Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
m8i

What was the reason for British Cruisers to have torpedoes?

18 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3,275
[WG-CC]
Privateers, Members
9,091 posts
7,978 battles

To fire them at enemy ships given the typical Atlantic conditions that allowed for short range combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,580
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,304 posts
6,266 battles

Well they're mostly light cruisers, and honestly until you get really high in displacement most nations kept torpedoes on their cruisers (the US being the oddball in that regard). Plus, like Sirene said, they were really concerned with performance in the North Atlantic where space was more confined and close range engagements were more likely. It's the reason they went with armored hangars on most of their carriers too.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,730
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,750 posts
15,279 battles

Certainly for later ships the flexibility to have a rapid response weapon in short range encounters was useful, as was the overall threat of carrying tubes on cruisers. Torpedoes could also be used to finish off damaged ships.

For some classes such as the earlier Emerald and C's/D's torpedoes were a part of the ships' offensive firepower in particular designed to be used in concert with destroyers.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
545
[P-V-E]
Members
1,519 posts
1 minute ago, Landsraad said:

North Atlantic where space was more confined

one generally wouldn't North Atlantic and confined together.

 

now the North Sea, the English Channel, The Baltic Sea and other on the other hand you could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
844
[HELLS]
Members
2,727 posts
28,827 battles

RN policy was to use CL torpedoes as long range browning shots, and as anti-DD weapons. The idea was a holdover from WW I battle line tactics where long range torpedo fire at the enemy's battle line was favored. The RN ideas used cruisers and BBs for this. Pre-WW I the RN separated the DDs from the battle line, the cruiser's main role was scouting, torpedoing the enemy battle line, and anti-DD work, and the RN only adopted daylight DD torpedo attacks after Jellicoe took over. The DDs were separated from the BBs at night to avoid blue-on-blue accidents in the event of a night encounter. Until the end of WW II the RN considered torpedoes as main armament (snidely called ''main ornament'' by the ships' companies!), especially on DDs.

Edited by GrandAdmiral_2016
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,533
[PSA]
Members
5,111 posts
3,732 battles

Because they actually had torpedoes?

Most cruisers carried them. I believe it's only the Americans that ditched torps completely on newer light and heavy cruisers, likely to use that space to cram in as much AA as possible, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,216
[CVA16]
Members
5,650 posts
17,422 battles

Besides the "most everybody but the US had 'em" reason, Brits needed their cruisers to carry the flag to far off colonies and ports. You wanted that  cruiser to at least be a threat against a larger enemy ship. They were generally smaller and less armored than their counterparts, but had a good range to reach those ports. Just like in game, the ability for a massive Alpha strike can be intimidating.  Most decisionmakers in the 30's had no idea how dangerous planes would be, still trying to refight WWI.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
150
-Members-
272 posts
3,291 battles
 
 
 
 
1
 Advanced issues found
 
 
3
17 hours ago, Sabot_100 said:

Besides the "most everybody but the US had 'em" reason, Brits needed their cruisers to carry the flag to far off colonies and ports. You wanted that  cruiser to at least be a threat against a larger enemy ship.  Just like in game, the ability for a massive Alpha strike can be intimidating.  Most decisionmakers in the 30's had no idea how dangerous planes would be, still trying to refight WWI.

Having a ship, a vessel of "Diplomacy of force" as per British cabinet of the timeframe, be armed to the teeth with various offensive capability rather than for a specific target does make sense for the time period. The US response for the cruisers, going AA heavy, was in direct response to their experience in the Pacific. The Royal Navy had more than a few centuries of "Gunboat diplomacy" as well as facing a wide variety of challenges. to learn that having a bag of varying tools was to its benefit. 

And the British Mark IV and Mark IX were good torps for there era and need. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,216
[CVA16]
Members
5,650 posts
17,422 battles
4 minutes ago, BTed72 said:

And the British Mark IV and Mark IX were good torps for there era and need. 

True, just think how many useless torps the US could have been hauling around in 1942 if they had decided to go torps over AA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
844
[HELLS]
Members
2,727 posts
28,827 battles
17 hours ago, Sabot_100 said:

Besides the "most everybody but the US had 'em" reason, Brits needed their cruisers to carry the flag to far off colonies and ports. You wanted that  cruiser to at least be a threat against a larger enemy ship. They were generally smaller and less armored than their counterparts, but had a good range to reach those ports. Just like in game, the ability for a massive Alpha strike can be intimidating.  Most decisionmakers in the 30's had no idea how dangerous planes would be, still trying to refight WWI.

Exactly. Torpedoes aboard RN cruisers were used against Bismarck and Scharnhorst, and against the Regia Marina in the Med on several occasions. And the RAF added fuel to the RN's error file on the use of shipboard AA by holding the position that ships were difficult targets to hit with high altitude level bombing (correct-and based on testing) and that high-angle dive bombing would be ineffective. A myth. The RN has almost zero influence on Air Ministry policy between the wars and recovered control of their shipborne aircraft and crews far too late to acquire decent airplanes before the war because RAF Fighter and Bomber Commands had production and delivery priority, for air defence of the UK and ''Strategic Bombing'' of Germany. Another myth. The FAA was stuck with weak, slow fighters, no real dive bombers and painfully slow torpedo bombers until American aircraft (F4F and TBF) were acquired.

Even Coastal Command had weak, essentially useless patrol aircraft until late 1940, without any real ASW capability until 1941, and almost zero long range oceanic patrol aircraft until mid-1941. The Coastal Command Catalina that spotted the Bismarck was flown by a USN pilot who was ''instructing'' RAF pilots on the type as it was in the first delivery batch ordered in 1940 by the RAF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
786
[TOG]
Members
4,213 posts
25,120 battles
7 minutes ago, Sabot_100 said:

True, just think how many useless torps the US could have been hauling around in 1942 if they had decided to go torps over AA.

Tell that to the IJN CA's in the Pacific in the 1941- early 1943 time frame. See if they thought those Long Lance torps were useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,216
[CVA16]
Members
5,650 posts
17,422 battles
1 minute ago, Bill_Halsey said:

Tell that to the IJN CA's in the Pacific in the 1941- early 1943 time frame. See if they thought those Long Lance torps were useless.

I was referring specifically to the US torps having a horrible record early in the war. Lots of depth and detonator problems. Long Lance torps were a completely different fish.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LHG]
Members
2,225 posts
6,426 battles
On 6/11/2019 at 6:25 AM, b101uk said:

one generally wouldn't North Atlantic and confined together.

 

now the North Sea, the English Channel, The Baltic Sea and other on the other hand you could.

It's not about the space, it's about the visibility conditions which would govern how close the enemy combatants were likely to be when the sighted each other.  The Med is a far more geographically confined space but visibility tended to be much better so the likely initial encounter range would have been substantially longer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LHG]
Members
2,225 posts
6,426 battles
On 6/11/2019 at 5:30 AM, m8i said:

Just curiosity, the real historical reason. 

Historical?  

Well mostly because these vessels carried them and being trainable tubes, could have used them effectively had an enemy come close enough for them to do so.  

In reality, only the Japanese really were able to effectively use torpedoes mounted on cruisers.  This was due to their superior night fighting training which allowed them to close with their enemy without being detected,  but even moreso because of the speed, accuracy and incredibly long range of their "Long Lance" torpedoes.  For other cruisers, engagement ranges tended to be longer than the effective range of their torpedoes so they saw little use during the war. 

All that kind of changes in WOWS since ships frequently end up being far closer to each other than would ever have happened in real life so even battleship torpedoes work to some extent.  Hence, while the range of UK cruisers might not have been long enough for them to be effectively used in real life, in WOWS, because of terrain, game mechanics, and the influence they have on WOWS tactics, they do.  

 

Edited by BB3_Oregon_Steel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
156
[WHARF]
Members
277 posts
18,056 battles
19 hours ago, Bill_Halsey said:

Tell that to the IJN CA's in the Pacific in the 1941- early 1943 time frame. See if they thought those Long Lance torps were useless.

Sorry...not the same at all...and you know it....we did not have oxygen fueled torps.with that range ..but had compressed air..that leaves a wake that can be seen..night and day

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.

×