Reloading Torpedoes

[Purgato]

I have come to the realization that reloading torpedoes while at sea is not really a thing (with the exception of the Japanese in ww2).
And while I do like having a few destroyers have several massive, repeating broadsides, I was curious if there would be a slightly more realistic option.
Maybe a setting so "in combat torpedo reloads" can be toggled for the sake of preference. That, or turn the reload into a nation specific bonus for the Japanese in the late game.

I'm unsure if this has ever been addressed, so I wanted to make a post to see if this subject has been brought up before.

[Reaper Jack]

It has, by myself and others, the devs decreased the possible available reloads as a result. I know that for myself at least I was left unsatisfied as no ship in history ever carried more than one full reload for all tubes with some extra torps to spare on occasion (usually Japanese ships) except for subs, which would carry multiple reloads; type IXs for example carried at least 2 reloads per tube with a couple torps left over at full load. 

Most of us who discussed this before also felt that reloading mid combat should be impossible without special equipment such as what the IJN used. 

[Skeksis]

3 hours ago, Reaper Jack said:

Most of us...

AH!, many of us load ships with torpedo's, including stacking BBs with them, sometimes creating a torpedo meta.

Many CCs too, I would say at least 80% of CCs show off the game outside historical fact, not the 'most  of us'! 

If the game is less or not historical, then the game is creating its own meta, with its own meta, torpedo reloads are valid.

Edited August 15, 2020 by Skeksis

[Purgato]

8 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

AH!, many of us load ships with torpedo's, including stacking BBs with them, creating torpedo meta!

Many CCs too, I would say at least 80% of CCs show off the game outside historical fact, not the 'most  of us'! 

Many peeps are enjoying the game the way it is, in-fact there are alot of posts for more placement freedoms, and with those freedoms would mean less overall historical fact.

I honestly would just want an setting that could be swapped between since the last thing I'd want is to mess up how people like to play their game, but would like torps to be represented a bit more accurately within that alternate option.

Although I wouldn't say that just because the game is going to lend itself outside of history and probably for some neat alt-history situations once the campaign is out, doesn't make for a good reason to just ignore how something worked.
Placing a turret, barbett or torpedo tube in a non conventional way is one thing. How those work within the game is another matter entirely.

[Skeksis]

14 minutes ago, Purgato said:

Placing a turret, barbett or torpedo tube in a non conventional way is one thing. How those work within the game is another matter entirely.

What's the different between placing 20 torpedo launchers (no reloads) or one launcher with 20 reloads?

31 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

If the game is less or not historical, then the game is creating its own meta, with its own meta, torpedo reloads are valid.

 

Edited August 15, 2020 by Skeksis

[disc]

4 hours ago, Reaper Jack said:

no ship in history ever carried more than one full reload for all tubes

This depends on the time period and the exact type of tube. To my understanding, there were few vessels that carried more than one anti-surface torpedo reload per above-water rotating-mount tube. The only sure examples that I can think of are the Royal Navy's Halcyon class of torpedo gunboats, which had one fixed and two rotating twin mounts with a total of six reload torpedoes, and their torpedo boat carrier-cruiser Vulcan, which initially carried 30 torpedoes with four or two trainable tubes and four fixed tubes. I suspect there are others, but I do not have evidence of that. The odd Royal Navy battleship Victoria carried four torpedo tubes, some above water and some below water, with a total of 24 torpedoes. The classic Royal Sovereign battleships had five above water tubes and two below water, for a total of 24 again. But I am unsure if these or later British battleship broadside above water tubes were trainable.

Carrying one reload per rotating tube was fairly common. More than that generally seems to have been considered a waste, for whatever reason, presumably due to weight and top space. If a greater number of torpedoes was desired, the next step would usually be to add more tubes. 

Submerged ship tubes frequently carried a very large number of reloads. A stand-out example is the US Dreadnought battleship Pennsylvania, which was equipped with two torpedo tubes and 24 torpedoes.

Fixed above-water tubes were also in some cases equipped with more than one reload. In particular, the Japanese heavy cruiser Myoko and the US hunter-killer cruiser / destroyer leader Norfolk carried very large numbers of heavy torpedoes. The Myoko class was built with twelve fixed tubes, with two reloads per tube, for a total of 36 torpedoes. The Norfolk was built with eight fixed tubes, with a total of 30 torpedoes (thus two reloads per tube, plus six torpedoes "left over"). This was probably because both anti-surface (Mk15/16/17) and heavy ASW (Mk35) torpedoes were to be carried.

Light ASW torpedoes complicate things, because modern-day surface ships tend to carry a large number for helicopters. Thus they may carry a great number of potential reloads for their self-defense rotating tubes (eg Mk32 triples).

[Purgato]

On 8/14/2020 at 11:57 PM, Skeksis said:

What's the different between placing 20 torpedo launchers (no reloads) or one launcher with 20 reloads?

 

Weight and how destroyers are fundamentally used changes, since it turns a destroyer that has say, 3 double tube mounts from needing a squad to carry out an attack before pulling off to fend off the opposing destroyers as a screen.(Or hell maybe even SAVING their torps to be used once the right occasion makes itself known) to just pulling away, deploying smoke, and coming around for another two passes. One destroyer with the way mounts work right now is severally overvalued from their historical counterpart, at least from the meta way you're describing.

Again, I'd rather just have it so there is a more game-y meta along side an option for no reloads for torps, both can exist fine if there is an option before starting a game. I don't want to argue, I just want a fun game at the end of the day.

[Skeksis]

2 hours ago, Purgato said:

One destroyer with the way mounts work right now is severally overvalued from their historical counterpart

And without reloads they would be devalue.

The game is missing so many RL elements that it is impossible to apply exact RL attributes, therefore the game has to ‘balance’ the current attributes to create a playable meta.

Nearly all destroyer roles are missing, the only weapon destroyers have is torpedo’s, with zero reloads the whole class could be worthless. Unless Dev's include actual sub and AA screening, extra reloads coupled with short visibility ranges is the only option to balance destroyers, to give them value. And I think viable classes such as torpedo loaded destroyers creates more battle tactics, more than just big gun battles.

2 hours ago, Purgato said:

Again, I'd rather just have it so there is a more game-y meta along side an option for no reloads for torps, both can exist fine if there is an option before starting a game. I don't want to argue, I just want a fun game at the end of the day.

Since this forum has been opened, about a year now, difficultly/realism settings has been about the 4^th-5^th most requested feature, but not many insights from the Dev’s though.

Edited August 16, 2020 by Skeksis

[ColonelHenry]

Destroyers having multiple torp load is the single most bullshit balance issue in this game. Why bother building a 40k ton battleship when 5 destroyers with smoke screen will sink it anyway? Especially with later tech, it looks like I'm not playing in the 1930s but in some magic steampunk universe where people hide 24 21inches torps in their blackhole ass and pull it out when needing to reload.

[Skeksis]

1 hour ago, ColonelHenry said:

Destroyers having multiple torp load is the single most bullshit balance issue in this game. Why bother building a 40k ton battleship when 5 destroyers with smoke screen will sink it anyway?

If you sail a battleship all on its lonesome, is it the fault of the five DDs?

If an escort of cruisers was unable to mute 5 destroyers then that would be BS. 
 

[ColonelHenry]

Ohhhh I don't know, if only game would let me spawn with more than a battleship (talking about the build a battleship and having to fight 12 destroyers that hello kittying reload 12 torp spam every other minute). And yes, escorts sometimes doesn't work because of the stupid smoke and fast-speed penalty.

[IronKaputt]

27 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

If an escort of cruisers was unable to mute 5 destroyers then that would be BS.

Well, considering the ill-famed speed aiming penalty...

[ColonelHenry]

See, the thing is, it's fine with lower tech, but when it's hello kittying 1930s tech, torps can fire at 12km range or someshit and constantly changing course due to spammy amount of torp would eventually kill you one way or another which is both bullshit (fail balancing) and unrealistic to the point of fantasy (like medieval fantasy). This need to change ASAP. Destroyers should be deterrent against convoy raiding, giving anti air cover, screening, etc and not hello kittying ship killers because IRL they weren't.

[madham82]

On 8/15/2020 at 3:34 AM, disc said:

Carrying one reload per rotating tube was fairly common. 

Think you should preface that by saying that cruisers and larger ships were more likely to have 1 reload per tube, but smaller ships it didn't happen. Based on my research, I believe Fubuki was the only DD to have a reload for each tube with 18 torpedoes for it's 9 tubes. Several carried 1/2 reloads, most carried none. 

19 hours ago, Skeksis said:

And without reloads they would be devalue.

The game is missing so many RL elements that it is impossible to apply exact RL attributes, therefore the game has to ‘balance’ the current attributes to create a playable meta.

Nearly all destroyer roles are missing, the only weapon destroyers have is torpedo’s, with zero reloads the whole class could be worthless. Unless Dev's include actual sub and AA screening, extra reloads coupled with short visibility ranges is the only option to balance destroyers, to give them value. And I think viable classes such as torpedo loaded destroyers creates more battle tactics, more than just big gun battles.

Since this forum has been opened, about a year now, difficultly/realism settings has been about the 4^th-5^th most requested feature, but not many insights from the Dev’s though.

So by implying they are worthless without completely absurd and unbalanced reloads mechanics, you are also implying CLs are worthless. After all their main job was to hunt DDs and protect against torpedo attack. If a DD was so worthless without torpedo spam, why did anyone build CLs? 

DDs are supposedly to be relatively worthless as their role is supporting. They are cheap and disposable. After all, they largely replaced another cheap and disposable type, the TB. They are not the main combat element of any fleet. There's no justification for nonsense that is the reload/quantity mechanics as is.Trying to make them more valuable than it was supposed to be only throws other classes out of balance. 

11 hours ago, Skeksis said:

If you sail a battleship all on its lonesome, is it the fault of the five DDs?

If an escort of cruisers was unable to mute 5 destroyers then that would be BS. 
 

As others already pointed out, those 5 DDs could wipe out a fleet if built right thanks to the even bigger issue than this topic, the speed penalty. IMO, until this one is fixed....there's no need in trying to balance the torpedo reloads. Once DDs become vulnerable to gun fire again, then we will know how much tweaking needs to be done to give DDs the right game balance. There are several other problems with torpedoes right now beyond reloads (i.e. absurd damage reduction but high levels of anti-torp). Fixing those will drastically change the threat even a single spread of torpedoes poses to a BB. 

[madham82]

Newcomers should check out my previous test and results of the problems with torpedoes. Since I did this test the devs did slightly reduce reload counts, but only from 130+ to 96 😁

 

[Skeksis]

4 hours ago, madham82 said:

you are also implying CLs are worthless

Yes, in fact the question would be, why take anything else other than BBs to battle?

Removing torp reloads may have an cascading effect of turning the meta into big gun battles only, any lesser ships could be worthless. As the campaign tech improves and the ranges increase, UAD battles run the risk of turning into long range eye candy affairs.

With the inclusion of torpedo attacks and defenses it does led the player to an array of interactions.

4 hours ago, madham82 said:

those 5 DDs could wipe out a fleet

 

3 hours ago, madham82 said:

my previous test and results

I took 1 BB against 5 DDs and won very time, you simply turn and run with the DDs so they can’t launch against you.

Lets just say results so far don’t quite represent all possible scenarios. 

4 hours ago, madham82 said:

There's no justification for nonsense

If you think RL then yes but the game is missing alot of RL elements and because of that the game can't be a simulator, if you think game-wise with realistic themes then you end up with what we have today, a realistic, playable and fun game.

Edited August 17, 2020 by Skeksis

[madham82]

1 hour ago, Skeksis said:

Yes, in fact the question would be, why take anything else other than BBs to battle?

Removing torp reloads may have an cascading effect of turning the meta into big gun battles only, any lesser ships could be worthless. As the campaign tech improves and the ranges increase, UAD battles run the risk of turning into long range eye candy affairs.

With the inclusion of torpedo attacks and defenses it does led the player to an array of interactions.

 

I took 1 BB against 5 DDs and won very time, you simply turn and run with the DDs so they can’t launch against you.

Lets just say results so far don’t quite represent all possible scenarios. 

If you think RL then yes but the game is missing alot of RL elements and because of that the game can't be a simulator, if you think game-wise with realistic themes then you end up with what we have today, a realistic, playable and fun game.

Because at this point, there's no need build anything but 38+kt DDs loaded with as many torpedoes as possible and max reloads. Guns fail to hit anything as small as a DD at those speeds. 

The preeminent weapon of the era is the naval gun. That is the whole concept of the game. You don't see navies measuring their naval force in TBs, DDs, or CLs...but in large gun capital ships. So essentially any navy that wanted to project power developed them. Why? Because they could outgun and out armor anything not a capital ship. The effect of balancing (removing them completely isn't realistic either) their mechanics to RL will only keep the rest of the game in balance.  If you believe otherwise, you don't want a game based in reality, you want a fantasy like WoWS.

You played against the AI, who doesn't exploit the system. Try my DD design in the linked thread. I spent the entire match usually around 4-5km of a 100k ton BB and BC. They didn't hit any of my DDs but 1 time with a 3" gun. That's not balanced, that's not realistic, that's not even WoWS. The only scenarios it doesn't cover is when someone doesn't abuse the game design (or you get unlucky and the AI builds 38+kt ships).

Completely disagree, and most others agree with me (since there have been multiple threads about this topic). We have a severely unbalanced game that is in an identity crisis because some elements are based in reality, others pure fantasy. 

How about giving one good reason to have realistic number of rounds for main guns, but completely absurd numbers of torpedoes?

Why does barbette armor and type of propellant make a ship more susceptible to flash fires/ammo detonation sinkings, but having a couple of kilotons or torpedo warheads on the deck of a DD yet can still survive a hit from 8" HE shell?

I'm sure others can add more examples of conflicts of the game's stated aims with its implementation. 

Edited August 17, 2020 by madham82

[Skeksis]

I’m just going to add...

I think WW2 is what peeps know and that history is always going cast a shadow over WW1 era, especially in regards to ship designs and their roles and since the end game ending is 1939, the game is also going to lean towards recognizable roles.

Therefore attacking torpedo carrying destroyers with their reloads would be expected.

Edited August 17, 2020 by Skeksis

[Spitfire109]

I love destroyers, and i believe they need slight buffs in regards to being just a tiny bit more durable and their guns being a bit more capable so as to ensure they still have a place once they do run out of torpedos. Having one or two reloads should be an option, makes you heavier and more vulnerable to damage but it lets you fire off more of those deadly tubes of death. A destroyers place is to be the scout and protector, not the big stick that beats everything to death, thats the job of the CA, BC, BB. Reloads should be historical option not just a thing that gives you like 10 torps for you twin tube..

[disc]

On 8/17/2020 at 11:24 AM, madham82 said:

Think you should preface that by saying that cruisers and larger ships were more likely to have 1 reload per tube, but smaller ships it didn't happen. Based on my research, I believe Fubuki was the only DD to have a reload for each tube with 18 torpedoes for it's 9 tubes. Several carried 1/2 reloads, most carried none. 

It is true that many destroyers carried no reload torpedoes, but a substantial number carried a partial or full set, too, as did some torpedo boats.

For Japan, this included:

• The aforementioned Fubukis, and the Akatsukis, with 9 torpedo tubes and 18 total torpedoes (possibly reduced to 12 total after refit);
• The Hatsuharus, with 9 tubes and 18 total torpedoes, later reduced to 6 tubes and 12 torpedoes (and then later eliminated in favor of light AA guns);
• The Shiratsuyus, Asashios, Kageros, and Yugumos, with 8 tubes and 16 torpedoes:
• And the Akizukis, with 4 tubes and 8 torpedoes.

The one-off Shimakaze had no reloads, likely as its total of 15 torpedoes was similar to the contemporary Yugumos. 

The older Japanese destroyers and torpedo boats may have had reloads, and I rather suspect some of them did, but sources are sparse. Most I can dig up is that the Mutsukis had 10 torpedoes for 6 tubes. 

I believe the big and unfortunate Tomozuru torpedo boats had reloads before the Incident, but I have no source to back this up. I don't think the Otoris, Matsus, or Tachibanas shipped reloads, but I have little evidence of this either.

 

 

For the US, things were a little more mixed. For all the US torpedo boats:

• TB-1 and TB-2 do not appear to have carried reloads, although this is uncertain with their bow tubes.
• TB-3, TB-4, TB-5, and TB-8 carried a single reload torpedo along with three single tubes, for a total of four torpedoes.
• TB-6, TB-7, TB-9, and TB-10 had no reloads.
• TB-11 may have carried a single reload torpedo, along with two tubes; unclear.
• TB-12 through TB-18 had no reloads.
• TB-19 carried one reload each for its two single tubes, for a total of four torpedoes.
• TB-20, TB-21, TB-22, TB-24 through TB-32, and TB-35 are unknowns. I think most had no reloads.
• TB-23 was never armed.
• TB-33 and TB-34 had no reloads.

For US destroyers to the Gearings:

• The Bainbridges and Trixtuns had a reload for each tube, with two tubes and four torpedoes.
• The Smiths had a reload for each tube, with three tubes and six reloads.
•  The Pauldings, Cassins, Aylwins, O'Briens, Tuckers, Sampsons, Caldwells, Wickes, and Clemsons all had no reloads. However, their total number of torpedoes matched or exceeded their predecessors.
• The Farraguts likely had no reloads.
• The Porters had one reload per tube, with 8 tubes and 16 torpedoes.
• The Somers probably had no reloads, or at most perhaps 4 torpedoes for 12 tubes.
• The Mahans had racks for 4 reload torpedoes against their 12 tubes. They started a trend where reload racks were provided, but their weight was not counted, as a way of avoiding treaty weight limits.
• The 16 tube Gridleys, Bagleys, and Benhams probably had no reloads, but it is unclear.
• The Sims had 4 reload torpedoes for 12 tubes. Presumably the racks remained after the refit to 8 centerline tubes.
• The Benson-Gleaves and Fletchers had 4 reload torpedoes for 10 tubes. It appears this provision was eliminated sometime during WWII on most (if not all) units as weight compensation.
• The majority of Sumners and Gearings probably did not have any reloads as built.
• Later ASW refits would lead to tubes with reloads on some of the Fletchers, Sumners, and Gearings, but these appeared postwar.
• The WWII destroyer escorts do not appear to have had reloads.

In general, I suspect extra torpedoes were considered a luxury in the US, and that they were replaced by radar, AA, and anti-submarine items as needed. In any event, there were not elaborate arrangements for reloading above water rotating tubes on interwar destroyers, as the Japanese used. Reloading would be slow.

 

Sources are Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War, Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy, US Destroyers: An Illustrated Design History, and NavSource.

[draconins]

I think reload is not exclusive to IJN or USN either, some Soviet destroyers also carry reload (eg Leningrad with 8 tubes with one extra for each, though some book may say it has no reload, but there are other classes which has a few reload). What is most unique of IJN is they have dedicated reloading mechanism (which increase reload speed) , protection and the number of extra (if they have reload).

If realistic number to be carried, instead simply preventing reload, torpedo extra component should be available as a separate "rendered" component instead of simple increase of weight, can be as

• auxiliary component which need to be put close to torpedoes (it can use logic used for barbette which needs to be placed on specified slot aft or in front of bridges), preferably resized according to torpedo size.
• part of IJN superstructure which has mounting point specific to it (some actually better armored than tube itself)
• separate "rack"/container (with increased reload time as manual reload takes long time).

Putting this as rendered component would limit the unrealistic count of torp. As torpedo reload size and weight will affect the ship (though some center of mass mechanism balancing may need to be adjusted).

Personally, the more important to this is actually, making torpedo tubes different for each size, similar to gun. Larger torps will have bigger mount or can use torpedo turret like in IJN, right now only tube count is used for size. Even this relatively simple mechanism would limit number of torp to some extent.

 

15 hours ago, disc said:

I believe the big and unfortunate Tomozuru torpedo boats had reloads before the Incident, but I have no source to back this up. I don't think the Otoris, Matsus, or Tachibanas shipped reloads, but I have little evidence of this either.

From what I dig, Otoris has no reload. DE Matsu and DE Tachibana also has no reload as mainly used for escort.

In addition to the classes you already mentioned, most 53cm/21 incher (the older destroyers) has no reload except Nokaze (subclass of Minekaze ) has 2 reloads for at least  Namikaze and Numakaze. Though by WW2 most of them are mostly used as fast transport.

Edited August 19, 2020 by draconins

[madham82]

58 minutes ago, draconins said:

I think reload is not exclusive to IJN or USN either, some Soviet destroyers also carry reload (eg Leningrad with 8 tubes with one extra for each, though some book may say it has no reload, but there are other classes which has a few reload). What is most unique of IJN is they have dedicated reloading mechanism (which increase reload speed) , protection and the number of extra (if they have reload).

If realistic number to be carried, instead simply preventing reload, torpedo extra component should be available as a separate "rendered" component instead of simple increase of weight, can be as

• auxiliary component which need to be put close to torpedoes (it can use logic used for barbette which needs to be placed on specified slot aft or in front of bridges), preferably resized according to torpedo size.
• part of IJN superstructure which has mounting point specific to it (some actually better armored than tube itself)
• separate "rack"/container (with increased reload time as manual reload takes long time).

Putting this as rendered component would limit the unrealistic count of torp. As torpedo reload size and weight will affect the ship (though some center of mass mechanism balancing may need to be adjusted).

Personally, the more important to this is actually, making torpedo tubes different for each size, similar to gun. Larger torps will have bigger mount or can use torpedo turret like in IJN, right now only tube count is used for size. Even this relatively simple mechanism would limit number of torp to some extent.

 

From what I dig, Otoris has no reload. DE Matsu and DE Tachibana also has no reload as mainly used for escort.

In addition to the classes you already mentioned, most 53cm/21 incher (the older destroyers) has no reload except Nokaze (subclass of Minekaze ) has 2 reloads for at least  Namikaze and Numakaze. Though by WW2 most of them are mostly used as fast transport.

From my earlier research, Leningrad seems to have carried a half reload. There was a picture showing they were stored on deck along the sides of the superstructure, completely exposed mind you (wondering if they stopped this during wartime). Some of the German DDs at most carried half reloads as well. 

I definitely agree with making reloading storage/handling a rendered item to take up weight and space for deck mounted tubes. As stated, the Japanese heavily invested in this, which is why they carried so many torpedoes in comparison to other nations. So it should be an option to player to invest in it as well, but at a cost. With that and the your suggestion about tube diameter making a size difference in the mount would prevent completely unrealistic designs like my Torpedo Arsenal DD. 

[draconins]

Agree, most if not all ships except IJN WW2 ships store reload torpedoes exposed (either completely or with some weather protection), depending on "plan/situation/availability" they can differ in practice on how many actually carried, even within IJN. Specific to Leningrad, I don't really know whether they stopped the practice on wartime, though I think I read that it can carry full reload instead of just half.

I think we should agree that reload is not something should be prevented entirely, but need to be managed somehow, and best way is to make it a rendered component which has

• Weight, and space according to size of torpedoes .
• Reload time and armor based on whether you have dedicated armored reload equipment or just simple rack.

To make even more complex you can even make version of the reload equipment with varying reload time and cost, mostly without changing "assets", as IRL IJN had several version of reload equipment which is mostly enclosed and armored hence they can use same asset.

Of course the reload equipment cost, space and weight need to be reasonable enough to encourage their use.

[Cpt.Hissy]

From my humble research, even early torpedo boats could carry some spare boomfishes. This one in particular stored them under the lower deck (floor of internal cabins) in the "forecastle", and had rail system from there to all the launchers. Some even earlier model apparently had fixed torpedo launcher right in the bow, near the reloads, and this storage location was just carried over to new projects.

[madham82]

Just for clarity, there are two topics under "torpedo reloads":

1. Reload Storage

2. Reload Ability in Combat.

In my research I have not ran across an example of any ship reloading deck mounted tubes in combat. The Japanese came the closest since they had developed powered reloading equipment and their layout enabled fast reloading of their turreted tubes. But even so, their doctrine advised the ship to withdraw from the combat area to perform a reload. If someone does find an example, please post the reference, but I would say it is safe to say it just didn't happen due to the complexity and risk involved during combat.