Oi and Kitikami (Full Version)

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



Message

crsutton -> Oi and Kitikami (4/13/2005 10:00:03 PM)

Anybody had a chance to use these two odd ducks in a night action? Do they spread death and destruction or are they just paper tigers?




The Dude -> RE: Oi and Kitikami (4/13/2005 10:00:55 PM)

awesome against the Royal navy



String -> RE: Oi and Kitikami (4/13/2005 10:44:23 PM)

Sank Kitakami in a night action off Tawi Tawi in our 3vs3 PBEM. She didn't launch any torps iirc



mogami -> RE: Oi and Kitikami (4/13/2005 10:54:42 PM)

Hi, I don't get exicited by these two. Since ships fire at 1 other ship they are not all that effective considering their potentional. If torpedos could miss target but still hit other ships then I would consider them more then just another IJN CL. In gun fights they don't do well.



doktorblood -> RE: Oi and Kitikami (4/13/2005 11:34:38 PM)

Considering the fact that these are the only 2 ships in IJN that have radar until you can accelerate some radar equipped Yagumo class destroyers out of the shipyards, I think they are too important to risk in surface actions.



Tanaka -> RE: Oi and Kitikami (4/13/2005 11:38:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: doktorblood

Considering the fact that these are the only 2 ships in IJN that have radar until you can accelerate some radar equipped Yagumo class destroyers out of the shipyards, I think they are too important to risk in surface actions.


Which is exactly what the Japanese did historically.... [:D]



Yamato hugger -> RE: Oi and Kitikami (4/14/2005 4:54:24 AM)

Thats one of the problems of the game. Gunfire was directed ship to ship. Aircraft attacks were directed at a ship. Submarines were USUALLY directed at a ship (on some occasions over-lapping targets would be fired at hitting multiple targets), but both sides launched torps at the other guys battle line, NOT at an individual ship, AND the unit (flottilla for example) would fire coordinated spreads. This isnt reflected in the game, nor is it likely to be ever.



freeboy -> RE: Oi and Kitikami (4/14/2005 5:21:24 AM)

quote:

Hi, I don't get exicited by these two. Since ships fire at 1 other ship they are not all that effective considering their potentional. If torpedos could miss target but still hit other ships then I would consider them more then just another IJN CL. In gun fights they don't do well.
'

feature request for Witp2.. torp ships that are of a certain amount of torps and raiting may fire at multiple targets....



Tiornu -> RE: Oi and Kitikami (4/14/2005 7:10:54 AM)

These are among the scariest ships of all time. How would you like to be serving aboard a ship carrying forty torpedo warheads and forty pure oxygen flasks up on deck?



ChezDaJez -> RE: Oi and Kitikami (4/14/2005 8:00:49 AM)

quote:

How would you like to be serving aboard a ship carrying forty torpedo warheads and forty pure oxygen flasks up on deck?


If I recall correctly, that's exactly what the Mogami crew was thinking when she jettisoned her torps over the side during an air attack in the Battle of Midway. A bomb landed right were they would have been. The damage would have been catastrophic. She didn't carry no where near as many torps as those CLs but still....

Mikuma didn't jettison her torps and I think they were a big reason why that ship didn't make it back.

Chez



NemRod -> RE: Oi and Kitikami (4/14/2005 11:57:37 AM)

Aren't their radars effectives in surface actions ?
Is it enough to have escorts with radar in CV TFs?Don't you need to have radar on the CV?
Sorry if this have been asked before in other threads.



AmiralLaurent -> RE: Oi and Kitikami (4/14/2005 12:04:42 PM)


These ships will be modelized in a better way if they had not 5 * 4 torpedo tubes rather than 20 tubes aiming at the same target. Then they will be able to shot at a whole TF.

As for torpedo being more dangerous for the ships that was carrying them than for their targets, they were one of the main reasons of the CA losses during the Samar battle.



rtrapasso -> RE: Oi and Kitikami (4/14/2005 4:54:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

These are among the scariest ships of all time. How would you like to be serving aboard a ship carrying forty torpedo warheads and forty pure oxygen flasks up on deck?



I had always thought that these things ran on oxygen, also, however, a book on (mostly US) torpedoes Hellions of the Deep states that they actually ran on concentrated hydrogen peroxide, which was used to produced oxygen (and water) in the engine. The water was actually useful as it helped cool the engine. Of course, this stuff (US called it NAVOL, iirc) was highly dangerous - about as bad as oxygen flasks. Christie developed a US "oxygen" torpedo in the early thirties (iirc) that was far superior to the Mark XIV, however, the Newport Torpedo Factory and Interstate Commerce Commission effectively blocked further development, with the ICC blocking transport of NAVOL on roads, rail, etc. as too hazardous. (Later, they revised this opinion, and allowed it, but not until after the war, iirc). The Navy was in the process of actually developing plans to ship the NAVOL from Niagara Falls, New York (my home town) to Newport by using NAVY ships (getting around the ICC) and taking the stuff across to the Canada, down the Welland Canal, out the Saint Lawrence Seaway, down to coast and over to Newport. These plans were scuttled with the outbreak of the war.

I don't trust this book (Hellions of the Deep) on individual details (like dates), but overall it gives a good amount of technical info on torpedoes, esp. the US torpedo program. The book doesn't give a lot of technical info on the Japanese torpedoes, but at one point does say the ran off the H2O2 (conc. hydrogen peroxide) - so i would be interested if that is correct or incorrect.



AmiralLaurent -> RE: Oi and Kitikami (4/14/2005 5:34:19 PM)


Just thinking to it twice, I think Oi and Kitanami may work in the game as they were designed in real life. They were to be used against the US BB line. If we use them in game against a BB TF and they manage to fire once against a BB, this will probably be a goner.

Sadly WITP is unable to modelize torpedo attacks correctly. Most of the times forces with torpedoes and less guns than opponent forces fired torpedoes at max range and then retreated while in UV & WITP they will engage in gun action almost all the times and get blasted to hell, even with careful admirals.



Gregg -> RE: Oi and Kitikami (4/14/2005 5:56:22 PM)

The Japanese got the idea for a oxygen torpedo from the British. [X(]
The British experimented with the oxygen torpedo in the 1920's, when the Japanese were still on good terms with the British. A group of Japanese Officers who were visiting England during the mid 1920's, were shown the experimental instalation. The British abandoned the concept in the early 1930's, as being far to dangerous to be used onboard a ship. But by time they abandoned the idea, the British were no longer talking to the Japanese.
The Japanese seeing that the British (who they modeled their fleet after) had developed a new super torpedo, had to build one of their own. Not knowing the British had abandoned the concept, the Japanese perfected it.[:'(]
The US also experimented with oxygen torpedos during the 1920's and very early 1930's, but abandoned the concept due to cost cutting measures in the 1930's.
To my knowledge, no US torpedo during the WWII time period used hydrogen peroxide as the oxidizer. They all used compressed air as the oxidizer.
What gave the Japanese torpedos their great range and higher speed was the 100% oxygen oxidizer, vs the 21% oxygen found in air. The oxygen produced a hotter combustion, that made higher pressure steam to drive the torpedo, thus more speed. Additionally, since there was almost 5 times the oxygen available in a given space, that gave much greater range.
Regards, Gregg



rtrapasso -> RE: Oi and Kitikami (4/14/2005 6:28:29 PM)

quote:

To my knowledge, no US torpedo during the WWII time period used hydrogen peroxide as the oxidizer. They all used compressed air as the oxidizer.


I believe the US did perfect a torpedo during the war using NAVOL, but it was not used in combat. I'll have to check on the model and dates.



rtrapasso -> RE: Oi and Kitikami (4/14/2005 6:32:35 PM)

quote:

What gave the Japanese torpedos their great range and higher speed was the 100% oxygen oxidizer, vs the 21% oxygen found in air. The oxygen produced a hotter combustion, that made higher pressure steam to drive the torpedo, thus more speed. Additionally, since there was almost 5 times the oxygen available in a given space, that gave much greater range.
Regards, Gregg


Well, this is almost word for word what i claimed in prior posts. Problem is, i have since read that they didn't actually use oxygen per se, but concentrated hydrogen peroxide to produce oxygen. I am trying to find out if this is actually true or not. The US NAVOL torpedoes were referred to as "oxygen torpedoes" (although, again, the oxygen came from the concentrated hydrogen peroxide).



jwilkerson -> RE: Oi and Kitikami (4/14/2005 6:55:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka


quote:

ORIGINAL: doktorblood

Considering the fact that these are the only 2 ships in IJN that have radar until you can accelerate some radar equipped Yagumo class destroyers out of the shipyards, I think they are too important to risk in surface actions.


Which is exactly what the Japanese did historically.... [:D]



Are we saying here that K&O were in effect the "Aegis" Cruisers of the IJN ???

I've certainly never read that anywhere - but would be interested in a source !

If the Japanese did withhold these 2 ships because they were so effective at air warning - why were they never used with Kido Butai. I think most posters believe that K&O will improve air warning over a CV task force in which they are deployed [ I haven't tested this so I can't say for sure ]. And if so then - they probably would be the "Aegis" cruisers of the IJN "IN THE GAME" ... though again I find it hard to believe this represents there true historical capability.




Nikademus -> RE: Oi and Kitikami (4/14/2005 7:13:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

These are among the scariest ships of all time. How would you like to be serving aboard a ship carrying forty torpedo warheads and forty pure oxygen flasks up on deck?


Given what other ships acomplished with the weapon, i'd say the risk was justified.



Mr.Frag -> RE: Oi and Kitikami (4/14/2005 7:29:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

These are among the scariest ships of all time. How would you like to be serving aboard a ship carrying forty torpedo warheads and forty pure oxygen flasks up on deck?


Given what other ships acomplished with the weapon, i'd say the risk was justified.




Yea, like they ask the crew if it's ok? 8-)

Holland: "Well Boys, I know our armor sucks, but how do you feel about taking on the Bismarck?"

Crew: "Sir, I'd rather return to port, it might be risky."

Holland: "Alrighty then, let me get the Admiralty on the wireless and tell them we are coming home."

[:D]



Nikademus -> RE: Oi and Kitikami (4/14/2005 7:44:12 PM)

Ask the crew of the Hood what their opinion would have been.

[X(]



Tiornu -> RE: Oi and Kitikami (4/14/2005 8:52:39 PM)

"Given what other ships acomplished with the weapon, i'd say the risk was justified."
This presents us with an interesting matter of perspective. The Long Lance, and the Oi conversion, was not really intended for anything that actually took place during the war. But if we do view things in terms of what was actually acomplished, the Long Lance (in my opinion) doesn't look too good.
At Java Sea, the Long Lance accomplished what no other torpedo could, but even here, we have to acknowledge the hit rate was poor. And I can't recall anything good the Long Lance did for the Japanese subsequent to Java Sea that a Type 90 couldn't have done.
The Long Lance was a pure oxygen torpedo, not a hydrogen peroxide torpedo. The US hydrogen peroxide torpedoes were the Mk 16 and Mk 17.
At Samar, I believe both Chokai and Suzuya were done in by their own torpedo weaponry. Suzuya did not even suffer any direct hit, but a bomb frgament touched off a reaction in the torpedoes.
There are several other CA that were severely damaged by their Long Lances during the war.



rtrapasso -> RE: Oi and Kitikami (4/14/2005 9:03:42 PM)

quote:

The Long Lance was a pure oxygen torpedo, not a hydrogen peroxide torpedo. The US hydrogen peroxide torpedoes were the Mk 16 and Mk 17.


Ahh - thanks! [:)]

I had a feeling that book was dangerous to quote. It didn't really talk much about the IJN torps, so i suspected the author didn't really know what he was talking about.[8|]



rtrapasso -> RE: Oi and Kitikami (4/14/2005 9:12:43 PM)

quote:

The US hydrogen peroxide torpedoes were the Mk 16 and Mk 17.


from US torpedo history site:

"the Mk.16, though not used in combat during WW II, was a standard submarine weapon until 1975."

The Mk 16 and Mk 17 went into service 1944. The Mk 16 was a sub torp, the Mk 17 was for DDs.

Some comparisons of the Mk 14 steam, Mk 16 Navol and Mk 18 electric:
Model size tot wt warhead propulsion performance
Mk.14 Mod.3A 21"x 246" 3282 lb 660 lb TPX Steam 4,500y @ 46.3kts
Mk.16 Mod.1 21"x 246" 3922 lb 920 lb TPX Navol 11,000y @ 46.2kts
Mk.18 21"x245" 3154 lb 575 lb TPX Electric 4,000y @ 29.0kts

EDIT - i put in some nice formatting, but the forum software removes it and crunches everything together!![:@]



Nikademus -> RE: Oi and Kitikami (4/14/2005 9:28:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

This presents us with an interesting matter of perspective. The Long Lance, and the Oi conversion, was not really intended for anything that actually took place during the war. But if we do view things in terms of what was actually acomplished, the Long Lance (in my opinion) doesn't look too good.



This is one of the few areas where we have never agreed. [;)] From a statistical standpoint, torpedoes, any torpedo will never look too good as they were an inherrantly inaccurate weapons system (like many unguided munitions) The 'hit rate' may not have been spectacular, but as i've always argued, the weapon gave an added punch and tactical flexibility that was unmatched until the advent of better, more advanced radar fire controls gave rapid fire medium guns the advantage back. The effects of LL hits on the various battles in the Slot bore evidence to that. I dont recall a single cruiser or DD exploding from an oxygen detonation during any of these fights.

quote:


At Samar, I believe both Chokai and Suzuya were done in by their own torpedo weaponry. Suzuya did not even suffer any direct hit, but a bomb frgament touched off a reaction in the torpedoes.
There are several other CA that were severely damaged by their Long Lances during the war.


I'd like to see qualificaiton of the former statement. Admitedly even if true, i dont see the threat from air as an adequate means of making summary judgement on whether cruisers armed with it was an advantage or not. From a surface battle point of view, I've always felt it was. On the latter issue....being damaged by their own long lances but not destroyed or crippled makes my point in my opinion...the risk was justified in trade for the tactical flexibility.



Tiornu -> RE: Oi and Kitikami (4/14/2005 9:53:46 PM)

"The effects of LL hits on the various battles in the Slot bore evidence to that."
If you sincerely believe that, then list the successes of the Long Lance in the Solomons that were beyond the capability of Type 90's. In fact, several "Long Lance" hits in the Solomons actually WERE from Type 90's.

"I dont recall a single cruiser or DD exploding from an oxygen detonation during any of these fights."
See Lacroix & Wells for a complete listing of CAs victimized by their own Long Lances. I've never seen a survey for CLs and DDs.



Nikademus -> RE: Oi and Kitikami (4/14/2005 10:02:21 PM)

I'd rather if you provided a more specific reasoning that clearly shows that the placement of torpedoes on the Japanese CA's was truely more of a hazzard than a benefit and show specific examples of cruisers crippled or sunk.

Again, i dont feel that late war air attacks on cruisers is a fair qualificaiton (if they occured)





testarossa -> RE: Oi and Kitikami (4/14/2005 10:26:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu
See Lacroix & Wells for a complete listing of CAs victimized by their own Long Lances. I've never seen a survey for CLs and DDs.


Well, keeping shells and gunpowder in magazines was a very hazardous practice too.[:D]
Many ships suffered magazine explosions, as you know.



Tiornu -> RE: Oi and Kitikami (4/14/2005 10:41:20 PM)

"I'd rather if you provided a more specific reasoning that clearly shows that the placement of torpedoes on the Japanese CA's was truely more of a hazzard than a benefit and show specific examples of cruisers crippled or sunk."
I just gave you the complete reference: L&W. I don't know of any hits by Japanese CA torpedoes after Savo except one at Surigao Strait (a dud hit on Hibuson Island).



Nikademus -> RE: Oi and Kitikami (4/14/2005 10:47:51 PM)

I know you did, but not having that reference handy, i'd appeciate it if you could show specific examples of LL equpped cruisers exploding and sinking or being crippled. "injuries" i found too vague because as has already been pointed out, all armaments and ammunition pose dangers if set off.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.78125