Submarines and depth charges

[UltraShirou]

I have only one question to devs - Why surfaced submarine gets damage from depth charges? And any other type of ship does not? What kind of magic is this?  

[Flaky26]

If depth charges from AWS Aistrikes could damage enemies, everybody would just send them almost all the time.

And there would be little defense against it. 

Ships with AWS Airstikes would have advantage against ships with deck depth charges only.

 

 

[Karasu_Browarszky]

[El2aZeR]

13 minutes ago, UltraShirou said:

I have only one question to devs - Why surfaced submarine gets damage from depth charges? And any other type of ship does not? What kind of magic is this?  

 

Because subs not taking damage from depth charges while on the surface was tested and found to be too exploitative.

[MementoMori_6030]

Vor 17 Minuten, UltraShirou sagte:

What kind of magic is this?  

The entire design of submarines in WoWs is "magic".

[Procrastes]

That's actually two questions, but fair enough. And in spite of me not being a developer, I'll still try for a volley on this! 

 

1. There was a time during the early development phase when submarines didn't take damage from depth charges while on the surface. This enabled them to avoid taking damage by simply bobbing to the surface whenever they were depth charged, and then immediately dive again as soon the enemy ship switched to guns or tried to ram them instead. This was a bit on the far side even for Wargaming, and so they thankfully changed it.

 

2. Using depth charges as a weapon versus other surface ships was never a practical alternative in real life combat, since a) ship to ship action almost never took place at such close quarters during the relevant time period, and b) it would almost inevitably do at least as much damage to the depth charger as to to the depth chargee. Even though the removal of friendly fire makes this a non-issue in WoWs, I'd say that being able to use depth charges against other surface ships would hurt the immersion while adding nothing of gameplay value to the game.

[Karasu_Browarszky]

10 minutes ago, Procrastes said:

That's actually two questions, but fair enough. And in spite of me not being a developer, I'll still try for a volley on this! 

 

1. There was a time during the early development phase when submarines didn't take damage from depth charges while on the surface. This enabled them to avoid taking damage by simply bobbing to the surface whenever they were depth charged, and then immediately dive again as soon the enemy ship switched to guns or tried to ram them instead. This was a bit on the far side even for Wargaming, and so they thankfully changed it.

 

2. Using depth charges as a weapon versus other surface ships was never a practical alternative in real life combat, since a) ship to ship action almost never took place at such close quarters during the relevant time period, and b) it would almost inevitably do at least as much damage to the depth charger as to to the depth chargee. Even though the removal of friendly fire makes this a non-issue in WoWs, I'd say that being able to use depth charges against other surface ships would hurt the immersion while adding nothing of gameplay value to the game.

                                                                                                                                                     

[MixuS]

I think a surfaced sub would take some damage from a depth charge exploding below it in real life. (I know, I know, don't bring realism into discussion about this game)

[Itwastuesday]

Why wouldn't submarine take damage from counter-submarine weaponry and why would something else? It's not like you can deploy your pom-pom guns to kill enemy surface ships either.

[HMS_Kilinowski]

Also in terms of game balance, submarines would realistically pop like a bubble if hit by artillery fire.

I've fought a sub that survived 38 HE hits and a torp.

So there is two ways of balancing.

The one that is currently used: Low damage from standard weaponry but damage from depth charges even on the surface.

Or a more realistic one: High damage from standard weaponry but immunity to depth charges on the surface.

 

I think WG went with the first one, since subs can control the angle in which they surface towards the target. On many surface ships that could mean up to a minute of turret traverse, which is totally impractical when facing a sub that can quickly drop torps and resubmerge. So surface ships need a weaon that at least works quickly in all directions around themselves, for matters of self-defence.

[Panocek]

1 hour ago, MixuS said:

I think a surfaced sub would take some damage from a depth charge exploding below it in real life. (I know, I know, don't bring realism into discussion about this game)

Yes, but so depth charges were dangerous to the ship dropping them, especially if charges were set to detonate on shallower depths.

[Karasu_Browarszky]

34 minutes ago, Panocek said:

Yes, but so depth charges were dangerous to the ship dropping them, especially if charges were set to detonate on shallower depths.

 

Yes, because every sub would rather try to submerge and evade rather than fight a naval escort on the surface.

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

28 minutes ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

Or a more realistic one: High damage from standard weaponry but immunity to depth charges on the surface.

Damaging your own destroyer was easily possible when you were too slow and/or the depth charge set at a shallow depth. @Karasu_Browarszky didn't you post the image with the DD that had blown off his own stern?

[Karasu_Browarszky]

6 minutes ago, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

Damaging your own destroyer was easily possible when you were too slow and/or the depth charge set at a shallow depth. @Karasu_Browarszky didn't you post the image with the DD that had blown off his own stern?

 

Don't think so. I don't even remember seeing such an image so I suspect it's been posted by someone else.

 

EDIT:

 

Apparently two such DD's exist at least. USS Edsall and and the Dutch Witte de With.

 

https://www.quora.com/Has-any-WW2-destroyer-been-damaged-or-destroyed-by-its-own-depth-charges

 

@Karkong_the_ImpalerAt least one more, USS Manley:

 

https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/museums/nmusn/explore/photography/ships-us/ships-usn-m/uss-manley-dd-74-ag-28-apd-1/lc-lot-9706-19.html

[HMS_Kilinowski]

6 minutes ago, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

Damaging your own destroyer was easily possible when you were too slow and/or the depth charge set at a shallow depth. @Karasu_Browarszky didn't you post the image with the DD that had blown off his own stern?

 

I was more talking about the damage from shells. Can you imagine what would happen with depth charges damaging surface ships in the game?

[Karasu_Browarszky]

1 minute ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

 

I was more talking about the damage from shells. Can you imagine what would happen with depth charges damaging surface ships in the game?

 

Bad things?

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

19 minutes ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

I was more talking about the damage from shells. Can you imagine what would happen with depth charges damaging surface ships in the game?

It's only about your claim of realism - not talking about WGs design choices and the creative interpretation of submarines turned into a gameplay of submersible scum with fantasy pings, homing torps, 30 knots submerged speed without influence on concealment and so on, just to bring us a 'fun and engaging' interaction, just like CVs crapping on our head with impunity.

 

That derp charges dropped by planes spawned out of my ships [edited] shouldn't damage other ships is a rather obvious design choice to cushion the multiple design failures that led up to it.

[Panocek]

4 hours ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

 

I was more talking about the damage from shells. Can you imagine what would happen with depth charges damaging surface ships in the game?

banzai intensifies just to get depth charge kill ribbon against BB

 

Alternatively spamming ASW planes would be literally free damage to throw at someone alongside kitchen sink

[TheNubination]

Cause WG is super biased against sub players and loves all other players, thats why Subs have been nerfed and changed so much and why they have "insane" bonuses to XP gain as per "Flamu" while having the lowest requirements for damage for their respective sub achievement logos. 

 

 

[HMS_Kilinowski]

4 hours ago, Karasu_Browarszky said:

 

Bad things?

 

More like Kitakami-magnitudes of chaos.

 

3 hours ago, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

It's only about your claim of realism - not talking about WGs design choices and the creative interpretation of submarines turned into a gameplay of submersible scum with fantasy pings, homing torps, 30 knots submerged speed without influence on concealment and so on, just to bring us a 'fun and engaging' interaction, just like CVs crapping on our head with impunity.

 

That derp charges dropped by planes spawned out of my ships [edited] shouldn't damage other ships is a rather obvious design choice to cushion the multiple design failures that led up to it.

 

You sound upset. There is no need to be agitated about subs in this topic. We're just talking about an isolated mechanic. That neither means defending the existence of subs nor supporting it. Just talking based on the given state of the game. I'm not claiming realism. I just said, what basically Erazer already pointed out, that if you can surface anywhere around a ship that can't get the turrets on you before you dump your torps, the ship at least needs some sort of all-aspect weapon to prevent exploitation. The depth-charges do that, but only if they also work on the surface.

 

1 hour ago, Panocek said:

banzai intensifies

 

You just made me genuinely laugh. The picture in my head ... BANZAI !!!

[Northern_Nightowl]

Vor 6 Stunden, Karkong_the_Impaler sagte:

like CVs crapping on our head with impunity.

Vor 2 Stunden, Panocek sagte:

Alternatively spamming ASW planes would be literally free damage to throw at someone alongside kitchen sink

Why a kitchen sink? If a CV like the USS Midway wants to crap on somebody's head, he could drop an actual toilet.

 

Regards, Nightowl

 

[Panocek]

6 hours ago, Northern_Nightowl said:

Why a kitchen sink? If a CV like the USS Midway wants to crap on somebody's head, he could drop an actual toilet.

 

Regards, Nightowl

 

Kitchen sink because toilet already went with previous sortie

[Ruthus]

I believe depth charges were used to damage enemy boats in small boat combats in and around the North Sea/English channel. The combat was very close range and it was possible to cross in front of an enemy MTB/MGB and the resultant depth charge explosion (set to shallow) would damage the predominantly wooden hulls.

[Karasu_Browarszky]

17 hours ago, Ruthus said:

I believe depth charges were used to damage enemy boats in small boat combats in and around the North Sea/English channel. The combat was very close range and it was possible to cross in front of an enemy MTB/MGB and the resultant depth charge explosion (set to shallow) would damage the predominantly wooden hulls.

 

Ah hmm... quick googling didn't actually return many results, there was something interesting I came across though, Schnell boats, scourge of the English Channel. That refers to the German Schnellboot motor torpedo boats, the fast, light escort and patrol vessels that we don't have in the game because WG has no understanding of ship combat roles. Any way, they were used in the Channel, and I suppose also in the Baltic against the Soviets as well.

 

However, found no indication that they were used against surface vessels, if you watch the clip it kind of looks like that would have not been practical under most situations. Possibly if they were retreating and wanted to defend against any pursuing vessels.

 

Depth charges in operation: