Question about torpedoes.

[dashyr]

Im using both TMO and OTC. I like having some realism inthese games but is it realistic to take like 3 torpedoes to sink a ship? There is surely something I do wrong so feel free to explain a bit. Im fairly new to these games... having played a bit of SH3 (Awesome game.. but sadly I find torpedo aiming to be a bit of a chore for german uboat.) im just wondering if its an actual problem with the game or I just need to gitgud and s*** it.


edit: i want to had that I waited like 2 days next to a medium tganker with HUGE gapingholes in its sider and it just stayed there..... id expect it to flood and sink.

[Majestik 909]

Having a background in the Navy, let me address your questions. Torpedo damage has many variables. In general, freighters will withstand much less damage than a multi-compartment warship. However, a review of actual u-boat war diaries mentions many accounts where a freighter was still afloat after multiple torpedo hits and the u-boat abandoned the attack.

The U.S.S. Hornet CV8, upon which my maternal Grandfather served as a DC, took 12 torpedo hits, 4 bombs' 2 Kamikaze's and 369 rounds of 5" shells without sinking, all of which is documented in the after-action report.

So it is indeed possible that a ship could survive the damage you describe...

[dashyr]

Thank you for your answer. I had recorded my gameplay so I watched it again. And it wasnt a merchant (wrong ID) . A warship so the multi compartment thingy is probably what happened. Thanks for the answer.. xD

[dashyr]

while I got you here. If im enjoying sh4... is sh5 worth it considering i dont really care much about graphics? is sh5 nothing more than a graphic update? (Considering im playing sh4 even if its almost the same than sh3, i just prefer american subs.)

[SilentPrey]

If you prefer American subs then SH4 is your game.

SH5 changed more than just graphics but it's back to U-boats.

[Majestik 909]

Multi-compartment warship construction is sometimes referred to as a torpedo defense system. It consists of a four-bulkhead system. The outboard layer of tanks is filled with liquid. Fuel oil service tanks in the second and third layers make up the rest of the system...somewhat like a honeycomb.

The fuel oik tanks can be counter-flooded with sea water to correct a list, a practice used extensively on Yamato.

I only have experience with SH4, so maybe one of the experts will chime in....

[Aktungbby]

dashyr!:Kaleun_Salute:

[fireftr18]

Mk 14s early war were criminally terrible at best. They ran deed, igniters failed, and had premature explosions. From what I understand, TMO doesn't quite model the true failure rate. If I remember right, Ducimus said he didn't want to model the failure rate historically accurate because it would make the game too frustrating.

[TorpX]

Multi-compartment warship construction is sometimes referred to as a torpedo defense system. .......

I only have experience with SH4, so maybe one of the experts will chime in....

I can't remember where I read this, but the later designs of BB's had some very elaborate systems. Different nations used various ideas; some with empty space areas, liquid tanks, some used wood pulp, some using hollow tubes (that were supposed to absorb energy as they were crushed), armored bulkheads to stop metal fragments, and such. I got the impression that while ingenious, they were very expensive to build.

I'm not sure if any system was ever found to be better than the others. It seems that none were entirely satisfactory, but certainly made ships so protected, harder to sink.

I suspect that the most well protected battleships would be more vulnerable to bombs than torpedoes. Well designed bombs could still penetrate into the hull, and start fires, even if torpedoes could not seriously rupture the main hull compartments.

[Aktungbby]

I'm not sure if any system was ever found to be better than the others. It seems that none were entirely satisfactory, but certainly made ships so protected, harder to sink.

NOPE: worst case scenario; HMS BARHAMhttps://media.giphy.com/media/j9DiWluATLKwg/giphy.gif On the afternoon of 24 November, the 1st BS, Barham, Queen Elizabeth, and Valiant, with an escort of eight destroyers, departed Alexandria to cover the 7th (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7th_Cruiser_Squadron_(United_Kingdom)) and 15th Cruiser Squadrons (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=15th_Cruiser_Squadron_(United_King dom)&action=edit&redlink=1) as they hunted for Italian convoys in the Central Mediterranean. The following morning, the German submarine U-331 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-331), commanded by Oberleutnant zur See (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberleutnant_zur_See)Hans-Diedrich von Tiesenhausen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Diedrich_von_Tiesenhausen), detected the faint engine noises of the British ships and moved to intercept. By the afternoon the submarine and the 1st BS were on reciprocal courses and von Tiesenhausen ordered his boat to battle stations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_stations) around 16:00. An ASDIC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASDIC) operator aboard one of the leading destroyers, Jervis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Jervis), detected the submarine at 16:18 at an estimated range of 900–1,100 yards (820–1,010 m), but the contact was disregarded as it subtended (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subtend) an angle between 40 to 60 degrees wide, far larger than a submarine. U-331 thus passed through the screen and was only in a position to fire her torpedoes after the leading ship, Queen Elizabeth, had passed her by and the second ship, Barham, was closing rapidly. Von Tiesenhausen ordered all four bow torpedo tubes fired at a range of 375 metres (410 yd) at 16:25. (Almost too close for the arming distance) Possibly due to her closeness to Valiant's bow wave (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_wave) and discharging the torpedoes, the boat's conning tower broached the surface and was fruitlessly engaged by one of the battleship's "pom-pom"s at a range of about 30 yards (27 m). The boat dived out of control after she broached, reaching an indicated depth of 265 metres (869 ft), well below her design depth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_depth_ratings) of 150 metres (490 ft), before she stabilized without any damage. U-331 was not attacked by the escorting destroyers and reached port on 3 December. Von Tiesenhausen was not certain of the results of his attack and radioed that he had hit a Queen Elizabeth-class battleship with one torpedo.
There was no time for evasive action, and three of the four torpedoes struck amidships so closely together as to throw up a single massive water column. Barham quickly capsized to port and was lying on her side when a massive magazine explosion occurred aft about four minutes after she was torpedoed and sank her. The Court of Enquiry into the sinking ascribed the final magazine explosion to a fire in the 4-inch magazines outboard of the main 15-inch magazines, which would have then spread to and detonated the contents of the main magazines Due to the speed at which she sank, 862 officers and ratings were killed, including two who died of their wounds after being rescued. The destroyer Hotspur (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Hotspur_(H01)) rescued some 337 survivors, including Vice-Admiral Henry Pridham-Wippell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Pridham-Wippell) and the pair who later died of their wounds, while the Australian destroyer Nizam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Nizam_(G38)) reportedly rescued some 150 men. The sinking was captured on film by a cameraman from Pathé News (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path%C3%A9_News), aboard HMS Valiant. Modern torpedoes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo) outclassed their (Elizabeth Class Battleships) torpedo belt protection: in November 1941, Barham, the least modernised of the quintet, sank in five minutes. Warspite survived a direct hit and two near-misses by a German glider bomb, while Queen Elizabeth and Valiant were repaired and returned to service after being badly damaged by limpet mines placed by Italian frogmen during a raid at Alexandria Harbour (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Alexandria_(1941)) in 1941. Bottom line IMHO: Above the surface: fabulous big gun offense; below the surface: lousy defense! [wiki]

[Jimbuna]

Welcome to SubSim dashyr :sunny:

[ColonelSandersLite]

In general, freighters will withstand much less damage than a multi-compartment warship. However, a review of actual u-boat war diaries mentions many accounts where a freighter was still afloat after multiple torpedo hits and the u-boat abandoned the attack.

I did some digging on this subject to satisfy my own curiosity a while back. I don't have hard numbers. Basically, I just spent several hours looking into ships that got torpedoed, how many hits they took, etc. Both in the atlantic and the pacific. I have seen accounts of ships that took really stupendous amounts of damage without sinking. A few of the vessels I saw even took massive amounts of damage in multiple separate instances and survived.

That being said, as far as merchant targets are concerned, the opposite tended to be true. From what I saw, most merchant vessels where generally doomed if they took even a single torpedo hit.



In SH4, I find two torpedoes to be enough to get the job done most of the time. Assuming they both hit and don't malfunction.

[dashyr]

Daaamn. Such a warm welcome. Thank you guys... Its quite unexpected... this has to be the most friendly forum I ever registered on.

[Rockin Robbins]

Welcome to Subsim, dashyr!

I think one of the most maddening targets to sink is an empty tanker. They ride so high and have double bottoms that you can put a dozen torpedoes into and the inner hull remains untouched. They were nearly unsinkable in the real war.

[Majestik 909]

Prien sank Royal Oak with only 2 amidships, but open compartments and swinging turrets hastened the sinking....

[fireftr18]

Daaamn. Such a warm welcome. Thank you guys... Its quite unexpected... this has to be the most friendly forum I ever registered on.

We got dashyr fooled now. Armistead, Wolferz, lets drag him into the Bilge and show him what we're really like.:arrgh!:

[TorpX]

Dumb luck and four eel spread!

Dumb luck is never good when the enemy has it, and having your ship hit by something with ~500+ lbs. of high explosive is something to be avoided whenever possible. :)

I certainly wouldn't argue that any ship was torpedo-proof, or even highly resistant, but I think they would have been even worse off if designers hadn't bothered to provide any torpedo defense. HMS Barham was a rather old BB, and I'm guessing, had a primitive TDS. I would counter your example with the IJN Yamato, which suffered thirteen torpedo hits (give or take - and this doesn't include the bombs hitting her).

Here (http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-047.htm) is a good article on the subject at navweapons.com

[dashyr]

https://steamcommunity.com/app/15210/discussions/0/527273983047443874/
This is a torpedo solution method for u-boat I found very neat. I mean it is so simple to calculate its funny,

This helped me out a lot so I decided to make a short ''checklist style'' list of all the steps but in one page instead of six. (with photos).
It is all hand drawn and im sorry if its not 100 percent clear but for some reason I felt like doing it this way.

* ALL CREW TO BATTLESTATION! PREPARE TO ZOOM OUT!*

EDIT: NVM thats way too big.

http://s2.postimg.org/mto6y5iex/Document_num_ris.jpg heres the link.

Hope it will help someone as it helped me. This turned me into a 4000m sniper..... and its like ... well... I started playing seriously at 100 realism yesterday xD

[Aktungbby]

I certainly wouldn't argue that any ship was torpedo-proof, or even highly resistant,
My understanding is late-model Bismarck (scuttled imjo) suffered from an underwater shell detonation (near miss) from the main battery of HMS King George V and one torpedo hit from Hms Rodney (after she was straddled by Bismarck's second salvo) as well as the Swordfish hit to the stern https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aohXNCPeAkQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aohXNCPeAkQ) some additional research when these are found will be illuminating!:up: I still don't think any underwater armor gets an A rating.

[TorpX]

I still don't think any underwater armor gets an A rating.

Agreed.

I guess I would give early systems a D, and later systems, like used by the Yamato, or Iowas, maybe a B or B-. There was a limit to what could be accomplished; no system devised could protect the ships' rudder or screws, and they were apt to be less effective against detonations under the hull.

However, to be fair to the TDS designers, BB's were not impervious to storms of shellfire, or bomb hits, either.

[Aktungbby]

Agreed.


However, to be fair to the TDS designers, BB's were not impervious to storms of shellfire, or bomb hits, either.

Indeed!https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fe/KGV-Armor_Scheme.jpg/220px-KGV-Armor_Scheme.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KGV-Armor_Scheme.jpg)King George V armor and underwater protection. Five ships of this class were commissioned: HMS King George V (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_King_George_V_(41)) (1940), HMS Prince of Wales (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Prince_of_Wales_(53)) (1941), HMS Duke of York (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Duke_of_York_(17)) (1941), HMS Howe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Howe_(32)) (1942) and HMS Anson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Anson_(79)) (1942).
The hull below the waterline, along the main armour belt, formed the Side Protection System (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side_Protection_System) (SPS). It was subdivided into series of longitudinal compartments in a void-liquid-void layout; the outer and inner were filled with air, and the middle compartment with liquid (fuel or water). The outer hull plating in the region of the SPS was thin to reduce potential splinter damage from a torpedo. The outer compartment of the SPS was normally an empty or void space (containing only air) and this allowed the initial explosion from a torpedo to expand while minimizing damage to the ship. The centre compartment was filled with oil or seawater and this spread the pressure pulse over a larger area while the liquid contained any metal splinters that were created from the torpedo explosion. The inboard compartment was another void space and served to contain any liquid leaking from the liquid layer and any remaining pressure pulse from the torpedo explosion. Inboard of the final void space was an armoured bulkhead which varied in thickness from 1.5 in (37 mm) over the machinery spaces to 1.75 inch (44 mm) abreast of the magazines. This bulkhead formed the "holding bulkhead" and it was designed to resist the residual blast effects from the torpedo hit. If this final inner bulkhead was penetrated a further set of subdivided compartments would contain any leaks; inboard of the holding bulkhead the ship was highly subdivided into small compartments containing auxiliary machinery spaces. The SPS void-liquid-void layer was generally about 13 feet wide, and the auxiliary machinery spaces added approximately another 8 feet of space from the outer hull plating to the major machinery spaces. The only exception to this was abreast A and B Engine Rooms, where the auxiliary machinery spaces were omitted, but another void space, about three feet wide was substituted in its place. Above the SPS, and directly behind the armour belt, was a series of compartments, typically used for washrooms or storage spaces, which were designed to allow for upward venting of overpressure from a torpedo hit. This scheme was designed to protect against a 1000 lb warhead, and had been tested and found effective in full-scale trials. The SPS was also a key component of the ship's damage control system, as lists resulting from flooding could be corrected by counterflooding empty void spaces, and/or draining normally liquid filled compartments. In the case of the loss of the Prince of Wales these spaces were used for counterflooding to reduce list.
HMS Prince of Wales (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Prince_of_Wales_(53)) was sunk on 10 December 1941, from what was believed to have been hits by six aerial launched torpedoes and a 500 kg bomb. However, an extensive 2007 survey by divers of the wreck of Prince of Wales determined definitively that there had been only 4 torpedo hits. Three of these four hits had struck the hull outside the area protected by the SPS. In the case of the fourth, the SPS holding bulkhead appeared intact abreast the area where the hull was hit. The conclusion of the subsequent 2009 paper and analysiswas that the primary cause of the sinking was uncontained flooding along "B" propeller shaft. The propeller shaft external shaft bracket failed, and the movement of the unsupported shaft then tore up the bulkheads all the way from the external propeller shaft gland through to B Engine Room itself. This allowed flooding into the primary machinery spaces. The damage and flooding was exacerbated by poor damage control and the premature abandonment of the after magazines and a telephone communications switchboard"B" propeller shaft had been stopped, and then restarted several minutes after being struck by a torpedoSubsequent inquiries into her loss at the time identified the need for a number of design improvements, which were implemented to a lesser or greater degree on the other four ships of the class. Ventilation and the watertightness of the ventilation system were improved, while internal passageways within the machinery spaces were redesigned and the communications system made more robust. Improved propeller shaft glands and shaft locking gear were introduced. Some of the supposed failures of the ship were nevertheless predicated on the assumption that a torpedo had hit and defeated the SPS at or about frame 206 at the same time as the hit that damaged B propeller shaft. The 2007 survey's video footage evidence showed however that the hull is basically intact in this area. The inability to survey the wreck during the war no doubt frustrated efforts to arrive at a definitive cause for the loss of Prince of Wales and, subsequently, that somewhat flawed analysis has led to a number of incorrect theories regarding the reasons for the sinking being inadvertently disseminated over the years.
On examination of the Prince of Wales after her encounter with the German battleship Bismarck (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_battleship_Bismarck) and the heavy cruiser (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_cruiser)Prinz Eugen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_cruiser_Prinz_Eugen), three damaging hits were discovered which had caused about 400 tons of water, from all three hits, to enter the ship. One of these hits, fired from Bismarck, had penetrated the torpedo protection outer bulkhead in a region very close to an auxiliary machinery space causing local flooding within the SPS, while the inner, 1.5-inch ( 2x19 mm) D-steel holding bulkhead, however, remained intact, as the German shell was a dud. The German shell would have actually exploded in the water if its fuse had worked properly, due to the depth which the shell had to dive before striking the Prince of Wales under her armoured belt.
In short really not very good against air power, comparable shell fire or torpedos; but they sure look good. I would also consider that Yamato, on a suicide mission, had every watertight door dogged. hence its longer survival. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8c/Yamato-armorsheme-DE_-_magazines_cut.svg/782px-Yamato-armorsheme-DE_-_magazines_cut.svg.png The final innovation occurred in 1937, with the Japanese Yamato Class. In Yamato, the Japanese carried the internal armored belt all the way to the double-bottom to form an armored torpedo bulkhead. Although this armored bulkhead was substantially thinner than the belt armor it was joined to above, it was still very thick and rigid by comparison to the thin elastic bulkheads introduced by the Americans in 1915. Unfortunately, such bulkheads were too rigid and prone to displacement from their mountings, permitting flooding around them. Worse, in the Yamato’s case, a poorly designed and constructed joint between the armored belt and the torpedo bulkhead proved prone to failure and drove its supporting structure backward, puncturing the inboard holding bulkhead. In total, the vessels of the Yamato class contained 1,147 watertight compartments, of which 1,065 were beneath the armoured deck. However, the armour of the Yamato class still suffered from several shortcomings, many of which would prove fatal in 1944–45. In particular, poor jointing between the upper-belt and lower-belt armour created a weak-point just below the waterline, causing the class to be susceptible to air-dropped torpedoes. Other structural weaknesses existed near the bow of the vessels, where the armour plating was generally thinner. The US also employed this variety of TDS in fast battleships of the South Dakota and Iowa classes and came to the conclusion that the heavy bulkhead was too rigid, resulting in a modest down-grading of the system’s explosive resistance rating. http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-047.htm (http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-047.htm) I'll take a plywood PT boat thank you! :arrgh!:

[dashyr]

We got dashyr fooled now. Armistead, Wolferz, lets drag him into the Bilge and show him what we're really like.:arrgh!:

:o

*Crawls out of the thread*
*Snaps*

:wah:

[De Ruyter]

Mk 14s early war were criminally terrible at best. They ran deed, igniters failed, and had premature explosions. From what I understand, TMO doesn't quite model the true failure rate. If I remember right, Ducimus said he didn't want to model the failure rate historically accurate because it would make the game too frustrating.

I think SH1 got the failure rate right.:/\\!! Glad to know it may not be quite as bad in SH4. Since I am very new to SH4, I should probably not try Dud Torpedoes and manual targeting in the same campaign. Do the Mark 14's have a tendency to run deeper than set as the real ones did, or do they only fail to explode/premature explode? And is it good practice to set different depths for different types of ships? I think the manual has something about that, but I want to get advice from people who actually play the game.

[Hambone307]

The Mk14s do run deeper like the real-life counterparts. They also have issues with premature detonations when using the magnetic pistol, and have a tendency to malfunction when hitting a target at a 90* angle while using the impact pistol.

All of these issues is the reason that it was recommended to change tactics and hit the target at a 45* angle with the impact pistols and speed set to slow to minimize deformation of the firing rods in the warhead.

I usually approach my target at a 90* angle and prior to firing, I adjust my course to a 45* intercept. I then recalculate my firing solution, set torpedos to run about 10 feet shallower than the targets draft, impact pistols and slow speed if I feel that I can get away with the "track" not being seen early and the target evading.

On another note, I have been able to get quite a few successful detonations with the magnetic pistol within 800 yds. I just don't trust them confangled devices! :arrgh!:

[TorpX]

I think SH1 got the failure rate right.:/\\!! Glad to know it may not be quite as bad in SH4. Since I am very new to SH4, I should probably not try Dud Torpedoes and manual targeting in the same campaign. Do the Mark 14's have a tendency to run deeper than set as the real ones did, or do they only fail to explode/premature explode? And is it good practice to set different depths for different types of ships? I think the manual has something about that, but I want to get advice from people who actually play the game.

As Hambone said, different types of malfunctions are possible. The probabilities are changed in the various mods we use.

If you use RFB and RSRDC, I would recommend you use ISP 2.8. The RFB mod has the dud rate pretty high, so I dialed it back some in ISP 2.8.

As far as setting depth is concerned, I tend to error on the side of getting some kind of hit, as opposed to trying for the perfect hit. Imo, attempting to get torpedoes to explode 1 meter below the keel is an exercise in futility, and highly unrealistic. I guess a deeper impact hit was more damaging than a shallow one, but I don't think it matters much in the game.

[Majestik 909]

As Hambone said, different types of malfunctions are possible. The probabilities are changed in the various mods we use.

If you use RFB and RSRDC, I would recommend you use ISP 2.8. The RFB mod has the dud rate pretty high, so I dialed it back some in ISP 2.8.

As far as setting depth is concerned, I tend to error on the side of getting some kind of hit, as opposed to trying for the perfect hit. Imo, attempting to get torpedoes to explode 1 meter below the keel is an exercise in futility, and highly unrealistic. I guess a deeper impact hit was more damaging than a shallow one, but I don't think it matters much in the game.




Torpx - on my last attack, I looked at the specs for a T3 tanker online and discovered it had about 30 feet of draft, so I set depth for a deep shot, about 25 feet. I sank over 400,000 GRT on my last three year career and I must say this hit really did appear to do more damage.

[Majestik 909]

My thought on battleship design would be to build the hull in large sections, fully armored the entire circumfrence, that could later be bolted together (internally) to form a complete hull. Try blasting through a 16" continuous-thickness armor hull with a Mk14.

Watertight compartments and other systems could be added later.

[SilentPrey]

My thought on battleship design would be to build the hull in large sections, fully armored the entire circumfrence, that could later be bolted together (internally) to form a complete hull. Try blasting through a 16" continuous-thickness armor hull with a Mk14.

Watertight compartments and other systems could be added later.

Cost you a fortune in all-terrain tires so it could roll along the bottom. :D I'm no engineer but I'm pretty sure that you cannot displace enough water to compensate for that much metal. Especially not with the 35,000 ton treaty limit.

[Sailor Steve]

My thought on battleship design would be to build the hull in large sections, fully armored the entire circumfrence, that could later be bolted together (internally) to form a complete hull. Try blasting through a 16" continuous-thickness armor hull with a Mk14.

Watertight compartments and other systems could be added later.
A one-foot square of armor plate one inch thick weighs forty pounds. The British were in the habit of designating their armor using that weight as a baseline. One of the problems of armoring the hull at all is that enough weight will lower the waterline just enough that the top of the armor is below the waterline, and therefore useless.

The Japanese battleship Yamato was protected by an armored box running from the fore to the aft magazines, protecting those and the machinery spaces. It weighed 20,536 metric tons, 30.8% of the ship's entire weight, and more than the displacement of the 1906 HMS Dreadnought. It was 410mm (16.15") thick, and even then was only proof against its own shells at a range of 20,000 meters. Any closer and all that armor became less and less effective.

As you might have guessed, it's impossible to armor a ship from the deck to the keel along the entire length. The weight would sink the ship. This is a problem battleship designers have faced since the 1880s.

On top of that, I'm afraid that even if you could do it, it would be useless against torpedoes. It's not the torpedo's explosion that penetrates the side of the ship, it's the concussion, the shockwave created by the fact that water does not compress. No matter how thick, the armor will crack. This is why they have what are called "torpedo belts". The belt is not armored at all - it's a box filled with air and oil, both of which are more compressible. The outer wall will be crushed by the torpedo's concussion, but the effect will be displaced and the inner wall unaffected. That's the theory, at least.

You just can't make a ship that's proof against everything, and the guys who built the battleships knew that. What they had was the best that could be built.

[edit] Your idea of bolting sections together would add too much extra weight. One of Yamato's weight-saving schemes was the introduction of electric welding.

[TorpX]

Cost you a fortune in all-terrain tires so it could roll along the bottom. :D I'm no engineer but I'm pretty sure that you cannot displace enough water to compensate for that much metal. Especially not with the 35,000 ton treaty limit.


:haha:

Yeah, that's for sure.





On top of that, I'm afraid that even if you could do it, it would be useless against torpedoes. It's not the torpedo's explosion that penetrates the side of the ship, it's the concussion, the shockwave created by the fact that water does not compress. No matter how thick, the armor will crack.

A corollary to this is that, with a big enough hammer, you can break anything. And torpedoes are pretty big hammers.

I wish the SH game system had a more sophisticated damage model, so shock, fragmentation, penetration effects could be better simulated. :hmmm:

[Majestik 909]

Treaties? Limits? Hmmmmm.....I don't do well with limitations....LOL

Makes sense. I have always been somewhat extreme in real life, but your explanation makes sense.

[Majestik 909]

A one-foot square of armor plate one inch thick weighs forty pounds. The British were in the habit of designating their armor using that weight as a baseline. One of the problems of armoring the hull at all is that enough weight will lower the waterline just enough that the top of the armor is below the waterline, and therefore useless.

The Japanese battleship Yamato was protected by an armored box running from the fore to the aft magazines, protecting those and the machinery spaces. It weighed 20,536 metric tons, 30.8% of the ship's entire weight, and more than the displacement of the 1906 HMS Dreadnought. It was 410mm (16.15") thick, and even then was only proof against its own shells at a range of 20,000 meters. Any closer and all that armor became less and less effective.

As you might have guessed, it's impossible to armor a ship from the deck to the keel along the entire length. The weight would sink the ship. This is a problem battleship designers have faced since the 1880s.

On top of that, I'm afraid that even if you could do it, it would be useless against torpedoes. It's not the torpedo's explosion that penetrates the side of the ship, it's the concussion, the shockwave created by the fact that water does not compress. No matter how thick, the armor will crack. This is why they have what are called "torpedo belts". The belt is not armored at all - it's a box filled with air and oil, both of which are more compressible. The outer wall will be crushed by the torpedo's concussion, but the effect will be displaced and the inner wall unaffected. That's the theory, at least.

You just can't make a ship that's proof against everything, and the guys who built the battleships knew that. What they had was the best that could be built.

[edit] Your idea of bolting sections together would add too much extra weight. One of Yamato's weight-saving schemes was the introduction of electric welding.

Seems like a vent/baffle system to control and decelerate the hydrodynamic forces would be a good approach.

I have also pondered a double hull with water between the two halves, controlled by baffling and serving as ballast.

I find naval engineering fascinating. For many years I have been working to scale down a Typ XXIII u-boat and the details contained in the original blueprints truly are amazing.