|
The true advantage of torpedo acceleration is that the increase in speed doesn't come with an increase in detection radius. This means that the time from detection to impact is going DOWN with torpedo acceleration. You're giving up some range for essentially a better chance of hitting your targets with the torps. There are, of course, other advantages to faster torps, namely in choosing your shots, but range is typically a better factor in that regard.
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:17 |
|
|
The risky issue with torpedo acceleration on IJN is that their wide turning rates and slow training guns put you in more compromising positions when you're setting up for a better shot. Granted, it works well enough on Type 90 mod 2 and Type 93 mod 3 since you don't sacrifice much to have them but in most cases the extra smoke and torpedo range are invaluable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
Time for a very minor  post. Just to highlight the hilarious discrepancies between US and IJN torps some more.The Shimakaze's type 93 torpedo, the lovely one with 20km range, has a Torpedo Reaction Time (TRT) of 15.5 seconds. FIFTEEN AND A HALF SECONDS. A BB could have fired at the moment the torp was detected and be halfway reloaded by the time the torp reaches them. It doesn't get much better with Torpedo Acceleration, with the TRT only dropping to 14.35 seconds. The 93 mod.3 (12km range) is better, at 10.9 seconds TRT without, and 10.15 with TA. The blazing hot 8km F3s with their hilarious speed? 9.62 seconds without TA, 9 seconds with. Bear in mind that with TA, the F3s have a range of 6.4km. ............. The Gearing has only one option at T10, the Mark 15 torpedoes. They have a range of 16.5km, better than the Shimakaze's Type 93s with torpedo acceleration by 500 meters. The Mark 15 has a TRT of 8.16 seconds without Torpedo Acceleration. With TA, the range drops to 13.2km, superior to the range of the 93 mod.3 unboosted by 1200 meters... with a TRT of 7.58 seconds. WHAT THE gently caress WARGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMIIIIIIIIIIIIIING (the invisible torpedo soup your BBs are crying about isn't coming from Shimas, its coming from GEARINGS) Hazdoc fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Oct 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
Torpedo soup was coming from shima before it got nerfed. Gearing has a much smaller volume of fire. And anyway the line is getting tweaked by next patch so why are you even sperging aboutit ? spoiler alert : gearing will still have the best torps but shima will have good guns
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
Krogort posted:Torpedo soup was coming from shima before it got nerfed. Shima torps even pre-nerf still never approached the stealthiness of Gearing torps. Volume of torps doesn't matter when none of them hit. And the Gearing is more manueverable with vastly superior artillery. So yeah.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
There's also the issue where they've slammed the entire IJN line with torpedo nerfs, and given both the Kagero and Fubuki actually put less torpedoes into the water than their US counterparts, the "oh, well, Shimakaze" argument implodes right there - especially as nothing else in the line even gets the 12 km mid-range torpedo, they get something else which is even worse, so you can't even argue ripple effect of the same equipment. And trying to say that giving them slightly better guns is somehow going to make them good gunboats is farcical. They were designed in every stat to generally lose to the gunboat destroyers in a straight gunfight, and that a small portion of the playerbase can make decent use of them doesn't change that fact. Given equivalent skill levels, a US or Russian destroyer is STILL going to crush the IJN one in a gunnery duel a majority of the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
Hazdoc posted:Shima torps even pre-nerf still never approached the stealthiness of Gearing torps. Volume of torps doesn't matter when none of them hit. And the Gearing is more manueverable with vastly superior artillery. So yeah. Now that the shimakaze has been nerfed as well as radar and Russian destroyers addition the Torpedo soup is pretty much non-existent. Kagero has always been total garbage there is no denying that tho.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It's true I don't hit what I'm aiming at from range with IJN torpedoes but I've had a few useful hits from just slinging them into choke points from a long way away. If you chuck loads of them out they can cover a mean spread at the edge of their range. You get a misleading impression at low tier because Mutsuki is the first one to use the larger torpedoes that get spotted further out. Minekaze and below don't have the spotting distance problems which is a large part of why they're great.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 10:13
|
|
|
I think the issue is less torpedo soup and more that IJN DDs in general do not fulfill any role successfully outside of torpedo volume, which is a rather non-role all things considered. As far as game balance is concerned with regards to hard stats, the only thing the IJN ever had going for them were torpedoes, everything else cannot directly compete with the other nations even with better reload times in the upcoming patch for them. 5.7s reload may sound good on paper, but it is still quite inferior to the Gearing and Khabarovsk when turret rotation, turning circle, and ship speed are considered. While it's been tread over before that both the VMF and USN DDs have their own roles that of being gunboat and hybrid with ostensibly better torpedoes than the IJN, what isn't mentioned is the meta that also shifts with the destruction of IJN DD torpedo specialist designation. Tier 10 meta is garbage. Even with the decline of the Shimakaze, it never really had a spot for cruisers due to the prolific mountains of battleships. The rise of the Khabarovsk is wholly another matter, but it's only replaced the Shimakaze for destroyers as the scourge of the seas, albeit one that you can see. The reduction of IJN DD presence on the Asia server has seen a meteoric rise in battleships and it is not uncommon to see five per side in tier 10 with only two destroyers. Cruisers spend most of the game hugging an island or behind the battleship line to avoid being focused. Without a hard limit on both battleships and destroyers per game, cruisers will invariably be the class that suffers the most given the roshambo style of soft and hard counters that Wargaming designed for the game. Cruisers can hunt down destroyers a lot easier now with radar, but this gives them no additional tools with which to deal with battleships. Additionally, high tier German battleships can counter smoke/torpedoes just fine every two minutes or so thanks to the addition of sonar on them which also serves to reduce the role of cruisers even further. Anecdotally, roughly three fourths of my damage per game comes from shells and fires for the IJN line and an actual torpedo hit is an uncommon occurrence. As of this moment, I use IJN DDs in the rare event that I play them as stealth firing platforms. I hit more often with Benson and Fletcher torpedoes than I do with Fubuki and Shimakaze. I don't have a Gearing yet, but I am looking forward to having a torpedo boat again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 10:22
|
|
|
Krogort posted:Before the shimakaze nerf gearings were extremely rare so they contributed very little to the Torpedo soup problem. Kagero was really good in alpha (not coincidentally, Kagero and world of warships stopped being good at the same time). In the game version immediately before they launched beta, pretty much every Japanese destroyer was a better gunboat than its US counterpart. When they redid it so Japanese destroyers were dedicated torpedo boats they did a really bad job of it (partly because that was the same time they started listening to battleship pubs and making GBS threads on torpedoes) and I'm not sure they will ever recover from that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
Sidesaddle Cavalry posted:This isn't clear enough to me. New tier VII on the gun line or new tier VII on the original line? I keep reading posts about how there will be no transfers to the gun line at all and you have to start over from the Isokaze New tier VII on the original line. Nobody will start with a ship in the new gunboat line. Everyone will have to either use free xp or banked Isokaze xp.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
Hazdoc posted:Volume of torps doesn't matter when none of them hit. This is demonstrably false. Even if you aren't hitting with torpedoes, you can use them to force an enemy to maneuver to avoid them, which can put them out of position or expose their broadsides. Takes practice to get it down, and it'll often mean slowing down so you can fire your torps with a tighter spread. But can do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
Lord Koth posted:Armored flight decks were a double-edged sword, with any damage taken by them requiring a longer and lengthier repair process. Yorktown, for example, was able to be quickly turned around with after Coral Sea to get it operational enough in time for Midway. She likely would have been disabled during Coral Sea even with an armored flight deck, and that would have made repairing her enough to participate in another battle less than a month later nearly impossible. This is also not getting into the British CVs having significantly smaller plane complements - partly due to overall design, but also because the space needed for armoring the carrier obviously comes from somewhere, and that's usually the aircraft complement. So no, British CVs were never "arguably" superior to US CVs. And AA superiority may have been somewhat true earlier in the war, but by the end the US had the best systems and tactics in that regard. The bit about the armored flight decks taking more time to repair is true, but it also made them less likely to take significant damage from light hits. The Formidable was able to resume operations less than an hour after a kamikaze hit. The Illustrious was famous for taking a good number of bomb hits in the Mediterranean as well. In the end, I'd agree that the armored flight decks had some tradeoffs, British carriers generally had excellent endurance (except from submarine attacks). British CVs having significantly smaller plane complements entirely due to armored decks is a common misunderstanding. The major cause of British carriers having a smaller complement was that they didn't use a deck park. British carriers, especially earlier in the war, served in the North Atlantic, where planes were not kept on the flight deck except during operations. US carriers in the Pacific, however, were able to maintain a permanent deck park. When British carriers moved into the Pacific and they began to store planes on the flight deck, their complements, while smaller, were much more comparable to those of US carriers. The final British carrier class, the Implacable class, had 81 aircraft, vs the Essex with 90-110. Regarding AA, that is a little tough since so many weapons were shared. The British were the first to develop proximity fuses for AA. The 40mm bofors was shared between the two. I remember hearing that British had better radar directed AA, at least early in the war, but I can't find my source for that so I'll try to come up with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
I'll point out that at least one of the bombs that hit the Franklin penetrated enough armor thickness that it would've gone through a British deck. Also if you're using a deck park you've got a giant pile of flammables on your deck. Planes are an absolute horror show to have on deck and the real advantage of the US ships (other than a much better suited hangar for ops and better elevator setup of course) is that they could open up the sides of their hangar to push planes out and let other ships shoot water in rather than have flaming planes trapped making a ton of heat inside the ship's girder, potentially heating it to the point that the ship bends. Anyway, the US carriers were home base for vastly more kills and yet took the same number of kamikaze hits so they definitely were doing something right as far as dealing with enemies in the sky.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Does the Pensacola get any better? It's awful and the upgrades don't look that great.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:Does the Pensacola get any better? It's awful and the upgrades don't look that great. No.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
You can do really well in the Pensecola, but it will probably take years off your life from the sheer amount of paranoia necessary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:I'll point out that at least one of the bombs that hit the Franklin penetrated enough armor thickness that it would've gone through a British deck. Also if you're using a deck park you've got a giant pile of flammables on your deck. Planes are an absolute horror show to have on deck and the real advantage of the US ships (other than a much better suited hangar for ops and better elevator setup of course) is that they could open up the sides of their hangar to push planes out and let other ships shoot water in rather than have flaming planes trapped making a ton of heat inside the ship's girder, potentially heating it to the point that the ship bends. An armored deck comes in pretty handy with a deck park, since even if the planes get damaged and start exploding, they're unlikely to do destroy the flight deck. In that example with the Formidable that I gave, secondary explosions took out eighteen aircraft on the deck, but it was able to resume operations less than an hour later. In and of itself, an armored flight deck is going to be an advantage. The US started using them with the Midway class, so clearly the architects saw some value. The problem with them is that when you have a strict treaty weight limit, you end up making some compromises that result in inferior hangar and overall structural quality. Even with these issues, comparing the performance of the British carriers to their contemporaries, the Ark Royal and Illustrious classes to the Yorktown and Lexingtons, and the Implacable to the Essexes, they stack up reasonably well. All of the Illustrious class carriers survived, at least, in spite of taking heavy damage in multiple cases.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:You can do really well in the Pensecola, but it will probably take years off your life from the sheer amount of paranoia necessary. The Omaha might do that to me prior to even getting to the Pense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
The test server can dish up some really hilarious matches. I had a match in my Pensacola that was a 3 on 3 game. Myself, a Bayern and a carrier vs a New Mex, Myoko and a carrier. I stuck close to our BB and got inbetween him and the enemy carrier, I think I managed to take down 3/4 of the planes sent near us. Then enemy team kinda split up which let our carrier beat up their New Mex for a bit before he went broadside to the Bayern and got citadeled. I took the Myoko down because he went broadside to me at 8km and took a bunch of hits. Had another game where it was a single tier 6 BB, 5 tier 6 cruisers and a single DD. We got murdered on that one though, their DD survived the destroyer matchup and then provided smoke for 2 of their cruisers to shoot at us with. Also, they were burdened by so many Clevelands and could actually land shots on things without waiting for the shots to enter LEO. rex rabidorum vires posted:The Omaha might do that to me prior to even getting to the Pense. The secret to the Omaha is to either point right at something, or point directly away from something, and constantly turn left/right. You can bring enough guns on target to do damage, and you are a huge pain in the rear end to actually do big damage to. Stay at 10km+ for distance. CitizenKain fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Oct 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Cobbsprite posted:This is demonstrably false. Even if you aren't hitting with torpedoes, you can use them to force an enemy to maneuver to avoid them, which can put them out of position or expose their broadsides. Takes practice to get it down, and it'll often mean slowing down so you can fire your torps with a tighter spread. But can do. Firing torpedoes to miss isn't a good idea, and you need to be at a meaningful angle to a hostile ship to actually get it to turn to dodge in a way that would put it out of position. If you're at that angle, you may as well try to hit with the torps too. The Shima's only advantage is that it gets a bigger wall... But any ship with torpedoes can force a ship to turn, the Gearing can just set torps to wide, this isn't particularly intrinsic to IJN DDs. If you want to debate that the shima has a bigger potential alpha and higher torp damage than the Gearing, sure, that's fine, but once again, these numbers dont matter if the torps never connect. Literally the only thing the Shima has over the Gearing is 5 more torps in the water... and this advantage only rears its head at the T10 IJN/US comparison. The Gearing has vastly superior RoF and cap contesting power, not to mention maneuverability and the option to take Defensive Fire, with smoke that is unparalleled in utility. I'm not sure that's a meaningful tradeoff, even before the Shima's (and the other IJN's) nerf. The Kagero and preceding DDs do not have this extra 5 torps over the US, by the way. The Kagero loses in volume by 2 torps to the Fletcher (who shares the Gearing's values on Torpedo Reaction Time, just only with 10.5km range) while being significantly inferior in every other way except concealment. The Fubuki is virtually the only competitive ship with its US tier partner, but even that is debatable, since the Benson is just flat out better in almost every scenario. Just because the Fubuki can outspot it with a 200ish meter window and does slightly better outside of 8km means nothing when you realize that the Fubuki has rear end firing range, 1 less torpedo in its full spread, and almost 3k less HP. Not to mention it continues the trend of the IJN having inferior smoke and maneuverability. Hazdoc fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Oct 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:flaming planes trapped making a ton of heat inside the ship's girder, potentially heating it to the point that the ship bends. Are you telling us that plane fuel can melt steel beams?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:An armored deck comes in pretty handy with a deck park, since even if the planes get damaged and start exploding, they're unlikely to do destroy the flight deck. In that example with the Formidable that I gave, secondary explosions took out eighteen aircraft on the deck, but it was able to resume operations less than an hour later. In and of itself, an armored flight deck is going to be an advantage. The US started using them with the Midway class, so clearly the architects saw some value. The problem with them is that when you have a strict treaty weight limit, you end up making some compromises that result in inferior hangar and overall structural quality. I'm curious to know about the CV designs mentioned that the brits planned on building (but didn't cause the war ended) that dropped the armoured deck, since the article doesn't go into detail on those. Anyone know anything?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:You can do really well in the Pensecola, but it will probably take years off your life from the sheer amount of paranoia necessary. That's a shame. I was looking forward to getting some XP in with the naval birthday event but maybe not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:An armored deck comes in pretty handy with a deck park, since even if the planes get damaged and start exploding, they're unlikely to do destroy the flight deck. In that example with the Formidable that I gave, secondary explosions took out eighteen aircraft on the deck, but it was able to resume operations less than an hour later. In and of itself, an armored flight deck is going to be an advantage. The US started using them with the Midway class, so clearly the architects saw some value. The problem with them is that when you have a strict treaty weight limit, you end up making some compromises that result in inferior hangar and overall structural quality. The Indomitable got rendered uneconomical to repair by an internal fire, compare the Franklin. Are we counting the bomb hits on Formidable as heavy damage? Illustrious got hosed up structurally by its kamikaze hit, but honestly there's nothing like Yorktown/Hornet taking huge damage, especially not the Ark Royal, which was a goddamn embarrassment. Seriously, Yorktown took three bomb hits and made steam again. Then she took two torpedoes. Then she finally got sunk by two more torpedoes and a destroyer's depth charges cooking off. Hornet took three bombs, a dive bomber, two torpedoes and a torpedo bomber. She was in shape for a tow home, when she took another torpedo hit. 400 5" shells and an unknown number of torps (nine Mk. 14s fired, who knows how many went boom), and then finally two long lances actually sunk her.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Insert name here posted:There's a navweaps article about armoured flight decks that I thought was pretty interesting: http://navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-030.htm Alright, that article is pretty good and convinced me that armored decks didn't work out all that well. Is there any ship type that, realistically, the US didn't have the best of in WW2?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
CitizenKain posted:The secret to the Omaha is to either point right at something, or point directly away from something, and constantly turn left/right. You can bring enough guns on target to do damage, and you are a huge pain in the rear end to actually do big damage to. Stay at 10km+ for distance. This has basically doubled my damage in the last ~3 games. Unfortunately still at the mercy of loving shitlord tier 7s.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:Alright, that article is pretty good and convinced me that armored decks didn't work out all that well. Is there any ship type that, realistically, the US didn't have the best of in WW2? Subs, for a while at least due to poo poo torps.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:The Indomitable got rendered uneconomical to repair by an internal fire, compare the Franklin. Alright, I conceded the argument. I'm not going to get into grognard tail chasing. wjs5 posted:Subs, for a while at least due to poo poo torps. Fair enough. Even then, the subs themselves were pretty good aside from the whole torpedo issue. Especially in terms of crew comfort compared to the German subs (ice cream machines vs "lets stuff one of our two toilets full of extra rations") Adventure Pigeon fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Oct 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
wjs5 posted:Subs, for a while at least due to poo poo torps. The subs were loving great. Just, uh, yeah, the torpedoes were a thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
man these ranked players are fuckin toxic
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:The subs were loving great. Agreed the subs as a platfome were great and after BuOrd was forcibly fixed the torps were pretty good to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:Alright, that article is pretty good and convinced me that armored decks didn't work out all that well. Is there any ship type that, realistically, the US didn't have the best of in WW2? I'd argue the Algerie and Zara class against their treaty cruisers, especially for a gun fight, IJN destroyers put up a really competitive performance especially early on the back of the phenomenal oxygen based torp, and if the enemy had asw their sub designs just didn't account for that (less a failing and more a difference of requirements). The NC class was decent but not great, they were kind of weakly armored and couldn't hit 30 knots like European designs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
gently caress England for discontinuing ship cats.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:Alright, that article is pretty good and convinced me that armored decks didn't work out all that well. Is there any ship type that, realistically, the US didn't have the best of in WW2? panzerschiff
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
seriously these people in ranked are unbelievable
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:Alright, that article is pretty good and convinced me that armored decks didn't work out all that well. Is there any ship type that, realistically, the US didn't have the best of in WW2? wjs5 posted:Subs, for a while at least due to poo poo torps. If you include the Type XXI, even then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
hey uh, 60 more games, guess my rank
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
TasogareNoKagi posted:If you include the Type XXI, even then. Probably, it was the UK and Japanese who really had the lead in subs that were fast underwater. WWI R-class and submarine number 71 are the standouts, respectively. Although the Japanese were behind in something that meant they couldn't get as much range out of the same displacement on their late war high underwater speed subs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:17 |
|
|
E Equals MC Hammer posted:hey uh, 60 more games, guess my rank Congrats on rank 1.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 00:42
|
|