Long lance

[borner]

I was curious if anyone else out there felt the Long Lance torpedo is not strong enough in the game?

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: borner

I was curious if anyone else out there felt the Long Lance torpedo is not strong enough in the game?

It's hard to say. You'd have to play a lot of scenarios in an identical manner to do any sort of real analysis.

Games like UV are characterized by huge variability in combat results. A player can sit down in front of the game, play a scenario and experience a victory. Afterwards, you can fire the game up, do exactly the same things that you did in the previous sitting, and you get your ass handed to you. This not a bad thing. It mirrors actual events and reflects the variability built into the game, stuff like who spots who, first, in a night surface action, for instance, items over which players can have no control over in a game of this scale.

It's also worth noting that a person's prejudices can feed the perception that something has gone awry with the data or how its applied. If a player truly believes that a side ought to win 80% of the battles in a certain situation, and they are only winning 40%, then they can come unhinged. The problem with attempting to assuage their concerns is that they fail to recognize that there are precursors to the application of something like weapons data that might serve to limit the effectiveness of a particular system, spotting for instance.

There is one salient characteristic of the LL that I'd like to touch on, and that is its quality as a wasting asset. It effectiveness will be inversely proportional to the ability of the Allies to first spot, and then direct gunfire at night, with radar. As the game progresses, this advantage of the Allied surface forces should become more and more pronounced until the long lance becomes as much of an explosive threat to the crews of Japanese surface vessels as to Allied warships.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[tocaff]

My thoughts exactly!  As the war progressed the ship launched torpedo became virtually obsolete as gunnery ranges could be opened to greater distances due to radar directed fire control.  He who spots first fires first and the greter the range the less the torp comes into play, even the Long Lance.

[RGIJN]

Very true guys!
But be aware the max range of this particular fish is 21.5 nautical miles (40,00 meters/43,700 yards) at still 36...38 knots. Of course then you have some wandering of about 1500m (1600yd). The more effective settings of 40...42kn and 48...50kn still ranged 32,000m (~35,000yds) and 20,000m (~22,000yds). So, in addition to first spot the japanese vessels you should have some "heavies" (at least CA/BB) with you. Even the 6 inchers of some US CLs are travelling no more than 23,881m (26,118 yds).

IKE, please DO NOT contribute this time. [:-] There is another thread already where this debate got out of hand... [:(]

[HansBolter]

Another thing to take into consideration is that not all Japanese torpedoes are Long Lances and nopt all ships were equipped with Long Lances.

This is an excerpt from a foot note to a table comparing forces at the battle of Savo Island from Guadalcanal: The Definitive Account of the Landmark Battle by Richard B. Frank:

"Yubari, which may or may not have mounted the Long Lance, carried spare torpedoes for her 24" tubes but apparently had no fast reloading capacity, and the same applies for the 21" tubes on Tenryu and Yunagi."


Apparently the aging light cruisers Tenryu and Yunagi were not equipped with LLs and whether or not Yubari was is also an issue in doubt.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: RGIJN

Very true guys!
But be aware the max range of this particular fish is 21.5 nautical miles (40,00 meters/43,700 yards) at still 36...38 knots. Of course then you have some wandering of about 1500m (1600yd). The more effective settings of 40...42kn and 48...50kn still ranged 32,000m (~35,000yds) and 20,000m (~22,000yds). So, in addition to first spot the japanese vessels you should have some "heavies" (at least CA/BB) with you. Even the 6 inchers of some US CLs are travelling no more than 23,881m (26,118 yds).

IKE, please DO NOT contribute this time. [:-] There is another thread already where this debate got out of hand... [:(]

Hmmm. 21+ nautical miles at 36 knots? That's a running time of what? 37-38 minutes? Good luck trying to figure out exactly where a target is going to be more than a half an hour from now. The real strengths of the Long Lance were it's very high speed and large warhead. The faster it travels, the easier it is to compute a firing solution and get a hit.

[RGIJN]

Again, true. As same as with the allied radar sets. They had several different types of that detection systems running with different characteristics and reliability.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: RGIJN

Very true guys!
But be aware the max range of this particular fish is 21.5 nautical miles (40,00 meters/43,700 yards) at still 36...38 knots. Of course then you have some wandering of about 1500m (1600yd). The more effective settings of 40...42kn and 48...50kn still ranged 32,000m (~35,000yds) and 20,000m (~22,000yds). So, in addition to first spot the japanese vessels you should have some "heavies" (at least CA/BB) with you. Even the 6 inchers of some US CLs are travelling no more than 23,881m (26,118 yds).

A hit at 21.5 nautical miles could be devastating, but it'd also be pretty darn unlikely.

As time went on, Allied formations under threat of torpedo attack during a surface action began using divisional turns rather than column turns, as at Empress of Augusta Bay. While this reduced their gunnery effectiveness during the maneuver, it had the desireable effect of essentially wrecking the enemy's torpedo solutions.

Yes, when employed against an enemy formation that was making frequent changes in course, the weapon could still be lethal at very long ranges, but its effectiveness would be reduced to the "freak-hit" category. Conversely the fire from radar-directed guns will remain VERY effective at long ranges at night, particularly when compared to that of an adversary lacking such technology.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[RGIJN]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

A hit at 21.5 nautical miles could be devastating, but it'd also be pretty darn unlikely.

As time went on, Allied formations under threat of torpedo attack during a surface action began using divisional turns rather than column turns, as at Empress of Augusta Bay. While this reduced their gunnery effectiveness during the maneuver, it had the desireable effect of essentially wrecking the enemy's torpedo solutions.

Yes, when employed against an enemy formation that was making frequent changes in course, the weapon could still be lethal at very long ranges, but its effectiveness would be reduced to the "freak-hit" category. Conversely the fire from radar-directed guns will remain VERY effective at long ranges at night, particularly when compared to that of an adversary lacking such technology.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

Though japanese optics and gunnery techniques were considered among the best of the world and thus enabling the IJN to achieve some stunning victories early on, their capabilities slightly dropped a bit due to lack of experienced crews/training issues. However they did not become impotent. But - most notably the rapid development and improvements on the US radar outstripped many of these conventional things.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: borner

I was curious if anyone else out there felt the Long Lance torpedo is not strong enough in the game?

I think the LL is strong enough, but allied surface radar may be too effective too early in UV.

[SuluSea]

I believe the Long Lance is fine as it stands. It wasn't a sidewinder. I agree with Joe U.S. radar is more effecitve than it should be especially around the many islands of the Solomons early in the campaign before the issues were ironed out.

I know the LL has been a point of contention with some but I believe the Kido Butai are modeled too strong not to mention flying off of carriers that are resting on the bottom of the ocean NW of Midway.

However, as it stands this is a great game. [:)]

[jwilkerson]

The Long Lance is incorrectly represented in the game. Its inability to sink Japanese ships as it did historically is atested.

[tocaff]

Maybe one of the reasons the Japanese lost the war was because they lost naval battles?  I know I could be wrong about this and it was just a guess, but I'm going out on a limb with what the history of WW2 was and say that the vaunted IJN wasnt 1/2 as hot as they or someone on this forum seems to have or does think.

[decaro]

Tactical victories by powerful surface fleets may not even matter since airpower and logistics -- not necessarilly in that order -- are the strategic keys to victory over the vast distances of the PTO, even in UV.

[tocaff]

Sounds logical to me.  Hey I've got an idea!  How about grafting the LL to WPO where it'll become the super weapon!?!

[SireChaos]

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Maybe one of the reasons the Japanese lost the war was because they lost naval battles?  I know I could be wrong about this and it was just a guess, but I'm going out on a limb with what the history of WW2 was and say that the vaunted IJN wasnt 1/2 as hot as they or someone on this forum seems to have or does think.

IMHO the Japanese lost essentially because of two factors:

1. With every battle, even when they won, they lost ships and crew that they could not replace. Even where the Allies (especially the USN) suffered heavier losses, they could replace those much more quickly.
2. The Allies were much better at learning the lessons of the battles than the Japanese were.

[borner]

Tocaff, "he" has nothing to do with why I posed this question.
 
My point/question is that historically, when a LL hit, it tore apart it's target. The damage reports of US CA's that took them are pretty telling. However, in the game, I am not sure we see this most of the time. That is open to debate however.
 
The point about allied radar is also very good. Even when it picked up the enemy, US commnaders did not have the exerience yet to put it to use effectively as they did later in the war.

[jwilkerson]

The stats for any device in the game can be quickly and easily changed in the editor.

This would take far less time than has been spent debating the issue on this forum.

If someone wishes to change the stats then do so and offer your opponent choice of sides. That would be a fair way of expressing your correction to the system.

[Nomad]

Joe, I don't think that is something that can be done. I have looked, and I can not find a Device listing in the UV editor.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: borner

Tocaff, "he" has nothing to do with why I posed this question.

My point/question is that historically, when a LL hit, it tore apart it's target. The damage reports of US CA's that took them are pretty telling. However, in the game, I am not sure we see this most of the time. That is open to debate however.

The point about allied radar is also very good. Even when it picked up the enemy, US commnaders did not have the exerience yet to put it to use effectively as they did later in the war.

Perhaps in light of all the other recent discussions which focused on it's hit rate or percentage as a function of it's "power" your question was misinterpreted.

I don't think it's hit rate is mismodeled. However, you may have a valid point that the damage done per hit may be suspect.