22 Torpedos?

[NuclearNadal]

Ok so I did a quick test in the modern battleship mission and I let the destroyers close to torpedo range and let them fire as many as they could. I counted them and it came out to 22 hits and to around 63% structural damage. This really needs to be fixed along with the damage model as while it’s a good concept it just has to many things that prevent catastrophic damage to ships. 

[Wurstsalat]

Why do ppl keep posting this. Its the second post ive seen you make about this. Its being adressed in the next patch.

EDIT: Its the 3rd time you bring it up now.

Edited October 16, 2019 by Wurstsalat

[NuclearNadal]

2 hours ago, Wurstsalat said:

Why do ppl keep posting this. Its the second post ive seen you make about this. Its being adressed in the next patch jeez.

EDIT: Its the 3rd time you bring it up now.

It’s a test I comepleted to back up the point. So far I haven’t seen anyone else give a measurable scale of torpedo hits>damage. This give the devs valuable information (hopefully) in order to properly balance and assess how much torpedo damage should be amplified. Notice how in previous posts I mention both super dreadnoughts and Pre-dreadnoughts and the respective amounts of torpedos required to sink them (+- a few). Now the devs can properly adjust given the type of damage received by various ship types especially the larger ones. 

Maybe I should bring it up again, just to make sure  

[Brig at sea]

It is a known issue. Developers already mentioned that small hot fix is arriving this week with torpedo fix and ui change that will increase FPS under fire. 

[NuclearNadal]

1 minute ago, Brig at sea said:

It is a known issue. Developers already mentioned that small hot fix is arriving this week with torpedo fix and ui change that will increase FPS under fire. 

Yes it is, and again, I’ve seen the post about it. However based on the importance of the Torpedo in naval warfare, it feels quite important that it change and yes, I have posted about it before and perhaps to much but giving a scale of damage or in this case, non damage, is much better than a bunch of us whining and complaining a whole bunch until the damage it gotten right, multiple patches later. 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

24 minutes ago, NuclearNadal said:

Yes it is, and again, I’ve seen the post about it. However based on the importance of the Torpedo in naval warfare, it feels quite important that it change and yes, I have posted about it before and perhaps to much but giving a scale of damage or in this case, non damage, is much better than a bunch of us whining and complaining a whole bunch until the damage it gotten right, multiple patches later. 

Please, keep reporting all you see, it is very helpful. I admire your passion, but counsel patience. Torpedoes are already being prioritized, and I rather suspect will be again several more times before the end. If you think all will be fixed with one patch, you might be disappointed. Trial and error, trial and error. 

You document hits, but not the size or type of torpedo, or mention the armor quality they are impacting. Surely you don't think a generation I 'Fish' torpedo would punch a hole in the USS Texas? Quick example: I invite you to revisit the US Mark 14 torpedo and its real world teething problems when the developers refused to believe the field reports regarding problems. Torpedoes are tricky beasts, and have come a long way since Admiral Howell instituted the first successful US torpedo development program back in 1890 because it was too expensive to buy them from Britain. 

I'm not speaking for Nick, but this a matter of balancing armor quality and warhead efficacy based on technology.  And it isn't happening in a vacuum, there are innumerable moving parts to this issue. This will remain one factor in a massive balancing act until the end of development. Because whenever you change this, it will affect not only what you are looking at but about 12 other things as well. Lots of minor tweaks happen behind the curtain. 

Game development is a marathon, not a sprint. Some patience is required or you will burn out hyper-focusing on this one issue in a week rather than following the pack to the finish line. Just a suggestion on patterns I have seen before. 

Good luck, and I hope to see you with us for some time to come. 

[Christian]

10 hours ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:

Please, keep reporting all you see, it is very helpful. I admire your passion, but counsel patience. Torpedoes are already being prioritized, and I rather suspect will be again several more times before the end. If you think all will be fixed with one patch, you might be disappointed. Trial and error, trial and error. 

You document hits, but not the size or type of torpedo, or mention the armor quality they are impacting. Surely you don't think a generation I 'Fish' torpedo would punch a hole in the USS Texas? Quick example: I invite you to revisit the US Mark 14 torpedo and its real world teething problems when the developers refused to believe the field reports regarding problems. Torpedoes are tricky beasts, and have come a long way since Admiral Howell instituted the first successful US torpedo development program back in 1890 because it was too expensive to buy them from Britain. 

I'm not speaking for Nick, but this a matter of balancing armor quality and warhead efficacy based on technology.  And it isn't happening in a vacuum, there are innumerable moving parts to this issue. This will remain one factor in a massive balancing act until the end of development. Because whenever you change this, it will affect not only what you are looking at but about 12 other things as well. Lots of minor tweaks happen behind the curtain. 

Game development is a marathon, not a sprint. Some patience is required or you will burn out hyper-focusing on this one issue in a week rather than following the pack to the finish line. Just a suggestion on patterns I have seen before. 

Good luck, and I hope to see you with us for some time to come. 

armor does not protect against torpedoes 

ship armor belts dont extend far enough below the water to matter

 

 

[Naval Enthusiast]

@Christian

Don't have the game yet, just going to chime in on a historical/technical point.

There were innumerable types of armor that were employed against Torpedos. You're right that the belt doesn't help against Torpedos, but that's not what the belt is for. Torpedo protection systems can usually be found in the shape of a relatively thin plate (to trigger the torpedo) followed by a whole load of air, water, coal or whatever else there is (the British Nelson-class famously being designed with massive water reservoirs in its torpedo protection array as a way to bypass the limitations of the Washington Naval Treaty). This room is followed by another room that is very similarly structured and you repeat the process depending on how well you want to protect against under-water threats. It's essentially very similar in concept and principle to the double/triple bottoms that were developed against mines.

The other factor protecting large ships from torpedo damage is compartmentalization (aka, how many bulkheads you have and how thick they are). The flooding that a successful torpedo hit can cause is catastrophic, but can be easily localized and diminished by properly closing bulkheads and appropriate pumping efforts. For every famous story of the Yamato and Prince of Wales being sunk by torpedo attacks, there are dozens of lesser known stories about multiple US cruisers having their entire bows literally blown off by Japanese "Long Lances" and happily returning to a friendly port with minimal casualties. The Bismarck was famously crippled by a hit near the rudder, but few people mention that most other torpedo hits scored against it in its final battle did no discernable damage.

Overall, I think that the true effectiveness of Torpedos is heavily overstated in the community at the moment. I cannot comment on their current state in-game (but from the footage I've seen they do look like they need to be buffed), but they shouldn't be some invisible, competition-less godkillers like some people make them out to be.

Their warped reception might be because the cases in which torpedos sank ships are far more famous than the many more cases in which ships survived torpedo hits, obviously because ships sinking are a big deal that is talked about, whilst ships surviving is what you'd expect of them and what they were designed for.

[NamodMG]

All the angst about torpedo damage is one side, I am taking aim at the other.

How often are torpedo duds? From my experience in game very seldom, and I personally think that should be changed a bit as well. Not every torpedo should sink a ship, and not every torpedo should actually detonate.

[Christian]

On 10/10/2019 at 4:52 PM, Naval Enthusiast said:

@Christian

Don't have the game yet, just going to chime in on a historical/technical point.

There were innumerable types of armor that were employed against Torpedos. You're right that the belt doesn't help against Torpedos, but that's not what the belt is for. Torpedo protection systems can usually be found in the shape of a relatively thin plate (to trigger the torpedo) followed by a whole load of air, water, coal or whatever else there is (the British Nelson-class famously being designed with massive water reservoirs in its torpedo protection array as a way to bypass the limitations of the Washington Naval Treaty). This room is followed by another room that is very similarly structured and you repeat the process depending on how well you want to protect against under-water threats. It's essentially very similar in concept and principle to the double/triple bottoms that were developed against mines.

The other factor protecting large ships from torpedo damage is compartmentalization (aka, how many bulkheads you have and how thick they are). The flooding that a successful torpedo hit can cause is catastrophic, but can be easily localized and diminished by properly closing bulkheads and appropriate pumping efforts. For every famous story of the Yamato and Prince of Wales being sunk by torpedo attacks, there are dozens of lesser known stories about multiple US cruisers having their entire bows literally blown off by Japanese "Long Lances" and happily returning to a friendly port with minimal casualties. The Bismarck was famously crippled by a hit near the rudder, but few people mention that most other torpedo hits scored against it in its final battle did no discernable damage.

Overall, I think that the true effectiveness of Torpedos is heavily overstated in the community at the moment. I cannot comment on their current state in-game (but from the footage I've seen they do look like they need to be buffed), but they shouldn't be some invisible, competition-less godkillers like some people make them out to be.

Their warped reception might be because the cases in which torpedos sank ships are far more famous than the many more cases in which ships survived torpedo hits, obviously because ships sinking are a big deal that is talked about, whilst ships surviving is what you'd expect of them and what they were designed for.

according to all i have read torpedoes were far from lackluster in performance and not alot of torpedoes were required to sink capital ships 

as can be seen for most ships it did not take alot of torpedoes to sink them or cripple them

it is also to be mentioned airborne torpedoes usually had less explosives in them 

(most if not all american battleships which were crippled at pearl harbour would have been sunk if not in shallow harbour same goes for the italian battleships)

an example of how easy it could be to sink ships with torpedoes is the blucher during the invasion of norway in 1940 

she was hit by 2 whitehead torpedoes of 18 inch in size from 1894 from the Norwegian land based torpedo launchers

these torpedoes had a warhead weight of a mere 53kg of guncotton yet 2 hits from a 280mm gun (hitting the conning tower and aircraft hangar) combined with the 2 torpedo hits managed to sink one of the best heavy cruisers in 1940

 

when comparing long lance hits on american cruisers part of the reason why said cruisers did not sink was that they suffered singular hits which were placed on the bows or the stern which usually did not result in enough flooding to sink the ship (compared to something like an engine room hit) as the volume in the bow or stern section is significantly lower than the center

but these singular hits were often devastating enough to put them out of the fight leaving them unable to make any speed at risk of the bulkhead collapsing and hull damage (ships had to be towed stern first or reverse all the way back to harbour or just towed in case of stern hits) 

 

in addition to this its important to note that american cruisers were known for having excellent damage control and that their bulkheads were exceptionally resilient (no surprise when they are thicker than the belt armor) 

also said list does not account for pre dreadnought sinkings by torpedoes nor does it include a list of ships for carriers or cruisers

i will list the remaining ships here

and at this point i realize that adding 87 ship names being sunk by torpedoes serves no effort so i will just link the wiki page and tell you have many were sunk by torpedoes

list of us ships sunk (all of the ships on the list sunk)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_Navy_ships_sunk_or_damaged_in_action_during_World_War_II

ctrl F and search torpedo and out of the 90 results 87 of them are ships being hit by torpedoes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Royal_Navy_losses_in_World_War_II 

this one is harder to find but basically any uboat sinkings on warships were with torpedoes 

2 austro Hungarian battleships were also lost the pre dreadnought WIEN and the dreadnought Szent istvan

Szent istvan was sunk by two 450mm torpedoes the WIEN was sunk by 14 inch torpedoes (two of them)

https://www.historynet.com/naval-weaponry-italys-mas-torpedo-boats.htm

source for torpedo size 

even these small torpedoes managed to sink 2 large battleships

out of the 8 american heavy cruisers sunk in ww2 7 were sunk partly or fully to torpedoes

the american cruisers might have had large luck with surviving torpedoes but that did not make them immune and still a large number of ships fell to torpedoes

Quote

there are dozens of lesser known stories about multiple US cruisers having their entire bows literally blown off by Japanese "Long Lances" and happily returning to a friendly port with minimal casualties.

i wouldnt call getting your foreward turret magazine blown up and losing your bow as a result happily returning to friendly port with minimal casualties 

i quote from wiki "Everyone in turrets one and two perished." "A total of 183 men were killed" 

every single man in the 48 meter long section of the bow and the front turrets were dead

she also had to reverse to the nearest port and get a "fake bow" fitted which enabled her to go back to a proper port to be repaired

also to be noted calling it 

Quote

dozens of lesser known stories about multiple US cruisers having their entire bows literally blown off by Japanese "Long Lances"

is wrong there are 3 american cruisers which survived having their bows blown off

those are (in order of damage dealt to the ships top is most bottom is lowest)

USS New Orleans

USS Minneapolis 

USS Pittsburgh (suffered a small amount of  damage which allowed her to still sail forewards even with her lost bow)

and of those only 2 had them blown off by long lances pittsburg was hit by a storm which tore her bow off no man was lost 

 

there are some other ships which had their bows blown off

HMS eskimo (destroyer) would probably have sunk if the torpedo had hit another spot 

a gearing which i dont know the name of losing its bow and front turret https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7b/41/c2/7b41c2465a4acd12efc955d4d6026cfd.jpg

and an italian light cruiser having its bow mostly torn off https://i.imgur.com/vy4ABCl.jpg

and then include around 10-20 destroyers or small destroyer escorts losing their bows in storms specifically japanese destroyers during a specific storm

 

it is to be noted damage to the bow is usually not fatal for smaller ships as they are quite compartmentalized and when losing the bow the weight they loose is usually enough so that the lost buoyancy does not matter although the ship usually becomes front heavy 

hits to areas with more volume (such as engines or the mid section) usually cause alot more damage and result in almost instant sinkings as small ships dont have TDS

 

this means instead of losing a bow the ship splits in 2 

Quote

There were innumerable types of armor that were employed against Torpedos.

true but the problem is that even singular torpedoes could do immense damage such as yamato taking on 3000 tons of water after taking a torpedo hit

or the north Carolina taking on 1600 tons of water after being hit by a torpedo

or the Indianapolis sinking after just 2 japanese midget submarine torpedoes  

the TDS systems just cant cover the bow and stern there is not enough room so any hit in those areas is bound to do extreme amount of damage

Quote

The Bismarck was famously crippled by a hit near the rudder, but few people mention that most other torpedo hits scored against it in its final battle did no discernable damage.

this is not true

following segment is from http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_Bismarck.php 

Quote

"At dusk, a torpedo attack was made by Swordfish biplane torpedo bombers from Victorious, which had drawn to within 200 miles of Bismarck's position during the early evening of 24 May. The torpedo planes made their attacks, but were only able to make one hit. The torpedo struck the 320-mm main armor belt on the starboard side between the forward command tower and the funnel. The shock effect of this explosion was substantial, throwing one crew member against the superstructure, killing him, and severely injuring six men in the forward starboard turbo-generator room (Compartment XIV) inboard of the point of torpedo detonation.⁸

The torpedo detonation also displaced emergency damage control shoring and hammock patches in the welds, and weakened already damaged structure on the port side. This resulted in the complete flooding of a forward boiler room on the port side. The considerable shock effect from the firing of the 37mm and 105mm guns contributed to loosening the shoring. The loss of the boiler room had been anticipated, as progressive flooding had never been completely arrested, and two boilers had already been secured, reducing Bismarck's speed. In addition, the zig-zagging and violent turns made to avoid torpedoes tore away the sail cloth over the two shell holes in the bow. This caused continued flooding at an increased rate due to ship speed and the deeper caused by counterflooding.

bismarck did suffer damage from the torpedo attack and lost a boiler room and speed as a result

its also to be noted the torpedo used by the swordfish to sink the bismarck was the 18" (45 cm) Mark XII torpedo

now 1 thing should immediately alarm you about this torpedo

its ww2 with a sub 200kg warhead 

most nations using 450mm torpedoes (this included japan britain russia britain and germany) had a 200kg-250kg explosive charge the american 21 inch torpedo had a 270kg warhead (model 10 mk13  we dont count the model 0 as being able to even hit or do damage so it having a warhead makes no diffrence)

the british decided to not follow this trend and had a mere 170kg explosives in it 

by comparison the model the japanese used at pearl harbour had 200kg and the model which immediately replaced it had 240kg explosives and the model 4 had 308kg (in 1943) and the model 7 in 1944 had 420 kg explosive warhead (a bit over twice as big as the british warhead)

the type 93 mod 3 long lance in 1944 had a 780 kg explosive charge and the type 93 mod 1 had a 490kg charge (in service in 1935)

source http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/index_weapons.php#Torpedoes

had bismarck been hit by torpedoes which had a larger warhead around 200-250kg and not been hit by a shallow running torpedo it would have suffered alot worse damage than it did

i recomend reading this article

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-047.php

Quote

Torpedo protection systems can usually be found in the shape of a relatively thin plate (to trigger the torpedo) followed by a whole load of air, water, coal or whatever else there is

according to navyweps author Joseph Czarnecki

Quote

Even early dreadnoughts, which universally burned coal, had very poor TDS systems. Often these consisted of little more than the extension of the double-bottom up the side to meet the lower edge of the belt. Inboard of this was a coal bunker, intended to absorb any of the torpedo blast that pierced the double bottom, with the inboard bulkhead of the bunker serving as the flooding boundary, or "holding bulkhead." This scheme was fatally flawed by the need to pierce the so-called holding bulkhead with coal scuttles to permit shoveling the solid fuel to the boilers. These were often blown open by blast overpressure, provided they were even closed or adequately watertight to begin with. Closing open scuttles against inrushing water was often academic.

More developed coal-burners incorporated some sort of expansion space between the double-bottom at the side and the coal bunker's outboard bulkhead. In this case the unpierced outboard bulkhead of the bunker served as a true holding bulkhead. Unfortunately the bulky character of coal fuel seldom permitted the expansion space outboard of the bunker to be large enough.

Some designers felt the presence of solid coal could help deplete the energy of a torpedo's explosion through the blast pulverizing the coal. However, this could not be relied upon. As more coal was consumed, there was less present to serve a protective function. Also, the dust of pulverized coal posed an explosive hazard.

in short most TDS schemes were totally inadequate and useless up until around 1912-15

the most important factor in any TDS scheme is its depth the deeper the scheme goes the better it is (more volume it has) (although this is not true for all schemes as all schemes post the traditional one used on USS Tennessee in 1915 were worse (design wise)

and as can be expected TDS on cruisers usually is very thin 

as can be seen on the USS cleveland it only has a single outer layer to protect the main engine rooms

while compared to the Richelieu with the deepest torpedo scheme 

it is alot thinner 

also bismarck has far from a bad torpedo protection scheme and has quite significant depth

 

also in this section allow me to correct a statement i made earlier

armor does extend very far down into the TDS system ON SOME SHIPS notably the Yamato and Iowa and some others (not effective for its extra armor weight but it is still somewhat effective)

a very important note is

Quote

Finally, there was absolutely nothing the TDS could do for the ends of the ship. Flooding the bow materially impacted the ship's mobility, forcing reductions in speed to prevent progressive flooding and / or tearing of the side shell. Hits aft endangered the steering gear and propellers, the Achilles Heal of every ship for which no satisfactory protective scheme has ever been devised. The best a designer could hope to do was protect enough of the ship's buoyancy to permit it to remain afloat with both ends flooded. This was a firm criterion of US designs, but one not followed by the Germans in the case of SMS Lutzow and the Japanese in the case of HIJMS Musashi.

Quote

Throughout the history of the dreadnought, torpedoes proved the number one killer of the type, more than justifying the effort expended by designers to limit their effects.

2 quotes are from the same navyweps article as i cited earlier

(my god this turned out long)

Edited October 12, 2019 by Christian

[disc]

You make an excellent argument about the high power of torpedoes. I agree with much of what you say, although your grammar makes the post...kinda hard to read. Torpedoes should be quite strong: the major issue is that it is fairly hard to hit another warship with them.

Not really sure Bismarck's torpedo belt was particularly impressive. Good depth, but bad compartmentalization, and the innermost bulkhead was probably too heavy.

Also, Indianapolis was sunk by conventional 21in submarine torpedoes. Midget submarines were not used, and primary accounts deny the use of manned torpedoes, for that matter.

[Christian]

6 hours ago, disc said:

You make an excellent argument about the high power of torpedoes. I agree with much of what you say, although your grammar makes the post...kinda hard to read. Torpedoes should be quite strong: the major issue is that it is fairly hard to hit another warship with them.

Not really sure Bismarck's torpedo belt was particularly impressive. Good depth, but bad compartmentalization, and the innermost bulkhead was probably too heavy.

Also, Indianapolis was sunk by conventional 21in submarine torpedoes. Midget submarines were not used, and primary accounts deny the use of manned torpedoes, for that matter.

yeah the hitrate for torpedoes seems very high right now while the torpedoes seem under-powered

in terms of Bismarcks torpedo protection i meant in the immediate protection from the explosion

her damage control against flooding is nothing amazing 

 

enemy ships also dont seem to make evasive maneuvers if they feel a destroyer has a torpedo solution or is doing a torpedo run which i find odd

also it sometimes seems like destroyers have aimbot torpedoes

(ps sorry for my bad grammar)

 

 

Edited October 16, 2019 by Christian

[balticsailor]

Did try the protect convey mission with 3 dds and 3 quad 21" Torp launcher, but the BC (bulkhead where on max though) was just dmg saturated after the first few salvos hitting it. Not funny to see 5-6 torps hitting it at the same time doing 90 to 120 dmg each. I think i hit that one with at least 20-30  21" torps and got him to down to about 20% structure.

 

IRL it ofcouse mattered a lot what kind of torp (size of the warhead) with what kind of detonator (impact / magnetic) and what deep setting hit the ship.

Deep running torp with (working) magnetic detonator devastated most ships since most of the blast power it hitting the weak underside of the ship and breaks it's keel.

While shallow running torps with impact detonator hitting the torp bulge are way less effektive, since the bulges are designed to migrate the blast dmg and a lot of the blast is not effecting the ship directly.

[Pedroig]

Before WWII there is no recorded use of anything but contact detonators. During WWII both Germany and the U.S. tried magnetic detonators, neither resulted in a single detonation, much less kill in combat operations. All ships sunk by torpedoes in combat in WWII were done with contact detonators. 

[balticsailor]

3 hours ago, Pedroig said:

neither resulted in a single detonation

that is a very bold statement, any sources for that?

Both the americans and the german had problems with the depth steering (torps were running to deep) and the detonators (impact and magnetic) at the start of the war, but where able to fix most of those. The german fixed the problems with the magnetic detonators by the end of 1943 and the americans stop using them.

The magnetic detonators, while less relaible and affected my local changes in the magnetic field, did work.

[KiloZulu]

The game is in alpha, and at the invitation of the developers, these forums allow us to provide constructive feedback on the game.  I'd say that just about every suggestion I've offered has had at least one response from someone opposing it in some manner.  That is a role I think is best left to the developers and moderators, imho.

I was quite surprised to see a DN take at least 12 torpedo hits yesterday during a battle and keep on fighting.  I eventually whittled it down with structural damage from guns.  I generally do a search to see if an issue has already been brought up on the forums, and if I hadn't seen this post I would've commented on the damage model for torpedoes myself.  I'm not an expert on torpedo combat, but that seemed pretty absurd - particularly from a pre-WW2 ship hull.  While torpedo combat may need to be addressed, I would also recommend that secondary gun targeting should get some focus in conjunction with it.  It would be better if secondary guns could be targeted separately from the main guns, so that they can help keep TB/DD's out of torpedo range of a lumbering BB.

On 10/12/2019 at 9:30 AM, Christian said:

according to all i have read torpedoes were far from lackluster in performance and not alot of torpedoes were required to sink capital ships 

 

That's a very interesting chart.  In the case of ships like the Musashi and Yamato, does the chart imply that the number of torpedo hits shown were necessary to sink the ship, or only that a lot of torpedoes hit them?  Would the ships still have sank if half that number had landed?

[NuclearNadal]

4 hours ago, Pedroig said:

Before WWII there is no recorded use of anything but contact detonators. During WWII both Germany and the U.S. tried magnetic detonators, neither resulted in a single detonation, much less kill in combat operations. All ships sunk by torpedoes in combat in WWII were done with contact detonators. 

Magnetic pistols were in use with WWI U-Boats in 1917. British captured examples of them aboard UB-110 (I think) in 1918. 

 

No major warships were sunk with magnetic pistols. Merchant shipping was though, I have no idea where you got the “not a single detonation” came from. The US really only had bad magnetic pistols in the Mk.13/14 but around 44 they started to get decent ones and used them against the Japanese. The Germans had bad reliability for them but it was better then the US ones. 

An example of this was the KM# TIII, G7e torpedo. It specifically had an improved pistol for use with magnetic dets. 

[Christian]

26 minutes ago, KiloZulu said:

The game is in alpha, and at the invitation of the developers, these forums allow us to provide constructive feedback on the game.  I'd say that just about every suggestion I've offered has had at least one response from someone opposing it in some manner.  That is a role I think is best left to the developers and moderators, imho.

I was quite surprised to see a DN take at least 12 torpedo hits yesterday during a battle and keep on fighting.  I eventually whittled it down with structural damage from guns.  I generally do a search to see if an issue has already been brought up on the forums, and if I hadn't seen this post I would've commented on the damage model for torpedoes myself.  I'm not an expert on torpedo combat, but that seemed pretty absurd - particularly from a pre-WW2 ship hull.  While torpedo combat may need to be addressed, I would also recommend that secondary gun targeting should get some focus in conjunction with it.  It would be better if secondary guns could be targeted separately from the main guns, so that they can help keep TB/DD's out of torpedo range of a lumbering BB.

That's a very interesting chart.  In the case of ships like the Musashi and Yamato, does the chart imply that the number of torpedo hits shown were necessary to sink the ship, or only that a lot of torpedoes hit them?  Would the ships still have sank if half that number had landed?

numbers of hits is number of hits before they were guaranteed dead i believe 

for example musashi continued to float for 4 hours before she sank after taking 20 torpedoes

yamato took more than 13 torpedoes but by 13 torpedoes she was listing so bad the remaining torpedoes hit the bottom of her hull due to the list

example

those 6 torpedo hits on her belly were likely not counted (basically an intire torpedo plane squadron made it through because her aa defences stopped firing due to abandon ship order and so giant boom)

generally the yamato torpedo hits are disputed but its said that (without counting the late flight coming in with a sledgehammer to nuke it) 13-16 torpedo hits were achieved

best view of her wreck i could find

torpedo hits can quite easily be seen (also notice the one right on the stern of the ship

 

(also as can be seen with yamato except for the 3 pilots who did not get the memo and the late flight with 6 torpedoes) she was only hit on one side 

Edited October 16, 2019 by Christian

[Angus MacDuff]

As a submariner, I am fully conversant on torpedo damage (love my MK48's).  My question is why am I getting sunk by massive torpedo damage in the early BB v BB scenarios?  I'm just starting with the game and was very surprised to see torpedo salvos at the very beginning of this test.  Clearly we are being started too close together.  I am aware that early BBs had torpedo armament, but really, there were not a lot of torpedo exchanges between BBs IRL. 

[Christian]

9 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

As a submariner, I am fully conversant on torpedo damage (love my MK48's).  My question is why am I getting sunk by massive torpedo damage in the early BB v BB scenarios?  I'm just starting with the game and was very surprised to see torpedo salvos at the very beginning of this test.  Clearly we are being started too close together.  I am aware that early BBs had torpedo armament, but really, there were not a lot of torpedo exchanges between BBs IRL. 

early torpedoes do seem to have quite a bit of range compared to the whitehead torpedoes in use in 1905 which did not have any significant range (700 meters) and their speed was pathetic at 26 knots

also again the laser aim of the torpedo targeting teams

 

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_PreWWII.php

only torpedo with above 900 meter range in 1904/1905 came in 1904 as the bliss leavitt torpedo 

Edited October 16, 2019 by Christian

[Angus MacDuff]

The problem for me is not the power or range of the torpedo, but the actual realistic probability of a torpedo attack.  We know that sub or plane launched torpedoes did enormous damage IRL, but they are a non-issue here.  Certainly, various capitol ships were finished off after losing their battles, but how many were sunk in the early stages by ship launched torpedoes?  The only instance I can think of, off the top of my head would be Savo Sound, and the long Lance torpedoes were absolute brutes.  There is no point in engaging in gunnery if you can load up with those.

*edit: on further reading, the Long Lance did a lot of damage.  A definite game changer.  Are there any other ship-launched torpedoes of that quality?

Edited October 16, 2019 by Angus MacDuff

[Christian]

20 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

The problem for me is not the power or range of the torpedo, but the actual realistic probability of a torpedo attack.  We know that sub or plane launched torpedoes did enormous damage IRL, but they are a non-issue here.  Certainly, various capitol ships were finished off after losing their battles, but how many were sunk in the early stages by ship launched torpedoes?  The only instance I can think of, off the top of my head would be Savo Sound, and the long Lance torpedoes were absolute brutes.  There is no point in engaging in gunnery if you can load up with those.

generally speaking if you were fighting an enemy with torpedoes on them during ww2 and they had sufficient torpedo range it was expected those torpedoes would be launched

 

example battle of sunda straight and the java sea

Quote

During the action the IJN ships executed 38 separate launches of a probable 164 Type 93 torpedoes

(same source as below)

they managed to torpedo the cruier java and de ruyter along with the destroyer Kortenaer each suffering 1 hit and sinking

 

the japanese attacked with torpedoes against at sunda straight with 4 torpedoes striking perth and 4 striking houston both went down very fast

Quote

During the action the six IJN ships executed 7 launches of a probable total of 37 Type 93 torpedoes

source: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-067.php

 

Edited October 16, 2019 by Christian

[Angus MacDuff]

Yes, as I mentioned, all long Lance torpedo attacks.  I don't think that BBs engaged in a lot of torpedo warfare with each other due to the longer ranges at which they fought.  This is my problem with the early scenarios where we are started within a few thousand yards. 

[Christian]

8 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

Yes, as I mentioned, all long Lance torpedo attacks.  I don't think that BBs engaged in a lot of torpedo warfare with each other due to the longer ranges at which they fought.  This is my problem with the early scenarios where we are started within a few thousand yards. 

on one hand it makes sense because pre dreadnoughts were very inaccurate

on the other hand torpedoes perform too well in hitrate but suck in damage

 

it might have something to do with torpedo range

id personally wait a bit until the next update to see how things change before making any large suggestions

 

Edited October 16, 2019 by Christian

[Niomedes]

17 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

Yes, as I mentioned, all long Lance torpedo attacks.  I don't think that BBs engaged in a lot of torpedo warfare with each other due to the longer ranges at which they fought.  This is my problem with the early scenarios where we are started within a few thousand yards. 

The only Battleship on Battleship torpedo hit in history was Rodney on Bismarck after Bismarck had already been attacked by the swordfish and was dead in the water due to hours of previous shelling. So yeah, Not happening that oftenly.

Edited October 16, 2019 by Niomedes