Author Topic: Torpedo or Bomb? (Read 1343 times)

alamwuhk2a · « **on:** May 13, 2005, 10:55:09 PM »

Which is more powerful to enemy ships? torpedo or bomb?

Ghosth · « **Reply #1 on:** May 14, 2005, 06:08:31 AM »

Torp is more powerful, but the skill level to do it successfully is about 10x as hard.

Either level bombing or 3 - 4 good attack planes working together can take carrier down easily.

fuzeman · « **Reply #2 on:** May 16, 2005, 12:33:35 PM »

Head on torpedo attacks seem to be the best tactic, where the torpedo and target are heading towards each other.
That seems to give best survival and accuracy for me, it lets you drop them before you get into murderous gun range.
A good ship gunner can get you way before you are close to torpedo drop range though.
Torpedos let me use my favorice battle cry too.... "torpedos los!"
{sorry if that is spelt wrong, I assume it is}

StarOfAfrica2 · « **Reply #3 on:** May 16, 2005, 12:54:08 PM »

IIRC, a torpedo = 4000 lbs of explosive. It takes 4 of them to sink a carrier. So 16000 lbs of explosive total. Bombs or torps.

Flyboy · « **Reply #4 on:** May 16, 2005, 01:33:25 PM »

the question is, does the torpedo have more punch then a bomb, or will a 4000lbs torpedo do more dammage then a 4000lbs bomb?

StarOfAfrica2 · « **Reply #5 on:** May 16, 2005, 03:33:13 PM »

No, because you still destroy things in a certain order. Guns always go first, then damage that doesnt get any recognition other than points, then "ship destroyed". Doesnt matter if its a torp or a bomb that delivers the punch, or even gunfire.

Soulyss · « **Reply #6 on:** May 16, 2005, 04:23:13 PM »

The difference being a suicidal torpedo attack is infinitly more fun than a run of the mill boring level bomb run.

Vudak · « **Reply #7 on:** May 16, 2005, 09:13:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Soulyss
The difference being a suicidal torpedo attack is infinitly more fun than a run of the mill boring level bomb run.

Yep

Widewing · « **Reply #8 on:** May 17, 2005, 12:21:44 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
IIRC, a torpedo = 4000 lbs of explosive. It takes 4 of them to sink a carrier. So 16000 lbs of explosive total. Bombs or torps.

The largest torpedoes of WWII barely exceeded 1,000 pounds of explosives. An example is the famous Japanese Type 93, "Long Lance" torpedo, easily the best of the war. However, these monsters were too big for some submarines, much less aircraft.

So if we use your 4,000 lbs of explosives as a baseline, the entire weapon would weight in at something exceeding 12,000 pounds. rest assured that this exceeds the lifting capability of any WWII torpedo bomber by a considerable margin.

Typical aerial torpedoes carried between 400 and 800 pounds of explosives. In very general terms, the weight of the explosive was approximately 30% of the total weight of the torpedo, except in rare cases where it approached 40% of the total weight.

The American Mk 13 torpedo was the Navy's standard air dropped torpedo of WWII. It weighed 2,216 pounds, including 600 pounds of Torpex explosive.

Six hundred pounds of explosives doesn't sound like much, does it? Nonetheless, these were generally more effective than aerial bombs of similar explosive weight. Why? Because they exploded against the hull, below the waterline. Magnetic torps could be even more devastating as they were designed to explode under the ship's keel, generating a dynamic shock with the goal of breaking its back.

My regards,

Widewing

OOZ662 · « **Reply #9 on:** May 17, 2005, 08:44:49 AM »

I think that HTC has upped the damage caused by torpedoes to reflect the fact that they are torpedoes. The question really isn't "How much do the torps weight?" anymore as it is "How much damage is dealt by a torp?" and/or "How many torps are needed to down a ship?"

I went offline and sunk a CA with two VERY aft starboard hits. One of them hit the very tip of the rounded back of the ship. The carrier, on the other hand, took about 3 or 4 hits before I had some other things to do.

StarOfAfrica2 · « **Reply #10 on:** May 17, 2005, 12:34:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Widewing
The largest torpedoes of WWII barely exceeded 1,000 pounds of explosives. An example is the famous Japanese Type 93, "Long Lance" torpedo, easily the best of the war. However, these monsters were too big for some submarines, much less aircraft.

So if we use your 4,000 lbs of explosives as a baseline, the entire weapon would weight in at something exceeding 12,000 pounds. rest assured that this exceeds the lifting capability of any WWII torpedo bomber by a considerable margin.

Typical aerial torpedoes carried between 400 and 800 pounds of explosives. In very general terms, the weight of the explosive was approximately 30% of the total weight of the torpedo, except in rare cases where it approached 40% of the total weight.

The American Mk 13 torpedo was the Navy's standard air dropped torpedo of WWII. It weighed 2,216 pounds, including 600 pounds of Torpex explosive.

Six hundred pounds of explosives doesn't sound like much, does it? Nonetheless, these were generally more effective than aerial bombs of similar explosive weight. Why? Because they exploded against the hull, below the waterline. Magnetic torps could be even more devastating as they were designed to explode under the ship's keel, generating a dynamic shock with the goal of breaking its back.

My regards,

Widewing

I agree 100%, I was just stating what I recalled the AH torp to be equivalent to in terms of explosive power. I dont think any ships were ever sunk with 20mm cannon fire either, yet the damage model we have allows for cumulative damage, no matter what the source. Torps are probably a bit overmodelled on the power side to make up for the fact that a hit is a hit, and the torpedo's biggest strength (hitting below the water line) isnt modelled here.

I've seen a Mk 14 torpedo, have pictures of me standing next to one even. Never seen a Mk 13 though. How much difference was there in power and weight? Just for curiousity's sake.

MajWoody · « **Reply #11 on:** May 23, 2005, 03:59:58 PM »

One reason for torps effectiveness is the incompressibility of water. It tends to magnify the effects of the explosives causing greater damage than an air dropped bomb of higher explosive weight.

fuzeman · « **Reply #12 on:** May 23, 2005, 05:07:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
I dont think any ships were ever sunk with 20mm cannon fire either, yet the damage model we have allows for cumulative damage, no matter what the source.

Remember the historical footage of planes straffing ships? Every now and again you'd see one that blows up. Not sure if they hit a boiler or some other explosive thing to finish the job but the straffing sure started it.
In 'The Tuskegee Airmen' or whatever the name of that movie was, there is a shot where they straff a DE and sink it and he later gets a medal for it. That is one of those examples I remember.

OOZ662 · « **Reply #13 on:** May 23, 2005, 05:32:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by fuze
In 'The Tuskegee Airmen' or whatever the name of that movie was, there is a shot where they straff a DE and sink it and he later gets a medal for it. That is one of those examples I remember.

Movies aren't a real great place to find proof...

Vudak · « **Reply #14 on:** May 23, 2005, 05:39:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by OOZ662
Movies aren't a real great place to find proof...

True, but the first half of what he said:

Quote

Originally posted by fuze
Remember the historical footage of planes straffing ships? Every now and again you'd see one that blows up. Not sure if they hit a boiler or some other explosive thing to finish the job but the straffing sure started it.

Is.