Terrible American torpedoes

[Tarskin]

Yes, it does seem they were very active in 1941, but after the loss of DEI: "Following the fall of the DEI, only a handful of British and Dutch submarines were based in the Indian Ocean, and these had little impact on Japanese forces in the area.[38]" And your third source shows in 1942 Dutch subs only had 6 or 7 sinking. So, most of the damage done in 1942 (a million tons plus a heavy cruiser and a light cruiser) must have been done by US subs with Mark 14 torpedoes.

I never intended to dispute that, I just wanted to point out that one has to be careful when using a generic statistic to make a statement about specific countries.

However, regarding your observation, a significant amount of the operational submarines were lost to Japanese mines in 1941, following that quite a few of the submarines were withdrawn from the waters around the DEI and relocated to Europe (specifically the Mediterranean).

 

[Gort11]

Submarines also have deck guns which they used on unarmed merchant ships, so don't assume just because a US sub sunk something it was with a torpedo.

 

[Denkt]

Well I would gladly pick american torpedoes togther with american anti aircrafts guns over Japanese torpedoes togther with japanese anti aircrafts guns.

 

[Gort11]

Or Japanese damage control. *shudder*

 

[bcoop1701]

Keep in mind that we are talking about a strategic game, not worrying about individual submarines on missions. It's not Silent Service with the "Dud torpedoes" function enabled.

It's a statistical problem at the level of country management that needs no special mechanics (beyond maybe giving Japan an advantage with the Long Lance). You just keep giving submarines upgrades to their ability to hit targets as their tech improves, with the assumption that lower values for fighting at lower tech represent the statistical likelihood of a dud.

I agree in general about it being a strategic game and not a tactical simulation but I would point out that it wasn't just the MK 14 submarine torpedo. The Mk 15 surface torpedo was developed along with the Mk 14 and was very similar and had the same problems. The chaotic nature of destroyer combat made discovering the problems much harder. The Mk 15 wasn't fixed until the Mk 14 was so the American torpedo problems probably contributed to some of the poor showings around Guadalcanal in 1942. How much so I couldn't tell you but evidence of the extent of the problem can be seen in the failed attempt to scuttle Hornet after the Battle of the South Pacific (Santa Cruz). American destroyers fired nine torpedoes into Hornet, most of which failed to explode and they couldn't sink her prior to having to retreat due to approaching Japanese surface forces.

My two cents is that the American torpedo problems were universal enough and had enough of a strategic and tactical impact that there should be a penalty to accuracy for all American torpedoes (however that is implemented in the game) that can be removed after US entry into a war by applying political points to overcome the refusal of BuOrd to believe they were fallible.

 

[Big Nev]

Or Japanese damage control. *shudder*

Something which should also be represented and be fixable once it's realised that it's a serious problem.

Unfortunately for the IJN, there wasn't much left to fix after Midway & Marianas showed just how bad their systems were.

 

[scroggin]

Oh aye, it's a tricky one and I'm just "talking it out" and very interested in your and others thoughts on it . It gets more complicated because some of the problems both the Germans and Americans had was because of fairly advanced magnetic detonators - so, in theory, if they don't research these by the time the war breaks out, then they shouldn't have as many problems with their torpedoes (they'd still have issues with impact detonators, but so did most of the world's navies except the Japanese, so this is probably better handled by a Japanese buff than an everyone-else nerf, and then another tech step or similar to get beyond the issue) - so, ironically, a 'torpedo research' NF before the war could plausibly result in less reliable torpedoes when hostilities break out (which, or course, no sane player would choose).

Given that, I'm leaning towards (for the naval mod I'm putting together, the base game will have what it already has in there at the moment I'd say, beta and all) the US and Germans having researched whatever torpedo tech gives them magnetic detonators at game start, along with some kind of 'new tech doesn't work like we'd hoped' malus, and then an NF to sort things out that can't be triggered until war breaks out - so at the start of the war their torpedoes will still sink a lot of ships (I'm currently going through the RN starting line-up ship-by-ship, and the KM sunk plenty of RN ships with their dodgy torpedoes) and then once they've sorted out the issues (if they choose to), they'll become even more deadly, with the same thing happening for the US. It is a bit 'railroaded', in that it assumes the US and Germany go for the advanced torpedoes before the game starts, but they were taking this approach pre-1936, so it's not crazy for them to do so. It may well work out that they could potentially rush the next tech to help limit whatever malus was in place.

Thinking it through - it'd probably be necessary to give the same malus to other nations of they decided to research those techs before war broke out - so if a UK or Italian player decides to go for advanced detonators as well, they have the malus added - otherwise they could start the war with even better torpedoes, which wouldn't make a lot of sense. Argh, complicated .

The two choices seem to me to be use a national focus triggered by war to give better torpedoes or have better torpedoes as a variant. As I understand it, war gives experience which can be used to develop variants. But you can also gain experience through lend-lease and setting your troops training, which wouldn't be very realistic for fixing the torpedo problem. Better torpedoes definately shouldnt just be a tech that would be too easy to research in peacetime.

 

[Axe99]

The two choices seem to me to be use a national focus triggered by war to give better torpedoes or have better torpedoes as a variant. As I understand it, war gives experience which can be used to develop variants. But you can also gain experience through lend-lease and setting your troops training, which wouldn't be very realistic for fixing the torpedo problem. Better torpedoes definately shouldnt just be a tech that would be too easy to research in peacetime.

Aye, I don't think the tech approach works - we're looking to model a specific 'bump' in the tech curve that applied differently to different nations. I'm leaning towards the specific things for the US and Germany (as most nations had pretty much 'locked in' their approaches to torpedoes by 1936) - so national spirit and NF to remove, a la France's "Victors of the Great War" - but I'm still not quite sure what to do about other nations that then go on to develop more advanced torpedoes before war breaks out (after war's broken out, I'd expect better testing of new gear, or for it to be found out as rubbish pretty quickly, because it'll have the old gear to compare it with).

Random thoughts for non US-Japan-Germany nations who develop hi-tech torps:
- If developed pre-war, get an event giving them a national spirit like Germany and the US. I know the US (and German) problems weren't "just" this, but I'm more going with the "most nations when they changed their approach to torpedoes suffered" (Japan, the obvious exception, dumped a tonne of testing and training to get around it). Not sure if it's possible to then give them a national focus to get around it.
- If developed during war, I'd still like the hi-tech torps not to be suddenly easy to develop - but I would expect the bad torps to be found out pretty quick and to not be mass produced and deployed everywhere before that happened - so instead of a malus as bad as the US, something that negates the tech's benefits until a similar amount of extra testing has been done (maybe we'll be able to give a country a national spirit for 6 months or so? So a different approach to pre-war torps, and cheaper (just time, instead of an NF slot) but still not 'free').

One thing this would do is that even though tech rushing torps won't be as good as tech rushing other things, it still means after war's broken out that players aren't spending a tech slot on torps, but rather an NF slot.

Still just brainstorming - by all means pick ideas apart .

 

[bcoop1701]

The two choices seem to me to be use a national focus triggered by war to give better torpedoes or have better torpedoes as a variant. As I understand it, war gives experience which can be used to develop variants. But you can also gain experience through lend-lease and setting your troops training, which wouldn't be very realistic for fixing the torpedo problem. Better torpedoes definately shouldnt just be a tech that would be too easy to research in peacetime.

Am I missing something? I admit, I don't watch the WWW's. Do weapons (torpedoes, bombs, shells, etc) have their own variant and XP system or just the vehicles (planes, tanks, ships)? Because if my understanding is correct and it's just the vehicles then I don't believe the problems of faulty torpedoes can be fixed using the variant system. Using XP to develop and build new Balaos as an upgraded version of the Gato isn't the same as saying that I've fixed the Mk 14 and now all of my already deployed Gatos' torpedoes are much more reliable.

 

[Denkt]

Just vehicles however Japan do have a national focus that give them "Long Lance" country modifier which improve their torpedo attack.

 

[Big Nev]

Aye, I don't think the tech approach works - we're looking to model a specific 'bump' in the tech curve that applied differently to different nations. I'm leaning towards the specific things for the US and Germany (as most nations had pretty much 'locked in' their approaches to torpedoes by 1936) - so national spirit and NF to remove, a la France's "Victors of the Great War" - but I'm still not quite sure what to do about other nations that then go on to develop more advanced torpedoes before war breaks out (after war's broken out, I'd expect better testing of new gear, or for it to be found out as rubbish pretty quickly, because it'll have the old gear to compare it with).

Random thoughts for non US-Japan-Germany nations who develop hi-tech torps:
- If developed pre-war, get an event giving them a national spirit like Germany and the US. I know the US (and German) problems weren't "just" this, but I'm more going with the "most nations when they changed their approach to torpedoes suffered" (Japan, the obvious exception, dumped a tonne of testing and training to get around it). Not sure if it's possible to then give them a national focus to get around it.
- If developed during war, I'd still like the hi-tech torps not to be suddenly easy to develop - but I would expect the bad torps to be found out pretty quick and to not be mass produced and deployed everywhere before that happened - so instead of a malus as bad as the US, something that negates the tech's benefits until a similar amount of extra testing has been done (maybe we'll be able to give a country a national spirit for 6 months or so? So a different approach to pre-war torps, and cheaper (just time, instead of an NF slot) but still not 'free').

One thing this would do is that even though tech rushing torps won't be as good as tech rushing other things, it still means after war's broken out that players aren't spending a tech slot on torps, but rather an NF slot.

Still just brainstorming - by all means pick ideas apart .

Yeah @Axe99, I'm dead against tech-rushing super torpedoes even though (or perhaps because) this is exactly what Japan did. There are several problems with the idea.

If your destroyers are armed with banks of 4 or 5 x 21” torpedoes that are 20½ feet long and weigh 1,500kg, you can’t just replace them with 24” diameter versions that are 29½ feet long and weigh 2,700kg. They’re 50% longer & deck space is rather limited.

You certainly can’t replace your 21” single-shot tubes with a launching system that also carries a set of re-loads for the monsters that each weigh almost twice that of a 21” torpedo.

For me, this is another reason why Japan should have the Long Lance (and the other advanced derivatives) at game start. Their surface ships were designed to carry multiple banks of these massive 24” three-ton killers, the re-loads and the O2 generators for them.

You simply can’t just decide to up-arm a destroyer or cruiser with these things. It would be similar to trying to mount a set of SK/C 28 turrets. It just doesn’t work.

And please, all, remember that the entire IJN strategy for taking on the USA &/or the British Eastern Fleet was built around the Long Lance. It was as much a strateigic weapon as A-bombs.

Oh yeah. Another thing to remember is that it took the Japanese five years to develop the Long Lance after they determined that they needed it. So… once the USA realised that their torpedoes were crap, it took a few years to fix the issues. Fine, let’s have this represented as such but if a non-Japan player wants to have super torpedoes, it should (IMHO) be a National Focus to allow him/her to “spend” the political points. Then, and only then, you can spend five years developing them.

Then you can start designing the destroyers & cruisers to carry them and THEN you can start building those ships.

 

[Axe99]

Great thoughts as always @Big Nev, I hadn't even got around to thinking about another nation trying to go the 'long lance' option (IIRC, the US torpedoes didn't get any larger, they just got more technically complicated and it didn't work out so well). More brainstorming, and it depends on how torpedo tech affects the stats of ships, but if we wanted to make it possible for other nations to try and make larger torps like that, perhaps have (if possible to mod) different torp stats in the game - one for 21" torps and one for 24" torps - and some choice as to what was in each vessel?

Easiest option (and still sensibly realistic) would be just limit the 'super torps' to Japan - as far as I know, no-one had anything close to it (I know the Brits had a 24" torp, but didn't think it was anything like the long lance).

 

[Big Nev]

Yes indeed. The Brit's did have a 24" AND it was "Oxygen Enriched".

It was a bit of a monster too. Slightly fatter but slightly shorter, tipping the scales at 2.6 tons. So... lighter than a Long Lance by more than I weigh.

It's not really fair to compare them as the IJN 24" was about 10 years later. It started as +O2 but there were soo many problems with the thing that by the time WWII started the existing models had been re-built to run on standard compressed air. And (as I'm sure you know) they were only installed in Nelson & Rodney.

Max speed was 35 kts (not bad for the 1920s) and its range at this speed was a very useable 14km and with a 337kg warhead it could do a lot of damage.

The Japanese torpedoes though...

Type 93 - 24", 20km at 52kts with a 490kg warhead.

Type 95 - 21", 9km at 50kts, 550kg warhead. If Dönitz had had these, we would have been in (even more?) serious trouble.

US Mark 14 - 21", 4.1km at 46kts or 8.2km at 31kts with a 292kg warhead. This combination of ranges & speeds make it very difficult to deploy effectively (and far too easy to avoid) in surface engagements against ships with speeds above 30kts.

Even if it did work.


Now, we've all had some good fun slagging of the US torpedoes. I mean, they were rubbish and even when the US got them working properly, they were only about equivalent of Brit' wet-heater torpedoes.


Now I think it's only fair to give FIDO a mention in this thread.

Mark 24 - 19", 5½km at 12kts with a 42kg warhead. (What? only 42kg?!)

Pretty crappy too huh?

Well no. OK, so it was useless against surface warships but the Mark 24 was, comparatively, quite deadly against the submarines it was designed to combat with an 18% kill ratio plus another 8% damaging hits on targets engaged.

Someone tell me I'm wrong, but a 25% hit ratio is nothing short of spectacular for the mid 1940s.

 

[Secret Master]

Someone tell me I'm wrong, but a 25% hit ratio is nothing short of spectacular for the mid 1940s.

Not as good as my hit ratios in Silent Service, but we can't expect real historical figures and equipment to operate at my vaunted level.

Type 95 - 21", 9km at 50kts, 550kg warhead. If Dönitz had had these, we would have been in (even more?) serious trouble.

You would have been in more trouble is the Germans just had better working torpedoes in general. Donitz bitterly complained about how much of an impact bad torpedoes had on the war (and how long it took to sort the issues out).

But that Type 95 torpedo is a damn monster. Wow.

Question: I know the IJN destroyed a ton of records before the end of the war. That's one reason we lack some information on Yamato. But that speed of 50 knots is kinda high. Did the Allies capture any Type 95 torpedoes and try them out, or is this number a best guess? Or did we actually capture Japanese records intact on the subject?

 

[Big Nev]

Yeah, It's a bitch.

With the possible exception of those on used by the I-400 class (which were the only sub's to carry the Long Lance although I don't think they ever fired any) the Type 95 is generally regarded as the finest submarine torpedo of WW II.

The 50kts is a kind of conservative average as several sources quote a top speed of 51 or 52 kts and some a mere 49kts.

I think the higher speeds comes from when the IJN started to put pointed cones on their torpedoes, rather than the hemispherical heads which were comon to all torpedoes of the period.

This gave even the Long Lance an extre couple of kts.

Where does this 50kts come from?

All I can say is secondary sources. The Naval Technical Board and Combined Fleet websites are amongst my favourites.

I can only suggest that sufficient reliable sources survived to be picked over by historians but if you considder that the targeting of torpedoes is critically dependent upon knowing its speed (possibly even more so than shells), I think the actual values would be both fairly well-known and reliable.


Again, an "if". IF the IJN had employed their sub forces as more than scouts & pickets, more sucesses from the 21" type 95 (like those of Kinashi in Sept 42) would have been seen.

I've also seen 60kts quoted for a pre-war experimental version of the Long Lance. (OMDFG!)

Imagine if they had, really, put 40 launchers for THOSE things on Kitakami.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

It's worth nothing that Hara, Japanese DD skipper during the war, gives an effective range of less than 5km with Type 93. I see no reason to disagree with this. The basic problem is that even at ~50 knots a torpedo is comparatively slow moving ordance, which subsequently results in difficult fire control problem. There's not really option for subsequent corrections to the solution either, unlike with guns which are high velocity and rapid-firing and can be "walked" on the target so to say. This means that the effective range of torpedo tends to depend more on fire-control and predictability/failings of the enemy than the ordnance itself, to a point. Japanese thought, pre-war, of using the Type 93 in long range barrage role (as far out as 30km IIRC), but then one of the major failing of their strategy was that it made the spurious assumption that everything would go their way and that the enemy would consistently act predictably.

Question: I know the IJN destroyed a ton of records before the end of the war. That's one reason we lack some information on Yamato. But that speed of 50 knots is kinda high. Did the Allies capture any Type 95 torpedoes and try them out, or is this number a best guess? Or did we actually capture Japanese records intact on the subject?

I can't remember but the torpedo volume of TMJ should answer that: http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ Reports/USNTMJ_toc.htm

 

[Secret Master]

All I can say is secondary sources. The Naval Technical Board and Combined Fleet websites are amongst my favourites.

I can only suggest that sufficient reliable sources survived to be picked over by historians but if you considder that the targeting of torpedoes is critically dependent upon knowing its speed (possibly even more so than shells), I think the actual values would be both fairly well-known and reliable.

I can't remember but the torpedo volume of TMJ should answer that: http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ Reports/USNTMJ_toc.htm

Wow, that's a great link. Some nice documents. Thanks a bunch for that.

I think I will revise the estimate down to 49 knots in spite of Big Nev's assertions for two reasons.

1) Because I'm an incorrigible bastard who likes being a data hipster. (My sources are better than your sources. Nyah nyah nyah)

2) Because even with a more conservative value from primary sources like this one, 49 knots is basically tactically the same. A one knot reduction in speed, with these warheads, ranges, and speed advantage, doesn't make much of a difference.

 

[Big Nev]

I can't remember but the torpedo volume of TMJ should answer that: http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ Reports/USNTMJ_toc.htm

Wow, that's a great link. Some nice documents. Thanks a bunch for that.

Yes indeed. Thanks @Antediluvian Monster added that link to "Favourites"

 

[bcoop1701]

Great thoughts as always @Big Nev, I hadn't even got around to thinking about another nation trying to go the 'long lance' option (IIRC, the US torpedoes didn't get any larger, they just got more technically complicated and it didn't work out so well). More brainstorming, and it depends on how torpedo tech affects the stats of ships, but if we wanted to make it possible for other nations to try and make larger torps like that, perhaps have (if possible to mod) different torp stats in the game - one for 21" torps and one for 24" torps - and some choice as to what was in each vessel?

Easiest option (and still sensibly realistic) would be just limit the 'super torps' to Japan - as far as I know, no-one had anything close to it (I know the Brits had a 24" torp, but didn't think it was anything like the long lance).

Just my opinion but I don't think the US or UK would have ever developed a Long Lance type torpedo. The Japanese went to the trouble because they were at a strategic disadvantage due to the disparity in shipbuilding capability (with or without the Washington/London Treaties) and they needed an equalizer. Plus, the UK and subsequently the US were committed to developing radar fire control which overcame the Type 93's effectiveness starting in late 1942 and then in 1943.

France's potential enemies in the time frame probably wouldn't have given France the same concerns that the US/UK did Japan because France was, again my belief, expecting to have Britain as an ally in any potential conflict.

It would be interesting to think about what Germany or Italy would have done if they had developed a Type 93 style torpedo or if they had secured a technology trade from Japan to deploy it early in the conflict. Or maybe the Soviet Union if they expected to take on the US/UK in the game's time frame.

 

[tommylotto]

It would be interesting to think about what Germany or Italy would have done if they had developed a Type 93 style torpedo or if they had secured a technology trade from Japan to deploy it early in the conflict.

They were sharing some torpedo technology. That fancy pointy nose on the Long Lances that gave them a few extra knots of speed was borrowed from the Italian 21" Fiume Veloce, which itself was capable of 50 knots. However, the Italians did not use a 24" torpedo and their 21" torpedoes had shorter range and much smaller exploitive charge. A fleet of MAS boats slinging Long Lances would have been concerning.