Torpedo Angles/Reliability and GFO

SquareCanine · 07-13-15, 06:09 PM

I finally got tired of some of the bugs in SH4, and upgraded to v1.5 to have slightly fewer bugs (like, now I don't need to start at Midway, because crossing the dateline no longer breaks the TDC). This has enabled me to install the GFO mod, and for the most part I really like it.

My biggest gripe is the torpedoes. I'm not going to defend the torpedo stats in the base game because they have almost nothing to do with reality. However, while GFO is certainly a more accurate portrayal, there are certainly mistakes, such as removing the improved performance with the slow speed setting.

At the end of the day, I created my own stats that compromise between the spirit of GFO, and my desire to not fire full spreads at everything.

But I am wondering if anyone can point me to more detailed numbers on not only the Mk 14, but the other torpedoes?

In particular, I am interested in impact angles. As I understand it, only the Mk 14/23 has the problems with the contact detonator. I am wondering what the 'reliable' impact angle for this weapon actually was, since "acute" is not exactly specific. I am assuming the Mk 16 and 18 never had this issue? I am also wondering about depth keeping ability of the Mk 14/23 post fix, as well as for the Mk 16 and 18 models.

While I have peoples attention, I am wondering what files I should be looking for to see alterations made to my periscopes and stadimeter. I dislike not being able to set the range manually on the dial, and I dislike the scale being wrong even more (and it's way off, often around 1km). Even if I need to revert to 4x zoom, I want a working periscope/stadimeter pair.

TorpX · 07-13-15, 10:47 PM

I can't really comment on torpedoes in GFO, or TMO, but I would say they are pretty well dealt with in RFB. Of course, not everyone has the same ideas about how they 'should be'.

Quote:

But I am wondering if anyone can point me to more detailed numbers on not only the Mk 14, but the other torpedoes?

I don't believe there is any definitive data on this. BuOrd didn't do live tests (or even comprehensive dummy tests), and SubPac was only trying to identify the source of their problems. They didn't have the time, or resources, to fully test them. So we are left to speculate as to exactly how bad the torpedoes really were. If there are tests which provide details like this, I haven't seen them.

merc4ulfate · 07-14-15, 12:20 AM

In most situations the detonation rate in the early war years for the Mark 14 was 6 out of 20 fired. Yeah it was that bad sometimes. Ever after they changed tactic for glancing shots the rate only lifted to 50% detonations.

Thing was you never knew when it would happen. It was 1943 when they finally got most of the bugs out. The Magnetic exploder would cause them to go off to soon, they ran on average of 11 feet deeper than they were set and the schooled tactic of a 90 degree broadside shot meant total failure.

The detonators were a design from the 20 and 30's so they were not designed to withstand the force of impact of the higher speed Mark 14. They took Japanese Propellers from shot down planes at pearl harbor and made new pin guides which solved that issue. It was stronger than the old guides.

The depth gauge was set in the angled tail section so its readings were always off from the tilted angle. It had to be moved.

The contact detonator worked well at 10-50 degrees off perpendicular but in rough seas there could be a premature detonation if the fish broached a wave.

If BuOrd had done a better job and not blamed Captains for their mistakes the war might have been over two years earlier than it was.

There is plenty of documentation and writings on the subject.

fireftr18 · 07-14-15, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SquareCanine

While I have peoples attention, I am wondering what files I should be looking for to see alterations made to my periscopes and stadimeter. I dislike not being able to set the range manually on the dial, and I dislike the scale being wrong even more (and it's way off, often around 1km). Even if I need to revert to 4x zoom, I want a working periscope/stadimeter pair.

Try Optical Targeting Correction. I think it does everything you want. http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/down...rt=date&page=2

fitzcarraldo · 07-14-15, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fireftr18

Try Optical Targeting Correction. I think it does everything you want. http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/down...rt=date&page=2

Yes. There is a version for GFO RSRDC.

Regards.

Fitzcarraldo

07-13-15, 06:09 PM	#1
SquareCanine Swabbie Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 14 Downloads: 14 Uploads: 0	Torpedo Angles/Reliability and GFO I finally got tired of some of the bugs in SH4, and upgraded to v1.5 to have slightly fewer bugs (like, now I don't need to start at Midway, because crossing the dateline no longer breaks the TDC). This has enabled me to install the GFO mod, and for the most part I really like it. My biggest gripe is the torpedoes. I'm not going to defend the torpedo stats in the base game because they have almost nothing to do with reality. However, while GFO is certainly a more accurate portrayal, there are certainly mistakes, such as removing the improved performance with the slow speed setting. At the end of the day, I created my own stats that compromise between the spirit of GFO, and my desire to not fire full spreads at everything. But I am wondering if anyone can point me to more detailed numbers on not only the Mk 14, but the other torpedoes? In particular, I am interested in impact angles. As I understand it, only the Mk 14/23 has the problems with the contact detonator. I am wondering what the 'reliable' impact angle for this weapon actually was, since "acute" is not exactly specific. I am assuming the Mk 16 and 18 never had this issue? I am also wondering about depth keeping ability of the Mk 14/23 post fix, as well as for the Mk 16 and 18 models. While I have peoples attention, I am wondering what files I should be looking for to see alterations made to my periscopes and stadimeter. I dislike not being able to set the range manually on the dial, and I dislike the scale being wrong even more (and it's way off, often around 1km). Even if I need to revert to 4x zoom, I want a working periscope/stadimeter pair.

07-14-15, 12:20 AM	#3
merc4ulfate DILLIGAF Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: florida Posts: 2,058 Downloads: 210 Uploads: 0	In most situations the detonation rate in the early war years for the Mark 14 was 6 out of 20 fired. Yeah it was that bad sometimes. Ever after they changed tactic for glancing shots the rate only lifted to 50% detonations. Thing was you never knew when it would happen. It was 1943 when they finally got most of the bugs out. The Magnetic exploder would cause them to go off to soon, they ran on average of 11 feet deeper than they were set and the schooled tactic of a 90 degree broadside shot meant total failure. The detonators were a design from the 20 and 30's so they were not designed to withstand the force of impact of the higher speed Mark 14. They took Japanese Propellers from shot down planes at pearl harbor and made new pin guides which solved that issue. It was stronger than the old guides. The depth gauge was set in the angled tail section so its readings were always off from the tilted angle. It had to be moved. The contact detonator worked well at 10-50 degrees off perpendicular but in rough seas there could be a premature detonation if the fish broached a wave. If BuOrd had done a better job and not blamed Captains for their mistakes the war might have been over two years earlier than it was. There is plenty of documentation and writings on the subject. __________________ Self-education is, I firmly believe, the only kind of education there is. ~Isaac Asimov~ Mercfulfate 将補日本帝國海軍