[WIP] Dud Torpedoes Hardcore - testers needed

[CCIP]

For realism junkies and competent testers only, at the moment.

You know the drill, be sure to make a backup of your original Torpedoes_US.sim in data/Library

http://files.filefront.com/Torpedoes_USsim/;7349009;/fileinfo.html (http://files.filefront.com/Torpedoes_USsim/;7325462;/fileinfo.html)

What this mod intends to do is bring out the abysmal torpedo performance of early-war torpedoes. The torpedoes will mostly normalize by June 1943 and work as they should. I've consulted various sources for research on the types of failure, though it's by no means comprehensive as yet.


I've spent the day working with and testing various torpedo settings, mostly by the way of the faulty Mk 14. I have run about 200 torpedo tests at various settings, and have established a failure of approximately 4-5 per every 10 fired against a large static target from a perfect angle, varying depending on weather conditions, target aspect, and a few other aspect. This means that failures 'in action' where conditions are unpredictable will probably be more frequent.

WHAT I NEED is some good-willing guinea pigs :p I've done 'lab' testing of the Mk 14s; now I'd like people to play with them and report.
Warning: it will be frustrating. That's why I suggest that only hardcore realism junkies try this.

Will gladly take any suggestions or tweaks you make. Naturally, I don't own the idea so you can release your own variation of dud torpedo mod. I'm doing this mostly for the benefit of research, esp. for future RFB releases.

I want the best, most unforgivingly realistic results. Numerical accuracy (that is, technical data from real torpedoes) isn't a priority, however - what counts is the net results. We need to see a torpedo failure rate of 30% at the absolute best in early campaign, and much higher on average.

Be advised that some things don't work as they should and have to be compensated. For some strange reason, I can't find magnetic dud chance for the Mk14. That means that to compensate, I had to increase premature detonation chances a little and make the depth errors more pronounced. The magnetic influence trigger unfortunately still works too well when used at shallow depth as an impact trigger.

WHAT I DID
On the whole, I have seriously botched up the Mk 14s. They have relatively high chances of premature detonation (faulty influence trigger), dud (impact trigger jamming on impact, especially at right angles), and depth error chances with an average of about 10-11 feet. As I said, between these factors, I saw a failure rate of about 4-5/10 torpedoes fired in 'canned' tests against big static targets, with magnetics fired under the ship's keel performing most abysmally. This seems to be reflective of what I had been reading up on.

Mk 10s have been made slightly less reliable than originally, but much more reliable than Mk 14s. They still have a fairly pronounced depth error tendency, but will overall suffer much fewer failures if used for impact.

Post mid-1943, these failures go away. However, even for the 'fixed' older torpedoes and new torpedo types, I adjusted values somewhat to reflect a more realistic risk of failure. The Mk 27 Cutie is far less efficient now. There were some small increases in dud/premature chances and small depth errors.

I also reduced the chance of circle runners from 0.5% to 0.3%, mostly reflecting the reports I've heard from people - still never seen one in game, but my sense is that this value should be a little more adequate. At the same time, I've added a 2-5% of non-circular gyro failures to most torpedo types, so every once in a while you will see a torpedo go off course.

So, try it? Remember, this is not a final mod but a work in progress. I don't suggest using this unless you are an advanced SHIV user - it's a work in progress and isn't guaranteed to work as it's supposed to just yet.

[nvdrifter]

Before you go too far, I am correcting a few mistakes I found in the Mark 14 file and checking others. The magnetic settings settings are there (in the Mark 14).

[CCIP]

Oh great. (no, really :D)

I'll still keep this file up but, if you can get the fixes - I'll fix it up immediately. Frankly, I just want to get a 'workshop' rolling on this; I spent the whole day tweaking and firing 200 torpedoes, and it's just not realistic for someone to find everything alone. May as well have multiple people working on their own varieties of it. We had that with SHIII sensors and a ton of great stuff came out!

[Camaero]

Hey, give me more duds, lose a few hundred convoys, make the convoys you attack not just sit there after attacking, make the dds more of a challenge, you have the perfect game.

One step at a time I guess hehe. I'll test this.:up:

[CCIP]

Ironically, as soon as I grab some research, convoys are next on my list :p

[Camaero]

I have tried to find information on jap convoy routes and numbers. That information seems pretty hard to find exactly. I didn't put much more than a 30 minute effort into it though.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Thanks CCIP! Frustratingly hardcore is how I like it(my subsims, anyway:D). Hopefully I'll have time to do a patrol or two over the next couple of days.

Oh, and for those of you doing IJN convoy research I think you'll be pretty happy about this thread: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=109621 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=109621...:cool:)

PD

[CCIP]

Good idea for a realistic dud rate. :cool:

That file has time dates set in there. Is that working? Plus there are values for the magnetics as said above.

Would it be good to show what was and what is going to be the new values?

Should one wait to try this, until the magnetics are adjusted?
Up to you as far as waiting - I'll go in and play for now. I've spent some time testing it as-is, but a proper magnetic dud chance will help for sure.

As for date-based - yep! Tested it in 1945 and each torpedo fired ran straight and true, no depth error, no premature detonation. A small circle runner chance still remains for the end of the war, and possibly also gyro errors (haven't confirmed yet), but otherwise the torpedoes seem to run rock solid. For the Mk 14, the switchover is set for June 1943.

[nvdrifter]

Lockwood's men replaced the TNT in several warheads with cinder concrete and attached the normal contact mechanism. Test torpedoes were then dropped 90 feet along a wire suspended from a crane into an empty drydock where they landed squarely on steel plates. A direct, 90-degree hit produced a dud seven out of 10 times--a 70 percent failure rate almost two years into the war.

I found this page and thought it might be helpful to you guys who are modding torpedo failure rates:

http://www.historynet.com/air_sea/naval_weaponry/3037866.html?page=1&c=y



And some other torpedo links:

https://www.keyportmuseum.cnrnw.navy.mil/html/part2.htm (https://www.keyportmuseum.cnrnw.navy.mil/html/index.htm)

http://www.ww2pacific.com/torpedo.html

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_WWII.htm

http://www.maritime.org/fleetsub/tubes/index.htm

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/1592/torpedos.html

http://www.microworks.net/pacific/armament/


(https://www.keyportmuseum.cnrnw.navy.mil/html/index.htm)

[Krupp]

Hmm, I'll take this with pleasure!

Reason why we need it is stories like this: Yesterday I bagged 34 000 tons (a whole convoy, 7 merchants) in just 13 minutes with 10 torpedoes during one attack, all hit and only one dud. And that was the first patrol in december '41. I exited the game and didn't even save the career and went to watch the weather channel, that's ridiculous tonnage. There is not enough tick boxes in the difficulty section at the moment. With this, there is a BIG one. Thanks alot!

[CCIP]

Lockwood's men replaced the TNT in several warheads with cinder concrete and attached the normal contact mechanism. Test torpedoes were then dropped 90 feet along a wire suspended from a crane into an empty drydock where they landed squarely on steel plates. A direct, 90-degree hit produced a dud seven out of 10 times--a 70 percent failure rate almost two years into the war.

I found this page and thought it might be helpful to you guys who are modding torpedo failure rates:

http://www.historynet.com/air_sea/naval_weaponry/3037866.html?page=1&c=y



And some other torpedo links:

https://www.keyportmuseum.cnrnw.navy.mil/html/part2.htm (https://www.keyportmuseum.cnrnw.navy.mil/html/index.htm)

http://www.ww2pacific.com/torpedo.html

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_WWII.htm

http://www.maritime.org/fleetsub/tubes/index.htm

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/1592/torpedos.html

http://www.microworks.net/pacific/armament/


(https://www.keyportmuseum.cnrnw.navy.mil/html/index.htm)

:up:

Seen a couple of those, but these will be really useful!

I'll adjust values thanks to the new tweak files and put up an update tomorrow. Stay tuned!

[Camaero]

Hmm, I'll take this with pleasure!

Reason why we need it is stories like this: Yesterday I bagged 34 000 tons (a whole convoy, 7 merchants) in just 13 minutes with 10 torpedoes during one attack, all hit and only one dud. And that was the first patrol in december '41. I exited the game and didn't even save the career and went to watch the weather channel, that's ridiculous tonnage. There is not enough tick boxes in the difficulty section at the moment. With this, there is a BIG one. Thanks alot!

Same here Krupp, when anything totally unrealistic happens I just get put off and I go do something else while I dream about how I wished it was. Some people may really enjoy the game as it is now, but I need me a lot more realism for it to truly shine.

If I am struggling to live and struggling to get anywhere near the tonnage of the aces then I will be very very happy.:rock:

[CaptainCox]

Yup agree 100% had 1 patrol yesterday with 52.000 t ...feeling?..."this sure feels like a FPS" :p

[Krupp]

If I am struggling to live and struggling to get anywhere near the tonnage of the aces then I will be very very happy.:rock:
Absolutely! During the attack on that convoy, the evil japs tried to scare me away with their gigantic flashlights, but I have my RayBan's (tm) :cool:. Do they even know there is a war going on?

That convoy thingie should be tuned too, now I realise that they have a habbit to stick around with their cameras, but they really should shovel some coal and disperse when the first tub disintegrates and bursts in flames.

[Camaero]

After all of that is taken care of, we need the ship sinkings to be worked on. If I just plugged a merchant with two fishes in the bow and his props are out of the water, he should not be chugging along at 3 or 4 knots! Also, I feel like if I don't see the ship sink 15 seconds after I hit it, then its not going to. Very rarely have I had a ship sink after waiting, even if the thing is half submerged.

It's a few things that will take some work, but we will get this sim there thanks to you modders.:up:

[Jungman]

To add, read alot of those articles, the deep running was fixed around the end of 1942 for Mark 14, early 1942 for the Mark 10.

Impact at 90 degree hits fixed around June 1943 for the fast moving Mark 14 (Mark 10 never suffered from thsi due to its slower speed).

They completely got rid of magnetic influence detenation (equator the Earth's field is too weak caused alot of premature explosions on the way to hit ship, or dud while passing under ship failing to go off).

The magnetic influence exploder was unquestionably responsible for sinking some, perhaps even a large fraction, of the 1.4 million gross registry tons of Japanese merchant ships sunk by submarines between December 1941 and August 1943. Reports from submarine commanding officers of apparent magnetic influence exploder failure, mainly duds and prematures, finally led to CinCPac ordering the disabling of the magnetic influence feature on 24 June 1943. ComSubSoWesPac reluctantly followed suit in December 194313 (http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/1592/ustorp2.htm?200724#fn13). CinCPac's order was issued eighteen months after Jacobs, on Sargo's first war patrol, ordered the deactivation of the magnetic influence portion of the Mk.6 exploders in his torpedoes and incidentally got into considerable difficulty for doing so. Magnetic influence exploders were not used by US Navy submarines through the balance of WW II.

[Jungman]

Since the AI does not understand the Electric torpedo with no wake, and the Mark 23 is basically a Fast only Mark 14 introduced later in the war -they are redundent.

I would like to get rid of them and use them for different time dates and models for the Mark 14 only.

The Fast speed of the Mark 14 caused the firing pin failure. If you shot it at the slow speed of 31 knots it did not suffer the high speed impact problem as much either. Though it weight was more than a Mark 10 with more momentum. Most subs were firing them at high speed; in reality a slow speed setting, at a lower 45 degree angle, with a shallow depth set, Contact Only, probably would have worked great. Which would have been counter-intuitive to what they were taught was a good firing solution!

I would like to use these other useless ingame models (mark 23 and 18 electric) to show the improvement in the Mark 14 more, late 1942 for depth running fixed, mid 1943 for FAST speed contact pin failure fixed. Complete non-use of magnetic detenation after 1943.

If a person really wanted the Mark 18 to be in there, then since ASFAIK the AI does not 'see' the wakeless torpedo as a human would; improve its hit rate to make it simulate it better performance (not being seen -the game does not model this?).

[Jungman]

After all of that is taken care of, we need the ship sinkings to be worked on. If I just plugged a merchant with two fishes in the bow and his props are out of the water, he should not be chugging along at 3 or 4 knots! Also, I feel like if I don't see the ship sink 15 seconds after I hit it, then its not going to. Very rarely have I had a ship sink after waiting, even if the thing is half submerged.

It's a few things that will take some work, but we will get this sim there thanks to you modders.:up:

I think this is caused by the water drag coeffecient is too light for ships and maybe your own submarine. It tends to 'coast' along by its own mometum. Going quite a ways before stopping. It need to be tweaked up for more drag.

Just looking at how they fixed the fast torpedo bug due to 'drag'.

The Realistic Sinking is not implemeted, again. See SH3 NYGM Mod for a fix maybe for longer sinking times. Oh, lets get rid of that instant 'Ship Destoyed' Message -takes the joy out of it like a person blabbing the end of a movie in a theatre just before you see it.

[joea]

Since the AI does not understand the Electric torpedo with no wake, and the Mark 23 is basically a Fast only Mark 14 introduced later in the war -they are redundent.



You sure about that? I don't have SH4 but in SH3 my experience is that the AI does react to steam torps but not to electric ones. Since SH4 was built on the same engine (grumble grumble metric - imperial mess up...mutter mutter sub radar useless) it ought to be the same no?

[Egan]

Great stuff - I'm already bored with my almost perfect torpedoes.

[Galanti]

Great stuff, CCIP, I'll give it a try as well. Over the weekend I fired 12 torpedoes for 12 perfect detonations from old S-35. I'd like to see a bit less reliability in the mk 10, granted it was waay sturdier than the 14.

One of the interesting things I've noticed in Silent Victory is that early war skippers fired, in many cases, far more fish than the size of the targets would warrant according to the Fleet Sub manual chart. And in spite of incurring the wrath of Fife, Christie and Wilkes, who were ever mindful of the torpedo shortage. I'd like to forced to make the same hard decision - do I fire four at this 2000 freighter, knowing full well that I'm likely only to get 1 or 2 two fish?

While we're on that, can we somehow model in the torpedo shortage? I've noticed there is a finite supply from base to base. However, this supply seems to flucuate between loading saved games.

Now that I have the shells tweak file, I'm going to get around to nerfing the deck guns a bit too. They seem way too powerful as is.

[AntEater]

Just made a test patrol and the dissappointing results did not dissappoint me :D

USS Seawolf (normally I give my boat fictional names, but this time not) around May 1942.
Attacked a anchored tast force in the rain somewhere near Celebes (another thing that needs to be removed), fired around 8 torpedoes over open sights at close range for two hits on a destroyer and a Mogami CA, both impact hits for damage.
Fired another four at a large single freighter at 600 yards, 1 dud, one deep runner, one veered off for about 20 deg and one hit and blew up the freigher (freighter DM needs change as well).
Then ran into a convoy, fired my last eight torpedoes at two seperate targets.
Bow salvo at a medium freighter at around 700 yards:
One very close premature about 10-20 yards from the target. One running off course, one dud, one deep runner.
Stern salvo at 3 overlapping small freighters at 1000 yards:
one premature, 3 deep runners, one of which prematured in the wake of a freighter at the far side of the convoy.


Good Work!:rock::hmm::know::up::damn:

[Jungman]

Since the AI does not understand the Electric torpedo with no wake, and the Mark 23 is basically a Fast only Mark 14 introduced later in the war -they are redundent.



You sure about that? I don't have SH4 but in SH3 my experience is that the AI does react to steam torps but not to electric ones. Since SH4 was built on the same engine (grumble grumble metric - imperial mess up...mutter mutter sub radar useless) it ought to be the same no?

Yes. In SH3 the AI seemed to react to steam torps, but only the fast light weight DD could turn fast enough to avoid one.

I really have not seen this in SH4 a DD avoiding the steam torp. Maybe that is because the crew rating for the DD need to upped higher in rank to Veteran. The old steam torp would give away your position.

Testing these Mark 14 fast and slow, I almost want to say they use the Mark 23 torp data model in place of the Mark 14 when you select FAST. The regular Mark 14 at slow speed uses the other normal data. Try setting the Mark 23 to a perfect torpedo then watch the Mark 14 failure rate comparison FAST/SLOW. Does one vary from the other?

The depth running problem seems to accur after 1943 for the stock file. IRL the depth running was fixed in late 1942 before the Firing pin problem in mid 1943. :huh:

I need to test more. Maybe the tweak file did not get it.

[Bilge_Rat]

great work CCIP, I was hoping someone would get around to this. I will test out and give feedback.

[Donner]

@Jungman...

Check your PMs for info regarding Japanese Convoy History! :ping:

[CCIP]

http://files.filefront.com/Torpedoes_USsim/;7330207;/fileinfo.html

There's that slight tweak. I adjusted the dud chances a little and re-added that speed factor (so that Mk 14's going at fast speeds will have more duds as they should), and reduced the gyro error chance slightly (from 5% to 3%, based on Egan's report that he had several of them per salvo - a little too much I think :p). Small tweaks to other types, too, and dumbed down the Mk 10 a little more (she's still good compared to the mk 14, though - right now I'm trying to aim for them being about twice more reliable than the mk 14).

[Egan]

Cheers. Like I said; 6 out of 6 shots seems odd. I'm just building a quick pair of test firings - Not chancing my career game on any more just now! lol.

[CCIP]

Well, it COULD happen of course. Seems very unlikely to say the least though! (in fact the chance of that should be one in thousands...)

I my tests where I wrote down results with the 5% chance, I had a total of 3 gyro errors per 60 torpedoes fired. My original intension was to have it somewhere in the area of 1 likely failure per a full patrol's load of torpedoes.

Should be a little less now.

[Mav87th]

In 1944 on april 8 Harlfinger in Trigger ran into a convoy that was the largest they had encountered so far in the war. 4 columns of ships with about 5 ships in each row. Equalling 20 ships or about. There were 10 escorts identified with it but properbly more. Trigger took 25 close depth charges at 300 ft. - later 6 destroyers circled him for 18 hours.... Water leak, temperature in the boat at 135 deg F, lights out, cork insulation flying around in the boat, switches undone, valves leaked, hull buckled in and out.

Above is from reading Silent Victory by Clay Blair Jr. - a magnificent book that lists more or less ALL submarine patrols and what they encountered on each patroll.

I would say the most average encounter would be two merchants and two escorts in a convoy.

March 12 was the date Chester Nimitz (jr.) sent the message to Christie that he had now deactivated the magnetic exploders. Nimitz were up to that patrol officer in charge of developing the exploders in Fremantle. They simply gave up on having them work at all at that point. Christie then gave orders to not use the magnetic exploders.

[Donner]

I heartily agree that Blair's work is magnificent. But the detail required for creating historical convoys is superficial at best.

A much better source, S. Komimaya's Japanese Wartime Transportation Convoy History, is invaluable to the serious researcher. This work coupled with a copy of ONI-208J provides a great deal data for convoy makeup.

Here is the same convoy Trigger encountered from Komimaya. I have boldfaced Trigger's action.


1100.
1st. April, 1944.
From: Tokyo.
To: Saipan Island, Guam Island, Mariana Islands; Truk Atoll, Yap Island, Caroline Islands; Palau.
Saipan bound: Shoun Maru, Toko Maru, No. 8 Unyo Maru, Takasan Maru, Akikawa Maru, Koko Maru, Shiramine Maru, Taikai Maru, Kakogawa Maru, Makassar Maru.
Guam bound: Mimasaka Maru, Toan Maru, Azuchisan Maru, Nissu Maru.


Truk bound: Fleet supply ship Kinesaki, Shozui Maru, Tatebi Maru, Shima Maru, Shinyo Maru, Harve Maru.
Palau bound: Fleet supply ship Mamiya, Tenryugawa Maru, Taian Maru,
No. 5 Shinsei Maru, Tosei Maru.
Yap bound: Shinsei Maru. (Total 26.)
Destroyers Samidare, Asanagi, Torpedo‑Boat Hiyodori, Coast defense ships Oki, Amakusa, Mikura, Fukae, No. 2, No. 3, Submarine‑chaser No. 50 (10).

It was believed that immediately after passing through the Uraga Channel at the mouth of Tokyo Bay enemy submarines were in contact. The low speed of the convoy (8 knots) enabled the enemy to remain thus.

At 0725 on the 2nd. of April an anti‑submarine plane patrolling around
the convoy discovered an enemy submarine, it and some of the escorts carried out bomb and depth‑charge attacks. Meanwhile for a while the convoy changed course.

At 1457 on the 3rd. while at position 30.14N 139.45E, 5 kilometers south‑west‑west of Tori‑Jima the convoy was attacked by a submarine. Tosei Maru saw torpedo tracks approaching from the port side aft. This ship took two torpedo hits which caused her bow to immediately plunge downward, by 1615 she had sunk.

This ship was of 2814 tons, her owners the Okada Shosen Company. Meanwhile the escorts had counter‑attacked with depth‑charges for unknown results.
The U.S.S. Pollack was the culprit, she fired four torpedoes for two claimed hits and damage. In reply in two attacks the escorts dropped respectively ten and forty‑five depth‑charges, Pollack remained unharmed.

On the morning of the 4th. other submarines were depth‑charged, likewise on the evening of the 6th.

At 0228 on the 8th. Samidare was the object of attack, she avoided the missiles and carried out a depth‑charge attack along with Oki, the latter reported sighting a periscope.

Then at 1625 on the 9th. at position 15.30N 145.00E, 100 kilometers west‑north‑west of Saipan Mimasaka Maru was torpedoed. Tracks were seen rushing from off the port side, one torpedo struck amidships in the vicinity of the engine room and heavy flooding occurred. The maru lost trim aft, her stern down two meters and she gradually began to sink, at 0100 on the 10th. her bow rose perpendicular and she sank.

Meanwhile the convoy had altered course heading in a north‑east direction to clear the area, as they went the escorts dropped more depth‑charges.
Mimasaka Maru was a 4667 ton ship owned by the Nippon Yusen Kaisha line, she was carrying 1069 naval personnel and 1440 tons of general cargo.
Bearing in mind her crew, eighteen men lost their lives.
The culprit was the U.S.S. Seahorse, this submarine fired four torpedoes at one ship for no observed results and two at another for two claimed hits and a sinking. Seahorse counted eleven depth‑charge explosions.

After the convoy arrived at Saipan it was split into it's constituent parts, these then went on to their designated destinations.

[tater]

Very useful, but convoys were not the norm until '44. There were some in '43 as well, but it wasn't as established. Before that... rare.

[Egan]

Cheers. Like I said; 6 out of 6 shots seems odd. I'm just building a quick pair of test firings - Not chancing my career game on any more just now! lol.

It's still happening. :cry: I'm using the newer file. On patrol in Dec 41 I fire two torps at a merchant but they both pulled away to port about 30 degrees. I changed flank and attacked but the torpedo again pulled about 30 degrees to port. I'm pretty sure it's not just my aim. Both times I was bang on with my solution: (90 degree t-shot, target moving at 9kts and less than 1200 yards away.)

[CCIP]

Wow, those gyros sure hate you it seems.

I'll look into it more. It shouldn't be happening that often, though, seems pretty odd...

[Krupp]

USS S-41, Dec 12 - Dec 16. Philippines


Total bag: 1800 tons, 12 MK 10 torpedoes used. 3 hits: 1 exploded, 1 dud, 1 glanced. 9 missed.

1. Taihosan Maru 1800 GRT - 3 torpedoes, AOB 90 SB, range 350 meters, 3 degree spread, 3 meter contact exploder. First hit amidships, other two missed. Ship sank in 5 minutes.

2. Task Force, target Horai Maru 9100 GRT - 4 torpedoes, AOB 90 P, range 1100 meters, 4 degree spread, 3 meter contact exploder. All missed.

3. Same target after reload, 2 torpedoes single shots, AOB 180, range 3000 and 4000 meters, 3 meter contact. Both barely missed on port side, less than ship width.

4. Conte Verde 19 000 GRT - 3 torpedoes, AOB 90 SB, range 600 meters, 3 meter contact exploder. Single shots, first hit amidship-dud, second glanced off, third missed.

I really like these results, the frustration after botched attacks is roof lifting. Very good immersion, especially without external camera. Promising start turned out to be just awfull and sickening patrol. This is the way to simulate bad torpedoes and lousy results. Not by wrong data in different sections of the game.

[Bilge_Rat]

I really like these results, the frustration after botched attacks is roof lifting. Very good immersion, especially without external camera. Promising start turned out to be just awfull and sickening patrol. This is the way to simulate bad torpedoes and lousy results. Not by wrong data in different sections of the game.


You wont get any argument from me on that point, I am looking forward to the day when I can start a Dec. 41 patrol from manila, have 90% of my torpedoes miss, only run into troop convoys heavily escorted by elite DDs or Task Forces zipping by at 20+ knots zigzagging furiously...then I will be having fun. :damn:

[Egan]

Wow, those gyros sure hate you it seems.

I'll look into it more. It shouldn't be happening that often, though, seems pretty odd...

I uninstalled it And hit the first freighter that came by with two torps no problem. My shooting seems to be ok, like I thought.

Is no one else Getting constant gyro problems then? Just me? Lol, typical,:rotfl:

[Iceberg]

Is no one else Getting constant gyro problems then? Just me? Lol, typical,:rotfl:
Well the company that makes those torpedoes said they tested them and they work so the problem must be the skipper!!;)

I guess you could say you are getting closer to a more realistic experience!! :p


Hey by the way, anyone thinks the reward requirements will have to be reviewed with this mod? If we start to get realistic tonnage then maybe the renown will have to be tweaked? What do you think?

[tater]

According to a report I found, they fired a number of torpedos at a subnet and looked at where they punched holes. They saw most running deep, but didn't see any gyro errors. Not to say it didn't happen, but it was fairly rare compared to running deep which was nearly constant for a couple of reasons.

[akdavis]

I don't believe gyro error was ever considered a significant failing of the Mk. 14. It should probably be in direct proportion to the degree of off angle in the gyro setting. Every effort was made to shoot at a zero gyro angle.


US NAVY TORPEDOES
by Frederick J Milford Part Two: The great torpedo scandal, 1941-43
Reproduced with permission from the October 1996 issue of THE SUBMARINE REVIEW,
a quarterly publication of the Naval Submarine League, P.O. Box 1146, Annandale, VA 2200

Naval rearmament, which began in the mid-1930s, and WW II had dramatic impact on US torpedo programs. Three of the most significant changes were the enormously increased requirement for torpedoes, the urgent need for new torpedo types and the first use of US torpedoes against enemy vessels. The increased requirement was satisfied by expanding government facilities, the Newport Torpedo Station (NTS-Newport) was enlarged, the Alexandria Torpedo Station was reopened1 (http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/1592/ustorp2.htm?200724#fn1) and Keyport Torpedo Station began assembling torpedoes, and by initiating civilian production. Total production between 1939 and 1945, almost 60,000 torpedoes, was about equally divided between the torpedo stations and contractors. Mk.14 torpedoes were, however, in such short supply in 1942 that some fleet boats loaded out with Mk.10 torpedoes or even Mk.15s in the after tubes2 (http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/1592/ustorp2.htm?200724#fn2). New types of torpedoes are discussed in Part Three of this series. Firing warshots was an almost totally new experience for the US Navy. It seems probable that the number of warshots fired against enemy vessels in December 1941 was larger than the total number of warshot torpedoes fired for any purpose3 (http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/1592/ustorp2.htm?200724#fn3) in the entire past history of the US Navy. Perhaps not surprisingly, this intensive use of torpedoes revealed shortcomings that had been previously obscured, especially in the new service torpedoes and particularly in the Mk.14.

____________________ 1 The Newport monopoly on the torpedo business had a significant effect on the development of torpedoes. The extent of the monopoly and efforts to preserve it are illustrated by opposition to the reopening of Alexandria, which was accomplished in the face of demands from New England politicians and labor leaders that Newport be expanded. Resuming torpedo work at Alexandria expeditiously was possible only because when it was closed in 1923 it had been incorporated into the Washington Navy Yard. Consequently, the torpedo station could be reopened without an Act of Congress.

2 This was mentioned by Adm. B.A. Clarey in a recent interview with John DeVirgilio and confirmed by RAdm M.H. Rindskopf who also supplied key parts of the following material. Mk.15 torpedoes were too long to be loaded through hatches or stowed in the torpedo rooms. They were also too long for either the forward or longer aft torpedo tubes. They were modified, probably by using shorter warheads, and loaded into the aft tubes through the muzzle doors. USS Drum, SS-228, sailed so loaded on her second war patrol from Pearl Harbor in July 1942. All four Mk.15s were fired.

3 This, of course, means self propelled torpedoes and excludes spar and towed devices. Apparently, only eleven torpedoes fired by US forces against enemy vessels prior to WW II (AL boats against U-boats). The number of warheads used in training and test and evaluation was very small. US submarines made 54 war patrols in December 1941 and fired 66 torpedoes at enemy targets, quite possibly more warheads than had been fired in the entire previous history of the US Navy.

1The trio of new service torpedoes, Mk.13, Mk.14 and Mk.15, which represented the bulk of the US Navy torpedo development in the 1930's were on the one hand excellent weapons and had long service lives, Mk.13 remained in service until 1950, the Mk.14 was a valuable service weapon until 1980 and Mk.15 served as long as twenty-one inch torpedoes remained on destroyers. On the other hand they all had significant problems that were only fixed after wartime use began. The Mk.14, which was the principal submarine weapon, was plagued with defects that vitiated its use as a weapon until mid-1943. The conflict between the shore establishment and the operating forces over these problems was a very significant and much discussed factor in US submarine operations during WW II.

THE GREAT TORPEDO SCANDAL The Great Torpedo Scandal4 (http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/1592/ustorp2.htm?200724#fn4) emerged and peaked between December 1941 and August 1943, but some of its roots went back twenty five years. It involved primarily the Mk.145 (http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/1592/ustorp2.htm?200724#fn5) and three distinct problems, depth control, the magnetic influence exploder6 (http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/1592/ustorp2.htm?200724#fn6) and the contact exploder, whose effects collectively eroded the performance of the torpedoes. The scandal was not that there were problems in what was then a relatively new weapon, but rather the refusal by the ordnance establishment to verify the problems quickly and make appropriate alterations. The fact that after twenty five years of service the Mk.10 had newly discovered depth control problems adds weight to the characterization of the collection of problems and responses as a scandal. These comments should, however, be mitigated a little by the fact that each of the Mk.14 problems obscured the next. Although BuOrd did not identify the final problem, contact exploder malfunction when a torpedo running at high speed struck the target at ninety degrees, their response, once the difficulty had been identified, was notably prompt. In spite of the promptness of BuOrd's response, by the time it reached Pearl Harbor a number of relatively simple solutions to the problem had been proposed, and modifications had already been designed and implemented. This was, however, almost two years after the United States entered WW II.

____________________ 4 At least three MA theses have been written about the problems of the Mk.14 torpedo (Ingram (1978), Shireman (1991) and Hoerl (1991)); the problem was noted by Morison and is discussed at length in Theodore Roscoe, , _United States Submarine Operations in World War II_, Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1949; Clay Blair, Jr., "Silent Victory: The U.S.Submarine War Against Japan", Philadelphia and New York: J.B.Lippincott, 1975; and Edwyn Gray, "The Devil's Device: Robert Whitehead and the History of the Torpedo" (Revised Edition), Annapolis, USNI Press, 1991.. David E. Cohen has written a paper on the subject, "The Mk.XIV Torpedo: Lessons for Today", Naval History, Vol.6, No.4, Winter 1992, pp.34-36"
5 Criticism of the destroyer launched Mk.15 is almost nonexistent. This is strange because the principal differences between the Mk.14 and the Mk.15 were in the size of the warhead, the fuel load, three speed vice two speed and slightly slower high speed, 45.0 k vice 46.3 k. One might speculate that it is even more difficult to distinguish misses from duds in a high speed destroyer attack than it is in a more measured submarine attack. The Mk.15 did, in fact suffer from the same defects and they were rectified in essentially the same way that those of the Mk.14 were. The Mk.13 was a slower speed torpedo so it did not have the contact exploder problem and it used the Mk.4 exploder which did not have the magnetic influence feature.

6 Properly, the exploder is the entire Mk.6 assembly. It has an influence feature and a contact feature. This leads to awkward verbiage so we refer to the magnetic influence exploder and the contact exploder. Both are parts of the Exploder Mk.6, which weighs approximately 90 lbs, and some elements of the exploder function in both modes. The exploder also contains important safety features.

2Torpedo Depth Control
The first of the US torpedo problems was deep running, which was a frequent torpedo problem in various navies beginning at least as early as WW I. The problem was not, however, always due to the same sort of defect7 (http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/1592/ustorp2.htm?200724#fn7). There are at least four distinct kinds of problems that impact depth control:
1) Differences between calibration shots and service/warshots

a) Torpedo weight or balance changed in converting to warshots, for example, warheads that were heavier than calibration heads.

b) Calibration firings failed to simulate service launch conditions, for example, calibration firings from barges or surface vessels rather than submerged torpedo tubes, and/or calibration shot launch speeds, i.e., the speed at which the torpedo leaves the tube, and accelerations during launch different from service conditions.

2) Design or manufacturing defects causing changes in calibration after proofing or effectively causing calibration to change with time or environment, for example, sensing water pressure where flow corrections were large, or depth spring fatigue, or leaky castings etc.

3) Erroneous calibration: failure to check against an absolute standard, for example, total reliance on hydrostatic depth measurement and failure to use nets, soft targets or other sensing systems to establish true depth.

4) Inadequate understanding of the technology involved, for example, failure to recognize the importance of hydrodynamic flow in sensing the pressure at the skin of a fast torpedo; lack of understanding of the feedback loop and depth control dynamics8 (http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/1592/ustorp2.htm?200724#fn8).
Amazingly, US torpedoes, especially the Mk.14, demonstrated that most of these possibilities could, in fact, occur.
____________________ 7 Some indication of the bewildering set of problems experienced by other navies can be found in Cdr. Richard Compton-Hall, RN (Ret) "Submarines and the War at Sea", 1914-1918", London: Macmillan, 1992; Karl Doenitz, "Memoirs: Ten Years and Twenty Days", Annapolis: U.S.Naval Institute Press, 1990. Cajus Bekker, (pseudonym for H.D. Berenbrok). "Hitler's Naval War" Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974.

3Depth control problems with US torpedoes were suspected by the Newport Torpedo Station (NTS-Newport) and BuOrd even before the United States entered WW II. On 5 January 1942 BuOrd, based on earlier (1941) testing, advised that the Mk.10 torpedo, which had entered service in 1915 and was still used in S-class submarines, ran four feet deeper than set9 (http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/1592/ustorp2.htm?200724#fn9). NTS-Newport tests on the Mk.14 torpedo in October 1941 had been interpreted as indicated that it too ran four feet deeper than set, but this was not reported to the submarine commands at that time. War patrol experience led to fleet suspicions that the torpedoes ran deep and these thoughts were communicated to BuOrd. In response to a direct order from the Chief of the Bureau of Ordnance, additional NTS- Newport tests in February-March 1942 "confirmed" the four foot error for the Mk.14. RAdm William H. Blandy, Chief of BuOrd, notified RAdm Thomas Withers, Jr., ComSubPac, of the problem in a letter dated 30 March 1942, but general notification to the submarine forces was not made until BuOrd issued BuOrd Circular Letter T-174 dated 29 April 1942. The language in correspondence between Withers and Blandy indicate that Newport and BuOrd believed that the four foot error in Mk.14 depth was due to calibrating torpedoes with test heads that were lighter than the warhead. This would cause torpedoes with warheads to run deep both because of increased weight and a nose heavy trim. The Mk.14 depth control problem was, however, much more severe than the four feet acknowledged by NTS-Newport.

In a mood of desperation, the operating forces made their own running depth determinations, using fishnets for depth measurement, at Frenchman's Bay in Australia on 20 June 1942. These measurements indicated that the depth errors were probably more like eleven feet10 (http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/1592/ustorp2.htm?200724#fn10). BuOrd and NTS-Newport criticized the methodology and were reluctant to accept the results of the
____________________ 8 The Summary Technical Report of Division 6 of NDRC, _Torpedo Studies_ Vol.21, Washington: NDRC, 1946, p.15, contains the following revealing comment: "The principal result of the study of Depth-keeping is the development of a theory ... there is no longer any excuse for the laborious production of depth mechanism that cannot be expected to operate at all."
9 Roscoe p.253
10 More detail can be found in any of the references cited above. Blair discusses the situation on pp 275 ff. It is not clear whether or not the eleven foot error included the error due to changing from exercise heads to warheads. It is, however, interesting that BuOrd/NTS-Newport criticized the Frenchman's Bay experiments on the basis of "improper torpedo trim conditions" (Quoted in Blair p.276).

4Frenchman's Bay firings and it was not until August of 1942, after intervention by the CNO, Admiral Ernest J.King, that they re-investigated and agreed that there was a ten foot depth error in the Mk.14 system. Interim instructions for fixing the problem were issued very quickly and kits to effect an official alteration were distributed in late 1942. As near as we have been able to determine, there were two independent problems: Trim change due to warheads heavier than calibration heads and sensing the water pressure at a point where the velocity head was significant and consequently the measured pressure was low. The fix for the latter moved the pressure sensing port to the interior of the free-flooding midbody where the pressure was close to the true hydrostatic pressure and so reflected the true depth. The modified torpedoes were identified by the suffix A added to the Mod. with the most famous being Mk.14 Mod. 3A

Since the hydrodynamic problem has seldom been explained in readily accessible documents, we give a brief summary here. The pressure along the length of a torpedo varies because the velocity of the water relative to the surface varies. The pressure at the nose is higher than the hydrostatic pressure, which is proportional to depth, by an amount proportional to the square of the torpedoes speed. This corresponds to a depth of 39 feet of seawater for a torpedo moving at 30 knots or 88 ft for a 45 knot speed. As the measuring point is moved back along the skin of the torpedo the pressure decreases rapidly and becomes substantially less than the hydrostatic pressure. The pressure subsequently rises but remains slightly less than the hydrostatic pressure along most of the cylindrical section. Finally along the conical afterbody the pressure again drops and then rises though, since the actual flow is not streamline, not to the values found at the nose. The critical point is that the pressure at the skin of a torpedo is generally different from the hydrostatic pressure corresponding to the torpedo's depth. The deviation is substantial in the nose and tail cone regions. A depth error due to the measurement of the wrong pressure would, of course, be detected in any calibration process that used an absolute depth measurement for reference. Unfortunately the Torpedo Station used a depth and roll recorder which determined depth by measuring the water pressure and was thus subject to the same kind of error as the depth gear. Furthermore, the depth and roll recorder was placed in the test head at a point where the hydrodynamic pressure was less than the hydrostatic pressure by almost the same amount as at the location, in the afterbody, of the sensing port for the depth gear. Thus both the recorder and the depth gear sensed essentially

5the same pressure, though not the hydrostatic pressure, and the torpedo appeared to be running at the set depth. The depth engine, however, responded to the lower pressure by adjusting the horizontal rudders to correct this "error" and the torpedo ran deep. The hydrodynamic theory needed to understand this problem was readily available in the 1930s but most design engineers were quite probably not acquainted with it. In consequence, it was assumed that since the depth recorder showed the correct depth, the torpedo was running at the correct depth. There are other insidious aspects to this problem. One of these is that a depth recorder checked against depth by static immersion in water to various depths or in a pressurized tank of water reads correctly since the error described above is due to hydrodynamic flow. Further the error is proportional to the square of the torpedo speed and is thus almost twice as important for a 46 knot torpedo as it is for a 33 knot torpedo. None of these comments, however, justify or excuse the failure to use an absolute standard to verify the results obtained with the depth and roll recorder or the obdurate resistance to complaints from the operating forces.

The operational aspects of the depth control problem have been recounted many times11 (http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/1592/ustorp2.htm?200724#fn11). The Mk.10 problem, which was probably dominated by the error caused by the change from exercise heads to warheads, was handled by simply setting the torpedo to run at a shallower depth and this procedure was implemented in January 1942, over twenty-five years after the weapon entered service. The Mk.14 problem required both a calibration modification and a modification to sense water pressure in the midships section and the latter was implemented beginning in the last half of 1943.
____________________ 11 Roscoe p.253; Morison Vol.IV p.221 in particular; Blair pp.169-70, 198; John David Hoerl, _Torpedoes and the Gun Club_, unpublished MA Thesis, VPI and State University, 1991, pp. 9-15

6The Magnetic Influence Exploder The second problem with the Mk.14 torpedo was the erratic performance of the magnetic influence feature of the Mk.6 exploder. Magnetic influence exploders had great appeal as proximity fuses for torpedoes offering the possibility of detonating the warheads under the vulnerable bottoms of warships. This potential advantage led most of the major navies to attempt to develop such exploders and generally these first attempts were not successful in service use.

The basic idea of a magnetic influence exploder is to sense either the field due to permanent magnetization of a ships hull or the perturbation of the Earth's magnetic field caused by the large quantity of relatively high permeability ferrous metal in the ships structure. This is a sound and workable idea, but early simple attempts did not take adequate account of the nature of the perturbation. The Mk.6 device in particular relied on the variation of the horizontal component of the magnetic field as the torpedo approached the target. This field variation induced a voltage in a sensing coil. The voltage triggered a thyratron which discharged a capacitor through a solenoid. The solenoid, in turn, operated a lever that displaced the inertia ring thus triggering the mechanical exploder. This complex arrangement was presumably designed so that an exploder, Mk.5, without the magnetic influence portion, but otherwise identical to the Mk.6 exploder could be produced and issued to the fleet in peacetime. Security was apparently the overall motivation for this convoluted approach.

The perturbation of the Earth's field by a ship naturally depends on the inclination of the Earth's field to the horizontal. This inclination varies from zero at the magnetic equator to ninety degrees at the magnetic poles. At NTS Newport it is about sixty degrees. Regardless of the inclination of the Earth's field, a ship, because of the ferrous metal in its structure, causes both horizontal and vertical perturbations of the Earth's field which vary with distance and direction from the ship. The closer the Earth's field is to vertical the greater the rate of change of of the horizontal perturbation field with distance and the closer to a point directly below the keel the maximum rate of change occurs. Thus a device that senses the rate of change of the horizontal component of the perturbed field works best where the Earth's magnetic field has a large vertical component. Unfortunately, a device that works well at high magnetic latitudes may not work at all well where the Earth's field is nearly horizontal. Thus, the performance of a simple magnetic influence exploder is significantly dependent on the latitude at which it is operated.

7Exactly this problem affected the magnetic exploders developed by the Royal Navy, the German navy and the US Navy. The Royal Navy quickly abandoned magnetic influence devices and relied on contact exploders. The German navy provided a sensitivity adjustment that would, in principle, compensate for changes in latitude. This was unsatisfactory and it too was abandoned fairly quickly12 (http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/1592/ustorp2.htm?200724#fn12). The BuOrd/Naval Torpedo Station Newport response was first denial that there was a problem, then a complicated set of instructions for setting the exploders for different latitudes.

The magnetic influence exploder was unquestionably responsible for sinking some, perhaps even a large fraction, of the 1.4 million gross registry tons of Japanese merchant ships sunk by submarines between December 1941 and August 1943. Reports from submarine commanding officers of apparent magnetic influence exploder failure, mainly duds and prematures, finally led to CinCPac ordering the disabling of the magnetic influence feature on 24 June 1943. ComSubSoWesPac reluctantly followed suit in December 194313 (http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/1592/ustorp2.htm?200724#fn13). CinCPac's order was issued eighteen months after Jacobs, on Sargo's first war patrol, ordered the deactivation of the magnetic influence portion of the Mk.6 exploders in his torpedoes and incidentally got into considerable difficulty for doing so. Magnetic influence exploders were not used by US Navy submarines through the balance of WW II.
____________________ 12 Successful magnetic exploders have, of course, subsequently been developed by many organizations.
13 ComSubSoWesPac (Christie) issued the deactivation order in response to an order he had received from the new Commander, Seventh Fleet (Kincaid). Blair "Silent Victory", p.504. Christie had been heavily involved in the development of the Mk.6 exploder at Newport and was reluctant to see it abandoned.

8The Impact Exploder Once the depth problem had been fixed and the magnetic influence feature of the Mk.6 exploder deactivated, it came the turn of the impact exploder to demonstrate its merit. Unfortunately the initial result was a plethora of duds, solid hits on targets without warhead detonations14 (http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/1592/ustorp2.htm?200724#fn14). This problem was suspected earlier, but it was not until the other two problems had been eliminated that there was unequivocal evidence of a problem with the impact exploder. This difficulty was a further frustration for the operating forces, but fortunately it was quickly diagnosed. The key to the problem was again the increased speed of Mk.1415 (http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/1592/ustorp2.htm?200724#fn15). The impact portion of the Mk.6 exploder was exactly the same as that which had been used in the Mk.4 and Mk.5 exploders. The Mk.4 worked entirely satisfactorily in the 33.5 knot Mk.13 torpedo. What was overlooked was that in going from 33.5 knots to 46.3 knots the inertial forces involved in striking the target at normal incidence were almost doubled. These greatly increased inertial forces were sufficient to bend the vertical pins that guided the firing pin block. The displacement was sometimes enough to cause the firing pins to miss the percussion caps, resulting in a dud. In cases of oblique hits, the forces were smaller and the impact exploder more often operated properly. Several war patrols, especially those cited above, convinced ComSubPac, VAdm Charles Lockwood, that there was a problem and he again resorted to experiment. Firings at a cliff in Hawaii demonstrated that some torpedoes did not detonate when they hit the cliff. A rather risky disassembly of a dud revealed the distortion of the guide pins. It was a simple solution to make aluminum alloy (rather than steel) firing pin blocks and lighten them as much as possible thus reducing the inertial forces to a level that did not distort the guide pins. Another solution was to use an electrical detonator and a ball switch to fire the warhead. This too was relatively easy to implement and soon became standard.
____________________ 14 Two of the best documented patrols that suffered duds were Wahoo 5 (April 1943) and Tinosa 2 (July 1943). The first of these is reported in O'Kane "Wahoo" and the second in Shireman "The Sixteenth Torpedo" unpublished MA thesis, U. of Wisconsin, 1991.
15 The literature on the Mk.13, Mk.14 and Mk.15 torpedoes focuses strongly on the Mk.14 and says almost nothing about either the Mk.13 or the Mk.15. This is understandable in the case of the Mk.13 since it was a slower torpedo and consequently had a smaller depth error and no major problem with the contact exploder. In the case of the destroyer launched Mk.15, which was a few feet longer than the Mk.14 and carried a larger warhead, but otherwise nearly identical to the Mk.14, I have found no references to unequivocal torpedo failures. This may be because during a destroyer torpedo attack things are too hectic to permit a careful evaluation of torpedo performance.

9Once these and other less significant problems were solved, the Mk.14 torpedo became a reliable and important weapon. After WW II, it was modified to accommodate electrical fire control settings, gyro angle, depth and speed, and as Mk.14 Mod.5 remained in service until 1980.

HOW AND WHY It is worth asking how these three problems might have come about and presented such a refractory situation early in WW II. It is easy to identify several contributing factors, but it is unlikely that any one of them alone was the deciding factor. One of the first factors was the economy. These torpedoes were developed during the great depression, the total US Navy budget from 1923 through 1934 averaged less than 350 million dollars per year and total personnel stood at about 110,000. In that environment a torpedo was valued at around $10,000 (about the same as a fighter aircraft airframe complete except for engine) and destroying one in testing was a risk that only the fearless were willing to run. The result was that testing and proofing were done in such a way as to avoid risk of damage either to expensive torpedoes or scarce targets. As is often the case, constrained testing failed to reveal certain critical problems. It is, however, difficult not to believe that deep running, in particular, should have been discovered. There were well documented reports of German and British problems during WW I. It appears also that impact exploders were not tested in high speed torpedoes or at least not tested in impacts of well simulated warheads with hard targets. Such tests were undoubtedly omitted in an effort to avoid destroying useful materiel, exploders in particular, and perhaps further justified by the fact that the exploder performed satisfactorily in lower speed tests and by its primary role as a back up to the magnetic influence exploder. Thus we conclude that with respect to these two problems, depth control and the impact exploder, the poor state of navy finances and the concomitant lack of realistic testing probably played a significant role.
Another aspect of the situation was the almost total isolation of NTS Newport from the larger US technical and engineering community especially after 1923 when the station secured a monopoly on torpedo development and production. Political and labor interests in keeping jobs in New England probably encouraged the isolation. The net result seems to have been a lack of expansion of the scientific basis for torpedo technology at Newport at a time when dramatic changes in engineering were taking place elsewhere. No one was thinking about torpedoes from different perspectives and asking hard questions about design details. The isolation was exacerbated, especially in the case of the Mark 6 exploder, by draconian security, which in some cases even excluded the operating forces from full knowledge of the weapons they were expected to use. In this isolated environment, NTS-Newport developed an arrogant `We are the torpedo experts.' attitude and when problems began to arise, the response was denial--`there is nothing wrong with the torpedoes'- -with the result that problems were identified and fixed slowly.

10Perhaps not surprisingly a very strong polarization developed between the operating forces and the torpedo shore establishment. The operating forces resented their exclusion from the torpedo development cycle and flaunted their successes in proving that there were problems with the Mk.14 torpedo. These strongly expressed opinions of the men of the operating forces did not tend to improve relations with NTS-Newport. The operating forces also tended to exaggerate their contributions to the solution of the problems and deprecate those of NTS-Newport. A distinguished and truly great submariner recently wrote: _So by the beginning of September 1943, the operating submariners had detected and solved three serious defects in the Mark XIV torpedo: its faulty depth setting, skittish magnetic exploder and sluggish firing pin. All three problems had been solved by the operating forces in their tenders and bases, without help from Newport or Washington.16 (http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/1592/ustorp2.htm?200724#fn16) This is certainly an overstatement, but what is most significant is that though written over fifty years after the events, it still reflects the intense polarization that existed between the operating forces and the torpedo shore establishment.

This spectrum of problems was not unique to the US torpedo establishment. Almost the same set, defective depth control, unsatisfactory and untested magnetic exploder and a contact exploder that did not work at certain striking angles, occurred in the German navy and many of the responses of the shore establishment to the problems were also the same. The situation is discussed in considerable detail by Doenitz in his memoirs17 (http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/1592/ustorp2.htm?200724#fn17). The German navy's problems were closed out, however, with four senior officers being tried by court martial, on the orders of Grand Admiral Eric Raeder, found guilty and punished.
__________________ 16 James F. Calvert _Silent Running: My Years on a World War II Attack Submarine_, New York: John Wiley, 1995 pp.96-97.
17 Karl Doenitz "Memoirs: Ten Years and Twenty Days", Annapolis: USN Press, 1990. The bulk of the discussion of torpedo failures is contained in Chapter 7 and Appendix 3.

11Lest there be any implication that the entire US Navy or even all of BuOrd was functioning in isolation, we note that at about the same time early experiments with what became radar were being conducted at the Naval Research Laboratory (only about 350 miles Southwest of Newport). In 1937 complete disclosure of the state of radar development was made to the Army Signal Corps and Bell Telephone Laboratories. Radio Corporation of America was brought into the fold in 1938.18 (http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/1592/ustorp2.htm?200724#fn18) The contrast of this approach to the Newport approach is nothing if not striking. BuOrd itself in the development of range keepers for surface fire control, in a comparably secret endeavor roughly contemporaneous with the Mk.14 development, co-opted Ford Instrument, ARMA and Sperry to assist with the development. A later dramatically contrasting development program was the development of the Mk.24 Mine (Torpedo) between December 1941 and May 1943, which is discussed in a subsequent part of this series.

This takes the story of U.S.Navy torpedoes through beginning of WW II. As the United States became involved in the war, it became apparent that new kinds of torpedoes would be useful and a multitude of programs to develop improved weapons for submarines, surface vessels and aircraft were initiated. The idea that torpedoes could be significant ASW weapons also evolved and was elaborated with considerable success. The wartime developments and the post war development of US Navy torpedoes are discussed in the third part of this series.
____________________ 18 L.S.Howeth "History of Communications-Electronics in the United States Navy", Washington: GPO, 1963 Chapter XXXVIII, and chronology pp. 540-41.

[Camaero]

I think its best to test this with manual targeting off so we can leave out human error.:damn:

[tater]

I'll also watch the torps with an external cam to see what they do.

[Jungman]

What should we do with the 'deep running' failure dates of March 31, 1943 to end of war? That is in the stock file. Starts way too late and to end of war.

Truth is, the deep running was fixed before the firing pins problem was fixed in June 1943; Mark 10 January 1942 and the 'mark 14a' in August or December of 1942.

Deep running was quite common until they placed the hydrostatic sensor in a stable area and calibration. The Gyro angle error was proportional to the degree you had to fire off zero. Does the file contain this...it does for the direct contact fire pin. AOB of 70-90 gives a 99% failure rate.

Does the Magnetic detenators even work in this game. ala SH3.

[Camaero]

From my tests I have not had one single gyro error!

My torps have however detonated prematurely, bounced off the hulls, skimmed RIGHT underneath hulls without exploding, and some have even been hits!:rock:

[Jungman]

From my tests I have not had one single gyro error!

My torps have however detonated prematurely, bounced off the hulls, skimmed RIGHT underneath hulls without exploding, and some have even been hits!:rock:

The newest file certainly has some new suprises. Though for gameplay sake, the Depth keeping dates are not historical (neither are the stock date values).

You should see some Gyro problems. Example the Mark 14 has two checks 3% for a deviation of 30 degree twice.

Deep running is much more common for all torps, more or less. But the Dates show June 1943 to December 1949 (stock values). So there are NO deep running problems early in war? I am not understanding how the game is using the .sim dates. Should it not follow historical, or just change for gameplay?

It maybe good to list your Torpedo, speed if Mark 14, and year you are testing in.

[Jungman]

CCIP

In that latest file, do you really want the Mark 14 Pistol Dud Chances as this:

minimum angle #1 = 0
maximum angle #1 = 30
chance percent #1 = 70 <---does not seem to fit the progression. Was lower at 60.

EDIT: well, it does add to gameplay...you may be right. :)

minimum angle #2 = 30
maximum angle #2 = 70
chance percent #2 = 34

minimum angle #3 = 70
maximum angle #3 = 90
chance percent #3 = 99

dud reduction speed = 35
dud reduction rate = 35


The fast mark 14 data is not listed in the Tweak file. It uses the same failure rates data, slow or fast for both. The fast setting and range is missing, but moddable in .sim file.

adress x85e (speed 46) 00 00 38 42
adress x84c (range 8200) 00 20 00 46 <--note true range for 31 speed setting

Does NvDrifter have and updated Tweak file?? :)

[Jungman]

Some test data with latest file. Interesting stuff. Agreement with Camaero results.

Janurary, 1 1943 Mogami. set for about 20 feet. AOB 70 to 147 Mark 14 sea is calm. 1300 yd auto target.

2 - magnetic slow Miss deep
2 - magnetic slow Hit
2 - magnetic fast Premature explosion
1 - contact fast Dud bounce off hull
1 - contact fast Miss deep
1 - contact fast Hit
1 - magnetic fast Premature explosion
1 - magnetic fast Hit

4 hit out of 11 shot. 64% loss ratio.:cool: Ran a bunch more impromptu.

It would seem that if you set for Magnetic, you will suffer more premature detonations than contact only. Worst weather, more premature explosions. However, you do not seem to suffer from the AOB firing pin not working malfunction. So if it gets to the ship, it will blow no matter what angle.

Running Contact setting it would seem you do not suffer from nearly as much premature detonation as the magnetic setting, however you will get AOB duds bouncing off the hull due to the firing pin malfunction. A nice gameplay trade off.

I notice I definetly have deep running torpedoes, even though the *.sim file says they should not occur until after March 31, 1943. :hmm:
From my tests I have not had one single gyro error!
I also had no gyro problems out about 60 fired. :o Though had one circle runner. I used Auto Target maybe it removes all Gyro errors. Did Egan use Manual target?

[Egan]

4 Did Egan use Manual target?

Yes. It was really strange. In two campaign patrols I shot at least ten with gyro problems. Not one of them prematured , ran deep anything else - they just ran away to port.

Oddly, I tried it with a couple of set up missions and they worked exactly like they ought to - Not one gyro but almost everything else. :confused:

I'll give it another go later on. Are people running this is in the campaign as well as single missions?

[CCIP]

I tested in single missions and now I'm running a campaign with a Sugarboat to test the Mk 10's. Unfortunately I mostly sail in the Solomons, one of the only places in stock campaign where traffic is darned sparse :dead:

I would be careful with using auto-targeting. From what I recall, for example, in SHIII every auto-targeted torpedo resulted in a 'critical hit'. It may likewise have side effects on torpedo effectiveness in SHIV.

[CCIP]

Anyone got anything to say about Mk.10's? I'm pretty much happy with the Mk. 14 failure rates, but not sure what to say about Mk. 10's - how should these work?

So far on my patrol I had 0 apparent failures out of 7 fired, and sunk 3 small destroyers with them.


Oh, and re: gyro error.

I've been thinking more about this. What if we do away with the 'major veering off course' error, and instead introduce a more frequent but smaller-angle failure (say, 5 degrees instead of 30)? Would keep you guessing even more if it was your fault or not... and it could be used to simulate not only a bad gyro but, say, your TDC officer screwing up the firing solution a little.

Just a thought, anyway.

[Camaero]

Anyone got anything to say about Mk.10's? I'm pretty much happy with the Mk. 14 failure rates, but not sure what to say about Mk. 10's - how should these work?

So far on my patrol I had 0 apparent failures out of 7 fired, and sunk 3 small destroyers with them.


Oh, and re: gyro error.

I've been thinking more about this. What if we do away with the 'major veering off course' error, and instead introduce a more frequent but smaller-angle failure (say, 5 degrees instead of 30)? Would keep you guessing even more if it was your fault or not... and it could be used to simulate not only a bad gyro but, say, your TDC officer screwing up the firing solution a little.

Just a thought, anyway.


My firing officer sucks as it is!:damn: (me)

I haven't tried the 10s yet, but they were supposed to be a lot more reliable due to their slower speed.

[Jungman]

Testing with manual targeting. The gyro angle solution needs to be hammered out.

It would seem only the Pistols dates June 1943 is being used for ALL errors end dates. I have deep runners in years there should not be any.

So far, this Mod is a HUGE immersive gain though. :up: Report back with more detail testing use manual targeting to elimnate possible conflict with gyro failure.

I would keep the gyro error Large and Not Often. Since that was more to real life. A good question though, CCIP.

[CCIP]

Anyone else have anything on Mk.10s?

So far I'm seeing a little too much reliability on them; just ran a patrol and got 11 hits and 1 dud (yep, my aim was that good, I was pretty impressed :smug:). I'm thinking the efficiency there needs a little adjustment again...

I think it's the fact that they don't seem to have a premature chance built into them at all. That means compensating with a bit more in the way of duds or depth errors may be in order...

[CCIP]

Oh, and I can't find a post I was looking for again - someone (tater?) suggested that the arming distance for the torpedoes should be 400 yards (it's presently 220 meters).

Can someone confirm this info? Should this be changed or left at 220m?

[CaptainCox]

Been sifting through the inet for almost 1h looking for this. There is all possible info on German torps and very detailed stuff about US torps, but nothing as to regards of the actual firing mechanism safety distance...nada!!!:o

[CaptainCox]

OK found something It takes great care to make torpedoes that will explode only when intended. One safety device the Mark 6 exploder relied on was a small propeller on the underside of the warhead that spun as it traveled through the water. After 450 yards, when the torpedo had leveled off at its predetermined depth and on its set course, the spinning propeller would move the detonator into the booster cavity, arming the torpedo.

(450 yards = 411.48 meters)
Sounds like a lot maybe...but.

Source: http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/1998/4/1998_4_56.shtml

[Balu0]

I just made a patrol with mk10's..

I fired 12 on 1 ship :D .. I srewed up the first 2 solution first with 2 fast spped, than two slow... but the last slavo was right on target.. 4 hit, 2 dud, 1 went too deep and passed.. 1 exploded but at a lucky spot and the modern composite slowly went under..

Had no gyro error .. all torp went on their course.. I followed all with external camera and I think from the first 8 torp I had 2 or 2 deep runner, but not sure..

None exploded early..

I used magnetic setting.

[Galanti]

Anyone else have anything on Mk.10s?

So far I'm seeing a little too much reliability on them; just ran a patrol and got 11 hits and 1 dud (yep, my aim was that good, I was pretty impressed :smug:). I'm thinking the efficiency there needs a little adjustment again...

I think it's the fact that they don't seem to have a premature chance built into them at all. That means compensating with a bit more in the way of duds or depth errors may be in order...

I didn't have much time to test your mod lasat night, and the only contacts I did make were sampans, fishing boats and those shallow-draft gunboats, but I will tell you I have definately had beacoup prematures with the mk. 10s in the past. But as I've noted in some other thread, it seems to vary considerably from patrol to patrol. I wonder if there is an randomness built into the engine that applies an additional fudge factor for every patrol. And I've hacked my Gameplaysettings.cfg so that every level of realism uses the 'Realistic' settings, as I had noticed before that sometimes the difficulty level was reset between patrols, so I always have 'Dud torpedoes' selected.

But prematures definately do exist for Mk. 10s.

[CCIP]

Alright, quick update!

Messed around with Mk 10's a little, though I'm still not sure whether it's enough; and changed all trigger activation distances to the equivalent of 450 yards (411m) (originally 220m).

http://files.filefront.com/Torpedoes_USsim/;7349009;/fileinfo.html

(same link added to 1st post)

[CaptainCox]

Cheers :sunny: you are working hard core on this man! :up:

[akdavis]

The only known consistent problem of the Mk. 10 torpedo was depth keeping, with the torpedo running on average 4 feet too deep. Other than that, there could be any number of issues related to the age and storage of the torpedos. Some were very old and very poorly maintained. This could lead to a wide range of failures, some far more serious than game allows for. Mk. 10 had a contact exploder only and could not be set to turn on a gyro angle (they had to be fired at a 0 degree off-angle).

[CCIP]

10 had a contact exploder only and could not be set to turn on a gyro angle (they had to be fired at a 0 degree off-angle).

Actually, I've heard that it could turn on a gyro angle :hmm:
The rest is understandable I suppose - I'm just trying to strike a balance in this case.

[Egan]

I've been doing something thinking about the gyro things - it's still happening..:D.

Basically: I apply your file, all the torps run away. I take it off, I can hit things again. yet, when I try single missions they all seem to work the way the new dud file should.

All my campaign patrols where I've had the trouble have been very early war:Dec 41 - Feb 42 so far. I did try one single mission In Jan '41 where the first torp had a gyro error but that was in a spread of four where the other three worked as intended.

To be honest as well, I've no real idea whether they were shooting off at 30 degrees or so, it might have been smaller but it's pretty hard to tell when everything is happening at once. Hopefully if it is smaller I'll be able to compensate for it.

It's well mad.

[CCIP]

What if I try to send you a file without the gyro errors?

Still sounds bizzare. I haven't seen a single one in any of my test patrols yet...

[tater]

I don't think I'm using the very latest version, but I fired 9 torps at a TF, got 2 hits. One unintended on a fleet oiler that superimposed himself in front of a Hiryu, and one on Hiryu. I got 4 prematures (high speed setting on torps) in rough seas. 1 circle runner exploded close aboard. Too close for comfort. 2 misses.

[Egan]

What if I try to send you a file without the gyro errors?

Still sounds bizzare. I haven't seen a single one in any of my test patrols yet...

Yes, Please send me it. It is bizzare, i don't even think I could be using any mods that could conflit with it. I'm going to perserve on this patrol with it and see what happens in the next one.

[tater]

Fired the rest of the fish. Very bad shots presented as the TF retired. 1 hit on a Kuma, it sunk. One dud. 5-6 prematures. changed to run deeper, got a few clean "hits" under the keel close, no trigger.

!$!$%#@#%!

^^^ as it should be :D

[Jungman]

:damn: I am puzzled. I tried to set all the angles for the Mark 14 to 100% firing pin to be a dud.

minimum angle #1 = 0
maximum angle #1 = 30
chance percent #1 = 100

minimum angle #2 = 30
maximum angle #2 = 70
chance percent #2 = 100

minimum angle #3 = 70
maximum angle #3 = 90
chance percent #3 = 100

dud reduction speed = 35
dud reduction rate = 35


I launch waves of torpedos, manual or auto, in the school mission Mogami cruiser. Contact only (slow and fast). Torps still hit and explode, just like according to the default game values.

Why does is act like it is ignoring the new values?? I made sure the old copy of the file is out of the directory. ALL the torps should be duds!:stare:

It seems the game is ignoring the values for the contact pin failure rates in Torpedo_US.sim . Using some secret value elsewhere. It does the same if you set the torp speed different. (tried that while waiting for the patch, it ignored changes to speed to fix bug).

[Egan]

More info: All the gyro torps are firing off at an angle of 18 degrees to port. Strangely, When I dial in 18degrees to my torp settings I get the torp going where I want it to go but in now exhibits proper dud problems (Depth keeping for example.) This is really odd.

[Jace11]

Is this a problem with the tweak file? I will have to do more testing as anything I say is based only a few quick tests, but I got duds and I am sure I had gyro angle faults too, cause they went off at a very strange angle..

[7Enigma]

I just have to say, you guys are an interesting breed. :D I could never wish to have realistic dud/failure rates in this game personally. After going through all the work to get a proper shot off I want it to work, 90% of the time at least! The historical hair pulling of "sure-thing" misses would drive me nuts....

I would prefer much better enemy A.I. in terms of convoys and attacking destroyers, but leave my torps be PLEASE!

That, or give me 50 torps per patrol. The long boring RTB sometimes takes more time then the actual in-mission stalking/attacking.

But if you like it, more power to you. Just don't attack me for wanting 25% more powerful torps that rarely fail. :rock:

[Egan]

You can play the game any way you want to mate, I just prefer my simulations to simulate something...:smug:

[tater]

^^ :up:

[CCIP]

:damn: I am puzzled. I tried to set all the angles for the Mark 14 to 100% firing pin to be a dud.

minimum angle #1 = 0
maximum angle #1 = 30
chance percent #1 = 100

minimum angle #2 = 30
maximum angle #2 = 70
chance percent #2 = 100

minimum angle #3 = 70
maximum angle #3 = 90
chance percent #3 = 100

dud reduction speed = 35
dud reduction rate = 35


I launch waves of torpedos, manual or auto, in the school mission Mogami cruiser. Contact only (slow and fast). Torps still hit and explode, just like according to the default game values.

Why does is act like it is ignoring the new values?? I made sure the old copy of the file is out of the directory. ALL the torps should be duds!:stare:

It seems the game is ignoring the values for the contact pin failure rates in Torpedo_US.sim . Using some secret value elsewhere. It does the same if you set the torp speed different. (tried that while waiting for the patch, it ignored changes to speed to fix bug).
Were the torpedoes set at magnetic or impact trigger?

This is what I mentioned earlier; I believe when you leave them set at magnetic, they will not use the impact dud rate, and it is elsewhere. Quite strange. I'm hoping that the prematures and depth errors mostly compensate for it.


Egan - here is a gyro-error-less file for you, see what happens here:

http://senduit.com/00f499

7Enigma - I did make every caution I could in the beginning of the thread, didn't I? :know:
I for one don't have any superiority complex out of my status as a Hardcore Subsim Skipper (I have test results to prove it!), but I play the game the way I play and I'll mod it the way I want. All the power to ya if you want something else though...

PS - I've been having some computer trouble lately, so I'm sort of getting slowed down with some of this. I may need to replace a stick of RAM before I get back to modding/testing this again...

[Jungman]

Were the torpedoes set at magnetic or impact trigger?


Yes as I stated 'Contact Only'. They were impact trigger. The game does not use the new data for firing pin failure angle, or it uses the magnetic setting anyway as a back up.

Notice the Magnetic or Contact setting always flips back to Magnetic after you fire your torpedo, or going back and forth to certain game screens. I even seen it flip back on its own sometimes randomly after about 30 seconds.

I think the premature settings and deep running settings work. I set them to zero and I do not have much for duds or deep runners.

I was trying to change Dud Reduction rate to see if that reduces the chance your next torpedo will still be a dud due to firing angle. Plus tested with angles such as 0 to 180, or 0 to 360. So far, the data is not being used in game.

Can someone want to try this? Set your torps tweak with 100% impact angle failure rate, impact only, Mark 14 set for slow. They still seem to explode to the old default values.~ 0-30 15%, 30-70 35%, 70-90 99% failure.

[Camaero]

I just read something from LukeFF's "Realistic Ranks and Crew Mod" that I wasn't aware of. Maybe you aren't either. In the readme it says:

"-Skills:

This mod also removes the unrealistic IncreaseTorpedoSpeed and IncreaseTorpedoDamage local abilities. Torpedoes are complex weapons, so while a crew could be expected to decrease their loading times and increase their maintenance skills, there is no way a commander would allow the crew to tinker with sensitive items like the propulsion system and warhead."

So maybe it is possible the crew ratings are messing with these torp failure rates?

[Jungman]

The crew I tested with has nothing of rank skills special.

I do notice if I turn OFF auto-torpedo loading, I do not get the Contact/Magnetic setting flipping back on its own -almost.

Secondly, I notice I can get four torpedos in a row to be duds due to firing pin failure if I fire them quickly within about 30 seconds (making sure all set for Contact only). Using test file 100% failure at all angles. They impact at all angles tested for duds.

It would seem the game engine defaults back to the Magnetic combo setting no matter what after a time (about 30 seconds). I could lessen its effect by turning off Auto-Torp loading. Any torp already in the water magically becomes that setting over riding its previous data. Plus ANY updates to the PK will seem to reset it too.

It seems to be related to this buggy flipping from 'Contact' to 'Magnetic' setting, and the reset caused by hitting the PK button or updates. Anything they may cause that switch to flip. The torps on their way to the ship will become re-programmed back to impact influence setting for detonation.

A work around maybe to use some torps as purely Impact only, and others as Magentic only. (Mark 23 is kind of redundant).

I can say very, very well these following values do get used in the .sim file. Premature Detonation, Deep Running, Gyro Angle Problem, Circle Running.

Firing Pin Angle Failure is 'not working' because of the buggy switch flipping back to magnetic influence setting causing any torpedo in the water to reset to this default. Or/And after about 30 seconds. I say this because I can get several no hit duds in a row every time due to Fire Pin AOB Failure if I fire quickly within 30 seconds before the buggy switch flips back so to speak.

[tater]

Wow, you definitely need to reort that as a bug. Good find!

[U-Bones]

I saw my first MK14 premature explosions last night - playing stock torpedoes.
5 in a row. What are the odds of that ?

Windspeed 15m, 18-20 depth selected, range <900

[Beery]

Very interested in where this thread is going.

One thing to be aware of is that the game models some duds in a rather weird way: some torpedoes will impact a ship and they'll appear to explode, but they have no effect on the enemy ship at all. You can only see the non-effect of these torpedoes if you have the full 3D damage graphics checked in the graphics options - they leave no hole in the ship's hull.

Because of the above many players are complaining of torpedoes that explode but do no damage. I think these were intended to be 'contact duds' but the devs forgot to remove the explosion graphics and the sound.

[Jungman]

Very interested in where this thread is going.

One thing to be aware of is that the game models some duds in a rather weird way: some torpedoes will impact a ship and they'll appear to explode, but they have no effect on the enemy ship at all. You can only see the non-effect of these torpedoes if you have the full 3D damage graphics checked in the graphics options - they leave no hole in the ship's hull.

Because of the above many players are complaining of torpedoes that explode but do no damage. I think these were intended to be 'contact duds' but the devs forgot to remove the explosion graphics and the sound.

I have seen those and you are correct. They are actually coming from the Magnetic Dud Explosion range. It is set for only 1.5 meters stock. So they explode but with no explosive range to do any damage. They simulate Magnetic Exploder duds on the hull according to the sim file. If they did not hit the hull, they would have exploded like a premature explosion anyway, except these actually hit the hull first before PE.

The game seems to default back to Magnetic via a buggy switch as above posts.

[Jungman]

I saw my first MK14 premature explosions last night - playing stock torpedoes.
5 in a row. What are the odds of that ?

Windspeed 15m, 18-20 depth selected, range <900

Sim file has the premature rate set by wave height, at 15 m/s winds; that is around 40% IIRC or higher at 70%. The game will use the same chance as the first one if you fire them off all real fast with about 30 seconds.

I did that with Contact Pin Failure with four in a row very easy, as posted above.

Darn quirky.

[ZaPPPa]

Six MK10's shot and none of them detonated. Either they were all duds or deep-runners. I followed one under water and it went straight through the hull without detonating.. Odd.

I fired them at around 600-700 meters 80 degree angle. Ship has 6-7 mtr draft. Detonator set to either Contact or Influence with depth 2 meter.. still, no luck.

Is the range too short?

[Jungman]

Six MK10's shot and none of them detonated. Either they were all duds or deep-runners. I followed one under water and it went straight through the hull without detonating.. Odd.

I fired them at around 600-700 meters 80 degree angle, is this too close?

No, stock value is 220 meters arming...latest version had it set for irL of 450 yards ~ 411 meters.

When you say dud, do you mean it bounced off the hull without exploding (firing pin failure), or premature explosion PE (exploding too early, or late, or against the hull with no apparent damage)?

The game knows if it is going to be a PE or deep runner, just follow the camera and I too have seen PE explode on the other side of the ship! passing through...rare though.

--A PE usually goes off around 1000 yards. That close you may very well had them pass through the ship to PE, or even against the hull for no damage.

--80 degree would give you % failure rate of Pin causing a real no bang dud. CCIP Mod. 70 to 90 degree AOB shot is set for 75% Impact failure. So your results are quite expected with Mark 10 torpedo.

Mark 14 is set for 99%.

[ZaPPPa]

Fired three torpedoes at a Old Medium Split Freighter with depth 1 meter (as shallow at it will allow it to go). When running, the depth on all three was definitely deeper than 1 meter. Followed the first one all the way onto the hull and the torpedoe disappeared, apparently went straight through the hull and kept going. Did another torpedoe on magnetic and the same thing happened. The third one passed inches below the hull (I think) and the magnetic detonator did nothing.

I will do a complete reinstall tomorrow, because I have a feeling the tinkering with mods has completely disabled the collision detection in SH4, making torpedoes unaware of ships and pass straight through as if nothing was there. I'll let you know the results when I've got everything up and running again.

UPDATE: Uninstalled and re-installed all mods and tried again. Came across a large modern composite freighter and fired three torpedoes:

1: MK10, Contact, 2 mtr depth, 55 degree angle, 700 mtrs. HIT! Hurray! Ran a little deep I guess. It hit the hull at around 4-6 mtr depth.
2: MK10, Magnetic, 2 mtr depth, 80 degree angle, 600 mtrs. Miss. Gyro angle problem ran right
3: MK10, Magnetic, 2 mtr depth, 90 degree, 600 mtrs, HIT! Exact same spot as previous torpedoe (4-6 mtr deep).. Impressive lightshow as a result.

It seems like running your torpedoe at anything less than 4 mtr deep will result in it running at its minimum depth, which seems to be 4 mtrs. Not a big deal, but small ships are going to be tough to hit on contact only.

[ZaPPPa]

I only need two MK10 torpedoe hits max to take out any ship, only one for most ships, is this normal? I am using this mod in combination with FTT 2.4 by the way.

[angelherrera2]

YES, thanks :up:

[tedhealy]

I'd love to use/test this, but the link to the file just goes to the front page at filefront.com now :damn:

EDIT: Nevermind, found the working link on page 3.

[Galanti]

I've been pulling my hair out for two nights now with the Mk.14's until I reread this thread and recalled Egan's gyro observations.

I can confirm I've got his issue: all my mk14 early & late war shots pull 30 degrees to port.

[ZaPPPa]

It is possible that this is linked to the repeated mission problem that people are having. It looks like the random number generator is malfunctioning in the game, which causes missions to repeat endlessly and all torpedoes to behave the same way for some players...

Just a wild guess though.

[Krupp]

I can confirm I've got his issue: all my mk14 early & late war shots pull 30 degrees to port.


Same here:shifty:

[Egan]

I can confirm I've got his issue: all my mk14 early & late war shots pull 30 degrees to port.

Same here:shifty:

18 degrees....I measured it! :rotfl:Be warned, though, that if you compensate for this you might start gettting the other faults as well. I did and got three deep runners in a row...talk about frustrating! :D

[Egan]

Just a quick question: The other guys suffering the 18 degree gyro error: what other mods are you running and what boats are/ were you using?

[Beery]

I got this 18 degree gyro angle error yesterday and all I'd done was think about installing this mod, hehe. So I think this may be an intermittent bug with the stock game. It happened when I was at a very short distance to the target so I guess that may have something to do with it.

[Egan]

I got this 18 degree gyro angle error yesterday and all I'd done was think about installing this mod, hehe. So I think this may be an intermittent bug with the stock game. It happened when I was at a very short distance to the target so I guess that may have something to do with it.
I tried to attack a docked ship from outside the range of the coastal defences and it happened. At least 2.5 - 3000 yards. I can't remember how much but much, much farther than I normally attack from. I just wondered whether the % chance of this happening was really high in the file by mistake but I guess not.

Having said that, % rate for circle runners is very low but I've still seen probably more of them in the game than were seen in the entire real life Pacific campaign with or without the mod. I wonder if this is a specific gyro error error. Err. :D

[Graf]

Bout to try this torp mod out.

Reading "Silent Victory" by Clay Blair Jr. and by the end of March 1942(Four months of war) only 10 Japanese ships of all types had been sunk by US submarines. Speaks highly of the incompetence of the sub skippers of the time and of the unreliability of their torpedoes. :(

[Beery]

Has there been more progress on this mod? I'm hoping that CCIP releases it officially soon. I'm hoping I can get it into RFB, if only in order to give the folks who are currently complaining about RFB's 'nerfed torpedoes' (they are unchanged from vanilla SH4) something real to complain about, LOL.

[CCIP]

Gosh, I'd love to work on it more, but the reason I stopped (I mentioned this in a few threads before) is that my SHIV-capable PC is currently out of commission.

I think you can actually include it in RFB since given the feedback - it looks to be pretty stable in its current version, and test responses are almost universally good. As soon as I have my PC back (within a week?) I hope to do some final testing and release a final version right away, if you want to wait for that.

[Graf]

I will say this...after using the mod I found myself in a very depressed mood. Sadly a good thing. ;)

Out of 24 torpedoes fired (6 at 2 Kongo class battleships and 6 at 2 Hiryu class carriers) I only was able to achieve approx. 4-6 hits(none on the battleships or carriers). Talk about disappointment.

After reading up in "Silent Victory" tho, this seems to be very, very damn close to being historical.

Nice work thus far. ;)

[Beery]

Gosh, I'd love to work on it more, but the reason I stopped (I mentioned this in a few threads before) is that my SHIV-capable PC is currently out of commission...

Ah I see. :cry: I haven't been keeping up to date on the threads I should - too much messing around with the game and not enough talking about it (or playing it).

Hope the computer gets back in commision okay. :up:

[Beery]

Is there another download for the dud torpedoes mod? I can't seem to get the one on the first page of this thread to work.

[castorp345]

Is there another download for the dud torpedoes mod? I can't seem to get the one on the first page of this thread to work.
post #58

[Beery]

Is there another download for the dud torpedoes mod? I can't seem to get the one on the first page of this thread to work.
post #58

Ah thanks. My laziness and stunning inability to find things muddle through once again with the help of my friends.

[Mraah]

CCIP,

I did some testing of the torpedo damage graphic which might interest you.

It has nothing to do with the size of the warhead. It's displayed under two conditions ... (1) MinRadius >= 2 , (2) Location of the hit.

The location of the hit played a major role. I used the Medium Old Composite Freighter (Akita Maru) as my test subject. There were only two areas (zones) that generated the torpedo damage graphic. Each area only generated one, any more hits within this defined area were not displayed. Coincidently, if you fire the deck gun into an undamaged "Torpedo Damage Display Area" it will not show the holes from the deck gun, only displays torpedo holes, and visa-versa. I tested this by running tropedoes down the length of the ship, back and forth. I tested the same area with the deck gun, running back and forth at the waterline. See Figure #1 to view the two areas where torpedo damage can be displayed. Red area is where torpedo has to hit, from waterline to keel. Green area is left/right center location of damage graphic, from waterline to keel.

If these areas or zones can be modded we can either have the entire ship filled with torpedo holes or filled with deck gun holes, perhaps both. By the way, the ship does take full damage and effects irregardless of whether there's a visible hole in the side of the ship.

I did an off-the-wall test on the MaxRadius. See Figure #2 below to view what a Min/Max value of 99 does with a warhead size of 10. Basically blew the shingles off the house :o .

Firgure #1 ... Torpedo Damage Display/Hit Location Areas 1 @ 2 Akita Maru.
Note ... Holes shown at waterline are 2 meter size torpedo holes, not deck gun holes.
http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/raabmraah/SH4Img18-5-2007_9.jpg

Figure #2 Warhead Size 10 Min/Max Radius 99
http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/raabmraah/SH4Img18-5-2007_9-1.jpg

[castorp345]

My laziness and stunning inability to find things muddle through once again with the help of my friends.

:sunny:
hey, we beantowners gotta stick together...

[Beery]

My laziness and stunning inability to find things muddle through once again with the help of my friends.

:sunny:
hey, we beantowners gotta stick together...

Cambridge, MA? Hehe all this time I thought you were from Cambridge in Hertfordshire, LOL. Me and my Anglocentricity.

[perisher]

I work in Boston.

The original Boston, that is. I've been to the other one a couple of times, I like it, not so many right angles as other American cities and more Irish pubs than in the whole of Ireland.

[Beery]

I work in Boston.

The original Boston, that is. I've been to the other one a couple of times, I like it, not so many right angles as other American cities and more Irish pubs than in the whole of Ireland.

I like it for those reasons too, and the climate's something like dear old Blighty. I can't get a decent chicken vindaloo here though, and there are no fish and chip shops worth the name.

[perisher]

Good clam chowder though.

[Beery]

Good clam chowder though.

Reminds me of that Simpsons episode with the mayor's nephew and the French chef:

"ChowDAIRR? It's chowdah! ChowDAH! Say it Frenchie!"

The weird thing about Boston is the accent. In some ways it's similar to English - they don't roll their 'R's, the kids call their mothers 'Mummy' instead of 'Mommy', etc. It's nice - makes me feel at home - a nice change from LA where I lived before.

[Jace11]

AHHHHHRGGHH

Getting the 30 degree pull to port on ALL SHOTS in my current patrol...

Reload, try again and they all pull. I am not using auto TDC, however my TDC setup is perfect, I used Aarons MOBO to calculate Target speed. I am using a Gar class sub, its Jan 1941, I am loaded with Mk14s...

The solution should fire the torp at about 5 degrees to Star, but they come out and do a 30 degree turn to port..

EDIT: Don't worry I fixed it..

[panthercules]

EDIT: Don't worry I fixed it..

How??

I've started testing this (as embodied in RFB 1.26) but only in static single missions I made for the purpose. I've only experienced the veering off problem rarely (maybe 5-10 percent or so), but I'm thinking that may not mean much though because most of the streaky multi-failure experiences people report seem to come in campaign/career mode and sound like maybe they have something to do with some sort of randomization thing that may only be active in career mode. If that's really true, I don't want to spend a lot more time testing in my single missions, and if you've found a fix then I sure don't want to waste time testing. And if it's really still borked in career mode then I'll want to ditch it for my career even though the results I'm getting with it in single missions are pretty impressive.

[Jace11]

I checked the patch 1.2 version of Torpedos_US.sim and checked the gyro fault angles and probabilities in there...

They are generally..

Gyro1 50 degrees 0.3 chance
Gyro2 50 degrees 0.2 chance

I put these values back into CCIPs hardocore mod and overwrote his Gyro 30 degrees chance = 3 settings,

used a hex editor to check it, (as my tweak files miss some of the Gyro2 settings),

I put the file back in, loaded up my campaign file that was giving me the repeating gyro faults on all torpedoes...

And scored two hits on my target and sank it..

Later in the game I fired at 3 other ships, and got duds and two prematures, so they are still working.

It is very strange how it repeats on 100% of shots..

Here is the file... CCIP's hardcore Torpedos minus his gyro faults...

http://www.speedyshare.com/262257475.html

[Forlorn]

When that setting is 3 (300% chance) no wonder why I have no 44 torpedos in a row banking left or right 30 degrees. :down:

[Beery]

When that setting is 3 (300% chance) no wonder why I have no 44 torpedos in a row banking left or right 30 degrees. :down:

Ah! 300%! No wonder. I'd assumed it was 3% Blimey!

Hehe I looked at this figure last week and ignored it because I figured it was so low that it couldn't possibly be the problem. I guess I should have messed about with it, but I've never had the problem since using the dud torp mod.

I guess this explains why I had the problem in vanilla SH3 too - there was a 30% chance of getting this bug prior to installing the mod.

[MudMarine]

What tools are needed to mod torpedoes.

I would like to open up the file and look at the variables.

[tater]

Mini Tweaker program, and the torpedo tweak files, I believe.

<S>

tater

[tater]

Wonder what combo of things was required for it to happen 100% of the time, though. Does it pick one set of %s for each patrol from the gyro settings?

Curious.

[Jace11]

it happened 100% of time, even after reloading the save game and shooting again...

when I replaced it with 50 degree 0.3 chance settings, I should have seen it again (worse at 50 degrees) if it was locked into some kind of repeat.. but it didn't it went away...

[Beery]

it happened 100% of time, even after reloading the save game and shooting again...

when I replaced it with 50 degree 0.3 chance settings, I should have seen it again (worse at 50 degrees) if it was locked into some kind of repeat.. but it didn't it went away...

I've seen it happen with 50 degrees and 0.3 chance (the standard version of the file), so it's still there - it just happens more rarely.

[panthercules]

May be a simpleton question, but if "3" made it happen a lot, and "0.3" reduces the chance of it happening, and if this (gyro angle problem) wasn't really much of an issue historically, why wouldn't you just reduce it to "0.1" or even lower (would "0" work?) so it would hardly ever happen at all?

Is the torpedo tweak file available somewhere so we could play with this ourselves? I've collected a few of the tweak files to play with, but I've missed this one somehow.

[Beery]

May be a simpleton question, but if "3" made it happen a lot, and "0.3" reduces the chance of it happening, and if this (gyro angle problem) wasn't really much of an issue historically, why wouldn't you just reduce it to "0.1" or even lower (would "0" work?) so it would hardly ever happen at all?

Yeah, I suggested that in the RFB thread. I'm considering it, but I don't want to do it unless it's a popular decision.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Is it possible this could be updated for 1.3?

Thanks,
PD

[Suicide Charlie]

Ha. Came in here wanting to read about the results you guys have been getting from your testing and it turns into a short conversation about Boston. I lived in Boston when I originally registered and started posting here (Just got SHIV. I've been lurking for a bit sense I moved to the West Coast).

I don't see Nomad_Delta's name in here. He's done some extensive work testing torpedos. Don't know if you guy's have seen each other's threads.