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

Torpedo tubes destroyed is garbage!

18 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

12
[THC-2]
Members
10 posts
13,503 battles

I am fed up with my German battleships 'torpedo tubes destroyed'. It is ridiculous. I want you to show me where in WW2 the tubes were that brittle. In todays battle I had both sets of tubes destroyed within 5 *SECONDS * of each  other. This is just plain wrong. The chances of that happening, especially as  often as it does need to be reduced.

  • Haha 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,364
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Members
2,928 posts
8,973 battles

Correct me if I'm wrong, but unlike the dd torpedoes, the battleship and cruiser torps should be in the hull underneath the waterline, correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertest Coordinator
7,223 posts
14,450 battles
8 minutes ago, HyperFish said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but unlike the dd torpedoes, the battleship and cruiser torps should be in the hull underneath the waterline, correct?

German cruisers and battleships typically had them mounted on the decks, in exposed mounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,776
[RLGN]
Members
19,167 posts
35,208 battles

RNGesus must hate you.

Happens to me all the time in Co-op, (deliberately programmed, I sometimes think,) but I don’t remember the last time it happened in Randoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
92 posts
3,437 battles
24 minutes ago, Timaras said:

I am fed up with my German battleships 'torpedo tubes destroyed'. It is ridiculous. I want you to show me where in WW2 the tubes were that brittle. In todays battle I had both sets of tubes destroyed within 5 *SECONDS * of each  other. This is just plain wrong. The chances of that happening, especially as  often as it does need to be reduced.

Welcome to the(I assume) high tier HE spam META, where cruisers, british BB's and Thunderer's make it their goal to set the sea on fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
17 posts
840 battles
42 minutes ago, Farm_Fresh_Eggs said:

Does radar ever get knocked out?   spotter planes?  fighters?

Those are Consumables not Armament, makes me think though it would be cool a if a good HE salvo on a dutch cruiser could disable their ability to call in a airstrike, considering all their communications probably just got knocked out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,262
[NYAAR]
[NYAAR]
Members
4,808 posts
20,779 battles
1 hour ago, HyperFish said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but unlike the dd torpedoes, the battleship and cruiser torps should be in the hull underneath the waterline, correct?

Yes, BBs traditionally did have torpedo tubes underwater, but they were mostly ineffective as you had to turn your entire ship to aim the tubes. They were also underwater as they launched below the armored belt and were fairly protected from shell fire. They were still considered weak areas on BBs.

Cruisers and DDs had pretty much the same kind of launcher on deck. 

1 hour ago, Timaras said:

I am fed up with my German battleships 'torpedo tubes destroyed'. It is ridiculous. I want you to show me where in WW2 the tubes were that brittle. In todays battle I had both sets of tubes destroyed within 5 *SECONDS * of each  other. This is just plain wrong. The chances of that happening, especially as  often as it does need to be reduced.

you have an unarmored torpedo launcher getting hit by or damaged by splash from 14-20in shells. How is it not going to be damaged/destroyed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
397 posts
12 minutes ago, Lord_Slayer said:

Yes, BBs traditionally did have torpedo tubes underwater, but they were mostly ineffective as you had to turn your entire ship to aim the tubes. They were also underwater as they launched below the armored belt and were fairly protected from shell fire. They were still considered weak areas on BBs.

Cruisers and DDs had pretty much the same kind of launcher on deck. 

you have an unarmored torpedo launcher getting hit by or damaged by splash from 14-20in shells. How is it not going to be damaged/destroyed?

You have planes in an unarmored/exposed hanger that cannot be damaged/destroyed. Logic and World of Warships are not compatible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
462
[PHD]
Members
2,236 posts
10,032 battles
1 hour ago, Timaras said:

I am fed up with my German battleships 'torpedo tubes destroyed'. It is ridiculous. I want you to show me where in WW2 the tubes were that brittle. In todays battle I had both sets of tubes destroyed within 5 *SECONDS * of each  other. This is just plain wrong. The chances of that happening, especially as  often as it does need to be reduced.

Check the WW2 history of the IJN. There are several instances of the tubes not only being destroyed but exploding and causing fires. Some of the cruiser captains would jettison their torpedoes if they knew it was going to be a gun fight. IIJN and USN did the same with floatplanes.

For realism how about a hit not only taking out your torpedoes but doing damage equivalent to a couple of citadels.

On the Graf Spee it looks like the torpedo tubes are in armored cases. The IJN Tone and probably Mogami have their torp launchers under an armored deck. Notice the IJN DDs (T>6) have a housing over their torpedo launchers, this protects the torpedoes from splinters and some bullets. The IJN type 93 torps used oxygen and had 1000 pound warheads, neither like getting hit.

1 hour ago, HyperFish said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but unlike the dd torpedoes, the battleship and cruiser torps should be in the hull underneath the waterline, correct?

The HMS Nelson and Rodney had below the waterline torpedo tubes. (there were some other ships too) They were later removed as the chances for BBs to use torpedoes in WW2 were remote and they compromised the ship's torpedo protection system and made them more vulnerable. Though there is a rumor that the Rodney may have used them against the Bismarck.

The Rodney or Nelson took at hit in the torpedo room/storage area but got lucky and nothing blew up. They used a 24.5" torpedo that instead of air used an oxygen enriched mixture, something like scuba diving Nitrox. (The information about the Brittish torpedoes using oxygen leaked to the Japanese who had tried and failed to get oxygen torpedoes to work earlier to redouble their efforts and finally come up with the Type 93 at great cost. They thought the British were using pure oxygen and not a 32/68% oxygen/nitrogen blend. (I think that was the mix. Air is 21/79%)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
556 posts
10,748 battles

I once had my turrets on Richelieu disabled three times in less that 45 seconds, so yeah that RNG is a [edited], what can you do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
188
[NOVUM]
Members
330 posts
11,348 battles

Out of all my ships, BB Mutsu's torp tubes seem the most fragile even though they appear well protected.

1095719236_Mutsu2.thumb.png.a9f8e03759bedecabb56a4d6efd4841b.png

A lot of design decisions in this game are based more on game play and balance than realism, which I am fine with. Ease of programming is probably a big factor too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,138
[WOLF5]
[WOLF5]
Members
6,535 posts
29,684 battles
3 hours ago, Timaras said:

...I want you to show me where in WW2 the tubes were that brittle....

Can't show you but, if those tubes still contained fish and were hit with ordnance, they would blow up. Each packed about the same amount of explosive as a 500 lb bomb so damage would not be trivial.

Also, it is a game, not a simulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,178
[WPORT]
Members
20,793 posts
22,691 battles
Quote
Icon_modernization_PCM030_MainWeapon_Mod_I.png

Main Armaments Modification 1

125000Credits Increases survivability and accelerates repairs of the main battery and torpedo tubes:
  • -20% to the risk of main battery becoming incapacitated.
  • +50% to main battery survivability.
  • -20% to main battery repair time.
  • -20% to the risk of torpedo tubes becoming incapacitated.
  • +50% to torpedo tubes survivability.
  • -20% to torpedo tubes repair time.

https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Upgrades

Main Armaments Modification 1 is an upgrade the many ships in WOWs have access to.
It reduces the chances of a torpedo mount becoming incapacitated, improves chances of equipment survival, and reduces repair time.

It does not completely prevent the incapacitation or destruction of a torpedo mount, but it does improve the odds.
Several of my ships have this module mounted.
Mutsu and Tirpitz are notorious for having their torpedo tubes disabled at awkward moments.  The module helps, in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,178
[WPORT]
Members
20,793 posts
22,691 battles
Quote
Icon_perk_defense_crit_probability_dark.png

Preventive Maintenance

1 Reduces the risk of main turrets, torpedo tubes, steering gears, and engine becoming incapacitated. -30% to the risk of incapacitation of modules. This skill does not apply to secondary or AA batteries.

Taking the Captain's Skill, Preventive Maintenance (when available for the ship in question), also helps, in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32
[RDBOW]
Members
71 posts
18,150 battles

Dont play my Siegfried all that often, but more than half the time I play my torp launches on at least one side get knocked out. Very annoying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,593
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
6,021 posts
4,739 battles
3 hours ago, Timaras said:

I am fed up with my German battleships 'torpedo tubes destroyed'. It is ridiculous. I want you to show me where in WW2 the tubes were that brittle. In todays battle I had both sets of tubes destroyed within 5 *SECONDS * of each  other. This is just plain wrong. The chances of that happening, especially as  often as it does need to be reduced.

"The following morning, 6 June 1942, Mikuma and Mogami were heading for Wake Island when they were attacked by three waves of 31 SBD Dauntless dive-bombers from the aircraft carriers USS Enterprise and HornetMikuma was hit by at least five bombs and set afire. Her torpedoes ignited and the resultant explosions destroyed the ship"

"between 0350–0402 hours on 25 October, after entering the Surigao Strait, Mogami was struck by four 8-inch (200 mm) shells from the heavy cruiser USS Portland, which destroyed both the bridge and the air defense center. Both the captain and executive officer were killed on the bridge, and the chief gunnery officer assumed command. While attempting to retire southward, the flagship of Admiral Shima, Nachi, collided with Mogami. Nachi's bow was damaged and she began to flood. Mogami was holed starboard above the waterline, but fires ignited five torpedoes that exploded and disabled her starboard engine."

"In late October, the Japanese fleet assembled in Brunei in response to the threatened American invasion of the Philippines. On 25 October 1944, in the Battle off Samar, Suzuya engaged the three "Jeep carriers" in American Task Group 77.4, but was attacked by ten TBM Avenger torpedo-bombers. A near-miss destroyed her port propeller. At 1050, Suzuya was attacked by 30 other carrier aircraft. Another near-miss caused the Long Lance torpedoes in Suzuya's No. 1 torpedo tubes to explode, which in turn started other fires and damaged the starboard engine rooms and the No. 7 boiler room. Suzuya was abandoned at 1150, and at 1322 sank at 11°45.2′N 126°11.2′E.[4] Destroyer Okinami took off Captain Teraoka and 401 crewmen. US warships later rescued more sailors."

 

I did not add Chikuma because there was a dive in 2019 by RV Petrel which  found that all her torpedo tubes were intact so it does not look like Whiteplains detonated her torpedo racks with a 5inch shell like they originally thought. 

 

A disadvantage of the Type 93 was that it was far more likely to detonate due to shock than a compressed-air torpedo. The explosion from one Type 93, with its heavy warhead, was usually enough to sink the destroyer, or heavily damage the cruiser, carrying it. As American air strikes against IJN ships became more common, captains of destroyers and cruisers under air attack had to decide whether or not to jettison torpedoes to prevent them from being detonated during the attack. In one instance, the heavy cruiser Chikuma jettisoned her Type 93s just before being hit by bombs from several USN dive bombers at the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands. It was initially believed that during the Battle off Samar (in the eastern Philippines) a 5 in (127 mm) shell from escort carrier USS White Plains[6] struck the heavy cruiser Chōkai which detonated the cruiser's Type 93 torpedoes, causing damaged that forced the ship to be scuttled; however the 2019 discovery by the RV Petrel of the wreck of the Chōkai with her torpedoes intact disproved this theory.

More Examples with Furutaka, Abukuma and Aoba.

At 22:35, Helena's radar spotted the Japanese fleet, and the Americans successfully crossed the Japanese "T". Both fleets opened fire, but Admiral Goto, thinking that he was under friendly fire, ordered a 180-degree turn that exposed each of his ships to the American broadsides. Aoba was damaged heavily, and Admiral Goto was mortally wounded on her bridge. With Aoba crippled, Captain Araki of Furutaka turned his ship out of the line of battle to engage Salt Lake City. Destroyer USS Duncan launched two torpedoes toward Furutaka that either missed or failed to detonate. Duncan continued firing at Furutaka until she was put out of action by numerous shell hits. At 23:54, Furutaka was hit by a torpedo that flooded her forward engine room. During the battle, about 90 shells hit Furutaka and some ignited her Type 93 "Long Lance" torpedoes, starting fires.

 

On 3 April, while moored at Kavieng, New Ireland, Aoba was bombed by Boeing B-17 Flying Fortresses of the Fifth Air Force's 43rd Bombardment Group. A direct hit on Aoba caused two Type 93 Long Lance torpedoes to explode and set the ship on fire while the B-17's strafed the decks with machine guns. Aoba had to be beached to avoid sinking.

 

On 26 October, Abukuma and Ushio departed Dapitan for Coron, Palawan but was spotted and attacked repeatedly by B-24 Liberator bombers of the 5th Group, 13th Air Force armed with 500 lb (227 kg) bombs. At 1006 she took a direct hit near the No. 3 14 cm Gun Mount; at 1020 two more hits by B-24 bombers of the 33rd Squadron 22nd Group, 5th Air Force were scored further aft that started fires. The fire spread to the engine rooms and aft torpedo rooms. Power was lost and the ship's speed decreased. At 1037, four Type 93 "Long Lance" torpedoes in the aft torpedo room exploded with devastating effect. The crew abandoned ship between 1200 and 1230 off Negros Island, . At 1242, she sank by the stern at 09°20′N 122°32′ECoordinates17px-WMA_button2b.png09°20′N 122°32′E with 250 of her crew. Ushio rescued her captain and 283 crewmen.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17,311
[WOLF5]
[WOLF5]
Members
38,191 posts
30,943 battles

Be careful about some of you guys talking about making the game more realistic.  If things were more realistic, your rudder shouldn't be able to get fixed during battle after it gets blown away.

[Nervous Bismarck noises]

The threat of torpedo tubes exploding is there.  The risk was enough that when Hood was destroyed, one of the very first things the Admiralty thought that caused it was a hit to her torpedoes.  It's enough of a concern that the US Navy stopped having torpedo launchers on their Cruisers altogether, except on the the Atlanta-class and the old, second line Omaha-classes

 

Also, if we want to be more "realistic," all your AA guns should not have a 360 degree firing arc.  AA guns have to deal with LOS issues to, i.e. their own ship's superstructure, other guns blocking the way etc.  Your ship's AA guns on the port side should not be firing at torpedo bombers making their attack runs on the starboard side.

 

If we want to be more "realistic" CVs will have a longer turnaround time for launches, but should be sending larger attack waves.   There would also be finite CV aircraft numbers.

nMR2AuB.jpeg

This image above didn't even account for the Torpedo Bombers that came in earlier.

 

If we were being more "realistic" a bunch of the ships some of you guys wank off to would not even be in this game, because they never were completed or existed at all.

 

If we want to be more "realistic" the German, USN, British ships would have lots of radar, especially the US who handed out radar like it's candy.  They were all firm believers in radar technology.  But certain navies were notably terrible in radar.  The Italian and Japanese navies are the ones that come to mind.  Even in the Mediterranean, the Italians had instances that put the at a severe disadvantage with the Royal Navy prowling around with radar.  Captain Tameichi Hara said that the IJN's mastery of night combat was lost to radar and radar controlled gunfire.

There can be a chance for radar to get knocked out, but radar should also not be as limited as it is in the game:  It should be on or off as much as the player wants and it should be very common for certain navies.

How can we simulate Radar assisted gunfire in WoWS? :cap_yes:

 

Then again, if we want to be more "realistic," Capital Ships like Battleships and Carriers would be much rarer and far more expensive to use.  Destroyers should make up the bulk of teams by a significant margin.  After all, DDs make the bulk of a navy.

 

Realism is all well and nice, but some of you guys won't like it when Realism is used against you and what you prefer.

@Cobraclutch

Yes, Mikuma.  Lifted from wikipedia:

"Mikuma burning after being bombed by American carrier planes, just before sinking. Note her completely destroyed midsection."

Japanese_cruiser_Mikuma_burning_and_sink

1920px-Japanese_heavy_cruiser_Mikuma_sin

 

While the loss of the 4 IJN Carriers at Midway was a massive blow, Mikuma's loss was another big one for them.  Their heavy cruisers were extremely precious and throughout the middle stages of WWII in the Pacific, the IJN had rarely used their CAs in frontline combat.  They were saving them for that "Decisive Battle."

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×