From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Take Savo Island, for example. Five Allied cruisers were sunk or put out of action during that fight:
- HMAS Canberra was struck by two torpedoes (most likely Long Lances) and more than twenty 8-inch rounds, and was still around to be scuttled the next morning by nearly 300 5-inch shells and several torpedoes.
- USS Chicago was struck by a single torpedo (again, assumed to be a Long Lance) but was able to control her damage and stay in the fight.
- USS Astoria, Vincennes and Quincy were all sunk by Japanese 6-inch and 8-inch gunfire. Astoria was hit by no torpedoes, Vincennes and Astoria by three each, but all three cruisers went down fighting and had to be pounded to pieces by Jap guns.
My point is, if the LL had been the Wonder Weapon that some people make it out to, why did the Japanese have such a hard time blowing these ships to pieces with gunfire?
I used to be a believer, but not anymore...
Remember Pearl Harbor was no clam bake.
Sure, but japanese airborne torpedoes were not long lances AFAIK
I suppose we can technically take the risk to say that, on that very ground, nothing in the USN inventory could come close to the Long Lance in terms of performances, except on the explosive power (when the US torpedo would explode of course). I suppose that the explosive power of the Long Lance could have been improved if the Japanese had been anywhere serious about researching new explosives - something the Allied did with the new Torpex heads for their own fishs.
But sheer performances only are sufficient to demonstrate the superiority of the Japanese weapon over its USN counterpart, even though this came with the price of security (something the Japanese could probably have addressed too if they had felt it to be necessary...). Long Lances were catastrophes waiting to happen for their own ships, but well on the other hand, if we take a look at the USN surface ships hall of fame when it comes to torpedoes, one must admit the torpedo tubes aboard US destroyers were eventually more of a nice-looking toy than anything else...
Does anyone have something about the number and the circumstances of US surface combattants' (apart from the PT boats) torpedo hits in battle?
I just assume they were LL's for some reason, but even if they were not, they were modified and tested to run shallower than normal, thereby mkaing them "special" anyway, even if they weren't technically LL's , and I'm not sure they were not. Just using a lack of distinct data in this case, it just doesn't seem likely that they would arm their Kates on what turned out to be their main attack, without them being LL's. Then again, if the other types wroked very well, IJ might had decided they would better be saved for an attack that wasn't so well set up (where their advanatages might be more felt). Besides, even if they weren't LL's, and I would assume any of us take the LL's to be the best they had, if their second or third best torps are used at PH instead, what would that say about what LL's would had done? Of course they may not had been able to get them to run shallow, and therefore would had done worse at PH.
< Message edited by Charles_22 -- 9/20/2007 7:45:34 AM >