US CV's and Torpedoes (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Warplan Pacific



Message

*Lava* -> US CV's and Torpedoes (9/30/2021 5:07:59 PM)

The US starts the war with horrible torpedoes which fail to strike home. I believe somewhere around 1942, you are advised that torpedoes have been fixed.

So, would it be correct to say that before the fix, US CV strikes are hampered by poor torpedoes, but after the fix, US CV strikes are stronger because the torpedoes now work.

Any helpful thoughts, appreciated.



ncc1701e -> RE: US CV's and Torpedoes (9/30/2021 5:40:37 PM)

I would agree but don't forget that carrier based planes were of three types: fighters, dive bombers and torpedo bombers. So, only one third of the CV planes are impacted.

Also, was it exactly the same model of torpedo used by planes and by subs? I have no idea.



*Lava* -> RE: US CV's and Torpedoes (9/30/2021 6:27:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

I would agree but don't forget that carrier based planes were of three types: fighters, dive bombers and torpedo bombers. So, only one third of the CV planes are impacted.

Also, was it exactly the same model of torpedo used by planes and by subs? I have no idea.


Nope, aircraft used the MK13 torpedo and submarines used the MK14 torpedo. Both torpedoes had problems in the early stages of the war and needed to be "fixed."

And indeed, when one considers that in the early war the US CVs are using torpedoes that have something like only a 30% success rate, remember, that is half your strike aircraft.

Thus my question. Does the game simulate this for both submarine and torpedo bomber torpedoes, as it does inform the player about fixes made to the torpedoes?



ncc1701e -> RE: US CV's and Torpedoes (9/30/2021 6:39:52 PM)

Looks like to me that only subs are taken into account. But Alvaro will confirm better than me. [;)]



*Lava* -> RE: US CV's and Torpedoes (9/30/2021 6:42:47 PM)

That's what I think as well, but would like a confirmation.



Shellshock -> RE: US CV's and Torpedoes (9/30/2021 11:03:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: *Lava*


Nope, aircraft used the MK13 torpedo and submarines used the MK14 torpedo. Both torpedoes had problems in the early stages of the war and needed to be "fixed."



US destroyer torpedoes also suffered from the same defects having being designed by the same clueless weapons bureau. The Mark 15 carried by USN destroyers and other surface ships had the same basic design problems that plagued the Mark 14 for the first 20 months following American entry into the war, though this was not realized nearly as quickly by the destroyer crews as it was by the submariners. One major shared deficiency was the Mark 6 detonator, which usually caused duds. Another was a tendency to run deeper than set, often missing the target.



stjeand -> RE: US CV's and Torpedoes (10/1/2021 12:35:21 PM)

Only subs...I can see that in the event file.

Could change destroyers and CVs but...it would be like 1 point of attack at most and be minimal in effect overall.
Especially since the US rarely does anything with their ships in 42.



ncc1701e -> RE: US CV's and Torpedoes (10/1/2021 5:12:17 PM)

Yes this is becoming a little complicated. [:)]



johng5155 -> RE: US CV's and Torpedoes (10/1/2021 9:58:33 PM)

In 42 the US torpedo bomber is the Devastator, a sitting duck for flack and fighters. Perhaps the game considers that as well as the problematic torpedoes.



Shellshock -> RE: US CV's and Torpedoes (10/1/2021 10:53:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: johng5155

In 42 the US torpedo bomber is the Devastator, a sitting duck for flack and fighters. Perhaps the game considers that as well as the problematic torpedoes.

Even when the Devastator was replaced by the superior Avenger torpedo plane, the torpedo it carried remained a liability. Which probably explains why most of the Avengers which took part at the Battle of Midway were shot down. The Mark 13 required a very low-speed, low-altitude drop that was nearly suicidal for the attacking aircraft. It had poor depth control and a tendency to deviate to the left. Its one redeeming feature was that the contact detonator was reasonably reliable at the relatively slow speed (33 knots) of the Mark 13.

The greater ruggedness of the Avengers airframe probably did save more torpedo pilots lives in the long run though.

Captain Frederick Sherman of the carrier Lexington observed that Japanese Kate torpedo bombers launched their Type 91 torpedoes at high speed, and that the torpedo on a Kate that had been shot down had a wooden box installed around its rudder. This prompted the Navy to make the decision in late 1942 to begin development of the Mark 25 to replace the Mark 13 while simultaneously improving the aerodynamic characteristics of the Mark 13 as an interim solution

Later versions were much better, being equipped with a nose drag ring to reduce the rate of fall and a box air tail to keep the torpedo from oscillating in flight. This allowed the torpedo to be dropped from higher altitude and at a higher speed.



*Lava* -> RE: US CV's and Torpedoes (10/2/2021 12:11:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shellshock
This allowed the torpedo to be dropped from higher altitude and at a higher speed.


And at an angle with the aircraft diving downwards as they also discovered that when dropped by an aircraft flying level the impact of the torpedo with the water often damaged the weapon.



*Lava* -> RE: US CV's and Torpedoes (10/2/2021 12:51:48 PM)

I think the Japanese already understood this problem. Look at a photo of a Kate with a torpedo and notice how it is angled downward.

This would allow a level release but without the torpedo pancaking on the water.



AlvaroSousa -> RE: US CV's and Torpedoes (10/2/2021 1:30:01 PM)

It's only subs.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.03125