View Full Version : in response to alot of "used too many torps to sink a boat" threads
SingeDebile
07-05-07, 10:48 AM
first, this is not to say that sometimes this is can be true (its taking a seemingly un natural number of torp hits to sink a ship), especially if you take into account that tanker ships are never actually full of oil for example.
I think we tend to expect ships to sink too quickly (which is encouraged by the ultra speedy sink animation), that after they get mortally hit with a torp they should sink instantly. If you let a wounded ship float for a while it will often end up sinking all its own. But we dont have time for that, we charge into a convoy and expect to sink them all in one swoop.
Realistically it could take hours for a ship to sink.... so even if it doesnt after the first couple hits then let it sit there for a while... watch it get lower and lower in the water or list more and more... or even just tell yourself you giving the men aboard the option of getting off in time.
bill clarke
07-05-07, 11:48 AM
first, this is not to say that sometimes this is can be true (its taking a seemingly un natural number of torp hits to sink a ship), especially if you take into account that tanker ships are never actually full of oil for example.
I think we tend to expect ships to sink too quickly (which is encouraged by the ultra speedy sink animation), that after they get mortally hit with a torp they should sink instantly. If you let a wounded ship float for a while it will often end up sinking all its own. But we dont have time for that, we charge into a convoy and expect to sink them all in one swoop.
Realistically it could take hours for a ship to sink.... so even if it doesnt after the first couple hits then let it sit there for a while... watch it get lower and lower in the water or list more and more... or even just tell yourself you giving the men aboard the option of getting off in time.
Well after reading some historical accounts of sinkings, some did go down quite quickly, especially the CVL's, that's probably the hardest part of the game to programe, so many variables.
BTW why are the tankers not filled with oil in the game ?
WernerSobe
07-05-07, 02:02 PM
Indeed sinkings are not realistic. In my opinion small and medium cargo ships take to much. Ive seen a 3000 tons vessel eating 6 torps and keep going. There was not much left from its sidewalls actualy it was just a floating huge hole. And on the other hand battleships and carriers and cruisers are to easy, sometimes with just one torpedo. Thats unrealistic. You cannot kill a battleship like yamato with 4 torpedoes. These ships can take a lot and i mean a lot more, after all they are designed to take torpedoes and keep going.
However this can be modeled and fearly easy. The way the ships take damage is the same as in sh3. And there was a nice mod (NYGM) that made ships actualy flood and sink slowly (sometimes hours) and not just blow up like in stock.
Let me explain. There are two kinds of damage the ship can take in sh4. At first every ship has a certain amount of hit points. Every hit gain some of it. When it has no more hit points it takes critical damage meaning it blows up in big explosion and sinks very fast. The other kind of damage is flooding. When the ship has taken enough water it will sink (slowly) regardless of its hitpoints.
Now in stock SH4 most ships sink from critical (when they have no more hitpoints) actualy you almost never see a ship sinking from flooding. There is no balance between both damage types. Most ships are set at to slow flooding speed. In most cases they lose all hitpoints way earlier they are flooded criticaly.
NYGM Mod back in sh3 times gave all ships much more hitpoints. That caused ships sink from flooding only and took much longer. Im sure it can be modeled for sh4 in same way.
SteamWake
07-05-07, 02:37 PM
I sank a carrier with one torpedo.
Ive posted about it before so I wont go into details but it happened.
hmmmmf
Ok, this doesnt sound to good.
I remember in a post of SHIII that its best to break the vessel in 2 by having the torp blowup under the vessel instead of trying to punch it full of holes.
I dont know if you can set the torp's to magneto in this game (yes I'm just starting with this game) but if so *going to try this* punching a hole in the side and have a torp or 2 blow up just under the vessel should break the vessel in 2 and therefor should lower the amount of torps needed to sink a vessel.
SteamWake
07-05-07, 02:59 PM
hmmmmf
Ok, this doesnt sound to good.
I remember in a post of SHIII that its best to break the vessel in 2 by having the torp blowup under the vessel instead of trying to punch it full of holes.
I dont know if you can set the torp's to magneto in this game (yes I'm just starting with this game) but if so *going to try this* punching a hole in the side and have a torp or 2 blow up just under the vessel should break the vessel in 2 and therefor should lower the amount of torps needed to sink a vessel.
Magnetic detonators are..... unreliable at this time.
"You cannot kill a battleship like yamato with 4 torpedoes. These ships can take a lot and i mean a lot more, after all they are designed to take torpedoes and keep going."
I've seen a lot of people make this statement but not true. We don't know what it would have taken to sink the Yamato because it was sunk by planes. The same hull converted into an aircraft carrier was sunk with one torp. Six were fired and hit, one penetrated hitting a support beam and forcing the beam through a boiler.
It's rare when I don't sink small-medium ships with one or at most two torps. Skill and technique play an important part as it should in any well made game.
-Pv-
TheSatyr
07-05-07, 10:10 PM
1)Aircraft torpedoes were just sub torps modified for aircraft,same as surface ship torps. Which is why US torp bombers had a lousy time hitting anything early in the war.
2)I've said it before and I'll say it again.You CANNOT compare the Shinano to the Yamatos. The Shinano hadn't even been completed yet and was missing a number of water tight doors. And it was more than one torpedo. I would suggest reading a book called "Shinano". Tells the entire history of the Shinano from keel laying to sinking. And it heavily criticizes the High Command for ever sending her out to sea to begin with.
The Taiho went down with just one torp hit,but that was due to the stupidity of her Captain. There were heavy gas fumes in part of the ship so he "vented" the ship. It dissapated the gas fumes alright. Turned the entire ship into a floating bomb that just needed one spark to set off...and that's exactly what happened. In the end,the Captain sunk his own ship. All the torp did was cause minor damage.
bill clarke
07-05-07, 11:24 PM
"You cannot kill a battleship like yamato with 4 torpedoes. These ships can take a lot and i mean a lot more, after all they are designed to take torpedoes and keep going."
I've seen a lot of people make this statement but not true. We don't know what it would have taken to sink the Yamato because it was sunk by planes. The same hull converted into an aircraft carrier was sunk with one torp. Six were fired and hit, one penetrated hitting a support beam and forcing the beam through a boiler.
It's rare when I don't sink small-medium ships with one or at most two torps. Skill and technique play an important part as it should in any well made game.
-Pv-
Hmm, not entirely correct mate.
HMS Barham was sunk with 3 torp hits and lsted over to port and exploded all within about 8 minutes IIRC, HMS Eagle (CV) was sunk with I think 3 as well.
Kongo, was sunk with only 3 or 4 I think as well.
The first 2 torp hits Yamato did nothing to slow her , she kept going as if nothing had happened, however the Americans concentrated on her port side, she was hit by at least 12 torps in the end. WRT Shinnano, she was no where near battle ready, having civillian tecnicians still on board, and was not in a "buttoned up"" state.
The annoying feature WRT freighters staying afloat is thet they should go down quickly, they do not have the damage control capacity of a warship, nor the structural integrity I know though that there are many varialbles to this, the one most annoying feature for me, with SHIII was the fact that fire did not seem to affect the ship when in reality, it was a lethal menace not having played SHIV I can not comment if the devs fixed this problem.
One way to fix this is to have AI crew on the vessels, carrying out damage control and make them subject to being killed, by fire , drowning, and explosions, cause it's unrealistic to assume that no damage control measures would be taken to save a ship, a good example is the IJN Shokaku, after she was torpedoed (3 hits) her damage control parties were making headway, and it seemed she might be saved, unfortunately the fires touched off torps and bombs, and doomed her completley.
yup, noticed that about the magnetic torp's... ohh well... as long as I get my quote of tonnage at the end of a mission i'll be happy
WernerSobe
07-06-07, 09:53 AM
im working on a mod that will make ships sink much more likely by flooding then by destroying its overall hit points. Flooding already works. All sinkings are a lot slower now and you can sink ships by hiting them once and making them run full, it just takes time. Even destroyed and evacuated ships wont disappear in few seconds it takes 5 minutes up to one hour, depending on its size and cargo types. Some ship will also flip over and keep on surface down under and will require few shots with deck gun. Another will sink over the bow and keep swimming like a kork with its stern sticking out of water.
What i still have to improve now is the amount of overall hitpoints and find the right balance. So you dont feel like small ships are to strong and big ones to weak.
so heads up for the near feature.
SteamWake
07-06-07, 10:20 AM
"You cannot kill a battleship like yamato with 4 torpedoes. These ships can take a lot and i mean a lot more, after all they are designed to take torpedoes and keep going."
I've seen a lot of people make this statement but not true. We don't know what it would have taken to sink the Yamato because it was sunk by planes. The same hull converted into an aircraft carrier was sunk with one torp. Six were fired and hit, one penetrated hitting a support beam and forcing the beam through a boiler.
It's rare when I don't sink small-medium ships with one or at most two torps. Skill and technique play an important part as it should in any well made game.
-Pv-
Not all true...
The yamato was struck by around a dozen M14 torpedoes (fired from destoyers) and several 1,000 lb bombs.
At that point she rolled on her side but was still afloat. She did not go down untill her powder magazine lit off and literally split her in two.
So she was indeed designed to take some torpedo damage and keep on sailing.
The problem in SH4 is this the renown you want the points you got to make sure enemy ships sink. A damaged ship is not good enough if you sail off you will get zero renown, that's why I hate the stupid system.
WernerSobe
07-06-07, 03:08 PM
thats realistic tho. Tonnage was only scored to subs that have observed their victims sinking. In some cases the subs were forced to dive before they could see the results of their attack. Even if they killed something they didnt get the tonnage. Damaged ships were not scored at all because they were repaired and back on see someday anyway.
SteamWake
07-06-07, 03:09 PM
The problem in SH4 is this the renown you want the points you got to make sure enemy ships sink. A damaged ship is not good enough if you sail off you will get zero renown, that's why I hate the stupid system.
You should get at least some points for disrupting a convoy.
WernerSobe
07-06-07, 03:09 PM
by the way look here http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=118005
Sailor Steve
07-06-07, 04:18 PM
The same hull converted into an aircraft carrier was sunk with one torp. Six were fired and hit, one penetrated hitting a support beam and forcing the beam through a boiler.
Also not even remotely true: at least four of Archerfish's six torpedoes hit Shinano, and she still took almost eight hours to sink. Survivors' statements indicate that the main cause of the the sinking was bad damage control coupled with the ship running away at full speed with those holes being made ever worse by water rushing in at that speed. If not for that there's a reasonable chance she wouldn't have sunk at all.
http://www.combinedfleet.com/Shinano.htm
TwistedFemur
07-06-07, 04:29 PM
I sank a carrier with one torpedo.
Ive posted about it before so I wont go into details but it happened.
IKWYM I sunk 2 shokaku class CV's with 4 torps. doin a photo recon of tokyo bay. Raised periscope and took some shots of the docks , then spun the scope around lookin to see if anybody was lookin at me, thats when
I saw the 2 carriers anchored in the middle of the bay!!:rock:
I'v never sunk a CV in SH4 with more than 2 torpedos. One mk14 anywhere near MOT sinks Hiryu and Shokaku every single time for me (no damage mods).
It was said in here before, but the mk13 torpedo dropped from aicraft had ~90% of the warhead of a mk14. Weight was reduced by reducing the range (fuel).
SteamWake
07-06-07, 05:41 PM
I'v never sunk a CV in SH4 with more than 2 torpedos. One mk14 anywhere near MOT sinks Hiryu and Shokaku every single time for me (no damage mods).
It was said in here before, but the mk13 torpedo dropped from aicraft had ~90% of the warhead of a mk14. Weight was reduced by reducing the range (fuel).
Two things. What is a MOT and how did aircraft get into this conversation ?
Centred75
07-06-07, 08:30 PM
If you watch the history channel show Dogfights and the episode about the Taffy 3 escort group that was attacked by the Japanese navy you will see how a single torpedo launched from (I forget the details) a destroyer escort broke the bow completely off a Japanese Heavy Cruiser. One torp and its done.
Thats not to say one torp can kill a ship. Its possible but it all depends on how you hit it. Sometimes a ship can absorb multiple torps because they hit and explode without doing any real serious damage (hull breaches but thats about it).
Ive saved many torps by just shooting 2 or 3 fish then wait a while to see if the deck is slowly sinking. If so itll go under eventually. I think the ship damage model is quite accurate.
Oh and on a side note, if you use the deck gun and aim for just below the base of the smoke stack you can blow the stack out and have it collapse into the ship. Very funny :) And I think it also really reduces the ships speed.
Cheers
According to the citation awarded to the Archerfish all 6 hit. According to the book Shinano, interviews with survivers and post war eval deducted the torpedo blisters did their job and the other torps hit and exploded without penetrating the hull.
I stand by the claim I made that best information indicates the ship was taken down by a lucky torp hitting in just the right place to explode the boiler which stopped power and a cascade of destruction which caused unstoppable flooding. Maybe it wasn't quite so much luck as skill since the sub commanders purposely set their torps to try and hit in such a way as to get past the blister defence and one actually made it. Regardless of how long it takes to sink, the result is the same.
It's possible to use the same skill in the game by knowing the weaknessess of the ships and taking advantage. Those who throw 6 torps at a ship and complain it's not realistic when the ship fails to sink in 5 minutes or less fail to take into account that's not how it HAS to be in the game which is capable of realistic damage and sinking depending on skill and patience of the player. It's equally faulty to claim that every large ship has to be taken down with 6 or more torps. I have sunk every ship I have targeted and not used that many torps on any of them. The game is rich enough in execution that one gamer's experience is not the rule for everyone all the time.
-Pv-
java`s revenge
07-07-07, 07:50 AM
The Java sunk within 15 minutes after one japanese torpedohit.
February 27 1942Doorman leaves port in the evening of the 27th to intercept several convoys heading for Java. Unfortunately, he was spotted and engaged by the Japanese covering force, consisting of 2 heavy cruisers (Nachi and Haguro), 2 light cruisers and 14 destroyers. The effectiveness of the CSF was hampered by difficulties in communication. In addition, the Japanese had a 2 to 1 advantage in 8"-guns. The Java was hit by a Japanese "Long Lance" torpedo from the Nachi at about 23.32 hours near the aft ammunitionstack, which exploded. The AA-deck with the 40 mm-guns caught fire and the stern broke off near the longroom, causing flooding in the aft engineroom and a heavy list to port. All electrical equipment shut down and the only thing the crew could do, was to abandon ship as soon as possible. No boats could be lowered without electricity, so all possible livesavers were thrown overboard, such as rafts, bamboosticks etc. The Java sank in about fifteen minutes, taking 512 crewmembers (including Captain Ph.B.M. van Straelen) with her. She sank in position 06.00 S, 112.05 E.
Here is she:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v423/hornetsting/java.jpg
It makes no sense to specify this thread on Battleship tecnics and where a torp would cause a support beam to flip over, break through the decks, destroy the main toilettes and then fall down killing the chef or something. ;)
As far as I know on both ends of the world battleships had thick armor in the area around their waterline, where they COULD but not HAD TO survive around 4 Torp hits. (there can always be a weak spot in the material and its giving in).
To sink a battleship, I recommend several torps at where the magazines are to cause an explosion with brute force ("explode, dammit!") or to check the draft of the target to hit it below its armor platings (which is hard without magnetic fuse because you risk a dud.)
Sinking BBs and CVs with one torp is possible, but not common as you have to be very lucky for this.....who would try and fire just one torp at such a big bucket???
I never try to save torpedoes when encountering a BB or CV ("Oh this one is nice, but I'll fire just to fishes because the other two are for the next one.") because -like steed said- if you just cause damage, you'll earn nothing.....and by the way I think no Commander in real life would have thought that way -you have what you have. ;-)
Sailor Steve
07-07-07, 10:53 AM
As far as I know on both ends of the world battleships had thick armor in the area around their waterline, where they COULD but not HAD TO survive around 4 Torp hits. (there can always be a weak spot in the material and its giving in).
I've done a lot of research on ship sinkings over the years, and this is one of the things about capital warships which is confusing to most people. Battleships did have a lot of armor at the waterline, but that armor is pretty much useless against torpedoes. It is designed to resist a high-speed projectile, and since a torpedo is relatively slow, and basically a great big HE shell, the armor should keep torpedoes out with no problem. Unfortunately, water doesn't compress, and the torpedo's explosion is fully directed at the armor. No matter how thick or how strong, the armor cracks. Also, armor weighs a lot, so the thickest main armor cannont be extended too far above or below the waterline, meaning there's a good chance the torpedo will go right under it.
The attempt to counter this was begun toward the end of World War One with the development of the Torpedo Defense System. This consists of a large underwater area being 'bulged', or having a secondary hull several meters outside of the main hull, and comprised of inner chambers, some filled with oil or some other light liquid, and some being empty. The idea is that when the torpedo hits this outer bulged area will be destroyed, but the main hull will not be compromised. Since this system is so complex, and by nature has to be very wide to work, it is usually only seen on battleships.
Yamato, Musashi, and of course Shinano, all had a bulge 3.5 meters wide (if I recall correctly), and it was twice as high, the upper and lower sections butting together. As I remember from Joe Enright's book Shinano, one of the main things that made that ship an easier kill was the fact that she was running light, and the torpedoes hit right on the seam between the two bulges, rendering them practically useless.
In the case of Yamato, one aerial observer noted that several torpedoes were stopped by her bulges, but once a bulge is hit it is no longer any good, and at least one torpedo was seen to pass right through a hole left by an earlier one, and explode in an engine or boiler room.
Java was a cruiser, and I don't remember if she was bulged at all. If so, it was much poorer protection than that carried by battleships. The Long Lance was the most powerful torpedo used, so I'm not surprised it only took one to sink her. Also, they weren't carried by submarines.
There is always something new to learn here, thx :up:
Japanese torpedos had considerably larger warheads than the mk14. In '41 it was probably 900 lbs, but by 1942 they had 1200 lb warheads.
tater
Sailor Steve
07-07-07, 04:38 PM
Okay, I looked in my library's copy of Conway's, and found that Java was a Dutch light cruiser in the 7000-ton range (designed displacement 6700, normal displacement about 7010), laid down in 1916, launched in 1921 and finished in 1923 (they weren't in much of a hurry!). Java`s revenge obviously knows much more about the ship's career and sinking than I do, but I now know that her armor belt was the usual 75mm (3"), and she carried no torpedo protection. Also, given her design and construction dates, she was probably not as well compartmentized as newer ships. I'm not surprised at all she sank in 15 minutes.
java`s revenge
09-10-07, 08:51 AM
Thanks mate for the explanation. But the cause was that she had
mines under the deck. So now comes the point that everybody looks to
the (target)ship but not at the cargo she carries if you know what i mean.
I always ask myself 3 to 4 torps for a tanker, how is that possilbe?
Sailor Steve
09-10-07, 10:51 AM
Thanks mate for the explanation. But the cause was that she had mines under the deck.
That always helps.:rotfl:
So now comes the point that everybody looks to the (target)ship but not at the cargo she carries if you know what i mean.
I always ask myself 3 to 4 torps for a tanker, how is that possilbe?
If you drop a match into a full gas tank on a car, the match will go out. If you drop a match into an empty gas tank, there will be a blast that will shoot flames out of the filler tube. Cars in movies are rigged with explosives that make them go boom. Cars in real-life wrecks occassionally burst into flames, but it is rare.
Sinking ships usually spill fuel into the water, and sometimes it burns. Sailors die from the flames, or they drown in the fuel oil. Tankers are more likely to spill oil everywhere than to burn, or sink quickly.
nikimcbee
09-10-07, 11:10 AM
If you watch the history channel show Dogfights and the episode about the Taffy 3 escort group that was attacked by the Japanese navy you will see how a single torpedo launched from (I forget the details) a destroyer escort broke the bow completely off a Japanese Heavy Cruiser. One torp and its done.
Thats not to say one torp can kill a ship. Its possible but it all depends on how you hit it. Sometimes a ship can absorb multiple torps because they hit and explode without doing any real serious damage (hull breaches but thats about it).
Ive saved many torps by just shooting 2 or 3 fish then wait a while to see if the deck is slowly sinking. If so itll go under eventually. I think the ship damage model is quite accurate.
Oh and on a side note, if you use the deck gun and aim for just below the base of the smoke stack you can blow the stack out and have it collapse into the ship. Very funny :) And I think it also really reduces the ships speed.
Cheers
you mean this:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=119981
:|\\
seafarer
09-10-07, 11:32 AM
I remember a history channel show some years back about the war. While I can't remember any of the details, they mentioned an incident where a US sub put no less then 6 torpedoes into a relatively small coaster tramp steamer. She settled, on an even keel, until the decks were nearly awash. But, she did not sink. Upon seeing the crew abondon the completely disabled ship, the sub surfaced and pumped a fair number of deck gun rounds into her from (effectively) point blank range.
Turned out the ship was full of bails of raw rubber. As far as anyone knows, she never sank, and was, in fact, efffectively unsinkable - at least until her cargo could be gotten out of the way somehow. Since she was so full of water, they couldn't even get the raw latex to ignite and burn off. The sub just gave up and went back to patroling.
GerritJ9
09-10-07, 03:38 PM
"Java"'s completion was significantly delayed by WW1- much material and equipment had to come from Germany and Germany gave her own needs priority. Financial restrictions didn't help either; the planned third ship of the class, "Celebes" ("Sumatra" being the second), was cancelled due to lack of money.
By the way, none of my sources lists mines as part of "Java"'s armament- and why would she be carrying mines anyway since minelaying was never intended to be one of her duties? I would be very interested in the source for that information.
No one seems to take into account the fact that for true realism, once the war ends, half of the ships and tonnage claimed during the war should be removed from your record anyway.
^^^ if instead of a handful of merchant types, we had literally hundreds of mostly 1 or 2 off merchant types, plus a few built in somewhat large (for the japanese) numbers, but slightly different from every shipyard. Then if a large % of the information in our rec manuals was flatly wrong into the bargain. We'd also need a sinking model as standard for comparison more like NSM, but with damage control for the targets, and the ability to be towed away, too. Also if we got no bogus "Ship Destroyed" message, but only got to claim it as sunk based on seeing it go down, burn, breaking up noises, etc.---then I think you would see overclaiming by SH4 players as well.
^^^ if instead of a handful of merchant types, we had literally hundreds of mostly 1 or 2 off merchant types, plus a few built in somewhat large (for the japanese) numbers, but slightly different from every shipyard. Then if a large % of the information in our rec manuals was flatly wrong into the bargain. We'd also need a sinking model as standard for comparison more like NSM, but with damage control for the targets, and the ability to be towed away, too. Also if we got no bogus "Ship Destroyed" message, but only got to claim it as sunk based on seeing it go down, burn, breaking up noises, etc.---then I think you would see overclaiming by SH4 players as well.
Actually, I would love to see something along these lines implemented. Somehow, though, I think that this may be beyond even the greatest modders.
Maybe in Silent Hunter X.
Me too, lol. The ships are possible. The rec manual... is possible after a fashion---you could make several very similar ships, and make the rec manual pictures be wrong (just like RL). You'd then be picking almost randomly from a group opf simialr ships. I've also figured out how to prevent ships from being in the rec manual, so some not in there at all, pick whatever looks most similar, etc.
Will make shooting harder, at least.
It would be nice if the game created a "claims" file based upon the ship you THOUGHT it was, then it corrects it after the war...
A real claims system vs 100% perfect kill counts is something I've wanted for ages in flight sims as well. Like at some point you enter a log or debriefing screen, and you select the number of targets engaged, the type, hits, and damaged or sunk status.
tater
Krauter
09-11-07, 06:34 PM
Just asking, but wasnt there a post somewhere in the dust files saying A/C carriers had the damadge modelling of merchants? **Might need clarifying**
With Regards,
Krauter
In the stock game, yes, they do. That's why you have to be a pretty terrible shot to take more than 1, or at most 2 fish to sink a CV in stock SH4.
tater
What really urks me is when I blow the propeller (s) off and the ship continues steaming ahead at flank speed.
I put 10 torpedoes into an ocean liner, after blowing its propellers off. It kept up with the convoy and kept on going,
Problem with both SH3 and SH4 is that you have to keep the ship sensor range in order to get the credit for its sinking if it sinks. But in order to keep up, you make noise, or have to surface far off. This does not work all that well with the eagle eyed escorts.
Sh4 seems to suffer more from the ships that can take a lickin and keep on tickin syndrome than sh3.
If a ship is reduced to damage graphics, the damn thing should sink. IMHO.
Frederf
09-11-07, 09:14 PM
Once in 1942 a Russian tugboat took 18 direct torpedo hits and continued on her duties! High survivability of ships in SH4 is perfectly correct!
On a summer's day in 1944 the HMS Incontravertible, a battleship of 56,000 tons displacement, was catestrophically destroyed by half of a discarded torpedo from a Finnish destroyer. All ships in SH4 should explode in 1 or 2 hits!
One-off historical annecdotes do not a convincing logical arguement make.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.