Sinking vessels in rought weather.

[HW3]

Yes 300M is the arming distance for your torpedos.

[MENTAT]

Yeah i learned that the hard way also. 4 torps bounced of the hull simultaneously. But i wonder Is it the real value (300m) to arm a torpedo? in real life i think they are able to adjust it. Am i wrong?

[Alyebard]

Originally Posted by MENTAT

Yeah i learned that the hard way also. 4 torps bounced of the hull simultaneously. But i wonder Is it the real value (300m) to arm a torpedo? in real life i think they are able to adjust it. Am i wrong?

IMHO you are wrong, the torps armet itself with the little propeler in the nose, they need to move a certain amount of turns to arm the torpedo, more or less 300 meters of travel.

an iteresting article, not really about this item, but
http://www.uboat.net/history/torpedo_crisis.htm

[MENTAT]

Why 300m ? and why not 100m?

Whats the speciality of 300m to arm itself?

[Khayman]

Originally Posted by MENTAT

Why 300m ? and why not 100m?

Whats the speciality of 300m to arm itself?

Presumably 100m was not enough to ensure the safety of the sub if the torpedo went off prematurely. 300m was probably a safer number given that it's pretty pointless for a sub to blow itself up.

I think the actual German arming distance was 250 meters, but I'm not totally sure. US arming distance was 500 yards, or about 450m.

[Khayman]

If memory serves then Michael Gannon quoted above 300m as the arming distance, then later related how Hardegen closed to less than that and got a hit. He didn't explain the discrepancy in his figures. I'd have to check the book again to be sure but I'm drunk and I couldn't read a 50 foot signpost if it smacked me in the face.

[MENTAT]

Originally Posted by Khayman

Presumably 100m was not enough to ensure the safety of the sub if the torpedo went off prematurely. 300m was probably a safer number given that it's pretty pointless for a sub to blow itself up.

to blow itself up? if it goes up at 100m or 150m, will it waste its host sub? I dont think so! especially if you think Depth charges are barely effective in 50m?

Anyway aint a destroyer at 100m not more deadly?? I believe a pursuing destroyer could be hit easily with a stern torpedo as it never goes farther than a 150m perimeter in a bomb run..

I still wonder why 300m? and not 200m or 100m? That should have a better explanation than damaging the sub

[MENTAT]

Originally Posted by Alyebard

IMHO you are wrong, the torps armet itself with the little propeler in the nose, they need to move a certain amount of turns to arm the torpedo, more or less 300 meters of travel.

After a little search, I found out that newer torpedoes let their arming distances set.

How much newer? Later in the war? Modern?

Just curious.

[Hartmann]

It´s possible change or overide the safety measures for torpedos in Sh3 ??

Perhaps is for the circular pattern torpedoes or acoustics, but both are not modelled in silent hunter.

o´kane in the pacific was sunk by a faulty torpedo that made a turn against the sub

[MENTAT]

Originally Posted by sailor steve

How much newer? Later in the war? Modern?

Just curious.

modern times, the tordpedoes used in NSubs. But it indicates it was possible so why didnt they do that back in the war?

[mheil]

Sunk a ship in a bad storm where I had no visability 'cept real close (+/- 300m) I was able to sink him by following him submerged for a while and getting a real good plot of his position, speed and course. Then a sped ahead of him got into a good attack postion based on the above and made sure I would be about 600m from him. I waited submerged at 0 knots (sorry about that for you hardcore types out there) and used my hydrophone operator to tell me the bearing to target. Sighted this bearing in the periscope and BOOM! I fired 2 toprs and 1 hit. I thought the hydrophone operator's reported bearing would be a bit too astern as he is hearing noises from the prop, but based on where the torps went it looks like the bearing he game me was mid ships. It was a challenge doing it this way. The hard part was actually finding the ship in the first place!

[Khayman]

In "Operation Drumbeat" by Micheal Gannon he says that the fear of every torpedo mixer was that;

"Theoretically it was possible that when water rushed into the torpedo tubes before launching that the flow against the pistol propeller could activate the device that controlled the torpedo's safety run and cause the eel to arm itself while still in the tube. In which case maybe - boom!. No more drinks at the Cafe les Trois Soeurs"

So even if it was possible to set a shorter arming time, your crew would probably tell you where to go.

[robj250]

Originally Posted by mheil

Sunk a ship in a bad storm where I had no visability 'cept real close (+/- 300m) I was able to sink him by following him submerged for a while and getting a real good plot of his position, speed and course. Then a sped ahead of him got into a good attack postion based on the above and made sure I would be about 600m from him. I waited submerged at 0 knots (sorry about that for you hardcore types out there) and used my hydrophone operator to tell me the bearing to target. Sighted this bearing in the periscope and BOOM! I fired 2 toprs and 1 hit. I thought the hydrophone operator's reported bearing would be a bit too astern as he is hearing noises from the prop, but based on where the torps went it looks like the bearing he game me was mid ships. It was a challenge doing it this way. The hard part was actually finding the ship in the first place!

A really rough sea make it almost impossible to sight in a target, you see it and get ready to fire then water flows over the periscope and it's gone, can't get a shot off. It's almost impossible to sink anything cause you keep loosing the target and as there are several targets that are the same, ie: T3 Tankers, you don't know which one you fired the torpedo at and got an impact and the ships are scattering, so you don't know which T3 it was that you hit so that you can hit it again. AAAAGH!!!