Which would you rather have?
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
Which would you rather have?
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.
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.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
RE: Which would you rather have?
I would take a sub with a spar torpedo if it meant it would sink it's target. [;)]
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits"- Darwin Awards 2003
"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke
[img]https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/upfi ... EDB99F.jpg[/img]
"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke
[img]https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/upfi ... EDB99F.jpg[/img]
RE: Which would you rather have?
[:D] Yes, but this is World War II we're talking about, not the Spanish-American War...[;)]
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
RE: Which would you rather have?
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.
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
RE: Which would you rather have?
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.
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
- Posts: 14331
- Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
- Location: Austria
RE: Which would you rather have?
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
- Posts: 2934
- Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 10:33 am
- Location: Arnhem (holland) yes a bridge to far...
RE: Which would you rather have?
For a sub, 6000 yards, reliable, fast AND a decent warhead......
In vinum illic est sapientia , in matera illic est vires , in aqua illic es bacteria.
In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there are bacteria.
In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there are bacteria.
RE: Which would you rather have?
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.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
RE: Which would you rather have?
[:D]Definately the later. Both would be cool too.[:D]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.
RE: Which would you rather have?
[:D]And what about a night attack on the surface?[:D]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]
RE: Which would you rather have?
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.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
- niceguy2005
- Posts: 12522
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:53 pm
- Location: Super secret hidden base
RE: Which would you rather have?
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. [;)]
Artwork graciously provided by Dixie
- BrucePowers
- Posts: 12090
- Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 6:13 pm
RE: Which would you rather have?
More warhead, definitely.
For what we are about to receive, may we be truly thankful.
Lieutenant Bush - Captain Horatio Hornblower by C S Forester
Lieutenant Bush - Captain Horatio Hornblower by C S Forester
-
- Posts: 6187
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
- Location: Kansas City, MO
RE: Which would you rather have?
6,000 yards with a 600 lb warhead at 60 mph would be about as perfect as could be desired.
RE: Which would you rather have?
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.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
RE: Which would you rather have?
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.
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
RE: Which would you rather have?
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.
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
RE: Which would you rather have?
Better sight/fire control system
RE: Which would you rather have?
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.
CV, DD sunk and a BB damaged with one salvo. Don't see that in WitP.
Surface combat TF fanboy
RE: Which would you rather have?
ORIGINAL: Dili
Better sight/fire control system
Still talking about submarine torpedoes...[8|]
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.