Navy Carrier Torpedo Defense Sucks

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

Technopiper
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:27 am

Navy Carrier Torpedo Defense Sucks

Post by Technopiper »

User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 16084
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: Navy Carrier Torpedo Defense Sucks

Post by RangerJoe »

Torpedoes don't collide directly into a ship, but rather use an explosion to create an air bubble under the ship and potentially bend or break the bow, sinking the ship.

WTF? They obviously don't know what they are talking about. That is how most torpedoes have worked (or not!) for years by hitting the ship. The US Mark 14s problem (one of several) for the first part of World War II was when it impacted the hull of the ship is that it did not explode. Shows have lost bows before and survived. Breaking the keel will cause serious problems. And if torpedoes don't collide directly with the ship? It would not create an air bubble but rather explode under the keel and cause a powerful concussive wave of water that would damage the ship.
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child

Technopiper
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:27 am

RE: Navy Carrier Torpedo Defense Sucks

Post by Technopiper »

Not exactly sure what you're trying to say but here's a report by Department of Defence on killer bubbles, on page 2:
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a326738.pdf
Technopiper
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:27 am

RE: Navy Carrier Torpedo Defense Sucks

Post by Technopiper »

More, South Korean corvette sunk by bubbles caused by an explosion: http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi ... report.pdf
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 16084
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: Navy Carrier Torpedo Defense Sucks

Post by RangerJoe »

The report on the Korean corvette describes how the Mark 14 magnetic detonator was supposed to work. It describes a pressure wave caused by an explosion which broke the keel of the ship.
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child

User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 16084
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: Navy Carrier Torpedo Defense Sucks

Post by RangerJoe »

Killer bubbles? One large bubble that consists of the gases from the rapid decomposition of the explosive charge. This also produces a pressure wave. I saw on a television program where gas bubbles caused by an underwater avalanche (I don't remember if there is a special term for those) could cause a ship to sink. Those gas bubbles would be created by the decompression of methane ice which is formed. One cubic meter of methane ice would create 164 cubic meters of methane gas. Those bubbles rising to the surface would then make the ship lose bouyancy. The gas is also highly flammable. This is the type of killer bubbles that I thought that the article referred to.

What is described is much like the damaging effect of a near miss by a bomb exploding. They US Navy found in WWII that a miss with the bomb exploding about 20 feet away from the hull actually could cause more damage to the ship than an actual hit.

By the way, if a nixie is deployed and working properly, it will still attract a torpedo even if the target ship's crew does not know that the torpedo is there. The torpedo does not say something like "Oh, the crew does not know that I am here. I think that I will then ignore the decoy and surprise them." Rather, if the torpedoes passes the nixie and does not destroy itself, it can then detect the ship if it is within the detection parameters.
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child

User avatar
joey
Posts: 1462
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Johnstown, PA

RE: Navy Carrier Torpedo Defense Sucks

Post by joey »

In reality, the US Navy's torpedo defense has always been poor. This should not surprise any of us on this forum. I can remember sitting on a submarine and sinking entire US surface fleets during Fleet Exercises along time ago with torpedoes. I doubt much has changed since then. Back then, the Soviets were the issue; now it is the Russians, Iranians, and Chinese. How can you defend against a torpedo if you can't find the sub that launches it?
User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: Navy Carrier Torpedo Defense Sucks

Post by rustysi »

What is it that submariners like to say, "there are subs, and then there are targets".[;)]
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
User avatar
AW1Steve
Posts: 14518
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:32 am
Location: Mordor Illlinois

RE: Navy Carrier Torpedo Defense Sucks

Post by AW1Steve »

ORIGINAL: rustysi

What is it that submariners like to say, "there are subs, and then there are targets".[;)]


And of course as we used to say in the P-3 community , "there are subs , and THEY ARE the targets!" :)
User avatar
AW1Steve
Posts: 14518
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:32 am
Location: Mordor Illlinois

RE: Navy Carrier Torpedo Defense Sucks

Post by AW1Steve »

ORIGINAL: joey

In reality, the US Navy's torpedo defense has always been poor. This should not surprise any of us on this forum. I can remember sitting on a submarine and sinking entire US surface fleets during Fleet Exercises along time ago with torpedoes. I doubt much has changed since then. Back then, the Soviets were the issue; now it is the Russians, Iranians, and Chinese. How can you defend against a torpedo if you can't find the sub that launches it?

True , but often the sub in the war games didn't realize that they "had been sunk" because they didn't know that a "simulated" torpedo had been dropped from above. :) It was always a shock for the sub to find out that they'd been spotted and tracked (or simulated attacked). Denial was always the reply , even when we'd produce a photo of a sub taken from above. "You couldn't see us. " But so often we'd photograph a sub in up to a couple of hundred of feet of water. God how I used to love asw in the Caribbean (or sometimes the med)! :)
User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: Navy Carrier Torpedo Defense Sucks

Post by rustysi »

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: rustysi

What is it that submariners like to say, "there are subs, and then there are targets".[;)]


And of course as we used to say in the P-3 community , "there are subs , and THEY ARE the targets!" :)

[:D]
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
User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: Navy Carrier Torpedo Defense Sucks

Post by rustysi »

But so often we'd photograph a sub in up to a couple of hundred of feet of water.

There aren't a lot of people that realize this is possible. I've heard it could be as deep as three hundred feet, in the right conditions.
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
User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: Navy Carrier Torpedo Defense Sucks

Post by rustysi »

Then again lets not forget the attack subs. At least their original mission was to escort the CV TF, and hunt for enemy subs. Has that changed?
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
alanschu
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:31 am

RE: Navy Carrier Torpedo Defense Sucks

Post by alanschu »

I took the torpedoes don't explode by hitting a ship comment to refer to modern day torpedoes (my understanding is they are much better at forcing detonation under the keel of a ship now).
User avatar
AW1Steve
Posts: 14518
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:32 am
Location: Mordor Illlinois

RE: Navy Carrier Torpedo Defense Sucks

Post by AW1Steve »

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Then again lets not forget the attack subs. At least their original mission was to escort the CV TF, and hunt for enemy subs. Has that changed?


They do. BUTTT you never have enough nuclear attack subs. And in order to attack a sub, it means they must expose themselves to counter attacks.

I one got into a discussion with a USN destroyer captain in the 1980's about the then New Arliegh Burke class. I pointed out the major flaw of the "flight I" Burkes was a lack of helo support. The Commander got rather snippy saying "when will you airdales (Naval Aviation) realize that you don't need a aircraft to sink a submarine?". I pointed out that of course he could attack a sub , if the sub let him. His effective attack range was less than one third of a sub. A Helo , or any aircraft , isn't necessarily the best way to kill a sub. But it IS "The master of the cheap shot". You can drop all kinds of things on him , but there are very few subs that can swat an aircraft , and even then , only at extreme danger to themselves. "Fairness" in battle is over rated ,(and in my humble view) quite foolish. I'll take the "cheap shot" every time. [:D]
User avatar
USSAmerica
Posts: 19198
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 4:32 am
Location: Graham, NC, USA
Contact:

RE: Navy Carrier Torpedo Defense Sucks

Post by USSAmerica »

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Then again lets not forget the attack subs. At least their original mission was to escort the CV TF, and hunt for enemy subs. Has that changed?


They do. BUTTT you never have enough nuclear attack subs. And in order to attack a sub, it means they must expose themselves to counter attacks.

I one got into a discussion with a USN destroyer captain in the 1980's about the then New Arliegh Burke class. I pointed out the major flaw of the "flight I" Burkes was a lack of helo support. The Commander got rather snippy saying "when will you airdales (Naval Aviation) realize that you don't need a aircraft to sink a submarine?". I pointed out that of course he could attack a sub , if the sub let him. His effective attack range was less than one third of a sub. A Helo , or any aircraft , isn't necessarily the best way to kill a sub. But it IS "The master of the cheap shot". You can drop all kinds of things on him , but there are very few subs that can swat an aircraft , and even then , only at extreme danger to themselves. "Fairness" in battle is over rated ,(and in my humble view) quite foolish. I'll take the "cheap shot" every time. [:D]

My man!
Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Image
Artwork by The Amazing Dixie
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 16084
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: Navy Carrier Torpedo Defense Sucks

Post by RangerJoe »

The best way to kill something is to call up and have someone else do it. I always said that my best weapon system was my radio . . .
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child

User avatar
Lawless1
Posts: 327
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2015 3:40 pm
Location: Maryland but now living in SC

RE: Navy Carrier Torpedo Defense Sucks

Post by Lawless1 »

Only two types of ships, submarines and targets
Two types of ships, targets and submarines
Death from below
User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: Navy Carrier Torpedo Defense Sucks

Post by rustysi »

ORIGINAL: Lawless1

Only two types of ships, submarines and targets

Dude, where you been. We're beyond that ten posts ago.[:D]
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
User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: Navy Carrier Torpedo Defense Sucks

Post by rustysi »

"Fairness" in battle is over rated ,(and in my humble view) quite foolish. I'll take the "cheap shot" every time.

Interesting personality trait.[:D]
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
Post Reply

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