Your claim of it being able to protect against a Type 93 is not backed by any of this data. Yes, they had torpedo protection, but no World War II ship was capable of surviving a hit from Type 93 torpedoes.
You conveniently left off the end of the sentence you used as a source.
"U.S. Navy torpedo protection systems are typically designed to withstand the explosive force of roughly 800 to 1100 pounds of TNT, which represents the estimated explosive yield of a typical modern heavyweight torpedo."
There was no reason to design a protection system for a 1000lb warhead as no navy was using a warhead anywhere near that size. The Type 93 warhead was twice the size of anything seen until examples were recovered after Guadalcanal.
Given that the U.S. Navy ignored reports as early as 1940 that these warheads existed, and didn’t believe the ships that were sunk with them were sunk by torpedoes, why would they design a protection system to counter them?
Also, given that the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 limited displacement of ships and navies around the world were trying to squeeze every last ounce out of ship designs, why would they overdesign a system to protect against a threat that they didn’t believe existed and one that would add a substantial weight penalty to their ships.
In 1940, a Japanese “walk-in” source provided the U.S. naval attaché in Tokyo with information on the Japanese Type 93 “oxygen torpedo” (known after the war as “Long Lance”). The Type 93 had a much longer range, was faster, and had a larger warhead than any other known torpedo in the world. The Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) provided this intelligence, from an “impeccable source,” to the Navy Bureau of Ordnance, which evaluated and dismissed the report in the belief that the Japanese could not have developed a torpedo more advanced than our own, and that the use of compressed oxygen as an oxidizer was too dangerous.
We were discussing the post Pearl Harbor TDS bulge refit. You haven’t cited any data for your damage claims. Also name one American BB post Pearl sank by torpedo. Basically you can’t because there never was a single one.
You are operating under a logical fallacy. Once again, the post Pearl Harbor refits STILL did not account for the existence of warhead over 600 pounds (as previously cited) as they thought no such warhead existed. I’m asking you to explain why they would add torpedo defenses for warheads that weren’t even theoretically discussed.
The existence or not of a battleship sunk buy a torpedo is irrelevant unless you can show me a battleship that was specifically hit by a Type 93 (the only torpedo we are discussing).
I can’t prove a negative. Show me a source showing either a torpedo defense system (1900-1945) designed to counter a warhead that large or a source showing a battleship that was hit with a torpedo warhead that large and survived. You made the claim, so it’s up to you to prove it.
Edit:
Also, remember that the 1080 pound warhead you are discussing is the LIGHTEST warhead put on the Type 93. They went up to almost 1800 pounds of TNT equivalent.
Thanks, but I already did, you are simply refusing to acknowledge it. Further discussion is pointless. Especially when you refuse to provide even a remnant of proof to your claims that the battleship torpedo blisters were useless. Simply making proclamations doesn’t make it fact, and sorry I don’t accept your statements without proof. Nice chatting with you.
As I already showed you, you left off the part of the sentence in your source that was referencing MODERN torpedo defenses, not World War II ones. Once again, here is the sentence from your source.
"U.S. Navy torpedo protection systems are typically designed to withstand the explosive force of roughly 800 to 1100 pounds of TNT, which represents the estimated explosive yield of a typical modern heavyweight torpedo."
I never claimed they were useless. Let’s not compound your other logical fallacies with a straw man argument. I said they were not designed to withstand the warhead yield of a Type 93 because they didn’t know a warhead that large existed.
Does it make any sense at all that they would design a system to defeat something they didn’t think existed, or does it make more sense that they designed it to counter known threats?
Is this an exclusive naval AB issue I guess?
Because torpedos are a rather subpar weapon to bring to battle in naval RB with how situational they are to use: you will pretty much try to get rid of them asap so you dont have a giant ammo rack on your deck, and this usually means trying to aim them at the enemy spawn or a choke point where the main force of the enemy fleet will pass, so the torpedos of other nations will do the work just fine by installing torpedo mode on them.
And japanese DDs are already overtiered due to said torpedoes, since their main guns are pretty weak for shelling enemy ships due to lack of AP/SAP and HE being a bit weak.
I would add that torpedos are the easiest weapon to counter(not counting depth charges here with how useless they are), just look around you and make speed and direction changes every so often, if you get hit by a torpedo is entirely your fault for sailing like those SL farming bots that we had 2 years ago, and so far i only found the north port map to have issue with rendering torpedoes so I guess thats the only map you can complain of torpedoes
In general, yes. The problem, if you want to call it that, is ships like the Shimakaze will zip back and forth behind the main line firing off large salvos of torpedoes every couple of minutes. Because many players (at least in arcade) just keep a steady course and speed while firing off broadside after broadside, they will often be hit and sunk by a torpedo.
However, as you said, it’s fairly easy to avoid, but lazy players would like to just hit 1 button over and over in a match and then complain when their ship explodes. They can do that with the small torpedoes as the anti-torpedo defenses allow them to soak up many of them. What I’m hearing is that some players would like complete immunity to every torpedo without having to do anything to counter them.
AI ships on the large open maps are great targets for this when you have to get 85k damage for a Special Task - many players will zig-zag and/or vary speed - AI is does that only occasionally :)
Agreed. You can farm especially the heavy cruisers for this and, with the Type 93, you can farm those carriers in the back of the map. It doesn’t take long to finish that task.