Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo - 12/6/2015 5:41:47 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4625
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
A surprisingly detailed article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_91_torpedo

< Message edited by Dili -- 12/6/2015 6:42:27 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo - 12/6/2015 1:36:10 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4249
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
Was it the best aerial torpedo of ww2?

How would it rank vs British or Italian ones?

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 2
RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo - 12/6/2015 2:40:30 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4625
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by Dili -- 12/6/2015 3:41:02 PM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 3
RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo - 12/6/2015 2:55:36 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4249
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
By late war aerial torpedos were getting obsolete so I would guess early war is what mattered

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 4
RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo - 12/6/2015 9:17:02 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4625
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 5
RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo - 12/6/2015 11:53:55 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 15470
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

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

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 6
RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo - 12/7/2015 1:13:57 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16853
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
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...


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 7
RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo - 12/7/2015 6:01:10 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10384
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

By late war aerial torpedos were getting obsolete so I would guess early war is what mattered


quote:

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

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 8
RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo - 12/7/2015 6:41:47 AM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4249
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
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.





< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 12/7/2015 11:20:57 AM >

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 9
RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo - 12/7/2015 11:05:55 AM   
guytipton41


Posts: 351
Joined: 2/26/2011
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
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

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 10
RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo - 12/7/2015 1:37:08 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

By late war aerial torpedos were getting obsolete so I would guess early war is what mattered


quote:

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.

< Message edited by crsutton -- 12/7/2015 2:38:56 PM >


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 11
RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo - 12/7/2015 4:04:45 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16853
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Its OK cr--happens to me all the time...


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 12
RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo - 12/7/2015 4:06:25 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4249
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline

quote:

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

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 13
RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo - 12/7/2015 7:39:04 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4625
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

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


quote:

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.




< Message edited by Dili -- 12/7/2015 8:49:06 PM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 14
RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo - 12/7/2015 11:36:58 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 15470
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

By late war aerial torpedos were getting obsolete so I would guess early war is what mattered


quote:

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 ....







Attachment (1)

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 15
RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo - 12/8/2015 12:04:41 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10384
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

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 ....





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

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 16
RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo - 12/8/2015 1:23:45 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 15470
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson


quote:

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 ....





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 ...

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 17
RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo - 12/8/2015 10:16:41 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4625
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

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.


< Message edited by Dili -- 12/8/2015 11:18:16 AM >

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 18
RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo - 12/8/2015 11:44:14 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10384
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

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


quote:

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

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 19
RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo - 12/8/2015 1:08:30 PM   
btd64


Posts: 7344
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline
I believe the Germans used a few guided missiles off Sicily with some success....GP

Edit. Or maybe it was Anzio.

< Message edited by General Patton -- 12/8/2015 2:09:49 PM >


_____________________________

Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

I don't like paying for the same real estate twice..Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 20
RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo - 12/9/2015 8:02:28 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4625
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
Yes they did, they sunk Roma with two and damaged Littorio, there is also the famous photo of hit on CL USS Savannah

I didn't contest that the solution was the missile. The Kamikaze is a missile with human guidance that Japanese culture made possible due to lack of technical guidance, the Italians itself reached same conclusion in 1942 43 when torpedo bombers started to get increased causalities due to better AA fire that they were developing an hack called Aeronautica Lombarda that was a piston aircraft that take off with a pilot he would jump after being in level flight and the it will be radio controlled from then on.

woldson when you have an overmatch of aircraft against a surface target you can do anything. A well trained torpedo squadron able to attack from different trajectories simultaneously without air opposition also would make short work damage a battleship even one with AA from 44 or 45.

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 21
RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo - 12/9/2015 9:14:10 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 6460
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Patton

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

Edit. Or maybe it was Anzio.


Was it Salerno? At least that's what I recall.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 22
RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo - 12/10/2015 2:15:20 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 15470
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Yes they did, they sunk Roma with two and damaged Littorio, there is also the famous photo of hit on CL USS Savannah

I didn't contest that the solution was the missile. The Kamikaze is a missile with human guidance that Japanese culture made possible due to lack of technical guidance, the Italians itself reached same conclusion in 1942 43 when torpedo bombers started to get increased causalities due to better AA fire that they were developing an hack called Aeronautica Lombarda that was a piston aircraft that take off with a pilot he would jump after being in level flight and the it will be radio controlled from then on.

woldson when you have an overmatch of aircraft against a surface target you can do anything. A well trained torpedo squadron able to attack from different trajectories simultaneously without air opposition also would make short work damage a battleship even one with AA from 44 or 45.

BB Warspite was also hit around the same period.

The Germans specifically went after Savannah because her shells had broken up a panzer attack that nearly drove the allies back to the beaches. Savannah was lucky - the Fritz-X went through the top of the turret and out the side of the ship before exploding in the water. A few feet the other way and the magazine would have gone up.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 23
RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo - 12/10/2015 10:24:13 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4625
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
Yes Savannah was saved by the over-match, if she was more armored could have broken in 2. Something that happens often with tanks and APC's and heat charges. M113 was famous or infamous of its nimble aluminum armor that projectile can go from one to the other so easily that don't explode inside like if was a tank. So the only damage is exclusively to those in the path. There are also several instances of BB rounds going through destroyers and not detonating.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 24
RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo - 12/10/2015 2:50:35 PM   
Puhis


Posts: 1730
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline
Speaking of late war successful torpedo attacks, there's DD Twiggs.

On 16 June, Twiggs was on radar picket duty off Senaga Shima in the western fire support area At 2030, a single, low-flying plane dropped a torpedo which hit Twiggs on her port side, exploding her number 2 magazine. The plane then circled and completed its kamikaze mission in a suicide crash. The explosion enveloped the destroyer in flame; and, within an hour, she sank.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Twiggs_(DD-591)

It seems that kamikaze attack was pointless. Surely magazine explosion would have sunk the ship anyway?

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 25
RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo - 12/11/2015 8:35:15 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4625
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
Depends if the magazine is full or not.

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 26
RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo - 12/11/2015 9:45:30 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4249
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
Even if the torpedo attack was successful, Kamikazes were not expected to return. the pilot's choices were to either hit it again or to find another target for immolation



< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 12/11/2015 10:45:53 PM >

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 27
RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo - 12/12/2015 12:46:10 AM   
desicat

 

Posts: 542
Joined: 5/25/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson


quote:

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 ....





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 ...


Wake homing keel breaking torpedoes are now the real threat

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 28
RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo - 12/12/2015 5:44:30 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 15470
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: desicat


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson


quote:

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 ....





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 ...


Wake homing keel breaking torpedoes are now the real threat

Just when we thought it was safe to swim ...

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to desicat)
Post #: 29
RE: Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo - 12/12/2015 2:33:24 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

Speaking of late war successful torpedo attacks, there's DD Twiggs.

On 16 June, Twiggs was on radar picket duty off Senaga Shima in the western fire support area At 2030, a single, low-flying plane dropped a torpedo which hit Twiggs on her port side, exploding her number 2 magazine. The plane then circled and completed its kamikaze mission in a suicide crash. The explosion enveloped the destroyer in flame; and, within an hour, she sank.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Twiggs_(DD-591)

It seems that kamikaze attack was pointless. Surely magazine explosion would have sunk the ship anyway?



Well yes, but single examples of success are not indicative of the general lack of success surrounding these weapons as the war progressed. For the most part, the dive bomber and torpedo bomber had become almost useless for the Japanese and the ratio of loss to success was not on their side. This does not mean dive bombing or other conventional attacks had become totally obsolete. They remained effective against enemy forces and still could be if the force is not well armed. But you have to consider the target. The Vietnamese War or Korea are not good examples as those combatants really did not have sufficient AA weapons to challenge these types of attacks. However, any sort of attack with conventional DBs and TBs against a modern (read victorious) power in 1945 would have been very difficult. Brits, Soviets, US and even Germany had the AAA defenses to make these platforms too deadly. I remember reading an article about Beaufighters attacking German barges in the North Sea. It was a combined and closely coordinated attack with gunfire, rockets and torpedoes all being launched in one simultaneous attack. Effective but dangerous as hell as the Germans knew how to shoot back. The Beaus made one pass released everything they had and that was it. No second pass.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Detailed wiki about Type 91 aerial torpedo Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.191