Realtistic underwater damage to hulls

SSI01 · 04-17-15, 12:14 PM

I've seen a few posts on threads herein where at least one mod is discussed that provides enhanced torpedo damage to a ship's hull - i.e., makes the hole in the hull bigger. This in turn begs the question: which one is inherently more accurate re: the size of the hole in the hull - stock or the "enhanced," which may in fact be a reality upgrade.

Dry dock photos I've seen of torpedo damage to ships' hulls show holes that would swallow a Pennsylvania Dutch barn and, when one compares this to the holes caused by torpedo hits in the stock version, the stock holes seem to be a bit small.

So - does the "enhanced" torpedo effect mod more accurately reflect reality - or does that of the stock game?

TorpX · 04-18-15, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSI01

So - does the "enhanced" torpedo effect mod more accurately reflect reality - or does that of the stock game?

The visible 'damage' you see is not related to the damage points the target ship suffers. It is merely a graphical decal that shows up in the game - iow, eye-candy. You can sink a ship without seeing any hole in the hull, and you can make big holes, without sinking the ship.

SSI01 · 04-18-15, 08:13 AM

OK. I've noted the "no holes" issue before, that seems to happen when torpedoes strike a target's hull fairly close together. You'll get one hole but nothing - not an enlargement - for the second hit, nor any hint of additional internal damage (visually) for that close-proximity second hit.

Thanks.

Scarredclown · 04-18-15, 09:20 AM

Today i got Lucky, the weather was perfect and i found a large modern tanker without any escort. I put three torpedoes in it, a lot of shells and it was going down sooo slow. Isnt that a lot for a tanker ? Three torpedoes ?

Does i have to hang around to have credit for it ? it seem to be a waste of time...

Sniper297 · 04-18-15, 10:33 AM

Could be dependent on a mod you're using, some have sinking mechanics built into the mod. Stock game the big 10,000 ton tanker usually takes two fish, sometimes one will do it, sometimes it takes 3 or 4.

This is realistic - an empty tanker sailing in ballast has a lot of airtight tanks filled with air. A full tanker has tanks full of oil or gas, which is lighter than water per gallon, so will also float after several hits. Unless the cargo is set on fire, of course, in real life some tankers took 7 or 8 hits and stayed afloat long enough to be saved, others exploded like an A-bomb from a single hit inducing a secondary explosion from the extremely flammable cargo.

Size of holes, I made the "bang for your buck" more as a "what we should have had" mod than any kind of realism. The history of US torpedoes is a dismal SNAFU of bureaucrats and defense contractors screwing up everything they got their hands on. Just before the war the Mark 14 was increased from a 400 pound warhead to a 500 pound warhead, increasing the bang but inducing the depth problems since they never compensated for the additional weight. Eventually US torpedo warheads increased to 600 and 800 pounds by the end of the war, meantime the Japanese had the Long Lance with high speed, long range and a 1000 pound warhead at the very beginning of the war.

So in my opinion the damage done by the stock torpedo is realistic, but unlike real life you get zero credit for damage, so if the target steams off over the horizon at 25 knots with 4 fish in him, you just wasted four torpedoes for nothing. So I cheat.

SSI01 · 04-19-15, 09:36 AM

Sniper 297 - excellent observations. As smart as they were (or thought they were), the "specialists" in BuOrd just seemed to let that elementary principle of physics get by them - if you have something hanging on the front end of your torpedo that's heavier than what originally used to be there, OF COURSE it's going to run deeper and compensation for the extra weight should have been added. Wonder what they were thinking?

We all know about the influence exploders and what a fiasco they were. Their multiple failures, plus those caused by the impact firing mechanisms, should have been grounds for at least a COI and possibly a court-martial. Those failures were costing lives. At the very least whoever was behind these problems, once made manifest, should have been relegated to something like running a backwater Navy installation in the middle of the Kansas prairie for the balance of WWII - then retired one-rank lower immediately after the war.

As I recall one of the Adms involved went from BuOrd to running the submarines out of, I think SOWESPAC where he used to give the captains who disabled the magnetic feature (and got hits, BTW) absolute hell in their patrol reports, even after a successful patrol, because they didn't use his pet feature. What a jerk. Wonder how many of them had their careers ruined by this guy and his devotion to his pet gizmo that should have been extensively tested pre-war, secrecy or no. I've got no sympathy at all for brass that pull stuff like this.

04-17-15, 12:14 PM	#1
SSI01 Loader Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 88 Downloads: 56 Uploads: 0	Realtistic underwater damage to hulls I've seen a few posts on threads herein where at least one mod is discussed that provides enhanced torpedo damage to a ship's hull - i.e., makes the hole in the hull bigger. This in turn begs the question: which one is inherently more accurate re: the size of the hole in the hull - stock or the "enhanced," which may in fact be a reality upgrade. Dry dock photos I've seen of torpedo damage to ships' hulls show holes that would swallow a Pennsylvania Dutch barn and, when one compares this to the holes caused by torpedo hits in the stock version, the stock holes seem to be a bit small. So - does the "enhanced" torpedo effect mod more accurately reflect reality - or does that of the stock game?

04-18-15, 09:20 AM	#4
Scarredclown Loader Join Date: Mar 2015 Location: Quebec Posts: 85 Downloads: 7 Uploads: 0	Today i got Lucky, the weather was perfect and i found a large modern tanker without any escort. I put three torpedoes in it, a lot of shells and it was going down sooo slow. Isnt that a lot for a tanker ? Three torpedoes ? Does i have to hang around to have credit for it ? it seem to be a waste of time... __________________ Sorry for my English, triyng very hard !

04-18-15, 08:13 AM	#3
SSI01 Loader Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 88 Downloads: 56 Uploads: 0	OK. I've noted the "no holes" issue before, that seems to happen when torpedoes strike a target's hull fairly close together. You'll get one hole but nothing - not an enlargement - for the second hit, nor any hint of additional internal damage (visually) for that close-proximity second hit. Thanks.

04-18-15, 10:33 AM	#5
Sniper297 The Old Man Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Philadelphia Shipyard Brig Posts: 1,386 Downloads: 160 Uploads: 19	Could be dependent on a mod you're using, some have sinking mechanics built into the mod. Stock game the big 10,000 ton tanker usually takes two fish, sometimes one will do it, sometimes it takes 3 or 4. This is realistic - an empty tanker sailing in ballast has a lot of airtight tanks filled with air. A full tanker has tanks full of oil or gas, which is lighter than water per gallon, so will also float after several hits. Unless the cargo is set on fire, of course, in real life some tankers took 7 or 8 hits and stayed afloat long enough to be saved, others exploded like an A-bomb from a single hit inducing a secondary explosion from the extremely flammable cargo. Size of holes, I made the "bang for your buck" more as a "what we should have had" mod than any kind of realism. The history of US torpedoes is a dismal SNAFU of bureaucrats and defense contractors screwing up everything they got their hands on. Just before the war the Mark 14 was increased from a 400 pound warhead to a 500 pound warhead, increasing the bang but inducing the depth problems since they never compensated for the additional weight. Eventually US torpedo warheads increased to 600 and 800 pounds by the end of the war, meantime the Japanese had the Long Lance with high speed, long range and a 1000 pound warhead at the very beginning of the war. So in my opinion the damage done by the stock torpedo is realistic, but unlike real life you get zero credit for damage, so if the target steams off over the horizon at 25 knots with 4 fish in him, you just wasted four torpedoes for nothing. So I cheat.

04-19-15, 09:36 AM	#6
SSI01 Loader Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 88 Downloads: 56 Uploads: 0	Sniper 297 - excellent observations. As smart as they were (or thought they were), the "specialists" in BuOrd just seemed to let that elementary principle of physics get by them - if you have something hanging on the front end of your torpedo that's heavier than what originally used to be there, OF COURSE it's going to run deeper and compensation for the extra weight should have been added. Wonder what they were thinking? We all know about the influence exploders and what a fiasco they were. Their multiple failures, plus those caused by the impact firing mechanisms, should have been grounds for at least a COI and possibly a court-martial. Those failures were costing lives. At the very least whoever was behind these problems, once made manifest, should have been relegated to something like running a backwater Navy installation in the middle of the Kansas prairie for the balance of WWII - then retired one-rank lower immediately after the war. As I recall one of the Adms involved went from BuOrd to running the submarines out of, I think SOWESPAC where he used to give the captains who disabled the magnetic feature (and got hits, BTW) absolute hell in their patrol reports, even after a successful patrol, because they didn't use his pet feature. What a jerk. Wonder how many of them had their careers ruined by this guy and his devotion to his pet gizmo that should have been extensively tested pre-war, secrecy or no. I've got no sympathy at all for brass that pull stuff like this.