Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Titus_Pullo_13

Damage susceptibility, advantages and historical precedence.

5 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
147 posts
3,780 battles

There are a few reasons why the US cruisers had no torps:

Torpedos were very dangerous when hit. All those torpedos on deck, and in the magazine below, were an explosion waiting to happen and it was considered an unnecessary hazard. They weren't used very often by cruisers and rarely to any great effect.  For WoWS cruisers that carry torpedos, "TORPEDO TUBES DESTROYED", could easily be a massive detonation that breaks the ship in half. I'm not suggesting that ships should blow up more easily (which would be historically accurate) but the American cruisers should blow up less frequently because of the reduced risk of torp warhead explosion. This valid rationale would help mitigate the poor armor on USN cruisers. 

Also, the American cruisers have a higher freeboard, they sit high out of the water. This wasn't sloppy design. It made for more room. More room means greater comfort for the crew. A more comfortable crew should have quicker reload, damage control times and anything that requires humans to react. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
884
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,028 posts
12,710 battles
1 hour ago, FranklinjVI said:

There are a few reasons why the US cruisers had no torps:

Torpedos were very dangerous when hit. All those torpedos on deck, and in the magazine below, were an explosion waiting to happen and it was considered an unnecessary hazard. They weren't used very often by cruisers and rarely to any great effect.  For WoWS cruisers that carry torpedos, "TORPEDO TUBES DESTROYED", could easily be a massive detonation that breaks the ship in half. I'm not suggesting that ships should blow up more easily (which would be historically accurate) but the American cruisers should blow up less frequently because of the reduced risk of torp warhead explosion. This valid rationale would help mitigate the poor armor on USN cruisers. 

Also, the American cruisers have a higher freeboard, they sit high out of the water. This wasn't sloppy design. It made for more room. More room means greater comfort for the crew. A more comfortable crew should have quicker reload, damage control times and anything that requires humans to react. 

Interesting. but not why it actually happened.

Most prewar US Navy cruisers were built with torpedo tubes, and had them removed before the war. They were tonnage better spent on AA guns, and the US Navy had the idea that cruisers would fight in a similar manner to battleships, in longer ranged gunnery duels. The US Navy didn't plan for battles like Guadalcanal.

The high freeboard was for seaworthiness, as the US Navy didn't have any one operational theater in mind, so the ships needed to be useful everywhere.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
147 posts
3,780 battles
6 minutes ago, SgtBeltfed said:

Interesting. but not why it actually happened.

Most prewar US Navy cruisers were built with torpedo tubes, and had them removed before the war. They were tonnage better spent on AA guns, and the US Navy had the idea that cruisers would fight in a similar manner to battleships, in longer ranged gunnery duels. The US Navy didn't plan for battles like Guadalcanal.

The high freeboard was for seaworthiness, as the US Navy didn't have any one operational theater in mind, so the ships needed to be useful everywhere.

Maybe I am incorrect on the planning for torpedos... I thought they were intentionally left off but your reasoning makes sense.  I don't mean to imply  the high freeboard was specifically for crew comfort but more room for the crew was a result. 

In both cases though the factors could be reflected in the game. Japanese ships had torpedos explode after hits a couple of times.

Any way you slice it, torpedos on deck are dangerous and result in more explosions and a larger hull means more room for the crew. The US cruisers should have a bump in hit points and crew responsiveness -  even it's token, it acknowledges facts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
884
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,028 posts
12,710 battles
13 minutes ago, FranklinjVI said:

Maybe I am incorrect on the planning for torpedos... I thought they were intentionally left off but your reasoning makes sense.  I don't mean to imply  the high freeboard was specifically for crew comfort but more room for the crew was a result. 

In both cases though the factors could be reflected in the game. Japanese ships had torpedos explode after hits a couple of times.

Any way you slice it, torpedos on deck are dangerous and result in more explosions and a larger hull means more room for the crew. The US cruisers should have a bump in hit points and crew responsiveness -  even it's token, it acknowledges facts. 

Well, the lack of torpedoes is reflected in game in at least one way, the additional AA guns and radar at the higher tiers. I'm also not certain, but I think that torpedoes can be a source of "detonations" so not having them does reduce that chance.

The higher freeboard is not unique to US Navy cruisers though, British and French cruisers also tend to have higher freeboards because of global commitments. As far as extra room having an effect on the crew, it's probably a wash, at least if you don't look at the Japanese. The IJN is about the only navy that crammed the crew into a cruiser to the point that at least the Royal Navy figured it was detrimental to crew quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
147 posts
3,780 battles

If they are already a source of detonation than that renders my suggestion moot although I would think cruisers with torps would be denoting a lot more often. Thats a lot of explosive power exposed on the deck. 

 

It wouldn't make the DD or CV people happy but American torpedos below a certain tier could fail to denote 20% of the time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×