RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Nikademus -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/19/2008 6:58:30 PM)

IIRC, "soft" kill was a large part of what the Japanese wanted with their Night force (including the LL) so as to parry down the superior US numbers allowing their BB's to win the following traditional Jutland type duel. Even after Dec7, Japan still considered their battleline to be the instrument of decision on which they'd live or die by the sword.




John Lansford -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/19/2008 7:24:31 PM)

If all they were trying to do was "whittle down" the USN battlefleet through night combat and torpedoes, then they didn't need 40,000 yd range torpedoes.  They could have put in double the number of tubes for smaller torpedoes with conventional ranges (15000 yds would have been fine) and warheads the size of the US/British weapons, and done just fine with this strategy.  After all, a ship with torpedo damage wasn't going to stay with the fleet whether the damage was done with a 1100 pound warhead or an 850 pound one.

No, just like their huge superbattleships and heavy cruisers, the Japanese decided that having the biggest, fastest, longest ranged torpedoes would somehow equate to decisive results when it came to fighting the US.  They wanted ship-killing torpedoes, and for a certain sized ship, that's what they got.  However, that size was for ships smaller than 6-7000 tons, hardly worth all the effort and trouble they got for the result.



Nikademus -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/19/2008 7:36:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

If all they were trying to do was "whittle down" the USN battlefleet through night combat and torpedoes, then they didn't need 40,000 yd range torpedoes.  They could have put in double the number of tubes for smaller torpedoes with conventional ranges (15000 yds would have been fine) and warheads the size of the US/British weapons, and done just fine with this strategy.  After all, a ship with torpedo damage wasn't going to stay with the fleet whether the damage was done with a 1100 pound warhead or an 850 pound one.


IIRC I think they were looking at ranges closer to 20-25K and it was felt necessary to help both preserve their forces and incur the element of suprise. Certainly more than one Allied captain was "suprised" to learn they were under torpedo attack on more than one occasion. (They thought they were hitting mines)





John Lansford -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/19/2008 8:11:15 PM)

Well, while this is certainly hindsight, the majority of engagements where torpedoes were used took place at night, at much shorter ranges than they expected to use their Long Lances.  IIRC only the Java Sea battle happened during the daytime at ranges they thought were ideal for those torpedoes, and only after firing a LOT of them did they get any results.

The fact that the IJN trained hard at night combat tactics tells me that they recognized the long range of the LL wasn't all that great a benefit.  In fact, all their light and cruiser forces were optimized for night fighting (flashless powder, huge search binoculars, excellent target discipline and formation keeping, rapid fire weaponry, etc) at close range, except for these super-long range torpedoes.  You don't need a weapon with a 30k yd range when your fighting takes place under 12000 yards.

BTW, other than at Sunda Strait vs Houston and Perth, is there a documented instance where the Japanese torpedoed one of their own ships during a battle?



Iridium -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/19/2008 8:57:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford
You don't need a weapon with a 30k yd range when your fighting takes place under 12000 yards.




If I recall correctly, Type 93s had multiple settings for speed/range. Shortest (fastest) setting being somewhere around 48kts and 20k yards. A 1080 lb warhead was still massive at the war's end so I'm not sure how much better it could have been made...

Even if you were to parse the range down on the Type 93, to say 15k yards at max and 5k yards as the shortest setting (@48knts) what warhead size would that get you? maybe another 200lbs? Is that really worth it?



Nikademus -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/19/2008 8:59:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Well, while this is certainly hindsight, the majority of engagements where torpedoes were used took place at night, at much shorter ranges than they expected to use their Long Lances.  IIRC only the Java Sea battle happened during the daytime at ranges they thought were ideal for those torpedoes, and only after firing a LOT of them did they get any results.

The fact that the IJN trained hard at night combat tactics tells me that they recognized the long range of the LL wasn't all that great a benefit.  In fact, all their light and cruiser forces were optimized for night fighting (flashless powder, huge search binoculars, excellent target discipline and formation keeping, rapid fire weaponry, etc) at close range, except for these super-long range torpedoes.  You don't need a weapon with a 30k yd range when your fighting takes place under 12000 yards.

BTW, other than at Sunda Strait vs Houston and Perth, is there a documented instance where the Japanese torpedoed one of their own ships during a battle?



The Japanese did train hard for night actions, but i'd say it was more of an "in general" type thing because of the inherent difficulty of doing such coupled with their absolute need to be as good as they possibly could be given the importance of their role in the DB.



Nikademus -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/19/2008 9:03:20 PM)

I may be wrong as i'm digging deep into the synapses at this point while sitting in Ye Olde Cubicle....but the massive range of the Type93 was more a byproduct than a design intent. They wanted range of course, along but the other desired traits were the even more drivers IIRC...(wakeless or "more" wakeless + speed and a big warhead + good range)

I don't think any credible IJN officer felt that anything short of blind luck would occur beyond 30k



John Lansford -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/19/2008 9:48:21 PM)

Given that I doubt a DD could even see further than 20-24k yds in daytime due to earth's curvature, I have to wonder why even practice for such long range torpedo firings.  After all, even at 40 knots a LL torpedo would take nearly 6 minutes to reach a target at 20000 yards.  Given how hard it was for a 16" shell to hit something at 20,000 yards due to trying to predict the target's movement, hoping for a torpedo hit at that range has to fall under the category of "miracle".

ISTM that outfitting their surface ships with the 21" Type 95, with its 12,000 m range and high speed, would have been more than sufficient and allowed the DD's/CA's to carry even more of the things. 



Nikademus -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/19/2008 9:53:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

ISTM that outfitting their surface ships with the 21" Type 95, with its 12,000 m range and high speed, would have been more than sufficient and allowed the DD's/CA's to carry even more of the things. 


Given the size difference I seriously doubt that. The 24inch gave the Japanese more bang for the buck which was what they needed given the Japanese preference for maximum firepower on a limited displacement.



John Lansford -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/19/2008 10:12:39 PM)

But the "bang" wasn't worth the extra weight and size, IMO.  The LL didn't sink larger ships than smaller torpedoes did, but they certainly took up more space on the ships carrying them.  The Type 95 had an 893lb warhead and was 21" in diameter; the Type 93 was 60% heavier and had an armored launcher, adding even more weight, plus it was 6' longer, all for only 200 lbs more warhead.

Now, the Type 93 Model 3 torpedo is more of what I was talking about.  It was developed during the war and traded range for warhead; it could travel 15,000 m at 50 knots and carried a 1720 lb warhead.  It went into service in 1944, too late for any effective use, but it would have been devastating had it been introduced in 1942.

Source:  http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTJAP_WWII.htm



Nikademus -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/19/2008 10:18:16 PM)

Understand what your saying, however IMO thats a hindsight argument. In a DB type engagement where every hit counts you want to have the biggest punch available and that was provided by the Type 93 just as the super-heavy shells for the USN provided that for it's own battleships.

One might just as well argue that the Allies should have developed Torpex sooner. After the war started and it became clear that there would be no battle along the lines envisioned it was natural that the Japanese would focus development on a bigger warhead in trade for range since closer range night battles ended up being more common.



John Lansford -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/19/2008 10:38:41 PM)

Just pointing out that having a torpedo with a 40,000 m range is kind of useless if you can't hit anything with it at that distance, and they should have recognized that soon enough to reduce the range in favor of something (speed, size, warhead, whatever).  Everyone already knew that battleships couldn't hit squat at 24,000 yards, so how did the Japanese think that an even slower weapon with an even longer range could hit anything?

BTW, is the Type 93 Mod 3 torpedo in the game?  That monster would IMO be the ultimate ship killer; a 1750 lb warhead exploding next to any ship is going to put a serious hurt on it...



witpqs -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/19/2008 10:44:36 PM)

What was the range & speed mix of the mod 3?



Iridium -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/19/2008 11:06:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

What was the range & speed mix of the mod 3?


Explosive Charge 1,720 lbs. (780 kg) Type 97

Power / Range / Speed

200 HP / 32,800 yards (30,000 m) / 36-38 knots
300 HP / 27,300 yards (25,000 m) / 40-42 knots
520 HP / 16,400 yards (15,000 m) / 48-50 knots

From: NavalWeapons



panda124c -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/20/2008 8:06:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Just pointing out that having a torpedo with a 40,000 m range is kind of useless if you can't hit anything with it at that distance, and they should have recognized that soon enough to reduce the range in favor of something (speed, size, warhead, whatever).  Everyone already knew that battleships couldn't hit squat at 24,000 yards, so how did the Japanese think that an even slower weapon with an even longer range could hit anything?


I belive that they were thinking that the LL could be launched against a Battle Line at ranges beyond gun range thus breaking the enemy Battle Line or damaging a BB and weaking the enemy's Battle Line.



mdiehl -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/20/2008 9:11:42 PM)

quote:

IIRC I think they were looking at ranges closer to 20-25K and it was felt necessary to help both preserve their forces and incur the element of suprise. Certainly more than one Allied captain was "suprised" to learn they were under torpedo attack on more than one occasion. (They thought they were hitting mines)


Yes but most such surprises were delivered at less than 8,000 yards. Similarly, many an IJN skipper learned to their surprise that they were under attack and often blamed the wrong cause (for ex at Balikpapan where IJN commodore blamed Dutch submarines for a surprise night torpedo assault launched by USN DDs in January 1942).

The plain fact is that torpedo success relied primarily on the enemy not knowing you were there or stupidly blundering into your torpedo water (as at Tassafaronga). That is why the tide on torpedo fighting turned radically in favor of the USN in 1943. As radars improved, it tended to be the USN that got the drop on enemy ships, and it tended to come in the form of USN torpedoes delivering the first vital blows.

Anywho, regardless of conditions (day or night) the modal and median hit rates for Type 93a torps was zero hits per battle. The daylight mean was something like 3%, the night time mean around 6%. But the distribution is so bimodal that "means" don't really do the work justice. The Japanese tended to have good nights (as did the Americans) when the target was unaware that they were under attack, under which circumstances the hit rates were on the order of 10-14%.




mdiehl -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/20/2008 9:13:07 PM)

quote:

belive that they were thinking that the LL could be launched against a Battle Line at ranges beyond gun range thus breaking the enemy Battle Line or damaging a BB and weaking the enemy's Battle Line.


I think that correctly states the belief. I think the reality showed that in practice that belief was just incorrect. In some ways one could argue that the long range of the long lance objectively resulted in the sinking of more Japanese ships than it did of Allied ones.



engineer -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/21/2008 2:30:21 AM)

Just to recap, historically Long Lance torpedo's had a low percentage to hit ratio, posed a threat of a higher chance of critical hits due to gunfire or bombing damage on ships carrying them, but a single hit would sink a destroyer and badly or significantly damage any larger ship.  In the game they seem to behave the same way (except I don't know that there is a bonus critical hit chance for LL carrying warships). 

There's a vigorous and seemingly inconclusive debate [;)] about whether the LL were a good idea given the state of knoweldge when they were developed in the 1930s, but with hindsight, it seems clear to me that more, shorter ranged torpedoes would have provided more practical combat power with lower risk to Japanese ships. 



jwilkerson -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/21/2008 3:19:23 AM)

Hey this is the BB not powerful thread.

The T93 not powerful enough thread is over on the UV side!
[:)]

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=1724535



Shark7 -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/21/2008 6:34:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Hey this is the BB not powerful thread.

The T93 not powerful enough thread is over on the UV side!
[:)]

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=1724535


Has a thread here ever stayed on topic though? Or on any forum for that matter?

Besides, somehow we went from undervalued to how hard is it to sink one...kinda on topic...well sort of anyway. LOL [:D]



Grell -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/21/2008 2:48:55 PM)

I don't think they are under valued.

Regards,

Grell



Mike Scholl -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/21/2008 4:17:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Grell

I don't think they are under valued.

Regards,

Grell



So you honestly believe that at 2-3000 yards during a night action YAMATO would be fighting off DD's with nothing but her 25mm AAA batteries? No 5", no 6", and no 18.1"? Just AAA. Pardon me if I say I believe you are wrong...



Shark7 -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/21/2008 5:34:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Grell

I don't think they are under valued.

Regards,

Grell



So you honestly believe that at 2-3000 yards during a night action YAMATO would be fighting off DD's with nothing but her 25mm AAA batteries? No 5", no 6", and no 18.1"? Just AAA. Pardon me if I say I believe you are wrong...



Agree with this. The fact that the ranges get that close and you end up firing off more AAA than naval guns is the reason I use BBs mostly for bombardment and let the cruisers do the surface combat. No point in sending a BB if its not even going to use it main batteries.



Iridium -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/21/2008 5:56:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Agree with this. The fact that the ranges get that close and you end up firing off more AAA than naval guns is the reason I use BBs mostly for bombardment and let the cruisers do the surface combat. No point in sending a BB if its not even going to use it main batteries.



Well, that is the problem with these surface combat simulations. They lack formations, tactics etc...they may as well be WWI battlelines duking it out. Only difference is that there isn't even a screening force made of DDs. If we could somehow get AE to simulate escorts keeping capitol ships at a distance while the task forces maneuver I'd be content.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/21/2008 6:18:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iridium
Well, that is the problem with these surface combat simulations. They lack formations, tactics etc...they may as well be WWI battlelines duking it out. Only difference is that there isn't even a screening force made of DDs. If we could somehow get AE to simulate escorts keeping capitol ships at a distance while the task forces maneuver I'd be content.



I'm sorry to say that it doesn't look as if AE will improve this much..., if at all. One of those things with "hard code" strewn about that will need a bigger re-write is what I've been told.



mdiehl -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/21/2008 7:55:19 PM)

quote:

So you honestly believe that at 2-3000 yards during a night action YAMATO would be fighting off DD's with nothing but her 25mm AAA batteries? No 5", no 6", and no 18.1"? Just AAA. Pardon me if I say I believe you are wrong...


Well, she might be firing her 5", but she wouldn't be firing her 18" at DDs at 2-3K yards. I suspect that her main armament would not depress enough to hit DDs at that range. In 1944 at 3K yards, any garden variety American DD with torps in her tubes would be a greater threat to Yamato than Yamato would be to the DD -- at least until the range opened up.



Iridium -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/21/2008 8:38:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl


Well, she might be firing her 5", but she wouldn't be firing her 18" at DDs at 2-3K yards. I suspect that her main armament would not depress enough to hit DDs at that range. In 1944 at 3K yards, any garden variety American DD with torps in her tubes would be a greater threat to Yamato than Yamato would be to the DD -- at least until the range opened up.


Her 18.1" guns had a max depression of -5 degrees. I have no idea if that would be enough...[:D]



panda124c -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/21/2008 8:47:43 PM)

The reason for secondary guns on BB's, BEFORE AIRCRAFT became a big threat, was to shoot holes in those pesky little Torpedo Boats, (later know as Destroyers after they grew up). The tracking of a high speed target (30Kt to 40Kt) with a large turreted gun (8" or greater) was impossible at the time (and still is). The rate of fire was such that a large gun could not put enough rounds on target in an acceptable amount of time. Therefore Rapid fire small guns (6" or less) were used at close range. The 15 gun 6" American cruisers were designed to be used like a shotgun, rapid salvo. So at close ranges the small rapid fire guns will hit more often (better firing solution) than the larger guns. Yes the small guns will do less damage but sinking a BB is not the only way to disable it and once disabled it is easier to sink.



panda124c -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/21/2008 8:52:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iridium


Her 18.1" guns had a max depression of -5 degrees. I have no idea if that would be enough...[:D]


That would depend on if she fired on the up roll or the down roll. [:D]



Mike Scholl -> RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP (3/21/2008 8:56:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

So you honestly believe that at 2-3000 yards during a night action YAMATO would be fighting off DD's with nothing but her 25mm AAA batteries? No 5", no 6", and no 18.1"? Just AAA. Pardon me if I say I believe you are wrong...


Well, she might be firing her 5", but she wouldn't be firing her 18" at DDs at 2-3K yards. I suspect that her main armament would not depress enough to hit DDs at that range. In 1944 at 3K yards, any garden variety American DD with torps in her tubes would be a greater threat to Yamato than Yamato would be to the DD -- at least until the range opened up.



Exactly the reason why she would be firing every gun that could be brought to bear..., even if they could only depress enough to blow the superstructure off a threatening DD!



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8925781