Dud Torps

[Red Devil]

Getting seriously annoyed with the dud torpedos setting. I can get into position to hit a convoy/task force and have 5 out of six explode prematurely; rerun the scenario and have none, then 1 -3 torps detonate.

This sim is suffering greatly from Premature Detonation and I want to know how to imobilise ALL dud torps and to hell with historical accuracy?

OK? Help? Running RSRDCv502 with patch but it does it in stock too. :doh:

[Dread Knot]

Just click the box in the game options area marked, "No Dud Torpedoes" when you begin a patrol or career.
Should solve the problem.

[Armistead]

British.....:haha:

[Dread Knot]

British.....:haha:

Yes, but British WW II torpedoes actually worked from day one. :D The venerable Mark VIII wasn't retired until 1983.

I always found it one of those strange dichotomies of WWII, that the two nations that were the most successful with their respective submarine fleets, (Germany and the US) started the war with dysfunctional torpedoes.

[Red Devil]

British.....:haha:

aaar, sharrup!! I dont look for cheats so didnt know. BUT, so saying, I am going to have unlimited fuel after all this time, how I am supposed to get to the Celebes etc, from Pearl, is a wonder of WW2 technology!! My fuel tank must have a leak!! :/\\!!

[Dread Knot]

BUT, so saying, I am going to have unlimited fuel after all this time, how I am supposed to get to the Celebes etc, from Pearl, is a wonder of WW2 technology!! My fuel tank must have a leak!! :/\\!!

That's odd. The only time I've ever been assigned the Celebes Sea, is when my boat was based in the land Down Under.

[Red Devil]

That's odd. The only time I've ever been assigned the Celebes Sea, is when my boat was based in the land Down Under.

I had just been given a new boat, (drum) I was out of Fremantle and got transfered to Pearl, but the assignment stayed the same as if I was in Freemantle. I have had to abandon quite a few missions in the past in stock SH4 due to fuel shortages and nowhere (in the early months) to refuel.

[torpedobait]

I had just been given a new boat, (drum) I was out of Fremantle and got transfered to Pearl, but the assignment stayed the same as if I was in Freemantle. I have had to abandon quite a few missions in the past in stock SH4 due to fuel shortages and nowhere (in the early months) to refuel.

You must be running at too high a speed to use that much fuel. If you are not in a hurry and/or won't be passing near a refuel point (base), set your speed to 9 knots. For most boats this will put your maximum range to over 20,000 NM. That will get you from Pearl to Japan to Celebes and back to Pearl with fuel left over. It's all in what you want, Captain.:D

[Red Devil]

good thinking batman. I suppose that is a reasonable option.

I set the torps at no duds, equipped with Mk 14s, and sailed off towards the setting sun in USS Drum, found a convoy and 'Torpedo a dud, sir!' :arrgh!:

Is it best to restart a career in order for the alterations to work?

The best torps are those at the end of the war the 'green ones' - took out three ships from a convoy on my laptop (different dates obviously) and did not pass within 8000 yds of the convoy, the escorts had no chance of finding me!!

apart from your 'mod soup' we are running the same adaptations. And with game booster 3

[aanker]

I've never tried no duds but I'm guessing they threw some in anyway for effect.

Whenever you do a base change, the first patrol will be from your previous base... a glitch remaining in stock.

As Sailor Steve suggested, 9 knots will the reduce fuel shortage issues in stock.

Happy Hunting!

[Rammstein0991]

Aye, I've had a dud like once even with them turned off, I suspect programming glitches are to blame, SH is KNOWN for them after all -.-

[BigWalleye]

This has nothing to do with "programming glitches." The "realism" (sic) settings can only be changed at the start of a career. Otherwise, you can change the settings all you want, but each time you load a saved game, they revert to what was set at the start of that career. This is the way the game was designed to work. As they say: "It's not a bug. It's a feature."

To change the settings mid-carrer, you must modify the GameplaySettings.cfg file found in you savegame folder. (The full path to this folder is User/<username>/Documents/SH4/Data/Cfg/GameplaySettings.cfg, where <username> is dependent on your Windows setup.) Open GameplaySettings.cfg in Notepad. The contents will look something like this:


[Current]
LimitedBatteries=true
LimitedCompressedAir=true
LimitedO2=true
LimitedFuel=true
RealisticRepairTime=true
ManualTargetingSystem=true
NoMapUpdate=false
RealisticSensors=true
DudTorpedoes=true
RealisticReload=true
NoEventCamera=true
NoExternalView=true
NoStabilizeView=true
MPShowPlayerNames=true
MPShowTorpedoes=true

[MiscSettings]
CurrentNation=American
MeasurementUnits=authentic

Change whatever settings you wish (settings are "true" or false") and save the changes. Then start SH4 and load your saved career. (AFAIK, changes to this file, if done properly, will never result in a CTD.) The saved career should resume with the new settings.

[aanker]

I suggested this edit to someone stuck with no fuel close to base and they reported they did it, and made it back:

So, although a 'cheat' (you're only cheating yourself), I think it is possible to edit this file mid-patrol if you run out of fuel close to port, set to unlimited fuel, return to base, and then restore the settings.

Never tried it myself but have seen quite a few broken-hearted people over the years posting that they lost their entire career.

Happy Hunting!

[BigWalleye]

IMO, it's not a cheat. You only get renown based on the "Realism" (sic) settings at the time you score it, not those you started with, so no renown advantage is gained. If, as you suggest, someone switches to unlimited fuel to RTB, then they will only get credit for the patrol based on their difficulty level at patrol end - no advantage there. And you can increase your difficulty level in mid-career, if/when you realize that you do not like your current settings. You can, for example, switch to manual targeting because you are ready to try it, without having to start a new career. I have used the technique a couple of times when I started a career without remembering to set the "Realism" (sic) options to 100%. It's easier than having to trash the career and start over.

Of course, I don't understand what the term "cheat" means as applied to a non-competitive game like SH4 anyway. It's only a matter of personal achievement, not competitive rank. If someone wants to claim an artificially inflated score, they can just make whatever claim they choose without actually having to play the game at all.

[TorpX]

IMO, it's not a cheat. You only get renown based on the "Realism" (sic) settings at the time you score it....


I would consider it a cheat. Yes, you might get less renown, but you are altering a game file to save a career that would otherwise be at an end.

I have used the technique a couple of times when I started a career without remembering to set the "Realism" (sic) options to 100%. It's easier than having to trash the career and start over.

This seems ok, to me. I sometimes replay a save, not to obtain a better result, or inflate my tonnage, but to learn why those two or three torps missed that big ship. I don't continue on this alternate path of reality, though. Learning about the game/tactics is the goal here, not boosting my career.

[BigWalleye]

[INDENT] I would consider it a cheat. Yes, you might get less renown, but you are altering a game file to save a career that would otherwise be at an end.

Do you always play DID? Is not playing DID a cheat IUO?

[Red Devil]

I dont see the problem using a cheat for that purpose, it is after all ONLY A GAME. Don't take it seriously. Its a games fault you are out of fuel ,not the USN. come on lighten up!

[aanker]

In the old SH1 - SHCE if you used too much fuel in the assigned patrol area and not saving enough to RTB, depending on how it was calculated, there was a graphic that could be seen of your boat being towed back to port.... essentially saving your career. I saw the graphic while looking though the files, but never had it in-game.

While on the career saving subject, there was also an 'abandon ship' option in SHCE with three outcomes; captured POW, KIA, or Rescued - saving the career. I think this was displayed in newspaper headlines. It's been a while so I'm not 100% sure on that one...

Both were nice options I wish had been included in SH4. I play DID or Sunk is sunk, however running out of fuel 100 nm from base, or abandoning ship at 26' shouldn't be a 100% career killer imo, there were friendlies in WWII.

Anyway, SH4 is what it is :)

I apologize for straying off topic!

[Armistead]

In the old SH1 - SHCE if you used too much fuel in the assigned patrol area and not saving enough to RTB, depending on how it was calculated, there was a graphic that could be seen of your boat being towed back to port.... essentially saving your career. I saw the graphic while looking though the files, but never had it in-game.

While on the career saving subject, there was also an 'abandon ship' option in SHCE with three outcomes; captured POW, KIA, or Rescued - saving the career. I think this was displayed in newspaper headlines. It's been a while so I'm not 100% sure on that one...

Both were nice options I wish had been included in SH4. I play DID or Sunk is sunk, however running out of fuel 100 nm from base, or abandoning ship at 26' shouldn't be a 100% career killer imo, there were friendlies in WWII.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbaSh8i5eyE
Anyway, SH4 is what it is :)

I apologize for straying off topic!

I think Trav gives the option to return to base with a push of a button in one of his mods for a lil loss of renown.

[aanker]

I think Trav gives the option to return to base with a push of a button in one of his mods for a lil loss of renown.
Thanks, I've never had a fuel issue, however once we were damaged and homeward bound at 26'.... roughly 48 hours later my crew were killed from CO2 poisoning. They could have easily escaped to safety from that depth.

Happy Hunting!

[merc4ulfate]

If you use the Traveller mods you get a one time SOS.

As long as you follow the instructions, if you are so seriously damaged you can not return to port ie. destroyed screws or engines or you have unwisely ran your engines and wasted fuel the mod will allow you to be returned to base as if you had to be towed in.

You will lose 400 points in Renown but will save your boat and crew ... minus the shame and hazing everyone at port will give you for not being more efficient and judicious in follow procedures.

[TorpX]

Do you always play DID? Is not playing DID a cheat IUO?

Yes, I always play DID in career. Sometimes I will play a mission, or construct a mission, to test some aspect of the sim, or develop a mod or technique, or such. My careers are always DID. Sometimes, I will lose a career for stupid/unfair reasons (this is a subjective matter, though), but they are lost to me just the same. I can't bring myself to go back to resurrect a deceased captain, knowing all the while HE IS REALLY DEAD.

As far as "cheating" is concerned, that kind of depends. If you consider yourself a serious (or "hardcore") player, I would say non-DID is a cheat. If you are a casual player, then no, it isn't.

I have nothing against casual players, or new players using easy settings, or game workarounds. I started with SHCE playing casually, with auto-targeting. I knew nothing about the game, and not much more about the subs and campaign. Everybody has to start somewhere. I try to encourage new people to be more serious, as I believe this provides a richer experience.

I realize not everyone is a serious player, but I have to assume, most of us here, have more than a casual interest. Even if you don't have a serious interest in this game now, you may develop a greater interest in the future. (It would help enormously, if someone developed a better version than what Ubisoft gave us.) Also, I understand, many of those who have only a causal interest in SH, may be seriously devoted to other games/sims. It really isn't possible to be devoted to very many. Everybody has their own favorites.

Back to the fuel/towing thing. I can see getting towed back to port if you are close, and taking a big hit in renown, along the lines of what Traveller did. The routine aspects of patrolling are pretty easy, though, so it should require a substantial penalty, imo.

[Sniper297]

I've been playing computer games and simulators since the TRS-80 came out in 1979, so 35 years worth. Not non-stop, obviously! :har: The problem with cheating is a balance - if you don't cheat at all most games get tedious and/or irritating. If you cheat too much they get boring. It's a very rare game that is programmed so perfectly that a little cheating doesn't make it more fun rather than less, but again it's tricky to get just the right balance.

Running out of fuel in SH4 is irritating, crossing the Pacific at 10 knots is tedious, so it's the best place to cheat - a LITTLE.

What I did was use Silent 3ditor to open the \Data\Submarine\NSS_Gato\NSS_Gato.sim file, edited the 11:unit_Submarine\Ranges\Surfaced to
miles=18000
knots=15

That gave me a little more range at standard speed instead of chugging along at 10 knots. Eventually I gave up on the whole Pearl Harbor thing and went Asiatic, then started playing with the mission editor to create new resupply bases so I never bothered to increase the Sargo range.

So if you want to cheat a LITTLE do the same with your favorite sub, add ballast fuel tanks and increase the range by 2000 or 3000 miles. Don't go overboard and increase to 50000 or something, if it's too much you might as well select unlimited fuel.

[Red Devil]

cheating is not a bad thing, but some purists disagree.

I too recall the tow back to port scene; and yes, have used it. Shame it cannot be in SH4.

I may have to scrap every save after this current one and the limited fuel tick does not work, I still have full tanks after going from Pearl to Midway to 'refit' on the way to Japan.

I actually got hit by one of my own torps at one stage, strangely it did not sink me??? Something that did happen in reality as I recall, might have been the Tang. I do real research into US subs in the Pacific for my ww2 site.

Sniper: I like your fuel 'adjustment' will copy that.

Renown is not important at all to me. I do not 'pay' for Torps as I refit on the way home and arrive at base with a full compliment, refit is free. The only trime I do pay is on changeover from one to another type, then, again, refit is free. Lets face it, ever see a real sub driver paying for his torps??

[merc4ulfate]

Some purest seem to have a great desire to get hot under the collar about it LOL

The usual scream is that it is not historically accurate.

If I do not like something ... I simply find a way to fix it but getting bent out of shape about it is a character flaw I can do without.

[aanker]

... I actually got hit by one of my own torps at one stage, strangely it did not sink me??? Something that did happen in reality as I recall, might have been the Tang.....
Lucky for you, probably one time you were happy to have a dud. Did they complain about the dent back at Pearl? - lol

Happy Hunting!

[BigWalleye]

It has been said that: “Perversion is anything I won’t do.” The same could be said for “cheating” in a single-player, non-competitive game.

In another sense, cheating is a lot like sinning: If you thought you were doing it, and you intended to do it, then you did it.

"If you're not having fun, then you're not doing it right. And if you are having fun, then regardless of what other people tell you, you're doing it right."

[Armistead]

haha, I once refitted under water during battle at Tulagi....

[fireftr18]

haha, I once refitted under water during battle at Tulagi....

I remember that story. The secret cave with the underwater entrance, wasn't it? :har:

If I remember right, you went out, wasted torpedoes, then went back. Torpedoes replaced, batteries fully charged, and co2 completely gone. :har:

[merc4ulfate]

I have too Armistead.

I was once struck by my own fish as well. Destroyed the engine room, shafts and propellers. I went no where really really fast.

I came across a set of documents from the last month of the war. If you scroll down to Part V page 103 your going to find a very good report and detailed description of the circling incident with the Tang. I was surprised to read the 300 yard surface firing O'Kane was doing.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/CINCPAC/CINCPAC-45Aug.html

[Red Devil]

Lucky for you, probably one time you were happy to have a dud. Did they complain about the dent back at Pearl? - lol

Happy Hunting!

erm, it wasnt a DUD!!!! :hmm2:

[Red Devil]

I've been playing computer games and simulators since the TRS-80 came out in 1979, so 35 years worth. Not non-stop, obviously! :har: The problem with cheating is a balance - if you don't cheat at all most games get tedious and/or irritating. If you cheat too much they get boring. It's a very rare game that is programmed so perfectly that a little cheating doesn't make it more fun rather than less, but again it's tricky to get just the right balance.

Running out of fuel in SH4 is irritating, crossing the Pacific at 10 knots is tedious, so it's the best place to cheat - a LITTLE.

What I did was use Silent 3ditor to open the \Data\Submarine\NSS_Gato\NSS_Gato.sim file, edited the 11:unit_Submarine\Ranges\Surfaced to
miles=18000
knots=15

That gave me a little more range at standard speed instead of chugging along at 10 knots. Eventually I gave up on the whole Pearl Harbor thing and went Asiatic, then started playing with the mission editor to create new resupply bases so I never bothered to increase the Sargo range.

So if you want to cheat a LITTLE do the same with your favorite sub, add ballast fuel tanks and increase the range by 2000 or 3000 miles. Don't go overboard and increase to 50000 or something, if it's too much you might as well select unlimited fuel.

Where do I find the SH editor, its not on the menu?

[aanker]

Ra cheer: :)

http://s3d.skwas.com/

Happy Hunting!

Edit, if you mean the Mission editor, it is in the same folder as SH4.exe

[Red Devil]

may your gods walk by your side and have an already opened bottle for you :yeah:

[Red Devil]

I dont believe this.

Complete uninstall. Reinstall. Patch, RSRDC, patch, sound mod and cfg torps set to zero duds, tick box set to zero duds and HAD a DUD hitting a NAGA.


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! !!! :/\\!!

I think I might have sussed it. I reset game for RSRDC etc and went back into cfg/gamesetttings. but this time I set ALL three dud torps as false whereas before I was only setting 'normal' Now back at sea and see how it goes.

[HertogJan]

You should set the realism of the game when you're in the office not when you start a new carreer.

When in the office on book shelve (top left) one of the books will highlight with 'options', set the realisme in there, the game will keep the settings.

If you want you can hard code it in the GameplaySettings.cfg which is in the Data/CFG folder.

Like so:

[Normal]
LimitedBatteries=true
LimitedCompressedAir=true
LimitedO2=true
LimitedFuel=true
RealisticRepairTime=true
ManualTargetingSystem=false
NoMapUpdate=false
RealisticSensors=true
DudTorpedoes=false
RealisticReload=true
NoEventCamera=false
NoExternalView=true
NoStabilizeView=true
MPShowPlayerNames=true
MPShowTorpedoes=true


Hope this helps.


HJ

[Red Devil]

thanks for your help, I did not know about the book for options!! after all this time too!! I did that setting last night and took a new boat out to test as they were the most vulnerable (with Mk14) for duds. Nothing yet.

Does this setting stop the premature detonations too, that was always a pain but for some stupid reason the surface ships do not react to that?

Its only a game when all said and done but I do like things to look right and run right.

[Red Devil]

famous last words, took on a tanker, frst hit and stopped it second - DUD!!!

I give up! :/\\!!

All settings everywhere are on NO DUDS!

[Sniper297]

Only thing I can figure is you're running one of the mega mods like RSRD or trigger maru, whichever one overrides realism settings.

[Red Devil]

RSRDC is on, the 5.2 version but I adjusted the setting after installing the mod ????

[HertogJan]

thanks for your help, I did not know about the book for options!! after all this time too!! I did that setting last night and took a new boat out to test as they were the most vulnerable (with Mk14) for duds. Nothing yet.

Just wondering if you played with the settings in the office when you took out a new sub.

Anyway, to make sure all settings are the same you can do this:
Copy the changed cfg file (in the gameplaysettings.cfg) and past it under every setting (Easy, Normal, Hard and Realistic). Also past it in you SH4 folder in Documents/SH4/Data/cfg/GameplaySettings.cfg just to make sure.

Does this setting stop the premature detonations too, that was always a pain but for some stupid reason the surface ships do not react to that?

Yes, no more dud's, prematures, deep runners or circle runners.
The premature detonations probably happen because you fire the torpedoes to soon after each other, wait for 7sec. or until the message torpedo in the water appears.

Its only a game when all said and done but I do like things to look right and run right.

Yup!

RSRDC is on, the 5.2 version but I adjusted the setting after installing the mod ????

Are you referring to RSRDC v502? that version is for use with TMO 2.5, there's a stand alone RSRDC version for stock and one to go with RFB.

[Red Devil]

1. will check setting as soomn as off nights

2. tks

3. tks

4. Yes that version and just adding TMO 2.5 to it now; did not know it was to be both. Or forgot.

running this on my laptop (win 7)

RSRDC TMO 5.2
RSRDC V5*** patch 1
TMO visuals for RSRDC
Nav Map makeover V 2.1 (not doing anything)
1_trigger Maru Overhaul 2.5 (just added this now)

These setting are not the same as my pc

[merc4ulfate]

TMO will over ride realism settings but what can be adjusted is in the documentation.

If your running TMO and RSRD then your mod order needs to be :

1_TriggerMaru_Overhaul_2-5
RSRDC_TMO_V502
RSRDC_V5xx_Patch1

This is the required order as described in the documentation.

Running TMO and RSRD in any other order will not be compatible for an enjoyable evening.


Generic Mod Enabler - v2.6.0.157
1_TriggerMaru_Overhaul_2-5
RSRDC_TMO_V502
RSRDC_V5xx_Patch1
Traveller Mod v2.6 TMO
#1 Real Environment mod install
Traveller Mod 2.6 Patch 1 - ISE v3 Patch
Traveller Mod 2.6 Harder Enemy AI Escorts
Webster's Missing Voices
Pacific Sound Mod
Captain Midnights MORE CBS NEWS 1941-42 MOD v1.2
Traveller Mod 2.6 Larger Search Patterns
Traveller Alternate Main Loading Screens
Convoy Routes TMO+RSRD
tambor198's TMO+RSRDC missions pack
#4 Warships retextured
Traveller Mod v2.01 (TMO) Longer Sinking Times patch
New Ships + Yamato AA Fix

[Red Devil]

ok wil change it, just ran sub on mid mission on the previous settings, no problems encountered, baclk to the tests !! :ping:

[Red Devil]

now got it set in your order merc, But where is snipers fuek adjustment gone, I was going to try that out too. Back to the base ......................

[aanker]

With TMO 2.5 there is the option of playing the 'Terrible T campaign' - however in a 'normal campaign' the progression of boats, i.e. into newer classes as they became available, may give you a TAMBOR class boat as an upgrade from a GAR class when you may be expecting a GATO class.

I don't know if any of your mods addresses this issue because I am unfamiliar with all of them in your list.

I made a patch for TMO 2.5 to install on top of TMO 2.5 that allows the normal progression into newer boats.

Check it out here:
1_TMO_25_small_patch.rar (25.9 KB)
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/downloads.php?do=file&id=3506

If one of your other mods addresses this issue ignore this post : )

Happy Hunting!

[Red Devil]

Finally got limited fuel!!! After installing the mods as per Mercs instructions, I waited until I got my boay back to Pearl, was given the Drum; went into game play via cfg/gameplay and checked all settings - they were still on limited fuel=true,carried on down the entire list and checked all, then saved and set sail with Drum, and fuel began to drop!!

Dud Torps

Had one dud torp when out with the Salmon. got back, given drum, and checked as above but for dud torp settings. Found one which said that the percentage or something was =7 FOR duds, so changed it to zero. Yet to try it out.

[Red Devil]

aanker - thanks for that mod. In one career recently I started with an s18; then was given a porpoise and then a narwhal!! the porpoise is better diving (320) than the Narwhal (250). So that was a retro step.

[anotherdemon]

For me, I go:

Impact
shallowest setting
slow speed setting
90 degree firing angle (only fire when the ship will eventually cross your bow)

I rarely get duds with this.

[HertogJan]

For me, I go:

Impact
shallowest setting
slow speed setting
90 degree firing angle (only fire when the ship will eventually cross your bow)

I rarely get duds with this.

You're a lucky demon, normally a 90* shot is very 'dud sensitive'.
:hmmm: I wonder if the 'slow' setting could have anything to do with that... Never tried it myself

I have no idea if the game/ Mod changes dud rates when starting a new campaign in a new sub :06:
Last time I had a 50% dud rate and this one has a 67% dud rate and the campaign before those two had a 25% dud rate (always start Dec. '41 in a Porpoise)

[anotherdemon]

I've never trusted the fast option. I reckon its messes up the impact pistol and makes it misfire*.

It also means you sometimes can't get too close or you'll dud out due to the torp running too fast; a nice and slow approach takes a longer course to the target, hence it has a longer time to enable.

(I also only trust mag. when in absolutely flat seas or harbor raids, and even then, I'll only use them if I have to shoot down the throat or up the the other end.)

*You know how those feelings go. If you get more duds with one setting, and less with another, you'll go with the latter

O, and I use mag. on DDs, of course, but I try not to tackle with them.

[Fish40]

[Quote] "You're a lucky demon, normally a 90* shot is very 'dud sensitive'.
:hmmm: I wonder if the 'slow' setting could have anything to do with that... Never tried it myself "



During the early war period, one of the flaws of the Mk.14 was the contact portion of the exploder. The BuO stuck the same exploder from earlier torpedoes on the new Mk.14. The problem was, they never took into account the faster speed of the new Mk.14 At a perfect 90* impact at high speed, the inertial forces were so great, the firing pin fractured, causing a "dud". Captains were noticing that impacts at less than ideal angles were resulting in "hits". This was because at those angles, (and consequently slower speeds) the inertial force was reduced enough to keep the firing pin intact.

[HertogJan]

Yeah I know, the MK14 was a nightmare in those days :/\\!!.

I was talking about the game, I don't know if the game takes into account the torpedo speed settings and dud percentages.
I'll find out soon enough though :03:.

Same goes for the different campaigns I had, different sub's... different dud percentages or just lucky in one case.

[HertogJan]

I've never trusted the fast option. I reckon its messes up the impact pistol and makes it misfire*.

It also means you sometimes can't get too close or you'll dud out due to the torp running too fast; a nice and slow approach takes a longer course to the target, hence it has a longer time to enable.

True, but with slow settings vessels could evaide the torpedoes more easily, depending on distance, weather and sea conditions obviously.


(I also only trust mag. when in absolutely flat seas or harbor raids, and even then, I'll only use them if I have to shoot down the throat or up the the other end.)

*You know how those feelings go. If you get more duds with one setting, and less with another, you'll go with the latter

O, and I use mag. on DDs, of course, but I try not to tackle with them.

I use magnetic sometimes but rarely, as for DD's, I have MK10's setup in aft torpedo room just for them :arrgh!:.

I only got to early '43 once :oops: so I can't comment on dud percentages after that and never tried cuties or any other torpedoes.

[Red Devil]

gents thanks for the input, most interesting. I knew about the real ilife problems with the mk 14. Quite a few sub captains lost their commands due to an intransigent C in C at Fremantle who insisted that it was human error and not defective trops. I did not find out if he, in turn, got sacked, when the truth was out. When that many experienced sub capts report the same thing even a blind deaf man would take note!!

I loaded my mods as per instructions from Merc, and manually set anytihng to do with dud torps to zero, right down the cfg/game settings scipt. I also set it (again) in game settings, seems to have worked thus far. Waiting until I have done at least 4 patrols before I declare a 'fix' ..................... :salute:

[aanker]

Sadly, some Skippers may have 'cooked the books' in their attack reports - reporting setting torpedoes as ordered, when in reality they set them to a shallower depth for impact and not run under.

This made diagnosing the problems with the torpedoes harder.

HertogJan up above was wondering if the Devs modeled torpedo malfunctions - like running too deep, the defective magnetic exploder, and the defective impact exploder into SH4 and I'm pretty sure they did.

Dan, the SH4 team leader, was interested in trying to make SH4 historically accurate according to an old message he wrote, and I think he did the best job he could do with the resources and time frame Ubisoft gave him.

Happy Hunting!

[fireftr18]

Sadly, some Skippers may have 'cooked the books' in their attack reports - reporting setting torpedoes as ordered, when in reality they set them to a shallower depth for impact and not run under.

This made diagnosing the problems with the torpedoes harder.

HertogJan up above was wondering if the Devs modeled torpedo malfunctions - like running too deep, the defective magnetic exploder, and the defective impact exploder into SH4 and I'm pretty sure they did.

Dan, the SH4 team leader, was interested in trying to make SH4 historically accurate according to an old message he wrote, and I think he did the best job he could do with the resources and time frame Ubisoft gave him.

Happy Hunting!

The way I understand, the stock game does model all the problems, just not the frequency of the problem. I think TMO gets closer to reality of the frequency, but not quite. Sometimes, I think it does. @$#&* Mk14's. :/\\!!

[Red Devil]

aanker. I was amused to read that 'he did the best he could with the resources' - my opinion of Ubisoft is not THAT good! :down: Their ideas are good, but not the output.

[anotherdemon]

True, but with slow settings vessels could evaide the torpedoes more easily, depending on distance, weather and sea conditions obviously.

I use magnetic sometimes but rarely, as for DD's, I have MK10's setup in aft torpedo room just for them :arrgh!:.

I only got to early '43 once :oops: so I can't comment on dud percentages after that and never tried cuties or any other torpedoes.

I like to get close and aim for the bow. If she speeds up (which she will most times), she'll still take the torps amidships (I tend to just fire two per and see how she goes; she'll often slow down or come to a stop if she doesn't go to the locker).

If a DD has me dead to and is bearing down at flank, I'll fire all rear tubes at the shallowest setting and mag., with each one covering a five degree angle from the rear 30 or so. She'll usually spot one and turn into another. Yeah, a waste of 4 or so torps, but that's worth a DD to me.

I've made it pretty far. Cuties work pretty good against that DD bearing down on you or the lone harbor guard (and the others coming to investigate). Generally, they have to be blind to your presence or coming straight at you to hit; DDs can outrun them easily. They also tend to hit the bigger stuff in the props and slow them down/disable them so you can stick a proper torp into her.

If you get ahead of a task force, cuties can do some damage, though you'll probably only get one disabled BB or CA at the best from a full spread.

[Dread Knot]

Quite a few sub captains lost their commands due to an intransigent C in C at Fremantle who insisted that it was human error and not defective trops. I did not find out if he, in turn, got sacked, when the truth was out.


If you are referring to the Mark 14's biggest champion, Admiral Ralph Waldo Christie, he was relieved by Admiral Kinkaid without explanation in November 1944 and was reassigned to command of the Puget Sound Navy Yard at Bremerton. He was replaced in Fremantle by Admiral James Fife. After the war, he sought command of the Atlantic submarine force but lost out to old rival Fife, and ended his career in command of U.S. naval forces in the Philippines.

After his retirement, he sold life insurance and dabbled in other ventures for some time.

[Red Devil]

cheers Dread

[merc4ulfate]

Sadly, some Skippers may have 'cooked the books' in their attack reports - reporting setting torpedoes as ordered, when in reality they set them to a shallower depth for impact and not run under.

This made diagnosing the problems with the torpedoes harder.
==============

It wasn't that this practice, which did happen, made it hard to diagnose to problem it simply kept good men out of hot water. There were orders to follow and consequence if you did not.

When they moved the depth sensor to the tail of the torpedo they did not count on the curved shape of the tail altering the sensor, which it did, and caused them to run deeper and made the magnetic detonator ineffective. This wasn't tested.

When they used detonators designed for WW1 speed torpedoes on faster torpedoes in WW2 they did not expect that they would break under the force of impact but they did. This wasn't tested.

Unlike the German Navy no one at that time had thought about the deviation of the magnetic filed around the earth and how they affected those bodies it in either.

It wasn't sad that skippers lied in their reports. It saved lives. What was sad was the Buords and Navy command not taking the time to study the issue.

It was the inadequacy of Buord and those in command dealing with quality control that led to many men dieing from subsequent counter attack due to the failure of the weapons they were given.

TMO does a great job of modeling the issue and I can't tell you how many times I cussed the screen while imagining how those men must have felt to have a perfect set up and a failure for a weapon.

[aanker]

It wasn't sad that skippers lied in their reports. It saved lives. What was sad was the Buords and Navy command not taking the time to study the issue.
This is what I was getting at - trying to anyway.

Skippers returned to base with tonnage sunk, claiming to have followed orders, so the obvious question was, why wasn't everyone getting results. Rather than study the torpedoes, good men were blamed.

Finally testing was done, including dropping torpedoes off a cliff & other tests thanks to Admiral Lockwood.

Good article here:
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/torpedo-scandal-rear-adm-charles-lockwood-the-mark-14-and-the-bureau-of-ordnance/

That's why I don't mind having duds, premature detonations, and deep runners before 43.

Happy Hunting!

[TorpX]

That's why I don't mind having duds, premature detonations, and deep runners before 43.



I don't either. Especially, considering we have it much easier than our RL counterparts did. We know what to expect, and have workarounds that they couldn't really use.

[merc4ulfate]

They drop them from a crane not a cliff. The cliff test was done by a submarine who fired into the cliff to test for duds but not dropped from them.

If they would have kept the depth sensor where it was and moved the contact detonator 1/2 to 1 inch back away from the nose it would have helped greatly.

[aanker]

They drop them from a crane not a cliff. The cliff test was done by a submarine who fired into the cliff to test for duds but not dropped from them.

If they would have kept the depth sensor where it was and moved the contact detonator 1/2 to 1 inch back away from the nose it would have helped greatly.
Well, if you've been in the Navy or any service, you know how easy that would be... lol. - Most CO's don't like suggestions.

We were lucky to have Admiral Lockwood - he listened.

[anotherdemon]

It actually kinda feels like I'm cheating when I run slow, shallow and impact only.

I can imagine how far smarter and trained men than I would have gone knowing this in the real boats in the real war.

[TorpX]

They drop them from a crane not a cliff. The cliff test was done by a submarine who fired into the cliff to test for duds but not dropped from them.

If they would have kept the depth sensor where it was and moved the contact detonator 1/2 to 1 inch back away from the nose it would have helped greatly.


The Mk. 6 exploder wasn't fitted in the nose. It was back from the nose, on the bottom of the warhead. The problem wasn't that the mechanism was crushed in the impact, but rather the 'inertial forces' of the torpedo going from 46 kts. to 0, suddenly. The firing pin's axis of movement was vertical, and the abrupt deceleration caused the guide rods to bend or bind.

[Red Devil]

Thanks for the tech explanations very interesting, something I did not know and appreciated. Going back to the 'i feel like cheating' comment earlier - nobody is cheating anybody.

To my mind 'normal' setting is precisely what it says ' normal' ww2 scenario. If a person hits the hard or what I call 'unlikely' settings then in the game its an achievement to complete a career as such but totally not essential.

All it proves is that a person can, if he desires, master a fight against an enemy that has superhuman powers which was not correct in reality.

Later on in the war, the IJN did get a lot better but still not around superhuman.

Not having dud torps only means to me that IF I hit the target, I get a detonation, my torps are also enabled at close contact, not physical, so its in the laps of the dice whether its fatal, or not.

Its not cheating, its a game.

[merc4ulfate]

"the abrupt deceleration caused the guide rods to bend or bind"

That is what I define as broke. Because they were using detonators designed for slower speeds they broke. If they had moved the detonator back 1/2 to 1 inch in my opinion they would have had less failures due to high speed because the nose would have absorbed some impact reducing the negative G-force when broke the the rails. It is the same principle now used in every automobile manufactured ... a crumple zone.

You can read a very good article on the situation here:

http://www.historynet.com/us-torpedo-troubles-during-world-war-ii.htm

They outlined the whole story including the cliff test and torpedo drops. I guess we will have the thank the Japanese for having light weight propellers on their aircraft at Pearl Harbour. Thanks to their blades we fixed the issue.


Read the manuals and documentation:

http://www.hnsa.org/doc/s-boat/index.htm

http://www.hnsa.org/doc/jolie/index.htm

http://www.hnsa.org/doc/torpedo/index.htm {Mark 14 and 23 ...see figure 2 and 4 for exact detonator and rail placements and 6-8b for closer details}

http://www.hnsa.org/doc/torpedomk18/index.htm#pg9 {Mark 18}

http://www.hnsa.org/doc/torpedomk18-maint/index.htm {Maintenance - Mark 18}

[TorpX]

"the abrupt deceleration caused the guide rods to bend or bind"

That is what I define as broke. Because they were using detonators designed for slower speeds they broke. If they had moved the detonator back 1/2 to 1 inch in my opinion they would have had less failures due to high speed because the nose would have absorbed some impact reducing the negative G-force when broke the the rails. It is the same principle now used in every automobile manufactured ... a crumple zone.



I don't mean to say they didn't break, but wanted to clarify that it broke because of inertia, and not because it was crushed. Much of what is written about the Mk. 14 is misleading. Many sources imply that they were crushed.

A crumple zone, would have worked if it was thick enough to do the job, but would likely require a longer torpedo and tube. I doubt that moving the exploder back would have helped. It would still be subject to the same forces.

http://www.hnsa.org/doc/torpedo/index.htm {Mark 14 and 23 ...see figure 2 and 4 for exact detonator and rail placements and 6-8b for closer details}
Figures 7 to 8 show a good view of the Mk. 6 exploder, however, the one pictured is not the notorious one which malfunctioned so many times, but rather, the late war model which replaced it. The former used a inertial ring to release a spring loaded firing pin, the latter used the ball switch to close a circuit to electrically fire the detonator.

It always seemed a bit odd to me that the Navy did not try previous exploders in the Mk. 14 when the Mk. 6 was discovered to be faulty. Perhaps they would not have worked any better. That would have been the first thing I tried. I don't remember anything being written, about slow-speed settings being used either. :-?