Torpedo advice

[ddiplock]

Some advice on torpedos. I've JUST noticed that in base you apparently have the option of swapping out Mk 14 torps for the smaller Mk 10, even on a fleet boat, is this correct?

Since the Mk 10 has fewer faults than the Mk 14, would it be better to swap them all out? I know they are slower than the Mk 14's, but does the sacrifice in speed get offset by actually having more reliable torpedos in the long run?

[EricW]

I would say yes-depending on your situation. Last week I was driving a Porpoise class (2 stern tubes and 4 torps total in the back) and took all MK14's as my loadout for the 1st patrol. All my stern torps were duds and it was pretty frustrating!!! On my 2nd patrol I took all MK10's in the back and half in front-they all worked and put down 5 ships. I did have 2 ships get away damaged but I sank a Horai Maru- 2 hits and a Nippon Maru with one lucky shot. Must have had AV gas on it cuz she blew up instantly with the first torp hit, lol, BUT, I did have a Zinbu Maru get away with 3 hits!!! It had a slight list but the MK10's didn't even slow her down.
After the 3rd patrol I'd had it with the Porpoise and was given a Gato and I added a CPO Torpedo expert as a new crewmember. Last night I went out with all MK14's again. I screwed up my approach and had a large convoy zig straight at me in the last 5 minutes of my attack (playing TMO 2.1). I went to flank to get out of the way and hopefully salvage something of my blown attack. Of course, the escorts heard me and started in as I let all my stern tubes go at a Kiturin Maru stern to bow(desperation shot, LOL). Apparently the whole convoy started to zig and slow down as soon as the escorts started pinging me, and I was rewarded by 2 hits on my target (aimed at the stern) and then as I was crashdiving, 2 more on the Nagara that was on the other side(LUCKY). All four torps exploded (more luck) and both ships went down as I started a two hour evasion. I had started my attack and checked the wind-speed at 10 m/s. I checked just as I was detected and found it dropped to 2 m/s ( OH NOOO).
Sorry for the long post but I'm still worked up, lol. I can't believe I pulled that off. Eric

[Gerald]

:DL

[TorpX]

Some advice on torpedos. I've JUST noticed that in base you apparently have the option of swapping out Mk 14 torps for the smaller Mk 10, even on a fleet boat, is this correct?

Since the Mk 10 has fewer faults than the Mk 14, would it be better to swap them all out? I know they are slower than the Mk 14's, but does the sacrifice in speed get offset by actually having more reliable torpedos in the long run?

This might depend on what mods your using. I presume you are "charged" for the mk 10's. In any case, real-life crews would have to take what they could get, as there was a serious torpedo shortage in the early war period. When mk 10's were used in fleetboats, this was the underlying reason.

[Rockin Robbins]

Mark 10s took a different torpedo tube diameter than the Mark 14s. They were usable with modifications to the tube. The captain was then left explaining why he wanted to fire 25 year-old torpedoes with much less explosive in them, rather than the modern and more powerful Mark 14. Does anyone have any evidence this ever happened? I think a captain asking for a load of Mark 10s would be risking his command.

Those Mark 14s work great anyhow. It's the lousy captains that are screwing the pooch and not shooting them right. EVERYBODY knows that!:D

[ddiplock]

Mark 10s took a different torpedo tube diameter than the Mark 14s. They were usable with modifications to the tube. The captain was then left explaining why he wanted to fire 25 year-old torpedoes with much less explosive in them, rather than the modern and more powerful Mark 14. Does anyone have any evidence this ever happened? I think a captain asking for a load of Mark 10s would be risking his command.

Those Mark 14s work great anyhow. It's the lousy captains that are screwing the pooch and not shooting them right. EVERYBODY knows that!:D

Well, apparently the Mk 10 was the same diameter as the Mk 14, so a Mk 10 could be used in a fleet boat, but the Mk 14 was too long for the S class.

Sounds to me given the sizes are the same (bar length) that it would be very simple to equip a fleet boat with some Mk 10 torps.

Having said that, I've already loaded my boat out and dumped the Mk 14s, going to do a run with the Mk 10's in my fleet boat and see how things go :D

[Stealhead]

I have often wondered about the accuracy of the whole MK.10 in non S-Boat thing.Some claim that they did use them in newer boats when mk.14s where in short supply but I find that hard to believe.

Seems to me that the Mk.10s where rather old stock by the time WWII came around and they surely must not have had that many in good working order even for the S-boats using them and also knowing military equipment the older it gets the less reliable it becomes surely after 20 years likely in rather poor storage conditions I cant imagine there being that many serviceable mk.10s to go around they probably had just enough for the old S-Boats and I am going to bet they they never started producing more during the war.Why would would you make an old torpedo when you had (so far as was officially known early war to be just fine) a better one?And the old S-Boats where mainly standing in until war production replaced them with newer boats it would make no sense from a logistical standpoint to encourage newer boats to use mk.10s.

If this was allowed I cant imagine it was done for very long or by very many boats I dont think a skipper would wan to explain to his commander when he got back why he decided to carry 20 year old torpedoes that where the only torpedo S-Boats used at a time when officially the Mk.14 was fine not a good move if one desires to stay on a boat the better skipper if he had doubts would have kept using 14 so that he could prove the problem and help to solve it.I cant recall any of the many fleet boat skipper authored books mentioning the use of mk.10s I think if it had been any where near a common practice even if only early war they would have mentioned it.The other thing to recall as well is that it took some time for the MK.14 to have 100% confirmed issues thanks to the typical early war tactics by that point(early 43') there where alot of mk.14s in supply and even less mk.10s.

I think if they where told to use MK.10s sometime in 1942 that skipper and crew would not have been very happy about mk.14s had already had success and now they want you to carry a much less powerful torpedo.I think even after the bugs where found and the short term cures passed down most skippers still would have gone whit mk.14 purely from a destruction standpoint.

[ddiplock]

Well, USS Permit has returned from her 2nd war patrol loaded with Mk 10 fish.

High success rate, not a single dud among the lot. Three Japanese merchant's sunk for some 13,350 odd tons. Not a huge amount, but its a start!!

Due to the smaller warhead payload of the Mk 10's, more torps are naturally required if its a large target.

Will depart for my 3rd patrol soon, this time back to the Mk 14 fish. May regret the decision when the duds rear their ugly heads!!!

[Rockin Robbins]

In the real war, the 25 year-old Mark 10s did not work very well when they worked at all. No captain would have chosen to take Mark 10s. Of course the same is true with the S-Boats, which in the game are really great little boats.

Why? Because in our game the Mark 10s and Sugar Boats are brand new, shiny right out of the factory! In Ubi-land there was a time warp or something, so we get not the performance of the items in WWII, but their performance as it would have been (maybe) in WWI.

100% reliability of all components is one reason we cannot call SH4 realistic. When we shout about the realism of TMO we're just revealing the profound depth of our ignorance. At its best, SH4 is a shallow surface sim, a VERY rough sketch of the submarine war in WWII. All mods, no matter how good, are limited by the deeply superficial (is that a turn of phrase or what?) game engine.

Hey, they did the best they could for the computer capabilities we have! That's more than you can say for SH5!

[ddiplock]

In the real war, the 25 year-old Mark 10s did not work very well when they worked at all. No captain would have chosen to take Mark 10s. Of course the same is true with the S-Boats, which in the game are really great little boats.

Why? Because in our game the Mark 10s and Sugar Boats are brand new, shiny right out of the factory! In Ubi-land there was a time warp or something, so we get not the performance of the items in WWII, but their performance as it would have been (maybe) in WWI.

100% reliability of all components is one reason we cannot call SH4 realistic. When we shout about the realism of TMO we're just revealing the profound depth of our ignorance. At its best, SH4 is a shallow surface sim, a VERY rough sketch of the submarine war in WWII. All mods, no matter how good, are limited by the deeply superficial (is that a turn of phrase or what?) game engine.

Hey, they did the best they could for the computer capabilities we have! That's more than you can say for SH5!

This is true I suppose. I was given a new boat on my return, a new shiny Gato with new radar and everything. Swapped back to the Mk 14's......and lo and behold, the duds start returning!!

Are the Mk 18's that come out later any better?

[TorpX]

I have read mk 10's were used in fleetboats, but I can't remember where or the details of it. I doubt many were fired from them, because the BuOrd was working to boost production of mk 14's and the newer models. There were also some older types used. Mk 9's or maybe mk 8's, but I don't know how they were used. This was because of the shortage, of course.

For those interested, the book Hellions of the Deep by Robert Gannon, covers U.S. torpedos in WWII. I learned, for instance, that the mk 13, which was the air-launched torpedo, had many problems of it's own.

About the mk 10 having a smaller warhead: I don't think this was a serious shortcoming regarding merchant targets. Any torpedo that explodes against the hull of a merchant is guarenteed to breach that compartment. The only advantage of the bigger charge would be that it might breach adjacent compartments. With capitol ships, you would want the largest warhead you could get (within reason). I don't think Silent Hunter models damage well, though.

Are the Mk 18's that come out later any better?
I always thought the mk 18's were a cheap, mediocre torpedo, but I'll bet the in-game ones are better than in RL. They didn't have the same stigma that became attached to the mk 14. Personally, I think the mk 18 had more to do with envy of Germany, than any rational need for an electric torpedo. I suppose if Germany had had a baking soda - vinegar powered torpedo, we would have wanted one too. :DL

[Stealhead]

Actually from what I understand most skippers had no real issues with the Mk18s Fluckey seemed to like them.I know O'Kane did not because his sub was lost to a circular run which was an issue with the mk.18 that was fixed when it was discovered also O'Kane felt that the Wahoo was lost to a pre-production mk18 circle run but there is no evidence of this.In fact I dont think they even looked into how the Wahoo was lost even though some Russian divers did find her the US Navy has yet to go and look at her or confirm the Russians as far as I know so I feel that O'Kane was a little biased against mk.18s to be honest.

The production of an electric wake less(the reason the Germans made their electrics) torpedo is a rather logical idea.There is nothing wrong with copying an enemies weapon if the idea behind it is sound hell that is what arms races are all about more or less you are taking the other guys idea and making it your own.I have to disagree with your opinion here.Also I think it was the Brits that had the idea to copy the germans not the US.But there really cant be that much to copy honestly you just put some batteries inside a torpedo I dont think they where reverse engineered per say I think we just said hey a wakeless torpedo that is a great idea lets use it. Also the MK.24 "Fido" which the MK.27 "Cutie" is based on where both electrically powered and the Fido was very effective against German U-Boats so in all reality the copying of the Germans electrically powered torpedo resulted in three effective weapons systems one the MK.18 wound up sinking 1 million tons of Japanese shipping the other the Fido was very bad news and sank many German U-Boats in my book that is very sound "being inspired by an enemies weaponism".

In game the mk.18 are pretty reliable for me once in a while I will get a dud or rarely a circle run.Some guys dislike them in game due to the short range but I personally like to carry some for day time attacks where the lack of a wake is more useful

[Ypsan]

I just started playing SH4 again recently. On my first patrol I had a bad experience with mk.14, about 50% malfunctioning, but yesterday it was even worse. Yesterday, during my second patrol I engaged a merchant ship with mk.14, 4/4 hits (distance 800y), 3 duds and 1 explosion but the ship didn't sink. Next merchant I engaged, 4/4 hits (dist. 1100y) and all 4 duds. My last fwd torpedos btw.

Little later (next evening - game time) I received a contact report from my crew, warship approaching. Can't use sonar to measure the distance without being discovered so I submerged until I could get a good visual. It turned out to be a light cruiser, travelling NW. With the first rough estimates I repositioned my sub and started more precise measurements. Provided that my measurments were correct, it turned out I was not at perfect 90% angle to the target's course but at 70%. Moreover, the target was moving at 17kn, my firing distance was 2900y and I could send only 2 aft torpedos at a time. Nevertheless, I took the shot, one to bow compartment and one to the middle. Both torpedos hit exactly where I aimed and yes... both were duds. :damn:

From there I went home and started my 3rd patrol loaded with mk.10s. :DL

[Rockin Robbins]

Another thing I forgot all about is that the stock TDC wouldn't work with the Mark 10 because it had a different turning radius and running speed. Yes, the TDC could be laboriously retuned. I am not absolutely clear whether this would have to be done in port or could be done at sea. I know there we big issues adapting to the Mark 18 for the same reasons.

[TorpX]

Actually from what I understand most skippers had no real issues with the Mk18s Fluckey seemed to like them.I know O'Kane did not because his sub was lost to a circular run which was an issue with the mk.18 that was fixed when it was discovered also O'Kane felt that the Wahoo was lost to a pre-production mk18 circle run but there is no evidence of this.In fact I dont think they even looked into how the Wahoo was lost even though some Russian divers did find her the US Navy has yet to go and look at her or confirm the Russians as far as I know so I feel that O'Kane was a little biased against mk.18s to be honest.

The production of an electric wake less(the reason the Germans made their electrics) torpedo is a rather logical idea.There is nothing wrong with copying an enemies weapon if the idea behind it is sound hell that is what arms races are all about more or less you are taking the other guys idea and making it your own.I have to disagree with your opinion here.Also I think it was the Brits that had the idea to copy the germans not the US.But there really cant be that much to copy honestly you just put some batteries inside a torpedo I dont think they where reverse engineered per say I think we just said hey a wakeless torpedo that is a great idea lets use it. Also the MK.24 "Fido" which the MK.27 "Cutie" is based on where both electrically powered and the Fido was very effective against German U-Boats so in all reality the copying of the Germans electrically powered torpedo resulted in three effective weapons systems one the MK.18 wound up sinking 1 million tons of Japanese shipping the other the Fido was very bad news and sank many German U-Boats in my book that is very sound "being inspired by an enemies weaponism".

In game the mk.18 are pretty reliable for me once in a while I will get a dud or rarely a circle run.Some guys dislike them in game due to the short range but I personally like to carry some for day time attacks where the lack of a wake is more useful

I don't mean to condem the mk 18 completely, but most of what I've read about it's actual performance has been negative. Perhaps most of the time it worked ok; who knows? My opinion is not only based on O'Kane; Fluckey had many failures on his final patrol, in '45, so I think they were still working through the bugs when the war ended.

I have nothing against copying an enemies weapon if it leads to a superior weapon. This did not happen with the mk 18. German electrics were captured and the USN was very interested in developing a comparable model. A decision was made to "copy" the German one, instead of continuing work on an existing US model to save time. However, copying the German model proved to be impossible, due to the fact that the components were more or less "hand-crafted". Changes had to be made.... After manufacturing began problems surfaced with the batteries, then others....
I know a large number were made by war's end, but I have yet to read anything that convinces me that a mk 18 could do anything a mk 14 could not. I think the main reason the USN wanted the mk 18 was that there were still problems with the mk 14 (when the decision was made) and they were desperate to get something that worked. To Navy men who knew of the torpedo problems, the prospect of any new model must have been attractive.

This is the way I see the mk 18:


+ "trackless" and stealthy
+ cheaper to make



- slooooow (and erratic)
- new model, new problems
- high maintainance
- poor speed/range performance


The thing is, postwar studies indicate, very few enemy crews spotted torpedo tracks in time to evade. And as to the second point, I think history showed that torpedos was not a good place to skimp on costs.

The "fido" and "cutie" were successful and worthwhile projects, but these were not copied from German ideas. They really had nothing to do with the mk 18. Electric propulsion makes sense when you want to build a quiet, small, homing torpedo. IIRC the speed of the "fido" was only about 12 knots. This is sufficient for chasing down a submerged U-boat, but not very good for an offensive torpedo.

[Rockin Robbins]

I think the final analysis on the Mark 18 is that they were discontinued after the war and the Mark 14 remained in production for about 20 years afterwards. Since Fluckey replaced Lockwood after the war, that tells us exactly what he thought of the Mark 18 and that the problems were never worked out well enough to establish faith that they would hit their targets.

In Thunder Below, Fluckey thought the Mark 18 was OK for night action but in the daytime he wanted the fastest torpedo he could loose.

[Stealhead]

Well I never meant that the mk.18 was perfect(I think Fluckley called them mk.28s or something in the book he used another name besides mk.18 was there another company making a mk.18 and they gave it a different number)

I also never said that the mk.18 and mk.24 and mk.27 where the same but they where all powered by electric batteries and all came about at least in prototype form in 43' so they all must have taken the electric propulsion idea from the Germans.I think the 24 and 27 did better because they where a bit slower at 12 knots while the mk.18 was supposed to go about 30 knots.Was not the main issue with the mk.18 the batteries giving unreliable juice resulting in slower speeds and/or shorter range?Those two would result in a lot of erratic runs.

Of course torpedoes where such an advanced weapon that none of them fit well into mass production at all they required high precision.The mk.14 if they'd have done better testing pre war would have been a very reliable weapon.Thanks t the unknown issues of the mk.14 and then the some what lowered quality that mass production is going to cause at least for several months it is no wonder the mk.14 had so many problems.

I think they some what rushed the mk.18 a bit into production and that is what made it so buggy it had great potential but it was hindered when it worked as intended it was fine.The Germans had the advantage of a better introduction for their electrics they had some issues with them as well at first.Then by the time the mk.18s bugs where showing they had ironed out the bugs of the mk.14 and perhaps just left the mk.18s as they where (I would assume that they(Navy Ord) where also focusing on designing the mk.16 which came to late for combat)

Personally I think that the Mk.24 and Mk.27 where pretty darn successful when you consider how advanced they where for the time period a self guiding weapon is pretty impressive for late 43'.The Germans had their guided torps as well but I don't think they where as successful as ours where.Also many SH4 players mis understand the intended use of the mk.27 they where to be used as a defensive weapon against an attacking DD or other ASW warship the idea being that you fired the thing at a vessel charging the sub in which case speed of the torp is not an issue.They also where used successfully against merchant ships as well.SH4 does not really simulate the mk.27 very well at all because at least the way Fluckey describes his 27 kill the torp came up from below the targets hull and hit the bottom which would cause some pretty serious damage but SH4 does not simulate damage in a manner that can simulate this kind of hit.

[Thrair]

IIRC the speed of the "fido" was only about 12 knots. This is sufficient for chasing down a submerged U-boat, but not very good for an offensive torpedo.


Aye. IIRC, they worked hard to keep it's top speed a secret lest U-boat commanders learn they could outrun it if they surfaced.

[Stealhead]

The fido was pretty secret that is why they classified it as a mine and not a torpedo they wanted it to appear as something else than it was.I think the odds of escaping a properly dropped fido would be slim.If the fido was dropped at the ideal time as the u-boat was diving the crew basically was toast no way they are going to outrun submerged and even if they blew ballast they would have to get to a speed above 12 knots very fast which is not likely for a u-boat just having surfaced the other problem would be exposing the boat on the surface by the time fido was around they had the ASW escort carriers and the ASW air crews had good tactics and would have been attacking in groups so one plane might drop a fido while the other stays near by to engage the sub if it where to surface so even if the fido failed something else worked in the same action.

I dont know for sure how much the Germans knew about the fido my guess is not very much because almost no u-boat crews made it back after their sub being lost to even be able to speculate what had happened.What makes fido so great is it was seeking a u-boat that was in the process of a rapid dive and therefore making tons of noise I bet most u-boat crews that got hit by a fido they never knew what hit them.According to wikipedia fidos sank 37 u-boats and had a 22% effectiveness rating while depth charging had a 9% effectiveness rating.

[TorpX]

Aye. IIRC, they worked hard to keep it's top speed a secret lest U-boat commanders learn they could outrun it if they surfaced.

They certainly did go to lengths to keep it secret, but this was more fear of the Germans developing countermeasures such as noisemakers. I think "fido" was supposed to have an operational ceiling of 50 ft. or so, to prevent it from blowing up friendly ships. The "cutie" was supposed to have a floor for the same reason. So, if they were willing to surface, they would have been safe (from the torpedo). Orders were issued for the ASW units only to use the mk 24 against single U-boats, no groups. They didn't want any knowlage of it to get back with surviving U-boats.

My source said of the mk 24 that it was believed to have a effective homing range of 500 to 1,000 yds. This was estimated by test firings using US subs as targets. This would mean that an airplane would have to drop it pretty close to be sure of killing the target.


As a footnote for the mk 18, most of the problems with it seemed to be related to the batteries. In addition to them being slow, it was stated that the speed varied by up to 3 knots. This would make accurate shooting problematic. I believe they tried to improve performance by pre-heating the batteries, but I wonder how this was accomplished. Could this be done with the torpedos in the tubes and how long would it take? Frankly, apart from the homing types, I think the navy would have been better off pursuing improved versions of the steam types. Work was done with "navol" torpedos, but they never saw combat.

[Daniel Prates]

A question that has always plagued my imagination: german torpedoes where, after all, better or worse than the allied counterparts? It is historical that german skippers had lots of complaints in the early years of the war, and that they got better as new types were developed. It is also true that they developed more complex torpedoes, pattern-running and so on. So comparing could be hard or even impossible.

But still we can ponder. Anyone has seen any concrete data on this? Like for instance, compared data on dud percentage for german and allied torps, or something like that?

[TorpX]

I'm not sure the german torpedos were that much better than ours. If BuOrd had let go of the magnetic influence idea, and been satisfied to use a tested impact exploder, that would have left only the depth control problem with the mk 14. The problems did not require new technology or long, drawn-out development programs. After these problems were fixed, they performed well. The popular perception is that the German torps were superior. I think this was mainly because of the virtual massacre of allied shipping that occured in '39 - '42. But I would contend allied ASW weakness was more to blame than uber torpedos.



The allies captured german types, first some of the standard electric ones, and later some of the GNAT types. From what I've read, the experts did not seem too impressed with them. (I suppose opinions differed here.) The german pattern runners were a nice idea. Apparently, the US decided it would be almost as easy to develop a homing torpedo as a pattern one. Both sides had various models that were discontinued, or not finished during the war. Some of these seemed to hold great promise.



I doubt there is extensive data on german torpedo reliability. The reason there is for US torpedos is because of the ugly realities of 1942. If our torps had been merely so-so, the matter might well have been relagated to obscurity. What I have read about the german acoustic torpedos suggests that they did not achieve as many hits as the germans believed. I don't know if this was because of malfunctions, technical faults, or simply due to the tactical situations being very unfavorable for the U-boats.



I strongly suspect that all the naval powers had significant numbers of torpedo failures, for the simple reason that they were the most complex pieces of ordnance of their day, and had thousands of parts. It would have been remarkable if they had not malfunctioned with some frequency. The question can probably never be answered satisfactorly, as a torpedo launched in a war zone is not available for examination, and there is often no tell-tale sign of failure. Most of the time, a deep-runner, or dud will look the same as any other miss. This means the various ordnance establishments had to depend mainly on controled test firings, and these could produce misleading results.

[Sailor Steve]

Actually there is good historical information on German torpedoes. While exact percentages are not available as far as I know, it is well-known that they also suffered severe problems with the magnetic detonators, especially in the North Sea. And like the Americans, the Germans also experienced impact-pistol failures, and they also had depth-keeping problems.
http://uboat.net/history/torpedo_crisis.htm

[Hinrich Schwab]

German and American torpedoes suffered similar problems due to equal faults in development. Developers did not take certain aspects into account, such as the constant pressure changes inside the submarine into account in developing the triggers. American development suffered more from carelessness as opposed to German oversight.

Regarding the depth keeping problem, German torpedoes had issues with the actual mechanism responsible with maintaining set depths. American torpedoes suffered from a massive oversight during testing. This oversight came from a rush for congressional funds as the armed forces fought for every dollar available in the wake of both cutbacks and political jockeying, primarily by the Army. During the interwar years, the dummy warhead for the Mark 14 had a different specific gravity from the actual warhead. While the 14 ran relatively true during testing, the live warhead had a higher specific gravity, making it run much deeper than calculated.

The magnetic triggers of both forces suffered from developmental and calibration problems. Neither nation took into account, nor could compensate for effectively, the changes in Earth's magnetic field at the Equator or in high latitudes. This would make the mag triggers act erratically and eventually detonate prematurely.

Ironically enough, Japan avoided many torpedo problems that America and Germany endured, however, they did experiment with compressed oxygen as a propellant. Naturally, the results were counterproductive.

[Daniel Prates]

According to the text:

"Editor's note: The US Navy had very similar experiences (http://www.subsim.com/allies/technical/torpedo_problems.htm) with their torpedoes when they began their war in the Pacific."