Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
11th_Hussars

Implacable Torp Bomber OP

22 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[DSWE]
Players
2 posts
2,717 battles

I just finished a co op game in Bismark for the; 450 secondary hits mission. I was closing in on the Implacable dodging torps on the way 21k of health left, I thought that one would hit me but their torp bomber which do 5933 max dmg. So I should be able to survive a couple of hits allowing for cosumable timings etc. I caught one on the bow and exploded for 21331 dmg :cap_wander_2: ,thats a bit strong I thought any ideas how a 6k trop does 21k dmg ?

Thanks :cap_like:

shot-19.11.17_12.55.21-0740.jpg

shot-19.11.17_12.55.48-0467.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6,443 posts
245 battles

'We've been ammoracked!'

 

Wish she did that much damage, would be ez den.

 

But yeah your ammorack most likely blew up and ship went to thanos heaven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BOBS3]
Players
979 posts
17,216 battles

1001994621_ImplacableTorpBombers.thumb.png.18ce03c2f2ebad04b95fc958284a4d16.png

As you will see from the screenshot the maximum torpedo damage from a Implacable Torpedo bomber is 5933hp which is pathetic.

So the contributors above must be correct when they say that you were detonated by one torpedo to get the 21331hp damage.

 

If you think otherwise please post the replay so we, the forum, can check.

Edited by Cambera_1
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-RM-]
Beta Tester
2,012 posts
7,981 battles

I always wondered how Detonations are missed. You get a big symbol in the "medal" feed with a ship exploding, the icon in the kill feed is an explosion, in the chat it says "xxx player detonation" and after the game you get flags for it. So how do people still miss that?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BIF]
Players
292 posts
4,190 battles
4 minutes ago, ollonborre said:

I always wondered how Detonations are missed. You get a big symbol in the "medal" feed with a ship exploding, the icon in the kill feed is an explosion, in the chat it says "xxx player detonation" and after the game you get flags for it. So how do people still miss that?

He was in coop. No medal there, just the notice in the kill feed. No chat message either, if i remember right.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BBMMX]
Players
1,028 posts
5,249 battles
2 minutes ago, 11th_Hussars said:

Ok I had a detonation, makes sense I've never had it on a BB before.  Thanks all for your time :cap_like:

 

I remember when I got my Scharnhorst I'd read lots of stuff about how tanky it could be so imagine my surprise when in my third battle I was detonated through the bow by a Musashi. :Smile_unsure:

 

I've learned a lot since then and now I can get detonated from nearly every angle in any ship. :Smile_great:

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
85 posts
3,707 battles

Out of vague interest, and noting how puny aircraft torpedoes really are, was there a huge difference in lethality in real torpedoes carried by Destroyers, Submarines and Aircraft? Size, speed and explosive charge carried?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
7,487 posts
8,296 battles
4 minutes ago, Fodder1978 said:

Out of vague interest, and noting how puny aircraft torpedoes really are, was there a huge difference in lethality in real torpedoes carried by Destroyers, Submarines and Aircraft? Size, speed and explosive charge carried?

Yes. Aircraft torps were typically smaller and had less explosives, because carrier aircraft are typically not made to carry torpedoes as large as those used by ships and submarines. After all, you get way more leeway in weight when the torpedo doesn't account for like 10% or more of the max takeoff weight of the platform.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
3,099 posts
3,504 battles
12 minutes ago, Fodder1978 said:

Out of vague interest, and noting how puny aircraft torpedoes really are, was there a huge difference in lethality in real torpedoes carried by Destroyers, Submarines and Aircraft? Size, speed and explosive charge carried?

Yes, there was a big difference.

 

Aircraft-dropped torpedoes generally had to be much smaller than those carried by ships and submarines, and did far less damage as a consequence. But there was a pretty big difference between different ship-launched torpedoes as well. The long-lance torpedoes of the Imperial Japanese Navy, for instance, had a much longer range than those of the US Navy, and did a truly monstrous amount of damage. I believe there were some thoughts of delivering some of those torpedoes the Kriegsmarine, but that idea stranded on the German torpedo tubes being to small for the Japanese long lances to fit inside.

 

Somewhere, there's a raunchy joke to be told from this, I'm sure. :Smile_sceptic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BIF]
Players
292 posts
4,190 battles
4 minutes ago, Fodder1978 said:

Out of vague interest, and noting how puny aircraft torpedoes really are, was there a huge difference in lethality in real torpedoes carried by Destroyers, Submarines and Aircraft? Size, speed and explosive charge carried?

Aerial torps were usually smaller than ship based ones. However, a lucky hit could be equally devastating. Prince of Wales was hit by an aerial, which had only 150kg of explosive. Still, that one hit crippled the whole ship,and caused serious floods because of construction flaws. Then the ship became almost a sitting duck.

 

Rudder/propeller was always a weak spot, and in WW2 there were alot of lucky hits involving those. Vittorio Veneto, PoW, Bismarck.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
85 posts
3,707 battles
50 minutes ago, Procrastes said:

Yes, there was a big difference.

 

Aircraft-dropped torpedoes generally had to be much smaller than those carried by ships and submarines, and did far less damage as a consequence. But there was a pretty big difference between different ship-launched torpedoes as well. The long-lance torpedoes of the Imperial Japanese Navy, for instance, had a much longer range than those of the US Navy, and did a truly monstrous amount of damage. I believe there were some thoughts of delivering some of those torpedoes the Kriegsmarine, but that idea stranded on the German torpedo tubes being to small for the Japanese long lances to fit inside.

 

Somewhere, there's a raunchy joke to be told from this, I'm sure. :Smile_sceptic:

As a historical aside...

 

This is actually feasible that the IJN and Kriegsmarine could have physically exchanged material, especially if you realise how close the Axis powers came to linking up. The Allies invaded Vichy controlled Madagascar to prevent this from happening, since the Japanese had reached the Indian Ocean and the Vichy ports could have provided harbourage for IJN submarines, as well as logistics.

 

Regardless, surely the blueprints or schematics would have much simpler to hand over?

 

Also; would larger torpedoes have just smashed to bits if dropped from an aircraft? Barnes-Wallis had that problem when he tried the “Highball” version of the bouncing bomb; although torpedoes from a destroyer rack do have to splat pretty hard onto the water when they get launched. I’m not au fait with the physics... but apparently past a certain height, an item hitting water from above is like dropping onto concrete.

Edited by Fodder1978
Sheer fluff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
3,099 posts
3,504 battles
13 minutes ago, Fodder1978 said:

As a historical aside...

 

This is actually feasible that the IJN and Kriegsmarine could have physically exchanged material, especially if you realise how close the Axis powers came to linking up. The Allies invaded Vichy controlled Madagascar to prevent this from happening, since the Japanese had reached the Indian Ocean and the Vichy ports could have provided harbourage for IJN submarines, as well as logistics.

 

Regardless, surely the blueprints or schematics would have much simpler to hand over?

 

Also; would larger torpedoes have just smashed to bits if dropped from an aircraft? Barnes-Wallis had that problem when he tried the “Highball” version of the bouncing bomb; although torpedoes from a destroyer rack do have to splat pretty hard onto the water when they get launched. I’m not au fait with the physics... but apparently past a certain height, an item hitting water from above is like dropping onto concrete.

I have not actually read up on this, so I can only speculate. But would guess that there is bound to be a certain reluctance to just hand over vital blueprints and schematics to another nation, no matter if it is an ally in an on-going war. Today's allies might well be tomorrow's enemies, and there is also of course the well-established truth that a secret known by more than two is no longer a secret.

 

I do know that dropping into water from a great height, is a generally bad idea. I have no knowledge of the more specific physics involved, but from what I've read in such books as "Churchill's Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare", there was a lot of work put in by people who had such knowledge - and by all accounts, they had a blast!*

 

* See what I did, there?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
85 posts
3,707 battles
1 minute ago, Procrastes said:

I have not actually read up on this, so I can only speculate. But would guess that there is bound to be a certain reluctance to just hand over vital blueprints and schematics to another nation, no matter if it is an ally in an on-going war. Today's allies might well be tomorrow's enemies, and there is also of course the well-established truth that a secret known by more than two is no longer a secret.

 

I do know that dropping into water from a great height, is a generally bad idea. I have no knowledge of the more specific physics involved, but from what I've read in such books as "Churchill's Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare", there was a lot of work put in by people who had such knowledge - and by all accounts, they had a blast!*

 

* See what I did, there?

(Groan)

 

Oddly enough, this reluctance didn’t stretch to retrieved intelligence documents, as Indy Neidell’s TimeGhost team just covered in their YouTube channel World War II.

 

You referring to the SOE or Army Commando boffins by any chance? The ones who played with limpet mines and stuff?

 

(I’m now getting a limited edition “Lancasters armed with blockbuster bombs” consumable fantasy going through my head).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
3,099 posts
3,504 battles
3 minutes ago, Fodder1978 said:

You referring to the SOE or Army Commando boffins by any chance? The ones who played with limpet mines and stuff?

The very same, yes. Splendid chaps, true patriots all - and quite unlike those snivelling, underhanded dogs of that dastard Hun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KAKE]
Players
2,428 posts
5,578 battles
1 hour ago, Fodder1978 said:

Out of vague interest, and noting how puny aircraft torpedoes really are, was there a huge difference in lethality in real torpedoes carried by Destroyers, Submarines and Aircraft? Size, speed and explosive charge carried?

For the most part yes, but there were some exceptions. The USN Mk 13 airdropped torpedo was pretty chonky for its time, and only had about 20 kgs smaller warhead than the contemporary surface/sub launched mk 14 (270 kg vs 292). Meanwhile, the British 18" airdropped torps were significantly smaller than the contemporary 21" ship-launched ones, with only about half the warhead weight. The IJN had pretty hefty airdropped torps, with the Type 91 airdropped torp having a warhead weight of 320 kg, but even chonkier ship-launched torps with a 490 kg warhead on the Type 93 "long lance" 

 

Airdropped torps were almost universally slower, though.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×