One Torpedo, One Ship?

[ERPP8]

It all depends.
Factors like ship size, depth, place of impact and now torpedoes that use their unspent fuel as extra explosives.

[Frederf]

Absolutely delightful bit of knowledge, Platypus!

It really takes only one look at a YouTube video of a real MK14 hitting home to see how powerful they really were. The graphics in Silent Hunter don't really do justice to the violence of it. An un-compartmentalized merchant ship without some exotic cargo (cork, etc.) hit in a reasonable place... one should do in the majority of cases. Multiple shots have mostly to do with problems in torpedo reliability, errors in aiming, and maneuvers by the enemy.

Every single (merchant) ship I've hit with a single torpedo in GWX has sunk without fail.

[V.C. Sniper]

Yeah, that one merchant that was hit by a torpex equiped MK14/MK18 looked like it literally disintegrated into a cloud of black particles.

[Kaleun_Endrass]

@Frederf, @V.C. Sniper:
Does one of you have a youtube link for the MK14 torpedoe explosion? Can find torpedo tests on decommissioned destroyers only... Thanks.

[Arclight]

Platapus, Steve (Stewie ): would it be correct to assume that an explosive with a lower Brisance is more effective when it comes to keel shots, i.e. lifting the ship out of the water in order to "break it's back"?

[Snow White Sorrow]

Originally Posted by ReFaN

done it once or twice, but after you hit something you would probably die very quick from the Merchants guns :P

I love to slip in at night, stormy seas, or bad weather and fire torpedoes literally in all directions at once.

In those conditions (<600 yards visibility) the game does not allow auto target tracking so its pure manual TDC work, and draw your own paper plot.

Skulk around, plot convoy formation (hope they don't zigzag or you'll likely get rammed without warning), fire on bearing beyond visual range.

[Frederf]

Originally Posted by Kaleun_Endrass

@Frederf, @V.C. Sniper:
Does one of you have a youtube link for the MK14 torpedoe explosion? Can find torpedo tests on decommissioned destroyers only... Thanks.

If you're watching this video: I think that isn't a MK14. I think that's a much more modern (and powerful) torpedo. I could be wrong but that's my impression.

Try this one at 1:39
4:01 and 6:21

[Sailor Steve]

Oh yeah. Saw that one years ago. Not a Mk 14 at all. At the very least a Mk 48 'homer'.

[ryanglavin]

In My GWX 3.0 experience, hitting everything up to The Whale Factory ship will sink with a single hit to the bow, albeit if not after 45minutes-3 hours.
IF you hit tankers in the bow, they disintegrate.

[tater]

I went through that u-boat database when this subject came up before, and found that the number of fish required to sink ships of similar sizes was actually MORE for german torpedoes in most cases compared to the Mark 14. ( I also went through every single US submarine torpedo attack of the war and made a database of them).

It was not at all the answer I expected, but it's what the reports/narratives spit out if you start counting up 1 hit sinkings vs 2 or more.

The guy I was arguing with, BTW, counted ships that made it back to port, but were written off as losses a "sinking" to try and bolster his 1 hit, 1 sinking notions. Not so, writing a hull off is an economic decision, allies were making so many hulls, repair cost more than scrapping (just like remodeling costs are more [per ft^2 than new builds for houses).

Some links:
Below link I compared warship attacks, virtually no difference in numbers of fish to sink between u-boat and fleet boat attacks that matters.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...2&postcount=53


Below, I compared Hog Islander sized targets, and the US sinking rate with only 1 hit was 88%.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...1&postcount=67

The German rate (from u-boat.net) to ALL attacks on Hog Islanders was 94% successfully attacked were sunk. Since it gives no fish count, that 6% difference accounts for attacks with 2 fish, AND deck guns added in. Even if you assume none were every attacked or hit with more than 1 fish, and none were ever attacked with the DG, that difference is well within chance (or sea state differences between the N Atlantic and PTO).

I later went through all the narratives for the hog islander attacks and figured out the hits per sinking:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...6&postcount=74

ONly 50% sank with 1 hit compared to 88% of jap ships of similar tonnage (I actually counted ships larger than the hog islanders, too, since most of the similar jap ships were slightly larger than that).

For late war, I checked Liberty Ship stats, I read every Liberty Ship attack u-boat narrative and:

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)

[java`s revenge]

Originally Posted by Frederf

If you're watching this video: I think that isn't a MK14. I think that's a much more modern (and powerful) torpedo. I could be wrong but that's my impression.

Try this one at 1:39
4:01 and 6:21

Many thanks for the second link, very interesting

[utops]

Hello.
I just want add some tip for GWX eel settings.
IF ship is in hurry, place eel near bow
- Thats how to turn surface vessel in to submarine,works in most cases...
Warships can resist that trick.... i don`t know for sure,because warships in GWX is real rare thing to encounter.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Arclight

Platapus, Steve (Stewie ): would it be correct to assume that an explosive with a lower Brisance is more effective when it comes to keel shots, i.e. lifting the ship out of the water in order to "break it's back"?

Yes

What you would want in order to move all that water out of the way is a longer explosive pulse. This is where the Aluminum powder comes in (it "burns" longer). This combined with a lower Brisance explosive would tend to "propel" the water out. The explosive wave of a higher Brisance explosive will tend to be absorbed by the inertia of the water. This one of the reasons why underwater demolitions often involves different explosive compounds than above water demolitions.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

This is where I disagree. It's my understanding (I've read some actual sources but don't have them handy right now, so "it's my understanding" is as far as I will commit right now) that tests were done during the First World War that concluded that hardened armor isn't really more resistant to a torpedo hit than mild steel. The armor was designed to resist 'point hit's from a shell coming in at supersonic speeds. What did help a little was the fact that the armor was much thicker than the usual 1/4-to-1/2 inch steel plates found on destroyers up through merchants, but the very weight of the armor meant that it couldn't be very wide, usually ending just a few feet below the waterline. This left the lower hull exposed, and toward the end of World War 1 the British started experimenting with TDS (Torpedo Defense Systems). These usually consisted of a 'bulge' of mild steel which was filled with some liquid, allowing the torpedo to rupture the bulge and not reach the hull. The magnetic detonator was originally created to counter that, since the bulge itself couldn't be made to wrap around the bottom of the ship.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-047.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-torpedo_bulge

Absolutely! The science of designing armour plating is a most complex topic. Similarly to explosives (in that there is no best for all purposes) there is no "best" armour composition. What pretty much everyone learned during WWI is that it is not simply a matter of finding the "strongest" metal compositions and then increasing the thickness.

Armour plating needs to be designed to resist a particular type of attack.

Against hardened armour piercing ordnance, thicker more dense armour is good.

Against explosives, less dense armour that can flex is good.

This is actually a criminally oversimplified explanation of an incredibly complex topic of armour design and construction.

Actually armour is made up of layers with different metals as distinct layers with other layers made of different metal compounds. It is an interesting topic.

I am afraid I am more familiar with blowing stuff up than designing stuff to resist being blown up. But excellent points Steve.

One can't discuss the effectiveness of torpedoes without taking into effect the hull/armour compositions.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by utops

Hello.
I just want add some tip for GWX eel settings.
IF ship is in hurry, place eel near bow
- Thats how to turn surface vessel in to submarine,works in most cases...
Warships can resist that trick.... i don`t know for sure,because warships in GWX is real rare thing to encounter.

Is that because the impetus of the ship's movement will force more water into the ship?

Does GWX model that?