Per Friedman’s U.S. Cruisers, An Illustrated Design History (page 296-297), Alaska’s design, which was based on Plan MM of 12-inch-gun cruiser designs, was tested to withstand hits from 500 lb tnt torpedos. Furthermore, existing documents show that Alaska had internal barbettes as a part of its TDS system. Hence, I recommend that a torpedo protection value of 250 kg should be added to Alaska.
Apologies for the ping, but it seems that you are the person in charge of naval ship configurations?
Please lmk if you require more supportive evidence from me!
Only external torpedo protections (ie. bulges) are modelled currently. No plans for internal systems yet.
If that is the case, may I ask why does Belfast (which did not have any bulge) have a TDS value while Agano (which had a very slim bulge) does not?
Because Belfast was bulged up, but Agano wasn’t.
Belfast had torpedo bulges added while under repair August-December in 1940 eg see HMS Belfast, British light cruiser, WW2
Thanks for the info! I only researched American cruisers’ protection schemes so this is new to me.
Thanks for the information - I hate to be rude but this is categorically unfair to ships using internal TDS, which is considered to be a more advanced system by naval researchers.
No writing of 250 kg on ships using internal TDS doesn’t mean they have no torpedo protection like ships that didn’t have such. This is also some bad habit of Gaijin, but ships using internal TDS (such as Alaska, Duilio, Shcarnhorst) is still better than old dreadnoughts in terms of anti-torpedo protection.
Of course it would be much better for Gaijin to show internal TDS protection stats to users.