Debate on the IJN type 93 torpedo

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Debate on the IJN type 93 torpedo

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Debate on the IJN type 93 torpedo

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Debate on the IJN type 93 torpedo - 1/29/2015 4:32:14 PM

Lecivius

Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

As I wander about the net, I came across what to me appears to be 2 different views on the type 93 'Long Lance' torpedo.

In one http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-067.htm it is noted...

"The first is a review of the Type 93 torpedo by range fired, and speed setting employed. The dismal performance in such long-range actions as Java Sea and Komandorski Islands, and the relative success in the close-range actions of the Solomons Campaign, imply that the weapon�s speed was a greater asset than its range. It may be that the Japanese misappreciated their own weapon and would have been better served by a plan which eschewed �long-range concealed firing� in favor of short-range attacks that offered the enemy less time to evade.

The second is a review of Type 93 dud and depth control problems. Numerous Type 93s failed to explode, many others ran under their targets and others prematured in the wake pattern of the target ship. Without detailed information on impact angles, Type 93 fuze characteristics, and the number of weapons which passed harmlessly beneath their targets, reliable observations regarding these factors (so famously poor in US submarine and aerial torpedoes) are impossible. What little information I have on these phenomena suggests the Type 93 was not immune to these banes of the torpedo designer and employer. "

This implies the torpedo did experience some ( though nowhere near all) of the issues the US Navy had with theirs. Yet a counterpoint can be found at http://www.combinedfleet.com/torps.htm

"Designing and perfecting the Long Lance required solving some extremely difficult technical problems, most of which centered around the usage of pure oxygen as a fuel (rather than compressed air). Compressed air is nearly 77% nitrogen, which is useless for combustion, and also contributes to the visibility of the torpedo by leaving a bubble track on the surface. The usage of pure oxygen promised far greater power and propulsive efficiency, but it came with certain costs. The most glaring of these was how to use pure oxygen safely aboard a ship or submarine, given its inherently inflammable nature. Premature detonation of the torpedo upon firing was also a problem. However, the Japanese overcame these hurdles. Further, through meticulous live-testing of their weapons against ship targets, they perfected a warhead detonator that was rugged and reliable (The U.S. Navy's BuOrd could certainly have taken a lesson or two here). The resulting weapon, the Type 93 torpedo, was fantastically advanced in comparison with its Western counterparts, possessing an unequaled combination of speed, range, and hitting power. This weapon, coupled with the flexible battle tactics practiced by Japan's cruisers and destroyers, led to victory after victory in the early stages of the war. Only as American radar and gunfire control became increasingly sophisticated would the Japanese advantage in night battles begin to disappear, and even then a Long Lance-armed Japanese destroyer was still a thing to be feared."

While not exactly specific to the actual efficiency of the type-93, it does indicate it was relatively bug free. Also, the Long Lance was not that effective in anything other than (relatively) close combat. It was not the range, but the speed, that was the deciding factor in hits scored. To me this appears to be in conflict.

Does anyone have thoughts or valid opinions? Perhaps other sources?

Post #: 1

RE: Debate on the IJN type 93 torpedo - 1/29/2015 4:54:02 PM

Lecivius

Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

Found http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/4465-torpedo-type-93/

Nothing about the potential defects, but interesting article anyways.

<edit>

http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/L/o/Long_Lance.htm

PWE seems to indicate that the depth & exploder issues were resolved prior to war's outbreak. But it still appears speed and power, not range, were the major causes for success.

<re-edit>

http://www.ww2pacific.com/torpedo.html

Nothing on the T 93, but a wealth on the US Torpedo woes. Reading this, it appears the game developers were actually pretty generous with the successful hit ratio of allied torpedoes

< Message edited by Lecivius -- 1/29/2015 6:20:46 PM >

(in reply to Lecivius)

Post #: 2

RE: Debate on the IJN type 93 torpedo - 1/29/2015 6:41:25 PM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

The type 93 was a ship killer but not all the ships it killed were Allied. Any fire in the vicinity of the torpedo tubes of an IJN warship was almost certain to cause the oxygen propelled torpedoes to both detonate and feed the fire to such an extent as to seriously imperil the ship. The experiences of the two sister ships Mogami and Mikuma when hit by bombs at Midway is illustrative: after both ships suffered bomb hits midships and consequent fires near the torpedo tubes the Damage Control Officer on Mogami jettisoned his torpedoes and his ship survived. The DCO on Mikuma did not and his torpedoes exploded dooming his ship. The fire danger posed by one's own torpedoes was the principle reason that they were removed from (or omitted from the design of) USN heavy cruisers.

By no means was Mikuma the only IJN ship killed by its own torpedoes...IIRC 3 CAs and 2CLs and several DDs were effectively destroyed by the sympathetic detonation of their own torpedoes.

(in reply to Lecivius)

Post #: 3

RE: Debate on the IJN type 93 torpedo - 1/29/2015 6:58:55 PM

Rising-Sun

Posts: 2082
Joined: 11/5/2009
From: Clifton Park, NY
Status: offline

Hard to believe those thing can fire and forget at night, traveling at high speed up to 40,000 yards. Believe that what USN got hit the most in the Solomon Islands near Guadalcanal or down the Slot. The two kuma class Kitakami and Oi is nasty during night naval engagement.

_____________________________

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 4

RE: Debate on the IJN type 93 torpedo - 1/29/2015 7:11:11 PM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

quote:

Hard to believe those thing can fire and forget at night, traveling at high speed up to 40,000 yards. Believe that what USN got hit the most in the Solomon Islands near Guadalcanal or down the Slot. The two kuma class Kitakami and Oi is nasty during night naval engagement.

_____________________________

Neither of those two ever engaged in a surface battle. The IJN modified both of those cruisers by removing their torpedo tubes (TROMs from CombinedFleet.com). Hmmmm?

(in reply to Rising-Sun)

Post #: 5

RE: Debate on the IJN type 93 torpedo - 1/29/2015 8:08:26 PM

Lecivius

Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

Also, they had a 2 step launch sequence. The initial launch was done using standard compressed air, with oxygen taking over from a separate single piece machined bottle (from armor grade steel no less) a few moments after motor ignition. It was this 2 step process that gave it the range and bypassed a lot of the British problems, from what I can find so far.

Interesting stuff out there.

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 6

RE: Debate on the IJN type 93 torpedo - 1/30/2015 8:23:42 AM

Rising-Sun

Posts: 2082
Joined: 11/5/2009
From: Clifton Park, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

Hard to believe those thing can fire and forget at night, traveling at high speed up to 40,000 yards. Believe that what USN got hit the most in the Solomon Islands near Guadalcanal or down the Slot. The two kuma class Kitakami and Oi is nasty during night naval engagement.

_____________________________

Neither of those two ever engaged in a surface battle. The IJN modified both of those cruisers by removing their torpedo tubes (TROMs from CombinedFleet.com). Hmmmm?

I know those two never took place in the Solomon, but I just realize this only ship was in the Solomon had type 93 TT mounts (Chokai) others are Aoba Class. But imagine having Kita and Oi with those 93s it would been a wall of steel heading their way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Ch%C5%8Dkai

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_93_torpedo

< Message edited by RisingSun -- 1/30/2015 9:26:41 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 7

RE: Debate on the IJN type 93 torpedo - 1/30/2015 8:41:52 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

I recall posting the original article a while back. I did find it interesting.

The problem with the Oi and Kitikami would have been whether they had been hit by gunfire before launching or not. Even 5 inch fire on the run in may have set off one of more torpedoes with catastrophic results, the Mikuma was done in by exploding torpedoes and she was a much larger and more modern ship than the Oi class. But as the navweapons article points out that Japanese torpedoes weren't as good as they were advertised to be. In action they only achieved about 1/3 the results pre-war planning said they had to achieve.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Rising-Sun)

Post #: 8

RE: Debate on the IJN type 93 torpedo - 1/30/2015 8:47:49 AM

Hyacinth

Posts: 83
Joined: 9/1/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

I recall posting the original article a while back. I did find it interesting.

The problem with the Oi and Kitikami would have been whether they had been hit by gunfire before launching or not. Even 5 inch fire on the run in may have set off one of more torpedoes with catastrophic results, the Mikuma was done in by exploding torpedoes and she was a much larger and more modern ship than the Oi class. But as the navweapons article points out that Japanese torpedoes weren't as good as they were advertised to be. In action they only achieved about 1/3 the results pre-war planning said they had to achieve.

Bill

Launched in large salvoes at night and undetected they should work as advertised, do they?

_____________________________

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 9

RE: Debate on the IJN type 93 torpedo - 1/30/2015 8:56:16 AM

Hyacinth

Posts: 83
Joined: 9/1/2014
Status: offline

Also targets being mainly capital ships, they where not ment to catch small fish.
Radar made this tactic only possible in confined waters, totally plausible in Solomons, dont think the game engine can model this.

_____________________________

(in reply to Hyacinth)

Post #: 10

RE: Debate on the IJN type 93 torpedo - 1/30/2015 9:44:26 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

The navwespons site goes over every time Japanese surface ships used the type 93. At the Battle of the Java Sea 167 were launched with a hit rate of 1.8%. At the Battle of Vella Lavella, 48 were launched with a 4.1% hit rate. The Battle of Biak had 42 launched, no hits. Empress Auguta Bay, 44 launched, 0 hits.

The Oi and Kitikami could only launch half their load in a salvo, the tubes were half to a side, which meant 20 per side. But we will never know if the concentrated salvo would do any good. 20 torpedoes launched from one point is probably not as dangerous as 20 launched from multiple points. And there are 4 instances where the Japanese managed to get 40 or more fish in the water and managed 167 in one instance early in the war (when the Allies didn't have radar) and the results were pathetic.

Torpedoes are devastating when they hit, but the results in the war showed surface launched torpedoes were more effective at throwing off the aim of ships firing guns than actually doing much damage.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Hyacinth)

Post #: 11

RE: Debate on the IJN type 93 torpedo - 1/30/2015 12:20:48 PM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

Hit rate is not relevant if we don't get a hit rate from a comparable range from other torpedo models - and also night/day. So like in ship gunnery we have very low samples to judge.
But nevertheless it was very rare for any torpedo to hit at more than 3-4km.
So that part of Japanese doctrine was wrong, it could turn right if the enemy was forced to split their forces while maneuvering from torpedoes, but that wasn't the idea behind Japanese long range request.

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 12

RE: Debate on the IJN type 93 torpedo - 1/30/2015 1:42:09 PM

Hyacinth

Posts: 83
Joined: 9/1/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The navwespons site goes over every time Japanese surface ships used the type 93. At the Battle of the Java Sea 167 were launched with a hit rate of 1.8%. At the Battle of Vella Lavella, 48 were launched with a 4.1% hit rate. The Battle of Biak had 42 launched, no hits. Empress Auguta Bay, 44 launched, 0 hits.

The Oi and Kitikami could only launch half their load in a salvo, the tubes were half to a side, which meant 20 per side. But we will never know if the concentrated salvo would do any good. 20 torpedoes launched from one point is probably not as dangerous as 20 launched from multiple points. And there are 4 instances where the Japanese managed to get 40 or more fish in the water and managed 167 in one instance early in the war (when the Allies didn't have radar) and the results were pathetic.

Torpedoes are devastating when they hit, but the results in the war showed surface launched torpedoes were more effective at throwing off the aim of ships firing guns than actually doing much damage.

Bill

It is a good analysis but it fails little short in comparing battles that where not fought as defined in the IJN doctrine.

None fit doctrine perfectly, most dont at all.

In Java Sea for instance IJN was defending a landing, not charging suicidally at capital ships.
They did sink two light cruisers, with torpedoes.

In some they where on a supply run and ambushed, not ambushing themselves.

Some are late war battles that have the suicidal part correct and a technological revolution happening inside the past few years.

With different samples the percentages go up.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-067.htm

_____________________________

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 13

RE: Debate on the IJN type 93 torpedo - 1/31/2015 12:03:54 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

The history of torpedo attacks underlines the fallacies underlying the strategy. The conditions under which their ships were designed to fight rarely came close to reality and they never saw the exact kind of condition their ships were designed to fight.

Overall I think USN doctrine was probably better. It was more flexible to conditions (especially early war) and ships were more readily refitted to fight the kind of war they were facing rather than trying to create the conditions that would best fit their designs.

The changes on US DDs demonstrated this the best. When ASW assets proved inadequate, the DDs got a lot more ASW. To deal with air threats, the AA was upgraded, many Fletchers even lost a 5 inch gun to get an extra pair of 40mm tubs. As the war went on many US DDs also traded in their torpedoes for more AA. In 1945 a lot of DDs were being refitted for minesweeping. Some Gearing class DDs were refitted before going to the Pacific for the first time.

The Japanese too refitted ships as the war went on, but they were slow to add AA and ASW and their AA was never as effective as USN AA. The Japanese were slow to remove torpedoes from their ships, and the practice of carrying reloads made them more vulnerable when hit near torpedo mounts. Even the Japanese must have seen something wrong with the loadout of the Oi and Kitikami because they didn't keep the torpedo cruiser layout for all that long. They were converted to transports only a year or so after the torpedo cruiser conversion.

Japan had a critical shortage of cruisers throughout the war. These two would have been much more useful in their original layout. As it was they were eventually converted to semi troop transports.

Bill

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Hyacinth)

Post #: 14

RE: Debate on the IJN type 93 torpedo - 1/31/2015 12:54:00 AM

Hyacinth

Posts: 83
Joined: 9/1/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The history of torpedo attacks underlines the fallacies underlying the strategy. The conditions under which their ships were designed to fight rarely came close to reality and they never saw the exact kind of condition their ships were designed to fight.

Overall I think USN doctrine was probably better. It was more flexible to conditions (especially early war) and ships were more readily refitted to fight the kind of war they were facing rather than trying to create the conditions that would best fit their designs.

The changes on US DDs demonstrated this the best. When ASW assets proved inadequate, the DDs got a lot more ASW. To deal with air threats, the AA was upgraded, many Fletchers even lost a 5 inch gun to get an extra pair of 40mm tubs. As the war went on many US DDs also traded in their torpedoes for more AA. In 1945 a lot of DDs were being refitted for minesweeping. Some Gearing class DDs were refitted before going to the Pacific for the first time.

The Japanese too refitted ships as the war went on, but they were slow to add AA and ASW and their AA was never as effective as USN AA. The Japanese were slow to remove torpedoes from their ships, and the practice of carrying reloads made them more vulnerable when hit near torpedo mounts. Even the Japanese must have seen something wrong with the loadout of the Oi and Kitikami because they didn't keep the torpedo cruiser layout for all that long. They were converted to transports only a year or so after the torpedo cruiser conversion.

Japan had a critical shortage of cruisers throughout the war. These two would have been much more useful in their original layout. As it was they were eventually converted to semi troop transports.

Bill

Bill

Early war there was no battle line to send forward for the USN or to engage at for the IJN.

It could have been a blessing in disguise..
If politicians would have forced the USN to try and relieve the Philippines it could have ended with much worse losses (the carriers) that resulted from Dec 7.

IJN got sucked in to an attritional piece meal campaign of no strategic value in the Solomons and went to the "decisive battle" in Midway weakened by that and OPSEC breached.

_____________________________

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 15

RE: Debate on the IJN type 93 torpedo - 1/31/2015 4:23:23 AM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

Massed torpedo attacks were obsolete by the middle of 43. Improved radar and fire control widened the range of engagement to the point where surface gunnery could neutralize Japanese ships well outside of effective range successful torpedo attacks. Oddly enough the situation was reversed for the Americans. Improved American torpedoes along with the Japanese failure to produce radar effective enough to reliably detect surfaces ships allowed the Americans to have some success long after torpedoes had lost their sheen. Torpedoes did not become much of a threat again until homing and guided torpedoes became more reliable after the war.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Hyacinth)

Post #: 16

RE: Debate on the IJN type 93 torpedo - 1/31/2015 8:15:47 AM

Rising-Sun

Posts: 2082
Joined: 11/5/2009
From: Clifton Park, NY
Status: offline

Actually Japan was short on escorts and DDs to support the screen of capitol ships.

During engagements, when torpedoes are in the water, I believe the system will check to see if this is night or day. Night time would be almost impossible to see the torpedoes coming, but during the day, believe the system will check to see if the torpedoes have been spotted and trying to maneuver them, the smaller ships would have better chance to maneuver than larger ships. Radars would have no effects on this situations, pretty much there not much you can do while these torpedoes in the water. Now the percentage of moonlight during night engagement, I believe there small chance to spot them.

_____________________________

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 17

RE: Debate on the IJN type 93 torpedo - 1/31/2015 8:26:00 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

I don't know exactly what the code does, but in the real war, Allied crews knew what a torpedo run looked like on radar and would know to be alert for torpedoes in the water when they saw smaller ships charging towards them at flank speed then suddenly turning to expose the torpedo racks.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Rising-Sun)

Post #: 18

RE: Debate on the IJN type 93 torpedo - 1/31/2015 9:59:04 AM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The history of torpedo attacks underlines the fallacies underlying the strategy. The conditions under which their ships were designed to fight rarely came close to reality and they never saw the exact kind of condition their ships were designed to fight.

Overall I think USN doctrine was probably better. It was more flexible to conditions (especially early war) and ships were more readily refitted to fight the kind of war they were facing rather than trying to create the conditions that would best fit their designs.

The changes on US DDs demonstrated this the best. When ASW assets proved inadequate, the DDs got a lot more ASW. To deal with air threats, the AA was upgraded, many Fletchers even lost a 5 inch gun to get an extra pair of 40mm tubs. As the war went on many US DDs also traded in their torpedoes for more AA. In 1945 a lot of DDs were being refitted for minesweeping. Some Gearing class DDs were refitted before going to the Pacific for the first time.

The Japanese too refitted ships as the war went on, but they were slow to add AA and ASW and their AA was never as effective as USN AA. The Japanese were slow to remove torpedoes from their ships, and the practice of carrying reloads made them more vulnerable when hit near torpedo mounts. Even the Japanese must have seen something wrong with the loadout of the Oi and Kitikami because they didn't keep the torpedo cruiser layout for all that long. They were converted to transports only a year or so after the torpedo cruiser conversion.

Japan had a critical shortage of cruisers throughout the war. These two would have been much more useful in their original layout. As it was they were eventually converted to semi troop transports.

Bill

Bill

I think was more the benefit of having no doctrine. That is better in a situation where technology evolves fast.

The Oi,Kitakami case maybe that they were lousy ships with short range and not much speed, eventually dubious stability.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

I don't know exactly what the code does, but in the real war, Allied crews knew what a torpedo run looked like on radar and would know to be alert for torpedoes in the water when they saw smaller ships charging towards them at flank speed then suddenly turning to expose the torpedo racks.

Bill

Yes, but could be a feint attack.

< Message edited by Dili -- 1/31/2015 11:01:47 AM >

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 19

RE: Debate on the IJN type 93 torpedo - 1/31/2015 11:06:03 AM

Rising-Sun

Posts: 2082
Joined: 11/5/2009
From: Clifton Park, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

I don't know exactly what the code does, but in the real war, Allied crews knew what a torpedo run looked like on radar and would know to be alert for torpedoes in the water when they saw smaller ships charging towards them at flank speed then suddenly turning to expose the torpedo racks.

Bill

Didn't think the radars could pick them up, sonar perhaps?

_____________________________

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 20

RE: Debate on the IJN type 93 torpedo - 1/31/2015 11:17:31 AM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RisingSun

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

I don't know exactly what the code does, but in the real war, Allied crews knew what a torpedo run looked like on radar and would know to be alert for torpedoes in the water when they saw smaller ships charging towards them at flank speed then suddenly turning to expose the torpedo racks.

Bill

Didn't think the radars could pick them up, sonar perhaps?

not the torpedoes are picked up by radar but the ships launching them

_____________________________

(in reply to Rising-Sun)

Post #: 21

RE: Debate on the IJN type 93 torpedo - 1/31/2015 11:22:58 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

Ships making a torpedo attack move in a certain way that would be obvious to any experienced crew watching the radar scopes.

Bll

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 22

RE: Debate on the IJN type 93 torpedo - 1/31/2015 12:59:16 PM

Rising-Sun

Posts: 2082
Joined: 11/5/2009
From: Clifton Park, NY
Status: offline

Well a cunning commander or captains and I am pretty sure they try this tactics, by placing couple destroyers in front of them to block their views by 5,000 yards or so and cruisers would be launching their spread and signal the destroyers to flank ahead or turn around. I don't see how radars can pick up a ship that showing launching torpedoes. Getting a visual of that ship if in the right angle, distance as depend on the weather, it can be spotted. When I mention launching their torpedoes after the destroyers break off, the targets should be around 12-15,000 yards away. Infact the Japanese DDs, CLs usually have secondary loads for TT mounts.

Also floatplanes can spot them pretty easy in the air, if time it properly and align up or evasion maneuver if possible. But close engagement wouldn't have enough time to react if they are too close, those things travel pretty darn fast.

Not sure how long it take to reload them, depending on skills and what kinda of mounts it is, around thirty minutes or so. Wondering how much those torpedoes cost to make them, 5,000 yens? Believe American Torpedoes the one carrying by submarines cost around 10,000 USD each, Mk-14 or 15.

< Message edited by RisingSun -- 1/31/2015 4:04:05 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 23

RE: Debate on the IJN type 93 torpedo - 1/31/2015 1:54:37 PM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

quote:

It is a good analysis but it fails little short in comparing battles that where not fought as defined in the IJN doctrine

Yeah...the Allies should have fought like the IJN wanted them to fight. Cheaters never prosper.

Lets talk about the way they wanted it to go; the perfect setup: IJN Battlefleet vs Taffy 3. BTW the Type 93s killed a couple of cruisers in that one: Chokai and Suzuya.

< Message edited by spence -- 1/31/2015 3:00:36 PM >

(in reply to Lecivius)

Post #: 24

RE: Debate on the IJN type 93 torpedo - 1/31/2015 3:08:10 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RisingSun

Well a cunning commander or captains and I am pretty sure they try this tactics, by placing couple destroyers in front of them to block their views by 5,000 yards or so and cruisers would be launching their spread and signal the destroyers to flank ahead or turn around. I don't see how radars can pick up a ship that showing launching torpedoes. Getting a visual of that ship if in the right angle, distance as depend on the weather, it can be spotted. When I mention launching their torpedoes after the destroyers break off, the targets should be around 12-15,000 yards away. Infact the Japanese DDs, CLs usually have secondary loads for TT mounts.

Not sure how long it take to reload them, depending on skills and what kinda of mounts it is, around thirty minutes or so. Wondering how much those torpedoes cost to make them, 5,000 yens? Believe American Torpedoes the one carrying by submarines cost around 10,000 USD each, Mk-14 or 15.

You miss the point. Radar and improved fire control changed the tactics of night actions entirely. These tactics you propose all look good on paper but by 1944 Allied gunnery and ranging was so refined that these attacking ships would be getting fairly blasted by gunfire. What worked in 1942 was no longer necessarily the case in mid 44. The fact was that even in the best of days with the best of tactics, torpedoes launched at long range rarely hit anything. A decent chance to hit with torpedoes necessitated closing to a range where later in the war improved Allied gunnery had made very difficult-almost impossible.

Even the dubious benefit of forcing course changes and disrupting gunnery no longer held water. Frequent course changes were actually very difficult on treaty cruisers and older DDs with their slow turrets, rate of fire and primitive fire control. This was less so the case for later war Allied ships which had superior items in all of these categories and were able to recover and re-target the enemy at a much faster rate.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Rising-Sun)

Post #: 25

RE: Debate on the IJN type 93 torpedo - 1/31/2015 3:21:18 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RisingSun

Actually Japan was short on escorts and DDs to support the screen of capitol ships.

During engagements, when torpedoes are in the water, I believe the system will check to see if this is night or day. Night time would be almost impossible to see the torpedoes coming, but during the day, believe the system will check to see if the torpedoes have been spotted and trying to maneuver them, the smaller ships would have better chance to maneuver than larger ships. Radars would have no effects on this situations, pretty much there not much you can do while these torpedoes in the water. Now the percentage of moonlight during night engagement, I believe there small chance to spot them.

In game terms radar tends to open the initial engagement range in night fights. If the fight opens at 10-8000 yards and most ships typically fire of their torpedoes in the opening rounds then there is less chance of hits occurring. Moonlight also has an effect on this as ships tend to engage at longer ranges when there is more moonlight. In the game, the ideal time for torpedoes to hit is in a early war night action with very low moonlight. I am sure there are many factors that can affect a torpedo hit but basically the best chance to hit is when the torpedoes are launched at the shortest range.

If you want to see total torpedo havoc. Send your old Allied BBs into a night action against DDs and CAs in 3/42 on a moonless night.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Rising-Sun)

Post #: 26

RE: Debate on the IJN type 93 torpedo - 1/31/2015 9:54:07 PM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Yeah...the Allies should have fought like the IJN wanted them to fight. Cheaters never prosper.

Lets talk about the way they wanted it to go; the perfect setup: IJN Battlefleet vs Taffy 3. BTW the Type 93s killed a couple of cruisers in that one: Chokai and Suzuya.

Suzuya and Chokai were both crippled by their own torpedoes going off. The Chokai had a lucky hit from a 5 inch shell from the White Plains in the torpedo storage area which set off a number of torpedoes and started a major fire. Suzuya's torpedoes were set off by a near miss from an aircraft where another bomb had taken off one of her propellers.

I believe the only torpedo hit that day was from the Johnston which hit the Komano.

That day, the type 93 were more a liability than an asset. Something the game doesn't model all that well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
You miss the point. Radar and improved fire control changed the tactics of night actions entirely. These tactics you propose all look good on paper but by 1944 Allied gunnery and ranging was so refined that these attacking ships would be getting fairly blasted by gunfire. What worked in 1942 was no longer necessarily the case in mid 44. The fact was that even in the best of days with the best of tactics, torpedoes launched at long range rarely hit anything. A decent chance to hit with torpedoes necessitated closing to a range where later in the war improved Allied gunnery had made very difficult-almost impossible.

Even the dubious benefit of forcing course changes and disrupting gunnery no longer held water. Frequent course changes were actually very difficult on treaty cruisers and older DDs with their slow turrets, rate of fire and primitive fire control. This was less so the case for later war Allied ships which had superior items in all of these categories and were able to recover and re-target the enemy at a much faster rate.

Yes, by 1944, any Japanese ship in any night surface action that charged a US surface force would have been the first targeted. If it was a feint, the USN ships would still maneuver to get out of the way when the ships turned side on to them, paused long enough to launch torpedoes, then turned around. Torpedoes are faster than surface ships, but they are slow enough to get away from if you know the moment they are launched torpedoes are coming your way.

It's the same reason B-17s or any other high altitude bomber couldn't hit maneuvering ships from altitude. Bombs take time to fall and the higher up you are, the longer the drop. Observers on the ship know when the bombs are released and the ship just makes sure they are out of the way of the bombs when they reach the surface.

Torpedoes need some run time to arm, so you can't release point blank. I don't know what the arming distance was for the Type 93, but it was probably not under 500 yards. Getting that close to a radar equipped US ship in 1944 would be suicide unless you outnumbered them. It's doubtful many ships would reach a normal launch range against a US cruiser or BB force. They might against a destroyer squadron, but it's unlikely they would get any hits.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 27

RE: Debate on the IJN type 93 torpedo - 1/31/2015 11:11:32 PM

Hyacinth

Posts: 83
Joined: 9/1/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

It is a good analysis but it fails little short in comparing battles that where not fought as defined in the IJN doctrine

Yeah...the Allies should have fought like the IJN wanted them to fight. Cheaters never prosper.

Lets talk about the way they wanted it to go; the perfect setup: IJN Battlefleet vs Taffy 3. BTW the Type 93s killed a couple of cruisers in that one: Chokai and Suzuya.

You should have quoted me also about my comment on late war battles.

The Japanese doctrine was sound, technology made it obsolete in two years.

_____________________________

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 28

RE: Debate on the IJN type 93 torpedo - 2/1/2015 7:05:44 AM

Rising-Sun

Posts: 2082
Joined: 11/5/2009
From: Clifton Park, NY
Status: offline

That is true that Allied gotten better radars and fire controls sometime in mid '43+, but wondering did the Japanese ever tried to get into magnetic torpedoes, and/or even homing device? Believe the Germans manage to get magnetic torpedoes as well mines, those two countries have been sharing techs.

_____________________________

(in reply to Hyacinth)

Post #: 29

RE: Debate on the IJN type 93 torpedo - 2/1/2015 7:54:28 AM

Buckrock

Posts: 578
Joined: 3/16/2012
From: Not all there
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson
Suzuya and Chokai were both crippled by their own torpedoes going off. The Chokai had a lucky hit from a 5 inch shell from the White Plains in the torpedo storage area which set off a number of torpedoes and started a major fire.

It's worth mentioning that Chokai's torpedoes detonating from a shell hit is based on a theory put forward by Anthony Tully in his article for Warship International some years ago. In it, he attempted to piece together what may have happened to the Chokai that could have left her reportedly crippled minutes before the first recorded bombing attack on her.

I thought Tully made a good case but unless some further info has come to light recently, his evidence would still remain circumstantial. IIRC, Hornfischer used Tully's explanation in "Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors" but didn't seem to supply any additional evidence. What I think he did add was the claim that it was shells from the White Plains' 5" gun that got the critical hit.

Strangely though, the White Plains' official account of the action makes no mention of any major explosion on her two cruiser targets, only noting that one of her hits appeared to have disabled one of the fwd turrets of her last target.

_____________________________

This was the only sig line I could think of.

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 30