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

Lightning depth charges

29 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,481
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,862 posts
7,177 battles

proof the RN dds are already ready for the submarine invasion. (and what else is there on the stern are they anti sub mortars?) (see @HMS_Formidable's reply for the answer)

shot-18.09.23_10.40.28-0037.jpg

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
520
[SCRAP]
Beta Testers
1,448 posts
4,634 battles

Damn hope they make them specialists in this field (Battle of the Atlantic, anyone) instead of the hodge-podge they are now on the surface.

But I think you will find those on the stern rails are smoke canisters ... not depth charges.

The depth charges in the above are mounted on 'throwers' to create a spread pattern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,481
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,862 posts
7,177 battles
11 minutes ago, HMS_Formidable said:

Damn hope they make them specialists in this field (Battle of the Atlantic, anyone) instead of the hodge-podge they are now on the surface.

But I think you will find those on the stern rails are smoke canisters ... not depth charges.

The depth charges in the above are mounted on 'throwers' to create a spread pattern.

thanks for the info!

given the WG emphasis on RN dds as a screening force, I'd hope they live up to this role vs submarines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
279
[LHG]
Members
1,196 posts
4,986 battles

Yes, those things are depth charge throwers. The charges are attached to a stick-thingy that gets placed into the mortar.

Ships have had depth charges modeled for a long time. Here's Atlanta's ASW array:

Spoiler

fFZ0AIW.jpg

That looks quite impressive, until you compare it to that of the Sims:

Spoiler

TjAZBwC.jpg

I took a second picture to get a better look at the throwers:

Spoiler

Y9NrsR1.jpg

And it's not just old ones, either. Here's the Kitakaze's:

Spoiler

ut3LqlE.jpg

Even the fictional ship Harekaze gets some:

Spoiler

LyV8ODs.jpg

 

However, there are a lot of ships that you'd think would be equipped with depth charges, but don't. Among these are:

- USN tech tree light cruisers (I think this is due to the doctrine, but I can't say for sure)

- Aigle and Blyskawica

- German light cruisers (probably due to their intended use in commerce raiding, but it's odd because at least Japan's T4 light cruiser Kuma has them)

RN cruisers (at least the Leander and Fiji that I have in my port) do have depth charges, but their suite is incredibly lacking. I think even the Russian T6 Budyonny has more oomph in the ASW department, and that's definitely not a ship that's going to be near the front lines.

 

If we're going by what's modeled right now, depth-charge capable ships aren't as widespread over all the trees. WG might have to re-do ship models, and they're very reluctant to do that cough Izumo cough.

Edited by Flashtirade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
520
[SCRAP]
Beta Testers
1,448 posts
4,634 battles
32 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

thanks for the info!

given the WG emphasis on RN dds as a screening force, I'd hope they live up to this role vs submarines.

Some RN light cruisers had ASDIC and depth charges, but rarely more than one or two drop patterns.

And looking again at your picture, the smoke canisters sit ON TOP of a rack containing depth charges on the stern.

Lightning was a dual-purpose gunboat with high angle main armament mounts and directors (though Wargaming seemed to have missed that), so she was only offering 'supplementary' ASW support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27
[ISLA]
Beta Testers
335 posts
7,136 battles
1 hour ago, LoveBote said:

proof the RN dds are already ready for the submarine invasion. (and what else is there on the stern are they anti sub mortars?) (see @HMS_Formidable's reply for the answer)

shot-18.09.23_10.40.28-0037.jpg

all the dd v and up have ASW instilled on them. maybe a buff to other dd that maybe under performing in dps or damage to catch up. IE. torp boats vs  gun boats vs middle boats

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
358
[CUTER]
[CUTER]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,624 posts
8,912 battles

The Atlanta class had ASW weapons due to its role as a destroyer leader. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,097
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor
7,332 posts
6,609 battles
2 hours ago, Flashtirade said:

German light cruisers (probably due to their intended use in commerce raiding, but it's odd because at least Japan's T4 light cruiser Kuma has them)

Historically speaking both the Hipper-class and Tirpitz carried depth charges. I need to look up the Light Cruisers, but I wouldn‘t be surprised to find them with ASW-armament as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
273
[SDIWO]
Members
1,032 posts
5,355 battles

Depth charges have been modeled on destroyers for ages now. This is nothing new.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
279
[LHG]
Members
1,196 posts
4,986 battles
4 hours ago, SireneRacker said:

Historically speaking both the Hipper-class and Tirpitz carried depth charges. I need to look up the Light Cruisers, but I wouldn‘t be surprised to find them with ASW-armament as well.

Haven't checked out their historical loadouts, I'm only speculating based on what I can see in port. Nurnberg (B and C hulls), Hipper, Tirpitz, and Bismarck do not have modeled depth charges. Eugen might have charges, there are four small barrels on her stern. However, they don't look like depth charges and are not positioned on or near any rails or launchers.

Add French light cruisers to the list of ships (currently) without depth charges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
273
[SDIWO]
Members
1,032 posts
5,355 battles
2 hours ago, Flashtirade said:

Haven't checked out their historical loadouts, I'm only speculating based on what I can see in port. Nurnberg (B and C hulls), Hipper, Tirpitz, and Bismarck do not have modeled depth charges. Eugen might have charges, there are four small barrels on her stern. However, they don't look like depth charges and are not positioned on or near any rails or launchers.

Add French light cruisers to the list of ships (currently) without depth charges.

A depth charge is literally just a barrel of explosives set to detonate at a set depth. Having them on board is meaningless unless you can set the depth......or if the target can change depth. This is why adding submarines to the game is so stupid. Are you really going to add to the game a guessing game of what depth a submarine is at? Are you really going to add to the game a ship that can pop down to invulnerability then pop back up in time to actually make a meaningful and timely shot? Bugger off with this submarine nonsense.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
273
[SDIWO]
Members
1,032 posts
5,355 battles
2 hours ago, Flashtirade said:

Haven't checked out their historical loadouts, I'm only speculating based on what I can see in port. Nurnberg (B and C hulls), Hipper, Tirpitz, and Bismarck do not have modeled depth charges. Eugen might have charges, there are four small barrels on her stern. However, they don't look like depth charges and are not positioned on or near any rails or launchers.

Add French light cruisers to the list of ships (currently) without depth charges.

So are depth charges going to be set for a single depth? Or is a submerged ship assumed to be at a single depth and that's it? Cause changing depths was a key strategy of avoiding being killed as a submarine.

There are so many mechanics involved in submarine warfare that I can't believe they're introducing it. Let alone the fact that submarines were, in fleet battles as this game represents, at best mop up ships that hit already damaged ships and at worst scouts that gave intel leading up to the battle.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
279
[LHG]
Members
1,196 posts
4,986 battles
5 minutes ago, LubzinNJ said:

A depth charge is literally just a barrel of explosives set to detonate at a set depth. Having them on board is meaningless unless you can set the depth......or if the target can change depth. This is why adding submarines to the game is so stupid. Are you really going to add to the game a guessing game of what depth a submarine is at? Are you really going to add to the game a ship that can pop down to invulnerability then pop back up in time to actually make a meaningful and timely shot? Bugger off with this submarine nonsense.

 

1 minute ago, LubzinNJ said:

So are depth charges going to be set for a single depth? Or is a submerged ship assumed to be at a single depth and that's it? Cause changing depths was a key strategy of avoiding being killed as a submarine.

There are so many mechanics involved in submarine warfare that I can't believe they're introducing it. Let alone the fact that submarines were, in fleet battles as this game represents, at best mop up ships that hit already damaged ships and at worst scouts that gave intel leading up to the battle.

 

I've already made comments in another thread about how hard it would be to even deploy depth charges at a submarine with the game's current mechanics. This thread isn't about balancing or gameplay though, it's only about the modeling of charges onboard ships.

Edited by Flashtirade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
273
[SDIWO]
Members
1,032 posts
5,355 battles
1 minute ago, Flashtirade said:

 

 

I've already made comments in another thread about how hard it would be to even deploy depth charges at a submarine with the game's current mechanics. This thread isn't about balancing or gameplay though, it's only about the modeling of charges onboard ships.

That might be the least most important thing about the submarine addition

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
676
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Members
2,888 posts
1,338 battles
8 hours ago, Flashtirade said:

However, there are a lot of ships that you'd think would be equipped with depth charges, but don't. Among these are:

- USN tech tree light cruisers (I think this is due to the doctrine, but I can't say for sure)

Doctrine, pretty much.  They always had tons of DDs, and more building.  The US built 175 Fletchers, after all, and had 161 DDs of other classes before the war started.   The Sumner and the Gearing classes were late-war to post-war.  Probably the same doctrine that didn't put torps on USN cruisers, except Atlanta and her cousins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
279
[LHG]
Members
1,196 posts
4,986 battles
23 minutes ago, LubzinNJ said:

That might be the least most important thing about the submarine addition

For us, maybe. But for WG, it's going to be a huge effort to model depth charges on ships that don't already have them and an extraordinary one to animate all of them. Again, WG has already proven their reluctance on changing models they already consider done, the poster child of neglect being the Izumo.

Modeling is also going to be a part of balance, since WG would have to decide how many depth charges a ship can deploy and by what means. For example, take the Sims which I showed in my first post in this thread. It has 2 racks of 15 charges that it can dump right off the back and 5 throwers per side (4 K-guns and 1 Y-gun, not counting the modeled reloads). That's 40 depth charges in a single drop. It has the strongest ASW array of any ship in my port, and I think it could be the best in the entire game. Meanwhile, most other destroyers get like 8 to 12 depth charges total. Should Sims have its already-modeled ASW potential restricted to fall in line with the other ships?

Edited by Flashtirade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
491
[NWNG]
[NWNG]
Members
2,039 posts
3,580 battles

Ships have been given depth charges, during the time in which WG Dev Team was saying "there will be no submarines," because they like to pay attention to detail, and give a ship all equipment that it had, including depth charges. Just to prove a Point: Akizuki had depth charges on its ship model, before Harugumo and Kitakaze were even announced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
857
[SBS]
Members
2,488 posts
2,253 battles
1 hour ago, LubzinNJ said:

A depth charge is literally just a barrel of explosives set to detonate at a set depth. Having them on board is meaningless unless you can set the depth......or if the target can change depth. This is why adding submarines to the game is so stupid. Are you really going to add to the game a guessing game of what depth a submarine is at? Are you really going to add to the game a ship that can pop down to invulnerability then pop back up in time to actually make a meaningful and timely shot? Bugger off with this submarine nonsense.

lol, you're talking about subs being invulnerable while submerged in a thread about depth charges. :cap_haloween: For the halloween event the depth charges will detonate at random depths.  We don't know if that will carry over in the game, assuming subs even make it to the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
273
[SDIWO]
Members
1,032 posts
5,355 battles
1 hour ago, Flashtirade said:

For us, maybe. But for WG, it's going to be a huge effort to model depth charges on ships that don't already have them and an extraordinary one to animate all of them.

I stopped reading after this. Your concern on how depth charges will be modeled on ships and how they are deployed is the least of my concerns. How the depth charges and how submarines are represented in game is #1. #1 to the point that since they seem to be intent on doing this I am extremely concerned they're going to break the game trying to shoehorn in a ship that has no place in a set piece fleet battle.

But go ahead, keep worrying that the animation of a depth charge being launched is the critical item on the submarine addition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
273
[SDIWO]
Members
1,032 posts
5,355 battles
2 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

lol, you're talking about subs being invulnerable while submerged in a thread about depth charges. :cap_haloween: For the halloween event the depth charges will detonate at random depths.  We don't know if that will carry over in the game, assuming subs even make it to the game. 

I was talking about how submarines in real life could change depth to avoid depth charges and how doing that in game would mean WG would need to both make submarines set a depth and destroyers or any other ship with a depth charge alter the depth it explodes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
857
[SBS]
Members
2,488 posts
2,253 battles
Just now, LubzinNJ said:

I was talking about how submarines in real life could change depth to avoid depth charges and how doing that in game would mean WG would need to both make submarines set a depth and destroyers or any other ship with a depth charge alter the depth it explodes.

That's the issue random depth detonation of the depth charges attempts to balance.  I've wondered if depth charges will be automatic like secondary guns.  That way you don't have to stop the surface combat to engage a submerged sub with depth charges.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
273
[SDIWO]
Members
1,032 posts
5,355 battles
3 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

That's the issue random depth detonation of the depth charges attempts to balance.  I've wondered if depth charges will be automatic like secondary guns.  That way you don't have to stop the surface combat to engage a submerged sub with depth charges.  

Hmmm that could be interesting. And since they're boinking AA to make carriers viable they might remove the AA skills and add some ASW skills...I don't like it but I see how you're thinking how WG thinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
857
[SBS]
Members
2,488 posts
2,253 battles
Just now, LubzinNJ said:

Hmmm that could be interesting. And since they're boinking AA to make carriers viable they might remove the AA skills and add some ASW skills...I don't like it but I see how you're thinking how WG thinks.

Another thing about depth charges in the halloween event.  They cause damage by direct contact, and they have a blast radius just like real depth charges.  You can see in the helloween event demo video that a sub takes fairly minor damage, but it also get set on fire by a depth charge that detonated some distance away.  WG has given some thought into how to deal with submerged subs. 

I happen to love the idea of subs being introduced.  Still, I have concerns about its done, and the impact it will have on the game overall.  Right now I'm focused on trying to think how these things can be balanced instead of how they will never be balanced; because I'm pretty sure WG has already decided subs are coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×