Torpedo Guidence?
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
Torpedo Guidence?
I wounder if the US PT Boats Torpedos was Guided in 1943 ??
The thing is that the American Subs dont hit to often, but the PT Boats manage to hit PG's and PC's at 3000 Yards doing Sik-Sak and Fiering Cannon Fire on the PT's on same time.
Now In Real World, I dont think you would be able to hit anything Sik-Saking or doing any form for Combat Manuver on 3000 Yards with a Torpedo ever... Unless it was a Germany V or VI Torpedo with Ultra High Tech Guidence... (but dont think thay was out untill mid 44?)
Fiering a Torpedo on a Sik-Saking Cargo Ship from 1500 Meters would properbly not hit in more then 30-40% of the times... so i wounder how thay manage to hit from 3000 on a little PG or PC doing Sik-Sak'ing...
Btw. do thay try for a Inpac Dedenation or Influence Detenation when fiering from PT's on a PC ?
The thing is that the American Subs dont hit to often, but the PT Boats manage to hit PG's and PC's at 3000 Yards doing Sik-Sak and Fiering Cannon Fire on the PT's on same time.
Now In Real World, I dont think you would be able to hit anything Sik-Saking or doing any form for Combat Manuver on 3000 Yards with a Torpedo ever... Unless it was a Germany V or VI Torpedo with Ultra High Tech Guidence... (but dont think thay was out untill mid 44?)
Fiering a Torpedo on a Sik-Saking Cargo Ship from 1500 Meters would properbly not hit in more then 30-40% of the times... so i wounder how thay manage to hit from 3000 on a little PG or PC doing Sik-Sak'ing...
Btw. do thay try for a Inpac Dedenation or Influence Detenation when fiering from PT's on a PC ?
RE: Torpedo Guidence?
I presumed, after staring at those words for a bit, that Sik Sak'ing means Zig-Zagging. I'll bet that IRL very few PTs launched torpedos at anything like 3000 yds. In like vein though the IJN didn't hit many PTs with anything at 3000 yds either. In WitP BOTH the number of torpedo hits scored and the number of PTs sunk by IJN warships (etc) are overdemonstrated over RL by an order of magnitude. Zig-zagging messes up fire control for one's own guns too.
RE: Torpedo Guidence?
Abseloutly
RE: Torpedo Guidence?
Well.. maby thay correct it in AE
[8D]
[8D]
RE: Torpedo Guidence?
ORIGINAL: spence
I presumed, after staring at those words for a bit, that Sik Sak'ing means Zig-Zagging. I'll bet that IRL very few PTs launched torpedos at anything like 3000 yds. In like vein though the IJN didn't hit many PTs with anything at 3000 yds either. In WitP BOTH the number of torpedo hits scored and the number of PTs sunk by IJN warships (etc) are overdemonstrated over RL by an order of magnitude. Zig-zagging messes up fire control for one's own guns too.
Basically to get a stable gun platform you make yourself a sitting duck.
I have a feeling the lighter guns like the 100mm or lower calibres would have the best chance of hitting the PTs, just from the fact they can be trained and elevated faster. I would also venture a guess that any gun 5.5" or greater would be pretty useless against them.
The PTs and their larger ancestors were the reason navies developed Destroyers with light guns. Destroyers get their name from "Torpedo Boat Destroyer" which was their initial mission, to screen the task force against attacks from torpedo boats that would dart in launch and run back out.
Distant Worlds Fan
'When in doubt...attack!'
'When in doubt...attack!'
RE: Torpedo Guidence?
I have had a PT hit by an 18.1" main gun from BB Yamato. And it didn't sink for 2 days! [8D] Of course, it would have just made an 18.1" hole through it, I doubt the fusing would have detonated.
RE: Torpedo Guidence?
ORIGINAL: Nomad
I have had a PT hit by an 18.1" main gun from BB Yamato. And it didn't sink for 2 days! [8D] Of course, it would have just made an 18.1" hole through it, I doubt the fusing would have detonated.
Indeed, CVE's possibly failed to cause enough shock to detonate 18.1" shells let alone a wooden PT boat...
Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.
"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture
"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture
RE: Torpedo Guidence?
ORIGINAL: Japan
I wounder if the US PT Boats Torpedos was Guided in 1943 ??
The thing is that the American Subs dont hit to often, but the PT Boats manage to hit PG's and PC's at 3000 Yards doing Sik-Sak and Fiering Cannon Fire on the PT's on same time.
Now In Real World, I dont think you would be able to hit anything Sik-Saking or doing any form for Combat Manuver on 3000 Yards with a Torpedo ever... Unless it was a Germany V or VI Torpedo with Ultra High Tech Guidence... (but dont think thay was out untill mid 44?)
Fiering a Torpedo on a Sik-Saking Cargo Ship from 1500 Meters would properbly not hit in more then 30-40% of the times... so i wounder how thay manage to hit from 3000 on a little PG or PC doing Sik-Sak'ing...
Btw. do thay try for a Inpac Dedenation or Influence Detenation when fiering from PT's on a PC ?
PT boat torpedoes were unguided aviation torpedoes during WWII.
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: Torpedo Guidence?
Somebody once posted a list of the proximate cause of loss for all USN PTs that were lost. Certainly the #1 cause was uncharted or poorly charted rocks/reefs.
IIRC the trade off in combat between PTs and IJN ships for the entire war was 2 DDs and 1, possibly two I-boats sunk for a total of 7 PTs sunk. WitP tends to have both the PTs and the IJN handled more aggressively than IRL so the number of encounters between PTs and IJN warships is larger thus the losses caused by/to both are going to be larger.
IIRC the trade off in combat between PTs and IJN ships for the entire war was 2 DDs and 1, possibly two I-boats sunk for a total of 7 PTs sunk. WitP tends to have both the PTs and the IJN handled more aggressively than IRL so the number of encounters between PTs and IJN warships is larger thus the losses caused by/to both are going to be larger.
- castor troy
- Posts: 14331
- Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
- Location: Austria
RE: Torpedo Guidence?
ORIGINAL: spence
Somebody once posted a list of the proximate cause of loss for all USN PTs that were lost. Certainly the #1 cause was uncharted or poorly charted rocks/reefs.
IIRC the trade off in combat between PTs and IJN ships for the entire war was 2 DDs and 1, possibly two I-boats sunk for a total of 7 PTs sunk. WitP tends to have both the PTs and the IJN handled more aggressively than IRL so the number of encounters between PTs and IJN warships is larger thus the losses caused by/to both are going to be larger.
yeah, not even a dozen PTs were lost to the enemy IIRC. Doesn´t mean that I agree seeing them putting 5 dozen torps into IJN BBs/CAs, screened by hordes of DDs, during two years of war.
-
- Posts: 2664
- Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 12:40 am
RE: Torpedo Guidence?
IRL the PT boats would ambush their targets, not go screaming at them at 30 knots. Their small silhouettes let them sneak in, fire their torpedoes, and THEN run like mad away from the enemy. Most of the time they were used to shoot up barges, not surface ships anyway.
RE: Torpedo Guidence?
yeah, not even a dozen PTs were lost to the enemy IIRC. Doesn´t mean that I agree seeing them putting 5 dozen torps into IJN BBs/CAs, screened by hordes of DDs, during two years of war.
The number of times that the IJN put major warships into the same waters as American PTs can be counted on the fingers of one hand. The possibility of a CA or BB taking a torpedo from one while potentially also in range of American a/c affected the IJN's calculus much more than PTs did themselves. My experience with WitP is that an IJN BB/CA TF will most often blow through the PT TF(s) {sinking many}, then pulverize the airfield (in many instances), and then be out of range of the dive bombers/torpedo bombers of the airfield the following day. It is far too certain that the IJN will get away with the tactic than not. If it doesn't always work that's too bad...the option of the "scot-free" bombardment never existed in real life so it shouldn't exist in the game either: if you don't like holes in your capital ships, don't send them into action. If you roll the dice a lot, you'll get "snake-eyes" every so often.
RE: Torpedo Guidence?
Well, the primary role for the PT's was being barge busters. It's been a long while since I've read the book, but the PT's mixed it up with barges more than anything else. The Japanese had "armed" barges escorting groups of regular barges. These had cannon and heavy machine guns on them and were quite effective against the PT's, though they were so slow and unmaneuverable they really didn't stop the PT's--just gave them pause. Too bad they aren't represented in the game.
In the game, I don't really use my PT's against larger ships per say but primarily against barges and transports. Unfortunately, bigger combat ships always seem to be getting in the way. I wish there was a way the PT TF's would just avoid the big ship TF's and go for the smaller stuff, though I do notice in my engagements with these larger combat ships the DD's and lesser vessels are the one's mixing it up with the PT's. Tough to work into the mechanics, I suppose.
In the game, I don't really use my PT's against larger ships per say but primarily against barges and transports. Unfortunately, bigger combat ships always seem to be getting in the way. I wish there was a way the PT TF's would just avoid the big ship TF's and go for the smaller stuff, though I do notice in my engagements with these larger combat ships the DD's and lesser vessels are the one's mixing it up with the PT's. Tough to work into the mechanics, I suppose.
-
- Posts: 2414
- Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 11:02 am
- Location: Citrus Heights, CA
RE: Torpedo Guidence?
In my last game, I was using the MTBs out of Hong Kong to attack Japanese convoys passing by. I would send the MTBs to the hex I guessed the convoys would wind up in {guessing right most of the time}. The MTBs would make a night intercept in open sea without radar and make a mess of the convoys. This game, I am refraining from offensive use of PT boats. I might consider offensive use if going to an enemy port within range, but that is an unlikely occurance.
- castor troy
- Posts: 14331
- Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
- Location: Austria
RE: Torpedo Guidence?
ORIGINAL: spence
yeah, not even a dozen PTs were lost to the enemy IIRC. Doesn´t mean that I agree seeing them putting 5 dozen torps into IJN BBs/CAs, screened by hordes of DDs, during two years of war.
The number of times that the IJN put major warships into the same waters as American PTs can be counted on the fingers of one hand. The possibility of a CA or BB taking a torpedo from one while potentially also in range of American a/c affected the IJN's calculus much more than PTs did themselves. My experience with WitP is that an IJN BB/CA TF will most often blow through the PT TF(s) {sinking many}, then pulverize the airfield (in many instances), and then be out of range of the dive bombers/torpedo bombers of the airfield the following day. It is far too certain that the IJN will get away with the tactic than not. If it doesn't always work that's too bad...the option of the "scot-free" bombardment never existed in real life so it shouldn't exist in the game either: if you don't like holes in your capital ships, don't send them into action. If you roll the dice a lot, you'll get "snake-eyes" every so often.
you are correct! The same goes for the Allied, with the exception that it goes 10 times more often as they have 10 times more ships to do that. Another exception is the fact that there are no IJN PTs to sweep through and of course there shouldn´t be hundreds of IJN PTs.
-
- Posts: 496
- Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:45 pm
- Location: ummmm... i HATE that question!
RE: Torpedo Guidence?
ORIGINAL: rockmedic109
In my last game, I was using the MTBs out of Hong Kong to attack Japanese convoys passing by. I would send the MTBs to the hex I guessed the convoys would wind up in {guessing right most of the time}. The MTBs would make a night intercept in open sea without radar and make a mess of the convoys. This game, I am refraining from offensive use of PT boats. I might consider offensive use if going to an enemy port within range, but that is an unlikely occurance.
Yes, i have seen PT boats used in many ways within WitP which are totally non-historical. I have also seen them used in ways that are totally unrealistic (like forming a PT boat TF containing a dozen or so PT's PLUS a few CAs, CLs, etc - then launching long range hunter killer missions immune to all air power other than fighter bombers or ultra low level attacks. GRRRR). But... the trick is how to eliminate the 'gamey' practices without eliminating creativity. Just because something was not done does not mean it could not have been done. Could PTs have been used more aggressively? Maybe? The challenge for the AE coders is to ensure that IF you try to use them more aggressively than history then the result should be realistic.
-
- Posts: 2414
- Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 11:02 am
- Location: Citrus Heights, CA
RE: Torpedo Guidence?
The problem is when creativity skews results through abuse of the game system. Open ocean night intercepts before radar is one. Putting cruisers in a PT task force to avoid air attacks is another example. PTs are so short ranged that offensive use should be limited. Solomons or Philippines being an exception. Still a hard thing to code {I couldn't do it or even think of a way it could be done}.ORIGINAL: Flying Tiger
ORIGINAL: rockmedic109
In my last game, I was using the MTBs out of Hong Kong to attack Japanese convoys passing by. I would send the MTBs to the hex I guessed the convoys would wind up in {guessing right most of the time}. The MTBs would make a night intercept in open sea without radar and make a mess of the convoys. This game, I am refraining from offensive use of PT boats. I might consider offensive use if going to an enemy port within range, but that is an unlikely occurance.
Yes, i have seen PT boats used in many ways within WitP which are totally non-historical. I have also seen them used in ways that are totally unrealistic (like forming a PT boat TF containing a dozen or so PT's PLUS a few CAs, CLs, etc - then launching long range hunter killer missions immune to all air power other than fighter bombers or ultra low level attacks. GRRRR). But... the trick is how to eliminate the 'gamey' practices without eliminating creativity. Just because something was not done does not mean it could not have been done. Could PTs have been used more aggressively? Maybe? The challenge for the AE coders is to ensure that IF you try to use them more aggressively than history then the result should be realistic.
RE: Torpedo Guidence?
ORIGINAL: rockmedic109
The problem is when creativity skews results through abuse of the game system. Open ocean night intercepts before radar is one. Putting cruisers in a PT task force to avoid air attacks is another example. PTs are so short ranged that offensive use should be limited. Solomons or Philippines being an exception. Still a hard thing to code {I couldn't do it or even think of a way it could be done}.ORIGINAL: Flying Tiger
ORIGINAL: rockmedic109
In my last game, I was using the MTBs out of Hong Kong to attack Japanese convoys passing by. I would send the MTBs to the hex I guessed the convoys would wind up in {guessing right most of the time}. The MTBs would make a night intercept in open sea without radar and make a mess of the convoys. This game, I am refraining from offensive use of PT boats. I might consider offensive use if going to an enemy port within range, but that is an unlikely occurance.
Yes, i have seen PT boats used in many ways within WitP which are totally non-historical. I have also seen them used in ways that are totally unrealistic (like forming a PT boat TF containing a dozen or so PT's PLUS a few CAs, CLs, etc - then launching long range hunter killer missions immune to all air power other than fighter bombers or ultra low level attacks. GRRRR). But... the trick is how to eliminate the 'gamey' practices without eliminating creativity. Just because something was not done does not mean it could not have been done. Could PTs have been used more aggressively? Maybe? The challenge for the AE coders is to ensure that IF you try to use them more aggressively than history then the result should be realistic.
Doubt it could be coded, I generally agree to what have become the standard house rules when playing a PBEM. 4-6 per TF and no en masse uses. I also tend to use them exactly as they were used in the war, that is to guard anchorages and harrass barges, with the occasional attack on a transport convoy.
Distant Worlds Fan
'When in doubt...attack!'
'When in doubt...attack!'
RE: Torpedo Guidence?
ORIGINAL: rockmedic109
The problem is when creativity skews results through abuse of the game system. Open ocean night intercepts before radar is one. Putting cruisers in a PT task force to avoid air attacks is another example. PTs are so short ranged that offensive use should be limited. Solomons or Philippines being an exception. Still a hard thing to code {I couldn't do it or even think of a way it could be done}.ORIGINAL: Flying Tiger
ORIGINAL: rockmedic109
In my last game, I was using the MTBs out of Hong Kong to attack Japanese convoys passing by. I would send the MTBs to the hex I guessed the convoys would wind up in {guessing right most of the time}. The MTBs would make a night intercept in open sea without radar and make a mess of the convoys. This game, I am refraining from offensive use of PT boats. I might consider offensive use if going to an enemy port within range, but that is an unlikely occurance.
Yes, i have seen PT boats used in many ways within WitP which are totally non-historical. I have also seen them used in ways that are totally unrealistic (like forming a PT boat TF containing a dozen or so PT's PLUS a few CAs, CLs, etc - then launching long range hunter killer missions immune to all air power other than fighter bombers or ultra low level attacks. GRRRR). But... the trick is how to eliminate the 'gamey' practices without eliminating creativity. Just because something was not done does not mean it could not have been done. Could PTs have been used more aggressively? Maybe? The challenge for the AE coders is to ensure that IF you try to use them more aggressively than history then the result should be realistic.
You would need a valid littoral combat model. See Hughes, Fleet Tactics and Coastal Combat.
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