Page 6 of 7
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:18 pm
by Nikademus
Understand what your saying, however IMO thats a hindsight argument. In a DB type engagement where every hit counts you want to have the biggest punch available and that was provided by the Type 93 just as the super-heavy shells for the USN provided that for it's own battleships.
One might just as well argue that the Allies should have developed Torpex sooner. After the war started and it became clear that there would be no battle along the lines envisioned it was natural that the Japanese would focus development on a bigger warhead in trade for range since closer range night battles ended up being more common.
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:38 pm
by John Lansford
Just pointing out that having a torpedo with a 40,000 m range is kind of useless if you can't hit anything with it at that distance, and they should have recognized that soon enough to reduce the range in favor of something (speed, size, warhead, whatever). Everyone already knew that battleships couldn't hit squat at 24,000 yards, so how did the Japanese think that an even slower weapon with an even longer range could hit anything?
BTW, is the Type 93 Mod 3 torpedo in the game? That monster would IMO be the ultimate ship killer; a 1750 lb warhead exploding next to any ship is going to put a serious hurt on it...
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:44 pm
by witpqs
What was the range & speed mix of the mod 3?
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 8:06 pm
by Iridium
ORIGINAL: witpqs
What was the range & speed mix of the mod 3?
Explosive Charge 1,720 lbs. (780 kg) Type 97
Power / Range / Speed
200 HP / 32,800 yards (30,000 m) / 36-38 knots
300 HP / 27,300 yards (25,000 m) / 40-42 knots
520 HP / 16,400 yards (15,000 m) / 48-50 knots
From:
NavalWeapons
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP
Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 5:06 pm
by panda124c
ORIGINAL: John Lansford
Just pointing out that having a torpedo with a 40,000 m range is kind of useless if you can't hit anything with it at that distance, and they should have recognized that soon enough to reduce the range in favor of something (speed, size, warhead, whatever). Everyone already knew that battleships couldn't hit squat at 24,000 yards, so how did the Japanese think that an even slower weapon with an even longer range could hit anything?
I belive that they were thinking that the LL could be launched against a Battle Line at ranges beyond gun range thus breaking the enemy Battle Line or damaging a BB and weaking the enemy's Battle Line.
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP
Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:11 pm
by mdiehl
IIRC I think they were looking at ranges closer to 20-25K and it was felt necessary to help both preserve their forces and incur the element of suprise. Certainly more than one Allied captain was "suprised" to learn they were under torpedo attack on more than one occasion. (They thought they were hitting mines)
Yes but most such surprises were delivered at less than 8,000 yards. Similarly, many an IJN skipper learned to their surprise that they were under attack and often blamed the wrong cause (for ex at Balikpapan where IJN commodore blamed Dutch submarines for a surprise night torpedo assault launched by USN DDs in January 1942).
The plain fact is that torpedo success relied primarily on the enemy not knowing you were there or stupidly blundering into your torpedo water (as at Tassafaronga). That is why the tide on torpedo fighting turned radically in favor of the USN in 1943. As radars improved, it tended to be the USN that got the drop on enemy ships, and it tended to come in the form of USN torpedoes delivering the first vital blows.
Anywho, regardless of conditions (day or night) the modal and median hit rates for Type 93a torps was zero hits per battle. The daylight mean was something like 3%, the night time mean around 6%. But the distribution is so bimodal that "means" don't really do the work justice. The Japanese tended to have good nights (as did the Americans) when the target was unaware that they were under attack, under which circumstances the hit rates were on the order of 10-14%.
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP
Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:13 pm
by mdiehl
belive that they were thinking that the LL could be launched against a Battle Line at ranges beyond gun range thus breaking the enemy Battle Line or damaging a BB and weaking the enemy's Battle Line.
I think that correctly states the belief. I think the reality showed that in practice that belief was just incorrect. In some ways one could argue that the long range of the long lance objectively resulted in the sinking of more Japanese ships than it did of Allied ones.
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP
Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 11:30 pm
by engineer
Just to recap, historically Long Lance torpedo's had a low percentage to hit ratio, posed a threat of a higher chance of critical hits due to gunfire or bombing damage on ships carrying them, but a single hit would sink a destroyer and badly or significantly damage any larger ship. In the game they seem to behave the same way (except I don't know that there is a bonus critical hit chance for LL carrying warships).
There's a vigorous and seemingly inconclusive debate [;)] about whether the LL were a good idea given the state of knoweldge when they were developed in the 1930s, but with hindsight, it seems clear to me that more, shorter ranged torpedoes would have provided more practical combat power with lower risk to Japanese ships.
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 12:19 am
by jwilkerson
Hey this is the BB not powerful thread.
The T93 not powerful enough thread is over on the UV side!
[:)]
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=1724535
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:34 am
by Shark7
Has a thread here ever stayed on topic though? Or on any forum for that matter?
Besides, somehow we went from undervalued to how hard is it to sink one...kinda on topic...well sort of anyway. LOL [:D]
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:48 am
by Grell
I don't think they are under valued.
Regards,
Grell
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 1:17 pm
by Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Grell
I don't think they are under valued.
Regards,
Grell
So you honestly believe that at 2-3000 yards during a night action YAMATO would be fighting off DD's with nothing but her 25mm AAA batteries? No 5", no 6", and no 18.1"? Just AAA. Pardon me if I say I believe you are wrong...
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:34 pm
by Shark7
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Grell
I don't think they are under valued.
Regards,
Grell
So you honestly believe that at 2-3000 yards during a night action YAMATO would be fighting off DD's with nothing but her 25mm AAA batteries? No 5", no 6", and no 18.1"? Just AAA. Pardon me if I say I believe you are wrong...
Agree with this. The fact that the ranges get that close and you end up firing off more AAA than naval guns is the reason I use BBs mostly for bombardment and let the cruisers do the surface combat. No point in sending a BB if its not even going to use it main batteries.
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:56 pm
by Iridium
ORIGINAL: Shark7
Agree with this. The fact that the ranges get that close and you end up firing off more AAA than naval guns is the reason I use BBs mostly for bombardment and let the cruisers do the surface combat. No point in sending a BB if its not even going to use it main batteries.
Well, that is the problem with these surface combat simulations. They lack formations, tactics etc...they may as well be WWI battlelines duking it out. Only difference is that there isn't even a screening force made of DDs. If we could somehow get AE to simulate escorts keeping capitol ships at a distance while the task forces maneuver I'd be content.
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:18 pm
by Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Iridium
Well, that is the problem with these surface combat simulations. They lack formations, tactics etc...they may as well be WWI battlelines duking it out. Only difference is that there isn't even a screening force made of DDs. If we could somehow get AE to simulate escorts keeping capitol ships at a distance while the task forces maneuver I'd be content.
I'm sorry to say that it doesn't look as if AE will improve this much..., if at all. One of those things with "hard code" strewn about that will need a bigger re-write is what I've been told.
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 4:55 pm
by mdiehl
So you honestly believe that at 2-3000 yards during a night action YAMATO would be fighting off DD's with nothing but her 25mm AAA batteries? No 5", no 6", and no 18.1"? Just AAA. Pardon me if I say I believe you are wrong...
Well, she might be firing her 5", but she wouldn't be firing her 18" at DDs at 2-3K yards. I suspect that her main armament would not depress enough to hit DDs at that range. In 1944 at 3K yards, any garden variety American DD with torps in her tubes would be a greater threat to
Yamato than
Yamato would be to the DD -- at least until the range opened up.
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 5:38 pm
by Iridium
ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Well, she might be firing her 5", but she wouldn't be firing her 18" at DDs at 2-3K yards. I suspect that her main armament would not depress enough to hit DDs at that range. In 1944 at 3K yards, any garden variety American DD with torps in her tubes would be a greater threat to Yamato than Yamato would be to the DD -- at least until the range opened up.
Her 18.1" guns had a max depression of -5 degrees. I have no idea if that would be enough...[:D]
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 5:47 pm
by panda124c
The reason for secondary guns on BB's, BEFORE AIRCRAFT became a big threat, was to shoot holes in those pesky little Torpedo Boats, (later know as Destroyers after they grew up). The tracking of a high speed target (30Kt to 40Kt) with a large turreted gun (8" or greater) was impossible at the time (and still is). The rate of fire was such that a large gun could not put enough rounds on target in an acceptable amount of time. Therefore Rapid fire small guns (6" or less) were used at close range. The 15 gun 6" American cruisers were designed to be used like a shotgun, rapid salvo. So at close ranges the small rapid fire guns will hit more often (better firing solution) than the larger guns. Yes the small guns will do less damage but sinking a BB is not the only way to disable it and once disabled it is easier to sink.
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 5:52 pm
by panda124c
ORIGINAL: Iridium
Her 18.1" guns had a max depression of -5 degrees. I have no idea if that would be enough...[:D]
That would depend on if she fired on the up roll or the down roll. [:D]
RE: Are BB undervalued by WITP
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 5:56 pm
by Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: mdiehl
So you honestly believe that at 2-3000 yards during a night action YAMATO would be fighting off DD's with nothing but her 25mm AAA batteries? No 5", no 6", and no 18.1"? Just AAA. Pardon me if I say I believe you are wrong...
Well, she might be firing her 5", but she wouldn't be firing her 18" at DDs at 2-3K yards. I suspect that her main armament would not depress enough to hit DDs at that range.
In 1944 at 3K yards, any garden variety American DD with torps in her tubes would be a greater threat to Yamato than Yamato would be to the DD -- at least until the range opened up.
Exactly the reason why she would be firing every gun that could be brought to bear..., even if they could only depress enough to blow the superstructure off a threatening DD!