Page 2 of 4
RE: 21 inch MK14 torpedo
Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:21 pm
by Czert
ORIGINAL: Terminus
The Kongo was sunk by Mk 18 torpedoes. THEY'RE NOT EVEN IN THIS BROKEN PoS GAME!
they were not worth of adding ?
RE: 21 inch MK14 torpedo
Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:19 pm
by Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: jmalter
Didn't subs usually carry a mix of electric & steam-powered torps? If a modder was sufficiently OCD, he could change some of the tubes in each sub to carry the Mk18 during one of the upgrades.
Yeah, a mix. I don't know if it was a set ratio, and if it was it was probably up to the squadron commander. The sub force was pretty local. I'd bet the main factor was just whatever the tender had right then. As lines and subases moved forward the ordnance had to catch up. If you were drawing at Saipan in February 1945 you took what they had. I also imagine sub COs' wishes were listened to a lot. The Mk14 had a lot of fans, and not just among the TMs who could drink the fuel.
RE: 21 inch MK14 torpedo
Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:43 pm
by AW1Steve
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: jmalter
Didn't subs usually carry a mix of electric & steam-powered torps? If a modder was sufficiently OCD, he could change some of the tubes in each sub to carry the Mk18 during one of the upgrades.
Yeah, a mix. I don't know if it was a set ratio, and if it was it was probably up to the squadron commander. The sub force was pretty local. I'd bet the main factor was just whatever the tender had right then. As lines and subases moved forward the ordnance had to catch up. If you were drawing at Saipan in February 1945 you took what they had. I also imagine sub COs' wishes were listened to a lot. The Mk14 had a lot of fans, and not just among the TMs who could drink the fuel.
Hence the term "torpedo juice". Literally. It also explains why cans of fruit juice were drunk more by submariners then other sailors. [:D] So Moose...What's "Otto-fuel" taste like? [:D][&:]
RE: 21 inch MK14 torpedo
Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:10 pm
by Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: jmalter
Didn't subs usually carry a mix of electric & steam-powered torps? If a modder was sufficiently OCD, he could change some of the tubes in each sub to carry the Mk18 during one of the upgrades.
Yeah, a mix. I don't know if it was a set ratio, and if it was it was probably up to the squadron commander. The sub force was pretty local. I'd bet the main factor was just whatever the tender had right then. As lines and subases moved forward the ordnance had to catch up. If you were drawing at Saipan in February 1945 you took what they had. I also imagine sub COs' wishes were listened to a lot. The Mk14 had a lot of fans, and not just among the TMs who could drink the fuel.
Hence the term "torpedo juice". Literally. It also explains why cans of fruit juice were drunk more by submariners then other sailors. [:D] So Moose...What's "Otto-fuel" taste like? [:D][&:]
Ah, good, like . . .. ACK! (Thud)
My boat was commissioned in 1964 and had tubes with starting latch guides so Mk 14s could be shot. There was also a small fuel make-up tank, on the starboard forward bulkhead as I recall in my mind's eye. About the size of a big propane tank as for a gas grill. It had been empty for at least fifteen years, but nevertheless the Weaps sometimes opened the drain valve just to be sure.
More than you'd ever want to know about the Mk14 here. They really could write manuals in those days.
http://hnsa.org/doc/torpedo/index.htm
RE: 21 inch MK14 torpedo
Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:44 pm
by spence
In terms of the game I don't see any way where the Mk18's advantages would matter in the engine. No-bubbles isn't a thing is the algorithm, and on-board maintenance is not modeled.
Perhaps a modest increase in the accuracy could be incorporated to model the bubbleless torpedo to simulate it relative lack of visibility. Of course it's not really in the game so I suppose that possibility is moot anyways.
RE: 21 inch MK14 torpedo
Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 8:06 pm
by wdolson
The USN also started using Torpex by late 43 which increased the explosive blast of the torpedoes by about 50%.
Bill
RE: 21 inch MK14 torpedo
Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 9:25 pm
by msieving1
ORIGINAL: Terminus
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
ORIGINAL: Terminus
The Kongo was sunk by Mk 18 torpedoes. THEY'RE NOT EVEN IN THIS BROKEN PoS GAME!
Back pain getting to you T?
I was being sarcastic. The Mk 14 remained the primary sub-launched torpedo until the end of the war; it's proper that it's the device being used in the game.
60% of sub launched torpedoes in 1945 were Mk 18s.
RE: 21 inch MK14 torpedo
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 12:15 am
by jmalter
ORIGINAL: msieving1
60% of sub launched torpedoes in 1945 were Mk 18s.
Well I'm def'nitely not a modder, but since subs are now modelled w/ pairs of tubes, it would be simple (albeit tedious) to change one pair of tubes to the Mk 18 in mid-war, and another pair in a late-war upgrade. Appropriate changes could be made by introducing new torp devices as needed, to reflect the increased power of the torpex warhead.
I've always thought it wasn't quite right that when the Mk 14 torpedo is upgraded, that that at-sea subs immediately take advantage w/o having to RTB to exchange their old-model ammo for the newer more effective fish.
RE: 21 inch MK14 torpedo
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 8:56 am
by Feltan
ORIGINAL: jmalter
ORIGINAL: msieving1
60% of sub launched torpedoes in 1945 were Mk 18s.
Well I'm def'nitely not a modder, but since subs are now modelled w/ pairs of tubes, it would be simple (albeit tedious) to change one pair of tubes to the Mk 18 in mid-war, and another pair in a late-war upgrade. Appropriate changes could be made by introducing new torp devices as needed, to reflect the increased power of the torpex warhead.
I've always thought it wasn't quite right that when the Mk 14 torpedo is upgraded, that that at-sea subs immediately take advantage w/o having to RTB to exchange their old-model ammo for the newer more effective fish.
So, from a modeling point-of-view on the scale of WITP-AE it doesn't bother me. When did the subs at sea get their last re-load of new torpedoes? What's to say that they weren't given new and improved torpedoes as part of their last re-load?
If this transition was modeled more "accurately", you'd see a transition period of what? Maybe 10 days to 2 weeks? In game, all the subs would head to the barn on the designated day all over the Pacific to grab the new torpedoes that have magically restocked all ports and AS ships in theater and magically become available to detonate on a given day? That's more accurate?
I think you'd feel better about it if you consider that magic day the end of the process of distribution and re-loading rather then the first day they are available at a naval depot on the West coast.
Regards,
Feltan
RE: 21 inch MK14 torpedo
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:13 am
by Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: Feltan
ORIGINAL: jmalter
ORIGINAL: msieving1
60% of sub launched torpedoes in 1945 were Mk 18s.
Well I'm def'nitely not a modder, but since subs are now modelled w/ pairs of tubes, it would be simple (albeit tedious) to change one pair of tubes to the Mk 18 in mid-war, and another pair in a late-war upgrade. Appropriate changes could be made by introducing new torp devices as needed, to reflect the increased power of the torpex warhead.
I've always thought it wasn't quite right that when the Mk 14 torpedo is upgraded, that that at-sea subs immediately take advantage w/o having to RTB to exchange their old-model ammo for the newer more effective fish.
So, from a modeling point-of-view on the scale of WITP-AE it doesn't bother me. When did the subs at sea get their last re-load of new torpedoes? What's to say that they weren't given new and improved torpedoes as part of their last re-load?
If this transition was modeled more "accurately", you'd see a transition period of what? Maybe 10 days to 2 weeks? In game, all the subs would head to the barn on the designated day all over the Pacific to grab the new torpedoes that have magically restocked all ports and AS ships in theater and magically become available to detonate on a given day? That's more accurate?
I think you'd feel better about it if you consider that magic day the end of the process of distribution and re-loading rather then the first day they are available at a naval depot on the West coast.
Regards,
Feltan
It's harder than this and a case of players needing to just chill out and take the abstractions of the game in stride.
The rule in Section 6.4.2.1 says that in January 1943 ALL torpedoes with a dud rate greater than 49 have their rate reduced by 20. (Not TO 20; one could only wish!)
The editor sez that the MK 13 aerial torpedo used by carrier TBs has a dud rate of 50. Ponder that.
How would your average AFB feel about having to pull every carrier into a major fleet base, say Pearl or larger, in January 1943 to swap out fish? Kind of disturbs a lot of plans.
Submarine warfare in the game is MASSIVLEY ahistorical. I've said that for years. No R&R periods, dense-pack boats repaired of major structural damage in a matter of days, no ability to choose how many fish to spend on low-mix targets, no ability to do multiple attacks on the same TF with one boat in one phase. (This is a huge difference from history.) Many other factors including crew rotations and training granularity, not modeled. In comparison the dud rate is minor.
I'm not aware of any Allied player who has ever come close to historical numbers with his subs. Few Japan players would play if that were the case. (Eight
aircraft carriers sunk by subs? Insane!)
And yet, and yet . . . It all works very well. It's balanced against the middle range of performance. Subs are useful, they're dangerous, sometimes they pack a huge punch, they can never be ignored. But they aren't the war-deciders they were in RL against the Japanese economy. IF they were the whole underpinning of the game would have to be re-cast. Victory conditions to begin and go from there.
So them getting "healed" in January while at sea is a flyspeck issue. If a player had to drive home and then back out it would just be another level of micro-management that adds nothing to strategy and tactics. In RL there was no such "Great Healing." By January 1943 Mk14 performance was all over the board, driven by individual COs who risked their careers and commands to get into their fish once they left on patrol and "fix" them locally. Also some squadrons did "helpful preventative maintenance" on the front lines in direct violation of BuOrd. It happened. If a boat's fish were at 80% dud rates in December 1942 it was because the CO was either an idiot or a coward or both. But the game needs a cut off date for the code and January works OK.
But don't for a minute think it reflects history.
RE: 21 inch MK14 torpedo
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:43 am
by crsutton
ORIGINAL: wdolson
The USN also started using Torpex by late 43 which increased the explosive blast of the torpedoes by about 50%.
Bill
Yes, I kind of wish this was modeled in more than any type of additional torpedo type.
RE: 21 inch MK14 torpedo
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:45 am
by crsutton
ORIGINAL: msieving1
ORIGINAL: Terminus
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Back pain getting to you T?
I was being sarcastic. The Mk 14 remained the primary sub-launched torpedo until the end of the war; it's proper that it's the device being used in the game.
60% of sub launched torpedoes in 1945 were Mk 18s.
Yes, but with the scarcity of targets by 1945, I suspect that the overall total work load was handled by the MK14 over the course of the war.
RE: 21 inch MK14 torpedo
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:16 pm
by Feltan
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: Feltan
ORIGINAL: jmalter
Well I'm def'nitely not a modder, but since subs are now modelled w/ pairs of tubes, it would be simple (albeit tedious) to change one pair of tubes to the Mk 18 in mid-war, and another pair in a late-war upgrade. Appropriate changes could be made by introducing new torp devices as needed, to reflect the increased power of the torpex warhead.
I've always thought it wasn't quite right that when the Mk 14 torpedo is upgraded, that that at-sea subs immediately take advantage w/o having to RTB to exchange their old-model ammo for the newer more effective fish.
So, from a modeling point-of-view on the scale of WITP-AE it doesn't bother me. When did the subs at sea get their last re-load of new torpedoes? What's to say that they weren't given new and improved torpedoes as part of their last re-load?
If this transition was modeled more "accurately", you'd see a transition period of what? Maybe 10 days to 2 weeks? In game, all the subs would head to the barn on the designated day all over the Pacific to grab the new torpedoes that have magically restocked all ports and AS ships in theater and magically become available to detonate on a given day? That's more accurate?
I think you'd feel better about it if you consider that magic day the end of the process of distribution and re-loading rather then the first day they are available at a naval depot on the West coast.
Regards,
Feltan
It's harder than this and a case of players needing to just chill out and take the abstractions of the game in stride.
The rule in Section 6.4.2.1 says that in January 1943 ALL torpedoes with a dud rate greater than 49 have their rate reduced by 20. (Not TO 20; one could only wish!)
The editor sez that the MK 13 aerial torpedo used by carrier TBs has a dud rate of 50. Ponder that.
How would your average AFB feel about having to pull every carrier into a major fleet base, say Pearl or larger, in January 1943 to swap out fish? Kind of disturbs a lot of plans.
Submarine warfare in the game is MASSIVLEY ahistorical. I've said that for years. No R&R periods, dense-pack boats repaired of major structural damage in a matter of days, no ability to choose how many fish to spend on low-mix targets, no ability to do multiple attacks on the same TF with one boat in one phase. (This is a huge difference from history.) Many other factors including crew rotations and training granularity, not modeled. In comparison the dud rate is minor.
I'm not aware of any Allied player who has ever come close to historical numbers with his subs. Few Japan players would play if that were the case. (Eight
aircraft carriers sunk by subs? Insane!)
And yet, and yet . . . It all works very well. It's balanced against the middle range of performance. Subs are useful, they're dangerous, sometimes they pack a huge punch, they can never be ignored. But they aren't the war-deciders they were in RL against the Japanese economy. IF they were the whole underpinning of the game would have to be re-cast. Victory conditions to begin and go from there.
So them getting "healed" in January while at sea is a flyspeck issue. If a player had to drive home and then back out it would just be another level of micro-management that adds nothing to strategy and tactics. In RL there was no such "Great Healing." By January 1943 Mk14 performance was all over the board, driven by individual COs who risked their careers and commands to get into their fish once they left on patrol and "fix" them locally. Also some squadrons did "helpful preventative maintenance" on the front lines in direct violation of BuOrd. It happened. If a boat's fish were at 80% dud rates in December 1942 it was because the CO was either an idiot or a coward or both. But the game needs a cut off date for the code and January works OK.
But don't for a minute think it reflects history.
Moose,
I may be missing something, but I think we are in violent agreement.
Regards,
Feltan
RE: 21 inch MK14 torpedo
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:08 pm
by Bullwinkle58
90%. I was more responding to your previous poster. Just wanted to point out the problem if an in-port swap were demanded. TBs too.
RE: 21 inch MK14 torpedo
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 8:26 pm
by wdolson
Some of the torpedo fixes would have required manufacturing changes, but I believe the early 43 fix was to the firing pins and it was mostly done in the field. The torpedoes in storage at Pearl harbor were modified using new firing pins made out of a propeller from a downed Japanese plane shot down on Dec 7, 41. I believe a service bulletin went out to all depots in the field about what needed to be done. Conceivably all AS and other torpedo depots around the world quickly came up with their own firing pins and made modifications. Subs at sea probably didn't upgrade until they got back to port, but all stores probably had the upgrade done relatively quickly.
Upgrading carrier torpedo stores would not have been a big issue at that point because the Enterprise was in drydock and the only operational carrier, the Saratoga, was essentially being held in reserve. It was mostly a time of rest and refit for the carrier squadrons.
The magnetic detectors were finally fixed by late war and those changes probably had to be manufactured in the states and sent out to the field which would have taken longer.
Bill
RE: 21 inch MK14 torpedo
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:20 pm
by Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: wdolson
Some of the torpedo fixes would have required manufacturing changes, but I believe the early 43 fix was to the firing pins and it was mostly done in the field. The torpedoes in storage at Pearl harbor were modified using new firing pins made out of a propeller from a downed Japanese plane shot down on Dec 7, 41. I believe a service bulletin went out to all depots in the field about what needed to be done. Conceivably all AS and other torpedo depots around the world quickly came up with their own firing pins and made modifications. Subs at sea probably didn't upgrade until they got back to port, but all stores probably had the upgrade done relatively quickly.
Upgrading carrier torpedo stores would not have been a big issue at that point because the Enterprise was in drydock and the only operational carrier, the Saratoga, was essentially being held in reserve. It was mostly a time of rest and refit for the carrier squadrons.
The magnetic detectors were finally fixed by late war and those changes probably had to be manufactured in the states and sent out to the field which would have taken longer.
Bill
In January 1943 SubPac torpedoes were all at Pearl I believe. Midway might have had a few for emergency swap-out on outbound boats, but that base was really just for fuel top-off. I don't think there was a tender there that early even.
SubSouWestPac (spelling?) in Brisbane had torpedoes too. I don't know if they had the metal to do the firing pin ordalt, but it could have been flown there by Cats in relays and wouldn't have massed much. I believe there was a t least one tender in Brisbane with machine shops, or the local economy could have made up the pins. Any TM was fully qualified to install them. It was feasible to disable the magnetic exploder in place (the firing pin was a separate problem in the warhead) on the boat, but I'm not sure it could be done at sea. Everything I've ever read indicated it was done in port in the torpedo room, but possibly not with a full load out so as to make space for the work. Fix, load more, fix them type of thing. It's also possible ship's company did the lobotomy on the pier on stands and then loaded the fish after the surgery. But I don't see them working on the warheads in a seaway on a routine basis.
But both of these would have required boats to come in off patrol. The game's method is a work-around.
RE: 21 inch MK14 torpedo
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:35 pm
by sandlance
In 1943 the Mk16 Torpedo went into production and began to replace the Mk14, this was a very slow process. The warhead problems were fixed and the fuel was changed from methenol to Hyrogen Peroxide. No more Torpedo Juice.
FTG1ss
RE: 21 inch MK14 torpedo
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:48 pm
by wdolson
And people drank that! Methanol is really a bad idea to drink.
I thought torpedo juice was ethanol, but a bit of googling shows you're right.
Bill
RE: 21 inch MK14 torpedo
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:26 pm
by Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: sandlance
In 1943 the Mk16 Torpedo went into production and began to replace the Mk14, this was a very slow process. The warhead problems were fixed and the fuel was changed from methenol to Hyrogen Peroxide. No more Torpedo Juice.
FTG1ss
My sources say this is not true. The Mk 16 was generally considered an expensive failure, and only 1700 were produced. It did not reach the fleet until 1945 and did not deploy in any kind of widespread way. It stayed in inactive inventory until the mid-1970s, but was not a mainline weapon.
The Mk14 was a mainline weapon until almost 1980, and was widely sold to foreign navies. My dad's Guppy boat carried them in the 1960s (in a mix), and my SSBN deployed with some in the 1960s as well. (Maybe 1970s; I don't know when the shift to the Mk 37 happened. We carried a mix of Mk 37 and Mk 48s on my first patrol in 1982.)
RE: 21 inch MK14 torpedo
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:30 pm
by Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: wdolson
And people drank that! Methanol is really a bad idea to drink.
I thought torpedo juice was ethanol, but a bit of googling shows you're right.
Bill
This is the Wiki and jibes with what I've been told by vets of the Mk 14 era. Especially the bread (make friends with the cooks!) as well as the cat & mouse by the crew against the officers' intent to stop the consumption.
"Torpedo juice is American slang for an alcoholic beverage, first mixed in World War II, made from pineapple juice and the 180-proof grain alcohol fuel used in United States Navy torpedo motors.[1] Various poisonous additives were mixed into the fuel alcohol by Navy authorities to render the alcohol undrinkable, and various methods were employed by the U.S. sailors to separate the alcohol from the poison. Aside from the expected alcohol intoxication and subsequent hangover, the effects of drinking torpedo juice sometimes included mild or severe reactions to the poison, and the drink's reputation developed an early element of risk.
In the first part of the Pacific War, U.S. torpedoes were powered by a miniature steam engine burning 180- or higher-proof ethyl alcohol as fuel. The ethyl alcohol was denatured by the addition of 5–10% "pink lady", a blend of dye, methanol and possibly other ingredients. Methanol causes blindness when ingested, and cannot be made non-poisonous. The methanol was said to be (largely) removed by filtering the fuel mix through a compressed loaf of bread.
Later, a small amount of Croton oil was added to the neutral grain spirits which powered U.S. torpedoes. Drinking alcohol with the oil additive caused painful cramps, internal bleeding and a violent emptying of the bowels. It was intended as a replacement for methanol which had caused blindness in some sailors. To avoid the Croton oil, sailors devised crude stills to slowly separate the alcohol from the poison, as alcohol evaporated at a lower temperature than Croton oil. The stills were sometimes called 'Gilly' stills, and the resulting potable alcohol was known as 'gilly'.[2]
With the introduction of the electric powered U.S. Mark 18 torpedo, ethyl alcohol was no longer required for torpedoes; however, limited quantities of denatured alcohol were (and are) still required by the Electrician's Mates and Interior Communications Electricians on board ship for the purpose of cleaning slip rings, commutators, and carbon brushes on a wide variety of equipment.
The standard recipe for torpedo juice is two parts ethyl alcohol and three parts pineapple juice."