Long Lance - Why Allies did not have them?

[trollelite]

They are the worst day-time torpedo in the game, in daytime they are no better than non-existing!!

[Local Yokel]

This is from memory, so may be completely wrong.

I can think of no engagement in which the Japanese got the opportunity to implement their 'long range concealed firing' tactic using Type 93's. Perhaps the closest they got to it was Tassafaronga, where Tanaka's squadron may well have been able to launch from a position of concealment because the US forces were distracted by Takanami (which paid the full penalty for having attracted so much US attention). With tongue somewhat in cheek, I suggest that the resulting score of 3 CA mission kills and one CA sunk looks like a convincing vindication of the work the Japanese put into this weapon.

I would have thought that the Allies were unaware of the Type 93's potency for most, if not all, of the war's duration. If I remember correctly, HNMS Kortenaer was sunk by a Type 93 fired at long range at Java Sea, but it was thought at the time that the weapon had come from a nearby submarine.

Whilst on the subject of good WWII torpedoes, the British Mark VIII deserves a mention: after forty plus years still preferred to a wire-guided state-of-the-art job and entirely adequate for the destruction of a Brooklyn CL in 1982.

I believe USS St Louis, USS Honolulu and HMNZS Leander were struck by torpedoes at Kolombangara.

[BrucePowers]

The other reason for awful US torpedoes during the first part of the war was political manuvering at Bureau of Ordnance

[marky]

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers

The other reason for awful US torpedoes during the first part of the war was political manuvering at Bureau of Ordnance

yah it was just disgraceful

they kept getting reports...


the torps arent working!!!

the fish arent exploding!!!


and they just said, nahh theyre fine

wasnt till like mid 43 that they actually tested em

greatyly prolonged the war

and how about all the times USN boats ran into IJN carriers and didnt get em cuz the bloody fish didnt work?


disgraceful, makes me feel like pukin[:(][:-]

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

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.

[KPAX]

Wasn't their a movie, which had a decent part in it which addressed the USN torpedo?
 
What was the name of that movie?  [&:]

[Fishbed]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

ORIGINAL: Terminus

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?

[hvymtl13]

ORIGINAL: trollelite

They are the worst day-time torpedo in the game, in daytime they are no better than non-existing!!

This should not be.. The oxygen used for propulsion is for the most part consumed and leaves very little bubble trails. Another plus for the Japenese to overlook the potential hazrds. They did in fact add an additional flask for normal air to be used at launching, then swapped over to the oxygen flask to continue on. It helped fix the explosions they were having in testing.

[hvymtl13]

ORIGINAL: KPAX

Wasn't their a movie, which had a decent part in it which addressed the USN torpedo?

What was the name of that movie?  [&:]

I remember this movie I think. They show the torpedoes being dropped from a crance at dockside to test different detonators?

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

ORIGINAL: Terminus

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.

[Yamato hugger]

To my knowledge the first Long Lance was found in late 1943 as the allies pushed up the Solomon chain. Until that they only had speculation of exactly what its capabilities were.

[spence]

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?

Torpedo attacks figured prominently in the US victories at Vella Gulf (I think - not Vella Lavella but something similar) and Cape St Vincent in 1943. Both were ambushes of IJN DDs by US DDs. The IJN lost 3 DDs in each mostly to torpedo fire: the hits on their DDs being the first the IJN was aware there were Americans about (no losses on the US side in either fight). And torpedo attacks by US DDs made the final gunline fight in Surigao Strait anticlimatic.

[rtrapasso]

What made the Long Lances so devastating was the huge warhead - the long range was nice, but almost never became terribly useful. They were also relatively wakeless which was more useful, but hardly necessary for an airborne torpedo where you KNOW what is coming since you can see the planes coming for you.

So, it really wasn't possible to put a Long Lance on a torpedo plane - most of them struggled just with hauling lightweight (18") torps into the air.

As far as IJN airborn torps being modified to run at shallow depths - that was a one-time deal, and they were hardpressed to get even about 44 of them modified in time for the Pearl Harbor attack.

[DuncanLang]

This is somewhat OT because it deals with the Long Lance in the game, not in real life, but I wish they didn’t have such a long range, or you could order them to hold fire until the range closes. Invariably, whenever one of my IJN TFs encounter an Allied TF, they proceed to launch Long Lances willy-nilly from about 20000 yards. The torps seldom hit at that range and by the time the enemy TF gets within a decent range, my ships’ tubes are about empty.

[mdiehl]

As I recall, the US and UK (and, IIRC, the Germans and Italians too) did have an oxy driven torpedo in the 1920s as a kind of experimental design. It was the oxy that gave the Type 93 it's range/speed trade off, because at low speed the oxy lasted a long time thus extending the range, and at high speed it allowed for massive rapid cobustion if the goal was high speed. In addition, as I recall, the western powers including the Axis abandoned these avenues of inquiry because of the fire hazard of having pure O2 bottles. Furthermore, the US decided that the gun-line held the advantage, therefore no torps on cruisers, therefore no need for anything with high speed, because torps were only to be used by ships like DDs or subs that would per force have to get close (DDs, to use their guns) or would be able to (sneaky subs) get really close to their targets.

To a certain degree one could argue that the Allied path was the right one. Several Japanese CAs and DDs were, as I recall, either sunk because of oxy bottle damage on their torps, or badly damaged and then finished off by explosions caused by fires getting to the oxy bottles in their torps. IMO, by mid 1943, the coupling of allied gun-line with radar meant that the USN had the advantage over the IJN in night combat and day combat.

In practice, the Japanese made use of the LL's long range as I recall maybe twice in the entire war. It wasn't a very accurate weapon at long range, because ships still had a propensity to move in unpredictable ways. There was a study done about ten years ago as to whether the LL could work as a battle winning weapon in the IJN decisive battle doctrine. The modal hit rate from actual practice, was ZERO hits per salvo. The mean hit rate was, as I recall, around 6%. The mean hit rate at night was around 12% (but the mode was still zero). The only time the mean hit rate became very good was when the torps were launched when the targets were unaware that they were in combat, as at Savo Island and Tassafaronga (favoring the IJN) and at Balikpapan (favoring the USN) and in later battles in which US DDs made torp shots at targets dectected by radar. Moreover, the accurate hit rate (to get that 12% hit rate) tended to occur at ranges less than 9,000 yards.

The Type 93a was the best surface combat torpedo of the war. But it wasn't the weapon that consistently wins battles that some seem to think that it was. How well it does in WitP and whether its hit rate is historically appropriate is for someone else to answer if they wish to.

[mdiehl]

one must admit the torpedo tubes aboard US destroyers were eventually more of a nice-looking toy than anything else...

Why would anyone "admit" that? It's not true. The first successful night surface torpedo attack by a surface ship in the PTO was conducted by USN DDs at the Battle of Balikpapan. In 1942 limitations on US surface ship torpedo attacks were largely a consequence of a gun-line doctrine that slaved DDs to the battle lines of CAs. When US DDs operated on their own, starting in January 1942 and throughout the war, they made many effective torpedo attacks.

[Fishbed]

Spence and Mdhiel: my bad, sorry then [:o]

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.

Charles, the first reason why they wouldn't arm Kates with LL's, apart from the fact that Kates can't carry LL's, is that they didn't need a 20 to 40km range capable torpedo while they were supposed to make runs in the harbor... [;)] And by the way, a surface ship torpedo could be 3 or 4 times heavier than an airborne torpedo (the same with the warhead), something the Kate absolutely couldn't hope to carry. Basically, maybe the Kate's type 91 were based on the same inner design than the Type 93 "long lance" (not sure about that), but that was probably the only characteristic they shared, if they shared any apart from being Japanese torpedoes both of them [:)]

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

Spence and Mdhiel: my bad, sorry then [:o]

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.

Charles, the first reason why they wouldn't arm Kates with LL's, apart from the fact that Kates can't carry LL's, is that they didn't need a 20 to 40km range capable torpedo while they were supposed to make runs in the harbor... [;)] And by the way, a surface ship torpedo could be 3 or 4 times heavier than an airborne torpedo (the same with the warhead), something the Kate absolutely couldn't hope to carry. Basically, maybe the Kate's type 91 were based on the same inner design than the Type 93 "long lance" (not sure about that), but that was probably the only characteristic they shared, if they shared any apart from being Japanese torpedoes both of them [:)]

So you're saying they had medium lances huh?

[Fishbed]

?
Charles, a Type 93 "Long Lance" was a 24'' torp. Its "miniaturized" version for use aboard normal (aka non-midget) submarines (Type 95) was a 21''. IJN airborne-launched torpedoes (Type 91) were 17,7''. If there was to be a "medium lance" this was the Type 95, not the Type 91 [:)]
And by the way, just checked, the Type 91 mod used at PH was not oxygen-fueled (nor any other Type 91 mod apparently), so there is finally no clear connection between the propulsion system of the Long Lance and the Type 91's one... So yes, so far, Type 91 have nothing to do with anything characterizing Long Lances, which are named this way for a range and a speed Type 91 absolutely can't be expected to have [;)]

Here are some detailed info:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTJAP_WWII.htm

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Nice thread guys - I just "stmbled" upon it...


Leo "Apollo11"