Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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 ....

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 ....

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: 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: 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.