Will there be realistic torpedos in SH5

[spaced_monkey]

I have seen pictures of Torpedo test from WW2 on stationary vessels of all shapes and cargo loads, the German Magnetic torpedoes where designed to be fired below the ship and detonate generally under the spine of the ship, this generally causes Small freighters to DIE horribly and quickly. the other thing i would like to ask about is when i took out a BB and it look like i took out is aft magazine. For all the people who don't know this Battleships generally carry enough munitions to equal twice that of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Nuclear bombs. which means for those of us whom are Ignorant NO MORE Ship and collateral damage to near by ships, just look at the pictures of the HOOD 3 main chunks over miles, 3 survivors out of a crew of thousands.


I'm sorry that i babble on but if you want to make it more realistic at least the torpedoes should work right.



P.S. deck guns as well, also need to do more damage to unarmored ships.

[Maverick_U2007]

The ability to fire under the spine of the ship with magnetic torpedoes is already a feature of both SH3 and SH4

Maverick

[Wolferz]

Realistic?

You'll shoot your eye out, kid. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

[socko2009]

For all the people who don't know this Battleships generally carry enough munitions to equal twice that of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Nuclear bombs.

Well....., I certainly don't know anything of the sort!!! ….Your assertion is absurd!

The Hiroshima bomb had a yield of 15 Kilotons: ….That’s the equivalent of 15,000 TONS of TNT!!

The Nagasaki bomb had a yield of 21 Kilotons. The total yield of both bombs was 36 Kilotons; ……and when we double that, we come up with 72,000 tons of TNT.

The example ship you sited, the HMS Hood, had a total loaded displacement of 48,000 tons: …..HOW COULD IT POSSIBLY BE CARRYING THE EQUIVALENT OF 72,000 TONS OF TNT???

S.

[Maverick_U2007]

Originally posted by socko2009:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">For all the people who don't know this Battleships generally carry enough munitions to equal twice that of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Nuclear bombs.

Well....., I certainly don't know anything of the sort!!! ….Your assertion is absurd!

The Hiroshima bomb had a yield of 15 Kilotons: ….That’s the equivalent of 15,000 TONS of TNT!!

The Nagasaki bomb had a yield of 21 Kilotons. The total yield of both bombs was 36 Kilotons; ……and when we double that, we come up with 72,000 tons of TNT.

The example ship you sited, the HMS Hood, had a total loaded displacement of 48,000 tons: …..HOW COULD IT POSSIBLY BE CARRYING THE EQUIVALENT OF 72,000 TONS OF TNT???

S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

See, you can learn something new every day!!!!

Cheers Socko

Maverick

[socko2009]

Thanks Mav!!!

It really pained me to point that out: .....Because you KNOW how much I like large explosions!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

S.

[Rusty_S85]

Originally posted by socko2009:
Thanks Mav!!!

It really pained me to point that out: .....Because you KNOW how much I like large explosions!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

S.

I think the point the orignal poster was trying to point out was that a magazine shot should tear a warship apart. Even a battleship. Look at the Arizona a direct detonation of a bomb in the powder room basically destoryed the ship and sank her. I would personally like to see a magazine torpedo hit on a battleship rip or atleast buckle the hull there. I would also like to see the belt armor being implimented. I didnt like seeing a torpedo blow a clean hole through the side of battleships like the Kongo or the Yamato where you could clearly see inside the hull. These ships as far as I know had belt armor like US Ships and like Bismarck.

But god I would like to see a warship like a battleship go up with twice the power of those two atom bombs lol.

[socko2009]

But god I would like to see a warship like a battleship go up with twice the power of those two atom bombs lol.


Yeah! ....That would be something to see!!!


S.

[Rusty_S85]

They better have it in SHV. I get a rush every time a warship blows up as it is now in a huge fireball. The big radio I have my pc hooked up to makes the walls rattle with each explosion.

[surfingerman]

why not simply have an option under realism.. enhanced explosions..(magazine explosions are increased in power by 10X and have a chance to damage / sink / capsize nearby ships and send tsunamis outward)

[AvsDx]

i want see larges explosions, battleships infliges damages with fragments, hot, fire etc, my submarine die too with explosions not more blank screen... i hope.

[schwarzkommando]

By the time the Germans got their Magnetic Combat Pistols squared away, the Allies were de-Gausing their ships. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[spaced_monkey]

Originally posted by socko2009:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">For all the people who don't know this Battleships generally carry enough munitions to equal twice that of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Nuclear bombs.

Well....., I certainly don't know anything of the sort!!! ….Your assertion is absurd!

The Hiroshima bomb had a yield of 15 Kilotons: ….That’s the equivalent of 15,000 TONS of TNT!!

The Nagasaki bomb had a yield of 21 Kilotons. The total yield of both bombs was 36 Kilotons; ……and when we double that, we come up with 72,000 tons of TNT.

The example ship you sited, the HMS Hood, had a total loaded displacement of 48,000 tons: …..HOW COULD IT POSSIBLY BE CARRYING THE EQUIVALENT OF 72,000 TONS OF TNT???

S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


you Never herd of the Halifax explosion or the the or the one in the US (Texas I think) with the same results. The SS Mont-Blanc was caring 35 tons of benzol, 300 rounds of ammunition, 10 tons of gun cotton, 2,300 tons of picric acid (used in explosives), and 400,000 pounds of TNT. She Is no ware near as big as a Battleship.

http://www.halifax.ca/Community/explode.html ( verify it for yourself)

[gamer025]

Originally posted by spaced_monkey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by socko2009:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">For all the people who don't know this Battleships generally carry enough munitions to equal twice that of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Nuclear bombs.

Well....., I certainly don't know anything of the sort!!! ….Your assertion is absurd!

The Hiroshima bomb had a yield of 15 Kilotons: ….That’s the equivalent of 15,000 TONS of TNT!!

The Nagasaki bomb had a yield of 21 Kilotons. The total yield of both bombs was 36 Kilotons; ……and when we double that, we come up with 72,000 tons of TNT.

The example ship you sited, the HMS Hood, had a total loaded displacement of 48,000 tons: …..HOW COULD IT POSSIBLY BE CARRYING THE EQUIVALENT OF 72,000 TONS OF TNT???

S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


you Never herd of the Halifax explosion or the the or the one in the US (Texas I think) with the same results. The SS Mont-Blanc was caring 35 tons of benzol, 300 rounds of ammunition, 10 tons of gun cotton, 2,300 tons of picric acid (used in explosives), and 400,000 pounds of TNT. She Is no ware near as big as a Battleship.

http://www.halifax.ca/Community/explode.html ( verify it for yourself) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those are merchant container ships which are essentially giant boxes on the inside and can carry huge amounts of cargo. A battleship does not carry only cargo and is not built like a merchant ship on the inside.

ALSO, 400 000 pounds is 200 tons.

[spaced_monkey]

Originally posted by gamer025:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by spaced_monkey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by socko2009:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">For all the people who don't know this Battleships generally carry enough munitions to equal twice that of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Nuclear bombs.

Well....., I certainly don't know anything of the sort!!! ….Your assertion is absurd!

The Hiroshima bomb had a yield of 15 Kilotons: ….That’s the equivalent of 15,000 TONS of TNT!!

The Nagasaki bomb had a yield of 21 Kilotons. The total yield of both bombs was 36 Kilotons; ……and when we double that, we come up with 72,000 tons of TNT.

The example ship you sited, the HMS Hood, had a total loaded displacement of 48,000 tons: …..HOW COULD IT POSSIBLY BE CARRYING THE EQUIVALENT OF 72,000 TONS OF TNT???

S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


you Never herd of the Halifax explosion or the the or the one in the US (Texas I think) with the same results. The SS Mont-Blanc was caring 35 tons of benzol, 300 rounds of ammunition, 10 tons of gun cotton, 2,300 tons of picric acid (used in explosives), and 400,000 pounds of TNT. She Is no ware near as big as a Battleship.

http://www.halifax.ca/Community/explode.html ( verify it for yourself) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those are merchant container ships which are essentially giant boxes on the inside and can carry huge amounts of cargo. A battleship does not carry only cargo and is not built like a merchant ship on the inside.

ALSO, 400 000 pounds is 200 tons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and it leveled a city! I'm not sure of the hood but the Bismarck was able to care a 1000-1300 rounds for her main guns a you figure the shell weighs about 1600Lb, 20% of that is explosives now add the 150 to 500lb of Cordite that's (320x1000)+(250X1000)/2000= 1920000+250000
=2170000/2000(ton)= 1085 tons if you forget that BB's have aa guns, secondary guns, torpedoes and a variety other explosive and flammable substances you get a boom almost twice that of the Halifax disaster. I may have overestimated the the yield of a exploding BB but it still should look better then it did.

Coal fired ships aren't capable of going to full speed from cold boilers but that is another argument for another day LOL,

ty for all the input that i received on this Topic, I may not agree with the view you shared but appreciate them non the less

Fight In the Sea and in the the air (maybe even out to lunch on some days)

Spaced_Monkey


fixed spelling error Do'h

[kingsleyben]

lol, you guys are really digressing from the topic of this thread. I agree that torpedoes should be the most realistic part of the game. I think we can all agree that if you hit ANY WW2 ship near the engine room or propellers, that ship is dead in the water. It would be very nice to be able to shoot a liberty cargo with a torpedo and take out their deck gun. Completely feasible scenario.

[RedTerex]

YES (for those who will still buy the game) SH5 will have realistic torpedoes.

In fact in SH4 a torp was able to disable a ship if it hit it in the props and not all ships reacted the same to how and where they were hit..it was quite realistic indeed.

Plus the depth setting on the torp had a lot to do with its destructive force as well.

[spaced_monkey]

the depth of the torpedo shouldn't affect the fact that some of the British bb only had a 55%-60% coverage of there main Armour belt and that that hit hit in front or behind this main belt would penetrate, and most likely cause serious secondary explosions. Also fire should actually do damage and not just indicate damage, it so lame to see a ship on fire and no explosions from stuff on board going off.

[Talroth]

Didn't the Halifax explosion cause about 300-400 acres of damage? And didn't both nuclear bombs dropped on Japan cause over 2000 acres each?

The Halifax explosion was big, and destroyed much of a city, but it wasn't all that big of a city at the time.

[spaced_monkey]

the nuclear bombs detonated 1 km above the cites did do more area damage but if the Halifax explosion was 1k up it probably would have be horrifying. (keeping in mind there where ships out at see near Halifax that when the shock wave hit thought they where torpedoed.

[paulhager]

Originally posted by spaced_monkey:
the nuclear bombs detonated 1 km above the cites did do more area damage but if the Halifax explosion was 1k up it probably would have be horrifying. (keeping in mind there where ships out at see near Halifax that when the shock wave hit thought they where torpedoed.

Nope. It's simple physics. The ship exploded with less that 300 tons of TNT. That's 0.3 kilotons. A tactical nuke (or a neutron bomb) would probably be around 1 kiloton (kt). It is true that there is a scaling effect that generally works out to the destruction of a given bomb being equivalent to the 2/3 power of the yield. Thus, for example, a pattern of 7 one megaton themonukes would do roughly the same damage as 1 twenty megaton thermonuke.

So, if you want to apply scaling, 15 kt relative to the 0.3 kt is about a factor of 13. However, scaling doesn't really capture unique nuclear effects such as the high radiant energy output which causes fire as well as the prompt radiation. So, while scaling works well for blast effects, other purely nuclear effects would enhance the kill factor.

Bottom line, as bad as a ship carrying explosives would be a nuke is much worse.

Note: if you want to contemplate significantly higher energy chemical explosions, consider what might happen if a liquid natural gas ship were to blow up. If one could contrive to initially release the natural gas and then detonate it - like a fuel-air explosion - you might get low kiloton yields. It's been a while since I looked into this - I'll leave it as an exercise for the student.