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

Torpedo tubes are reactive armor

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
9 posts

>torpedo tubes blocked one of my ap shells

>get "damaged module" ribbon

>no damage

Indeed, torpedo tubes of GLORIOUS empire of Japan are blessed by the god emperor himself.

No inferior American AP shells can cope with this.

 

In all seriousness, why?

Shouldn't torpedo tubes work like ammo rack in WoT? 

Great power should come with great responsibility. 

Edited by Good_Goy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,622
[-KIA-]
Senior Volunteer Moderator, Beta Testers, Supertester, Privateers, Senior Volunteer Moderator
6,550 posts
8,491 battles
Wat_Meme_Tumblr_04.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,287
[WG-CC]
-Members-, Members
9,101 posts
8,050 battles

>torpedo tubes blocked one of my ap shells

>get "damaged module" ribbon

>no damage

Indeed, torpedo tubes of GLORIOUS empire of Japan are blessed by the god emperor himself.

No inferior American AP shells can cope with this.

 

In all seriousness, why?

Shouldn't torpedo tubes work like ammo rack in WoT? 

Great power should come with great responsibility. 

 

If I get hit in my gun and it gets destroyed I also receive no damage. Is it witchcraft? btw it was a Yorck so no stronk Japanium steel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
7,307 posts
3,329 battles

Depends, if BB AP hits the torpedo tubes, that DD is in a world of hurt. I purposely aim at the water line or modules (like guns) to increase the odds of avoiding overpens. 2 non over pens are usually worth more than 4 over pens (thought behind it is that overpens are going to happen with non overpen salvos as well)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47
[NGA-C]
Members
247 posts
1,885 battles

IMHO it should destroy the module as well as keep going to either bounce of the deck/hull or penetrate. It's yet another stupid RNG based mechanic that gives ships more effective armor than they actually have especially ships with lots of modules.

Edited by theskull251

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,287
[WG-CC]
-Members-, Members
9,101 posts
8,050 battles

IMHO it should destroy the module as well as keep going to either bounce of the deck/hull or penetrate. It's yet another stupid RNG based mechanic that gives ships more effective armor than they actually have especially ships with lots of modules.

 

If the gun receives an overpenetration it is gone (as far as I know)

Right now the shell will also deal damage if it is large enough and overpenetrated the module

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,380
[NG-NL]
Members
7,182 posts
12,773 battles

Believe me, torp tubes going boom would make a lot of ships very hated.

 

Though I am guilty of surviving a few times because the torp tubes sacrificed themselves for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
180
[TSG4R]
[TSG4R]
Members
972 posts
5,062 battles

Most destroyer torpedo tube mounts are mounted up off of the deck level by a fair bit, so assuming a close-range (i.e., shallow trajectory) shot, a BB AP round would probably just leave a 14-16" hole right through the mount, fail to detonate, and sail on to land in the water somewhere on the other side.  BB AP rounds were intentionally fused with a relatively insensitive fuse so they wouldn't detonate until *after* they penetrated (thick) belt armor; I don't think a torpedo mount would  provide enough resistance to set off the fuse.  I'm sure the mount would be wrecked but the damage to the rest of the ship might well be minimal.

 

The important question is whether the (non-detonating) AP round would set off the torpedo warhead(s) on the way through.  With most torpedo types, my SWAG is probably not -- e.g., the USN torpex explosive is relatively shock-insensitive so getting smacked by a large chunk of metal won't necessarily set it off.  Torpedo warheads are designed for rough handling so they don't go off accidentally in rough seas, when they first hit the water, etc.

 

The Japanse Type 93 torps are another story, not because of the warhead, but because of the compressed oxygen fuel tanks.  Compressed oxygen tanks are both HIGHLY explosive and very vulnerable to being punctured -- one crack and the 02 tank goes boom, likely setting off sympathetic detonations in the warhead and any nearby torpedoes as well.  More than a few Japanese ships IRL were destroyed by their own torpedoes because of this vulnerability (see, e.g., CA Suzuya, which was sunk after a near miss bomb detonated her torpedo magazine).

 

AFAIK, though, this particular vulnerability of the Type 93 torpedo is not modeled in-game.  All torpedoes seem to be treated pretty much the same as far as detonation probability.  Now that I think of it, I'm not sure I've ever seen a verified torpedo magazine detonation in the game...

Edited by ForgMaxtor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
112
Members
376 posts
1,961 battles

The Japanse Type 93 torps are another story, not because of the warhead, but because of the compressed oxygen fuel tanks.  Compressed oxygen tanks are both HIGHLY explosive and very vulnerable to being punctured -- one crack and the 02 tank goes boom, likely setting off sympathetic detonations in the warhead and any nearby torpedoes as well.  More than a few Japanese ships IRL were destroyed by their own torpedoes because of this vulnerability (see, e.g., CA Suzuya, which was sunk after a near miss bomb detonated her torpedo magazine).

 

USN torps had the same issue due to their extremely flammable Methanol fuel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,246 posts
2,562 battles

I'd rather take the damage than lose my torpedo tubes or gun battery. In my limited experience, it's far worse losing the fire power than the damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,513
Members
16,315 posts
12,285 battles

there is a reason why USN Cruisers dont have torpedoes on board....

 

for whatever reason WG cares little to model the reason why

 

there is also a reason USN Cruisers have the firing arc they do...

 

and yet again USN CAs take a loss in how this is implented in game

Edited by slak__

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
180
[TSG4R]
[TSG4R]
Members
972 posts
5,062 battles

 

USN torps had the same issue due to their extremely flammable Methanol fuel.

 

Nope.  Methanol is only flammable. It will burn but it won't explode.  And it certainly isn't shock-sensitive.  Pure O2 , in contrast, is HIGHLY inflammable and also contains much more potential chemical energy per unit mass than methanol.  And when stored in a high-pressure tank as it was in the Type 93, pure O2 is also highly shock sensitive.

 

If the methanol tank on a Mk 14 cracks or breaks a seal, the methanol dribbles out and, if there's something nearby to ignite it, you get a fire that might eventually detonate the warhead if left uncontrolled.  You can buy methanol yourself in your local hardware store and try it yourself if you don't believe me.  Go somewhere fire-safe, spread a controlled amount on the ground, and light it.  Nice little flame you can make s'mores over er sumfink.  No big kaboom.

 

If the compressed O2 tank on a Type 93 cracks or breaks a seal, the escaping oxygen will react with almost anything in the vicinity, rapidly accelerating to an explosive fireball that will probably detonate anything else explosive within a 5m radius.  See, e.g., the Challenger disaster.  There's a reason why, unlike methanol, you can't buy tanks of pure 02 in your local hardware store.

 

Don't misunderstand me, a US Mk. 14 torpedo certainly could detonate due to shock or fire, but it was much less likely to do so than the Japanese Mk. 93.  This was the big-trade off of the Mk. 93 design -- using compressed O2 gave the torpedo much better speed and range, but also made it heavier, more complex, and more dangerous to the ships that carried it.

Edited by ForgMaxtor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
112
Members
376 posts
1,961 battles

 

Nope.  Methanol is only flammable. It will burn but it won't explode.  Compressed pure O2 , in contrast, is HIGHLY inflammable and also contains much more potential chemical energy per unit volume than methanol.

 

 

Lol

 

Anything that can burn can also "explode" if it is burnt while inside a sealed container (such as a fuel tank inside of a torpedo).

 

 

There is a very good reason why the USN not only stopped designing ships with torpedo launchers but went and removed them off the ships that already had them... (hint: flammable liquids easily spread by explosions has something to do with it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
180
[TSG4R]
[TSG4R]
Members
972 posts
5,062 battles

 

 

Lol

 

Anything that can burn can also "explode" if it is burnt while inside a sealed container (such as a fuel tank inside of a torpedo).

 

 

There is a very good reason why the USN not only stopped designing ships with torpedo launchers but went and removed them off the ships that already had them... (hint: flammable liquids easily spread by explosions has something to do with it)

 

Yes,  this is correct but requires specific conditions to occur; the liquid fuel has to be aerosolized or vaporized, and then it can potentially explode.  As you note, this is true of any flammable liquid.  Heck, it's even true of some non-liquids -- suspended flour or corn dust can create some really nasty explosions under the right conditions.

 

No doubt a Mk. 14 is a potential fire/explosion hazard.  This should be no surprise considering it's a warhead with a combustion engine attached.

 

But the risk of detonation from a Mk. 93 is a factor of magnitude worse.  There's a reason why compressed 02 tanks are festooned with warning labels and have to be transported in specially licensed trucks, while methanol is available over-the-counter to any schlub who can scrape together $4.99.

 

To draw a comparison, both methanol and pure 02 can cause an explosion under the right conditions.  But to say they are equivalent in explosive risk is like saying a house cat is equivalent to a mountain lion.

Edited by ForgMaxtor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,662
[CALM]
Beta Testers
6,838 posts
6,088 battles

You do realize OP, that in addition to torpedo tubes, if secondaries, DP mounts, or AA mounts also take damage, the ship they're on also takes no damage unless hit by some other shells in the same volley to non-module portions?

 

Each one is a separate tiny pool of HP with their own tiny defensive values.  The more crowded the deck, the harder it is to do damage to that particular area (see Iowa's and Yamato's secondary, DP, and AA covered masts).

 

Therefore, AIM LOWER.  It's a mind-blowing revelation, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
112
Members
376 posts
1,961 battles

There's a reason why compressed 02 tanks are festooned with warning labels and have to be transported in specially licensed trucks, while methanol is available over-the-counter to any schlub who can scrape together $4.99.

 

 

Methanol (UN 1230) containers also have warning labels (Class III, Packing Group II, Toxic, Flammable, Health Hazard) and have to be transported in specially licensed trucks (Transportation of Dangerous Goods), while O2 available over-the-counter to any schlub (in fact, you can buy it online at Amazon.com for $9.96 for a 22 ounce can).

 

But the risk of detonation from a Mk. 93 is a factor of magnitude worse

 

To draw a comparison, both methanol and pure 02 can cause an explosion under the right conditions.  But to say they are equivalent in explosive risk is like saying a house cat is equivalent to a mountain lion.

 

O2 is actually less likely to ignite then Methanol is. O2 is a gas at room temperature and will quickly disperse, Methanol is a liquid that will pool and continue to be a hazard until it is dried up or cleaned up.

Both are dangerous. Both are a fire hazard. Both can explode under the correct circumstances. Both can be easily bought by anyone that wants some.

 

 

 

You may want to brush up on the facts before posting like you actually know what you are talking about...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
180
[TSG4R]
[TSG4R]
Members
972 posts
5,062 battles

O2 is actually less likely to ignite then Methanol is. O2 is a gas at room temperature and will quickly disperse, Methanol is a liquid that will pool and continue to be a hazard until it is dried up or cleaned up.

Both are dangerous. Both are a fire hazard. Both can explode under the correct circumstances. Both can be easily bought by anyone that wants some.

 

 

 

You may want to brush up on the facts before posting like you actually know what you are talking about...

 

I used to be a welder.  I know from what I speak.

 

It's true that pure O2 isn't explosive.  Technically. The problem is that it is one of the most reactive gases known to man and it explosively reacts with just about anything else short of a noble gas.  Technically, the O2 is the oxidizer and not the fuel, but the end result is the same.  So in any practical, real world situation, a sudden escape of 100% 02 is going to cause an explosion.

 

The small, medical ones they sell for home use, sure.  Don't need a Hazmat license to ship or tote that around.  But the big ones for welding (or for powering a torpedo).  All sorts of paperwork.  They give you safety procedures to follow in case of catastrophic valve or tank failure.  But all the old-timers told me not to bother because you won't have long enough to think more than "Oh Sh**".

 

Trust me, if you're forced to choose between shooting a nearby tank of methanol or a nearby tank of O2, choose the methanol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
112
Members
376 posts
1,961 battles

The small, medical ones they sell for home use, sure.  Don't need a Hazmat license to ship or tote that around.  But the big ones for welding (or for powering a torpedo).  All sorts of paperwork.  They give you safety procedures to follow in case of catastrophic valve or tank failure.

 

Same goes for Methanol. You can buy a small container over the counter just fine, but go for a big one and you have paperwork and warning labels and safety training...

 

 

They give you safety procedures to follow in case of catastrophic valve or tank failure.  But all the old-timers told me not to bother because you won't have long enough to think more than "Oh Sh**".

 

 

Let me guess, these are the same "old timers" who told you to use a cigarette lighter to check the level of gasoline in the tank?

 

 

Trust me, if you're forced to choose between shooting a nearby tank of methanol or a nearby tank of O2, choose the methanol.

 

 

More of the "cigarette lighter and gasoline" advice.

 

Here is what happens:

O2 tank - small hole appears, gas escapes from small hole. Without a source of ignition the gas will dissipate within moments.

Methanol tank - small hole appears, liquid runs out of small hole. Without a source of ignition the liquid will pool and remain a hazard (fire, contact and inhalation) for, depending upon conditions, hours to days.

 

 

 

 

It is pretty clear from your statements that you have no clue what you are talking about and going simply off of "someone once told me that..." and "I read on the internet..." :fishpalm:

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.

×