Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Warped_1

Aerial Torps, Is IJN really stuck with the same torp through all tiers?

10 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

957
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
2,488 posts
29,180 battles

OK, reportedly there is a buff to DB bombs at lower tiers which was sorely needed.  I am curious as to why aerial torpedoes don't get upgraded as you get further up the tree.  The USN seems to have an option to upgrade torps at least once and they become significantly more powerful; but IJN is stuck with the same torp all through the series.  Looking at the info below you can see there was regular progression in the warhead of the torpedo but that is lacking in this game.  I don't want to rehash the IJN is better because you can use 2 4 plane squads v 1 6 plane squad (which I think is bogus) but the vaunted superiority of the IJN bomber is really hampered by the anemic payload.  

 

45 cm (17.7") Torpedoes
.
45 cm (17.7") Type 91 (1931) Mod 1
.
Ship Class Used On Aircraft
Date Of Design 1931
Date In Service 1933
Weight 1,728 lbs. (784 kg)
Overall Length 208 in (5.275 m)
Negative Buoyancy 227 lbs. (103 kg)
Explosive Charge 331 lbs. (150 kg) Type 97
Power / Range / Speed 140 HP / 2,200 yards (2,000 m) / 41-43 knots
Propulsion Kerosene-air wet-heater
Wander Left or Right (max) N/A
Notes:  This was a pre-war torpedo although still in service ten years later.  "Nell" (G3M) torpedo bombers carried this weapon against the HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse on 10 December 1941.
.
45 cm (17.7") Type 91 (1931) Mod 2
.
Ship Class Used On Aircraft
Date Of Design 1940
Date In Service 1941
Weight 1,841 lbs. (935 kg)
Overall Length 216 in (5.486 m)
Negative Buoyancy 271 lbs. (123 kg)
Explosive Charge 452 lbs. (205 kg) Type 97
Power / Range / Speed 140 HP / 2,200 yards (2,000 m) / 41-43 knots
Propulsion Kerosene-air wet-heater
Wander Left or Right (max) N/A
Notes:  Compared to Mod 1, Mod 2 had a heavier explosive charge, a thinner air vessel and anti-roll stabilizers.  It was first delivered in April 1941 and was carried into action by "Betty" (G4M) bombers against the Prince of Wales and Repulse.  A version of this torpedo heavily modified for use in shallow waters was carried by "Kate" (B5N) attack planes at Pearl Harbor.
.
45 cm (17.7") Type 91 (1931) Mod 3
.
Ship Class Used On Aircraft
Date Of Design 1941
Date In Service 1942
Weight 1,872 lbs. (849 kg)
Overall Length 216 in (5.486 m)
Negative Buoyancy 379 lbs. (172 kg)
Explosive Charge 529 lbs. (240 kg) Type 97
Power / Range / Speed 140 HP / 2,200 yards (2,000 m) / 41-43 knots
Propulsion Kerosene-air wet-heater
Wander Left or Right (max) N/A
Notes:  Compared to Mod 2, Mod 3 had a heavier explosive charge, the air vessel was thickened for a heavier charge.  Bronze parts were substituted for steel where possible and eight tail fins were experimented with in some units.
.
45 cm (17.7") Type 91 (1931) Mod 3 Improved, Mod 3 Strong, Mod 4 Strong and Mod 7 Strong
.
Ship Class Used On Aircraft
Date Of Design Improved:  1942
Strong:  1943
Mod 4:  1943
Mod 7:  1943
Date In Service Improved:  1943
Strong:  1944
Mod 4:  1944
Mod 7:  1944
Weight Mod 3 Improved and Strong:  1,872 lbs. (849 kg)
Mod 4: 2,030 lbs. (921 kg)
Mod 7:  2,319 lbs. (1,052 kg)
Overall Length All except Mod 7:  208 in (5.275 m)
Mod 7:  225 in (5.715 m)
Explosive Charge Mod 3 Improved and Strong:  529 lbs. (240 kg) Type 97
Mod 4:  679 lbs. (308 kg) Type 97
Mod 7:  926 lbs. (420 kg) Type 97
Negative Buoyancy All except Mod 7:  397 lbs. (180 kg)
Mod 7:  664 lbs. (301 kg)
Power / Range / Speed Improved:  140 HP / 2,200 yards (2,000 m) / 41-43 knots
Strong and Mod 4:  140 HP / 1,640 yards (1,500 m) / 41-43 knots
Propulsion Kerosene-air wet-heater
Wander Left or Right (max) N/A
Notes:  Compared to Mod 3, Mod 3 Improved had a heavier explosive charge, the top side of the afterbody and engine room strengthened with longitudinal T bars to permit 300 knot launching speed.  This was followed in 1944 by the Mod 3 Strong which had I instead of T bars for strengthening the top side of the afterbody and also the underside of the warhead nose, the air vessel was thinned with reduced pressure and range.  These modifications allowed a 350 knot launching speed.  Mod 4 was the same torpedo with a heavier explosive charge.  Mod 7 Strong had a longer, heavier warhead.
.
45 cm (17.7") Type 94 (1934) Mod 2
.
Ship Class Used On Aircraft
Date Of Design 1934
Date In Service Not in service
Weight 1,870 lbs. (848 kg)
Overall Length 208 in (5.283 m)
Negative Buoyancy N/A
Explosive Charge 331 lbs. (150 kg) Type 97
Power / Range / Speed N/A / 3,300 yards (3,000 m) (?) / 48 knots (?)
Propulsion Kerosene-air wet-heater
Wander Left or Right (max) N/A
Notes:  A limited number of these torpedoes were made but they do not appear to have entered service use.  Powered by a dual-row, eight cylinder radial engine with poppet valves.
 
This information was gathered from the navweaps.com site.  http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTJAP_WWII.htm
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,548
[EPOXY]
Wiki Editor, Members, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
5,899 posts
13,522 battles

IJN CV's still have plenty of strike power, and the torps were actually nerfed at one point to their current value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,054 posts
11,054 battles

Here is the thing about CVs in this game.  If you dont like something or do like something.

 

Something will change every major patch.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,322
[-K-]
Beta Testers
5,660 posts
18,914 battles

Well, the changes to HE bombs were significant. It makes sense to hold off on making too many changes at a time; let's see what the weekly damage averages look like once the dust settles on 5.3 and then see if IJN CVs are under-performing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
957
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
2,488 posts
29,180 battles

Hmm, it seems nerfed way to much.  Even when my poor T6 CV manages to make it through the withering AA to plan a couple of torps into a Tirpitz (when pulled into an upper tier match), you can hardly see ANY damage to the BB.  Even to BBs within it's own tier the damage done by a few torps is easily shrugged off.  Was thinking this would get better as the tiers progressed but it seems as though you don't get new torps to match the better armor and signficantly higher HPs of higher tier ships.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
363
[F4E-2]
Alpha Tester
1,196 posts

Got to keep it low so that the USSR paper CVs have a better chance... *tic*

 

Honestly, the TB thing really bugs me too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
4,302 posts
7,932 battles

Nerf TB damage globally(i.e. reduce warhead-damage ratio) and give later planes better torpedoes. Issue is that the game is balanced around current values, increasing them by 50% or more would be foolhardy. Lowering TB damage allows for more granularity in torpedo damage with plane upgrades and for when we get alternate CV lines. Essentially, say take Type 91 Mod 1 to 6k, then we can have Type 91 Mod 2 at 8.2k and Type 91 Mod 3 at 9.6k(Mod 3 Strong at 12.3k is probably too much, but might be a useful option for future balancing). For USN, that'd be Mark 13 Mod 0 at 7.3k, Mark 13 Mod 10 at 10.9k, and similar to Mod 3 Strong Mark 25 at 13.2k.

 

EDIT: Yes, this creates some versimilitude issues regarding DD versus TB torpedoes, but I think that that's permissible given that most people are only going to note this issue with the aid of a reference.

Edited by Aetreus
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,304 posts
11,472 battles

It's funny because the Hosho is ridiculously OP, but at higher tiers torpedo damage won't half  a BBs health unless you do an absolutely perfect drop and lose no planes in the process. 

Gone are the days of 0/5/4 Hakuruyus 

Edited by Gavorche

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.

×