Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Dili
Posts: 4713
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo

Post by Dili »

A surprisingly detailed article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_91_torpedo
User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo

Post by Jorge_Stanbury »

Was it the best aerial torpedo of ww2?

How would it rank vs British or Italian ones?
Dili
Posts: 4713
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo

Post by Dili »

Difficult to say, we don't have much data to separate them. These three countries had the best torpedos in war first years. Well i don't know about the Soviet ones. In 1943 Italy surrendered so there wasn't more development, so they stayed behind.
User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo

Post by Jorge_Stanbury »

By late war aerial torpedos were getting obsolete so I would guess early war is what mattered
Dili
Posts: 4713
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo

Post by Dili »

Well yes, but a couple of torpedos for the Argentinians could have won them the Falklands War. Of course due to the missile fetish and the crap guns that Royal Navy had and has.
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 19688
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo

Post by BBfanboy »

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

By late war aerial torpedos were getting obsolete so I would guess early war is what mattered
This statement puzzles me.
The torpedoes were getting more reliable and effective than ever, but the heavier AA and general lack of tough targets may have meant they were used less. Still, they were the key to sinking Yamato and Musashi and could have sunk more large ships if the IJN did not moor them in shallow water.
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17459
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo

Post by John 3rd »

I would LOVE to get the Revision 5 in mid-1943. By doubling the explosive warhead for just a slight decreasing of the range, that BAD BOY would wreak some serious havoc! I want several THOUSAND...
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo

Post by wdolson »

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

By late war aerial torpedos were getting obsolete so I would guess early war is what mattered
ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
This statement puzzles me.
The torpedoes were getting more reliable and effective than ever, but the heavier AA and general lack of tough targets may have meant they were used less. Still, they were the key to sinking Yamato and Musashi and could have sunk more large ships if the IJN did not moor them in shallow water.

By late 1944 torpedoes were only needed for capital ships. The Allies had air to surface rockets that could punch through the armor on smaller ships, plus in the USN dive bombers had proven to be more reliable at hitting ships with lower losses. The only problem with well armored BBs was the deck armor would trap bombs dropped from dive bombers and limit their effectiveness.

Rockets were much cheaper and multiple rockets could be carried by one aircraft. They were also faster than torpedoes so harder to maneuver away from and safer to deliver as a plane flying at higher speeds could launch with a shorter exposure to flak.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo

Post by Jorge_Stanbury »

And the simple fact that the Axis powers were starting to run out of capital ships with no replacements on the horizon. This including the next prospective enemy, the Soviet Union, which was still using Czarist battleships.

Another problem was the advances in AA. It became harder and harder to get close to a ship going low and slow on a predictable flight path.

EDIT: and the same can be said from an Axis point of view; even when enemy capital ships become more and more numerous. The delivery of a torpedo became close to impossible against Allied flak and CAP.
I don't know if there was a single succesful Axis torpedo attack in late war. As far as I know, none during the mass invasions of late war (Sicily, Italy, DDay, Leyte, Okinawa, etc), with Japan resorting in the end to kamikazes as desperate alternative

So nothing to do with torpedo reliability, just the fact that war technology moved on a different direction

With regards to Falklands. I think their biggest problem was actually lack of missiles. They started the war with only 4 exocets and a few super entendards.



User avatar
guytipton41
Posts: 351
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 4:01 am
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo

Post by guytipton41 »

Hi Folks,

From the wiki:

Tactics were needed because the killed in action rate of aviators in torpedo bombing squadrons was high, 30 - 50% in the beginning of World War II. In the latter stages of the Pacific War, the rate was up to 90% and 100% during daytime operations.

Skilled aviators had their own tactics to survive, skidding right and left with varying speed (180 knots to 70 knots) at less than 10 meters high in the midst of water splashes of AA gunfire, to avoid a curtain of intense AA barrage controlled by the Fire-control system typical of US Navy warships.[8]


It's possible that 100% casualty rate affect the ability to build an effective unit.

Cheers,
Guy
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

By late war aerial torpedos were getting obsolete so I would guess early war is what mattered
ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
This statement puzzles me.
The torpedoes were getting more reliable and effective than ever, but the heavier AA and general lack of tough targets may have meant they were used less. Still, they were the key to sinking Yamato and Musashi and could have sunk more large ships if the IJN did not moor them in shallow water.



By late 1944 torpedoes were only needed for capital ships. The Allies had air to surface rockets that could punch through the armor on smaller ships, plus in the USN dive bombers had proven to be more reliable at hitting ships with lower losses. The only problem with well armored BBs was the deck armor would trap bombs dropped from dive bombers and limit their effectiveness.

Rockets were much cheaper and multiple rockets could be carried by one aircraft. They were also faster than torpedoes so harder to maneuver away from and safer to deliver as a plane flying at higher speeds could launch with a shorter exposure to flak.

Bill

The other issue is delivery. By 1945 both the conventional dive bomber and torpedo bomber had become obsolete. It is impossible to use the losing powers in the war as an example as their own technological developments were naturally impeded by the fact that they were falling behind in the economic war as well. But with the development of modern fire control and the proximity fuse the day of delivering a bomb or torpedo with direct line attack from an nearby aircraft was over. The American navy had already reached a point where their AA fire all but prevented any but the luckiest attack by anything other than a kamikaze. And as Bill points out here, we were all headed into the age of jets and rockets which would change everything-at least in a conflict between economic equals.

With apologies to Jorge, who has already stated most of the above...[;)] I really should read the whole thread first.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17459
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo

Post by John 3rd »

Its OK cr--happens to me all the time...
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo

Post by Jorge_Stanbury »

ORIGINAL: crsutton
With apologies to Jorge, who has already stated most of the above...[;)] I really should read the whole thread first.

No worries, keep 'em coming as you explained it better
Dili
Posts: 4713
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo

Post by Dili »

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

And the simple fact that the Axis powers were starting to run out of capital ships with no replacements on the horizon. This including the next prospective enemy, the Soviet Union, which was still using Czarist battleships.

Another problem was the advances in AA. It became harder and harder to get close to a ship going low and slow on a predictable flight path.

EDIT: and the same can be said from an Axis point of view; even when enemy capital ships become more and more numerous. The delivery of a torpedo became close to impossible against Allied flak and CAP.
I don't know if there was a single succesful Axis torpedo attack in late war. As far as I know, none during the mass invasions of late war (Sicily, Italy, DDay, Leyte, Okinawa, etc), with Japan resorting in the end to kamikazes as desperate alternative

So nothing to do with torpedo reliability, just the fact that war technology moved on a different direction

With regards to Falklands. I think their biggest problem was actually lack of missiles. They started the war with only 4 exocets and a few super entendards.





HMS Indomitable was hit by a torpedo in invasion of Sicily in 16 July 1943

But with the development of modern fire control and the proximity fuse the day of delivering a bomb or torpedo with direct line attack from an nearby aircraft was over
.

It wasn't over...most hits by Argentinians were with bombs. Of course the conclusion is that the British ships were inferior to WW2 destroyers against air attack being dumbed down for ASW and with missile fetish. First Type 22 Frigate batch even had no gun. Italian frigates of same period for example maintained extensive gun defense.


User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 19688
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo

Post by BBfanboy »

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

By late war aerial torpedos were getting obsolete so I would guess early war is what mattered
ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
This statement puzzles me.
The torpedoes were getting more reliable and effective than ever, but the heavier AA and general lack of tough targets may have meant they were used less. Still, they were the key to sinking Yamato and Musashi and could have sunk more large ships if the IJN did not moor them in shallow water.

By late 1944 torpedoes were only needed for capital ships. The Allies had air to surface rockets that could punch through the armor on smaller ships, plus in the USN dive bombers had proven to be more reliable at hitting ships with lower losses. The only problem with well armored BBs was the deck armor would trap bombs dropped from dive bombers and limit their effectiveness.

Rockets were much cheaper and multiple rockets could be carried by one aircraft. They were also faster than torpedoes so harder to maneuver away from and safer to deliver as a plane flying at higher speeds could launch with a shorter exposure to flak.

Bill
The part that puzzled me was saying the torpedoes were obsolete, even though they were more effective than ever. The fact that it was dangerous to use them did not make them obsolete, just risky.

And there were successful torpedo strikes in late war. In Oct. 1944 TF38 swept Formosa to clear the way for accelerated landings on the Philippines. During the air battles Japanese torpedo bombers scored one hit on CA Canberra II and two hits on CL Houston. Houston very nearly sank, as the picture on this book cover shows ....




Image
Attachments
CLHouston.jpg
CLHouston.jpg (6.42 KiB) Viewed 296 times
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo

Post by wdolson »

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

The part that puzzled me was saying the torpedoes were obsolete, even though they were more effective than ever. The fact that it was dangerous to use them did not make them obsolete, just risky.

And there were successful torpedo strikes in late war. In Oct. 1944 TF38 swept Formosa to clear the way for accelerated landings on the Philippines. During the air battles Japanese torpedo bombers scored one hit on CA Canberra II and two hits on CL Houston. Houston very nearly sank, as the picture on this book cover shows ....

Image

They were becoming obsolete. Obsolete weapons sometimes succeed.

By the end of the war, only three navies had any large ships, and they were allies: the UK, France, and the US. Rockets carried by allied aircraft could sink the ships of any nation that might oppose them. Dive bombers weren't completely obsolete, the Helldiver served on front line duty until replaced by the Skyraider which was originally designed as a combo dive and torpedo bomber. The Skyraider did a fair bit of dive bombing in Korea and Vietnam. But nobody needed aerial torpedoes by the time Japan's largest ships were put out of service. They did continue to be used by subs and are still carried by subs today.

By the time any possible opposition had larger ships again, guided missiles were in use. The handwriting about guided missiles was on the wall in WW II. The Germans used them some as well as the US, but they were expensive and finicky weapons in the mid-1940s. It was obvious to anyone who understood the technology to any degree that the guidance systems would be improving with time and they showed far more promise than torpedoes. Not only were they faster, but could be dropped much further from the target.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 19688
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo

Post by BBfanboy »

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

The part that puzzled me was saying the torpedoes were obsolete, even though they were more effective than ever. The fact that it was dangerous to use them did not make them obsolete, just risky.

And there were successful torpedo strikes in late war. In Oct. 1944 TF38 swept Formosa to clear the way for accelerated landings on the Philippines. During the air battles Japanese torpedo bombers scored one hit on CA Canberra II and two hits on CL Houston. Houston very nearly sank, as the picture on this book cover shows ....

Image

They were becoming obsolete. Obsolete weapons sometimes succeed.

By the end of the war, only three navies had any large ships, and they were allies: the UK, France, and the US. Rockets carried by allied aircraft could sink the ships of any nation that might oppose them. Dive bombers weren't completely obsolete, the Helldiver served on front line duty until replaced by the Skyraider which was originally designed as a combo dive and torpedo bomber. The Skyraider did a fair bit of dive bombing in Korea and Vietnam. But nobody needed aerial torpedoes by the time Japan's largest ships were put out of service. They did continue to be used by subs and are still carried by subs today.

By the time any possible opposition had larger ships again, guided missiles were in use. The handwriting about guided missiles was on the wall in WW II. The Germans used them some as well as the US, but they were expensive and finicky weapons in the mid-1940s. It was obvious to anyone who understood the technology to any degree that the guidance systems would be improving with time and they showed far more promise than torpedoes. Not only were they faster, but could be dropped much further from the target.

Bill
And now the Russians have supercavatating torps that travel hundreds of miles an hour for up to 300 miles ...[X(]
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
Dili
Posts: 4713
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo

Post by Dili »

ORIGINAL: wdolson


They were becoming obsolete. Obsolete weapons sometimes succeed.

By the end of the war, only three navies had any large ships, and they were allies: the UK, France, and the US. Rockets carried by allied aircraft could sink the ships of any nation that might oppose them. Dive bombers weren't completely obsolete, the Helldiver served on front line duty until replaced by the Skyraider which was originally designed as a combo dive and torpedo bomber. The Skyraider did a fair bit of dive bombing in Korea and Vietnam. But nobody needed aerial torpedoes by the time Japan's largest ships were put out of service. They did continue to be used by subs and are still carried by subs today.

By the time any possible opposition had larger ships again, guided missiles were in use. The handwriting about guided missiles was on the wall in WW II. The Germans used them some as well as the US, but they were expensive and finicky weapons in the mid-1940s. It was obvious to anyone who understood the technology to any degree that the guidance systems would be improving with time and they showed far more promise than torpedoes. Not only were they faster, but could be dropped much further from the target.

Bill

I don't understand this reasoning, rockets were fired even closer than torpedoes. Yes an aircraft could fly with more but that is not the point is being made.

A Japanese fighter with rockets would also be unsuccessful.


The biggest reason for torpedo disappearance at time is that they were expensive and relatively heavy weapons.
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo

Post by wdolson »

ORIGINAL: wdolson
They were becoming obsolete. Obsolete weapons sometimes succeed.

By the end of the war, only three navies had any large ships, and they were allies: the UK, France, and the US. Rockets carried by allied aircraft could sink the ships of any nation that might oppose them. Dive bombers weren't completely obsolete, the Helldiver served on front line duty until replaced by the Skyraider which was originally designed as a combo dive and torpedo bomber. The Skyraider did a fair bit of dive bombing in Korea and Vietnam. But nobody needed aerial torpedoes by the time Japan's largest ships were put out of service. They did continue to be used by subs and are still carried by subs today.

By the time any possible opposition had larger ships again, guided missiles were in use. The handwriting about guided missiles was on the wall in WW II. The Germans used them some as well as the US, but they were expensive and finicky weapons in the mid-1940s. It was obvious to anyone who understood the technology to any degree that the guidance systems would be improving with time and they showed far more promise than torpedoes. Not only were they faster, but could be dropped much further from the target.

Bill
ORIGINAL: Dili
I don't understand this reasoning, rockets were fired even closer than torpedoes. Yes an aircraft could fly with more but that is not the point is being made.

A Japanese fighter with rockets would also be unsuccessful.


The biggest reason for torpedo disappearance at time is that they were expensive and relatively heavy weapons.

I said guided missiles could be released further from the target. The Fritz X had an operational range of 3 miles and they quickly improved after the war.

Torpedoes did expose the dropping plane more than a rocket armed plane because they had to fly at a somewhat slow speed to drop. The plane was also stuck in the heavy flak zone at relatively low speed after dropping. This was improved with fin protection, but rockets had little in the way of a maximum launch speed and were routinely launched by fighters flying full out in a shallow dive. The USN used rocket armed Hellcats to suppress flak in the late war strikes on large warships. They decimated the flak batteries on the Yamato.

Expense was initially a factor in torpedoes going out of style, but modern ship killing weapons are a lot more complex and a lot more expensive than torpedoes ever were.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
User avatar
btd64
Posts: 12738
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:48 am
Location: Lancaster, OHIO

RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo

Post by btd64 »

I believe the Germans used a few guided missiles off Sicily with some success....GP

Edit. Or maybe it was Anzio.
Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester
DW2-Alpha/Beta Tester
New Game Development Team

"Do everything you ask of those you command"....Gen. George S. Patton
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”