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.

@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!

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.

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:

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". ;)

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.

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?

[quote=tater]

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://img81.imageshack.us/img81/215sh2.jpg/1/w735.png

quote]

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

from : http://www.grossepointenews.com/Arti...o_sinking.html

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/3396/h62582ru9.jpg
http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/h...jpg/1/w590.png

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

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.

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

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.

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.

@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!