Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Effects

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Special effects are not real life...

How many times did you see a so terrible effect due to a torpedo attack? :eek:

I think just one time, in the specific test made by US Navy... reality is different: please stay close to the real events, not to special effects that never happen in a real scenario. :rolleyes:
 
if the torpedo hits on the side, close to the surface : you get a hole

if the torpedo is set deeper than the vessel's draft and explodes under the keel it breaks her back, as seen here and in the Cheonan sinking by the NK last year.

keltos
 
Indeed. Modern heavyweight torpedoes (used by subs against surface) are always set to explode under the keel. They are not made to penetrate the hull, like they were in WWII. One such weapon is enough to sink any frigate-level ship and below. Bigger ships, like the Burke, Tico or Kirov - or a tanker - will probably survive one torp hit (with major damage), but not two.

Lightweight torps (aka anti-sub) are made for penetrating the hull.
 
IMO two hits by a LWT is reasonable for a double-hulled sub, but no more. Needing to repeatedly hit subs with LWTs in SCX and FC/NWP was obnoxious and should be avoided unless there is empirical data that clearly indicates such would be the case.

I think the HWT balancing suggested earlier is dead-on.
 
A hole as wide as an inch means the sinking of a Gotland class submarine, not to speak of a torpedo.
 
In terms of damage effects for LWTs on Submarines it should be extremely dependent on the current depth.

The water-pressure physics is very clear of how this works, if the hit is at 300 meter depth the pressure and thus force of waterjet pouring into a sub will be 30 times as high as if hit on 10 meter depth due to linear scaling.

I would give a large submarine at low depth (periscope depth) a greater chance of survival then 10%. If the hit is on the top half or tower it might even be possible to surface within a few seconds and lift it out of the water altogether.

That might not always be possible in an active war-zone though.

Likewise I don't think that any sub at near crush depth would stand much chance of survival even if the hit only is a cm small hullbreach from a distant depthcharge hit...
 
About the Kursk, It was more than a single Mark 48. Norwegian seismologists recorded explosion of 3.4 richters... The explosion was most likely caused by ignition (no idea why) of the liquid hydrogen peroxide russians used for torpedo fuel. When one of them exploded, it blew up the torpedo and the rest of the torpedos along their highly exploding fuel. So no, one torpedo, even those heaviest, can't totally destroy, or like in this case, remove 1/3 of the sub from existence.

But as far as I know, submarines aren't even made to take one torpedo hit and keep on going. Like Alex above explains the pressure of the water makes it extremely unhealthy to have any sort of a hole in your boat..

In Subsim forums (where also NWAC threads can be found :p) was a discussion about eye candy damage in games, and what is required to cripple submarine. Here is a story about USS Bergall that served in WWII:

The first quote is from Bill Wolfe's "Remember This?" collection about WWII pacific theater events.

Rockin Robbins said:
REMEMBER THIS: USS BERGALL?

On the evening of Dec. 13, 1944 as Bergall (Hyde) was preparing to plant mines off Indo-China, she picked up a distant radar contact. Closing to 26,000 yards, the contact was tentatively identified as 2 cruisers, later determined to be a cruiser and destroyer escort. After attaining a firing position 3300 yards away from the overlapping targets, six bow tubes were fired. Moments later a tremendous explosion occurred, seemingly, breaking the Imperial Japanese heavy Myoku in two. Hauling clear to reload when the escort seemed reluctant to attack, Bergalll charged in for a second attack when, at 9000 yards, the escorting destroyer opened fire, one shell landing in Bergall's wake, another directly into her forward torpedo loading hatch, opening a large hole in her pressure hull. Retreating at full speed. Bergall hauled clear only to find that the damage was beyond repair at the scene, 2000 miles from the nearest friendly port, Exmouth Gulf, Australia. When reporting the problem to Admiral Christie Cdr. Hyde was ordered to rendezvous with Angler, Bashaw and Paddle, remove the crew and destroy Bergall. After carefully reviewing the situation, Cdr. Hyde decided to disobey this order and try to take Bergall home through Karimata, the Java Sea and Lombok on the surface. He removed one officer and 54 men to the Angler, destroyed all confidential gear, set demolition charges by her torpedoes and mines and got underway for Exmouth Gulf, Angler following closely, standing by to remove personnel from Bergall if danger threatened. Five days later, they arrived at Exmouth Bay on 20 December 1944.
Click to expand...

First notice that the destroyer escort, identified at the time as a cruiser (!!!), tossed two shells out there from 9,000 yards. One landed in Bergall's wake but the other scored a critical hit. Think about that next time you complain about Japanese ships being too accurate in SH4. Ain't so! So what does "a large hole in the pressure hull" "beyond repair at the scene" and requiring Bergall to travel on the surface for 2,000 miles to get home really look like?

As luck would have it a man stood on the dock with a camera upon Bergall's arrival at Exmouth Gulf. You can see the "major damage" from a Japanese 8" shell (much larger than anything a submarine could fire!) had to be delineated by drawing an explanatory line on the photo! Without it, I doubt you could have found the major damage that kept that sub from submerging, even to periscope depth!
Click to expand...

shell.jpg


8" Armor piercing shell, NO explosion. Think about what a torpedo could do when it has more than 500 lbs of high explosives packed in..

EDIT: Just to clear out, that hubpages.com says 2.2 richters but John Parker's encylopedia of submarines says 3.4.. Well, a big boom anyway ^^
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back