why the Range of torpedoes were not historical?

why the Range of torpedoes were not historical? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding

Message

sudwind -> why the Range of torpedoes were not historical? (8/20/2016 2:51:34 PM)
ex) 61cm Type 93 Torpedo : In game - 20.12km In real - 22km/52knots 33km/41knots 40km/36Knots 21in MK 18 Torpedo : In game - 9.14km In real - 5.5km/45knots 13.5km/26knots It seems that there is some reason(=mechanisms betweem Accuracy and Range) but I cant find it. Any ideas about it?[&o]

Dili -> RE: why the Range of torpedoes were not historical? (8/20/2016 9:29:46 PM)
For Type 93 because at 40km the game engine doesn't give much chances to hit which btw if perfectly in accordance with reality. No idea about the other, but i doubt it had only 2 speeds so widely separated. Could be another version.

Alfred -> RE: why the Range of torpedoes were not historical? (8/21/2016 3:47:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sudwind ex) 61cm Type 93 Torpedo : In game - 20.12km In real - 22km/52knots 33km/41knots 40km/36Knots 21in MK 18 Torpedo : In game - 9.14km In real - 5.5km/45knots 13.5km/26knots It seems that there is some reason(=mechanisms betweem Accuracy and Range) but I cant find it. Any ideas about it?[&o] 1. This is relevant to the game code how? 2. What is the basis for the assertion that AE has it wrong? 3. OK, you're a dev for a day. Of the various numbers you provide, which is the one you would apply? You only get to insert one range datum point per torpedo. Make the choice relevant to the game code. Alfred

sudwind -> RE: why the Range of torpedoes were not historical? (8/21/2016 4:16:25 AM)
Hi. Alfred. I appologize that I used the words are misleading and inappropriate. What I really want to ask is "Is there anything to consider when I modify the figures(Accuracy and Range, penetration and Range) of Torpedoes (or Naval Guns)." For example, DBB and Original have different Accuracy fugures of Type93 Torpedoes. But I failed to find 'the reason why this happen' and "any debate or account about the 'correlation between Accuracy and Range'(or correlation between Penetration and Range)" in forum. So I want to know about the "Correlations" and "The way to use and calcurate it"

szmike -> RE: why the Range of torpedoes were not historical? (8/21/2016 6:01:03 AM)
Afaik labels (penetration, accuracy, etc.) are not the same in real life as in game engine, so the values are adjusted for them to make sense within game code. They cannot be treated literally as they are labeled.

DanSez -> RE: why the Range of torpedoes were not historical? (8/22/2016 6:15:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sudwind Hi. Alfred. I appologize that I used the words are misleading and inappropriate. What I really want to ask is "Is there anything to consider when I modify the figures(Accuracy and Range, penetration and Range) of Torpedoes (or Naval Guns)." For example, DBB and Original have different Accuracy fugures of Type93 Torpedoes. But I failed to find 'the reason why this happen' and "any debate or account about the 'correlation between Accuracy and Range'(or correlation between Penetration and Range)" in forum. So I want to know about the "Correlations" and "The way to use and calcurate it" Been a lurker more than a poster for most of those discussions but I recall at least one comments (from Simon I believe) who mentioned nerfing the 'Long Lance' for reasons that they modeled and felt more reflective of the DBB game mod. The change is intended as are the many changes they made to air frames as well. I am playing two PBEM games (Stock Scenario 2 and Relutant Admiral 8.1 which uses a lot of DBB as the basis) and I can see a very noticable differnce in the early Japanese sub attacks, more misses, and a few more hits-no explosions. <<edit>> that would be Symon (user name) I did a few searches without any luck so far. I would look for his post in the Design and Moding sub folder back about 2-3 years ago.

witpqs -> RE: why the Range of torpedoes were not historical? (8/22/2016 6:27:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DanSez quote: ORIGINAL: sudwind Hi. Alfred. I appologize that I used the words are misleading and inappropriate. What I really want to ask is "Is there anything to consider when I modify the figures(Accuracy and Range, penetration and Range) of Torpedoes (or Naval Guns)." For example, DBB and Original have different Accuracy fugures of Type93 Torpedoes. But I failed to find 'the reason why this happen' and "any debate or account about the 'correlation between Accuracy and Range'(or correlation between Penetration and Range)" in forum. So I want to know about the "Correlations" and "The way to use and calcurate it" Been a lurker more than a poster for most of those discussions but I recall at least one comments (from Simon I believe) who mentioned nerfing the 'Long Lance' for reasons that they modeled and felt more reflective of the DBB game mod. The change is intended as are the many changes they made to air frames as well. I am playing two PBEM games (Stock Scenario 2 and Relutant Admiral 8.1 which uses a lot of DBB as the basis) and I can see a very noticable differnce in the early Japanese sub attacks, more misses, and a few more hits-no explosions. <<edit>> that would be Symon (user name) I did a few searches without any luck so far. I would look for his post in the Design and Moding sub folder back about 2-3 years ago. Either very few or none of the IJN subs used the Long Lance IIRC.

DanSez -> RE: why the Range of torpedoes were not historical? (8/22/2016 6:37:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: DanSez quote: ORIGINAL: sudwind Hi. Alfred. I appologize that I used the words are misleading and inappropriate. What I really want to ask is "Is there anything to consider when I modify the figures(Accuracy and Range, penetration and Range) of Torpedoes (or Naval Guns)." For example, DBB and Original have different Accuracy fugures of Type93 Torpedoes. But I failed to find 'the reason why this happen' and "any debate or account about the 'correlation between Accuracy and Range'(or correlation between Penetration and Range)" in forum. So I want to know about the "Correlations" and "The way to use and calcurate it" Been a lurker more than a poster for most of those discussions but I recall at least one comments (from Simon I believe) who mentioned nerfing the 'Long Lance' for reasons that they modeled and felt more reflective of the DBB game mod. The change is intended as are the many changes they made to air frames as well. I am playing two PBEM games (Stock Scenario 2 and Relutant Admiral 8.1 which uses a lot of DBB as the basis) and I can see a very noticable differnce in the early Japanese sub attacks, more misses, and a few more hits-no explosions. <<edit>> that would be Symon (user name) I did a few searches without any luck so far. I would look for his post in the Design and Moding sub folder back about 2-3 years ago. Either very few or none of the IJN subs used the Long Lance IIRC. yes, well that would be a factor... still in my fuzzy brain I have an echo reading a post about Japanese torps being nerfed a bit for the DBB model and I do see a difference in the two games I am playing, although that is just two data points of a thousand potential variables but I should not have used the term Long Lance. So much to learn, ao much to remember (rattle that brain around a little more in my head) thanks for the clarification, I would rather (eventually) to get my references correct [sm=character0085.gif]

US87891 -> RE: why the Range of torpedoes were not historical? (8/22/2016 3:24:55 PM)
Note from John (Symon, or JWE, if you are looking for references). "Didn't nerf any one side. We don't do that sort of thing. All torpedoes, of every nationality, had data fields recalculated and adjusted to better fit within the 'mean' of calculation expectation values. There were way too many +2 and +3 sigma results, and proportionately more +1 than -1. Judicious math was indicated. Every torpedo, of every nation was run through the exact same math model to give self-consistent results. The 61cm type-93 might have 'smaller' specs in Babes than stock, but so does everything else. Proportion remains. The 61cm type-93 is still more powerful, to exactly the same degree, than others. Please tell the IJ fellow that the editor device screen is nothing but a GUI window that hosts gobs of info from a universe of devices, land, sea, and air. Data fields have an arbitrarily assigned "LABEL" that means nothing except to identify the variable a particular code piece is looking for. Correlation depends on the particular code subroutine for a combat modality. That is the heart of the game system and cannot (will not) be revealed. This sort of thing is what Babes was all about; self-consistent centering of data across multiple combat modalities such that they 'fit' within expectation values of the code." Range and duds were not changed afaik. Matt

DanSez -> RE: why the Range of torpedoes were not historical? (8/22/2016 4:49:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: US87891 Note from John (Symon, or JWE, if you are looking for references). "Didn't nerf any one side. We don't do that sort of thing. All torpedoes, of every nationality, had data fields recalculated and adjusted to better fit within the 'mean' of calculation expectation values. There were way too many +2 and +3 sigma results, and proportionately more +1 than -1. Judicious math was indicated. Every torpedo, of every nation was run through the exact same math model to give self-consistent results. The 61cm type-93 might have 'smaller' specs in Babes than stock, but so does everything else. Proportion remains. The 61cm type-93 is still more powerful, to exactly the same degree, than others. Please tell the IJ fellow that the editor device screen is nothing but a GUI window that hosts gobs of info from a universe of devices, land, sea, and air. Data fields have an arbitrarily assigned "LABEL" that means nothing except to identify the variable a particular code piece is looking for. Correlation depends on the particular code subroutine for a combat modality. That is the heart of the game system and cannot (will not) be revealed. This sort of thing is what Babes was all about; self-consistent centering of data across multiple combat modalities such that they 'fit' within expectation values of the code." Range and duds were not changed afaik. Matt Much appreciation for the reply. Nerf was the wrong word to use. Would it be correct to say "all of the torpedo data was re-calculated"? Thanks

Rising-Sun -> RE: why the Range of torpedoes were not historical? (8/22/2016 6:39:56 PM)
Well it can be done, but the codes will have to be re-written. The captains will have to decide to launch those torps at maximum range and very low chance to hit. Up close on fast, better chance to hit. Also noticed the Japanese have second reloads on those torpedoes and the Allies doesn't, that is for surface warships that carry them. I would say, long lance shooting into the harbor would be better options than naval engagement. Esp for the subs, there no telling what they might sink in the harbor. Maybe a train lol.

Dili -> RE: why the Range of torpedoes were not historical? (8/23/2016 11:04:22 PM)
Long Lances are not fired from Submarines.

Rising-Sun -> RE: why the Range of torpedoes were not historical? (8/24/2016 8:40:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dili Long Lances are not fired from Submarines. But it can be done though. Anything is possible.

Reg -> RE: why the Range of torpedoes were not historical? (8/24/2016 10:38:35 AM)
But 75 years of hindsight says that it wasn't......

Dili -> RE: why the Range of torpedoes were not historical? (8/24/2016 11:06:29 AM)
Long Lance was 1000kg heavier.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: why the Range of torpedoes were not historical? (8/24/2016 2:38:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dili Long Lance was 1000kg heavier. As a former diving officer, what's ten or twelve extra tons, far forward on the trim moment arm, between friends? More difficult, the Long Lance required pure oxygen to run, which required an oxygen plant on the surface ships that carried it. A sub has LOTS of spare space for a highly-explosive O2 plant. If not, just rip something out, like the sonar shack. And it burned OIL. Oil. Wow. A single loose drop in the piping together with pure O2 and . . . boomski. Cleaning the piping for a propulsion upload took 4-5 days on a surface ship with lots of space and manpower. I'm not even sure they would fit in sub tubes, but hey, it's the perfect submarine weapon system otherwise.

witpqs -> RE: why the Range of torpedoes were not historical? (8/24/2016 2:56:58 PM)
I thought I remembered the information on this forum being that it took different (larger) tubes.

Dili -> RE: why the Range of torpedoes were not historical? (8/25/2016 8:55:05 AM)
Submarine torpedo Type 95 was also O2+Kerosene like Long Lance so that is not the reason. Reason is probably exclusively the size/weight that is an increase of more 60% weight, 650mm instead of 533mm diameter. The weight implications is more than just the torpedos and reloads weight, since means also stronger torpedo tubes and handling devices to cope with more 60% weight.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: why the Range of torpedoes were not historical? (8/25/2016 9:30:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dili Submarine torpedo Type 95 was also O2+Kerosene like Long Lance so that is not the reason. Reason is probably exclusively the size/weight that is an increase of more 60% weight, 650mm instead of 533mm diameter. The weight implications is more than just the torpedos and reloads weight, since means also stronger torpedo tubes and handling devices to cope with more 60% weight. From what I can find the Type 95 depended on them installing a highly-dangerous compressed O2 tank on the carrying subs. Otherwise, loss of flask pressure or any routine maintenance that caused loss of pressure would make the weapon useless. Then, they discovered that pure O2 in a submarine environment meant zero lubricating oil on moving parts in the fish (previously mentioned boomski), which led to corrosion, which led to weapon failure. So they re-re-modded the Type 95 to use 35% O2, and thus lost much of the range advantage the thing was designed to achieve. Add to that that the fish had a bearing-wiggle error of over 100 yards at 6000 yards run, and it was pretty useless against anything but tight convoys shot at in a shotgun fashion. Long range in general wasn't useful until homing systems came into play. I also learned that the surface Long Lance led to loss of a CA after air attack that would have otherwise done minimal damage set them off in the tubes. Well done, IJN!

Dili -> RE: why the Range of torpedoes were not historical? (8/26/2016 5:43:29 PM)
Yes it a well known case that one of Chikuma class cruiser was probably saved because the commander choose to jettison the torpedoes just before a bomb hit precisely in their place.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: why the Range of torpedoes were not historical? (8/26/2016 7:47:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dili Yes it a well known case that one of Chikuma class cruiser was probably saved because the commander choose to jettison the torpedoes just before a bomb hit precisely in their place. I was referring to loss of CA Chokai, Takao-class. One hit by a five inch shell and the mounted Long Lances exploded, taking out propulsion and steering, leaving the ship ripe to be sunk.

DRF99 -> RE: why the Range of torpedoes were not historical? (8/26/2016 8:52:29 PM)
I found this on Axis History Forum: quote: Six Japanese cruisers were sunk due, at least in part, to fires and/or explosions among their oxygen torpedoes. 6 June 1942: Mikuma is hit by bombs, fire breaks out among the torpedoes, torpedoes explode, ship sinks. (Sister Mogami, also bombed that day, has already jettisoned her torpedoes and survives.) 11 October 1942: Furutaka hit by American naval gunfire at night, fires almost immediately break out among her torpedoes, illuminating the ship, apparently drawing more gunfire. Ship is sunk. 3 April 1943: Aoba is hit by bomb from a B-17, torpedoes explode, ship is beached to avoid total loss. Later salvaged. 25 October 1944: Mogami hit by two American 8-inch shells. Fire breaks out, she collides with Nachi (her third collision of the war), then her torpedoes explode. She is bombed and torpedoed again by American aircraft, and finally must be scuttled. 25 October 1944: Suzuya is missed by bombs, but fragments from near misses ignite fires among her torpedoes, torpedoes explode, ship sinks. 25 October 1944: Abukuma is hit by 3 bombs dropped by B-24s. Fires detonate 4 Type 93 torpedoes, ship sinks. Who wants longer range torpedoes for the loss of 6 CA/CL?

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: why the Range of torpedoes were not historical? (8/26/2016 9:38:06 PM)
22 October 1944: Operation "SHO-I-GO"(Victory) - The Battle of Leyte Gulf: CHOKAI sorties with Vice Admiral Kurita's First Mobile Striking Force, Force "A "(Center Force): BatDiv 1, CruDiv 4, CruDiv 5's MYOKO and HAGURO, DesRon 2's light cruiser NOSHIRO with DesDiv 2's DesDiv 2's HAYASHIMO, AKISHIMO, KIYOSHIMO, DesDiv 31's KISHINAMI, OKINAMI, ASASHIMO and DesDiv 32's FUJINAMI, NAGANAMI, HAMANAMI and destroyer SHIMAKAZE. 23 October 1944: The Battle of the Palawan Passage: At 0633, Cdr (later Captain) David McClintock's USS DARTER (SS-227) sinks Vice Admiral Kurita's flagship ATAGO and damages TAKAO. Kurita and his staff are picked up by Cdr Mifune Toshiro's destroyer KISHINAMI. Vice Admiral Ugaki assumes temporary command of the Mobile Force. Meanwhile, at 0655, Cdr Bladen Claggett's USS DACE (SS-247) torpedoes MAYA. She sinks at 0705. At 1620, Kurita transfers to the YAMATO and resumes command. CHOKAI is undamaged. Force A is attacked by McClintock's DARTER CHOKAI is the sole undamaged unit of CruDiv 4. Vice Admiral Kurita reassigns her to CruDiv 5. 24 October 1944:- The Battle of the Sibuyan Sea: Force A endures 11 raids by over 250 aircraft of Task Force 38's USS ENTERPRISE (CV-6), ESSEX (CV-9), LEXINGTON (CV-16), INTREPID (CV-11), FRANKLIN (CV-13) and CABOT (CVL-28). Battleship MUSASHI is sunk, NAGATO hit, HARUNA damaged by near-misses and YAMATO is hit by bombs and down by the bow. MYOKO is hit by an aircraft torpedo. TONE is hit by bombs. CHOKAI is undamaged. At 1530, Force A reverses course back through the Sibuyan Sea. At 1715, Force A reverses course again. Finally, at 2330, Force A enters the San Bernadino Strait in single file. 25 October 1944: The Battle off Samar: At 0030, Force A exits the San Bernardino Strait and proceeds eastward until 0300, then turns SE towards Leyte Gulf. At 0558, Force A opens fire at the U.S. Seventh Fleet's Task Group 77.4 escort carriers of "Taffy 3": USS ST. LO (CVE-63), WHITE PLAINS (CVE-66), KALININ BAY (CVE-68), FANSHAW BAY (CVE-70), KITKUN BAY (CVE-71) and GAMBIER BAY (CVE-73). Force A sinks GAMBIER BAY, destroyers HOEL (DD-533), JOHNSTON, (DD-557) and destroyer escort ROBERTS (DE-413). TG 77. 4's aircraft damage CHIKUMA and SUZUYA and they later sink. TONE and HAGURO are also damaged. At 0851, CHOKAI is taken under 5-inch fire from "Taffy 3" escort carriers and destroyer escort ROBERTS. She receives 6 shell hits to port side amidships, probably from escort carrier WHITE PLAINS (CVE-66). At 0859, a secondary explosion, probably caused by CHOKAI's own torpedoes on deck, knocks out her engines and rudder. She shears out of formation to port and moves eastward. After 0905, four TBM-1C "Avengers" from KITKUN BAY�s VC-5 attack a Japanese heavy cruiser (in all likelihood CHOKAI), already being engaged by WHITE PLAINS, using her 5-inch stern gun. Led by Cdr Richard L. Fowler, the "Avengers" score one 500-lb SAP bomb hit to the cruiser�s stern. The pilots observe how the crippled CHOKAI, billowing smoke, begins to slow down. [5] At 0955, lookouts on cruiser TONE observe CHOKAI, dead in the water, 3.8 miles away. At 1006, Kurita orders Cdr Matsuzaki Tatsuji's destroyer FUJINAMI to escort CHOKAI. She and FUJINAMI down an Avenger during an air attack. FUJINAMI removes the survivors including Captain Tanaka. At 2148, FUJINAMI signals that she scuttled CHOKAI with torpedoes at 11-22N, 126-22E. 27 October 1944: 80 miles N of Iloilo. FUJINAMI, enroute to Colon, is redirected to a small island off Semirara to pick up the crew of HAYASHIMO. That afternoon, near the island, FUJINAMI is attacked by planes from ESSEX and sinks with all hands including CHOKAI's survivors. http://www.combinedfleet.com/chokai_t.htm

Dili -> RE: why the Range of torpedoes were not historical? (8/26/2016 10:48:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: Dili Yes it a well known case that one of Chikuma class cruiser was probably saved because the commander choose to jettison the torpedoes just before a bomb hit precisely in their place. I was referring to loss of CA Chokai, Takao-class. One hit by a five inch shell and the mounted Long Lances exploded, taking out propulsion and steering, leaving the ship ripe to be sunk. Sorry i was reinforcing your point with another situation but reading my post again appear i could have been disputing your cruiser ID This is the situation i was referring to: Battle of Santa Cruz(From Wiki) On 26 October 1942, 250 miles (400 km) northeast of Guadalcanal, Rear Admiral Hiroaki Abe's task force launched seven floatplanes to scout south of Guadalcanal. They located the American fleet, and Abe followed with an attack which sank Hornet and damaged the battleship South Dakota and cruiser San Juan. However, Chikuma was attacked by a Douglas SBD Dauntless dive-bomber from Hornet, and quick thinking crewmen jettisoned her torpedoes seconds before a 500 lb (230 kg) bomb hit her starboard forward torpedo room. She was also hit by two other bombs, destroying one floatplane on the aircraft catapult. Chikuma suffered 190 killed and 154 wounded including Captain Komura.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: why the Range of torpedoes were not historical? (8/27/2016 4:53:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dili quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: Dili Yes it a well known case that one of Chikuma class cruiser was probably saved because the commander choose to jettison the torpedoes just before a bomb hit precisely in their place. I was referring to loss of CA Chokai, Takao-class. One hit by a five inch shell and the mounted Long Lances exploded, taking out propulsion and steering, leaving the ship ripe to be sunk. Sorry i was reinforcing your point with another situation but reading my post again appear i could have been disputing your cruiser ID This is the situation i was referring to: Battle of Santa Cruz(From Wiki) On 26 October 1942, 250 miles (400 km) northeast of Guadalcanal, Rear Admiral Hiroaki Abe's task force launched seven floatplanes to scout south of Guadalcanal. They located the American fleet, and Abe followed with an attack which sank Hornet and damaged the battleship South Dakota and cruiser San Juan. However, Chikuma was attacked by a Douglas SBD Dauntless dive-bomber from Hornet, and quick thinking crewmen jettisoned her torpedoes seconds before a 500 lb (230 kg) bomb hit her starboard forward torpedo room. She was also hit by two other bombs, destroying one floatplane on the aircraft catapult. Chikuma suffered 190 killed and 154 wounded including Captain Komura. These fish may have been the best anti-cruiser weapon ever devised.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.8164063