Incoming!

[Q-Ball]

OK, I realize this a grenade, and others may have seen this article on the Long Lance, but I found it interesting, so here it is:

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-067.htm

Author says LL achieved 6.7% hit rate. WITP has a higher hit rate, though WITP Long Lances appear to not cause the damage that RL ones do. Overall I'm fine with the way it is in the game.

They were controversial weapons, but I think one thing is indisputable: When they hit, that large warhead really HURT.

[mdiehl]

When they went off they really hurt. In a bunch of cases they really hurt the ships armed with them. And yes, it's a grenade. The ususal suspects will shortly show up with a litany of reasons why the empirical facts don't matter.

My take is that the LL's success was largely a matter of short range when fired and surprise. If the Allies didn't know the torps were in the water and if they were fired from less than 8,500 yards and more than 1,000, they were pretty devastating.

[anarchyintheuk]

At least it's an old grenade.

[Terminus]

Yeah, it might not go quite so loudly KA-BOOM, given that WE'VE HEARD IT ALL BEFORE...[8|]

[Feinder]

It's a torpedo.  Of course they hurt!
 
[;)]
 
 
 
 
 

-F-

[mdiehl]

It's a torpedo. Of course they hurt!

[:D]

[RUPD3658]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

It's a torpedo.  Of course they hurt!

[;)]


-F-

Unless they are an early war Allied dud[:D]

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

When they went off they really hurt. In a bunch of cases they really hurt the ships armed with them. And yes, it's a grenade. The ususal suspects will shortly show up with a litany of reasons why the empirical facts don't matter.

My take is that the LL's success was largely a matter of short range when fired and surprise. If the Allies didn't know the torps were in the water and if they were fired from less than 8,500 yards and more than 1,000, they were pretty devastating.

well, one of the "usual supects" showed up to do post no. 2...

[mdiehl]

That'd be incorrect (as usual), as I am the one who tends to rely on facts. If it really is the collective desire to rehash the whole discussion again (in which it will be demonstrated that the median and modal hit rates of Long Lance vollies was ZERO hits, and the mean 6.25, 12.25 at night at less than 8K yards, and 25% when the Allies didn't know that Japanese ships were in the area), we could do all that, and you could once again attempt to explain why the historical statistical mean, mode, median and circumstances associated with each don't matter.

[Terminus]

Soooo predictable...[8|]

[mdiehl]

Agreed. Hence my sig lines.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

OK, I realize this a grenade, and others may have seen this article on the Long Lance, but I found it interesting, so here it is:

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-067.htm

Author says LL achieved 6.7% hit rate. WITP has a higher hit rate, though WITP Long Lances appear to not cause the damage that RL ones do. Overall I'm fine with the way it is in the game.

They were controversial weapons, but I think one thing is indisputable: When they hit, that large warhead really HURT.

OPERATIONS RESEARCH

Looks like some good numbers. The estimated pH for a torpedo launched at 880 yds against a warship moving at 25-30 knots was 5%.

[AW1Steve]

Statistically analysis produces statistics. It is not a all knowing crystal ball. The greatest data processing device today, is no better that the data put into it , and the people who use it.(As programmers say GIGO-garbage in, garbage out). Robert Strange MacNamara and Donald Rumsfeld both worshipped statistical analysis. Colin Powel,Norman Swartzkoft,Curtis Lemay and Chester Nimitz did not. Who would you rather have commanding the troops?

And let's not forget the answer to the greatest bit of Statistical analysis ever! 42![:D]

[CV Zuikaku]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

When they went off they really hurt. In a bunch of cases they really hurt the ships armed with them. And yes, it's a grenade. The ususal suspects will shortly show up with a litany of reasons why the empirical facts don't matter.
My take is that the LL's success was largely a matter of short range when fired and surprise. If the Allies didn't know the torps were in the water and if they were fired from less than 8,500 yards and more than 1,000, they were pretty devastating.

Well ,you are the first one here who showed up withy your "litany of reasons". [:-] [:D] [8|]

[mdiehl]

Statistically analysis produces statistics. It is not a all knowing crystal ball. The greatest data processing device today, is no better that the data put into it , and the people who use it.(As programmers say GIGO-garbage in, garbage out).

That is true. But you do have to know which sorts of subjects can be statistically addressed. If the question is "how likely is it that a torpedo fired at range X under circumstances Y will hit a target" it's a rather straightforward question. That, after all, was the basis of the TDC.

Robert Strange MacNamara and Donald Rumsfeld both worshipped statistical analysis. Colin Powel,Norman Swartzkoft, Curtis Lemay and Chester Nimitz did not. Who would you rather have commanding the troops?

LeMay was more of a statistician than your statement suggests. And I'd argue that McNamara and Rumsfeld were operating without data... it'd be as if someone came up with a hit rate for Japanese WW2 torpedoes in a consim that substantially differed from the hit rate mentioned in Czernecki's study on the assumption that some ideological factor should be given greater weight than actual usage successes and failures on the battlefield.

And let's not forget the answer to the greatest bit of Statistical analysis ever! 42!

Let us hope that mice aren't too involved in torpedo R&D these days.

[mdiehl]

Well ,you are the first one here who showed up withy your "litany of reasons".

It was required that I do so after someone suggested that my position might not be based on the best empirical evidence. If anyone doesn't like to hear me make an empirical argument, they're free to agree with me and move on.

[CV Zuikaku]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Well ,you are the first one here who showed up withy your "litany of reasons".

It was required that I do so after someone suggested that my position might not be based on the best empirical evidence. If anyone doesn't like to hear me make an empirical argument, they're free to agree with me and move on.

Combat statistics might be a bit tricky area [;)] All after all, combat is not about statistic- it is Murphy's law in it's full scope and practice [:D]

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

.. it'd be as if someone came up with a hit rate for Japanese WW2 torpedoes in a consim that substantially differed from the hit rate mentioned in Czernecki's study on the assumption that some ideological factor should be given greater weight than actual usage successes and failures on the battlefield.

Then ... what was the hit rate for USN WW2 torpedoes? How does their hit rate compare to USN torpedo hit rates in WITP?

[Historiker]

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

.. it'd be as if someone came up with a hit rate for Japanese WW2 torpedoes in a consim that substantially differed from the hit rate mentioned in Czernecki's study on the assumption that some ideological factor should be given greater weight than actual usage successes and failures on the battlefield.

Then ... what was the hit rate for USN WW2 torpedoes? How does their hit rate compare to USN torpedo hit rates in WITP?

HISTORY

Airborne torpedoes? About 10%. I seem to recall the surface torpedo hit rate was similar.