R/C Naval Combat

Hey. I'm brand new here so bear with my rookie behind.

I fell in love with submarines 3 years ago, when I was thirteen. I have never built an R/C model but this is only because my family's funds cannot afford such a hobby. However, I have studied how submarines run, how they work, and most importantly how they hunt.

Has anybody here played a sub sim like Silent Hunter or Dangerous Waters?

If you have you know that each torpedo shot is a carefully calculated trigonomic problem.

Now if you made a torpedo run for an extended period of time you are going to have to calculate the shot, unless of course you want to waste your torps. Without an onboard camera (Which by the way on a sub can be difficult) I estimate that any shot over 6 feet is doomed to miss.

You can say I'm overthinking the whole thing but how are you going to aim a torpedo shot from a submerged sub out in the water at a target 10 feet away. Even if you put a camera on your sub you would have to build a periscope or be at the mercy of the clarity of the water. On a 1/144 Sub?!??!!

Calculating a torpedo shot requires several factors: Speed, your course, the course of the target, angle on the bow (Don't ask),Range,torpedo speed,etc.,etc. I don't know about you but I don't have any ideas on how to put the instruments needed onboard the submarine.

I like the idea of the micro batteries and motors. But they might not be powerful enough to push a torpedo through a balsa hull. I think the best torpedo would be a simple tube with holes drilled in half its length. That way half of the torp would be reserved for propulsion. The torp would work so that 1/4 of the torpedo would stick in the hull and the 1/4 with holes would be outside of the hole. This would equalize the pressure inside the hull and water would begin pouring in. Gentlemen, this works, I've tried it and I urge you to. I used the plastic tube of a cheap pen and stuck it into a plastic yogurt cup and then submerged the torp in the water. I would propel the torp with the motor of one of those micro r/c cars and a stack of hearing aid button batteries.

I would love to build an R/C submarine with functioning torpedoes and I believe it is possible, but aiming the torpedo would be difficult even using "Kentucky Windage." I have done the trig for the torpedo shot for a school geometry project and let me tell you it is not easy or quick. Plus R/C warships probably turn so quick that even if you could calculate a basic very simple shot the target range and course would have changed. I hope i haven't been to preachy or offensive. Good Luck to you all in your experiments!!!

At the end of the day, the issue most important to me is that no rules "neuter" the intent of locomotive torpedoes. While locomotive torpedoes would stand to have the potential to dramatically upset the current balance of firepower on the pond, they are far from anything resembling a "wonder weapon" and the use would not only be limited by their slow speed; it would also be limited by their cost (in time, complexity, and money) as was the case with many real torpedoes during the early 20th century. I see the implementation of locomotive torpedoes as crucial to building interest in constructing the vessels at the smaller end of the spectrum; it would also increase the importance of teamwork (destroyers to counter torpedo boats/cruisers to counter torpedo-armed destroyers that might be attempting to attack battleships) and balancing weapons selection for battleships (slower-firing main battery versus quick-firing secondary batteries). Existing torpedo cannon systems will retain a close-range advantage over vessels equipped with locomotive torpedoes. For the individual captains, the task of rearming avoids the need to "rebuild" individual torpedoes and the ability of a perspective victim to avoid damage is more limited to the difference in the attacker and its target's ability to maneuver instead of an ability to turn out of the path of a (relatively) slow moving torpedo. While the person firing locomotive torpedoes could use a dark paint on each torpedo to make them difficult to spot when in the water, the likelihood of being able to recover those torpedoes for later use would be slim, thus discouraging the idea of minimizing the visibility of torpedoes.

My opinion is that a pager motor propulsion/spring-action warhead combination is the most likely to yield a viable torpedo as the propulsion is based upon generally COTS parts while the "warhead" is both minimally dependent upon the impact velocity of the torpedo and is powered independent of the propulsion system. If designed for neutral buoyancy or with just a "hair" of buoyancy, such torpedoes could be run at a particular depth or just below the surface with reasonable consistency (although the former would result in more single-use torpedoes than the latter). For the purpose of launching, each torpedo could be deployed by a burst of compressed gas or even pressurized water (a use for bilge pump output perhaps) as has been used with many real-world torpedoes. Using compressed gas for propulsion introduces the issues of changing buoyancy with running time, gas pressure/flow regulation, unknown efficiency, and the outright risk of compromised safety if an inadequate design is developed (compressed gas could still make the torpedo become airborne under the right circumstances). The combination of electric propulsion and mechanical warhead produces two separate engineering problems of reasonable difficulty instead of the one multi-faceted dynamic systems engineering problem of more extreme difficulty that an all-gas torpedo could yield.

Unfortunately, I won't be able to be personally involved in any physical R&D on the topic in the immediate future (unless somebody on the forums here who is geographically nearby has a home machine shop that they've been hiding) but I can certainly offer to help anybody else with any work that they may be doing on the topic, whether it be computing buoyancy, creating a CAD model to evaluate a possible design, identifying possible components that are off-the-shelf, etc.

The locomotive torps described are going to have a battery of some sort and a motor of some sort? That means they also will have to be recoverable at the end of a battle or be an environmental hazard. (BTW before anyone asks - the Steel bearings we use degrade over time, and are fine. They put iron in the pond as they go through a process of biodegradation and chemical degradation which is good for the fish and such.)

To me this thread is pretty much an interesting brain exercise, and I enjoy those, but realistically the existing torps and rules on torps work about as well as the existing gun structure which is good. (if you are Big Gun and variant, and this thread really isn't applicable to Small Gun.) We've already got torp destroyers and cruisers that can wreak their own bit of havoc on the cheap with each torp costing what, a penny including CO2 cost to propel it?

So NOW, let's move forward and think about what IF for the FUTURE. Let's presume that all the hurdles are crossed, and it's possible and production has started. These new torps are going to be expensive in time and material which makes it less likely for them to get used, reducing the fun factor for the guy that has a ship armed with them. Now let's get other into practicalities in the distant future. They're in the "field" now, but don't work as reliably as the old "unrealistic" 1/4" ball bearing making them a bit of a bummer. So I'm going to pay $10 or so per torp in material and probably and optimistically (after much process improvement) 1 hour of time per torp to build it. That makes them $60 torps at minimum with time costs included, although I'd venture to say $100 per torp. I'm going to spend all those hours (and $1,000 in hard cash) making up 100 torps to blow in one afternoon. Only to leave many of them on the bottom of the pond cause I can't retrieve all of them, and potentially run afoul of the environmental agencies, or the water board, or the city or state governments and possible fines. Well, to contrast the less than a penny environmentally friendly steel 1/4" bearing, I can go out and battle, expend my 100 torps, and only spent a $1 in gas and bearings and had a more effective/reliable weapon.

Personally, I love just being able to throw 1/4" ball bearings into an existing cannon design, call it a torp and keep moving along. It's very CHEAP, very effective, and it's good for overall gameplay. It's not a torpedo in the purist sense, but then again, a 1/4" ball bearing representing a 16" shell being fired at point blank range isn't very purist either. Some things have to be compromised on to make a game work. If we were into realism, then we'd all have to start fighting in the Great Lakes, and we couldn't even see each other's ships to simulate the ranges, when brought down to 1/144 scale. But we don't do that. We currently slug it out like 18th century naval combat, with vessels that look like early 20th century, loaded with 21st century tech on the inside of them. :) c'est la vie. In the end, it's a game and compromises have to be made.

You got a point... Lead in the batteries lost in the pond is a no-no. But people don't seem to worry about the copper plated and zinc plated bbs... and I've always wondered about that. Not the same level of hazard as lead... but copper seems to conflict with invertabrates.

Ya, they are gonna be expensive, I forsee lots of lathe work :) And the fit and finish are going to have to be spot on. Even if somebody comes up with a workable design... not everybody is going to be able to make them... or want to afford a set for use. Recovering the torps during gameplay will probably be a nightmare... So, my guess is that there will be no real danger of these systems getting on the water in big gun clubs for say at least a year or more. I could be wrong :)

Even then, due to expense, I'll bet that few ships armed with this type of weapon get out there... or get to R and D phase :) Even then, we've got to wonder if the system will pick up Namba insurance. Cause I'm sure nobody want's a whopping liability.

But ya gotta dream :)

Mike

One further tech thought. With the piston design (warhead) and the right tolerances, should the warhead region fill with water, the piston would be unable to fire with sufficient force to do any damage. If one were to use, perhapse, one of those breath mint thin film pads (if it will stick) to seal two holes in the outer casing, it would dissolve shortly after firing (but long after a hit/miss) and would be able to fill the piston chamber with water and render it relatively inert.

As far as materials, if you use a non-lead bearing chemistry such as NIMH or the lithium button cells, they are better. not great, but better. Some of the Nimh and lithium cells out there even meet the rohs specs

Lots of great info here guys,

One thing to remember about locomotive torps, they are very likely not going to be viable for 1/144 scale. The accepted norm 1/4" spurt guns will likely remain king of the smaller scale...

Current battlers who are content with the current systems really have nothing to worry about. Most current clubs probably won't allow locomotive torps and things will remain more or less the same. People who have invested time and money in the current torp guns will have targets for many years to come.

Any resistance to new torpedo technology for fear of losing current members to a new style club is something that will just have to be accepted. Many people are very happy with current clubs, rules, technology, but many people are not. In the last few months (even on this board) the once quiet minority of "new tech" thinkers has grown in numbers and is increasingly more vocal. Change is on the horizon, and a possibility exists that the hobby will split again to include fast gun, big gun, and locomotive torp style clubs.

Back to tech...

I still favor a sping powered, shredding wardhead with no kind of projectile. That way there is nothing to shoot into your eye, and, should it sping open in your hand your own grip will keep it shut.

I am increasingly favoring small motors/batteries for power, it totally eliminates the danger of a torpedo "cooking off". I also like the idea of pulling a non-conductive strip out of the torp to engage the motor.

I also believe it is vital that a torpedo float after the end of its run and be brightly colored, say orange for one team and yellow for the other. Of course this is unrealistic, but it aids in spotting and recovery. We have a disadvantage of not being on the ship we control, so we have to spot torps from the side of the pond.

I am in favor of increasing torpedo range, but I want to increase the range of gun battles ( no more barrel to barrel battles ). What is the max effective range for a current gun that is level to the water? That should be a torpedoes range.

I personally don't have fear of losing current members, although arguments over tech sometimes ends up with losing old and new members both. I'm more afraid of losing the new members working/dreaming on these and finally figuring out they aren't as good as hoped for and then exit. I've seen that sort of thing a few times already.

Keep in mind, I'm very much in the "new" tech crowd, having documented the procedures for the then new mTroniks waterproof ESC's years ago, my APCMKIII design, along with being one of the early adopters for electronic firing circuits, but I'm also pragmatic about such things. If I have a choice between $100 a shot torp, and a $1 for 100 shot "torp", I'm going to choose the $1 for 100 and get more bang for the buck. :) I'd rather spend the technical time on better hardware and software on the radios, microcontrollers, pump designs, automatic pump circuits, and better/more efficient gun designs. Not to mention just improving the existing methodologies and properly documenting it for the next guy. :) All of those are more affordable and add more to the fun factor than a new torp design that would be problematic in 1:72 scale. Are locomotive torps "Gee whiz" and cool, HELL YEAH they are! I really really wouldn't mind seeing one in action. But I don't see it advancing much other than limited bragging rights and limited damage potential compared to the current tech which has a very proven lethality. I foresee those having a high frustration factor for properly aiming and firing as well. It's hard enough on shore aiming the guns as it is, much less aiming torps to hit something mobile several feet away. I had a heck of a time firing torps playing the video game Great Naval Battles because aiming at a moving target just ain't that easy, even when staring down the sight. If I'm proven wrong, so be it. It really won't hurt my feelings, and I wouldn't mind seeing it. So prove me wrong, cause I want to see locomotive torps! :)

For the point on distances, if the distances were increased for battle for gun and torps, then some of the debate admittedly does change a bit. I'm not sure that pushes it over the edge as a good idea to use the effort on though. (Damn, I'm spending too much time around the product management guys at work and it shows)

Part of the problem is this:

Current rule sets are like a house of cards, pull one from the wrong place and the whole thing comes crashing down...

Jeff, I believe you hit the nail on the head with regards to locomotive torpedoes versus existing torpedo cannon design. Use of locomotive torpedoes could even become restricted to use in purpose-built/designated ponds for the sake of environmental protection. I definitely see locomotive torpedoes having a very limited degree of effective lethality compared to torpedo cannon as you've mentioned, Jeff, and I believe the current distributions of ship types on the water favors the viability of current torpedo technology over whatever may appear in the future. However, my desire to develop combat-effective designs for tin cans/buckets would be synergistic to any development of combat-effective torpedoes as it would provide the ships necessary to both fire and counteract vessels that could fire locomotive torpedoes in a manner that would have the potential to otherwise decimate a flotilla of capital ships.
Slightly straying from the topic at hand, an ability to increase our typical effective engagement ranges is going to be a difficult one overall. The likelihood is that to be able to safely permit such a change would require investing in the construction/designation of a means to have a pond surrounded by shields to protect everybody and everything on the banks from wayward projectiles. Such a direction of technical development could sharply raise the cost of planning and running a battle event and might lead to the construction of a commercial, purpose-built pond.

Keep in mind my last post was to carry the concept forward to *if* all the issues had been resolved (safety, gameplay, and safety again), then what's going to be the result.
Basically to help get the topic off of "you can't do that", and the "yes I can and here's why". :) I have no doubt that at some point it will be possible to build, but at what cost in money and time? By rough, but optimistic estimates, for ONE battle's worth of torpedoes (100) would cost either:

a) $10,000 ($100 per torp. Figure if the guy doing it has an altruistic streak, then it'll be $50 a torp for a cost of $5,000 per battle's worth)
b) $1,000 for material, and between 100 hours (2.5 work weeks) and 300 hours (7.5 work weeks). I figure 1 hour per is when you're GOOD at it. even if you got REALLY good and got down to 15 minutes per, it's be 25 hours, or 3 work days for one afternoon's worth of fun. Figure in 8 battles per year, then you'd be spending between 20 and 60 work weeks. If you were extremely good, then you might get it down to 5 work weeks for the year's worth of torps for battling. I'm not sure I spend 5 work weeks per 52 week year for maintenance on existing ships and building new ships, and that's with me spending too much time on warships and not enough on household maintenance/remodeling.

Compare that with the cost per battle for 100 1/4" "torps" (not sexy, but very functional):
a) $0.04 in material cost (100 1/4" ball bearings), For grins lets add in CO2, and say that it's a penny per piece, an then 100 torps would be $1.

Realistically you could build entire fleets of existing ships for the time and money that's involved for more realistic torps. Something to contemplate as the discussion continues. :)

quote:

---

Originally posted by archer183

quote:

---

- First & foremost, you need to develop something that somebody else is going to let you use in combat. You can't allow a weapon to be used from a range/position where the user can't be defeated by conventional guns. Don't just think from the user's perspective, consider "the other guy" as well, who's on the receiving end. Would you want somebody ELSE to be able to use a weapon against you, to which you have no effective counter? If a weapon can be launched from outside the effective range of its target's weapons, that's exactly what it is.

---

You entirely missed the point...

---

Yes, I have. What is it? I haven't seen it posted at all.

quote:

---

I have no problem with longer range torpedoes being launched at me from outside what I can really hit someone at. heck, I regularly hit folks with my cruiser from 10 feet away with cannons [edited by JS].

---

That is completely irrelevant. The fact that you can hit others from 10 feet is not because you have some weapon system that outranges theirs. If you & they are all operating within the rules, then they would be equally able to hit you, if they were skilled enough. Any deficiency on their part is their own doing, & they have it in their ability to "catch up" or even possibly exceed your performance with their existing equipment, if they choose to practice more.

quote:

---

If the torps run at appropriate speed, the odds of a long range hit are very very low, just like with real life. It is not like they are going to be some magic ray gun that will inevitably hit from across the pond.

---

That was absolutely uncalled-for and I very strongly resent your condescending tone.

quote:

---

I am loath to limit peoples creativity to what someone perceives the impact on the game to be.

the only truly valid point you bring up is the long term safety issue, which is another one that can be solved after someone has one that actually works.

---

No, I brought up several valid points. The 1st one is extremely valid if you have any intention of ever having targets to shoot at. The fact that you choose to ignore them does not invalidate them. If anything, the fact that you choose to dismiss what you can't refute reinforces the points.

quote:

---

for those folks actually interested in working on this, please see the following picture to better understand what I was looking at.

---

Your "engineering" has issues. I think I saw once where Wile E. Coyote used a similar rig to try to bag the Roadrunner. I can't remember how that came out...

- The fish line, if it's holding back the plunger, will not be hanging slack as shown in the drawing. The spring will hold it in tension, & it will hold it directly across the edge of the blade. What will happen is that, with every little vibration - after launch as the torpedo zips across the water, on the ship before launch, & even in your car on the way to the battle - that blade is going to wear a little more into the line & make it likely to release at some time other than when the torpedo strikes the side of a ship.

- If the line DOES survive until impact with a ship, pressing the plunger is going to pull on the line, scraping it on the blade & maybe cutting it, or maybe not. What you need is a platen or anvil behind the line to resist the pressure of the blade against the line. Think about a kitchen knife & cutting board. Without the solid backing, you'd have a hard time cutting anything. With the cutting board, it's easy. Bottom line, between these 1st 2 items, is that your trigger is going to be very unreliable, releasing either too soon or not at all, but very seldom exactly when you want it to.

- I'm afraid that, even if you do manage to release the trigger at the right moment, the best you can expect to have happen is for the torpedo to be expelled in the opposite direction, away from the ship. The considerably-less density of the water vs. the hull of the ship will cause the torpedo to follow the path of least resistance, which is NOT through the hull.

- If the torpedo strikes hull & is triggered correctly, even if somehow it does manage to produce enough force in that direction that could penetrate a hull, unless it strikes at very close to perpendicular to the surface, it's just going to be deflected harmlessly off, for the same reason noted that the water won't offer enough resistance compared to the hull.

What's going to make the thing have any chance of penetrating is a fair amount of mass and/or speed in some combination to counter the equal-&-opposite force that wants to push the torpedo away from its victim. It's not hard to calculate how much, then design what you need to achieve it.

Batteries are going to be a problem. Most of the tiny batteries are for things like calculators, watches, hearing aids, etc. whose usage is generally low-current/long-duration. What you'll need is the opposite; high-current/short-duration & it may be a challenge to find something that will deliver the quick burst of power you'll need.

I'd suggest that, instead of trying to develop a full-blown torpedo in the 1st go-round, that you concentrate on the various components. Isolate the various components & subsystems, & get them each working reliably on their own. Then, when each subsystem is working right on its own, doing what it needs to do, integrate them into a functional torpedo. Develop a small propulsion system that will propel TBD payload at TBD speed, for TBD time reliably. Develop a trigger that works when you want it to, ONLY when you want it to. Build a fool-proof safety into it from the get-go, don't expect to "tack something on" later (when it may or may not be possible, based on decisions you make in the meantime). Work out a way to puncture a hull at low speed (we all already know how to do it at high speed) without sending the torpedo bouncing back the other way, & will work even on a "glancing" strike. Counter the torque that will make your torpedo spin opposite of the prop, or find a way to use that spin to your advantage.

But the most important suggestion I have to offer is to clearly define exactly what it is you hope to achieve - I still haven't seen it anywhere. What do you want to do? Do you just want to see bubbles? That's OK, if that's what it is, just say so. Do you want to be able to outrange any other ship's guns? That's OK, too, if that's what you want, but those others who can't shoot back at you may have a problem with it. Do you want something that's cheaper or easier than existing solutions? What is the point? I keep asking, but the answer is really more important for you than for me, or anybody else. Define your purpose, post it where you & everybody else can see it, & refer to it often to keep from getting sidetracked.

JM

If nobody else steps up to "define the objective", then let me:
I want to extend the range of submarine-launched torpedoes to 3 feet or more, so that submarines don't have to ram their target in order to fire.

Scale speed, bubbly wake, etc do not concern me. All I am concerned about is extending the range at which submarine-launched torpedoes can penetrate balsa, whether that means a solid slug, a gas-propelled projectile, or a micro-sized clockwork contraption with thousands of gears.

I don't think you can get a 1/4" ball to travel 36" through water without creating a lethal weapon. The Box o Truth has a .45 Long Colt penetrating 24" of water. It's much heavier and traveling much faster than 150 PSI can accomplish.

I have split this thread because we really have two topics going on at the same time.



THIS THREAD is dedicated to the theory, game balance, & rules implications.

THE OTHER THREAD is dedicated to the technical design of the torpedo, safety, & its feasibility.

Visit this site

My objective:

Extend average torpedo range to the maximum effective range of the average ship's secondary battery. Notice I said average, allowing builders to tweek torps to their own tastes. Faster and shorter range, or longer ranged and slower.

Large caliber weapons ( scale 10" or larger ) should have a maximum effective range exceeding that of torpedoes. In order for a torpedo equipped vessel to effectively launch torps, it must pass through a "kill zone" where large caliber guns have the ability to turn the smaller ship into toothpicks.

Torpedos should have the ability to sink or a cripple a BB with 1 or 2 hits. Non torp guys may scream that this is unfair, but it ignores that fact that longer ranged locomotive torps will be much more difficult to effectively use. Look at historical hit rates, they are ridiculously low, something like 5%. Current torp setups are so short ranged that it is almost impossible to miss. How can you miss when your sub has to ram the target to fire the guns? Or when your torps hit 8" from the side of your hull?

Long range torps would decrease the number of torp sinks, not increase them. Sure, you might have dramatic sinks where a ship eats a whole spread and sinks like a stone, but most of the time a ship will simply turn to avoid them.

Now what I have said above may force the rules of combat to completely change. I'm fine with that, I don't currently battle, I'm an independent with a dream. I'm not forcing anybody to think like me, build with me, or battle with me. I know what I want to achieve, a more realistic style of battling.

I tested a 1/4" cannon and found that it could penetrate 1/8" balsa beyond 30 feet if it doesn't skip off the water and lose energy. Absolute maximum theoretical range for a 1/4" round from Roma's B turret at correct scale height at 0 deg elevation is 23.4 ft before the balls hit water (discounting waves). That's about average for a battleship, so we can safely say that the maximum theoretical range for most battleships' big guns is around 20 feet.

However, theoretical range and effective range are quite different. The primary limitation on effective range is the captain's accuracy. When I was running a battleship with rotating guns, I found there were two situations in which I had a decent chance of dealing damage to my opponent. The first was when I could sight directly along the barrels, and my ship was near to shore. The second was when I was within 6 feet of my target. Now I am not exactly an old fart with failing eyesight (although Kotori thinks so). In fact, I probably have among the best eyesight and reflexes in my club. Despite that, even when I was within 6 feet of my opponent, my accuracy was less than 5%. As I got closer to my opponent, I found that I could start to land hits more consistently, but it never rose above 25% to 35% unless my opponent was immobile.

At the moment, I'd hazard a wild guess that ball bearing torpedoes can penetrate armor consistently at 6 inches or less underwater. This means that a dynamic diving sub will likely need to back up before escaping from the target. If the range could be extended to 12-36 inches, the sub could charge in, fire, and either turn away or dive under the target in one clean move. Anything much beyond that range and your accuracy drops off considerably.

I still believe that while locomotive torpedoes WILL change the tactics of sorties and CAN dramatically upset the current balance of firepower, it won't completely destroy the overall balance of the game. If such torpedoes were to prove to have the capability to consistently sink the largest capital ships with one or two hits, perhaps we should be evaluating the option to use the same spring-loaded "warheads" in quasi-conventional (they would become more limited in magazine capacity and would require a more complex breech/magazine configuration) cannon to preserve some of the combat balance. Such a change would provide the option for the largest-caliber-armed vessels to be equipped with weapons more closely resembling the devestating firepower of battleship cannon relative to the 5" and 6" guns that comprised the main battery of destroyers and light cruisers.
In theory, giving the battleships access to such firepower would result in a functional need to for each side to center around those vessels and keep them alive to engage their counterparts. It would also discourage smaller vessels from attempting close-range torpedo strikes, limiting the real effectiveness of the torpedoes. Also, I will stand by what I mentioned earlier, that I hope the end result of this discussion does not neuter the intent of locomotive torpedoes. I do not believe that they pose as much of a threat to large ships as is perceived and especially not if more cruuisers and destroyers on both sides were to be on the water.

Ummm, OK. "It WILL change the tactics." HOW my friend? $100 torps and $10,000 investment per day of battling? That's assuming the technical/legal/gameplay/rules hurtles can effectively be hurtled. I'm ignoring that part of the debate entirely because I think it's pointless to worry about the little minutiae of of new wallpaper colors, when there's effectively an elephant that crashed through the front door plopped himself on your sofa. :) I think locomotive torps if introduced will not be successful for financial and time reasons if nothing else and will only be affordable for those with LOTS of time that *could* be used (read retired), or lots of money, and possibly both. Just because something is TECHNICALLY possible, doesn't mean it's PRACTICALLY possible. Big difference there.

Will it change the balance of the game? I don't see how. The "new" torp ships will likely get blasted out of the water by the conventional torp ships leading to massive points losses on the side with the "new" torps. They won't get deployed much after that. And the rules shouldn't be modified to only allow a new REALLY expensive system to the exclusion of the college kids with cheap torp ships.

There's a lot of gee whiz stuff that needs worked on. Lots of electronics, radio, and gun work that needs doing. Truthfully, we currently simulate an 15-18" shell with a 1/4 bearing. We then simulate a torpedo by essentially referencing the aforementioned largest naval shell simulation. It's imperfect, but the whole system is imperfect. I've got a Des Moines class that in reality could take on a Bismarck and win. In our format? Not so much. C'est la vie. Eventually I may figure out a way to put a rules proposal forward to get her armour and guns uprated via a new formula without causing a message storm, but until I figure that formula out, I'm ok.

quote:

---

Originally posted by yamatoman

I don't think you can get a 1/4" ball to travel 36" through water without creating a lethal weapon. The Box o Truth has a .45 Long Colt penetrating 24" of water. It's much heavier and traveling much faster than 150 PSI can accomplish.

---

How about 34" of air, then 2" of water (or something like that)?

JM

I admit, I forgot to mention that any and all impact upon the game that locomotive torpedoes would have is contingent upon them being possible to implement. There's no reason to change any rules to exclude existing technology; anybody who could potentially be equipped with locomotive torpedoes in the future would be wise to not attempt to use them indiscriminantly or where they offer no advantage over existing tech (close range). I can still picture that if locomotive torpedoes were to proliferate, a tactic for large ships to counteract their use could be to turn into the oncoming torpedo so as to have it strike the bow impenetrable region. Somebody launching torpedoes into a slugfest from a standoff position could then be able to cause those vessels to need to take action against the (probably quite unlikely to hit but presumably devestating if it were to hit) threat, allowing others to take advantage of the situation.

I certainly don't disagree with you that there are many other things in the hobby that constitute lower-hanging fruit to improve play that clearly are more important to technological development than locomotive torpedoes at this time. In the end, only time will tell.