Will torpedo failures be realistic LOL

[THE_MASK]

I think my campaign in SH4 will start in 1943
http://www.valoratsea.com/subwar.htm

[THE_MASK]

QUOTE "Continuing on the belief that the poor showing was due to ineffective skippers, many were relieved of their commands, replaced by younger, more aggressive officers." Demotions is what we need in SH4 . Bring it on !!!!!!!!

[_Seth_]

yeah, blame the crew for the flaws in the equipment....Its the navy.. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
BTW: I also think i will start in 1943.... "Dud" isnt my middle name...

[Loaf]

When the US entered the war, their standard doctrine was that submerged attacks should be conducted using the hydrophones to aim the torpedoes in order to avoid the chance of the 'scope being spotted.

Naturally, this did not work very well! It was changed pretty quickly I believe...

SHI had early-war dud torpedoes - very frustrating to put a full spread into a carrier, and none of them would go off!

[AS]

Dud torpedoes? Well, make love not war!

I´ll paint my sub yellow and sing along...:rotfl:

[dean_acheson]

SOP at the beginning of the war was Sonar attacks from 100 feet down....

[Sailor Steve]

SHI had early-war dud torpedoes - very frustrating to put a full spread into a carrier, and none of them would go off!
SHI also had warnings of potential removal from command if your scores didn't improve.

[Schatten]

I wonder if we'll be able to violate orders and have Weps noodle around with the detonators before the torpedos were "officially" fixed...

:arrgh!:

[MadMike]

One CO actually did have the torpedo crew inactivate the magnetic exploder. He had a good patrol until one of his crew snitched to the higher ups (will post reference later when I get off work).

Yours, Mike

[Sailor Steve]

I understand it was more than one.

It would be cool to have it in the game, but then everyone would do it and it would kind of defeat the purpose of having the failures in the first place.

[azn_132]

Sooner later u well yell at U keep missing stop it!!!! I yell that out when I was watched the ingame footage when they keep firn torps but always miss.

[don1reed]

What was also depressing in SH1 was watching the torp trail go beneath the target due to the torps running 11 ft deeper.

[Oesten]

Hopefully, realistic torpedoes will be a selectable realism option, as they were in SH1.

Tick the box - completely realistic torpedoes with a historically accurate failure rate.

Don't tick the box - no torpedo failures at all.

Then it's up to the player to decide how realistic he wants his game experience to be.

[TheSatyr]

Heh,I still remember the time in SH1 when I was commanding a T class boat,had a perfect set up on the Kaga or Akagi and got 6 hits on it,and they were all duds.

It was the kind of thing that made you want to scream and tear your hair out.:lol:

[TwistedFemur]

I wonder if we'll be able to violate orders and have Weps noodle around with the detonators before the torpedos were "officially" fixed...

:arrgh!:

that would be cool...use some reknown to "trade" for the right color paint that month

[Schatten]

I wonder if we'll be able to violate orders and have Weps noodle around with the detonators before the torpedos were "officially" fixed...

:arrgh!:
that would be cool...use some reknown to "trade" for the right color paint that month

Shhhh don't mention renown for paint around here or you know these guys will be saving up to start stripping the entire South Pacific of all the pink paint ever able to be mixed there...

:rotfl:

[Charos]

We all know what will happen early on in the war with realistic torp performance.

Radio operator: Yet another message for you Cap.

Captain: what the hell does HQ want now.

HQ: "BE MORE AGGRESSIVE".

:damn:

:yep:

[Schatten]

We all know what will happen early on in the war with realistic torp performance.

Radio operator: Yet another message for you Cap.

Captain: what the hell does HQ want now.

HQ: "BE MORE AGGRESSIVE".

:damn:

:yep:

Pretty much!

Either that or: "Report to Pearl Harbor for reassignment to minesweepers."

:rotfl:

[bookworm_020]

The pacific comander in charge of U.S. Subs out of Australia was one of the developers of the magnetic fuses. He refused to believe that they were at fault for any of the torpedo failures, even after it had been proven beyond all doubt. It was only a direct order from Lockwood himself (backed by the president) did he allow the fuses to de-armed.

Many good skippers got releaved of command by him if he heard that they had tampered with fuses in any way.

[JSF]

If you wish to increase the likelyhood your fish will go off upon impact, then....

1) Close to 1100 yrd track.

2) Attack from 120 degrees to achieve an oblique hit. Ninety degrees will certainly
cause a dud.

[Hylander_1314]

Yep, it wasn't just the magnetic detonators, but also the pistol for impact detonation that was screwy too. Along with depth keeping problems. What a mess.

[Finback]

That's right JSF. They discovered that stronger pins were needed for the detonators or when they struck at right angles they would crush before travelling to the exploder. The irony is that the first pins manufactured that worked properly were made from metal taken from the propellors of Japanese aircraft shot down during the Pearl Harbor attack.

[Hylander_1314]

Considering that only 29 Japanese planes were lost over Pearl, and the other bases, they didn't get too many.

[Finback]

Good point. I never really thought about that. I know the reason they used that metal was because it was a light but very strong alloy. Not sure what they used for later production though...

At any rate, if they model torpedo failures historically, we'll have to be somewhat masochistic to play at that level of realism :damn: .

Cheers!!!