Don’t change torps

[Lobokai]

I often see people asking torpedoes to be made more dangerous, they site big battleships going down from a few hits. Royal Oak sinking from only 3 or 4 is often referenced. But what isn’t realized is 9 (possibly 12) were fired and all the rest had problems. This is at an inert target from an experienced Uboat crew. This is typical, if not actually a better case than the norm.  When compared with historical data it’s taking us about the same amount of torps fired to bring down targets... in fact, UA:D torps are slightly more lethal than they should be in “safe” mode.  

Torpedoes, even the best, were notoriously unreliable: duds, running too deep, poor pathing, premature detonations, incorrect release angles, surface shear, etc. And this doesn’t even factor in notorious bureaucratic/new tech messes like the US mk.14. So instead of all of these frustrating failures randomly happening, I prefer the abstraction of all torps work and just do (a little) less damage. 

[Absolute0CA]

UA:D Torpedoes are more reliable, but far less damaging the general consensus is that we want reduced torpedo loads AKA no reloads or few but torpedos that do massive damage like IRL. Right now we got BBs that can take 15-25 22" torpedoes which is bloody insane. So you got it somewhat wrong.

[Lobokai]

Your perception of IRL is simply wrong. What your asking for is ahistorical. No torpedo reloads?!  Why? A typical destroyer would carry a reload for each x2 or x3 rack. Those things were even carried open on deck in many cases. Why would you ask for something that simply is wrong to the simulation? 

15-22 on target launches sinks a ship in combat is probably about correct. It took well over 50 launched torps to take down Yamato in conjunction with nearly 100 bombs. The number of torps you need to fire is nearly spot on. 

If somehow the consensus is that magical movie torps that always detonate, never run under a target, never turn in circles, never sink like a rock, and (good lord) don’t need reloads or the risk of that ammunition on deck... should all strike at the more extreme levels of damage that the few properly functioning historical torps did, then whomever is forming that consensus has no clue what real torp warfare was like. 

Do not cite lonely uboats hitting unaware and often unmoving targets as thresholds for what engaged DD torps should do either. That’s some serious intellectual dishonesty.  People need to keep other arcade like computer game experiences and movies out of a historical war game. 

If it’s taking the same amount of shots to sink a ship, I’m happy. Just think for a bit how stupid this game would be if a DD could alpha strike with your magical unicorn torps and not have the jeopardy of hauling reloads around. Might as well add cruise missiles and F-14s with Maverick flying one at that point.  

Edited November 5, 2019 by Lobokai
lack of clarity on my part, apologies

[Absolute0CA]

You need to do research my friend. Outside of a few Japanese destroyers and below water torpedo tubes, reloads weren't a thing, and the thing you have to remember with Yamato was those were air dropped torpedoes not ship launched 21"-22" ones. I understand your fallacy but please go do your research before you make an argument. And in game torpedo hit rate is hilariously too high. I'm averaging between 16.6% to 25% hit rates on torpedoes when historically they were at best 1-3% depending on circumstances.

[Mycophobia]

Then what needs to be changed is the respective dud rate and reliability of torpedo, not the damage of the torpedo. The fact that number of torpedo required to be fired, vs number of torpedo that successfully exploded on target are two differnthing things. True, early torpedos had significant problem, as is the WW2 US torpedo(German torpedo had similar issue early on as well), but those can be fixed. The reliability of torpedos and the damage of torpedos are two different matters.

Besides Royal Oak, Barham went down to 3, Repulse and POW went down to 4(these torpedo that hit the repulse and POW does not seem to have issues with duds, infact Japanese torpedo, where they didn't detonate aboard their ships, seems to be rather reliable in most engagements). Yamato took about 10 torpo hits to sink, the fact that torps were dropped, and missed/failed to detonate is a separate consideration entirely.

If we go to WW1 era Battleships, while successful hit were comparatively rare, mine damage on pre-dread, the sinking of the AH dreadnoughts are all indicator these earlier ships are at least as vulnerable, if not more so to contemporary torpedo than WW2 ships against WW2 torpedos.(I am giving some leeway because the AH dreads have design flaws and the pre-dreads are all outdated by then). 

You are right that the torpedo right now are being more "effective" than they actually are, due to their perfect reliability. But it doesn't change the fact that they do not cause the same kind of damage they do historically. In particular, their effect on the ship structural and the potential threat they have to a ship over a longer period is definitely being underestimated.

Whether the team decides to stimulate torpedo duds is their decision, I support the idea of having duds because that is what happened realistically, but can also see it being a source of frustration for players. From a balance perspective, not having duds but limiting ship's torpedo reload ammo/speed can make torpedo into a mostly one-two shot weapon should balance things out.

The DD can only magically one shot your ships with OP torps if they can actually can get close, which will be much harder to pull off if said ship can actually defend themselves with competent DD screen and secondary guns. At current state, sure, letting torpedo 3-4 shot a 1915 dreadnought might be too much, but that's because we are in the Alpha environment where many other things have not been properly balanced. 

Anyways, aplogies that this post had became much longer than expected, but I don't agree with confusing # of torpedo launched to sink a ship with # of torpedo hits needed to sink a ship. In game we observe each hits clearly as it happens, It detract more from realisim if the damage of these hit had to be artificially toned down just to make it so we had to "launch" a more realistic number of torpedos in order to sink a ship.

 

Edited November 4, 2019 by Mycophobia

[ThatZenoGuy]

22 minutes ago, Absolute0CA said:

You need to do research my friend. Outside of a few Japanese destroyers and below water torpedo tubes, reloads weren't a thing, and the thing you have to remember with Yamato was those were air dropped torpedoes not ship launched 21"-22" ones. I understand your fallacy but please go do your research before you make an argument. And in game torpedo hit rate is hilariously too high. I'm averaging between 16.6% to 25% hit rates on torpedoes when historically they were at best 1-3% depending on circumstances.

The airdropped ones on Yamato were pretty powerful.

For perspective.

The US airdropped torpedoes had 909 pounds of TNT equal.

German submarine torpedoes had 617 pounds of tnt equal, up to 948 pounds of tnt.

 

The only torpedoes which were 'really'  bigger was the few torpex torpedoes used by USA and british destroyers, and the Long Lance.

 

[Skeksis]

If you don't make torpedo's powerful, TB and Destroyers would be useless. They're already useless by the current state of the big gun game.

It all depends on the campaign too, and how Dev's they're mapping it out. If they're setting up the game for fleets to be made up of all types of ships, then there needs to be a "reason" to build diverse fleets including TBs and Destroyers.

The asset for TBs and Destroyers is torpedo's, thus the reason to make torpedo's powerful. Or "balance" enough to make them an asset to the fleet. 

 

It leads on too, if powerful torpedo's, then powerful TBs and Destroyers, then cruisers become a reason and part of the mix, to screening the fleet from TBs and Destroyers. Little changes can add up to a robust game full of tactics and strategies.

 

Edited November 4, 2019 by Skeksis

[Mycophobia]

On the matter of torpedo reload,  I am also under the impression that no WW2 DD at least, other than the Japanese ones carried reloads, or at the least is not designed to carry reloads in anything more than an ad-hoc fashion. But if you have source pointing to the contrary do please share.  Looking at some schematics of ww1 period design also seem to indicate they don't have internal storage for torpedos (but my search is by no means conclusive), so if they carried any it will be laid on deck. 

Japanese DDs in ww2 carried torpedo in nearby storage and used cranes to hoist those into the tube, and I believe in some other instances positioned their reload torpedos in rooms infront of their launcher and moved them over. I don't believe they ever carried more than one additional salvo of reloads. In anycase, these reloads are not something you can complete in the 5min time frame in game, nor can they be safely done in combat situations (at least definitely not within 5km of enemy ship and being fired upon).

I'd say the game should model the risk of carrying additional torpedo on board with all its implications, and extend reload on the torpedo to at least be comparatively longer to make them at most 2-3 time per battle weapons, that require very careful use. As is, you can really just torpedo away without much worry due to the egregious amount of ammo being provided. If the concern was no dud modeled+ more powerful torpedo is gonna be gamebreaking, a reduction in reload time and reload carried, together with corresponding risk of carrying additional reloads should be more than fair to compensate, without arbitrary reduction of the actual damage inflicted per hits.

[ThatZenoGuy]

Only Japanese DD's used reloads.

Cruisers for a lot of nations used reloads however.

[Lobokai]

2 hours ago, Absolute0CA said:

 torpedoes when historically they were at best 1-3% depending on circumstances

So you want 1-3% accuracy, with no reloads, but historical damage?  Really!?  You can't cherry pick what parts of the "IRL" torps you want... real damage but your real accuracy would be unplayable.  Luckily it's not as bad as you think, while not having the best torpedoes, the US has the best metrics on these things... Mark 10 torps had a 24% reliability when launched on target and Avengers used Mark 13 22' torps (so yeah, basically exactly what you thought you weren't talking about)... I don't even need to research those numbers, they're pretty well known, but feel free to look them up, you'll find em.  Also, the vast majority of US Pacific DDs did carry reloads when they were available... mark 14 issues and production is the only reason IJN DDs had reloads and USN DDs didn't at points... but you can go research that too. Mediterranean DDs on patrols sometimes did not have reloads, but that is an entirely different logistical situation... one can't just blindly say "reloads" weren't thing, there's quite a bit of context involved. 

You also should know, that torps were doctrinally often fired in blind spreads into ship formation, the enemy just sighting torps and a few lucky hits could throw a line into disarray, occasionally even causing collisions (in fact some imagined torps did that too)

[RedParadize]

@Absolute0CA

3 hours ago, Absolute0CA said:

You need to do research my friend. Outside of a few Japanese destroyers and below water torpedo tubes, reloads weren't a thing

Mutsuki, Fubuki, Gnevny, Storozhevoy, Type 1934, Type 1936A.... 5 minutes looking around. Did you do your research my friend?

That's 3 nation right there, I am sure that if I look deeper I will find some in most nation. Maybe except USA. For Long range or multi purpose DD it make sense to have reload instead of all torpedo in the launcher.

[Mycophobia]

To reply to each of your points in turn:

Reload

Reload being stored somewhere on ship is a very different scenario from "being able to reload in combat", or even like the case with Japanese torpedo reloads being at least designed with mechanism to assist in speedy reload should it become necessary. I have not came across the reliability percentage in Mark 10 though I have searched around for a bit, granted I did not go through any of my books (and I don't have the most impressive collection either), so it will be good to see where that information came from. 

Edit: So I did take a bit of looking around and noted that the IGN DDs, with the appropriate torpedo storage and system for reloads, can accomplish a full reload in as quickly as 3minutes, but will usually take 20-30min due to the gears “usually not functioning properly". This might be the basis of the game's reload speed. If that is the case, I am okay with giving a slightly faster reload rate for ships at higher tech level, but they should definitely not match this rate early on. 

http://fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ Reports/USNTMJ-200D-0530-0549 Report 0-01-3.pdf

Effectiveness in Battle

Torpedos are often used to finish off already damaged ships, in night battles and like you described, used for fleet disruption. It is entirely up to the player how he wish to use his torpedos, and if the torpedo barrage is what they decide to go for, the game return a similar hit rate and disruption effect. But as well see from battle of Narvik, Guadalcanal, and Samar. Destroyer torpedo attack are able to score hit on the enemy to deadly effects, I am not aware of any reload occurring in any of these cases, even if USN DD in question did carry any reloads. 

A undamaged ship actively trying to avoid a torpedo is not an easy target, but one that is damaged and slowed can make an easy prey. In this game we will have many opportunities to have fleet battles where BBs are present to back up the destroyers, and there is no reason why destroyer cannot be used to opportunistically finish off ships damaged by friendly BB gunfire, IGN torpedo boats had great success in this regard after tsushima, hunting down the Russian fleet in the night.

Reliability

While USN, RN and Kreigsmarine all suffered from faulty torpedo at the start of the war, the use of magnetic detonator had to do with all of them (granted, it was not the only reason), but with the exception of USN these issues are quickly remedied, if not fully fixed. USN's notorious scandal with its torpedos should be seen as the exception, rather than the norm. Unfortunately I did not find any actual % data in my relatively quick search, except a chart on reported torpedo hit vs launched in WW2 by the royal navy, which due to risk of overreporting I will take with a grain of salt.

However, if we examine the torpedo performance of RN destroyer in Narvik, IGN in Guadalcanal, or USN in Samar with the worst issue of the Mk14/15 cleared, we see that torpedo attack by DD, without reloads, are able to inflict a effective number of hit on the opponent and cause real damage. 

Conclusion

I am not cherrying picking realism here, I am asking for the game to deliver an experience that corroborate with real life performance, which can at the same time be balanced and fun. Its not every battle where destroyers will be the star of your fleet, nor is that the case with your cruisers or your battleships. It depends on the situation in the battle, composition of the fleet, weather, and perhaps a bit of luck. That is what makes naval warfare engaging for me and I think the game can capture that without making excessive compromise to reality.

My suggestion on torps is basically as follows :

• Damage can either be improved from current level, or simply modify the bulkhead system to make torpedo hit and progressive flooding more threatening. (I suspect the issue rn is not the actual damage value of the torpedos, but the fact that again, hit on flooded bulkhead does next to nothing)
• Reliability can be incorporated, but can be slightly better than they are IRL and limited to duds rather than things like pre-mature detonation or failed gyro(though honestly I personally don't mind those either if the team decides to incorporate those). This can be improved through tech, and improved/decreased by either war/extended peace, or national traits.
• Even if reliability are not incoporated, the inherent difficulty in setting up a good torpedo attack due to screening and secondary fire maybe enough to keep things balanced. If nothing else, somesort of torpedo accuracy penalty from being underfire, and smarter AI maneuvering can both help. Right now AI does not react until your DD are less than 2-3km away, when in reality many commander would've begin to turn away or sent out their escort from a much longer distance.
• Reload can be added to ships, with the corresponding risk. Even at highest ammo capacity I believe no more than 2 reload per tube should be carried on a DD. These can be reloaded in battle but slowed to a more reasonable speed from the current 3-5min. Perhaps at least 15min or more, being underfire/hit can further slow down this process or halt it all together. However, later on technology may allow a faster reload process, but I think the current 3-5min remain to fast for a ship underfire.

Torpedo can be used in their disruptive salvo role to force the enemy to turn away or disrupt their formation, the high individual damage of each torp will actually cause the player to be catious rather than facetanking every torpedo.

They can be used to finish off damaged ship with much better accuracy.

When under smoke/night cover/with good maneuver, DD that closed sufficiently to enemy BB with poor screening can cause heavy damage with closer ranged torpedo, with corresponding risk from taking secondary fire. (I understand that this is not often done in real life except for night battles, but in game we do have the ability to command our destroyer to take that risk.)

If you still believe DDs might be OP, I might suggest that this is due to the enivronment in which the usual counter measure, namely secondary guns and other screening ships, failed to do their job.

Edited November 4, 2019 by Mycophobia

[ThatZenoGuy]

2 hours ago, RedParadize said:

@Absolute0CA

Mutsuki, Fubuki, Gnevny, Storozhevoy, Type 1934, Type 1936A.... 5 minutes looking around. Did you do your research my friend?

That's 3 nation right there, I am sure that if I look deeper I will find some in most nation. Maybe except USA. For Long range or multi purpose DD it make sense to have reload instead of all torpedo in the launcher.

Neither of those german destroyers have reloads, the russian ones seem to lack reloads too.

If you have a source they can, I'd appreciate seeing it, get them in War Thunder too.

[Christian]

3 hours ago, RedParadize said:

@Absolute0CA

Mutsuki, Fubuki, Gnevny, Storozhevoy, Type 1934, Type 1936A.... 5 minutes looking around. Did you do your research my friend?

That's 3 nation right there, I am sure that if I look deeper I will find some in most nation. Maybe except USA. For Long range or multi purpose DD it make sense to have reload instead of all torpedo in the launcher.

none of those can reload in combat 

notice the big box right behind the torpedo launcher thats the torpedo reload storage

these can be reloaded in 3-30 minutes (completely) ONCE there was only enough for a single complete reload 

the most the japanese destroyers carried was 3x3 with a complete reload which is 18 torpedoes

though the typical japanese torpedo loadout was 2x4 with a single complete reload which is 16 torpedoes

the same goes for japanese cruisers often carrying 4x3 or 4x4 having 24 or 32 torpedoes in total (12-16 in reload and 12-16 ready)

no other nation than japan had in combat torpedo reload 

here is the US naval technical mission documenting japanese torpedo reloading gear

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ Reports/USNTMJ-200D-0530-0549 Report 0-01-3.pdf

(yes its wows but it showcases the torpedo reloading cases nicely)

the japanese also had an earlier torpedo reloading system (again showcased in wows)

these were comparatively alot harder to reload in combat and did not have anywhere near the ease of reloading the updated system had
(i was unable to find a reload time but this was likely 30-60 minutes if not longer as its clumsy and hard to handle during combat maneuvers and when under fire)

 

no other nation than japan had the ability to reload torpedoes during combat and in battle 

 

all other destroyers had to have their torpedo reloads supplied by cargo and munitions ships or by a dock

Edited November 4, 2019 by Christian

[sRuLe]

7 hours ago, Lobokai said:

When compared with historical data it’s taking us about the same amount of torps fired to bring down targets... in fact, UA:D torps are slightly more lethal than they should be in “safe” mode.  

(U KNOW THAT INSTEAD OF WORDS HERE MUST BE WELL KNOWN OWL)

Edited November 4, 2019 by sRuLe

[sRuLe]

Before we all continue to gently throw a poo on a fan pointing it at each other... let's firstly make an analysis of a Perfect Torpedo Destroyer in theory and how would it work on practice in all kind of circumstances.

Just let's be honest... tonnage sunk by torpedoes in WW2 are slightly much greater than by any other type of naval weapons including aerial bombardment due massive damage to floatage.

Edited November 4, 2019 by sRuLe

[sRuLe]

4 hours ago, RedParadize said:

Gnevny

Type 7A and Type 7M destroyers actually can, but torpedo reload where mostly manual... and probably only in "out of combat" situation.

If you are looking for arguments to hold your ground take a look on Storozhevoi and later Novik classes, G and V-class German Destroyers and US destroyers Clemson-Class. Due to light and compact torpedoes they had, and where designed to be able reload T-Tubes during combat. Other examples are only Italian and French destroyers since Jaguar/Vauquelin and Le Fantasque class. Oh yeah.... those lads CAN.

[Lobokai]

@sRuLe you do know that I was saying torpedoes shot relative to ships sunk, not hits to sink?  It’s come up several times besides being in the OP. There’s no contention here as to the amount of damage a torpedo can do. In fact it’s in the quote you lifted from my post. 

If you don’t allow reloads in combat in mission, you really need to remove the timer. Since we have one, we need the other. But again, the contention isn’t about in combat reloads, it’s about the risk involved in having them aboard while taking damage. 

USN mark14s took about 1/2 hour to reload and were not reloaded in combat. But without a timer, against a slower target, you could pull off and a hour later reengage, racked and ready. We do, however, have a timer

Edited November 4, 2019 by Lobokai

[sRuLe]

4 hours ago, Mycophobia said:

Torpedos are often used to finish off already damaged ships, in night battles and like you described, used for fleet disruption.

I mostly agreed with all you said EXCEPT this part. And you know why...

In modern attempts of history review people talking about War on a Pacific, which no doubt have a great naval battles as a part of a naval history. But, it wasn't a Main Part. And wasn't a start at all. Just let's spin the ball and go back where it starts, Atlantic theatre. And the main class of torpedo warfare of an whole XX century - A submarine Warfare. Designed as a stealthy weapon both sub and the torps very fast become an First Encounter Weapon, what means that torpedo is an major naval assault weapon. And often torpedo was used to make one single deadly shot as they actually often DID. And if we dig into earlier examples like Russian-Japanese War, there also torpedo was an first strike/impact weapon.

7 hours ago, Absolute0CA said:

I'm averaging between 16.6% to 25% hit rates on torpedoes when historically they were at best 1-3% depending on circumstances.

Simply looking on tonnage sunk by "torpedo fire" historically best effectiveness rate will explosively rise from 2,5% up to 41% or even more. Cause during the war, there is no "civil tonnage" at all.

 

So unfortunately if you guys will dig deeper you found out that except NERF we need a BUFF. And that would be historically correct.

[sRuLe]

7 minutes ago, Lobokai said:

If you don’t allow reloads in combat in mission, you really need to remove the timer. Since we have one, we need the other. But again, the contention isn’t about in combat reloads, it’s about the risk involved in having them aboard while taking damage. 

You meant increased rate of "detonation"? Am-I-rite?)))

7 minutes ago, Lobokai said:

USN mark14s took about 1/2 hour to reload and were not reloaded in combat. But without a timer, against a slower target, you could pull off and a hour later reengage, racked and ready. We do, however, have a timer

Just pop-out of a combat in safe distance, like about 20km(12 miles), load a pipe and dive again. That's how usually DD's do... and definitely not loading an 600 kilos of explosives under heavy enemy fire. Am-I-rite? Than we need kind a none safe zone circle in game, when you come out of it, your torps began to reload/freezing timer.

Edited November 4, 2019 by sRuLe

[Angus MacDuff]

38 minutes ago, sRuLe said:

Just let's be honest... tonnage sunk by torpedoes in WW2 are slightly much greater than by any other type of naval weapons including aerial bombardment due massive damage to floatage.

Cannot use that statistic.  The vast majority of torpedo sinkings were from submarine or aircraft launched torpedoes.  In reality, ship to ship torpedo sinkings were very rare and if you took out the Japanese Long Lance torpedo, they were almost non-existent.  This is a ship v ship game and torpedoes should play a very minor part if you want anything close to historic Dreadnought battles.

[Christian]

@Lobokai

Quote

Mark 10 torps had a 24% reliability when launched on target 

the mark 10 is a 1915 torpedo made by america honestly what did you expect they had a torpedo with about the same reliability in 1942 usa was not exactly known for their state of the art torpedoes they generally sucked ass

(british 1917 mark 5 torpedo having almost the same speed and range performance as the american mark 15 surface torpedo)

might i attract your attention to a 21"Mark IV and Mark IV torpedo ? 

most torpedoes by 1915 were not amazing but they were not that bad and the lack of tps made torpedo hits disasterous

Quote

So you want 1-3% accuracy, with no reloads, but historical damage?  Really!?

yes we do heres why

hitrate depends almost intirely on range to target and the ability of the target to predict your torpedo attack

when a destroyer comes charging in close and suddenly pulls a hard turn showing its broadside to you do you think that the enemy ship wont dodge ?

the closer to the enemy and the less predictable an attack the higher the chance of succes

also 1-3% accuracy is quite a bit lower than what was achieved by the japanese of which the largest targets engaged were cruisers

this means that the more nimble and faster ships (dds and cruisers) were engaged yet the japanese managed a 6,7 % hitrate

in total the average hitrate is 6,71%

with an average of 16,71 torpedoes required per hit

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

the japanese had several battles with 25% hitrate of their torpedoes 

the improved damage of the torpedoes would make hits extremely dangerous but on the other hand the lower hitrate would force destroyers to close the distance and attack

Quote

Avengers used Mark 13 22' torps (so yeah, basically exactly what you thought you weren't talking about)... I don't even need to research those numbers, they're pretty well known, but feel free to look them up, you'll find em. 

mark 13 torpedo has a diameter of 22,4 inches not 22 inches
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_WWII.php

Quote

the vast majority of US Pacific DDs did carry reloads when they were available

US destroyers dont have ready to use torpedoes and the few us destroyers which did have torpedo reloads (benson porter and a few others) but they do not seem or look to have the equipment needed for torpedo reloading nor does it seem like the torpedoes are stored anywhere near the torpedo launchers 

 

also the ones which did carry torpedoes only carried 4 spare torpedoes which was not enough to even completely reload a single mount 

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_dd_benson.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_dd_sims.htm

and in the case of sims the spare torpedoes were removed

only us ship with full launcher reload capability

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_dd_porter.htm

 

these 3 classes of ships (and the subclass gleaves under benson) are the only us destroyers to carry reloadable torpedoes and 2 out of 3 of them couldnt even reload a single launcher fully 

Quote

mark 14 issues and production is the only reason IJN DDs had reloads and USN DDs didn't at points

this makes no sense so because japanese had better more reliable and more succesfull torpedoes they had reloads ?

while the americans with worse torpedoes did not? that would negate any number of torpedo advantage

Quote

Mediterranean DDs on patrols sometimes did not have reloads, but that is an entirely different logistical situation..

only a few german dds are mentioned to have torpedo storage http://www.navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_torpedoes.htm

BUT there is no visible torpedo boxes or cranes or equipment which would in any way indicate that they could be reloaded

http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/destroyer/zerstorer1934/index.html

this website (specifically focused on german ships) says no german destroyers have reloads

no italian destroyers had torpedo reloads (according to above mentioned website and according to all i have shown)

if you wish to dispute these conclusions then provide evidence

Quote

 

one can't just blindly say "reloads" weren't thing, there's quite a bit of context involved. 

 

one cant just say torpedoe reloads were a thing without providing any sort of proof

again there is no equipment visible on italian german american russian or french destroyers that indicate that they can reload torpedoes in combat or outside of combat and the only nation outside of japan to have torpedoes onboard outside of those in the torpedo launchers is the germans but even then i can find no proof that they did carry additional torpedoes

Quote

You also should know, that torps were doctrinally often fired in blind spreads into ship formation, the enemy just sighting torps and a few lucky hits could throw a line into disarray

you yourself mention why hitrate was so low 

 

 

also reliability for contact detonators in ww2 was VERY high on all torpedoes except german and american torpedoes though all nations that had magnetic detonators suffered from their unreliability

japanese did not have a magnetic detonator but put all their effort into a contact detonator

this is also one of the reasons why japan had such a good torpedo THERE IS NOT A SINGLE INSTANCE of it failing to explode on contact with a warship

 

@sRuLe

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/russia/ru_dd_gnevnyy.htm

project 7 does not have reloadable torpedoes and neither can i find anything like it in pictures or any equipment regarding it

Storozhevoi (or fidonisi) does not have torpedo reloads

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/russia/ru_dd_fidonisi.htm

novik had no torpedo reloads

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/russia/ru_dd_novik.htm

G and V classes dont seem to have torpedo reloads according to this site

http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/index.html

clemson class does not have torpedo reloads

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_dd_clemson.htm

jaguar/vaquelin has no torpedo reloads

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/france/fr_dd_chacal.htm

le fantastique does not have torpedo reloads

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/france/fr_dd_le_fantasque.htm

 

 

Edited November 4, 2019 by Christian

[Christian]

1 hour ago, Angus MacDuff said:

Cannot use that statistic.  The vast majority of torpedo sinkings were from submarine or aircraft launched torpedoes.  In reality, ship to ship torpedo sinkings were very rare and if you took out the Japanese Long Lance torpedo, they were almost non-existent.  This is a ship v ship game and torpedoes should play a very minor part if you want anything close to historic Dreadnought battles.

despite the fact that the americans lost way more ships to torpedoes than gunfire

 

in total the us lost 8 heavy cruisers during the war 5 of them were sunk to ship-borne torpedoes

all of the heavy cruisers to sink due to torpedo hits took atleast 2 torpedoes in rapid succesion and sank thus its reasonable to assume that the cruisers would have sunk even if no gunfire had been evolved 

(2x 490kg warheads will do that to ya especially when the 490kgs have an RE factor of 1.1 to 1.2)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Navy_losses_in_World_War_II#Heavy_cruisers_(CA)

this list seems to indicate torpedoes were much more a weapon than naval guns 

 

with 82 mentions of torpedo and only 25 mentions of gunfire and only 16 of those are DEs and larger the rest are river craft and submarines

 

 

 

Edited November 4, 2019 by Christian

[Angus MacDuff]

12 minutes ago, Christian said:

5 of them were sunk to ship-borne torpedoes

This is why I specified the Long Lance torpedo as an exception.

[Christian]

3 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

This is why I specified the Long Lance torpedo as an exception.

dosent really make sense to take out the long lance torpedo just because it performs better than all other nations in surface torpedo sinkings combined does it ?