USN CL Question (Full Version)

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



Message

DOCUP -> USN CL Question (5/4/2018 12:36:01 AM)

Did the USN design any small cruisers with a large load of torpedoes? Around 5k ton.



btd64 -> RE: USN CL Question (5/4/2018 12:40:16 AM)

John 3rd has a book on the subject. Experimental warships or something....GP



Admiral DadMan -> RE: USN CL Question (5/4/2018 1:34:37 AM)

I have a few as well. I will have a look...

Akin to the IJN Kitakami class, yes?



DOCUP -> RE: USN CL Question (5/4/2018 1:52:38 AM)

Admiral: Yes, something similar. Maybe 3 twin 5/38s and a large TT bank a little bit of armor.



btd64 -> RE: USN CL Question (5/4/2018 2:13:38 AM)

Would make a nice upgrade for the four piper CL's. It could make them more useful....GP



Admiral DadMan -> RE: USN CL Question (5/4/2018 11:10:08 AM)

Nothing found as yet. I have to say though, US torpedoes suck, so for me, this would be a non-starter.



spence -> RE: USN CL Question (5/4/2018 7:01:49 PM)

It's interesting to note that the HIJMS Oi and HIJMS Kitikami never fired a live broadside of torpedoes and they were both later converted to carrying barges instead of torpedoes. Having 5 mounts per side and the propensity of the Japanese "oxygen propelled" torpedoes to explode and destroy the carrying ship when subjected to relatively minor fires (IIRC either the Chikuma or Chokai suffered a 5" shell near miss that caused its torpedoes to explode) may have caused the Japanese to reconsider those ships' armament after Midway when the contrast between the fates of HIJMS Mogami and HIJMS Mikuma demonstrated the hazards posed by the torpedoes themselves (Mogami jettisoned its torpedoes survived while Mikuma held onto its torpedoes and was sunk after they exploded).



jwolf -> RE: USN CL Question (5/4/2018 7:08:54 PM)

quote:

the propensity of the Japanese "oxygen propelled" torpedoes to explode and destroy the carrying ship when subjected to relatively minor fires


Is this effect modeled in the game, above and beyond normal damage control and fire routines?



BBfanboy -> RE: USN CL Question (5/4/2018 7:15:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwolf

quote:

the propensity of the Japanese "oxygen propelled" torpedoes to explode and destroy the carrying ship when subjected to relatively minor fires


Is this effect modeled in the game, above and beyond normal damage control and fire routines?

I think the danger from the torpedoes exploding is built into the durability rating of the ship.



DRF99 -> RE: USN CL Question (5/4/2018 7:51:36 PM)

Found this list on Axis History Forum:

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.



Zorch -> RE: USN CL Question (5/4/2018 8:12:03 PM)

Oi and Kitikami would have been deadly in the Solomons night battles, properly used. Fire a torpedo broadside and run away before they get hit. Fortunately the Japs didn't see fit to use them there.



spence -> RE: USN CL Question (5/4/2018 11:31:45 PM)

quote:

Oi and Kitikami would have been deadly in the Solomons night battles, properly used. Fire a torpedo broadside and run away before they get hit. Fortunately the Japs didn't see fit to use them there.


Only if surprise was achieved. You would have a hard time arguing that the Japanese achieved surprise in every battle. A hit/near hit/fire on/near one of 10 torpedo mounts on Oi or Kitakami early in a fight might attract alot of unwanted attention.

Given the game's (sometimes) endorsement of Japanese torpedo doctrine, does anyone have some insight as to why they decided to convert those two ships to carrying barges rather than torpedoes?

BTW: From the TROMs of Japanese cruisers on Combined Fleet (25 October 1944):

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.

Although Chokai was attacked subsequently by TBMs and hit with several aerial torpedoes the explosion of her own torpedoes probably caused her severe damage that was, if not the proximate cause of her sinking; a mighty contribution to her fate.

So that would make 7 cruisers suffering from the explosion of their own torpedoes.



spence -> RE: USN CL Question (5/5/2018 12:06:35 AM)

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwolf

quote:

the propensity of the Japanese "oxygen propelled" torpedoes to explode and destroy the carrying ship when subjected to relatively minor fires



Is this effect modeled in the game, above and beyond normal damage control and fire routines?


I think the danger from the torpedoes exploding is built into the durability rating of the ship.


Then why do the Kitikami and Oi have the same durability as the other 1920s classes of IJN CLs such as Kuma, Nagara, Sendai et al when those ships have 1/5 as many torpedoes/mounts(28 ratings for those classes)?



John 3rd -> RE: USN CL Question (5/5/2018 2:40:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

Did the USN design any small cruisers with a large load of torpedoes? Around 5k ton.


Friedman's US Cruisers is an excellent source for this type of question. Pretty much covers any and all designs for American cruisers during the period.

Warships After Washington is also excellent!



John 3rd -> RE: USN CL Question (5/5/2018 2:42:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

Nothing found as yet. I have to say though, US torpedoes suck, so for me, this would be a non-starter.


Ditto Here with no luck...



Buckrock -> RE: USN CL Question (5/5/2018 5:55:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
Given the game's (sometimes) endorsement of Japanese torpedo doctrine, does anyone have some insight as to why they decided to convert those two ships to carrying barges rather than torpedoes?

The Kitakami and Oi's pre-war conversion to torpedo cruisers were to allow them to perform long-range "concealed firing" duties in the expected "Decisive Battle". They were not intended for the closer range torpedo attacks that were to become the common standard for IJN night combat during 1942. Given that, I'd suggest the Japanese adapted them for the transport role in Aug '42 so that they at least could serve a useful purpose for the time being.

quote:


BTW: From the TROMs of Japanese cruisers on Combined Fleet (25 October 1944):

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.

Don't forget the word "probably". It's a theory by Tully from Combinedfleet.com that he believes is a best-fit as an explanation for what happened at this time to the Chokai. However, neither the Chokai nor the ships accompanying her reported any detonation of Chokai's on-board torpedoes, only a bomb hit from US aircraft. And the US ships that were known to be firing at her did not mention any major explosions beyond what would be expected from their 5" rounds. If Chokai's torpedoes went boom at some point during this period, no one seems to have mentioned it in either side's reports. Tully's theory is plausible but it's still circumstantial.

quote:


So that would make 7 cruisers suffering from the explosion of their own torpedoes.

Personally, I wouldn't include Furutaka in that list either. While the Furutaka's report of the action indicated a belief that it was the short but spectacular oxygen fire in her port torpedoes that likely drew her enemy's fire, the reports of the US cruisers actually doing the firing don't support this. The USS Salt Lake City and USS Helena had already selected the approaching Furutaka as an FC target prior to the oxygen fire occuring. And it's likely from the Helena's account that it was a hit from one of her salvoes that started the oxygen fire on the Furutaka in the first place.

As for the other two US cruisers, the USS Boise selected the Furutaka only after the Salt Lake City and Helena had already opened fire and the only flames the Boise reported seeing on her new target was near the bow and not in the area of the port torpedo tubes. And the USS San Francisco didn't target the Furutaka at all in this period.



Buckrock -> RE: USN CL Question (5/5/2018 5:56:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Friedman's US Cruisers is an excellent source for this type of question. Pretty much covers any and all designs for American cruisers during the period.

Warships After Washington is also excellent!


So would it seem the Omaha class's original 10 TT armament was as ambitious as US light cruiser design got with torpedoes between the wars?



rustysi -> RE: USN CL Question (5/5/2018 6:37:29 PM)

quote:

Given that, I'd suggest the Japanese adapted them for the transport role in Aug '42 so that they at least could serve a useful purpose for the time being.


Yup. Done.[:D]



crsutton -> RE: USN CL Question (5/6/2018 7:29:41 PM)

Never seen them do diddly squat in any of my campaigns. Just don't see that the engine can handle a 20 torpedo spread.



spence -> RE: USN CL Question (5/7/2018 3:51:16 PM)

quote:

Don't forget the word "probably". It's a theory by Tully from Combinedfleet.com that he believes is a best-fit as an explanation for what happened at this time to the Chokai. However, neither the Chokai nor the ships accompanying her reported any detonation of Chokai's on-board torpedoes, only a bomb hit from US aircraft. And the US ships that were known to be firing at her did not mention any major explosions beyond what would be expected from their 5" rounds. If Chokai's torpedoes went boom at some point during this period, no one seems to have mentioned it in either side's reports. Tully's theory is plausible but it's still circumstantial


Don't forget also that the Chokai was either the largest ship or one of the largest ships lost with all hands in the war (Chokai's survivors were lost when their "rescuing
DD was sunk with all hands a day later). The USS White Plains and USS Samuel Roberts both claimed a secondary explosion much larger than anything possible with their 5" guns on Chokai. Although HIJMS Haguro was trying to keep a detailed log of the action against Taffy 3 and it disputes the claims by Samuel Roberts and White Plains it needs to be noted that its AAR notes it was caused 10 minutes earlier those ship's claims by an air attack that didn't happen (according to other ships in the IJN TF). Having personally "overseen" the writing of a ship's logbook (from which any subsequent AAR will be taken) in the midst of a particularly intense search and rescue and assistance incident I find that the exact times of things not immediately affecting the safety of one's own ship might well be "estimated" or not recalled in perfect sequence. It is well to remember that all involved (and others) were trying to kill one another at the time of the explosion.

Also while looking into this torpedo question I found that the HIJMS Abukuma also noted the explosion of its Type 93s from fires reaching its torpedo room subsequent to an air attack (which was subsequent to to its more famous torpedoing by PTs). That would make 8 IJN cruisers which may have been lost due at least in part to their own torpedoes.



Buckrock -> RE: USN CL Question (5/7/2018 6:18:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
The USS White Plains and USS Samuel Roberts both claimed a secondary explosion much larger than anything possible with their 5" guns on Chokai.

Where did you find mention of these "larger" secondary explosion claims by the two US ships? It's not in their official USN reports of the battle. The White Plains report mentions gaining some hits on a Japanese heavy cruiser that "appeared to decommission a forward turret" but nothing about secondary explosions. The Roberts' report mentions that a torpedo hit was gained on a Japanese heavy cruiser that resulted in flame and smoke at the waterline but that was almost an hour before the Chokai is supposed to have suffered the "incident" at 0859. Roberts' report also describes her later engaging several Japanese warships with gunfire, including one heavy cruiser that she expended 85% of her ammo on which "disabled" one of the cruiser's forward turrets, "badly holed" the bridge and set it on fire and also started several smaller fires abaft the bridge. But if this target was the Chokai, there is still no mention of large secondary explosions.

If you can let me know where you found your info, I'd be interested.

quote:


Although HIJMS Haguro was trying to keep a detailed log of the action against Taffy 3 and it disputes the claims by Samuel Roberts and White Plains it needs to be noted that its AAR notes it was caused 10 minutes earlier those ship's claims by an air attack that didn't happen (according to other ships in the IJN TF). Having personally "overseen" the writing of a ship's logbook (from which any subsequent AAR will be taken) in the midst of a particularly intense search and rescue and assistance incident I find that the exact times of things not immediately affecting the safety of one's own ship might well be "estimated" or not recalled in perfect sequence. It is well to remember that all involved (and others) were trying to kill one another at the time of the explosion.

I fully accept your point on logbooks and AARs. Times and events are often at odds. However, we still seem to be without any written evidence from either side that the Chokai's own torpedoes actually blew up at any point or that she was seen to suffer onboard explosions (other than American bomb related) on an equivalent scale to such an event.

quote:


Also while looking into this torpedo question I found that the HIJMS Abukuma also noted the explosion of its Type 93s from fires reaching its torpedo room subsequent to an air attack (which was subsequent to to its more famous torpedoing by PTs). That would make 8 IJN cruisers which may have been lost due at least in part to their own torpedoes.

8? I thought the Abukuma was already included in the 7 you previously mentioned. Or are you using a different list to that posted by DRF99?



spence -> RE: USN CL Question (5/8/2018 9:22:56 PM)

My mistake on Abukuma.

Although I can't find any specific reference to the secondary explosion on Chokai it would seem that the writers of the TROMs for the various cruisers did not make the secondary explosion on board up out of whole cloth. The TROMs were compiled from Japanese and American records and have been revised multiple times as new information has come to light.

As it stands the "oxygen propelled" torpedoes used by many IJN cruisers seem to have contributed substantially to the loss of 15% or so of those cruisers. The attacks on Mogami and Mikuma at Midway present the clearest contrast between the fate of those two ships and the dispositions of their torpedoes following nearly identical bomb hits in the vicinity of their torpedo mounts. "Shattered Sword" describes this in some detail noting that Mogami suffered greater damage in their initial collision but by jettisoning its torpedoes saved itself.



spence -> RE: USN CL Question (5/8/2018 9:28:05 PM)

BTW if you have a test tube, some Potassium Chlorate, one M&M peanut flavor, and a little heat you can demonstrate to yourself what happened to Mikuma.

(I don't think they let Chemistry teachers demonstrate the power of peanuts like this anymore - anything fun is prohibited I guess.)



Zorch -> RE: USN CL Question (5/8/2018 10:24:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

BTW if you have a test tube, some Potassium Chlorate, one M&M peanut flavor, and a little heat you can demonstrate to yourself what happened to Mikuma.

(I don't think they let Chemistry teachers demonstrate the power of peanuts like this anymore - anything fun is prohibited I guess.)

How about some Mentos and Diet Coke? [:D]



Buckrock -> RE: USN CL Question (5/9/2018 9:02:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
Although I can't find any specific reference to the secondary explosion on Chokai it would seem that the writers of the TROMs for the various cruisers did not make the secondary explosion on board up out of whole cloth. The TROMs were compiled from Japanese and American records and have been revised multiple times as new information has come to light.

As far as I can tell, the TROM is likely following Tully's "probable" explanation of events as described in his Warship International article (Sept. 2000) and then used by Hornfischer in his "Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors". Therefore it may well be described as a "secondary explosion" rather than put down to some other potential cause, such as the single bomb hit described in the Haguro's report from this period. And as with most of the battle evidence, reported times and identities of targets aren't always certain (as you touched on before). Generally I'd always go with what their TROM's state over almost anything else and it may well be their own research has uncovered clear evidence of a secondary explosion on the Chokai but since the "own torpedoes" as a cause is mentioned only as probable, I personally wouldn't put it in the same league of certainty as the Mikuma, Aoba, Mogami and Suzuya incidents.

quote:


BTW if you have a test tube, some Potassium Chlorate, one M&M peanut flavor, and a little heat you can demonstrate to yourself what happened to Mikuma.

My Junior Mad Scientist Kit was destroyed by fire some years back but having read some of the reports by the US airmen and the Japanese involved, I can take a wild guess as to what would happen to the test tube if it was sealed.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.765625