Actually, battleships being very resistant to torpedoes, but very vulnerable to bombs is very realistic.
See, battleships have an armoured belt, you can see that as a very thick metal wall directly behind the ships outer hull just above and under the waterline. It does not incude the main deck above it or the bottom of the ship, and almost always not the bow and stern section. That armoured belt is supposed to stop battleship grenades ( generally of the size of it's own main guns ) and torpedoes.
To help the armoured belt absorb a torpedo explosion ( in water explosion force is multiplied and does way more damage ) battleships have anti topedo bulkheads. These are spaces with many shock-absorbing bulkheads between the outer hull and armoured belt that are filled with sea water. This layer will cushion the inmense shock of an underwater explosion by a torpedo, or worse, a heavy anti shipping mine.
Therefore it is very hard to sink a battleship with torpedoes, you have to place multiple hits on the the exact already damaged section to even sort effect.
Carriers and light cruisers, all destroyers and smaller warships have no armoured belt, ( they were not designed to fight battleships and absorb monsterous large grenades ) and therefore anti-torpedo bulkheads will be much less effective, if at all. Using torpedoes on carriers, light cruisers and destroyers should be fatal.
Bombs dropped on a battleship however fall ( through other superstructure ) on the main deck. All structures above the main deck are only light armoured, due to point of gravity issues. ( Yamato was the only exception, it had fully battleship grenade resisting superstructure armour ) The main deck of a battleship is heavy armoured, but comes nowhere near the armored belt in protection. The reason for that is a ship cannot be too heavy ( high point of gravity ) above the waterline, or it will roll too much in heavy weather and will not be able to fight.
WWII battleships main deck armour could not deal with armour-penetrating bombs the divebombers carried and dropped with considerable kinetic energy falling from high altitude. That also means battleships were vulnerable to arched fire from other battleships, that came in at an angle and hit the main deck, not the vertical armoured belt. Arched fire only occurs at long range fights, wich meant the battleship that could fire the most distant had a good chance destroying the enemy counterpart. That explains the monsterous cannons and range finding radar, these were essential.
The closer battleships fight, the less capable they become of sinking the other battleship, since their flat trrajectory fire will now only be able to hit the armoured belt, wich is designed thick enough to stop battlehip grenades up to a given caliber alltogether.
Later war carriers had armoured flight decks, but it was never enough to stop heavy armour penetrating bombs dropped by divebombers.
Conclusion of all this info about real life ships :
- torpedoes are effective against all but battleships
- divebomber ( armour penetrating ) bombs are effective against all ships
Excuse me but I don't understand one thing: What stops me from dropping the torpedo on the flight deck? Won't it have the same effect? I'm talking 'bout the game now, not real life. Oh and on japanese carrier people sometimes spawn on leaving planes. REALLY frustrating. What comes to the allied carrier: I, as many others, like the elevator, but not the operators.
Very detailled post Beast, but don't forget that some battleships were sunk nevertheless by torpedoes. I also think the damage done by torpedoes in FH should be increased.
What is more, I would like a different spawnpoint for the Wildcat on top of the carrier. Right now it spawns in such a way that it blocks planes from the hangar.
so what i don´t quite understand is:
what are torpedoes useful for at all? i'm taking about real life and the game..
If bombs are useful against battleships and also are able to rip through the mostly wooden carrier decks why where torpedo bombers used?
Torpedoebobmers come in low, so some AA-guns have more difficulties shooting them down. What is more, ships weren't always equipped with these torpedoebelts and even if they were, sometimes they just didn't work. Eventually, a whole in a ship under the waterline is more dangerous than a whole on the deck of a ship.
Ya and I would much rather go in low and launch a torpedo strike under the carrier and destroyers AA net. All you need is fighter support to keep the interceptors off of you long enough.
It's spelled "Aichi" Val, not "Archi".
Aichi is the company which produced the divebomber and "Val" is the codename it was given by the Allies. Your findings about the Val's lack of effectiveness compared to the SBD is pretty damn sad..... The SBD's torpedoes being MORE effective than the Val's is JUST PLAIN UNREALISTIC and UNHISTORICAL. The whole thing is unhistorical first off because - My understanding is that D3A Vals were DIVE-BOMBERS, NOT TORPEDO BOMBERS. They were built to DROP ordinance on a target, not torpedos. Typically they were armed with BOMBS. They were NOT the standard Torpedo bombers of the IJN, that role belonging to the "Kate". Though there may be instances of Vals equipped with Torpedoes, I believe that this was due to necessity and ingenuity rather than standardized practice. I may be completely wrong, but if I am I challenge anyone to post evidence to the contrary. - Japanese used the very famous "Long Lance" torpedoes; these torpedoes were actually considerably SUPERIOR, not only to American standard torpedoes, but to any torpedo fielded in the world at the time. They had better range and far better destroying power. So in the first place (as far as I know), the D3A Val shouldn't even be a Torpedo bomber to begin with. And second off, if there should be any imbalance at all, it should be that the Japanese torpedoes do SIGNIFICANTLY more damage than their American counterparts.
FrederfI've been playing the torpedo planes today on a empty Midway server. I flew several runs with both planes on all number of ship targets. It seems the Arch-T is just plain broke. Half throttle, level and wavetop height I released a 60cm torp a good distance from the US DD and it sailed right under it. Torped the PoW, hit 90deg, 0 damage (I spawned on it as a US seaman and it was tip top when I tried to wrench it). Granted that is pretty realistic for the PoW to shrug it off. Hit the fubuki with a Arch-T torp and it lowered it to 60-70%... pretty disappointing. The SBD-T (or TBD) seemed to fair better with hit percentages against shallow draft vessles and WAY BETTER on damage. Still both airplanes seem a big disappointment in effective anti-shipping... especially the big battleships. Especially considering how stupidly easy bombing a ship is by comparison. Especially because ships in BF never stick together for AA cover. Successfully torpedoing a ship should really be rewarded or straight bombing punished to make them 50/50 options or so. Curious notes about Midway and torpedoing: 1. The japanese carrier spawns aircraft like mad while the american carrier "only" has up 4 at once. This is designed to be this side's advantage, along with the sub. Unfortunately, gaurding the carrier is the last thing on the Yamamoto's captain's mind and the Jap CV is often wasted. 2. Having your crosshair above the horizon slightly as you release the torpedo in either plane seems to have a surfacing effect on the torpedo making it run into ships and not under them. 3. Torpedos have long long infinate range in deep enough water, great for stand off attacks. Unfortunately, to avoid missing you ususally have to get the model in sidht and by that time you're very close.
I've seen the same thing. Torpedoes do joke damage, IF they hit. Its much easier to just use Betty or B-17 bombs on ships, and they do more damage then torpedoes as well. This should really be fixed.
Torp planes aren't built for ANYTHING but launching torpedoes in the water to attack ships. They can't fight off enemy planes or bomb ground targets. So why make them suck at the only thing they are good at? Torpedoes are hard enough to use that I could stand to see a large increase in damage, especially considering the risk the pilot is put in by attacking a ship. The smaller ships with the 20mm Oikerlon(Sp?) are incredibly good for shooting down planes with a skilled gunner, and the large ships don't even require eyesight to take out planes, they have 50 cannons all blazing away at the sky and destroying everything.
Boost the torpedo damage a lot I say. Give them some hurt.
3 should sink a large ship, 4 should sink a carrier, and 1 should severly incapacitate a light ship. Landing craft and PT boats should not survive a torpedo hit.
god please, FIX IT SO PLANES DONT SPAWN ON THE CARRIER! so many times have i been taking off and a plane spawned and my corsair was wrecked
Both Aichi "Val" and Dauntless SBD are divebombers and did not ( could not ) carry torpedoes, they were sturdy built designs with divebrakes.
For torpedoes you need a diffrent type of aircraft : for the U.S. the TBD Devastator and the TBM/TBF Avenger. ( i believe both will be in the new version FH ) and for the Jappanese Nakajima B5N "Kate" and Nakajima B6N Tenzan "Jill"
These aircraft are generally have a longer fuselage to accomodate the torpedo and have a larger wingspan to carry the heavy torpedo. They are slower then divebombers and less agile.
That torpedo bombers are ineffective against battleships and their anti-torpedo bulkheads does not mean torpedo bombers are useless.......most carriers were nothing more then a large cargo ship hull with a flight deck on it. They were very vulnerable to torpedo attack.
Torpedo aircraft were always used in together with divebombers at the same time, the torpedo bombers coming in low ( wavetop height ) and the divebombers at several thousand feet. This forced the target ship's flak gunners to make a choice, and for defending fighters it was even a harder choice. A defensive fighter screen will patrol around a carrier at high altitude by default, but if they engage the torpedobombers at wavetop height, they will never be in time to engage the high flying divebombers. Climbing would take up to 3 minutes for most fighters of the day.
Survival rate of torpedo bombers was very low, as you can expect of slow aircraft flying at low altitude. But they are not useless......unlike Ohioan said, in real life it only takes one torpedo to sink a carrier......in "soft" hulls like carriers and cargo ships a torpedo will blow such a large hole in the hull that the ship is probably lost no matter what. You cannot repair such large holes at sea, and depending how much bulkhead sections failed the water flowing in will capsize and sink the ship, at least take it out of action. ( you cannot lauch or recieve aircrat at a flightdeck angles 30 degrees to one side....) More torpedoes only decrease the time before the carrier starts roll over in the water and dissapears under the waves.
Some large cargo ships are even known to break in two after a torpedo impact, and dissapear under water in seconds.......no survivors when that happens.