Torpedo Capacity

C

Concordia

Swabbie
Banned
I know it's never actually discussed but can anyone venture to make a guess as to how many torpedoes are carried aboard a Gilgamesh-Class destroyer?

-Concordia
 
My personal guess would be twelve torpedo tubes, based on the number the 'unidentified' destroyers in Fleet Action mount. As for the actual number of torpedoes, I suppose it'd depend on the mission -- situations where you'll be able to get off more than one round of torpedoes in a single action would be rare, and they're quite valuable...
 
I think around six for cruisers. For example, the Cerberus (Hades-class) had six. It would kinda be out of synch if the cruisers it was meant to replace had more torpedo tubes then it. I also would think cruisers would have reloads for their tubes, while destroyers wouldn't.
 
World War II Fletcher class destroyers carried 10 x 21 inch torpedo tubes, but I am unsure if extra ammunition was carried aboard.

It would seem logical, then, that LOAF's theory about 12 tubes on the Fleet Action destroyers is probable, for there would be no use for 12 torpedoes and 4-6 tubes.

However, I would think that destroyers would carry reloads, for it would seem illogical and overtly complicated to pull destroyers off the line after a battle just to reload torpedo tubes, so I think destroyers carry enough torpedo ammunition for several battles, or one really large battle. It lacks sense for any but the lightest classes of ship lacking reloads for a weapon, for without ammunition, the weapon turns into dead weight.

Also, torpedo tubes were removed from US cruisers after World War I. Just a random note.
 
Also, torpedo tubes were removed from US cruisers after World War I. Just a random note.
__________________
Click to expand...

Er.....thanks.

I personally would not have a clue, but I think they would carry reloads onboard.
 
Are you sure about that? The only reference to the Astoria and torpedo tubes I can find is that the New Orleans-class was originally designed to mount torpedoes, but that this was changed before any were built.
 
Cruisers have torpedoes. False Colors had the Karga being damaged by "multiple torpedo hits". And the only Confed forces were the two cruisers.

And if destroyers had reloads, Polowski in Fleet Action would have said in Fleet Action "Ready all twelve tubes to fire! And while I'm at it, arm the fuses on our reserve torpedoes!" But he didn't say the latter.
 
psych said:
And if destroyers had reloads, Polowski in Fleet Action would have said in Fleet Action "Ready all twelve tubes to fire! And while I'm at it, arm the fuses on our reserve torpedoes!" But he didn't say the latter.
Click to expand...
He wouldn't need to. To do so would have been rather unnecessary, given that in the upcoming explosion, any remaining torpedoes would almost certainly explode anyway. Besides, there wouldn't have been time for that anyway.

All in all, I think it's extremely unlikely that Confed would design a destroyer without spare torpedoes. No reloads is fine for ships that can expect to return to base after every engagement, but this isn't the case for destroyers.
 
You got a point. My original intention is that the extra space used for the destroyer's reload torpedoes is better used to carry the planetary bombardment missiles that a destroyer definately has.
 
Actually, I don't think we've ever heard of destroyers doing planetary bombardment - that seems to be usually done by cruisers (at least on the Kilrathi side... I can't seem to recall any case of Confed planetary bombardment, although I think End Run might have had something like that).
 
Quarto said:
Actually, I don't think we've ever heard of destroyers doing planetary bombardment - that seems to be usually done by cruisers (at least on the Kilrathi side... I can't seem to recall any case of Confed planetary bombardment, although I think End Run might have had something like that).
Click to expand...

I got two if you are interested.

In Fleet Action, Munro was bombarded by four Confed destroyers and a cruiser.

In End Run, Bainbridge told Tolwyn just before the Battle of Vakur Tag "eight Kilrathi destroyers have just jumped into Vakur. Six have opened up a bombardment of the planet, one is moving towards a jump point which we'll enter though to set up a picket, the other is holding station at the Kilrathi jump point".
 
Interesting. I didn't remember about either of those. A good question at this point would be whether the planetary bombardment weaponry was fired out of the torpedo tubes, or if it had a separate launching system. If they also use torpedo tubes, then it's quite likely that destroyers would carry varying amounts of torpedoes and planetary missiles depending on their assignment. Of course, in either case it's still probable that they would carry plenty of spare weaponry.
 
I think destroyers are rather meant for suppressive bombrdement to keep the Air/Space defense down than to flatten cities or something. IIRC in End Run the destroyer is said to have started bombardement to keep the ground guns from killing the incoming marine transports.
 
I don't know how the Standoff and UE guys will do it, but I think my take is that they are seperate. The torpedo room fires torpedoes, and there would some type of seperate launcher that fires the cruise missiles (which are in effect, planetary bombardment CapShip missiles).

I actually thought about this a lot when i was making up technical specifications for my upcoming webpage, how many missiles/torpedoes a destroyer could/should carry. I had to do a couple of considerations first.

1) The number of torpedoes available to Confed forces were low, as said in the WC2 manual. If I remembered End Run correctly, the Tarawa used up her entire supply of ship-killer torpedoes in just two or three strikes. It would be really really . . . dumb if our Broadsword and Longbow squadrons didn't have enough torpedoes because most of the torpedoes we manufactured all went towards our destroyers and cruisers. Especially destroyers, because Confed has a *lot* of them. They are basically cheap mass produced warships.

"Pilot: Hey Colonel dude, our Broadswords need more torpedoes man.
Colonel dude: Sorry Lieutenant dude, our carrier's running low on torpedoes. They didn't send us enough for our carrier.
Pilot: But Colonel dude! We got four destroyers and two cruisers in our battlegroup, and each one has over two dozen torpedoes! We can just use them!
Colonel dude: Of course my hairy-assed child, but because BuWeaps said the number of torpedoes are low, we have to keep them low. That's how the Confederation works. So sorry Lieutenant dude, you'll just have to take on that fleet carrier with just a single torpedo on your Broadsword. And did I mention your wingman won't have any?"

2) I also had to find a way to keep things balanced. If destroyers had a lot more armor, shielding, and staying power then a bomber, and could go almost as fast (Gilgamesh's 250kps compared to Broadsword's 320 kps), and give a much much much better ship-killing capacity then either Broadswords or Longbows, then they would effectively render bombers obsolete and we wouldn't have needed them ever. So I had to find some way to give a good justification why the Confed military uses torpedo bombers instead of capital ships like destroyers for primary anti-ship roles. This is true in case of the Broadsword, which has no afterburner and isn't that much faster then a destroyer. So I had to put some sort of limiting factor on the destroyer's anti-capship roles.

3) I did up my checking on WW2 destroyers and even our destroyers of today. If I remembered correctly, WW2 US destroyers had 10 to 12 tubes (so they can fire that much in one salvo), but very very little reloads. Some had no reloads at all, and others only had up to four. And I looked up today's specs as well. Our modern day destroyers and cruisers tend to carry just 8 anti-ship missiles. Of course, I don't want to base everything WC on our military of today, but I took that balance into account.

4) I think WC has made it quite clear to all of us that when it comes down to it, the main striking power of Kilrathi or Confederation navies come from fleet carriers, with torpedo bomber squadrons. It's that "reach out and touch someone" capability which explains why Confed/Kilrathi/others primarily use torpedo bombers to attack capships. If the Confed fleet lost their entire carrier force, then they are screwed. All the destroyers with all the torpedoes in the Confed inventory wouldn't do a thing to turn the tide of the war in their favor at that point (if it ever happens). If a destroyer's ship-killing capacity was that good, then Confed can just say "oops, we just lost our carriers. But we got badass ship-killing destroyers, we can still win the war!"

5) I personally think twelve torpedo tubes with little (around 4) to no reloads is a lot better then four torpedo tubes with 12-16 total torps (4 in tubes, 8-12 reload rounds). More flexibility, less logistical time and manpower required (destroyers are small vessels), and more useful in emergency situations where one has to attack a Kilrathi supercarrier :)
 
psych said:
2) I also had to find a way to keep things balanced. If destroyers had a lot more armor, shielding, and staying power then a bomber, and could go almost as fast (Gilgamesh's 250kps compared to Broadsword's 320 kps), and give a much much much better ship-killing capacity then either Broadswords or Longbows, then they would effectively render bombers obsolete and we wouldn't have needed them ever. So I had to find some way to give a good justification why the Confed military uses torpedo bombers instead of capital ships like destroyers for primary anti-ship roles. This is true in case of the Broadsword, which has no afterburner and isn't that much faster then a destroyer. So I had to put some sort of limiting factor on the destroyer's anti-capship roles.
Click to expand...
Umm, I think you're looking at this balance-thing the wrong way. Sure, a destroyer may be almost as fast as a Broadsword, and it's got better shields and armour and staying power et cetera, but it's also a hell of a lot more expensive, requires more supplies, and makes for a bigger target. If you take out a destroyer, you take down twelve torpedo tubes - and doing so only takes two torpedoes, which can be fired by just two crappy little torpedo bombers long before the destroyer can get within range of any capship.

As for the comparison to real-life destroyers, note that killing other capships has never really been a destroyer's main objective in life. In WWII especially, destroyers were used for anti-submarine duties above everything else. Come to think of it, this would be a very good argument to support your view - if they're designed to go after corvettes and other pseudo-capships, their AMG armament would be enough, so there's no need to have lots of spare torpedoes.
 
Ya, destroyers are supposed to be jack-of-all-trades warships with dual purpose capabilities (offensive and defensive). Considering how it has to be fast, carry good armor and shielding for its small size, escort capital ships like carriers and heavy cruisers, give desperate torpedo runs against larger ships, bombard installations and such, there should be adequate weaponry needed to take on any given situation. The drawback; however, is that it can't really do anything really well. Jack of all trades yes, but master of none.
 
The drawback; however, is that it can't really do anything really well. Jack of all trades yes, but master of none.
Click to expand...

Unfortunate! But it does make more sense than carrying all those torps!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top