Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Filthy_Pelican

HMS NELSON : Where are my Torpedos?!?!?!?

17 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

228
[-BRS-]
Members
579 posts
24,350 battles

So after using this ship for the last few days, I have to say I like it. If you play it correctly you can wreck pretty much anything you'll come across. But why doesn't it have the British 24.5-inch Torpedo launchers??? This is what the Nelson and Rodney both had. The Rodney put a few into the Bismarck for god's sake!  Wargaming should fix this and give the Nelson its Torpedo Launcher. This is the same torpedo that the Japanese based their Long Lance Torpedos on and should be in the game. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_24.5_inch_torpedo

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,382
[MIA]
Clan Supertest Coordinator, Supertester
6,453 posts
7,860 battles

There are no underwater torpedoes in the game and WG has stated this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
723
[NEUTR]
Members
2,207 posts
8,158 battles

Hi

index.jpg

 

Image removed by Mezurashi.

[Note from moderator: Please do not re-upload the image that was removed because it violates the rules.]

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,899
[SIM]
Members
4,028 posts
6,891 battles

If Rodney comes to the game, she had best have her torpedo tubes intact. It doesn't matter if they're any good, they're fundamental to the ship's historical identity. On Nelson they were an understandable omission, but on Rodney it would be downright inexcusable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
797
[PSV]
Privateers, Supertester
5,523 posts
5,920 battles

You should've been asking for torps after you've taken a look at Wyoming... oh wait you probably never bothered with actually looking at ships closely besides the ones you like have you?

 

Most ships in the game do not come with their full historical armaments, and this goes the same for battleships. Even Bellerophon doesn't have her historical torpedoes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WoWS Community Contributors
174 posts

WG has stated on multiple occasions that there are no underwater torps ........

10 minutes ago, Personator said:

Even Bellerophon doesn't have her historical torpedoes. 

 

Bet you didn't know that one either eh?

1sDVTok.jpg

Edited by USSFidgetspinner
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,097
[NMKJT]
Members
3,871 posts

Warspite also had fixed tubes IRL and not in game. No loss. Play a Yubari and you will understand how a small firing arc is impossible to use without exposing your broadside and getting cit'ed, and fixed tubes would have a way more restricted arc than the Yubyub

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
450
[LWA]
Members
777 posts
11,489 battles

You only want to read what you want to see.  You totally neglected to mention the torpedo had a speed of 30 or 35 knots, and a very short range.  Kind of useless.  Yeah, she might have fired a torpedo at the Bismarck, but the battle was over and the Royal Navy was still trying to sink the burning hulk that was lifelessly floating.

Oh, and if WG does decide to the torpedo tube in the bow, then it should create an extra detonation risk when the bow is struck by a torpedo.  

 

Edited by db4100

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
94
[ERN]
Members
646 posts
9,719 battles

There were also fixed torpedo tubes on the low tiered Russian cruisers (on the actual ships) Aurora, Diana, Novik, Bogatyr, and Oleg, yet I didn't care, and nobody else cared if they didn't have them in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,874
Supertester, Members, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
11,324 posts
1,963 battles
10 hours ago, db4100 said:

You only want to read what you want to see.  You totally neglected to mention the torpedo had a speed of 30 or 35 knots, and a very short range.  Kind of useless. 

You are a hypocrite. 

Namely because every single torpedo in the game has ~20 knots more than it did in real life. So in game, the 24.5" Mk I torpedo would have 50 or 55 knot speeds, going out to 18.3km or 13.7km respectively (which is not short ranged either, fyi). Alternatively, WG will make the speed even higher, with a corresponding decrease in range. Damage is ~15,500. 

Hardly useless. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
450
[LWA]
Members
777 posts
11,489 battles
13 hours ago, mr3awsome said:

You are a hypocrite. 

Namely because every single torpedo in the game has ~20 knots more than it did in real life. So in game, the 24.5" Mk I torpedo would have 50 or 55 knot speeds, going out to 18.3km or 13.7km respectively (which is not short ranged either, fyi). Alternatively, WG will make the speed even higher, with a corresponding decrease in range. Damage is ~15,500. 

Hardly useless. 

  •  
    CloseStyle: MLA APA Chicago
     
    EasyBib 

Definition of hypocrite

1 :a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 :a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
 
First off, no hypocrisy was spewed here.
 
Second, if you want to make stuff up, then sure anything is possible.  USS South Carolina, USS Wyoming, and USS New York should get torpedo tubes with her "A" hull (you can see the torpedo tubes in dry dock)....as designed with 26 knot speed and  a 3.65 Km range, but we will "make believe" buff it to 55 knot speed and a 6 km range.  If we are going to just make stuff up, then sure, go ahead and implement it, but you will have to do to all Dreadnaught era battleships and cruisers as all of the nations had them.  I am all for fixed torpedo tubes in ships, but if you do it for one, then do it for all.  But, just remember in reality they were impractical and were mostly removed, just like the "ram bow".  WG has yet to make proper use of the fixed torpedo tubes (and they said they won't) nor the reinforced "ram bow" on early warships.   But, I am all for it if they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,874
Supertester, Members, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
11,324 posts
1,963 battles
1 hour ago, db4100 said:
  •  
    CloseStyle: MLA APA Chicago
     
    EasyBib 

Definition of hypocrite

1 :a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 :a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
 
First off, no hypocrisy was spewed here.
 
Second, if you want to make stuff up, then sure anything is possible.  USS South Carolina, USS Wyoming, and USS New York should get torpedo tubes with her "A" hull (you can see the torpedo tubes in dry dock)....as designed with 26 knot speed and  a 3.65 Km range, but we will "make believe" buff it to 55 knot speed and a 6 km range.  If we are going to just make stuff up, then sure, go ahead and implement it, but you will have to do to all Dreadnaught era battleships and cruisers as all of the nations had them.  I am all for fixed torpedo tubes in ships, but if you do it for one, then do it for all.  But, just remember in reality they were impractical and were mostly removed, just like the "ram bow".  WG has yet to make proper use of the fixed torpedo tubes (and they said they won't) nor the reinforced "ram bow" on early warships.   But, I am all for it if they do.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Dictionary#dobs=hypocrisy

Nope, you are a hypocrite, by the virtue of berating someone for only reading what you wanted to see, whilst you did the same regarding torpedoes in game, and indeed the range of the torpedo in question. 

 

Whilst WG has pushed the limits in some cases (Huang He, for example), torpedoes are all altered to a degree that isn't implausible. Perhaps they have documents pertaining to experiments of which we know not. Perhaps not. As for fixed tubes, they won't do submerged tubes. Because they won't do gyroscopes, which leaves no aim arc whatsoever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
450
[LWA]
Members
777 posts
11,489 battles

The facts were left out to push an argument, and I just called him out on it.....sorry, no hypocrisy here. 

Edited by db4100

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×