Effective Range of Torpedoes

[Keith]

The relative power of destroyer (and cruiser) launched torpedoes has always rung a little untrue to me.

In game terms cruisers seem a wate of time. One on one against a battleship they loose (as they should). One one one against a destroyerthey take a torpedo salvo and get about a 50/50 shot at taking out the destroyer as it launches. Even if they succeed the odds are the salvo will crepple of sink them.

I think one reason for this occured to me during a discussion yesterday.

I am not questioning the defined range of a torpedo of 10,000 yards. but would like to note that if the torpedo were travelling at 30 knots it would take approximately 10 minutes to travel the distance (this is consistant with the scales involved).

Such a shot, given appropriate time to do the calculations (films on submarine warefare often leave the captain waiting for "a fireing solution" though I have not seen any slide rules in the hands of destroyer crews), seems reasonable only if your target is steaming along oblivious to the threat. I suspect that 10 minutes would be ample time for the targetted ship to change speed and or alter course enough for the torpedoes to miss.

In the case of a submarine attack it is reasonable to assume that the target will be unaware of the attack (though there is a little memory telling me that even sub captains preferred to launch from a maximum range of 3000 yards).

If this assertion is correct there are a number of ways the game could reflect this. The following 2 occured to me.

1. Reduce the range of ship (i.e. not submarines) based torpedoes to 3"

2. Require crew quality checks for attacking at ranges over 3". This would reflect either the calculation required (firer), the last minutes evasive action (the target) or an opposed check.

This, particularly if combined with the secondaries (or even 6" guns a below) are immune to the fast moving modifer at close range rule modification mentioned in earlier threads, would redress the balance.

[Joe_Dracos]

I think it may be appropriate to add a new "too hit" rule with torpedos fired at longer ranges then 4" (so it doesn't effect aircraft). Instead of rolling against its targeting roll a crew quality test for each torpedo with a target number of 9 adding +1 for a broadside target and - 1 if the target executed a 2 point turn. This would in effect increase the likely hood of a miss. It would also increase the value of Cruisers because they would be able to survive torpedo salvos. I will be adding this to the "Advanced victory at sea rules". It keeps it simple and still balances the torpedo.

Maybe moving the torpedo strikes to after the movement phase would be more appropriate then the end phase. This is something I am not sure about.

[Kevin Clark]

An elegant solution, gets my vote.

[juggler69uk]

If you really must modify something for the sake of it then why not just make the modifiers

-1 for over 5"
-1 for the 2 pnt turn

The rest is as in book

[Kevin Clark]

If you really must modify something for the sake of it then why not just make the modifiers

-1 for over 5"
-1 for the 2 pnt turn

The rest is as in book

Not so much for the sake of it as to redress a perceived imbalance that currently makes Cruisers not worth taking as there are better options at all levels.

The real life reasons for having Cruisers in this period are because of economy and treaty. There is currently no encouragement, particularly in a campaign setting to reflect the historical set up.

As Cruisers are the ship of choice when it comes to long range force projection, particularly in the RN, I'd say that was worth looking at.

Okay so I bit, to my shame.

[juggler69uk]

Tosses another one in the keep net

[Kevin Clark]

Tosses another one in the keep net

Hook, line, sinker, rod and copy of Angling Times.

But seriously, what is your opinion on Cruisers currently? Anything to stop Keith quoting numbers at me and making my head hurt.

[juggler69uk]

Hmmm Cruisers

1. I'd rather lose a cruiser to torps than have them hit something better.
2. I'm in favour of the house rule that removes the -1 for secondary weapons hitting fast moving targets (IMHO thats what they were for)
3. Using the longer range secondaries taking DD's out (before they launch torps hopefully)
4. Using a spotter and good manoeuvering to try and allow the primaries a shot at the DD's way before they get in range.
5. If you lower the priority level BB's don't figure so prominently
6. A commanders gotta know his limitations
7. DD's can not do any real damage to BB's once the torps are gone. Cruisers can
Ill try and think of more later

Did you leave the tackle box behind ??

[Keith]

If you really must modify something for the sake of it then why not just make the modifiers

-1 for over 5"
-1 for the 2 pnt turn

The rest is as in book

What about long lance? I suggest another +1 for over 10" and yet another +1 for over 15". This would cut their effectivness down to size but would it be historically accurate?

[Ben2]

Cruisers are very useful ships. In Raid level engagements (5 point or so) you should always spend 1 or 2 points on skirmish level cruisers.
They make excellent escorts for battleships, pack enough firepower to chip away at the enemy and fairly often pack a decent torpedo broadside as well. They also tend to have much longer ranged guns than destroyers as well as being more resilient. Bear in mind you will get to fire torpedoes once (unless you are a Japanese cruiser) so 3 8" turrets and a couple of dice in the secondaries is great for grinding away at your opponent. Destroyers cannot do this.
If you have a range greater than 26" you will usually get in several turns of long range salvoes as your opponent closes.
In my opinion, cruisers are always worth it.

[Kevin Clark]

Did you leave the tackle box behind ??

Leave my tackle out this.

[juggler69uk]

If you really must modify something for the sake of it then why not just make the modifiers

-1 for over 5"
-1 for the 2 pnt turn

The rest is as in book

What about long lance? I suggest another +1 for over 10" and yet another +1 for over 15". This would cut their effectivness down to size but would it be historically accurate?

I did toy with saying -1 for each full 5", but I think that would prevent them being chosen at all

[juggler69uk]

Did you leave the tackle box behind ??

Leave my tackle out this.

I knew I should have said Bait box

[Enalut]

I like the idea of adding a +1 to hit for torpedoes for targets over 5".

With Regards tot eh IJN, to model the Long Lance it shopuld be a +1 at 10" to reflect teh superior training of teh crews as well as the torpedos charictaristics--IIRC the long lance was effective both because of its range but also because of its speed. Faster Speed = less time to target = easier to hit.

[Kevin Clark]

I like the idea of adding a +1 to hit for torpedoes for targets over 5".

With Regards tot eh IJN, to model the Long Lance it shopuld be a +1 at 10" to reflect teh superior training of teh crews as well as the torpedos charictaristics--IIRC the long lance was effective both because of its range but also because of its speed. Faster Speed = less time to target = easier to hit.

And not running on compressed air meant little or no bubble trail making them harder to spot and subsequently avoid.

[MektonZero]

If you really must modify something for the sake of it then why not just make the modifiers

-1 for over 5"
-1 for the 2 pnt turn

The rest is as in book

What about long lance? I suggest another +1 for over 10" and yet another +1 for over 15". This would cut their effectivness down to size but would it be historically accurate?

Yes. During the battle of the Komandorski Islands, the Japanese fired Long Lance torpedoes at American ships which didn't even try to evade as the Americans believed themselves to be out of range; even discounting the reports of lookouts who claimed to have seen a torpedo break the surface to the stern of a Destroyer and a torpedo wake under the bow of a Cruiser. In total, 43 Japanese torpedoes were fired at the Americans and no hits were scored.

[Thunder]

In total, 43 Japanese torpedoes were fired at the Americans and no hits were scored.

Thats just bad dice rolling!

Does anybody know if any chances were made to Torps in OoB?

Peace

[Brass]

During the battle of the Komandorski Islands, the Japanese fired Long Lance torpedoes at American ships which didn't even try to evade as the Americans believed themselves to be out of range; even discounting the reports of lookouts who claimed to have seen a torpedo break the surface to the stern of a Destroyer and a torpedo wake under the bow of a Cruiser. In total, 43 Japanese torpedoes were fired at the Americans and no hits were scored.

Maybe a better example would be Java Sea. The Japanese fired 152 torpedoes of which only three struck their targets (for a hit rate of a hair under 2%) - but all three sank the ships they hit. Sic semper torpedo: lousy accuracy but extremely powerful if successful.

LT

[Hugbiel]

AFAIK who use torpedo try to fire them at really short range (500m) if they want them to be a sure hit. The Japaneses are the only one who don't try to maximize the chance of every torp but try to hit by launching them on a zone.

[DM]

Pre-war Japanese doctrine assumed a significant night surface action. The opening Japanese was to have been "browning" of the oposing battlefleet by long range (Type 93) torpedoes whilst they had the advantage of surprise (and remembering how the Japanese managed to exploit their night-ops advantages off Guadalcanal once can see the distinct possibility of acheiving this). Large numbers of weapons were to be fired from long range, reaching their targets before the enemy was aware of their presence. At long range not many hits were expected (although the effectiveness of the weapons concerned, especially against cruiser sized targets and smaller has already been commented upon). The main desired effect was to cause confusion in the enemy ranks, softening up the enemy for the gunnery duel.

Of course the advent of radar rather put paid to that idea. However, I've played out "Plan Orange" scenarios involving realistic representations of Japanese and contemporary US tactics and its messy