Naval Warfare

Email
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
Password	(Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field) Spoiler images (this replaces the thumbnails of your images with question marks) Hide country (this board displays your country when you post if this is unchecked)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf Max filesize is 16 MB. Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000. You may upload 5 per post.

File: bb61c1fbfb0c911⋯.png (232.98 KB, 602x401, 602:401, USS Cassin Young.png)

Naval Warfare Strelok 03/21/19 (Thu) 19:51:45 91cb7b No.660381

Let's start with a potentially retarded question: wouldn't it make sense to bring back submerged torpedo tubes to surface vessels? Modren guided torpedoes don't require the ship to face the target straight on, therefore I think adding both fore and aft torpedo tubes would work just fine. Torpedo tubes of submarines are designed to launch mines (and missiles, not that it matters here) too, and they are meant to be reloaded in the middle of battle. In a ship they'd be a lot more protected than the tubes on the deck. You'd also have more deck space for other things (like more missiles). Am I missing something here?

Strelok 03/21/19 (Thu) 21:24:29 63ec23 No.660408

Let's say that halfway through the ship's life, the torpedoes it was using become obsolete and the new torpedoes are 30% larger. If the launcher is bolted to the deck then you can replace it without too many problems since it's all a single unit, but if it's integrated into the hull then you have a massive job because now the holes are the wrong size and you have to cut new holes and weld up the old ones.

Strelok 03/21/19 (Thu) 21:44:47 5e39a8 No.660414

>>660381

>In a ship they'd be a lot more protected than the tubed on the deck

Hasn't naval combat reached the point where a ship taking damage to the equipment on its deck isn't worried about launching torpedoes?

Strelok 03/21/19 (Thu) 22:13:29 b67b51 No.660424

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>660381

Modern naval warfare is defined by long range stand-off weapons, aircraft and missiles are the way to go. If you are in range to fire torpedoes, chances are you can use a lot of different weapons that cannot be counteracted against like pic related.

also >>660408 is correct, because bolt of systems are easier to modify/replace than structural changes. And remember that any space on a ship is valuable, also having stores of high explosives underwater is a bad, bad idea if you need to ditch them as with fires on ships.

>>660414

The few engagements that come to mind basically involve killing the entire enemy. In the past, naval warfare capitalized on the ability of ships to survive and be repaired (and potentially added to the fleet). modern weapons are so destructive that you can sink a ship from over the horizon before you even come up on their radar.

multipurpose weapons are arguably more effective than purpose built weapons (i.e. you can shoot vessels and aircraft instead of just one or the other).

Strelok 03/22/19 (Fri) 13:41:16 e1f96d No.660586

File: e9d6e94e8c4b3f1⋯.jpg (217.78 KB, 640x517, 640:517, U-848.jpg)

>>660408

Torpedoes are the main weapons of submarines, therefore if a navy suddenly switches to significantly bigger torpedies, then they will have to either scrap or rebuild their whole submarine fleet. Cutting new holes on surface ships isn't that massive of an undertaking compared to that.

>>660424

>If you are in range to fire torpedoes, chances are you can use a lot of different weapons that cannot be counteracted against like pic related.

As far as I understand torpedoes on surface ships are mainly there against submarines with torpedoes, so they are naturally used against targets that are in torpedo range.

> any space on a ship is valuable

And deck space is even more valuable, because you need it for anti-ship missiles and CIWS. Placing them under the deck wouldn't really work, especially with the later.

>having stores of high explosives underwater is a bad, bad idea if you need to ditch them as with fires on ships

Not that it would help with that particular problem, but you could place them below the deck but still over the waterline. In that case upgrading them would be easier too.

>multipurpose weapons are arguably more effective than purpose built weapons

The torpedo tubes of submarines are true multipurpose launchers, as I've wrote they can launch mines and missiles too. Yes, I know that launching missiles from the torpedo tubes of a surface vessel is not a particularly bright idea. A ship equipped with the same kind of tubes can now lay mines and engage underwater targets with the same weapon system, because now it can carry reloads of both of them. You could dedicate plenty of space under the deck for an automatic reloading system, something that wouldn't really work out with bolt-on torpedo tubes on the deck.

Strelok 03/22/19 (Fri) 14:48:30 a27da6 No.660595

>>660381

First of all modern ships are all "course" ships. Meaning their job is to protect and attack shipping, which will be done with missiles.

Second the main anti-sub weapon of a ship is Anti-Submarine missiles (RUM-139 VL-ASROC in the US navy & cie, MILAS French/Italian navy, RPK series on soviet/russian ships) and all sorts of propelled depths charges.

The torpedoes are there as a legacy system nobody knows if it's still useful or not and as a self defense weapon against sub that would be too close to hit with ASuM (but then if it's that close you're probably fucked anyway).

It's pistols on officers, so yeah you put them on the decks because designers thinks that one day the navy is just gonna want to take them off.

Strelok 03/22/19 (Fri) 16:04:46 e1f96d No.660604

>>660595

I see. I guess I could argue that you could still use the tubes to launch depth charges and anti-torpedo torpedoes, but I guess you could deliver those from systems that can be placed in the VLS cells. And in that case it might be true of mines too. But if torpedoes have questionable utility, then I have to wonder: will we see submarines without them?

Strelok 03/22/19 (Fri) 16:41:23 5c98cb No.660613

>>660408

everyone has been using 21" torps like since forever.

EVERYONE's subs since WW1 have been 21", so unless you are gonna start beaching and cutting up your subs figure you are gonna have 21" fish as your top torp.

IIRC there are reasons why 21" is the sweet spot, sort of like how 155mm/6' is sweet spot for artillery.

OP has a point. In WW2 Japs learned that their deadly 24" or any deck mounted torps were more of a danger to them due to strafing by US aircraft with .50cal. I guess they couldn't figure out a way to armor them. Jap destroyers generally struggled with stability and were top heavy, especially after more shit was added. I'd have only loaded two torps of a 4-fish launcher and used the weight savings for armor if that is what it took, just because you only need one hit from a 24" to sink just about anything.