PDA

View Full Version : In game torpedoes?



LexingtonRULES
30th Jul 2008, 15:27
The ingame torpedoes NEED to be make better so they actually explode.

Arrow
30th Jul 2008, 15:30
Just look at the demos. If that giant plume of water ain't an explosion, I dunno what is.

Red October
30th Jul 2008, 15:32
They also look faster.

crazyhorse128
30th Jul 2008, 20:16
I want some of this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Mark_48_Torpedo_testing.jpg) action in BSP :eek: :thumbsup:

W4lt3r89
30th Jul 2008, 21:40
Not that hard to do, even with the WW2 aged torpedoes though the mark 17 torpedo for the USN might cause bit of trouble. Just get the baby to explode right in the middle of the ship (keel) and most of the time it tears the whole ship apart.

On another game wich is subsim, Silent Hunter. Just a magnetic charge + over 200kg warhead and correctly aimed torpedo = ship in two pieces.

h00vertime
1st Aug 2008, 16:50
Amen To That Crazyhorse.

crazyhorse128
7th Aug 2008, 13:05
Not that hard to do, even with the WW2 aged torpedoes though the mark 17 torpedo for the USN might cause bit of trouble. Just get the baby to explode right in the middle of the ship (keel) and most of the time it tears the whole ship apart.

On another game wich is subsim, Silent Hunter. Just a magnetic charge + over 200kg warhead and correctly aimed torpedo = ship in two pieces.

Wernt the Japenese 'Long Lance' torpedoes even more devasating

W4lt3r89
8th Aug 2008, 21:08
Or even worse, the kaiten suicide torpedoes launched from most japanese submarines that could carry almost 800-1000kg of Torpex or just normal TNT.

Long Lance became well known for it's extremely long operating range.. Up to 21 Km, was quite reliable and carried about 600 kg of explosive material (TNT or Torpex again). But then again, who would be able to calculate the most likely position of hostile ships from about 22 km away and keep that thing accurate for the next 8 minutes for the thing to travel..

It didnt go that fast if i recall right though, around 34 knots i think. Unlike the German Prototype torpedo fitted with the walter engine, wakeless, range of 8 km and speed of 48 knots i think..

Might be slightly off but quite reliable, since the SH genre tries to remake the subwarfare as realistically as possible.

David603
9th Aug 2008, 03:41
I looked up wiki to get the precise figures, and the Long Lance had a range of 40,000m (21.5 miles) at 38 kts, compared to its American contemporary, the Mark XV, which had a range of 13,500m at 26.5kts or 5,500m at 45kts. The Long Lance also had a heavier warhead, at 1,080 lbs (490kg) vs the Mark XV's 825 lb (375kg) warhead. In addition to this, the Long Lance ran on oxygen instead of air, which resulted in it leaving almost no bubble trail and consequently being much harder to see and avoid.

In a battle, the Japanese tactic of having all cruisers and destroyers fitted with Long Lances, and firing a massive spread in the same direction at the same time could be devastating. At the battle of Java Sea, two salvos each of around 90 Long Lances fired at extreme range sunk a pair of Dutch cruisers and a destroyer, and Long Lances would play a major part in the IJN's domination of night battles during the early part of the war.

Colosseum
10th Aug 2008, 02:50
Pretty positive the Japanese even didn't know how far the Long Lance could travel. Possibly having Japanese torpedoes last longer would be a good gameplay dynamic?

Arrow
10th Aug 2008, 02:52
But is it enough to balance the game? I personally don't think it's enough...given how torpedoes are so much harder to use than guns.

David603
10th Aug 2008, 04:02
I don't think the Japanese CAs and the American Baltimore class (assuming this is included in BSP) are too badly mismatched, because the Baltimore is essentially an enlarged Cleveland with 9 8in guns replacing the 12 6in guns plus thicker armour. So a Baltimore has 9x8in plus 12x5in guns vs a Takao or Mogami class with 10x8in guns, 8x5in guns and 12 torpedo tubes. Since the Japanese cruisers don't get their 5in guns included in the broadside, the torpedo tubes would need to be worth using to make up for this.

What is unbalanced is the light cruiser situation, because a Kuma with its 7x5.5in guns (only 6 of which can fire as a broadside) is very badly outgunned by a Cleveland with its 12x6in and 12x5in (broadside is 12x6in and 8x5in) or to a lesser extent by an Atlanta with 16x5in (broadside is 14x5in). The Dutch de Ruyter is a much better match with only 7x6in guns but this is a class of one ship and I doubt it will feature as much as the Kuma. One solution would be to include some smaller CLs such as the Leander (8x6in guns), Dido (10x5.25in guns (sometimes reduced to 8x5.25in)), or Arethusa (6x6in guns) classes. While even the lightest of these ships outguns the Kuma and the Japanese have no CL to match the Cleveland, if a long lance hit would cause more damage then this would go some way towards evening the odds.

W4lt3r89
10th Aug 2008, 07:37
I don't think the Japanese CAs and the American Baltimore class (assuming this is included in BSP) are too badly mismatched, ....

Did you by chance forget that the Baltimore's 8"ers was the 8" Mark 16 RF triple guns that was able to refire in 6 seconds, against the Mogami's reload rate wich was 10-14 seconds i think.

So by the time Mogami gets to shoot it's 2nd salvo, Baltimore is already firing it's 3rd salvo. Soooo...

David603
10th Aug 2008, 09:05
Did you by chance forget that the Baltimore's 8"ers was the 8" Mark 16 RF triple guns that was able to refire in 6 seconds, against the Mogami's reload rate wich was 10-14 seconds i think.

So by the time Mogami gets to shoot it's 2nd salvo, Baltimore is already firing it's 3rd salvo. Soooo...
Baltimore and her sisters were fitted with the 8" Mark 15 gun, and while this is arguably one of the best wartime 8in guns it has a rate of fire of 15 seconds per round. Meanwhile the Japanese heavy cruisers were fitted with the 8" 3rd year gun, which has a rate of fire of 12 seconds per round. The 8" Mark 16 was carried only by the three ships of the post-war Des Moines class, and does indeed have a rate of fire of 6 seconds per round.

Red October
10th Aug 2008, 12:36
Baltimore and her sisters were fitted with the 8" Mark 15 gun, and while this is arguably one of the best wartime 8in guns it has a rate of fire of 15 seconds per round. Meanwhile the Japanese heavy cruisers were fitted with the 8" 3rd year gun, which has a rate of fire of 12 seconds per round. The 8" Mark 16 was carried only by the three ships of the post-war Des Moines class, and does indeed have a rate of fire of 6 seconds per round.

If i'm not mistaken the Japanese cruisers fire power came with a cost. The Mogami would pop some of its rivets every time it fired and was very prone to leaks.

David603
10th Aug 2008, 13:52
If i'm not mistaken the Japanese cruisers fire power came with a cost. The Mogami would pop some of its rivets every time it fired and was very prone to leaks.
I think that was the result of the Japanese trying to get so much into such a light ship, because the Mogami class weighed in at 13,000 tons full load compared to the preceding Takao class at 15,500 tons, while matching the Takao class on armament, armour and slightly exceeding their top speed. I doubt Mogami popped rivets though, because part of the weight saving measures involved using welding instead of riveting throughout their construction.

Compared to their American contemporaries, which were pre-war cruisers like the Pensacola, Northampton, Portland and New Orleans classes (total 17 ships), the Japanese cruisers of the Myoko, Takao, Mogami and Tone classes (total 14 ships) were heavier, carried a more powerful armament, particularly with regard to torpedoes, were faster and better armoured, this being down to a Japanese disregard for treaty limits.

Once WWII began, the Japanese didn't really have the resources to build a lot more ships, so no more heavy cruisers were built, while the Americans went on to build the Wichita(1) and Baltimore(14) class heavy cruisers. The Baltimores were extremely heavy, at 17,000 tons full load, and had even more armour than the Japanese cruisers plus an excellent AA battery but lacked torpedo tubes.

The Americans also built many light cruisers, with the 49 ships of the Brooklynn(7), St.Louis(2), Atlanta(11), Cleveland(27), and Fargo(2) classes being built prior to or during WWII. With the exception of the Atlanta class, all these ships are very large for light cruisers, at around 10,000+ tons each and armed with a mixed battery of 6in and 5in guns. The Japanese had fewer light cruisers, with the 22 ships of the Oyodo(1), Agano(4), Yubari(1), Naka(3), Nagara(6), Kuma(5), and Tenryu(2) classes. Only the Oyodo and Agano classes had any claim on being modern, with all the others being small, elderly and armed with near obsolete 5.5in guns. The Japanese also had 4 elderly heavy cruisers of the Furutaka and Aoba classes, each with 6x8in guns.

IJN
CA CL
18 22

USN
CA CL
32 49

Arrow
10th Aug 2008, 15:37
Keep in mind also I doubt the reload times on ships in BSP are realistic anyway.

Ryback14
10th Aug 2008, 20:52
I want some of this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Mark_48_Torpedo_testing.jpg) action in BSP :eek: :thumbsup:

word up on that.

they are. it was my reccomendation in the bsp suggestion thread.

"ships break apart in multiple ways when sunk"