Will there be realistic torpedos in SH5 | Forums

[AvsDx]

i want see larges explosions, battleships infliges damages with fragments, hot, fire etc, my submarine die too with explosions not more blank screen... i hope.

[schwarzkommando]

By the time the Germans got their Magnetic Combat Pistols squared away, the Allies were de-Gausing their ships.

[spaced_monkey]

Originally posted by socko2009:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">For all the people who don't know this Battleships generally carry enough munitions to equal twice that of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Nuclear bombs.

Well....., I certainly don't know anything of the sort!!! ….Your assertion is absurd!

The Hiroshima bomb had a yield of 15 Kilotons: ….That’s the equivalent of 15,000 TONS of TNT!!

The Nagasaki bomb had a yield of 21 Kilotons. The total yield of both bombs was 36 Kilotons; ……and when we double that, we come up with 72,000 tons of TNT.

The example ship you sited, the HMS Hood, had a total loaded displacement of 48,000 tons: …..HOW COULD IT POSSIBLY BE CARRYING THE EQUIVALENT OF 72,000 TONS OF TNT???

S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


you Never herd of the Halifax explosion or the the or the one in the US (Texas I think) with the same results. The SS Mont-Blanc was caring 35 tons of benzol, 300 rounds of ammunition, 10 tons of gun cotton, 2,300 tons of picric acid (used in explosives), and 400,000 pounds of TNT. She Is no ware near as big as a Battleship.

http://www.halifax.ca/Community/explode.html ( verify it for yourself)

[gamer025]

Originally posted by spaced_monkey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by socko2009:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">For all the people who don't know this Battleships generally carry enough munitions to equal twice that of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Nuclear bombs.

Well....., I certainly don't know anything of the sort!!! ….Your assertion is absurd!

The Hiroshima bomb had a yield of 15 Kilotons: ….That’s the equivalent of 15,000 TONS of TNT!!

The Nagasaki bomb had a yield of 21 Kilotons. The total yield of both bombs was 36 Kilotons; ……and when we double that, we come up with 72,000 tons of TNT.

The example ship you sited, the HMS Hood, had a total loaded displacement of 48,000 tons: …..HOW COULD IT POSSIBLY BE CARRYING THE EQUIVALENT OF 72,000 TONS OF TNT???

S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


you Never herd of the Halifax explosion or the the or the one in the US (Texas I think) with the same results. The SS Mont-Blanc was caring 35 tons of benzol, 300 rounds of ammunition, 10 tons of gun cotton, 2,300 tons of picric acid (used in explosives), and 400,000 pounds of TNT. She Is no ware near as big as a Battleship.

http://www.halifax.ca/Community/explode.html ( verify it for yourself) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those are merchant container ships which are essentially giant boxes on the inside and can carry huge amounts of cargo. A battleship does not carry only cargo and is not built like a merchant ship on the inside.

ALSO, 400 000 pounds is 200 tons.

[spaced_monkey]

Originally posted by gamer025:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by spaced_monkey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by socko2009:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">For all the people who don't know this Battleships generally carry enough munitions to equal twice that of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Nuclear bombs.

Well....., I certainly don't know anything of the sort!!! ….Your assertion is absurd!

The Hiroshima bomb had a yield of 15 Kilotons: ….That’s the equivalent of 15,000 TONS of TNT!!

The Nagasaki bomb had a yield of 21 Kilotons. The total yield of both bombs was 36 Kilotons; ……and when we double that, we come up with 72,000 tons of TNT.

The example ship you sited, the HMS Hood, had a total loaded displacement of 48,000 tons: …..HOW COULD IT POSSIBLY BE CARRYING THE EQUIVALENT OF 72,000 TONS OF TNT???

S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


you Never herd of the Halifax explosion or the the or the one in the US (Texas I think) with the same results. The SS Mont-Blanc was caring 35 tons of benzol, 300 rounds of ammunition, 10 tons of gun cotton, 2,300 tons of picric acid (used in explosives), and 400,000 pounds of TNT. She Is no ware near as big as a Battleship.

http://www.halifax.ca/Community/explode.html ( verify it for yourself) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those are merchant container ships which are essentially giant boxes on the inside and can carry huge amounts of cargo. A battleship does not carry only cargo and is not built like a merchant ship on the inside.

ALSO, 400 000 pounds is 200 tons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and it leveled a city! I'm not sure of the hood but the Bismarck was able to care a 1000-1300 rounds for her main guns a you figure the shell weighs about 1600Lb, 20% of that is explosives now add the 150 to 500lb of Cordite that's (320x1000)+(250X1000)/2000= 1920000+250000
=2170000/2000(ton)= 1085 tons if you forget that BB's have aa guns, secondary guns, torpedoes and a variety other explosive and flammable substances you get a boom almost twice that of the Halifax disaster. I may have overestimated the the yield of a exploding BB but it still should look better then it did.

Coal fired ships aren't capable of going to full speed from cold boilers but that is another argument for another day LOL,

ty for all the input that i received on this Topic, I may not agree with the view you shared but appreciate them non the less

Fight In the Sea and in the the air (maybe even out to lunch on some days)

Spaced_Monkey


fixed spelling error Do'h

[kingsleyben]

lol, you guys are really digressing from the topic of this thread. I agree that torpedoes should be the most realistic part of the game. I think we can all agree that if you hit ANY WW2 ship near the engine room or propellers, that ship is dead in the water. It would be very nice to be able to shoot a liberty cargo with a torpedo and take out their deck gun. Completely feasible scenario.

[RedTerex]

YES (for those who will still buy the game) SH5 will have realistic torpedoes.

In fact in SH4 a torp was able to disable a ship if it hit it in the props and not all ships reacted the same to how and where they were hit..it was quite realistic indeed.

Plus the depth setting on the torp had a lot to do with its destructive force as well.

[spaced_monkey]

the depth of the torpedo shouldn't affect the fact that some of the British bb only had a 55%-60% coverage of there main Armour belt and that that hit hit in front or behind this main belt would penetrate, and most likely cause serious secondary explosions. Also fire should actually do damage and not just indicate damage, it so lame to see a ship on fire and no explosions from stuff on board going off.

[Talroth]

Didn't the Halifax explosion cause about 300-400 acres of damage? And didn't both nuclear bombs dropped on Japan cause over 2000 acres each?

The Halifax explosion was big, and destroyed much of a city, but it wasn't all that big of a city at the time.

[spaced_monkey]

the nuclear bombs detonated 1 km above the cites did do more area damage but if the Halifax explosion was 1k up it probably would have be horrifying. (keeping in mind there where ships out at see near Halifax that when the shock wave hit thought they where torpedoed.