Long lance torpedoes. . .
- Thread starter Soulmage
- Start date
How effective are type 93 torpedoes in the game? During WWII, they were very ineffective, on average, hitting less then 7% of the time.
The Japanese pre-war doctrine required a 15% hit rate to be considered effective. In only two surface actions did the Japanese achieve this - and in both of those actions the Japanese only fired 4 torpedoes. In 6 engagements, with 156 type 93s firing, 0 hits were scored.
When the type 93 did hit it was lethal, most hits resulted in a destroyed vessel.
Japanese doctrine on the type 93 changed as the war went on. Originally they were to fire two salvos, each of half of the available tubes, and then reload. By 1943, the Japanese were firing one salvo of all the tubes. This change did not improve their performance, since the doctrine remained to fire them at long ranges despite the evidence that the torpedoes were more effetive at shorter ranges.
On a side note, during the Battle of Sunda Strait, the Japanese scored an impressive 10 hits! Unfortunately, 5 of these were against their own ships - four transports and one minesweeper.
The Japanese pre-war doctrine required a 15% hit rate to be considered effective. In only two surface actions did the Japanese achieve this - and in both of those actions the Japanese only fired 4 torpedoes. In 6 engagements, with 156 type 93s firing, 0 hits were scored.
When the type 93 did hit it was lethal, most hits resulted in a destroyed vessel.
Japanese doctrine on the type 93 changed as the war went on. Originally they were to fire two salvos, each of half of the available tubes, and then reload. By 1943, the Japanese were firing one salvo of all the tubes. This change did not improve their performance, since the doctrine remained to fire them at long ranges despite the evidence that the torpedoes were more effetive at shorter ranges.
On a side note, during the Battle of Sunda Strait, the Japanese scored an impressive 10 hits! Unfortunately, 5 of these were against their own ships - four transports and one minesweeper.
Der Kommandant
Mongoose
in VaS it really only gives you extended range.
Captain Kremmen
Mongoose
Baldrick, I am reading up on the imperial Japanese navy at the moment, and I very much get the impression their long lance torpedoes were devastating.
I know you claim that a 7% hit rate was rubbish but what was the equivalent hit rate from US destroyers/light cruisers (not submarines), I don't know myself but suspect it was MUCH lower than the Japs managed.
In the battles I am reading of at guadalcanal etc the japanese are sinking ships with torpedoes left right and centre whilst US and other allied cruisers and destroyers don't seem to be hitting ANYTHING with their torpedoes.
US Submarines in particular do seem to have done rather well later in the war once their dud torpedoes were sorted out, but that is a slightly different matter.
As far as I am aware the only benefit of a long lance in VAS is longer range and even that is no big deal as it takes an extra turn to get to the target?? In reality I believe that the long lance benefited from ast least the following major advantages :-
The Japanese appear to have entered the war with two "wonder weapons" the long lance torpedo and a very highly trained (though small) body of professional pilots for their carriers.
Pilots got killed before the end of 42 and after that their pilots were far less professional and their planes increasingly out classed. Don't think we ever got the better of their torpedoes though?
Cpt Kremmen (the cursed)
I know you claim that a 7% hit rate was rubbish but what was the equivalent hit rate from US destroyers/light cruisers (not submarines), I don't know myself but suspect it was MUCH lower than the Japs managed.
In the battles I am reading of at guadalcanal etc the japanese are sinking ships with torpedoes left right and centre whilst US and other allied cruisers and destroyers don't seem to be hitting ANYTHING with their torpedoes.
US Submarines in particular do seem to have done rather well later in the war once their dud torpedoes were sorted out, but that is a slightly different matter.
As far as I am aware the only benefit of a long lance in VAS is longer range and even that is no big deal as it takes an extra turn to get to the target?? In reality I believe that the long lance benefited from ast least the following major advantages :-
- Massively greater range than allied torpedoes. Even on the high speed setting it had a greater range than allied torpedoes on their cruising speed setting.
Faster than allied torpedoes.
CRITICAL - it left virtually no wake making it darned tricky to avoid.
Much bigger warhead meaning what it took down, stayed down.
The Japanese appear to have entered the war with two "wonder weapons" the long lance torpedo and a very highly trained (though small) body of professional pilots for their carriers.
Pilots got killed before the end of 42 and after that their pilots were far less professional and their planes increasingly out classed. Don't think we ever got the better of their torpedoes though?
Cpt Kremmen (the cursed)
I did not say that they were rubbish, I said that they were ineffective and I am using the IJN own standards to make that claim. While it seems when you read accounts that they are sinking ships "left and right", and indeed, when a type 93 hit, it would sink its target 75% of the time.
A further breakdown of the statistics show that as the war went on, the type 93 became less and less effective. In 1942, the first full year of war between the US and Japan, the type 93 achieved a hit rate that was much closer to the 15% numbers. After 1942, the hit rates drop significantly. Of the 254 type 93s fired, only 4 struck their target. This hit rate was less then 1.6%.
So once again, I do not say they were rubbish, but rather, statistically, they hit less then 7% of the time and, by the IJNs own standards, they were ineffective. When they do hit, they are lethal.
A further breakdown of the statistics show that as the war went on, the type 93 became less and less effective. In 1942, the first full year of war between the US and Japan, the type 93 achieved a hit rate that was much closer to the 15% numbers. After 1942, the hit rates drop significantly. Of the 254 type 93s fired, only 4 struck their target. This hit rate was less then 1.6%.
So once again, I do not say they were rubbish, but rather, statistically, they hit less then 7% of the time and, by the IJNs own standards, they were ineffective. When they do hit, they are lethal.
Iirc, the Japanese got the idea for the Long Lance torpedo from the 18" British "Whitehead" torpedo (circa late 1800's), which was oxygen propelled and thus wakeless. The typical US torp was 21" in diameter, and in the early years of the war had defective exploders. It seems that a US torpedo in the late 1930's cost the taxpayers about $10,000 each, so they wouldn't let them practice with "real" torps, and thus didn't know of the problem until the war began. Since torpedoes in WW2 didn't have the word "smart" anywhere in the design like weapons do today, it was usually a matter of just tossing them towards the path of a target ship and hoping, for all sides. As far as a comparison of the US 21" Mk15 against the IJN 24" type 93, the US 21" had 825 lbs. of Torpex as against 1080 lbs. of explosives for the type 93. The 21" Mk 15 torp was 24 feet long and weighed 3841 lbs., while the type 93 was 29.5 feet long and weighed 5952 lbs. (that's almost 3 tons). The type 93 was faster and had more than three times the range of the standard US destroyer carried torpedo.
Holy smokes, those things are nasty!!!
I totally missed that on reading through the rules. At first glance, you see all the torpedo ships and think, "ok, it's got torpedoes." Going back and looking at the range and damage dice makes Japanese vessels sick!
I'm gonna have to rethink my minis order... :lol:
I totally missed that on reading through the rules. At first glance, you see all the torpedo ships and think, "ok, it's got torpedoes." Going back and looking at the range and damage dice makes Japanese vessels sick!
I'm gonna have to rethink my minis order... :lol:
Ultron said:
Why do you think the US Navy started avoiding night engagments with the Japanese until they had perfected (well...improved) their night radar gunnery.
The exceptionally well night trained japanese tended to spot their American counterparts sooner and were thus able to get into range of their torpedoes, with potentially devestating results. Especially early on, Long Lance hits were deemed by the Americans as being teh result of mines or enemy submaries because they thought there was no way they could be surface launched torpedoes.
However, once the radar gunfure got smoothed out, the US navy was able to start pounding the Japaenese from even outside Lone Lance range. Yet even then it didn't always work out, as radar of the time was finiky and hard to use.
--- Rich
Not the first time that's been said of me 
Nor in a wargames context either - ask the mob who played in one of my 15mm Vietnam games (all playing US frces against "umpire controlled forces" - they suffered significant casualties despite the fact that there weren't actually any VC or NVA on the table, all "blue on blue") or the players in the "Final Countdown" game!
Nor in a wargames context either - ask the mob who played in one of my 15mm Vietnam games (all playing US frces against "umpire controlled forces" - they suffered significant casualties despite the fact that there weren't actually any VC or NVA on the table, all "blue on blue") or the players in the "Final Countdown" game!
I went and found a book detailing Tassafaronga on 30 November, 1942. Incredible account of the Japanese using destroyers as cargo ships to resupply Japanese soldiers on Guadalcanal. I was thinking about trying to set it up as a scenario, even though the scenarios in the book do an outstanding job of portraying this campaign.
I have several naval wargames, but have never had an interest in playing them on a regular basis. Victory at Sea is my favorite, hands down. I would actually feel comfortable handling that many ships with this system. I have ACTA, but I find myself enjoying this game more than the starship battles.
Anybody else interested in coming up with historical scenarios? I think that would make an ideal supplement.
Sorry if I'm rambling. I'm still in shock over the Japanese torpedoes.... :shock:
I have several naval wargames, but have never had an interest in playing them on a regular basis. Victory at Sea is my favorite, hands down. I would actually feel comfortable handling that many ships with this system. I have ACTA, but I find myself enjoying this game more than the starship battles.
Anybody else interested in coming up with historical scenarios? I think that would make an ideal supplement.
Sorry if I'm rambling. I'm still in shock over the Japanese torpedoes.... :shock:
Now you've got me thinking would that by itself have made the mass type 93-packing Kitakami refit a viable design? Insufficient fire control was what was it's downfall, according to Rear Admiral Matome Ugaki, who had earlier in his career served as gunnery officer on the Oi. In a report that was critical of the design, he had said that the cruisers lacked proper fire control for that many mounts to fire on separate targets. If fired in massive salvoes at distant groupings of enemy ships, most of the torpedoes would be spent for no good result. As you know, these tactics were a carryover from the mid-1930's as a way to whittle down the American battle line before a main gunnery engagement. So your idea of a "what if" history revisement is indeed interesting, as it might give these ships the "sniper's eyes" that they lacked and turn them into true and deadly sharpshooters :shock: 8)
Captain_Nemo
Mongoose
Nice Thread guys!
I have to point out that one of the reasons that the IJN didn't develope better radar sooner is because the believed that the USN was too stupid and somehow too myopic for them to use their resources on RADAR research something they thought they would never use and would never need. By the time they figured out what radar was doing for the Americans it was way too late for the Japanese. So yes you can give them good FC radar but you'd have to give the Ami's the equivalent to a type 93 to even out the field.
I have to point out that one of the reasons that the IJN didn't develope better radar sooner is because the believed that the USN was too stupid and somehow too myopic for them to use their resources on RADAR research something they thought they would never use and would never need. By the time they figured out what radar was doing for the Americans it was way too late for the Japanese. So yes you can give them good FC radar but you'd have to give the Ami's the equivalent to a type 93 to even out the field.
