PDA

View Full Version : Observation about I/M torpedoes



Wolf52371
03-27-2005, 01:59 PM
When sinking merchant vessels i usually use magnetic triggered torpedoes because they do a hell of a lot of damage under the keel. However, i tried the same on a battleship and got very abysmal results. I used 4 torpedoes on a perfect 90 degree shot on the Nelson while in harbor from about 450m. The keel of the Nelson is 10.7 so natually i set my torpedoes for 11.7. I put a 5 degree offset on each one, and let fly. All four detonate on target, but the ship doesnt seem to react. It wasnt until i was lining up my stern shot on the other side of the ship (i went from one side to the other) before they even turned their searchlights on. Anyway, all the damage i noticed was a little settling in the water and a slight movement by the Nelson (even though the props werent moving http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif). I then proceeded to fire my stern torpedo, set to impact and at 0 depth. This STILL doesnt bring the ship down. So now i'm pissed. I decided to reload the save game before i fired the torpedoes to see what would happen if i set them to a 0 depth impact with the same spread as the first time. After all 4 hit sucessfully, the Nelson flips on its side and settles to the bottom. Sunk.

Now my question is this, why is this the case? I understand that battleships have quite a bit more armor than merchant vessels but it seems to me that most of that armor would be on the sides, not the bottom.

Wolf52371
03-27-2005, 01:59 PM
When sinking merchant vessels i usually use magnetic triggered torpedoes because they do a hell of a lot of damage under the keel. However, i tried the same on a battleship and got very abysmal results. I used 4 torpedoes on a perfect 90 degree shot on the Nelson while in harbor from about 450m. The keel of the Nelson is 10.7 so natually i set my torpedoes for 11.7. I put a 5 degree offset on each one, and let fly. All four detonate on target, but the ship doesnt seem to react. It wasnt until i was lining up my stern shot on the other side of the ship (i went from one side to the other) before they even turned their searchlights on. Anyway, all the damage i noticed was a little settling in the water and a slight movement by the Nelson (even though the props werent moving http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif). I then proceeded to fire my stern torpedo, set to impact and at 0 depth. This STILL doesnt bring the ship down. So now i'm pissed. I decided to reload the save game before i fired the torpedoes to see what would happen if i set them to a 0 depth impact with the same spread as the first time. After all 4 hit sucessfully, the Nelson flips on its side and settles to the bottom. Sunk.

Now my question is this, why is this the case? I understand that battleships have quite a bit more armor than merchant vessels but it seems to me that most of that armor would be on the sides, not the bottom.

axeman3d
03-27-2005, 02:17 PM
You are correct, battleships were designed to specifically be able to shrug off torpedo attacks, most having a thick belt of armour running around the waterline of the ship able to take a hit easily. Sometimes this was as much as 16" thick, and behind it would be compartments and bunkers of stores designed to mitigate a hit from a torpedo and allow the ship to continue on to port. Witness how many torpedos the Bismarck took without going down, it was a lucky hit that disabled the unarmoured rudder and forced her to stop and slug it out with BBs. This torpedo belt was one of the reasons they designed the magnetic influence torpedo, since it did massive damage without actually striking the ships thickest armour.

I think this is just a video game and **** happens.

smilee88
03-27-2005, 04:13 PM
axe, reread his post...

He used magnetic dets and they had no effect...

When he tried impact hits along the armor belt, the boat sank.

Shouldn't this historically be the other way around(depending on the actual amount of armor.. I don't know what it is)

Frederf220
03-27-2005, 07:24 PM
axeman3d knows what he's talking about and is agreeing with both of you. That this situation is reversed from logic.

I also agree.

Hawler
03-27-2005, 07:34 PM
This is because the BBs heavy armour can shrug of the shockwave from a torpedo detonating beneath it where as a a merchants weak hull will buckle under this pressure. Direct hits are needed to break throgh the thick armour of battleships not just the shockwave of one detonated underneath it.

konradJG77
03-27-2005, 11:56 PM
1m underwater is the same as a direct hit. This isn't a tank shell you're talking about, the fact the torpedo actually hits the ship doesnt matter. What matters is how much water there is to act against the explosion to force it up against the hull. Underwater explosions are far far far more powerful than mid air explosions, especially to things above it since water will force the gas upward. Anyone seen the video of the frigate the australians used to test out their new sub? The torp exploded underneath and the whole thing broke in two and shot upwards.

Wolf52371
03-28-2005, 11:10 AM
Does anyone here have concrete information on the armor thickness on a Nelson? If we have that then we can prove to the dev team why this needs to be fixed.

Timber...wolf
03-28-2005, 12:58 PM
The Nelson's guns really weren't that big your suppose to surface and go to deck gun and sink it with couple of shots .. assuming there is not a mere ripple in the water or your crew won't man the deck gun .. in this case go for the Ram ... lmao ..

Il2pongo
03-28-2005, 01:08 PM
Do the same test with the torps set to a depth 1 ft below the ship. 1 meter is fine for a merchant ship, for BBs I bet you need to be alot closer to the hull.

Shoverbot
03-28-2005, 03:43 PM
How do you figure out how deep the keel is? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

jhelix70
03-28-2005, 04:04 PM
The Nelsons had about 16 inches of belt armour. However, the belt extended only a few feet about and below the waterline, it was mainly inteded to defeat shells. A normal side torpedo impact would typically strike below the main armour belt. The main defence against torpedo attack would be subdivision into watertight compartments and internal watertight bulkheads to isolate flooding. There might also be watertight compartments along the bottom of the ship (ie. a double bottom) to defeat explosions under the ship (such as from mines). This may be why torpedos exploding under the ship may be much less effective on a battleship than a merchant.

Johnny_JG2
03-28-2005, 04:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shoverbot:
How do you figure out how deep the keel is? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ship recognition manual shows draft depth.

Wolf52371
03-28-2005, 09:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jhelix70:
The Nelsons had about 16 inches of belt armour. However, the belt extended only a few feet about and below the waterline, it was mainly inteded to defeat shells. A normal side torpedo impact would typically strike below the main armour belt. The main defence against torpedo attack would be subdivision into watertight compartments and internal watertight bulkheads to isolate flooding. There might also be watertight compartments along the bottom of the ship (ie. a double bottom) to defeat explosions under the ship (such as from mines). This may be why torpedos exploding under the ship may be much less effective on a battleship than a merchant. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you see, my impact torpedoes were set for 0, they probably should have hit the belt armor at that depth.

TASKFORCE1x1
04-04-2005, 01:40 AM
Topic moved to Com. Help April 4 2004.

Amnio
04-04-2005, 05:30 PM
Had a similar experience with the King George V today. Firing 4 torps under keel in a spread caused it to list somewhat to one side. Putting the same salvo, same underkeel depth and no spread brough the ship down though as all the torpedoes exploded in practicaly the same spot. (in Scapa Flow, hence the ship was stationary)

Didn't test impact pistol as I thought that wouldn't be a good idea, for reasons allready mentioned at the top of this thread.

InfectiousDust
04-04-2005, 06:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Witness how many torpedos the Bismarck took without going down, it was a lucky hit that disabled the unarmoured rudder and forced her to stop and slug it out with BBs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even then, the Brits weren't able to sink the Bismarck. In the end, the Germans scuttled her.

HelfriedSchultz
04-04-2005, 11:40 PM
Magnetic torpedoes should be less effective on extremely heavy ships than on smaller ones because of the way they work.

Magnetic torpedoes are supposed to break the spine of the ship by blowing it up out of the water in the midsection. The most effective magnetic torpedo shots are in the middle of the ship directly under the keel.

The heavier the ship, the less the magnetic torpedo can lift the ship and therefore, the less chance it has of actually "breaking the spine." That is why I believe magnetic torpedoes don't work as well on massive ships like battleships. They will still do some damage but not as much as, say, an impact torpedo to the munitions stores.