Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
ChiefBlueMeanie

Kamikazi torpedo bombers

37 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
73 posts
9,428 battles

So, I was just playing a T4/5 game and an opposition torpedo dive bomber swooped down to my Konigsburg so steeply that he didn't seem able to recover. 
He dropped his torp so close to my ship that there was nothing I could do to evade. He must've been within a few hundred meters (game distance)
He dropped his torp. Then crashed into the sea. Between his torp and my ship. The torp hit my ship a few seconds later. 

If this wasn't a Kamikazi effort, I don't know what was. Except for diving onto my ship, he couldn't have crashed closer. 
First time that I've seen this kind of game play. 
Unless this is fixed, our AA needs to be substantially increased. Just like it was in WW2, when kamikazis became a serious threat. 
By that I mean, our ability to seriously increase our AA for free, on our ships, needs to be made available. 

Some additional premium time would be good also. To compensate for the mess, that the game has become this week. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
10,784 posts
16,196 battles

 

AA is actually too strong currently and will be tuned down a bit in a week or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,914 posts
9,576 battles

How much damage did the torpedo hit do? Probably not so much, and flooding has also just been nerfed, so getting hit isn't so bad. 

 

The problem is that players aren't used to just taking torp damage, we've all been frantically dodging dev strikes for years, so just tanking the damage feels unnatural. However the CV rework is based around your having to do so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
4,508 posts
11,466 battles
7 minutes ago, ChiefBlueMeanie said:

So, I was just playing a T4/5 game and an opposition torpedo dive bomber swooped down to my Konigsburg so steeply that he didn't seem able to recover. 
He dropped his torp so close to my ship that there was nothing I could do to evade. He must've been within a few hundred meters (game distance)
He dropped his torp. Then crashed into the sea. Between his torp and my ship. The torp hit my ship a few seconds later. 

If this wasn't a Kamikazi effort, I don't know what was. Except for diving onto my ship, he couldn't have crashed closer. 
First time that I've seen this kind of game play. 
Unless this is fixed, our AA needs to be substantially increased. Just like it was in WW2, when kamikazis became a serious threat. 
By that I mean, our ability to seriously increase our AA for free, on our ships, needs to be made available. 

Some additional premium time would be good also. To compensate for the mess, that the game has become this week. 

1. I don't think a torpedo released this close would arm.

2. Planes falling down are a purely cosmetic effect, even if one were to land squarely on your ship, there would be no additional effect.

3. The torpedo bomber falling into the water means that it was shot down (if not by your AA then by one of your allies) showing that AA does work.

4. Kamikaze attacks never were a serious threat, especially after they became a "tactic". The reason for that is because to perform a successful Kamikaze attack you'd need a competent pilot, preferably in a decent plane fitted with explosives. However, both decent planes and - especially - competent pilots are much too precious to waste in this manner, so the planned kamikaze attacks were performed by undertrained pilots who were forced to throw their lives away in outdated machines with hardly any combat potential otherwise. The increase in AA power was a response to conventional aviation threat (both land- and carrier-based) and NOT to kamikaze attacks in particular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
4,508 posts
11,466 battles
23 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

How much damage did the torpedo hit do? Probably not so much, and flooding has also just been nerfed, so getting hit isn't so bad. 

 

The problem is that players aren't used to just taking torp damage, we've all been frantically dodging dev strikes for years, so just tanking the damage feels unnatural. However the CV rework is based around your having to do so. 

Imagine yourself in your shiny battleship, well above 50% hp still remaining. Suddenly, from the side... a wild unavoidable spread of 4 torpedoes!

"Please let it be from a plane."

The difference between losing at most about 1/3 of your hp even if you catch them all + MAYBE suffering flooding... and - in case it's NOT a plane - kissing your stern goodbye and going to chat to rage about OP torps congratulate the enemy Yugumo on a devastating strike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XTREM]
[XTREM]
Players
495 posts
10,622 battles
28 minutes ago, eliastion said:

4. Kamikaze attacks never were a serious threat, especially after they became a "tactic". The reason for that is because to perform a successful Kamikaze attack you'd need a competent pilot, preferably in a decent plane fitted with explosives. However, both decent planes and - especially - competent pilots are much too precious to waste in this manner, so the planned kamikaze attacks were performed by undertrained pilots who were forced to throw their lives away in outdated machines with hardly any combat potential otherwise. The increase in AA power was a response to conventional aviation threat (both land- and carrier-based) and NOT to kamikaze attacks in particular.

 

This isn't entirely true. In the grand scheme of things, the Kamikaze had little impact, this is fact.

However, to say they were not a serious threat to shipping is false, and the USN took them seriously enough that the venerable Bofors 40mm were phased out in favour of the 3″/50 caliber gun Mk. 22, not new but now adapted to an automatic loading design(you can see these on Des Moines and Wooster), backed up by Oerlikons. Indeed, you have several ships severely damaged thanks to Kamikaze or lost outright. 

 

This updated Mk.22 was adopted for, among other reasons, the fact that it's larger, more powerful shells could not only knock out, but destroy outright incoming subsonic aircraft with even greater efficiency, reducing the chance Kamikaze attacks or large, intact debris hits the ship. This gun was among the best, if not THE best in the business in this regard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,914 posts
9,576 battles

You've not looked at the list. Formidable, Indomitable, Indefatigable.... although none of them got as clobbered as HMAS Australia. That's a bad few days, right there:

 

 

Australia.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
73 posts
9,428 battles

OK, so I know the difference between a bomb and a torpedo. 

A bomb, doesn't leave a wake. Travel fast beneath the surface, then splat! 

I was sure the torp was launched too close also. So, I was shocked when it exploded. 

Can't recall how much damage it did. It sank the ship. 

I had a few seconds to see the torpedo bomber fly towards my ship. Then it dived steeply, 

then it released the torp. Then it hit the sea, between where the torp entered the water and

my ship. 

It didn't look like it had been hit at all. Do damaged planes show damage? Same as ships? 

There wasn’t another ship close enough to have shot it down and the konigsburg has awful AA. 

(at least mine does) 

The torp only travelled for about three seconds, so I had no time to take evasive action. 

Who's to say, it wasn't a developer testing some aspect of game play? 

Whomever it was, they looked like they knew exactly what they were doing.

Make of it what you will. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
73 posts
9,428 battles
3 hours ago, invicta2012 said:

How much damage did the torpedo hit do? Probably not so much, and flooding has also just been nerfed, so getting hit isn't so bad. 

 

The problem is that players aren't used to just taking torp damage, we've all been frantically dodging dev strikes for years, so just tanking the damage feels unnatural. However the CV rework is based around your having to do so. 

That's a collection of geriatric shoe makers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,914 posts
9,576 battles
8 minutes ago, ChiefBlueMeanie said:

That's a collection of geriatric shoe makers.

 

At Tier VI, the Ranger's torpedo bombers do a maximum of 5.5k damage per hit. That's 1/3rd of the damage caused by a torp hit from an equivalent Tier VI DD. Fubuki does 15,600 per torp, Monaghan 16.5k, Icarus 15k. You are supposed to tank the damage.  I know it's weird, but that's how they've designed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TSCC]
Players
1,767 posts
20,155 battles
1 hour ago, fallenkezef said:

 

None of them where British carriers :cap_rambo:

 

HMS Indefatigable, HMS Indomitable, HMS Victorious and HMS Formidable were hit by Kamikaze planes.

 

Kam_3299999b.jpg

 

British carrier HMS Formidable moments before and after it is hit by a Kamikaze, May 4th 1945. (Fleet Air Arm Museum)

 

?format=750w

 

HMS Formidable vanishes behind an eruption of fire and smoke after a kamikaze and its 500lb bomb struck the armoured flight deck amidships. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BHSFL]
[BHSFL]
Players
1,925 posts

When commencing the attack run the torpedo need time to arm. If you begin it too close to the target the torpedo will speed through the water but never detonate on your ship.

 

Happens a lot to me because realeasing at the latest moment corrects some of the accuracy nerfs. Same goes for divebombers.....a lot of players were saved damage because the timer ran out waiting untill the planes already pull out of the dive and the bombs almost cannot miss. Like the feeleing of ramming bombs through the deck by accumulated dive speed  too..... I know i can put assets into it, will see if that improves what i can do.

 

I guess i am not the oly one doing this, so you will more often hear aicraft screaming toward you but not explosions. Then again if it does hit waiting untill the last moment, it hits well. Got 7 citadels in 1 match....which do appalling low damage, sadly.

 

Having Ohka flying bombs in game, is that something for you ? -)))  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yokosuka_MXY-7_Ohka

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOO]
Players
1,788 posts
1,673 battles
15 hours ago, fumtu said:

 

HMS Indefatigable, HMS Indomitable, HMS Victorious and HMS Formidable were hit by Kamikaze planes.

 

Kam_3299999b.jpg

 

British carrier HMS Formidable moments before and after it is hit by a Kamikaze, May 4th 1945. (Fleet Air Arm Museum)

 

?format=750w

 

HMS Formidable vanishes behind an eruption of fire and smoke after a kamikaze and its 500lb bomb struck the armoured flight deck amidships. 

 

You know it did minor damage right?

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TSCC]
Players
1,767 posts
20,155 battles
20 minutes ago, fallenkezef said:

You know it did minor damage right?

 

Quote

The detonation of the bomb blew a 2-by-2-foot (0.6 by 0.6 m) hole in the flight deck. It killed 2 officers and 6 ratings, wounding 55 other crewmen. A fragment from the flight deck armour penetrated the hangar deck armour and passed through the centre boiler uptakes, the centre boiler room itself, and an oil tank before it came to rest in the inner bottom. The fragment severed the steam pipes in the centre boiler room and forced its evacuation, cutting the ship's speed to 14 knots (26 km/h; 16 mph). The blast on the flight deck blew the Avenger closest to it over the side and set another one on fire. Shrapnel from the blast peppered the island, causing the bulk of the casualties, and severed many electrical cables, including those for most of the ship's radars.[54] The fires on the flight deck and in the hangar were extinguished by 11:55, and seven Avengers and a Corsair which were damaged beyond repair were dumped over the side. The bomb struck at the intersection of three armour plates and dented the plates over an area 20 by 24 feet (6.1 by 7.3 m). The dent was filled by wood and concrete and covered by thin steel plates tack-welded to the deck so that she was able to operate aircraft by 17:00 and steam at a speed of 24 knots (44 km/h; 28 mph). Thirteen of her Corsairs had been airborne at the time of the attack and they operated from the other carriers for a time. The damage to the boiler room and its steam pipes was repaired so that the centre boilers could be reconnected to the engines at 02:00 the next day.

 

The bombardment significantly reduced Japanese aerial activity on 5 May, although several of Formidable's Corsairs, temporarily operating from her sister Victorious, shot down a Japanese reconnaissance aircraft at an altitude of 30,000 feet (9,100 m). That evening the fleet withdrew to refuel and was back on station on 8 May although heavy rains forced the cancellation of the planned air strikes. On 9 May, another kamikaze pilot, Yoshinari Kurose, penetrated the CAP at low altitude and crashed his plane into Formidable's flight deck and deck park at 17:05. The impact did little damage to the ship, but caused an explosion and large fire that destroyed 18 of her aircraft. One crewman, Petty Officer George Hinkins, was killed and four were wounded. The carrier was able to resume operations fifty minutes later, but with only four Avengers and eleven Corsairs still serviceable. Rawlings decided to immediately withdraw to give Victorious and Formidable more time to make repairs and to replenish their depleted air groups. He also revised the deployment of the BPF to counter the new low-level tactics of the Japanese by stationing the battleships and cruisers closer to the carriers, keeping the carriers closer together, and positioning radar picket cruisers in the most likely directions of attack.

 

While ship itself didn't suffer extensive damage she lost 9 crew members killed and lost large number of planes. HMS Formidable continue operations with remaining planes but was soon sent for repairs to Sydney.

 

Also not all USN ships were crippled by Kamikaze hits. On 6th January cruiser USS Columbia was hit by Kamikaze while she was conducting offshore bombardments. 

 

Kamikaze_hits_USS_Columbia_(CL-56)_in_Li

 

She nevertheless continue with her mission. Even when couple of days latter, on 9th January, she was hit again with even greater loss of life she continue with support of landing troops. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DAVY]
Players
267 posts
14,038 battles
20 hours ago, ChiefBlueMeanie said:

Unless this is fixed, our AA needs to be substantially increased.

So, let me get this straight. You were attacked by a torpedo bomber - one bomber, so he was tier 4 - and you shot him down, but because he was able to release his torpedo and hit you, you want AA to be increased. Substantially increased.

 

Answer me this: since you obviously want carriers to be unable to attack even isolated, highly damaged targets - which you obviously were, since you were sunk - what exactly do you expect carriers to have left that they can do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
73 posts
9,428 battles
On 2/9/2019 at 2:17 PM, Rosletyne said:

So, let me get this straight. You were attacked by a torpedo bomber - one bomber, so he was tier 4 - and you shot him down, but because he was able to release his torpedo and hit you, you want AA to be increased. Substantially increased.

 

Answer me this: since you obviously want carriers to be unable to attack even isolated, highly damaged targets - which you obviously were, since you were sunk - what exactly do you expect carriers to have left that they can do?

I'll use smaller words this time. 
I DID NOT shoot the torpedo plane down, as far as I know. I said this already. 
I was attacked by more than one plane, but only one plane launched a torpedo, that I could see. 
I did not say what you claim in your second paragraph. (sorry, big words there) 
You have made this up for some reason. PLEASE do not MISQUOTE. 
I have no problem with carriers doing what they're supposed to do. I don't take the game THAT seriously. 
But, when a plane launches a torpedo at extreme close range and it OUGHT not to have armed before it struck my ship, but did and sank it, then something 
has changed with how the game operates and instead of torpedoes being approximately realistic, they are able to do things that no torpedo was ever able to 
do in real life. And, no ship has any chance of evading torpedoes used in this way.
So, WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU EXPECT SHIPS TO HAVE LEFT, THAT THEY CAN DO?  (RHETORICAL. Look it up, if you don't understand it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DAVY]
Players
267 posts
14,038 battles
17 hours ago, ChiefBlueMeanie said:

I DID NOT shoot the torpedo plane down, as far as I know. I said this already.

In fact you already said that you did shoot it down. You described how it crashed in the water, and said there was no one else close enough to have shot it down. Therefore it had to be you. Since you seem very confused, it is possible that you were simply wrong and there was another ship close enough, but what you in fact said was that the plane was shot down, and it could only have been you.

 

17 hours ago, ChiefBlueMeanie said:

I did not say what you claim in your second paragraph.

Yes you did. You said there was no other ship close enough to shoot down that plane, so you were isolated. You said you were sunk, and since the damage from a single aerial torpedo is low, you must have been badly damaged. And since you're here complaining about it and demanding AA to be substantially increased, you must not want carriers to be able to strike isolated, badly damaged targets.

 

17 hours ago, ChiefBlueMeanie said:

You have made this up for some reason. PLEASE do not MISQUOTE.

I did not make any of it up. You said all of it yourself.

 

17 hours ago, ChiefBlueMeanie said:

I have no problem with carriers doing what they're supposed to do. I don't take the game THAT seriously.

Then why are you here complaining about it?

 

17 hours ago, ChiefBlueMeanie said:

But, when a plane launches a torpedo at extreme close range and it OUGHT not to have armed before it struck my ship, but did and sank it, then something has changed with how the game operates and instead of torpedoes being approximately realistic, they are able to do things that no torpedo was ever able to do in real life. And, no ship has any chance of evading torpedoes used in this way.

Nothing has changed. You were simply wrong about the torpedo arming distance. And they both could do that in real life, and did.

 

17 hours ago, ChiefBlueMeanie said:

So, WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU EXPECT SHIPS TO HAVE LEFT, THAT THEY CAN DO?

You said you saw the plane flying toward you for a few seconds. You said the torpedo hit you after about three seconds in the water. And you claim you had no time for evasive action? By your own admission, you had at least several seconds! You could have turned your rudder, changed your speed, you could even have used your sector reinforcement and probably shoot the plane down before it dropped its torpedo. There are many things you could have done. Did you do any of them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
73 posts
9,428 battles

My time is more important than getting into a he said, she said with you. You sound like the type of person who could have an argument when locked in a room by yourself. 
If you're going to misquote and make baseless assumptions, its impossible to have a grown-up discussion with you. 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ONE2]
Players
2,884 posts
16,844 battles
On 2/8/2019 at 6:07 PM, ChiefBlueMeanie said:

That's definitely going to help! :Smile_veryhappy:

Well, since the planes used for Kamikaze tended to be mostly Fighter aircraft and since the Japanese never really developed rocket armament for their planes during WW2. It would make sense to me to give IJN CV's this option instead of rocket planes. Of course, they would have to be more vulnerable to AA, but in return cause massive damage and a 100% fire chance for every hit in return. That would seem like an interesting alternative to me. And of course, always 100% plane losses every time this attack is used regardless of, whether it succeeds or not. Would also nicely and definitely differentiate IJN CV's character from the others. :cap_hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WTFNO]
Players
390 posts
6,850 battles
14 minutes ago, ChiefBlueMeanie said:

My time is more important than getting into a he said, she said with you. You sound like the type of person who could have an argument when locked in a room by yourself. 
If you're going to misquote and make baseless assumptions, its impossible to have a grown-up discussion with you. 

Well, you could pull out the replay so we could see where exactly you mixed up things, but honestly, you don't seem really interested anyway.

So, goodbye, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,486 posts
2,654 battles
10 minutes ago, RAHJAILARI said:

Well, since the planes used for Kamikaze tended to be mostly Fighter aircraft and since the Japanese never really developed rocket armament for their planes during WW2. It would make sense to me to give IJN CV's this option instead of rocket planes. Of course, they would have to be more vulnerable to AA, but in return cause massive damage and a 100% fire chance for every hit in return. That would seem like an interesting alternative to me. :cap_hmm:

My guess is that the whole kamikaze phenomenon is just a bit too sensitive a subject, for it to ever be incorporated as a mechanic in this game. As for the real kamikaze attacks, I can imagine that their greatest effect was probably the damage they did to enemy morale. It must be sickeningly scary to be targeted by an enemy who is quite literally setting himself up to die, in order to get you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×