Re: Uber T2s - does anyone else have them?
 

Been there.

Just looking for confirmation.

;)

According to the original Campaign_RND.mis file, there are _no_ tankers with a CargoInt=-1, so I believe it is not valid. In either case, -1 is not why they may seem to sink easier before IC, because, well, the stock game didn't use -1 either.

Re: Uber T2s - does anyone else have them?
 

I know, but just because the devs didn´t use it doesn´t mean that it´s not going to work! smile I´ll try it out, maybe I get some good results.

Re: Uber T2s - does anyone else have them?
 

Currently, it's in an eastbound convoy that made its way ENE through BE38, BE39 and BF14 in June 1940

In a previous March 1940 patrol, it was an eastbound convoy going ESE through AM17, AM18 and AM29.

Re: Uber T2s - does anyone else have them?
 

And here are the results. I´ve repeated each test three times. I´ve always aimed at the same spot, the forward mast of a T2, and used a single T-II torpedo, depth 4m.

Freight: Nothing, speed went down from 5 knots to 3, no prominent flooding.
Fuel: Dead.
No cargo: Same as freight.

Same test with a salvo of two torps, no spread. Same results.

"-1" does nothing.

Why would a tanker be hauling freight instead of fuel, anyway?

Re: Uber T2s - does anyone else have them?
 

Yes they are.
There is enough historic evidence that tankers were very though taregets, that were seldom sunk by one torpedo.
First of all their construction (the actual tanks) give them good boyancy and excellent compartimentation (if that's an English word but you understand what I mean).
Furthermore, if their cargo was crude oil - which it often was although I don't know the percentages - it was very difficult to ignite. The oil from the US had to be thoroughly refined before it could be used in combusting engines. High octane Avgas was of course a different proposition, though.
The situation in the Pacific was really different. The oil from the Dutch Indies, Sumatra and Borneo, was much smoother and of a higher quality (higher octane level). It took little or no refining to make it usable in diesel engines. Therefore Japanese tankers used to explode and burn on impact of the first torpedo.

For your information and for what it's worth: I usually find a weak spot of tankers in the aft quarter of their hull, the engine room or slightly forward of it.

Re: Uber T2s - does anyone else have them?
 

Your assumption about US tankers loading crude oil from USA are true only to an extent. If they were fully loaded, they were hard to ignite. But if they were something less than fully loaded, they were as easy to burn as lighters because the flammable gas the oil produces and fills any non-liquid-filled space in an oil loaded tank.

There were multiple instances in real life of tankers loaded with crude oil turning into hellish infernos with just one hit by U-boats. There are also multiple instances of tankers taking a lot of punishment and surviving to make it into port, too.


In the game, with RuB, I have T2s and T3s as my first targets when finding convoys (most convoys I found so far in RuB are doing the inbound route anyway so they are loaded for sure). Roughly 75% of them go off with just one hit aimed immediately before the aft superstructure. But if I happen to hit a tanker which won't blow up with a single impact in that place, I don't fire any more torpedoes to her because I know that it will take at least 3 or 4 fishes to get her under ,and if there are more easy targets nearby I'd rather try to sink them instead.


One quite funny thing I always think when I read this kind of threads is how the C2s are thought as being the most though ships around...when I find that most of them take just one fish to blow up and sink if hit just under their funnel... and in any case, no one of them has survived two of my torpedoes. I just aim the first one under the funnel. If the C2 doesn't break (and usually she does), I fire another pointed towards the aft mast.

The massive flooding in the machinery spaces caused by the first torpedo makes the ship get low on the water, and 99% of times brings the ship to a total stop. The torpedo hit on the aft part of the ship increases the flooding on the aft side of the ship, and with no forward motion this guarantees the kill for the ship will certainly sink sooner or later.

Everyone has different experiences, it seems.

I've had both T2s and C2s that won't go down, although C2 is more common for me. I've run across T2s that take two or three torpedos to go under, too, though. I still target troop ships, T3s, T2s, C3s, C2s in that order, though, as most everyone else does.

Of course in real life I'm sure you'd fire two or four torpedos at each target to ensure a kill. I doubt many commanders were willing to risk loss of ship and crew to save a few torpedos and maximize kills. Especially since in the real war, early on, so many ships were of so many different classes. I don't think there was any magic spot for 90% kill ratios on anything. Of course there are probably obvious places like the keel, but you get the idea.

:up:

I can confirm that Clive's torpedo is very nice. :up: Don't feel über at all, but don't have this 4-5 torpedo "firerange" situation with some C2's.

And for The Avon Lady: I have not had any difficulties with T2's, only C2's. Im using Rub 1.43.

Re: Uber T2s - does anyone else have them?
 

You are right that some tankers with crude oil went up in flames.
However, I have the impression - but it is not more than that - that those tankers were hit in their own bunkers, thatof course were partially empty. It doesn't make sense to me to send tankers across the Atlantic that were not loaded up to capacity.
Another factor is of course that quite a lot of tankers had refined oil derivatives on board. Curaçao for instance was renowned for having the biggest natural harbour and the biggest oil refinery in the Caribean. A lot of South American oil was refined there and consequently shipped to the fronts. Those ships were of course extremely prone to explode and/or burn after a torpedo hit.

I feel all this has not been thoroughly represented in the game. Perhaps one third or half of all tankers should burn like a bonfire, the rest should be as tough as all seem to be now.
But again, I don't have percentages.

Since there aren't enough cargoes in the game, I like to use the freight cargo with tankers in the mission builder to represent vessels carrying non-flammable cargoes like inert chemicals and molasses. I also think that some types of oil were extremely difficult to ignite, making it inappropriate to use the "fuel" setting for them.

As for getting them to sink, I've found that aiming for a space below the t-2's main deck almost always works, as long as the vessel's loaded. If you hit the ship underneath the superstructure it will almost never sink - even if it's loaded - because the machinery spaces and stores would have been located there. The main deck, OTOH, usually covers the main tank sections.

I would appreciate if a new separate thread about these torpedoes be open and discussed on the SH3 Mods forum section. This could be interesting and lead to educated conclusions as to whether it improves the game's realism or does just the opposite.
As I said, with RUb 1.43, I have had some T2s go down in a flash but I've encountered many more that behave like or worse than the game's C2s.

Based on the modder's discussions on this thread maybe or maybe not some tweaking should or shouldn't be done for a future update to convoy settings.

If I understand the modders correctly, the jury is still out on this one.

My exeprience is that outbound T2's to US is hard to sink (2 or more torp to sink), but inbound to UK is easy to sink 1 torp under keel and fireworks all over the place.

Well, sometimes I have the same problem, like the Avon Lady. T2s just dont want to go to the bottom.

Hi Avon Lady. There already is a thread of a sort in the mods section:

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopi...876&highlight=

Perhaps we should shift the discussion there.