Correction of torpedo damage power in SH4

[Gorshkov]

I finally run S3D editor and I have discovered torpedo damage settings in stock game. Here you are:

1. US torpedoes: all have the same AP=100 value and listed below hit points (HP) ranges and damage radii:

- Mk-27: 50-100 HP, 1.5-5 m
- Mk-10 : 80-160HP, 3-6 m
- Mk-14: 100-170 HP, 3-7 m
- Mk-16: 180 - 350 HP, 3.5-8 m
- Mk-18: 120-180 HP, 3-7 m
- Mk-23: 120-180 HP, 3-7 m

For comparison their real warhead's weight are as follows:

- Mk-27: 47 kg torpex
- Mk-10: 225 kg TNT = 150 kg torpex
- Mk-14: 292 kg torpex
- Mk-16: 428 kg torpex
- Mk-18: 261 kg torpex
- Mk-23: 292 kg torpex

As we can see there are several bugs here:

- Mk-18 should have Mk-14's HP value and vice-versa
- Mk-10 is too powerful
- Mk-27 also seems to be overpowered

2. German torpedoes - all have identical AP=100 value and damage radii set at 3-7 m. Their HP values are as follows:

- T-I: 120-180 HP
- T-II: 120-180 HP
- T-III: 120-180 HP
- T-IV: 120-180 HP
- T-V: 120-180 HP
- T-VII LUT: 120-180 HP
- T-XI: 120-180 HP
- T-I FAT I: 80-160 HP
- T-III FAT II: 80-160 HP
- T-I LUT I: 80-160 HP
- T-III LUT II: 120-180 HP

As we can see all German torps are scaled as US stock Mk-18 and Mk-23 equivalents but majority of FAT/LUT torps are Mk-10 equivalents. Of course this is not true. In reality late-war German torps had warheads with weight close to Mk-16 and German acoustic torps had warhead's weight close to stock Mk-18.

Now I'll try to correct all this bugs in my mod similar to Webster's one but being much more detailed. So I am waiting for your suggestions.

PS. Beware my mod will apply only to STOCK sinking model!!!


Here you are link to my most up to date mod version (still BETA!). http://hosted.filefront.com/GorshkovPL/

[skwasjer]

I may be wrong, and I'm no expert on this matter either, but I remember reading torpedoes carried compounds of different materials, torpex being one, but also aluminum oxide or something, and some other ingredients.

Different mixes gave different explosive power, and less weight did not necessarily mean less explosive power. Some compounds also worked better when used with magnetic fuses, below the ship.

Anyway, I just speak from what I remember I read, so don't slap me if I talk out of my ass...

[Gorshkov]

Generally speaking you are right because various explosives have different explosive power for the same mass. Yet for US torps I scaled all their weights to the same explosive i.e. Torpex. Thus we can compare US torps each other.

German torps used Hexanite as filler which has almost similar to Torpex explosive power as I think. Besides on this great technical website I found data about their real weights that were increasing during the war from 260 kg to 420 kg. Yet their filler was always Hexanite.

[Nisgeis]

I may be wrong, and I'm no expert on this matter either, but I remember reading torpedoes carried compounds of different materials, torpex being one, but also aluminum oxide or something, and some other ingredients.

Different mixes gave different explosive power, and less weight did not necessarily mean less explosive power. Some compounds also worked better when used with magnetic fuses, below the ship.

Anyway, I just speak from what I remember I read, so don't slap me if I talk out of my ass...

You're right about the different explosive potentials. Torpex had aluminium powder mixed in, to take advantage of the oxygen produced in the explosion, to add more heat and expansion. Torpex has been quoted as being 50% more powerful than TNT and I haven't seen anyone disagree with this figure, so 100kg of torpex euqates to 150 kg of TNT.

[vanjast]

I had a look at this and where you'll notice the big difference between RFB and Stock is the 'Blast Radius'. RFB has a lesser value so it reduces the torp damage effect within the compartments of the ship.

I'm not sure how the game engine calculates damage, but logically thinking it's probably a combination of the AP and Blast Radius values.

I would start at AP multiplied by Radius = X and test from there.
Why I say this is because I solved a major Toll Road problem with such a simple multiplication. No one would believe that it was so simple.... I digress :rotfl:

[keltos01]

http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/1177/spreadsheetpz8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/spreadsheetpz8.jpg/1/w1024.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img240/spreadsheetpz8.jpg/1/)


if you download my IJN torpedo mod and the other one with the mk28 and british mark VIII** torpedo you'll find an Excell spreadsheet in each folder.

I made formulas to give the right explosive power to all my torpedoes, IJN and US/British alike.

You can use that if you want, it computes all parameters including blast radius etc..



Keltos

[Gorshkov]

Thanks, Keltos! Certainly I'll try your calculation formulas. In fact I calculated new values myself and I have been testing them right now. They seem good but this is only a beginning of testing process.

Oh, I forgot to ask Keltos if his torpedo mods are designed for stock or RFB sinking model??? That's crucial for me!

[Rockin Robbins]

Gorshkov, I'm proud of you! Darned good work there. You did confuse the Mark 18 with the Mark 23. It's the 14 and 23 that are equal, but you already knew that. You just misspoke. I'm looking forward to what you come up with and checking it out in the stock game.

Are you going to normalize U-Boat torpedoes too? Looks like the Keltos method works really well. I'm glad to see you making something that looks like it has a lot of potential.

Yer off the ignore list. You earned it.:arrgh!: Have a cup o grog.:()1:

Now where's my all-female crew?:rotfl:

[peabody]

Gorshkov, I'm proud of you! Darned good work there. You did confuse the Mark 18 with the Mark 23. It's the 14 and 23 that are equal, but you already knew that. You just misspoke. I'm looking forward to what you come up with and checking it out in the stock game.

Are you going to normalize U-Boat torpedoes too? Looks like the Keltos method works really well. I'm glad to see you making something that looks like it has a lot of potential.

Yer off the ignore list. You earned it.:arrgh!: Have a cup o grog.:()1:

Now where's my all-female crew?:rotfl:
Now that's what I like to see on subsim, He earned it, you gave it to him, bravo.:up:

On the other remark on 14-18-23. I see what you are saying RR the kg are the same and he is saying the HP should be switched but it depends on which number is right.

If you switch HP 14 and 18 then the 14 and 23 become the same hp and kg. If you switch KG 14 and 18 then the 18 and 23 are the same on hp and kg. It all depends on which number is wrong. Should the 14 and 23 be equal or the 18 and 23 be equal??

mk14 100-170 292 kg
mk18 120-180 261 kg
mk23 120-180 292 kg

Peabody

[keltos01]

[quote=Rockin Robbins]
Are you going to normalize U-Boat torpedoes too? Looks like the Keltos method works really well.
Yer off the ignore list. You earned it.:arrgh!: Have a cup o grog.:()1:

Now where's my all-female crew?:rotfl:
Now that's what I like to see on subsim, He earned it, you gave it to him, bravo.:up:

aggreed there ! :up:

Keltos

btw with my method the Kaiten is between 1500 and 2500 explosive power :o

[LukeFF]

If you switch HP 14 and 18 then the 14 and 23 become the same hp and kg. If you switch KG 14 and 18 then the 18 and 23 are the same on hp and kg. It all depends on which number is wrong. Should the 14 and 23 be equal or the 18 and 23 be equal??

mk14 100-170 292 kg
mk18 120-180 261 kg
mk23 120-180 292 kg
All three (Mark 14, 18, and 23) are equal in RFB, since the wartime service manuals all list their warhead size as 600 pounds of torpex.

[Gorshkov]

Yes! First I'd like to correct HP values for each torp on both sides to historical levels i.e. equal to their real warhead weights in kilograms of Torpex. This should be quite easy with Keltose's spreadsheet and my technical data. So Mk-14 will have the same value as Mk-23 but Mk-18 slightly lower. Also Mk-10 and Mk-27 will be lowered in their HP values. German acoustic torps will possess much less HP than unguided torps. That is all for now with respect to HP settings.

Anyway I still wait on your opinions about AP and RMin-RMax values. AP is armor in cm which torpedo can penetrate. Yet I am not sure stock value (AP=100 cm each!) is historic because no warship had such armor! As for damage radii I have a question to Keltos: Your mod introduces very decreased RMax values (about 3.5 m for majority of torps) as compared to stock's 7 m. Could you tell me how deep this change stock sinking mechanics?

[AVGWarhawk]

Gorshkov, now your winning friends:up:

[keltos01]

As for damage radii I have a question to Keltos: Your mod introduces very decreased RMax values (about 3.5 m for majority of torps) as compared to stock's 7 m. Could you tell me how deep this change stock sinking mechanics?

not much as I shoot most of my torpedoes to detonate under the keel.. otherwise sometimes you don't see the damage at all, or a small hole.. makes it more interresting to aim torpedoes where they'll hurt the most !

Keltos

[Gorshkov]

OK, below I list my proposition of new HP values for all torps based on Keltros formulas and my historic and technical data with short comments:

1. US torps:

- Mk-27 = 20-31 HP - I am not sure this torp is useful with such small damage power...any comments?

- Mk-10 = 67-107 HP - this torp had 225 kg TNT warhead but note I scaled it to Torpex value of 150 kg and that is why HP are much lower now. Thus S-class skippers won't be so successful now!

- Mk-14 and Mk-23 = 130-210 HP - basically identical toprs and thus the same HP settings. I think their Keltrose's HP estimate is right.

- Mk-16 = 191-307 HP - because of 50% more powerful warhead

- Mk-18 = 115-188 HP - as technical data suggest this torp had slightly lower warhead's weight than contemporary US wet-heaters what I introduced here. Now there is less HPs in exchange for wake-less capability.

2. German torps - I divided them into two categories: acoustic and unguided torps because background data are very different referring to both classes. Moreover I do not find any info that FAT/LUT models had noticeably lower warhead weights. Also I assume that both Torpex and Hexanite have identical explosive power which may be slighty unrealistic. So there are my estimates:

- T-I/II/III/VII (also all FAT/LUT versions) 178-287 HP - data I possess state that during the war these torps warhead's weight increased from 280 to 430 kg. Unfortunately I do not have data about their specific weight annually. So I had to do a sort of linear estimation here and assumed this mass was increasing by 25 kg a year. Later I decided to choose 1943 values as most appropriate for SH-4/UBM game. That is why I this in this year warhead's weight was 380 kg which reflects above HP value.

- T-IV/V/XI - 106-171 HP - all data I saw suggest warhead's weight was in 200-278 kg range. So I can assume situation similar to unguided torps which means constant increasing of warhead's mass yet limited by space needed for passive homing device. Therefore I set 239 kg kg for 1943-1945 time period based on identical linear estimation as before. This way we get less power for homing capability. Of course we can adjust these value separately for each acoustic torp basing on their IOC, say: T-IV (early 1943 - 200 kg), T-V (late 1943 - 239 kg), T-XI (never deployed but suppose for game purposes 1945 - 278 kg).

Note I still retained stock AP and RMin-RMax values! No I must test this settings a bit.

[tater]

The Mk 27 was not designed to sink ships. Its acoustic homer would result in a hit at or around the target's screws. It was meant to damage the screws or rudder, allowing the boat to get away (it was to be used against escorts).

Note that any/all changes need a ton of testing since the DM is more complex that simple hitpoints (unless you prefer all ships to explode and instantly sink). It is a mistake, IMO, to rely too strictly to scaling damage hitpoints to some kg warhead value. They simply do not map very well. They might if the damage model in the game was consistent and accurate, but it is not. The only way to really tell will be testing. You need to read der teddy bear's threads, observer's threads, wernersobe's threads, and even redwine's threads in their entirety to begin to understand the DM, IMO. I have more than once, and it still confuses me.

You might want to use the search function on various ship damage mods since several of the stock DMs are rather broken, if you calibrate to the wrong targets, nothing will work properly.

And BTW, "total loss" != sunk.

Looks like from your stats that about 30% of 5k merchants should survive a single hit.

tater

[Gorshkov]

And BTW, "total loss" != sunk.
Really? In one incident after single hit ship broke on two, bow sank but remaining part of hull was safely towed to port. Forsooth - not total loss! :rotfl:


Looks like from your stats that about 30% of 5k merchants should survive a single hit.
That is why average is somewhere 1.5 torpedo per sunken ship for large merchants for late war period which fact I want to introduce in my mod on German side. In reality US Fleet Boats had worse torps so their skippers will have to fire them more to achieve similar effect.

PS. No tons of testing! I am trying to create mod similar to Webster's mod but with more in-depth each torpedo type damage power analysis. "Use it or not but do not dare to demand anything!" - that's what I hear in RFBeta thread all the time. Now I repeat this "saint sentence" here!

[tater]

The mk 27 is a good indicator of why simply scaling HP to TNT doesn't work.

You said in the OP that it was overpowered, but it needs to have the RL capability of wrecking the propulsion or steering of the target. If scaling it to TNT results in the inability to do that (because there is no indication that the ship DM is terribly well scaled to kg of TNT), then you'll break things.

If it was as easy as 438kgTNT=170HP, things would be easy indeed. The AP value is a multiplier as well. PITA to sort out many times.

Depth charges, for example, have higher HP than that scaling.

[tater]

And BTW, "total loss" != sunk.

Really? In one incident after single hit ship broke on two, bow sank but remaining part of hull was safely towed to port. Forsooth - not total loss! :rotfl:

That's one example. Many steamed into port or were beached. For game purposes, that means they do not sink.


Looks like from your stats that about 30% of 5k merchants should survive a single hit.

That is why average is somewhere 1.5 torpedo per sunken ship for large merchants for late war period which fact I want to introduce in my mod.

PS. No tons of testing! I am trying to create mod similar to Webster's mod but with more in-depth each torpedo type damage power analysis. "Use it or not but do not dare to demand anything!" - that's what I hear in RFBeta thread all the time. Now I repeat this "saint sentence" here!

Damage power analysis means nothing without understanding the DM. I'm not demanding anything, I won't use your mod, the only way I see u-boats is as targets. Your earlier complaints, however, were about realism, so I assume that you are attempting that after a fashion. The only way to do that is loads of testing because the game is not perfect, so scaling the damage to kg TNT simply does not guarantee good results.

You can pretend it does, but it does not.

Also, be aware that many stock ship DMs are either crazy, or copied from another completely different kind of ship.

Liberty Ships are large, but they were also cheaply built. Having 2 to sink them maybe 90% of the time seems not unreasonable, but it might not scale to other ships (built using better construction techniques) well.

[Gorshkov]

And BTW, "total loss" != sunk.
Really? In one incident after single hit ship broke on two, bow sank but remaining part of hull was safely towed to port. Forsooth - not total loss! :rotfl:
That's one example. Many steamed into port or were beached. For game purposes, that means they do not sink.

For 19 examples I found only one ship which could steam into port herself. Moreover in reality "total loss" ships were almost always abandoned by their crews and later towed by other ship manned by skeleton crews. In SH4 no such thing can happen. Thus "total loss" means sank in this game!

[Webster]

Liberty Ships are large, but they were also cheaply built. Having 2 to sink them maybe 90% of the time seems not unreasonable, but it might not scale to other ships (built using better construction techniques) well.

liberty ships were built right here in new orleans and were made fast and cheap without much concern for quality. i have been told by local historians that something like 30% of them simply broke in half and sunk on their own during the war most were not even in rough seas just stormy weather so they built them with the understanding most would never make more than 5 or 6 trips before being sunk or sinking on their own. this is what the local history is saying. they had to even add a reinforcing band along the midships to keep them from self destructing by flexing and breaking in half in rough seas.

[tater]

For 19 examples I found only one ship which could steam into port herself. Moreover in reality "total loss" ships were almost always abandoned by their crews and later towed by other ship manned by skeleton crews. In SH4 no such thing can happen. Thus "total loss" means sank in this game!

No, sunk means the ship floods and sinks. You know, it ends up at the bottom of the sea.

You could hit a ship in SH4 with ONE deck gun round, and it would burn forever. If you watched it burn a few days, it would have to have burned to the waterline, and be a total loss. Still, not sunk.

Sunk by the game's definition means incapable of remaining afloat. That is what sunk MEANS in SH4 (and in plain english).

The abandoned, floating ships that were later towed, or required another ship to scuttle are NOT sunk, period. IN game terms, those are the ones that you look at burning, with decks awash and say, "WTF is the matter with that damn thing, it just won't die!" Then you scuttle her with a single fish or the DG.

If you leave her, she is NOT SUNK. The RL skipper would never know, he'd shoot, se her burning, dive to evade escorts, and never hear breaking up. He'd have to assume damage, and he'd be right to do so since he did not sink her.

BTW, if your RL u-boat (or fleet boat) skipper had been able to stick around, he would have scuttled that "total loss" ship using either an extra fish, or the DG. Period. So if you want to count them as sunk, add another torpedo to the number it required to sink (meaning that you add a "damaged" with however many hits it did take, and a sunk with that number plus one.


tater

[Gorshkov]

@Webster: Right! Moreover not only Liberty-class but also most merchants built during the war were designed as cheap and fast-building in mind. No one cared about their damage sustainability. Thus they were sunk with 1.5 torpedo on average.

@tater: If you meet during your SH4 patrol any burning wreck towed to port simply let me know! Now I do not know anything about such game behavior so I decided to eliminate majority of "total loss" wrecks remaining above the water surface hours or days with realistically powerful torps on German side. The most hard to sink vessels will be always suitable targets for gunfire as before but I am sure stock sinking model won't let these funny "unsinkable ships" to emerge so often as in RFBeta!

[tater]

Using the stock DM plus your mod, you'll sink everything with 1 fish, probably. Rejoice!

[Gorshkov]

OK, I improved HP values on German side by torpedo type as follows:

- T I (1943) - as noted before I estimated its warhead weight at 380 kg of Hexanite in 1943 which means 178-287 HP using Keltros formula. Identical HP are assigned to FAT/LUT variants.

- T-II (1942) - because T-II was withdrawn from service before 1943 i I think last variant form 1942 had smaller 330 kg warhead equals 146-237 HP.

- T-III (1943) - as T-II successor it had the same 380 kg warhead as T-I in 1943 and thus possesses the same HP value 178-287 HP. Also idenitcal numbers are assigned to FAT/LUT variants.

- T-IV (early 1943) - first acoustic torpedo in service. So I think it had warhead weight 200 kg as being bottom line value in historical data for this kind of German torps. This equals 89-143 HP in SH-4.

- T-V (late 1943) - later T-IV modification entered service in 1943/44 period, Thus I credited it with 239 kg warhead and 106-171 HP.

- T-VII LUT (1945) - experimental design never entered service so all here is pure guessing. In stock SH-4 it is available in 1945 so I treat T-VII as German Mk-16 equivalent and estimate its warhead mass at 430 kg equals 191-310 HP value.

- T-XI (1944) - last passive acoustic homer also never saw real battle. As in T-VII case I credited it with 278 kg warhead i.e. upper warhead mass limit for German passive homers found in technical data and 124-200 HP value.

US torps HP values still remains the same as in my previous post. However I consider Cutie's strengthening if tests show it is unable to damage destroyer's propulsion.

[Gorshkov]

Using the stock DM plus your mod, you'll sink everything with 1 fish, probably. Rejoice!

BS, tater! I have already tested German torps and I must say NO merchant sank after ONE hit, even hit by T-I! I had to fire second fish to sink them all: Victory, Troop Transport and Liberty. T2 tanker sank after spread of two T-IIs. Submarine Tender did not sunk even after two T-I hits.

Of course you can say it is unimportant because it was only one test. OK, but this test also questioned above tater's statement..."probably" at least!

[tater]

I still think you should seriously consider some testing on numerous targets as a reality check. Obviously it will vary based on the DM in question.

That's the trouble with modding, it starts out stand alone, then ends up a can of worms.

I'm trying to make constructive criticism, BTW (in case it's not apparent for some reason).

tater

[Gorshkov]

OK! Well, I'd like to allow you to try my mod so I uploaded it on FileFront. Thus you can download it here: http://hosted.filefront.com/GorshkovPL/

Beware it is in early BETA stage so I do not take any responsibility for any damage it can cause. For more instructions please read readme. txt file inside mod directory!

PS. I've forgotten to add in readme.txt file this mod is JGSME-friendly, of course!

[Rockin Robbins]

:up: Early betas are fun because they ALWAYS do something you didn't expect. And half the time what you unexpectedly find turns out to be useful.:know:

[Gorshkov]

In later versions I'd like to adjust AP and min-max radii parameters. Yet this task must wait because I am too tired researching U-boat.net archive and many technical websites... :dead:

[skwasjer]

Welcome to the world of modding :rotfl:

Now think of the time and effort put in some of the bigger mods... :lol:

Carry on sailor! :up:

[Gorshkov]

Now think of the time and effort put in some of the bigger mods... :lol:

But for ten to thirty times larger modding teams than mine! :rotfl:

[skwasjer]

There's no mod team here with 10 people or more (PTO anyway). Make no mistake, the fact that 20+ people contributed to ie. RFB does not mean the team is that big. Only a handful of guys have worked on it for well over a year. Same for TMO, one man show. What you are doing now does not compare even remotely (no disrespect, each modder deserves appreciation).

You are using S3D as well as I read, a project that took 1.5 years to date pretty much daily some hours of work. By one man.

Anyway, I was just welcoming you to modding, and wanted to highlight that modding takes alot of time, effort and comes with alot of frustration. I was asking you to picture and appreciate what many of us have gone through before you...

Cheers, skwas

[Gorshkov]

Anyway in every modding team you must also include often external beta-testers without whom no mod would be finished. Besides I do not have much experience in modding as others.

[keltos01]

modding is a hard long road... welcome to modding !!!

and as Skwasjer said, don't think there are many big teams outthere... ours is small too !

keltos

[tater]

The RFB "team" is smaller that you imagine.

It's also larger than you imagine, I suppose, largely because of skwas. Now anyone with a bright idea can try it! S3D is the best thing for SH, ever. Anyone saying otherwise would need a mental health professional, or would have some irrational axe to grind.

A couple days ago, you were a bitching user, now you are a modder!

tater

[Fish40]

[quote]BTW, if your RL u-boat (or fleet boat) skipper had been able to stick around, he would have scuttled that "total loss" ship using either an extra fish, or the DG. Period. So if you want to count them as sunk, add another torpedo to the number it required to sink (meaning that you add a "damaged" with however many hits it did take, and a sunk with that number plus one.



The scene in "Das Boot" comes to mind, when they needed to finish off the severely damaged Tanker that wouldn't go down;)


@Gorshkov: Good luck with your mod. I'm a stickler for realism, and if this proves to have historic results, I'll definitely give it a try:yep:

[Rockin Robbins]

Anyway in every modding team you must also include often external beta-testers without whom no mod would be finished. Besides I do not have much experience in modding as others. And every modding team neads a useless guy like me who just uses his big mouth to promote the mod, make fun of the team members and then make mods to break the mod.:-j

That makes me court jester, beta tester to destruction, and sabateur. I'm indispensible!:arrgh!:
(why'd my password to kickinbak just quit working?):doh:

[Orion2012]

Anyway in every modding team you must also include often external beta-testers without whom no mod would be finished. Besides I do not have much experience in modding as others. And every modding team neads a useless guy like me who just uses his big mouth to promote the mod, make fun of the team members and then make mods to break the mod.:-j

That makes me court jester, beta tester to destruction, and sabateur. I'm indispensible!:arrgh!:
(why'd my password to kickinbak just quit working?):doh:

That's wierd, I had trouble getting the sight to come up last night too, saying password incorrect. Perhaps sight issues? It's working now though.

[Gorshkov]

My mod version 0.2 BETA has already been uploaded on FileFront.

Changelog:

- AP settings changed according to Keltros001 formulas

- modification of stock damage min-max radii based on real warheads power calculations

[Webster]

My mod version 0.2 BETA has already been uploaded on FileFront.

Changelog:

- AP settings changed according to Keltros001 formulas

- modification of stock damage min-max radii based on real warheads power calculations

i would caution you to remember that the games damage models are very screwy so using real numbers may be way way off on results you get. the reason is ships dont act real so you more than likely will need to use unreal numbers to get real results. thats one of the reasons i took the short cut of using one setting for all torps and just used multiples to get more or less damages. i wish i had taken the time to do it properly like the way you are doing it. :up:

[keltos01]

My mod version 0.2 BETA has already been uploaded on FileFront.

Changelog:

- AP settings changed according to Keltros001 formulas

- modification of stock damage min-max radii based on real warheads power calculations

could you post the link to the file please ?

keltos

[Gorshkov]

@WEBSTER: Of course! I simply slightly modified stock damage radii for all torps depending on their HP values. In sum these changes are no significant. Anyway this is only a starting point for testing.

@keltros01: You have link in one of my latest posts. Happy testing. ;)

[keltos01]

@WEBSTER: Of course! I simply slightly modified stock damage radii for all torps depending on their HP values. In sum these changes are no significant. Anyway this is only a starting point for testing.

@keltros01: You have link in one of my latest posts. Happy testing. ;)

got it :up:

for a future version : edit the first post and place your link there, it makes it easier for people to find ;)

keltos

[Gorshkov]

OK! I have played one mission as IXD2 skipper (lightly defended convoy attack near Capetown) with my mod and results are as follows: I fired 14 torpedoes (T-I FATI, T-III, T-V) and sank six ships: first three armed trawlers with T-Vs (really stupid AI - I finished them off one after another with one torp each!) and later I assaulted undefended but escaping (very poor firing position!) convoy destroying three merchants (2 Libertys, 1 Hog Island) and damaging 2 Victorys. Of course not all fired torps hit, there ware also duds yet on average I spent 1.8 torp per sunken merchant.

Not bad and quite real at least for historical torpedo damage power!

I wait your feedback, too!

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

I think it would be great to have a realistic torpedo damage mod for SH4. I use RFB and I'm getting really pissed off about having to fire 3 to 4 Mark 14 torpedos, sometimes more to sink a merchant ship when it can take one to kill a warship come on people!!!!!:damn: :damn: :damn: :damn:

[LukeFF]

I think it would be great to have a realistic torpedo damage mod for SH4. I use RFB and I'm getting really pissed off about having to fire 3 to 4 Mark 14 torpedos, sometimes more to sink a merchant ship when it can take one to kill a warship come on people!!!!!:damn: :damn: :damn: :damn:
If you had taken the time to read the manual, you would know that we have not touched the warship damage model yet.

Furthermore, you haven't given any concrete idea as to what type of trouble you are having with RFB's ship damage model, yet you feel the need to gripe anyways. What ship, pray tell, takes "3 to 4" torpedoes to sink?

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

I think it would be great to have a realistic torpedo damage mod for SH4. I use RFB and I'm getting really pissed off about having to fire 3 to 4 Mark 14 torpedos, sometimes more to sink a merchant ship when it can take one to kill a warship come on people!!!!!:damn: :damn: :damn: :damn:
If you had taken the time to read the manual, you would know that we have not touched the warship damage model yet.

Furthermore, you haven't given any concrete idea as to what type of trouble you are having with RFB's ship damage model, yet you feel the need to gripe anyways. What ship, pray tell, takes "3 to 4" torpedoes to sink? It not the damage model of the ship that is the problem it is the torpedo damage that is. Ingame the Mark 14 torpedo seems to be a huge waste to have as it can take more than three shots to kill a target. This includes merchant ships from a small old tanker to a medium old european merchant and yet I sunk a japanse subchaser with only one Mark 14!!!! Also I have installed the Real Torpedo Damage Mod for a little test and found and sunk a small old tanker with one Mark 14 and a few shots from the deck gun to finish it off, that is more realistic. Oh and while I am in the mood for "griping", I would like to see the speed bug for the TBT and scope fixed too, this bug is when a ship is at 0kts and the TBT reads the speed as 10kts. Try to fix the ranges at which the attack scope can be locked at. I think that the scope can be locked on to a target any where between at least 5,000 yrds to 200 yrds.

[Gorshkov]

@Kptlt. Hellmut Neuerburg: Hi! Unfortunately I do not work or intend to work on mod which can alternate RFBeta sinking problems. Simply torpedo power is not enough to overcome RFBeta flaws in this area because its sinking mechanics mainly causes them. Mod I develop here is aimed only at stock SH4 sinking model. Yet I can tell you that according to historical data you are absolutely right! Even if US torps were less powerful than German they should sink every merchant with two or three hits at most. I think so because I familiarized with many real data about attacks on Allied ships and fact that early war German torps had similar power to Mk-14/18/23. Oh the other hand I think your numbers certainly should apply to WWI-wintage Mk-10 torps!

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

Gorshkov, even though you mod was not intended for RFB it does work well with no problems for me as it changes only one file and doesn't effect any part of the campaign or any other part of the mod that is major to the operation of the mod itself. I'm quiet pleased with the result of your mod. I think your mod will work with any major super-mod for SH4. I recomend that those players who have problems with there torpedos to use this mod.

[Gorshkov]

Thanks, buddy! I think I balanced torpedo settings such way they are now firstly in accordance with technical data, secondly sink ships in realistic manner. I am really surprised my mod also works well with RFBeta. In fact my mod cannot corrupt any game installation but it may conflict with non-stock sinking models and thus causing various oddities.

That is why now I begin its beta-tests. However as "one person team" I encourage other users to give detailed feedback (number of torpedoes by type needed to sink ship of specific class), too! It really helps me to improve my work more quickly. :up:

[Gorshkov]

LARGE ALLIED WARSHIPS SANK BY U-BOATS - HISTORIC DATA

1. Battleships:

- HMS "Royal Oak" (29150 t) - 3 torps, sank in 19 minutes
- HMS "Barham" (31100 t) - 3 torps, immediate ammo explosion
- HMS "Malaya" (31100 t) - 1 torp, damaged - 4 month long overhaul
- HMS "Barham" (31100 t) - 1 torp, damaged - 6 month long overhaul

2. Aircraft carriers:

- HMS "Courageous" (22500 t) - 2 torps, sank in 17 minutes
- HMS "Ark Royal" (22600 t) - 1 torp, sank in 13 hours
- HMS "Eagle" (22600 t) - 4 torps
- HMS "Thane" (11400 t) - 1 T-V torp, towed to port and scrapped
- HMS "Avenger" (13785 t) - 1 torp, sank in 2 minutes after ammo explosion
- HMS "Nabob" (11420 t) - 1 torp, towed to port and judged as total loss and scrapped - 10 m hole in the aft after hit
- USS "Block Island" (9300 t) - 1 or 2 T-III torps, sank quickly
- HMS "Audacity" (11000 t) - 3 torps

3. Light Cruisers:

- HMS "Naiad" (5450 t) - 1 torp
- HMS "Dunedin" (4850 t) - 2 torps, sank in 17 minutes
- HMS "Hermione" (5480 t) - 1 torp
- HMS "Penelope" (5270 t) - 2 torps, sank immediately after second hit
- HMS "Galatea" (5220 t) - 3 torp spread (probably overkill)

As we can see battleships sank after three torpedo hits and were badly damaged after one hit. Larger carriers sank after 2.33 hits on average and escort carriers after one or two were sunk or judged as "total loss". Light cruisers could not withstand 1-2 torpedo hits.

I published above data taken from U-boat.net just for comparison with my mod's "warships sinking capability". ;)

[tater]

It's interesting, your warship data is very close to the mk14 vs large warships, actually, which suggests that the mk14 is about the same as the german weapon.

The most hits on a IJN CL that survived was 2, the least to sink one was 1. So for CLs, the german/american numbers look very similar. 50% of CL hit by 1 mk14 sank, 60% hit by 2 fish sank, and 100% hit by 3 or more sank.

The most hits on a CVE that survived was 4, the least to sink one was 3 (jap CVs/CVLs, and CVEs are pretty mixed up tonnage wise, the one that took 4 and lived, was sunk later (next day I think) by the same sub with 2 more fish, it was also almost 18k tons)

The most hit on a CV that survived was 4, the least to sink one was 1. Avgas and torpedos are a bad mixture.

Your data has CVEs, basically (some CVLs). You had 3-4 survive a single torpedo and one sinking to 1 for sure, but you don't list non-sinking attacks (total loss is NOT SUNK IN THE GAME). Because we don't have the data on hits on warships survived, the data is skewed towards oddball losses. Like the CV above that sank with 1 hit.

For the IJN, 33% of the CVs hit with 1 or 2 fish sank. 42.8% sank if hit by 3 or more fish. You have 60% sunk with 1 fish, but that is only using your "total loss" as the "damaged" that they are. I'm confident that u-boats must have HIT at least a couple more CVEs over the years that did not sink. So I bet the numbers for 1-2 torps sinking CV/Es are pretty similar to the mark 14 with all the data required. Note that the number of ships hit by X fish that did not sink is CRITICAL data to have.

Most hits on a CA that lived was 4, but the fewest to sink one was also 4. CAs, 0% hit by 1-3 sank, 66.67% of those hit with 4 sank, and 100% hit with 5+ sank.

The only jap BB sank was Kongo (really a BC, she was built for speed/armament), and that was 3 fish. The 2 damaged were Yamato/Musashi with 2 each (Yamato took over 10 air-dropped fish, plus bombs to sink).

All told, for warships, the difference is not apparent, and you have not even supplied the required (and really most useful) data of how many hits to NOT sink.

THAT tells you what the DM needs to do even more than the sinkings. If no CA ever took 5 fish and lived, then your DM needs to make sure that 5 hits is 99.999999% fatal. With CVs, the numbers are all over the map, some sank with 1 due to abysmal damage control, or perhaps a design flaw in Taiho (there is a book coming out about her oddball loss to 1 fish).

Anyway, looks like the german fish are not very much more deadly (if at all) vs warships.

[LukeFF]

It not the damage model of the ship that is the problem it is the torpedo damage that is. Ingame the Mark 14 torpedo seems to be a huge waste to have as it can take more than three shots to kill a target. This includes merchant ships from a small old tanker to a medium old european merchant and yet I sunk a japanse subchaser with only one Mark 14!!!! Also I have installed the Real Torpedo Damage Mod for a little test and found and sunk a small old tanker with one Mark 14 and a few shots from the deck gun to finish it off, that is more realistic.

Again...we have not touched the warship damage model. Secondly, what is it about small merchants that are so hard to sink with one shot? I can plug any of the small merchants (tankers included) with one shot, any time, any place, over and over again. Why can't you do that?

[keltos01]

The 2 damaged were Yamato/Musashi with 2 each (Yamato took over 10 air-dropped fish, plus bombs to sink).

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/6329/215sh2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/215sh2.jpg/1/w735.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img81/215sh2.jpg/1/)

quote]

The problem with the Yamato was that the dammage was done on both sides

[quote]from wikki :
Mushashi :

During this battle on 24 October 1944, she was attacked in the Sibuyan Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibuyan_Sea), just off the southeast tip of Luzon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luzon), by American carrier-based aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft): first at 10:27 AM by eight SB2C Helldiver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SB2C_Helldiver) dive bombers from the USS Intrepid armed with 500-lb (227 kg) bombs. Wave after wave of American aircraft from the USS Intrepid, Essex, Franklin, and Lexington scored 17 bomb and 20 torpedo hits on her, and 18 near misses. Most of the ship's destruction was due to Air Group 15.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] This battle was the only time that Musashi had fired her guns in anger, using the San Shiki ("Beehive") Model 13 anti-aircraft shell.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Musashi#cite_note-1)
The Musashi capsized to port, and sank at 7:25 PM on 24 October, taking more than 1,000 of her 2,399 crew with her; 1376 of the crew were rescued by the destroyers Kiyoshimo and Shimakaze. The wreck of Musashi is believed to be at 13° 07' 01" North, 122° 31' 59" East, off the Bondoc Peninsula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bondoc_Peninsula), in 1,350 meters (4,429 ft) of water.

Yamato and nine other Japanese warships embarked from Japan on a deliberate suicide attack against Allied forces engaged in the Battle of Okinawa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa). Dubbed Operation Ten-Go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten-g%C5%8D_sakusen), the plan called for Yamato and her escorts to attack the U.S. fleet supporting the U.S. troops landing on the west of the island. The ships were to fight their way to Okinawa and then beach themselves between Higashi and Yomitan and fight as shore batteries until they were destroyed. The surviving crew members were then supposed to fight U.S. forces on land. On April 7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_7), 1945 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945), Yamato was hit by successive waves of U.S. carrier-based aircraft and sank after absorbing 15 bombs and at least 13 torpedo hits. Fewer than 300 out of 3,332 crewmen survived.


from : http://www.grossepointenews.com/Articles-i-2008-03-06-214341.112112_The_real_story_of_the_Yamato_sinking .html


We then started rendezvousing with the rest of our planes. I was watching the Yamato out of my starboard window. She was smoking and listing to starboard. I then realized my torpedo had hit the Yamato under its armor plate and had done significant damage. As I watched, the Yamato suddenly flipped over on its side. She laid there a few seconds and then blew up like a huge firecracker. We were approximately 3,000 feet altitude at that time. I estimated that the debris from the explosion equaled our altitude.


http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/3396/h62582ru9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/h62582ru9.jpg/1/w590.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img246/h62582ru9.jpg/1/)

the problem was Musashi was attacked from both sides, thus evening the blows, where Yamato was hit more on one side if I remember correctly.

Keltos

[Gorshkov]

Exactly Keltros! So Yamato/Musachi are not any viable examples here. Late-war German torps ware more powerful than US simply because of larger warheads. That is obvious fact. Moreover US were backward in torpedo technology. Almost all US Navy introduced were copied German designs - yet worse: Mk-18 vs T-III and Mk-27 vs T-IV.

[keltos01]

just for the fun of it try my IJN torpedo mod incl Kaiten ver 3.2, especially the kaiten actually !

those ijn torps were I think the best WWII torpedoes, long range, good power, but bad doctrine :down: made for poor use..

Keltos

[tater]

Exactly Keltros! So Yamato/Musachi are not any viable examples here. Late-war German torps ware more powerful than US simply because of larger warheads. That is obvious fact. Moreover US were backward in torpedo technology. Almost all US Navy introduced were copied German designs - yet worse: Mk-18 vs T-III and Mk-27 vs T-IV.

Look at the statistics I posted, I did not count The Yamato class, as I said, the only one sunk by mk14 was the Kongo (36,601t) with 3 hits, exactly the same as the 2, presumably old, BBs sunk by u-boats. Are the 2 damaged BBs the only other hits on BBs at all during the war?

Statistically it looks like the german and american fish are very similar vs warships. The CL data is pretty similar, though you don't have as much (read: any) data in terms of unsuccessful attacks (which is critical data).

For CVs, also nearly identical—at lest until you changed your data. Did history retroactively change, or did you remove data that didn't suit your case? You had 1 for sure sunk with 1 fish, one with 1 or maybe 2, and 3 damaged before. That's 20% sunk with 1 fish, or at most 40%. The mk14 sank 33% of the CVs hit with 1 fish, and those stats include sinkings on real CVs (the biggest the germans sank was a small CV, right on the cusp of being a CVE/CVL).

Again, vs warships there is nothing to see here that suggests they are more powerful by any significant margin at all.

The IJN torpedoes were absolutely the best during the war, no question. Fast(est), wakeless, longest range, reliable. Put US and german efforts to shame.

[tater]

Note that your CVEs declared a "total loss" are an example of why you cannot count them as sunk. The were US-built CVEs.

We built ~140 of them.

140.

It was easier for them to simply be scrapped because we built replacements so fast. A 3d rate navy (total capability) like the KM would have repaired them since they would not have had the excess capacity to just throw them away. This goes for ALL types of shipping, and is why you must not count "total loss," as "sunk," because that is an actuarial decision, it's not certain. In short they did a cost-benefit analysis, and with mass production replacements, they tossed them. The japanese were a better navy (2d rate in terms of capability) than the KM, but they were none the less critically short of ships. So was their merchant marine which could only barely support the home islands before they took ANY losses. As a result, the japanese refloated and repaired ships that the US and UK would have tossed in the rubbish bin—why refit a Liberty ship, when a new one will come off the ways in less time than it will take to just find a shipyard to repair the damaged one?

The stats vs the Hog Islanders were useful, I can look at all the US attacks on 5k ships and do a reality check. From what I saw the germans stats seem unremarkable.

[Gorshkov]

@Tater: As for damaged warships in my data you have: all (sunken and damaged) battleships examples and also all CV/CVE losses examples (no "damaged" CV/CVE is listed in Uboat.net data). Thus you can make simple calculations and stop telling us about "critical damage data" all the time.

@Keltros: Indeed Japan torps were very good due to one smart technial move i.e. using pure oxygen instead of atmospheric air as oxidizer. This gave them fast speed and long range. However we must think if these parameters have any practical significance in real battle. Simply firing unguided fish at 12-40 km does not guarantee any hit! Unfortunately Japanese torps did not have any FAT/LUT guidance kit installed. Therefore I suppose that Germans had the best torpedo doctrine and proper way of their technical developpment: electric propulsion (wake-less move) and more and more advanced guidance: LUF/FAT kit or self-homing (passive sonar). The later history itself ancknowlegded they were right!

[tater]

I looked at uboat.net, they only claim to have information on sinkings of warships definitively. They do not list all damages.

Please note this page is still very incomplete.
It shows ships destroyed (lost) to all causes during the war.

Again, the CL data is very similar, many sink to 1 hit, more sink to 2, none survive 3. Same as mk14.

What did you change on the CV data? None the less, pretty much the same as the mk14.

[Gorshkov]

Secondly, what is it about small merchants that are so hard to sink with one shot? I can plug any of the small merchants (tankers included) with one shot, any time, any place, over and over again. Why can't you do that?
Probably because we did not create your RFBeta mod...:rotfl:

@tater: You should find on Uboat.net data referring only to warships sank by U-boats! They are complete.

[tater]

As we can see battleships sank after three torpedo hits and were badly damaged after one hit. Larger carriers sank after 2.33 hits on average and escort carriers after one or two were sunk or judged as "total loss". Light cruisers could not withstand 1-2 torpedo hits.

Making a claim that ALL BBs should be "badly damaged" with 1 hit is silly. The web site you use explicitly states that the warship data is very incomplete, except for sinkings. The "overhall" times tell us nothing about the real damage. Taiyo was hit by 1 fish, and was drydocked for 2 months. Warships are designed to shrug off hits in limited areas (usually around the mechanical spaces amidships). Armor weighs a lot, so it's always a trade off. If the fish hits the right place, a single hit on any ship can create severe damage. CVs are particularly vulnerable due to aircraft embarked (and fuel, and bombs).

U-boats never sank a "larger carrier." The biggest was practically a CVL.

CLs die to 1-2 hits from US torpedoes as well, no difference at all. No IJN CL took more than 2 hits and lived, though some were overkilled with 3-4. You can only have a sense of where "overkill" is if you have all data on ships attacked but not sunk, though (you need to know the most hits a given type took and lived).

Looking at CVs and CVEs sank by mk14s, the average was 2.5 fish (discounting damages as you do). That includes the 64.8k ton Shinano. Of the 8 sinkings, 3 were considerably larger than the largest sunk by a u-boat. Discounting those that are bigger than 22k tons, the average is 2.4 fish per CV.

So effectively zero difference in results vs warships with German vs American torpedoes.

The rule for results vs warships, IMO, should be massive variability for CVs, 1 hit possible kills, which are usually due to secondary problems (impossible to model in SH with no progressive damage), while shrugging off many hits should also be possible. CAs seem pretty tough, the min to sink one (IJN) was 4 fish, and Kongo sank with 3 at nearly 3X the size. Not sure why CAs should be tougher, but they seem to be. CLs sink pretty much like DDs.

tater

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

It not the damage model of the ship that is the problem it is the torpedo damage that is. Ingame the Mark 14 torpedo seems to be a huge waste to have as it can take more than three shots to kill a target. This includes merchant ships from a small old tanker to a medium old european merchant and yet I sunk a japanse subchaser with only one Mark 14!!!! Also I have installed the Real Torpedo Damage Mod for a little test and found and sunk a small old tanker with one Mark 14 and a few shots from the deck gun to finish it off, that is more realistic.

Again...we have not touched the warship damage model. Secondly, what is it about small merchants that are so hard to sink with one shot? I can plug any of the small merchants (tankers included) with one shot, any time, any place, over and over again. Why can't you do that? To answer why I can't sink a small merchant in more than one shot I don't know why. But I can atest to the fact in three out of four compleated patrols that it took me multible shots to hit and sink a target. This might have to deal with the hit points of the ships themselfs or the damage that the torpedos do to a target. But seeing how you might not belive me here is a test. Use a Salmon Class sub, with Mark 14 torpedos in all tubes and reserves and set up some shiping, mainly small merchants and write down the resualts and post them here.

[Rockin Robbins]

Something is missing here! How long did it take the ships to sink. Don't we tend to get bored in about fifteen minutes and plug the already sinking target (woulda sunk in only 5 more hours!) with the coup de grace? Yet the sinking statistics are full of ships that sunk after several hours, which none of us are willing to wait for in the game.

Impatience could be the only difference between Luke's claim that in RFB he can sink any merchant, including an empty tanker with one torpedo and others' claims that it takes four.

[Gorshkov]

@tater: I think you did not get this, buddy. I repeat once again: the basic fact is that German late-war torps had heavier warheads than American. So I can state Japs just built crappy carriers and that is why less powerful US torps sank them equally easy as German ones. I suppose my explanation is more real than your divagations. :know:

@Robbins: Great you have patience to wait several hours until ship sinks. Yet SH4 game designers had opposite intentions and introduced "quick sinking" model. I think majority of players also prefer developers point of view. Even it is too simplistic and ships sink too fast but that way SH4 game works. Yet what is much more important SH4 game engine may be inadequate for "flooding sinking" models and that is why many players report all this idiotic "unsinkable ships" issues in RFBeta. Think about it... ;)

[tater]

BTW, I did a quick scan of the entire war for ~5k ton ships. I didn't check well vs type, so some might have been other than AKs.

That said, I counted 57 attacks on ships from ~4800-5500 tons which hit with 1 fish (rough scan), and 50 sank, 7 damaged.

88% sank with 1 fish. Some of the damages were heavy, but they either sank, or they didn't, though Gorshkov might count them as "sunk" though they never went below the surface of the sea.

The "ship types" sorting on uboat.net is screwy, BTW, count the total ships in that list, and it is grossly lower than the number of ships attacked if you add it up.

Anyway the hog island data was 94% sunk (30 sank, 2 damages). I did not check the number of fish, so that 94% is to ALL numbers of hits. If the hog island data shows 1 hit sinkings at 88% or so, then there is really no difference.

Again, a trivial difference considering the data is not as good damage wise.

I'm not seeing much in the way of real world data to support the german fish being any better than the mk14s when they actually exploded (some damage results for the mk14s were faulty torps blowing up just before striking, or were duds, BTW, so the actual hits are likely more deadly than the stats show).

[tater]

@tater: I think you did not get this, buddy. I repeat once again: the basic fact is that German late-war torps had heavier warheads than American. So I can state Japs just built crappy carriers and that is why less powerful US torps sank them equally easy as German ones. I suppose my explanation is more real than your divagations. :know:

The CVEs sunk by u-boats were merchant ships with decks on top. IJN CVs were no more crappy than Bouge or Casablanca class CVEs. The japanese actually built excellent warships. In the case of carriers, their weak point was not the ship, it was damage control. I think many of the limited hit sinkings of japanese CVs (bomb or torpedo, actually) would NOT have sunk had they been crewed by the USN. Our damage control was quite good on CVs.

The stats simply do not back up your case for them being anything other than marginally more effective.

Bismark was crippled by a single air-dropped fish. Again, variability is the rule. Sometimes 1 does critical damage, sometimes they absorb many and don't do more than settle.

[tater]

BTW, poor damage control cannot be modeled in game. The only way to do that is a weaker DM for the target. If you up torp strength to get a 1-hit CV sinking, you will likely sink ALL with 1 hit.

Damage control would be a useful value for target ships to have, even if abstracted as the ability to "heal" flooding or something. COurse we need progressive fire, too.

[keltos01]

Bismark was crippled by a single air-dropped fish. Again, variability is the rule. Sometimes 1 does critical damage, sometimes they absorb many and don't do more than settle.

they hit the rudder.... it then went around in circles...

k

[AVGWarhawk]

@tater: I think you did not get this, buddy. I repeat once again: the basic fact is that German late-war torps had heavier warheads than American. So I can state Japs just built crappy carriers and that is why less powerful US torps sank them equally easy as German ones. I suppose my explanation is more real than your divagations. :know:
The CVEs sunk by u-boats were merchant ships with decks on top. IJN CVs were no more crappy than Bouge or Casablanca class CVEs. The japanese actually built excellent warships. In the case of carriers, their weak point was not the ship, it was damage control. I think many of the limited hit sinkings of japanese CVs (bomb or torpedo, actually) would NOT have sunk had they been crewed by the USN. Our damage control was quite good on CVs.

The stats simply do not back up your case for them being anything other than marginally more effective.

Bismark was crippled by a single air-dropped fish. Again, variability is the rule. Sometimes 1 does critical damage, sometimes they absorb many and don't do more than settle.
Shokaku was not a crappy carrier. 3 possibly 4 torps from Cavalla ended her day.

Shinano not a crappy carrier, 4 torps between the anti torp bulges. Sunk by Archerfish.

As far as I can tell, American torps were about the same in blast damage.

[tater]

Bismark was crippled by a single air-dropped fish. Again, variability is the rule. Sometimes 1 does critical damage, sometimes they absorb many and don't do more than settle.

they hit the rudder.... it then went around in circles...

k

Yes, I'm aware of what the stringbag hit.

None the less, it was effectively a "mission kill" on Bismark. It was an example that hits on ships can have a lot of variability. Where you hit matters ;)

tater

[AVGWarhawk]

Bismark was crippled by a single air-dropped fish. Again, variability is the rule. Sometimes 1 does critical damage, sometimes they absorb many and don't do more than settle.
they hit the rudder.... it then went around in circles...

k
Yes, I'm aware of what the stringbag hit.

None the less, it was effectively a "mission kill" on Bismark. It was an example that hits on ships can have a lot of variability. Where you hit matters ;)

tater

Yes, the USS Arizona could attest to where you hit really can mess up your day.

[tater]

Actually, the hog island stats he posted earlier are telling. I checked (as I posted above), and 88% of the ~5k ships hit with 1 fish by US subs sank with just the 1 hit. When I picked ships in the US stats, I took them from 4800 to 5500 tons, too, so bigger ships, and STILL more effective.

I just broke the 32 hog island attacks on uboat.net into individual attacks by reading the accounts.

LOL.

50% of the Hog Islanders sank after 1 hit. 73% after 2 hits (I counted coup de grâce here in the 2 fish hits, including the couple that were finished off with 30 and 60 DG rounds respectively treated as a single added torp (the only alternative to the DG)). 83% of them hit with 3 sank (one not sinking out of 6 attacked).

Based on that, the mk14 was better at sinking 5k ships than the german fish up to 1943, anyway.

It's interesting to read those accounts, many attacks involved a coup de grâce shot at that point, some times 2 extra fish.

[theluckyone17]

I gotta agree with RR's view. And I like RFB's current DM. Maybe that puts me in the minority, but I love my realism. Having to wait to see if the target's gonna sink fits in with my personal view of realism, from what I've heard and read.

I hit a Jap large convoy the other night in my Salmon class. Weather was crap, visibility was listed as good (though the visibility sure didn't seem that way), 11 m/s winds. It was around midnight, so the escorts and my watchmen couldn't see much. All I could really see was outlines against the sky, so I wasn't much more use.

I sent the front four tubes off at a large modern composite freighter, and the rear off at a medium modern composite. The waves didn't help with my data collection, and it showed. The early war torpedoes hurt, too. Three fish hit... two in the large, one in the medium. My memory's foggy, but about half of the other fish were either duds/prematures, and the other half just plain missed.

It took the large freighter a couple hours to sink. It gradually took on water, slowed down to a stop, listed, and sank. I figured the medium freighter would survive. While I watched the large freighter via the virtual camera, I took my sub around in an attempt to make another run. My first concern was to hit that wounded medium, but I couldn't find it in the crappy weather. It didn't make it any easier to determine the convoy's zig zagging course, either (they weren't too far from harbor, too).

On my last attempt to get in a good firing position, the crew finally called out the demise of the medium. ~4,000 tons, with one torpedo. I figure it was helped along by the heavy waves, but it still counts as a one hit one sunk in my book. I had no clue... I hadn't been able to see the ship from my sub for a long time. I tried finding the ship via the virtual cam after I got the sinking message, without luck. I figure it took about four hours for it to sink.

That same patrol, I came across another medium modern composite, which took two or three fish to sink. Flat water, no winds, no waves. I tossed more torpedos trying to hit it after it started zig zagging than I did actually sinking it, so I won't be complaining.

So I'm happy with the merchant DM. Get the warships down, and I'll be very happy with RFB.

[Gorshkov]

@tater: Do not tell us BS similar to Bismarck's "total loss"! I presented here detailed Hog Island's sinking data and conclusion was that on average 1.57 German torp killed one ship! Yet you did not notice these data applies only to early war (1941-1943) period...before SH4/UBM game period, buddy! Thus you are twaddling about era when German torp warheads were in fact on par with Mk-14s. What about much interesting 1943-1945 data? Look at my much larger Liberty-class summary analysis and do not hand us a line! :rotfl:

[Nisgeis]

@tater: Do not tell us BS similar to Bismarck's "total loss"!
Before anyone gets too excited, I assume you mean 'Battleship' when you say BS? :D.

[tater]

@tater: Do not tell us BS! I presented here detailed Hog Island's sinking data and conclusion was that on average 1.57 German torp killed one ship! Yet you did not notice these data applies only to early war (1941-1943) period...before SH4/UBM game period, buddy! Thus you are twaddling about era when German torp warheads were in fact on par with Mk-14s. What about much interesting 1943-1945 data? Look at my much larger Liberty-class summary analysis and stop hand us a line! :rotfl:

I did notice, if you read my post I said that it is only valid until 1943.

Read what I posted.

The mk14 is MORE effective than the 1942/43 German fish, though.

BTW, I just checked the Liberty ships. I got bored after doing all of 1944, but for every attack in 1944, 18.18% of attacks where 1 torp hit resulted in a sinking.

81.82% with 2 or more hits sank.

As a reality check, 79.17% of USN attacks on ~7k AKs with 1 fish resulted in a sinking. For the 7K data I used ships between ~6800 and 7800 tons (I had to flip through a book, and hand enter all the data, so I decided to err on larger rather than smaller shipping—I entered data for over 80 attacks). 83.64% hit with 2+ sank.

So, for super clarity:

Liberty (~7k t) vs U-Boats, 18.18% sunk after hitting with 1 torp (1944)
7k t jap vs Fleet Boats, 79.17% sunk after hitting with 1 torp. (entire war)

Next argument, please.

[Gorshkov]

Shokaku was not a crappy carrier. 3 possibly 4 torps from Cavalla ended her day.
- "Shokaku" (32000 tons) - sank by 3-4 US torps
- "Hermes" (28000 tons) - sank by 1 German torp
- "Courageous (26000 tons) - sank by 2 German torps

As we can see only 14-23% larger Japanese carrier was hit by TWO TO FOUR TIMES MORE US torps than British carriers sank by German torps!


Shinano not a crappy carrier, 4 torps between the anti torp bulges. Sunk by Archerfish.

"Shinano" was crappy carrier! Here you are proof:

Postwar analysis by the US Naval Technical Mission to Japan concluded that Shinano had serious design flaws. Specifically, the joint between the antiprojectile armor on the hull and the anti-torpedo bulge on the underwater body was poorly designed; Archer-Fish's torpedoes all exploded along this joint. Additionally, the force of the torpedo explosions dislodged an H-beam in one of the boiler rooms. The dislodged beam turned into a giant battering ram that punched a hole between two of the boiler rooms. In addition, the failure to test for watertightness played a role. Survivors claimed that they were unable to control the flooding because the water poured in too fast; some claimed to have seen rivets between seams burst and allow water to surge through.

- Reports of the US Naval Technical Mission to Japan, Ship and Related Target (http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ%20Reports/USNTMJ-200H-0745-0786%20Report%20S-06-2.pdf)

- Enright, Joseph; James W. Ryan (2000). Sea Assault


As far as I can tell, American torps were about the same in blast damage.
Surely! Against crap, Ms. Expert! :rotfl:


@tater: My arguments based on much detailed analysis about Libetys are on this forum. Your calculations are wrong. For 1944 there was on average 1.4 torps per sunken ship and in 1945 only 1.2 torp per sunken ship. Well, maybe crappy Japanese carriers were not exception... :rotfl:


You cannot change this obvious fact that late-war German torps had about 1.3 times more powerful warheads than US fishes except Mk-16!

[tater]

CVs are highly variable. They contain GASOLINE and bombs. The gas is not just bunkered, it has lines all over the ship for rapid refueling of aircraft. Fires are particularly bad for CVs. IJN damage control was simply not as good as RN/USN, which explains a lot of their problems. Again, highly variable, some of the same IJN CVs that sank with 1-2 hits, had earlier in the war survived 3-4 hits.

Where, and how the DC is working matters.

tater

[Gorshkov]

@tater: Don't you read above citation??? This crappy mega-carrier sank by gigantic flooding due to her crappy construction. Not bombs or gasoline explosion! OK, I now finish conversation with you because it is pointless and time's a wasting. Bye!

[Rockin Robbins]

Gorshkov, you are over the line again. Tater is absolutely correct. To the game, a ship not sunk is not sunk. His points about ship replacement being necessary to the Japanese and Germans but purely a monetary decision on the part of the US is also true. No skipper ever got credit for a sinking when the ship was merely towed to harbor, condemned and scrapped. A sinking was defined as a boat observed by the crew of an American boat to sink below the surface of the water, never to return.

Similarly, you claim increasing German warhead power through the war, but have no evidence to back up your claim. In fact, the larger targets sunk by American torpedoes behaved almost like the smaller targets destroyed by German torpedoes, as tater has developed, citing sources carefully so you can check them. When he looks at the same site, quoting sections, you claim it isn't the same, but you don't support your claim.

Tater has been trying to communicate with a person who isn't interested in communicating. That's a shame, because he was trying to help you. Instead of discussing the issue, you taunt. In spite of the fact that Germans are littered all over the bottom of the Atlantic and U-Boats sunk less than 1% of the Allied convoys, you claim godlike superiority for the losers of the war. Basically, you resort to trolling whenever it appears that there might be some trace of humanity in you.

You've had your chance. Back on ignore you go, not to return. Add Gorshkov to your ignore list (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=230646). Thought some people who have been trying to help you might also want to take advantage of the opportunity to ignore you.

[Gorshkov]

@Robbins: Certainly Tater is not right and your ordinary backing cannot change this sad to him but true reality! I spent a lot of time doing sinking data analysis and I can tell his arguments are not right or adequately interpreted. You also propagate false ideas that "total loss" is not equal to sunken ship in SH4. Obviously that is! Otherwise show me hit ship in the game which is towed to the port. It is a shame you are trying to persuade other people to believe in such idiocy! I also proved though my data about Liberty-class ships sinking that German torpedo efficiency progressed in line with increasing of their warheads weight. On that example Germans achieved almost twofold progress! Another tater's backer tried to undermine my data about carriers sinking. Yet one thing he achieved is a derision. So Mr. Robbins your empty arguments do not change my point of view because it is well founded.

If you try in this thread to improve RFBeta "ratings" or "improve" historically obvious fact about US backwardness in torpedo technology during WW2 it is rather stupid idea! You and your backers can ignore me but I can also ignore you and I do it right now! I think many skippers enjoy my mod without your negative gab here. Back to your RFBeta thread and feel free to big up this Beta there, especially if my mod is not connected with this Beta in no way!

FAREWELL REAL FLEET BOATERS! :rotfl:

[Nisgeis]

You've had your chance. Back on ignore you go, not to return. Add Gorshkov to your ignore list (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=230646). Thought some people who have been trying to help you might also want to take advantage of the opportunity to ignore you.

That's quite unfair RR. Some people have found Gorshkov's torpedo mod helpful to the way they play the game. This is what modding is all about no? Although I agree that tater is only trying to help, I don't agree that Gorshkov's dismissal of him is a reason for everyone to put him on their ignore list. Perhaps certain specific people, but not a general site wide ban. That's not right and it should not be suggested.

[Nisgeis]

You also propagate false ideas that "total loss" is not equal to sunken ship in SH4. Obviously that is! Otherwise show me hit ship in the game which is towed to the port. It is a shame you are trying to persuade other people to believe in such idiocy!

The game does not allow for towing, as has been stated before. Therefore, the only way that towing is modelled is for ships to leave under their own power.

Your challenge is flawed, as no ship that has been hit is ever towed to port. All ships in SH are on their own. I believe what tater means is that there is no provision in the game for a ship so badly damaged that it is scrapped. Therefore a ship that is not sunk is not a total loss, even though in reality it may havce been (depending on production capacity of the host nation).

[Gorshkov]

You've had your chance. Back on ignore you go, not to return. Add Gorshkov to your ignore list (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=230646). Thought some people who have been trying to help you might also want to take advantage of the opportunity to ignore you.
That's quite unfair RR. Some people have found Gorshkov's torpedo mod helpful to the way they play the game. This is what modding is all about no? Although I agree that tater is only trying to help, I don't agree that Gorshkov's dismissal of him is a reason for everyone to put him on their ignore list. Perhaps certain specific people, but not a general site wide ban. That's not right and it should not be suggested.
Here you are RR's true approach: ban "uncomfortable" people from this forum! Maybe "uncomfortable" for RFBeta fans??? Moreover this guy dare to teach others about "shame"... :down:

As I said: interested skippers will use my mod. Not interested will omit it. However using it means also agreed on my concept about torpedo damage model, my conclusion taken from Uboat.net data and finally "total loss" meaning in SH4. Plain and simple!

@Nisgels: Rethink once again what you stated in your last post...

[Nisgeis]

Maybe "uncomfortable" for RFBeta fans???
You really should be considerate of other mod makers. This mod is, as I understand it out for testing and is therefore in beta. You seem to be saying RFBeta as a sort of derisory comment. Why is that?

Is this mod less than worthy, in your eyes, because it has not been fully tested? Perhaps you have no idea what, conceptually, beta means. After all, where was your alpha release? There wasn't one? You went straight to beta? Well... that means you're just at the alpha stage.

Unless you think you are at the beta stage... in which case what 'points' does calling something else a beta gain you?

[Gorshkov]

Maybe "uncomfortable" for RFBeta fans???
You really should be considerate of other mod makers. This mod is, as I understand it out for testing and is therefore in beta. You seem to be saying RFBeta as a sort of derisory comment. Why is that?
Look at RFBeta therad. You'll find answer there!

PS. My mod is now in Beta stage because its Alpha stage was release only internally! :know:

[Nisgeis]

@Nisgels: Rethink once again what you stated in your last post...

Who's Nisgels, he sounds like a right loser. Or, perhaps it's Gorshkov (see, spelling and everything is right) that can't spell? I have no idea what your point was, but you made it badly, so I am against it. I am against poorly made points. What was your point? What was Nisgels point? Who knows - because there is no such user. What about Gorshkovv - no he doesn't exist either. Gorshkovv thinks Gorshkov is a moron. I didn't say that, mind you. Nor did Nisgels. You have to speak to Gorshkovv - it's entirely his call.

That Nisgels... he's always causing trouble. Not as much as that Gorshkovv though. He's insane.

[tater]

Scrapping is an actuarial decision. Meaning that they decide if it's worth it economically to fix.

As for SH4, no ships are towed, what we would see with your "total loss" ships in SH4, are ships that are dead in the water, settled, and/or on fire and NEVER SINK. Some ships are like this after X hits. In RL, they would be brought under tow, possibly. In SH, they sit there, never sinking unless you finish them. The same would be true in RL minus the tow, they'd sit still and not sink.

Regarding Shinano, I NEVER said anything about why Shinano sank at all. I said MANY carriers suffered from fire, not that ALL sank because of that. Reread my posts, and cite any example of me attributing Shinano to fire. Fire overall, and poor damage control was a consistent problem faced by IJN CVs, CVLs, and CVEs throughout the war (all CVs suffer from fire as a major fear, BTW, not just IJN).

The only thing I can find that I said was this:
The rule for results vs warships, IMO, should be massive variability for CVs, 1 hit possible kills, which are usually due to secondary problems (impossible to model in SH with no progressive damage), while shrugging off many hits should also be possible.

I was referring to CVs sunk by ONE torpedo when I said secondary issues like fire. Shinano was hit with FOUR torpedoes. It would have been surprising for her to sink with so fer compared to Yamato and Musashi, her sisters, though all were on the same side, she could still have counter-flooded. She was, after all, a superbattleship under the flight deck.

BTW, I notice you completely ignored the fact that mk14s are better at sinking 7k ships than 1944 German fish—by a wide margin.

I'm fine with making sure all specific torpedoes do the right amount of damage, in case that is not abundantly clear. I think that ~80% of 7k jap ships should sink hit by a single mk14, for example (assuming they actually explode, I only counted those that did, I ignored all the duds early war ;) ). I'm fine with the german fish doing the kind of damage that they should as well. I have yet to see anything that conclusively points to them being grossly out of whack with reality, though. Does the testing of your mod show only maybe 20% of Liberty ships sinking with 1 fish? What about stock?

As for CVs in game, the DMs for them are grossly wrong, at least the IJN CVs. All in the game (stock) sink with 1 fish, every time, unless you hit just the very bow or stern. Anything in the other 90% of the hull capsizes them. Clearly for some CVs, 1 hit should be a possible critical hit (to mimic secondary fires, etc), but they should also be able to take as many as 4 and live, too. I await a better DM for warships (though the CLs don't seem that bad).

tater

[Gorshkov]

What about Gorshkovv - no he doesn't exist either. Gorshkovv thinks Gorshkov is a moron.

Also fictional Nisgels probably thinks that Nisgeis is moron. :rotfl:

[Nisgeis]

Look at RFBeta therad. You'll find answer there!


Can yoy psot me teh lnik to the therad you are taklnig aobut?

[Gorshkov]

Look at RFBeta therad. You'll find answer there!

Can yoy psot me teh lnik to the therad you are taklnig aobut?
Ask Nisgels if you are unable to find it! :yep:

[Nisgeis]

What about Gorshkovv - no he doesn't exist either. Gorshkovv thinks Gorshkov is a moron.
Also fictional Nisgels probably thinks that Nisgeis is moron. :rotfl:

Oooooh BURN! Not...

If Nisgels is fictional, how can they have an opinion? Still, interesting that a fictional person only 'probably' thinks I am a moron...

[Gorshkov]

What about Gorshkovv - no he doesn't exist either. Gorshkovv thinks Gorshkov is a moron.
Also fictional Nisgels probably thinks that Nisgeis is moron. :rotfl:
Oooooh BURN! Not...

If Nisgels is fictional, how can they have an opinion? Still, interesting that a fictional person only 'probably' thinks I am a moron...

Ask Gorshkovv! :rotfl:

[Nisgeis]

Ask Gorshkovv! :rotfl:

As previously stated, he does not exist.

[Gorshkov]

However both think something... :ping:

[AVGWarhawk]

However both think something... :ping:

I'm thinking something as well when it comes to name calling. :know: Thead to reopen when the sandlot banter stops.

Thank you,
Ms. Expert

[AVGWarhawk]

Ok, time out long enough. "Moron" as a descriptive name is best left out of replying on the forums.

[LukeFF]

I also proved though my data about Liberty-class ships sinking that German torpedo efficiency progressed in line with increasing of their warheads weight.
******* EDIT******* I've already told you the torpedoes (outside of the Mark 10, 16 and 27) are based on a 600-pound warhead composed of Torpex. Prove to us the chemical composition and weight of a German torpedo warhead was more powerful than this, and you'll start to have a point. I already gave you supporting evidence for my argument for this and even gave you data on what type of materials composed German warheads. Yet, all I'm still hearing from you on this matter is widespread generalizations about "how much better German torpedoes got later in the war."

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=992923&postcount=92

Start showing us some numbers regarding this and stop with the BS already, if you want people to start taking you seriously.

[Onkel Neal]

All right, thread closed.

[Gorshkov]

Thread is still open! Please close it as mentioned above! I am not interested in developing my mod any longer in such circumstantces. Discussing ordinary lies as arguments is below my dignity! :down: