Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Airglide2

Can anyone think of a Destroyer with a Torpedo Bulge?

54 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
1,106 posts
12,142 battles

Similar to my Reddit post about a high tier ship with multiple turrets...: 

 

...I'm wondering if there existed a Destroyer that held torpedo bulges on its sides.  Or maybe any Destroyer in history that had plans of incorporated one (however small).  I just thought that'd be a neat gimmick for such a small ship at high tiers.  Or mid tiers.

Edited by Airglide2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,271
[CVA16]
Members
5,865 posts
18,023 battles

An effective torpedo bulge on such a (relatively) short, narrow ship would greatly impact the speed. Think about adding 15-20 feet of beam to a DD. It's going to NEED that bulge 'cuz its going to dodge like a barge.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,222
[--K--]
Members
1,351 posts
11,705 battles

From the time frame in question I don’t believe it was ever done.  In terms of pure mass, destroyers of the time always suffered from the balance of (guns) either being top heavy affecting their seas worthiness and efficiency (range/power plant).  Torp protection was not a concern for a destroy as much as it’s designated role dictated it’s eventual outfit to sea.  Naval treaty’s being a huge influence In tonnage and design until the inevitable outbreak of war.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,749
[-ARP-]
[-ARP-]
Members
1,287 posts
19,907 battles

No, it's too small a ship. Maybe torpedo nets back in the pre ww2 days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,106 posts
12,142 battles
47 minutes ago, Sabot_100 said:

An effective torpedo bulge on such a (relatively) short, narrow ship would greatly impact the speed. Think about adding 15-20 feet of beam to a DD. It's going to NEED that bulge 'cuz its going to dodge like a barge.

 

Hmmm.  I don't know how much slower it would make the ship, but I don't mind gambling with, say, a 31-32 knot Destroyer.  Just to test it out, see how it goes.  

 

33 minutes ago, BarneyStyle said:

From the time frame in question I don’t believe it was ever done.  In terms of pure mass, destroyers of the time always suffered from the balance of (guns) either being top heavy affecting their seas worthiness and efficiency (range/power plant).  Torp protection was not a concern for a destroy as much as it’s designated role dictated it’s eventual outfit to sea.  Naval treaty’s being a huge influence In tonnage and design until the inevitable outbreak of war.  

So wouldn't the the bulges, since they spread out sideways, make the ship more balanced?  Heavier yeah, but I wonder.  I also thought of a scenario similar to Gneisenau, where historically she the 380mms ready to be fitted but planes changed.

 

30 minutes ago, Cit_the_bed said:

No, it's too small a ship. Maybe torpedo nets back in the pre ww2 days.

Could you sail with those things opened or did the ship have to be still?

 

28 minutes ago, Singularity_invader said:

Shimakaze had the largest torpedo capacity in WW2 destroyers, yet she could only carry 15 of them each time, due to limited space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_destroyer_Shimakaze_(1942)#cite_note-Stille-2

I wasn't talking about torpedo capacity.

Edited by Airglide2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
474 posts
10,013 battles
15 minutes ago, Airglide2 said:

Hmmm.  I don't know how much slower it would make the ship, but I don't mind gambling with, say, a 31-32 knot Destroyer.  Just to test it out, see how it goes.  

 

So wouldn't the the bulges, since they spread out sideways, make the ship more balanced?  Heavier yeah, but I wonder.  I also thought of a scenario similar to Gneisenau, where historically she the 380mms ready to be fitted but planes changed.

 

Could you sail with those things or did the ship have to be still?

 

I wasn't talking about torpedo capacity.

It's definitely possible from a ship-design perspective, however you'd have to sacrifice other types of armament for more torpedoes, which would immensely deprive the destroyer of her versatility. A preferable option is to add a new class called destroyer escorts (which did exist in history), specialized in torpedo armament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,106 posts
12,142 battles
1 minute ago, Singularity_invader said:

It's definitely possible from a ship-design perspective, however you'd have to sacrifice other types of armament for more torpedoes, which would immensely deprive the destroyer of her versatility. A preferable option is to add a new class called destroyer escorts (which did exist in history), specialized in torpedo armament.

How are you sacrificing anything related to armament?  You still keep the torpedoes, AA, and guns; all your doing is adding more bulk to the sides of the ship.  The closest Destroyer I can think of with tough sides and is sorta like a Destroyer leader is the Khabarovsk, but again, no torpedo bulge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
474 posts
10,013 battles
1 minute ago, Airglide2 said:

The closest Destroyer I can think of with tough sides and is sorta like a Destroyer leader is the Khabarovsk, but again, no torpedo bulge.

And that's why Khabarovsk sails at 43 knots.

If a high tier destroyer has to sail at 30-32 knots, we might as well opt for a cruiser, since the latter is more durable and has more firepower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
325
[SNGNS]
Members
585 posts
6,841 battles
10 minutes ago, Singularity_invader said:

It's definitely possible from a ship-design perspective, however you'd have to sacrifice other types of armament for more torpedoes, which would immensely deprive the destroyer of her versatility. A preferable option is to add a new class called destroyer escorts (which did exist in history), specialized in torpedo armament.

...hes still not talking about how many torpedoes a dd had. hes talking about a type of armour designed to withstand torpedo hits from other ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,106 posts
12,142 battles
8 minutes ago, Singularity_invader said:

And that's why Khabarovsk sails at 43 knots.

If a high tier destroyer has to sail at 30-32 knots, we might as well opt for a cruiser, since the latter is more durable and has more firepower.

Well I'm not suggesting that the torpedo bulge be the only gimmick the ship has.  However those torpedoes will be dictated by the nation WG chooses (Ex: Slow boat, powerful torps).

EDIT: 

I mean, can you imagine if this Destroyer I'm talking about had the Smith's gimmick?  Two torpedo launch but with mega warheads able to take out a BB in two-three rounds?  That would soooo funny! :cap_haloween::Smile_teethhappy:

Edited by Airglide2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
325
[SNGNS]
Members
585 posts
6,841 battles
3 minutes ago, Airglide2 said:

Well I'm not suggesting that the torpedo bulge be the only gimmick the ship has.  However those torpedoes will be dictated by the nation WG chooses (Ex: Slow boat, powerful torps).

the first problem im seeing for this in game is that for a torpedo bulge to be useful you need to have enough health for it to make a difference. its neat if it reduces the damage from 20 k down to 17 k, that may be enough that youd survive but if your not a pure stealth bote, your now useless.

dds just don't have the health for it to be super helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
474 posts
10,013 battles
6 minutes ago, TobTorp said:

...hes still not talking about how many torpedoes a dd had. hes talking about a type of armour designed to withstand torpedo hits from other ships.

Didn't realize that....

5 minutes ago, Airglide2 said:

Well I'm not suggesting that the torpedo bulge be the only gimmick the ship has.  However those torpedoes will be dictated by the nation WG chooses (Ex: Slow boat, powerful torps).

I thought you were talking about torpedo armament when you said "bulge", instead of torpedo protection armor/bulkhead. Sorry about my misunderstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,106 posts
12,142 battles
1 minute ago, Singularity_invader said:

I thought you were talking about torpedo armament when you said "bulge", instead of torpedo protection armor/bulkhead. Sorry about my misunderstanding.

It's cool.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,271
[CVA16]
Members
5,865 posts
18,023 battles
54 minutes ago, Airglide2 said:

Could you sail with those things opened or did the ship have to be still?

I think the original plan was to use them under power but they didn't work well with the water drag. And they really slowed the ship down. For a while they worked as an at-anchor defense but then the torps got bigger and faster making them far less effective.  Basically wasn't worth carrying all that weight for the minimal benefit they delivered. They disappeared during WWI.

Edited by Sabot_100

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,106 posts
12,142 battles
4 minutes ago, TobTorp said:

the first problem im seeing for this in game is that for a torpedo bulge to be useful you need to have enough health for it to make a difference. its neat if it reduces the damage from 20 k down to 17 k, that may be enough that youd survive but if your not a pure stealth bote, your now useless.

dds just don't have the health for it to be super helpful.

My aim was: instead of taking 1, and if your lucky, 2 torpedo hits before you die or left on a crumb-sized health bar, that you can take 3, maybe 4 hits before the same scenario plays out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
325
[SNGNS]
Members
585 posts
6,841 battles
1 minute ago, Airglide2 said:

My aim was: instead of taking 1, and if your lucky, 2 torpedo hits before you die or left on a crumb-sized health bar, that you can take 3, maybe 4 hits before the same scenario plays out.

then youd have to have a torpedo belt of 75% or even higher. not going to happen. the highest torp belt in game right now is yamatos at 55% and thats because yamato needs it. for a dd to need that it would need to have a truly horrendous movement profile (slow, rudder shift of 10 and up, turning circle comparable to russian cruisers).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,106 posts
12,142 battles
3 minutes ago, Sabot_100 said:

I think the original plan was to use them under power but they didn't work well with the water drag. And they really slowed the ship down. For a while they worked as an at-anchor defense but then the torps got bigger and faster making them far less effective.  Basically wasn't worth carrying all that weight for the minimal benefit they delivered. They disappeared during WWI.

Oooooo, you just made me think of a new gimmick!!!  What if this Destroyer had the ability (like a float plane, animation and all) to extend a torpedo net in order to mitigate incoming torpedo damage BUT as a consequence, slows the ship down considerably.  Maybe even add an inertia loss similar to the American BB turns, post nerf.  So it kinda creates a decision of, "Do I take the torpedo hit, gamble my ship and thread the needle, or launch the nets?"  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
325
[SNGNS]
Members
585 posts
6,841 battles
2 minutes ago, Airglide2 said:

Oooooo, you just made me think of a new gimmick!!!  What if this Destroyer had the ability (like a float plane, animation and all) to extend a torpedo net in order to mitigate incoming torpedo damage BUT as a consequence, slows the ship down considerably.  Maybe even add an inertia loss similar to the American BB turns, post nerf.  So it kinda creates a decision of, "Do I take the torpedo hit, gamble my ship and thread the needle, or launch the nets?"  

that be a gimmick i could get behind. you could even make it a full negation and use it to protect slower ships from the fishies.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,106 posts
12,142 battles
1 minute ago, TobTorp said:

that be a gimmick i could get behind. you could even make it a full negation and use it to protect slower ships from the fishies.

HAHAHA!  "GET DOWN MR. PRESIDENT!"  I love it. And by inertia loss I meant like Warspite, where yes it slows down but takes a while to get back up to speed.  But that's just one aspect I just thought of right now.  Do we even want that kind of loss because DDs are light anyway?  How long are the nets up?  Do they have health bars like the float planes or not?  Should it act like creeping smoke and sail at a certain knot speed?  Can they snap off if beyond a certain speed?  Sooo many questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,106 posts
12,142 battles
16 minutes ago, TobTorp said:

then youd have to have a torpedo belt of 75% or even higher. not going to happen. the highest torp belt in game right now is yamatos at 55% and thats because yamato needs it. for a dd to need that it would need to have a truly horrendous movement profile (slow, rudder shift of 10 and up, turning circle comparable to russian cruisers).

So what your saying is if a ship has lots of health, a small percentage is OK because the health balances it out.  But if the ship has small heath then the percentage needs to be high to balance it out?  I mean you mentioned slow rudder shift and Khaba already has that.  Not sure if it effected her that badly that she still can't compete (not competitively of course).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
325
[SNGNS]
Members
585 posts
6,841 battles
Just now, Airglide2 said:

So what your saying is if a ship has lots of health, a small percentage is OK because the health balances it out.  But if the ship has small heath then the percentage needs to be high to balance it out?  I mean you mentioned slow rudder shift and Khaba already has that.  Not sure if it effected her that badly that she still can't compete (not competitively of course).

i was mostly going from your description of taking 3 to four torpedo hits. going by normal tier 10 dd health standards (about 18 to 23 k health) and rough torpedo damage (lowest is about 10 k highest is about 25 k) youd need that much. getting hit by swedish torpedos (10 k damage) is not so bad for dds right now, so for them a 50 % torp reduction would be enough. but if you want to take the big fish (japanese torps) with their extreme damage you need the 75 % reduction. even taking only half damage from a shima with the 12 km ranke one (23  damage) would rob you of probably more then half your health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,106 posts
12,142 battles
10 minutes ago, TobTorp said:

i was mostly going from your description of taking 3 to four torpedo hits. going by normal tier 10 dd health standards (about 18 to 23 k health) and rough torpedo damage (lowest is about 10 k highest is about 25 k) youd need that much. getting hit by swedish torpedos (10 k damage) is not so bad for dds right now, so for them a 50 % torp reduction would be enough. but if you want to take the big fish (japanese torps) with their extreme damage you need the 75 % reduction. even taking only half damage from a shima with the 12 km ranke one (23  damage) would rob you of probably more then half your health.

You know I hadn't considered IJN level's of damage because I don't know of any DD that can take two and live (unless MAYBE the second torpedo hit the same damage saturated area at an angle).  But I sorta see where your getting the math from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
325
[SNGNS]
Members
585 posts
6,841 battles
1 minute ago, Airglide2 said:

You know I hadn't considered IJN level's of damage because I don't know of any DD that can take two and live (unless MAYBE the second torpedo hit the same damage saturated area at an angle).  But I sorta see where your getting the math from.

like i get what you want. but if you want your dd to survive a torp hit (if you do not change the health to ridiculous levels and keep the torp damage the same) then thats the only path i see.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×