Which would you rather have?

[Terminus]

Following on the heels of the recent Long Lance discussion, I got to thinking about submarine torpedoes, and I came up with a question:

Which would you rather have as a submarine captain, a long-range torpedo with medium speed, or a medium-range torpedo with a larger warhead and possibly higher speed?

If it were me, I'd go for the latter. The longest-ranged torpedo shot from a submarine that I can remember off-hand was about 6,000 yards, and most were much closer, yet most torpedoes had longer ranges than this. A prime example was the Japanese Type 95 with a maximum range of 13,000 yards at 45-47 knots.

The Model 2 version of the Type 95 exchanged 5,000 yards of range for 300 pounds more warhead. That makes sense to me.

[RUPD3658]

I would take a sub with a spar torpedo if it meant it would sink it's target. [;)]

[Terminus]

[:D] Yes, but this is World War II we're talking about, not the Spanish-American War...[;)]

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Following on the heels of the recent Long Lance discussion, I got to thinking about submarine torpedoes, and I came up with a question:

Which would you rather have as a submarine captain, a long-range torpedo with medium speed, or a medium-range torpedo with a larger warhead and possibly higher speed?

If it were me, I'd go for the latter. The longest-ranged torpedo shot from a submarine that I can remember off-hand was about 6,000 yards, and most were much closer, yet most torpedoes had longer ranges than this. A prime example was the Japanese Type 95 with a maximum range of 13,000 yards at 45-47 knots.

The Model 2 version of the Type 95 exchanged 5,000 yards of range for 300 pounds more warhead. That makes sense to me.

I wouldn't want to outrange my sensor systems. Sonars and periscopes aren't that long range. On the other hand, Long Lances allow me to sink battleships with cruisers and destroyers at long range.

[mlees]

A lot of misses occured because the shooter incorrectly estimated the targets speed, course, and/or range.
 
Lacking some type of torpedo with mid-course correction ability, the best way to eliminate those misses is to shorten the travel time to target. (The shorter travel time reduces the effect of errors in shooting calculations.)
 
So, I would request a very fast, wakeless torpedo, with a minimum range of 5000 yards. (IIRC, most successfull US attacks occured at 1500 yards or less.)
 
A longer range with a slower speed setting is good for stationary targets. (Ships disabled or at anchor.) Nice to have built into the same weapon.
 
Of course, we would test, test, and then test some more to ensure that the weapon works as intended.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Following on the heels of the recent Long Lance discussion, I got to thinking about submarine torpedoes, and I came up with a question:

Which would you rather have as a submarine captain, a long-range torpedo with medium speed, or a medium-range torpedo with a larger warhead and possibly higher speed?

If it were me, I'd go for the latter. The longest-ranged torpedo shot from a submarine that I can remember off-hand was about 6,000 yards, and most were much closer, yet most torpedoes had longer ranges than this. A prime example was the Japanese Type 95 with a maximum range of 13,000 yards at 45-47 knots.

The Model 2 version of the Type 95 exchanged 5,000 yards of range for 300 pounds more warhead. That makes sense to me.

I wouldn't want to outrange my sensor systems. Sonars and periscopes aren't that long range. On the other hand, Long Lances allow me to sink battleships with cruisers and destroyers at long range.

theoretically... [:D]

[wild_Willie2]

For a sub, 6000 yards, reliable, fast AND a decent warhead......

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Following on the heels of the recent Long Lance discussion, I got to thinking about submarine torpedoes, and I came up with a question:

Which would you rather have as a submarine captain, a long-range torpedo with medium speed, or a medium-range torpedo with a larger warhead and possibly higher speed?

If it were me, I'd go for the latter. The longest-ranged torpedo shot from a submarine that I can remember off-hand was about 6,000 yards, and most were much closer, yet most torpedoes had longer ranges than this. A prime example was the Japanese Type 95 with a maximum range of 13,000 yards at 45-47 knots.

The Model 2 version of the Type 95 exchanged 5,000 yards of range for 300 pounds more warhead. That makes sense to me.

I wouldn't want to outrange my sensor systems. Sonars and periscopes aren't that long range. On the other hand, Long Lances allow me to sink battleships with cruisers and destroyers at long range.

Yeah, but we're talking submarines here. You couldn't stick many Long Lances into a submarine.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Following on the heels of the recent Long Lance discussion, I got to thinking about submarine torpedoes, and I came up with a question:

Which would you rather have as a submarine captain, a long-range torpedo with medium speed, or a medium-range torpedo with a larger warhead and possibly higher speed?

If it were me, I'd go for the latter. The longest-ranged torpedo shot from a submarine that I can remember off-hand was about 6,000 yards, and most were much closer, yet most torpedoes had longer ranges than this. A prime example was the Japanese Type 95 with a maximum range of 13,000 yards at 45-47 knots.

The Model 2 version of the Type 95 exchanged 5,000 yards of range for 300 pounds more warhead. That makes sense to me.

[:D]Definately the later. Both would be cool too.[:D]

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Following on the heels of the recent Long Lance discussion, I got to thinking about submarine torpedoes, and I came up with a question:

Which would you rather have as a submarine captain, a long-range torpedo with medium speed, or a medium-range torpedo with a larger warhead and possibly higher speed?

If it were me, I'd go for the latter. The longest-ranged torpedo shot from a submarine that I can remember off-hand was about 6,000 yards, and most were much closer, yet most torpedoes had longer ranges than this. A prime example was the Japanese Type 95 with a maximum range of 13,000 yards at 45-47 knots.

The Model 2 version of the Type 95 exchanged 5,000 yards of range for 300 pounds more warhead. That makes sense to me.

I wouldn't want to outrange my sensor systems. Sonars and periscopes aren't that long range. On the other hand, Long Lances allow me to sink battleships with cruisers and destroyers at long range.

theoretically... [:D]

[:D]And what about a night attack on the surface?[:D]

[Terminus]

I hear a few people saying that they'd like both long- and short-range modes baked into the same weapon. That was standard on most (if not all) submarine torpedoes during WWII, but almost no submarine skippers used that capability.

[niceguy2005]

I think any sub commander would take the bigger (more boom), closer range, faster weapon.  If I'm any judge of human tendancies I bet sub commanders brag about how close they can manuever in to targets. [;)]

[BrucePowers]

More warhead, definitely.

[Mike Scholl]

6,000 yards with a 600 lb warhead at 60 mph would be about as perfect as could be desired.

[Terminus]

600lb warhead is far too small. I would be happy with 6,000 yards at 50 knots with a 1,200lb warhead, which is certainly within WWII technology.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: herwin


[

I wouldn't want to outrange my sensor systems. Sonars and periscopes aren't that long range. On the other hand, Long Lances allow me to sink battleships with cruisers and destroyers at long range.

theoretically... [:D]

That's what they were designed to do.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

600lb warhead is far too small. I would be happy with 6,000 yards at 50 knots with a 1,200lb warhead, which is certainly within WWII technology.

Damaged distance along the side of the warship scales as the cube root of the warhead weight. Unless the larger warhead can slice the vessel in two or break its back (which the Long Lance sometimes did, especially with DDs), an increase in warhead weight is not that useful. Even the early Allied torpedoes could overmatch the bulges of WWII capital ships.

[Dili]

Better sight/fire control system 

[String]

Well, in the case of the type 95 sometimes got good results from its great range, although unintentionally. Remember the sinking of a DD and damaging of South Dakota after Wasp was hit.

CV, DD sunk and a BB damaged with one salvo. Don't see that in WitP.

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Better sight/fire control system

Still talking about submarine torpedoes...[8|]