIK historically they were rarely used and more likely to provide a large open compartment below the waterline to suck in water if hit.

1) Are ppl finding them to be useful?

2) Were they ever used successfully historically?

[ccip]

On the first question, it depends. As an offensive weapon, not so much - but not because they're submerged, more because of the nature of torpedo technology. Early in the game, the torpedoes in them are very short-ranged and unreliable, so they're rarely effective. It's usually not worth maneuvering large ships to get the tubes lined up, because you're much better off keeping them on a steady course to let your gunners range in properly. Later in the game, you have far deadlier and more effective ships equipped with multiple swivel mounts taking over the offensive torpedo role.
Defensively though, they can be of some value. They prevent enemy ships from getting too close, even when they have a big numerical advantage. I've had many cases, both for me and my enemy, where even a badly damaged ship managed to torpedo an enemy that got too close while trying to finish it. One advantage to submerged torpedo tubes is that they're much harder to take out with gun hits than any deck mounts, so even a heavily damaged ship will usually retain them as a "stinger" for those that get too close. That's their one advantage over surface mounts.

All that considered, though, it's up to you. They're not useless, but since they "cost" you 23t per mount - well, you might find that saving that 23t for something else is a lot more useful. That's how I look at it, anyway.

[williammiller]

Sept 11, 2015 21:22:50 GMT -6 akmatov said:

 Having fun looking at the designs and notice some ppl use submerged torpedo tubes and some are deliberately not using them.  AFAIK historically they were rarely used and more likely to provide a large open compartment below the waterline to suck in water if hit.

1) Are ppl finding them to be useful?

2) Were they ever used successfully historically?

HMS Rodney hit the Bismarck with a 24.5" torpedo fired from a submerged mount during WW2 - that is the only hit against a BB by a torpedo fired by another BB that I am aware of, so it was obviously a pretty rare event.

[thecarthaginian]

I find my submerged torpedo tubes to be enormously useful... but I'm not playing 'the way I am supposed to.'

My games with the Confederacy assume that the CSN remained inordinately dependent upon the moored and later locomotive torpedo due to their smaller fleet size and the environments that they were set to defend... indeed, my Confederacy generally has enough submarines in the water that you could walk across Chesapeake Bay without getting your legs wet above the knees.

All my fastest ships have at least one torpedo tube (bow), most have two (P & S), and some of the largest have four (all directions).
I can count one hand the number of real battleships I've sunk with gunfire alone... almost every capital ship gets one torpedo at some point. In several battles, I've sunk more than one ship using torpedoes - and often enough, a small cruiser or destroyer will sink a capital ship using nothing BUT torpedoes.

[RNRobert]

In designing battleships, I rarely install torpedoes on them (In playing WC-NAW, I find that getting close enough to score a hit with a torpedo also means putting my ship at increased risk of being torpedoed myself, unless I'm finishing off a cripple). When rebuilding legacy battleships, I will sometimes remove tubes to save weight for other things. I occasionally put a couple on my CAs. Once, I even built a 2,000 ton CL with eight submerged tubes, just for the heck of it.

[trenton59]

I usually put torpedo tubes on all ships, but for battleships I don't expect to use them often, instead I use them to have an easy guide for torpedo ranges in battle, allowing the torpedo range circle to be displayed from the battleships.

[gornik]

I nearly always put torpedo tubes at any ship which may carry them. Usually two side; if there are plenty of free weight, another 2-3. Nearly after 1905 they become deadly weapon in night clashes, and nearly at 1920 they become useful in day battles too. Of course, there should be proper training, night fighting+torpedo warfare. I still see only ONE ship sunk from torpedo flat hit (which may survive without it), but dozens of enemies sunk by torpedoes. Largest advantage of submerged mounts is their ability to be recharged. As early battles are usually long enough, each mount may fire 3-4 times in battle. Though, they are not main weapon-just good bonus in equal battle.

And one time torpedo mounts made loosed battle a draw-in fight of two nearly equal cruisers my ship launched lucky torpedo to closing opponent some minutes before sinking. 

[genjeft]

Sept 12, 2015 9:05:45 GMT -6 williammiller said:

Sept 11, 2015 21:22:50 GMT -6 akmatov said:

 Having fun looking at the designs and notice some ppl use submerged torpedo tubes and some are deliberately not using them.  AFAIK historically they were rarely used and more likely to provide a large open compartment below the waterline to suck in water if hit.

1) Are ppl finding them to be useful?

2) Were they ever used successfully historically?

HMS Rodney hit the Bismarck with a 24.5" torpedo fired from a submerged mount during WW2 - that is the only hit against a BB by a torpedo fired by another BB that I am aware of, so it was obviously a pretty rare event.

HMS Rodney fired a total of 12 torpedoes at the Bismark, only one hit.

So not only was it rare it was rather ineffective as well.

[mikebrough]

Sept 12, 2015 23:14:41 GMT -6 genjeft said:

Sept 12, 2015 9:05:45 GMT -6 williammiller said:

HMS Rodney hit the Bismarck with a 24.5" torpedo fired from a submerged mount during WW2 - that is the only hit against a BB by a torpedo fired by another BB that I am aware of, so it was obviously a pretty rare event.

HMS Rodney fired a total of 12 torpedoes at the Bismark, only one hit.

So not only was it rare it was rather ineffective as well.

To be fair, an 8% hit rate is better than they tended to manage with the guns.

[genjeft]

Sept 13, 2015 1:27:04 GMT -6 mikebrough said:

Sept 12, 2015 23:14:41 GMT -6 genjeft said:

HMS Rodney fired a total of 12 torpedoes at the Bismark, only one hit.

So not only was it rare it was rather ineffective as well.

To be fair, an 8% hit rate is better than they tended to manage with the guns.

True. But then again considering the the time between the first pre-dreadnaught was built in 1893 (HMS Magnificent) and the last battleship being retired in 1992 (the USS Missouri) only once was there an opportunity for a battleship to fire a torpedo at another battle ship and then hit that other battleship. In the meantime there were a lot of occasions when battleships fired guns at other battleships and disable the other battleship.

Leads me to think that torpedoes are not a very flexible weapon compared to guns at least when mounted on battleships.

But they are still very useful as a weapon to finish off a ship that is disabled by gunfire. But that's the job for my massive fleet of destroyers to do not the battleships.

I do find it odd that the lead ship of the Majestic class of ships was named Magnificent. Usually the first ship of a class carries the name of the class of ship.