View Full Version : Problem with mark 14 torps
Is is just me or are these torpedos not very good?
Just did a 1942 mission where i got right into a convoy undetected. Primary targets were 2 large modern tankers.
Got myself so that i could fire forward at one and backwards at the other at the same time.
So, loosed off two torps at the first tanker and two at the second one - made off slowly and managed to get off two more mark 14s at a large modern composite freighter.
The first tanker starts burning in two places, the second in one, and the freigher doesn't even register a hole in the side even though i watched the tightly grouped torps hit virtually the same place!
Ok, so revisited the first tanker and had to pump another 4 torpedos into it until it went down. That means that out of i think 14 torpedos in forward banks that you can use i've used nearly half on one ship?? I gave up on the freighter (given that it appeared totally unaffected by two torpedo hits???).
I ended up surfacing in the middle of the convoy and tried gunning the second tanker until i realised that a destroyer had come right up behind me which remarkably hadn't even started firing lol! I think it wanted to depth charge me on the surface.
Anyway, my main point is that i've noticed this low damage from these topedos a lot in the game and it's frustrating. Also i tried a couple of shots 2 metres below the hull of one ship, expecting the "influence" from the ship to set them off. Nothing, i watched as they sailed right past the ship almost scaping the hull as they went. And yes, i had the right torp setting on (ie not contract only)
?? Any comments anyone please ??
That is a very good description,Of the very occurrences experienced around that time during WW2. There have been many:hmm: ?*#@%, discussions,on this feature/bug.:lol: Welcome to Subsim badB0y.:up:
i think im having the same problem. it takes too many torp's to put some ships down. i just lost a medium merchant. i hit him twice, and the second shot put a gaping hole in his belly. he sank very low in the water, but made off with the cover of 3 destroyers, at 2 knots. 2 others were immobilized, and deck gunned, after the DD's had fled the area.
so, i fired 5 torps, and bagged 2 med. merchants. not so good.
arrrghh....
I need....satisfaction!!!
The, er, topedo type.
The thing is, if they explode, given that they are packed with explosives, right next to the hull of a ship, surely some serious damage must occur? I can "understand" duds, and have that realism setting on as a result, but exploding tops that do nothing or very little?
Can i ask another question here as well - i have been looking through the forums quite a bit on damage vs sink time.
Take that first tanker i hit - it was listing to about 45 degrees, been hit multiple times, and was still driving on. Surely once water's overtopping the deck that's history for the ship? I've never known or seen footage of a ship in that state make it back to port....?
this kinda puts me off playing the game as it takes so long to get into position and sort your firing solution out just to have ships not go down..?
gah...
Welcome to the real frustration felt by Sumariners until early to mid 1943 when the Mark XIV torpedos where corrected from many various bugs.
nattydread
06-02-07, 08:48 PM
Keep in mind, that none of the merchants have cargo load outs. So a tanker doesnt have any combustibles on board to put a "cherry on top" of your torp hits.
Oddly I see in many posts that tankers were hard to sink, but I have never seen that as a re-occuring issue in my readings...and I've read tons of WWII sub memoirs(Barnes & Nobles ran out of books for me, N. and S. California).
I totally see how an empty tanker can hold on for dear life, but the frequency of stubborn tankers in game is troublesome to me.
I was also surprised to see how much resolve the troop transports/cruise ships were. I'm not saying they shouldnt be, they are just stronger than I expected.
later in the war, ive had MUCH MUCH better luck with the "pink" torpedos(mk17s?), i forgot the model number, but they seem to be much more reliable and powerfull. im on my 3rd career and im stuck with the mark 14s right now and i go through the same stuff you do, especially when they explode 100yards before the target ! :damn:
but i know that skippers back in the day had the same frustrations so i keep on firing and make more trips for refits....
SirMoric
06-02-07, 09:24 PM
Hmm, a ship full of oil is not easy to sink, especially not when you take into consideration that oil is ligther than water and the hole ship is divided into compartments to store oil.
Unless you get an explosion ripping a tanker into pieces they tend to suck up a lot of damage.
A torpedo going off right beside a ship will cause damage, but not as much as it will if exploding below a ship (design flaw of ships)....... (to us submariners that is).
rgds
More arcade-like, but fun,try this, mod. :rock: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=110828
especially when they explode 100yards before the target ! :damn:
Ah, so i'm not the only one...:)
I can handle this though - just pi$$ed me off royally when a double hit on a freighter did nothing.....
Yeah, real skippers were beaten up in their patrol endorsements for wasting torpedos. At the start of the war the doctrine was supposed to be to fire ONE torpedo at a merchant ship if it was ~5000 tons. Many skippers decided on their own after seeing 50-70% of their torpedos fail to fire spreads at anything worth a torpedo at all. They'd still get bashed for wasting torpedos, but they also might actually sink something.
This community has been obsessed with an idea that ships are too vulnerable. One mod to Grey Wolves made them almost unsinkable.
I recently heard a quote from OTTO KRETSCHMER that close shot sinkings only required one torpedo.
SH4 is equally ridiculous. A mod is available to boost torpedo damage. It goes a little too far, but at least a 90 degree, close range hit on a small ship will sink it with one torpedo. I find this mod much improves the game.
A 90 degree hit is far LESS likely to explode at all for an early war Mk14 torpedo. The contact fuse would break unless it hit at an angle.
The range? That should make zero difference in the least. The only place the range could possibly make any difference would be at the very end of a run if it was coasting and slowing down. Seriously, how can range affect lethality of a torpedo, exactly? A faster torpedo could possibly penetrate a thin-skinned merchant before detonating, but the speed is independant of range for most of the run. Closer to the sub, it should actually be slower, but accelerating. There is no possible other physics involved in a short range attack other than ease of hitting in the first place.
A couple stories about 1 hit sinkings doesn't do it. Look at records for US submarines and the number of torpedos it took to sink a target.
The whole point of the command's obsession with the USN skippers using fewer torpedos, and requiring the skippers to use the magnetic exploder early war was twofold.
One, there was a shortage of torpedos.
Two, the USN believed that the small warhead of the Mk14 was only capable of sinking a merchant ship wth 1 shot if used "properly" with the magnetic pistol under the keel. From their testing they thought that 5000 ton ships would require 2-3 if used in contact mode.
nattydread
06-03-07, 04:41 PM
Hmm, a ship full of oil is not easy to sink, especially not when you take into consideration that oil is ligther than water and the hole ship is divided into compartments to store oil.
Unless you get an explosion ripping a tanker into pieces they tend to suck up a lot of damage.
A torpedo going off right beside a ship will cause damage, but not as much as it will if exploding below a ship (design flaw of ships)....... (to us submariners that is).
rgds
Certainly a single torp into the side of a tanker with oil wouldnt garauntee a kill. But 2-3 wouldnt certainly seem to cause problems. Structural integerity for one, each hit is going to weaken the hull and its ability to hold up to the all powerful, weakest point seeking nature of liquid.
The first hit is going to case a significant amount of oil to spill out. If not tankers wouldnt care if the had gapping holes by running aground, and exxon Vladez wouldnt have been an issue. The lose of oil opens the door two things or a combination of both. Some heavier water displacing the oil and/or the creation of space or basically an air pocket. Now if the explosion is able to build enough pressure in the hold to blow the seals on doors/valves etc on the deck you get a nice little thing. The heavy water filling in and the light oil being push out the top of the tanker through the now open ports/doors/valves etc on the deck. She'll bleed oil out the top as water fills the holds.
If the seals hold, you may get an airpocket. This air pocket provides an area for gaseous expansion and atomization of the oil if hit by another torp, the atomization of the oil and the heat of the torp explosion and some due to compression by the explosion can facilitate a secondary fuel explosion.
So basically each hit should be increasing the odds of catostrophic structural failure and the odds of a secondary explosion. Each torp hit is likly weaking or breeching the various bulkheads in the holds...something tells me they werent intended to handle to internal pressures caused by an exploding torp, the shock wave the oil would transmit would likly be horrific, bending, twisting and causing bulges in the surrounding bulkheads.
A tanker's structure can take a collision or tearing along the hull pretty well, but setting off an explosion inside a closed compartment of its hold is a different story and completly different source of metal stress and fatigue.
Now as good as I hope all this sounds...its all personal speculation. And it doesnt prove a tanker "should" sink in 2, 3 or 4 torps.
Also, it seems to be accepted that tankers with more volitile contents did go up much easier...if not more dramatically
GTHammer
06-03-07, 05:08 PM
I've read lots about this and complained about it plenty myself, but my conclusion in the end is that the torps seem pretty accurate. I've played mostly early war patrols and campaigns and was at first frustrated at the number of torps required to make certain kills. However as time has progressed I've realized perhaps its been easier to focus on the negatives. The five or so odd torps I've had explode early stick out alot more in my mind than those that functioned perfectly and did good damage. I've had plenty of issues with torps, but I've also had a few one shot kills on smaller ships and even taken down a FUSO with 2 shots that hit low on the keel. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think it seems pretty realistic that you're gunna strike out more often than you're gunna hit a home run.
nattydread
06-03-07, 06:20 PM
I dont mind the strike outs so much, I mind the strike outs when I do land several torp hits. I have duds on 100% for a reason and expect mishaps...just not kinetic energy absorbing space vessels.
Sometimes you get duds, premature detonations and non-functioning magnetic detonators. Not to mention the circlers with a broken gyro. As far as I see it it is not a bug, but a feature. That is how the mk14 fishes was. Very unstable. At least until late 43. Before mid/late 43, don't get surprised if less than half of your fishes actually hit their target, much less do any significant damage. You want a simulator, you got it :)
:damn:
later in the war, ive had MUCH MUCH better luck with the "pink" torpedos(mk17s?), i forgot the model number, but they seem to be much more reliable and powerfull. im on my 3rd career and im stuck with the mark 14s right now and i go through the same stuff you do, especially when they explode 100yards before the target ! :damn:
but i know that skippers back in the day had the same frustrations so i keep on firing and make more trips for refits....
agreed - i've found this also.
tycho102
06-04-07, 01:35 PM
Just did a 1942 mission where i got right into a convoy undetected. Primary targets were 2 large modern tankers.
?? Any comments anyone please ??
Set your torp as shallow as possible (2 meters) and fire at the actual tanks. If you can't tell where the tanks are located, you probably ought to take a look at a few historical photos on google. One shot is all it usually takes, but I typically fire two. If I fire them deep or mag, it takes 4 or more. Shallow has been very good to me for a whole bunch of tankers.
Cargo and troop boats are the ones you want mag shots as close to the keel and centerline as possible.
nattydread
06-04-07, 06:39 PM
Yeah, I dont even fire torps with mag detonators active.
I try to mix the depths up and spread the love when I fire multiple fish, especially against tankers, in hopes I can get the water to flood in through the deep hole allowing it to push the oil upward to spill out the shallow hole...then I found out no tankers have anyting in their holds.
Taurolas
06-06-07, 06:33 AM
Tankers can take one hell of a beating... i think you should read about the Ohio doing the malta run during WWII, and then you'll have greater respect for the amount of damage they can take and still continue on their merry way :D
Marko Ramius
06-06-07, 07:14 AM
Well here's a true story:
On my second mission to the Solomon islands I come across one large modern tanker, unattended. I've had problems with these mammoths before so I take no chances and fire all six of my bow torps at her. They all hit home, one after the other. That only slowed her down a bit and she's got a gaping hole on the side and a small fire.
I cut in front of her and fire all 4 of my stern torps, no misses. Another gaping hole and I can now literally see through the ship.
No worries, she's still proudly making 5 knots! I'm a little angry now and meanwhile my bow torps are loaded so I turn the boat around and fire another six, all hits.
She's now listing heavily, she's ablaze and has slowed down to 3 knots but she doesn't mean to go down, so I wait a while to see if she will oblige. And sure enough, she's picking up speed again! I couldn't believe it!:damn:
Same drill again, I turn around and fire another four to finally see her slowly leave the surface...
20 torpedos...
tycho102
06-06-07, 01:14 PM
one large modern tanker
unattended.
all six of my bow torps
she's still proudly making 5 knots!
Dude. You need to set your torps for 2 meters. As absolutely shallow as they go.
Then, you need to aim for the bloody tanks. Let me see if I can find a picture and circle it real quick.
http://tron-chaser.net/data/silenthunter4/sh4_tanker.jpg
http://tron-chaser.net/data/silenthunter4/sh4_tanker2.jpg
There's always a crane boom or other structure denoting where the tank fillhole is. The tank is either fore or aft of that marker. You put two torps into the same tank, and it's going to drop very quickly from the secondary explosions.
nattydread
06-06-07, 06:40 PM
Man, Ive put torps of varying depths all in those areas before, the things treats them like mosquitos in SHIV.
Marko Ramius
06-06-07, 06:59 PM
I will certainly try that and thanks for the instructions!
So with the depth of the torps is only for tankers that you gotta set them shallow or this is a general rule? Or the bigger the ship the shallower you have to aim?
Another weird thing that has happened is when I fired a fish at one of those little subchasers. The guy was following me at full speed and I could see him exactly at 180o travelling on a straight line about 1,000ft away so I thought I'd have a go at him with a stern shot. (BTW I never understood why these subschasers never fire at me with their deck guns. One of them crept up on me once and just sat there behind me, both of us stopped. I turned the boat around and mowed him with the deck gun)
When I hit him his ship actually jumped about 5ft out of the water, I wish I had taken a pic... The fish must have been running too deep and detonated under the ship causing the acrobatics.
And guess what this little #$@# just landed and kept chasing me around...
Thanks for your help on the tankers
According to the books there were problems with the torpedos until sometime in 43, but the stock fish appear to be under powered even when they explode. If you want? There is a mod in the mod workshop that will increase your fish by x1.5 or x 2.
It is an each to his/her own thing about power mods. But I got damn tired of having to use four or more on some small merchants. x1.5 seems to work for me. There is also a supermod torpedo, but I don't think anyone with realisim set about 51% uses them.
Marko Ramius
06-06-07, 07:17 PM
According to the books there were problems with the torpedos until sometime in 43,
Nah I was supposedly in 1944 when when my debacle with the tanker happened, I don't think it's something they built into the game for historical accuracy purposes.
Marko Ramius
06-06-07, 07:53 PM
And if they did do it purposedly for historical accuracy they could have done a better job at it. Still this sim has so much going for it that I'm absolutely delighted I bought it. Thanks for the tip Bear I think I might beef up my fishes a tad.
?? Any comments anyone please ??[/quote]
Set your torp as shallow as possible (2 meters) and fire at the actual tanks. If you can't tell where the tanks are located, you probably ought to take a look at a few historical photos on google. One shot is all it usually takes, but I typically fire two. If I fire them deep or mag, it takes 4 or more. Shallow has been very good to me for a whole bunch of tankers.
Cargo and troop boats are the ones you want mag shots as close to the keel and centerline as possible.[/quote]
Ok your point/advice is taken but this then begs the question - aren't you going for a level of precision that the game simply does't cater for?
Your personal experience seems to bear you out but maybe the game itself simply randomised your success rate.
One further comment on this - as i've chosen later years, 1943 for e.g. - not only do you get better fish/torps, but also the mark14 fish seem to work better as well. Is this supposed to be the case or is this just an example of the game randomising the effect of effectiveness of a particular (on target) torpedo.
I am truly interested in how detailed the devs went in terms of different areas of a ship being vunerable. The only area i can see at the moment is landing bang on the engine room which i admit tends to cause a rather satisfying explosion more often than not.
One example, hit a propellor bang on - zero damage, ship moves ahead as per normal.
Another shot (diff ship) hits a little further up the boat - prop stops.
I'm just wondering where the line is between reality and poor dev design "mimicking" reality if you see what i mean.
One of them crept up on me once and just sat there behind me, both of us stopped. I turned the boat around and mowed him with the deck gun)
I've had this happen to me before but i didn't have the presence of mind to deck gun him. It was just DIVE DIVE DIVE :) A bug i hope they'll iron out, and the exception rather than the rule.
tycho102
06-07-07, 12:53 PM
1. Ok your point/advice is taken but this then begs the question - aren't you going for a level of precision that the game simply does't cater for?
Your personal experience seems to bear you out but maybe the game itself simply randomised your success rate.
2. One further comment on this - as i've chosen later years, 1943 for e.g. - not only do you get better fish/torps, but also the mark14 fish seem to work better as well. Is this supposed to be the case or is this just an example of the game randomising the effect of effectiveness of a particular (on target) torpedo.
3. I am truly interested in how detailed the devs went in terms of different areas of a ship being vunerable. The only area i can see at the moment is landing bang on the engine room which i admit tends to cause a rather satisfying explosion more often than not. One example, hit a propellor bang on - zero damage, ship moves ahead as per normal.
Another shot (diff ship) hits a little further up the boat - prop stops.
1. With a guess, I've fired on at least 60 tankers. Both "small" and "large". The smalls have always blown themselves to hell on the first torpedo, wherever I shoot. What are they, like 1700 tons?
The larges I had trouble with at the beginning. I'd fire at the default 4 meters and it would take 4 torpedoes. Tried dropped to 8 and 10 meters, and got better success. Then I started messing with very shallow torps, and very quickly learned to fire them at the actual tanks. It is obvious when you hit the tanks because the thing goes down in ~1 minute. Sometimes it takes a second torpedo in the exact same place, sometimes it doesn't. Same thing with carriers -- I've put a carrier under in two shallow shots, and I've had carriers take 4 or 5 torps.
2. The detonator and depth-keeping were solved in around September 1943. It's probably "modeled" into the premature detonation rates, depth keeping problems, and the conical sections for detonator probability.
3. The engine rooms are usually right around the waterline, halfway between the superstructure and stern. It was the same way with SH3. Props couldn't be damaged, engine rooms could. This was a major issue with the acoustic torpedoes missing, then swinging around and nailing the props for no damage (or very, very little). Firing on the superstructure with the deck gun will kill the command crew and immobilize the ship, same as it did in SH3.
The interdependency of ship compartments is modeled.
I'll see about capturing some game movies this weekend.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.