6 duds and the end of a carrer
 

There it was... Huge Liner over 10,000 tons. Escorted by 3 destroyers..

Headed right for us. Manuvered into position easly. Good shot from inside of 1,500 yards. Torpedes set fast, check, set shallow check, solution check, open doors Check.

Fire 1, 2, 3, 4

Down scope, Left full rudder, make your depth 180 feet.... (time passes)

"Torpedo was a dud sir!". Good thing I took four shots :yep: , "Dud sir,... Dud sir...

Surely the last one will "Torpedo was a dud sir!"... For cryin out loud! Ahead full right full rudder ready tubes 5 & 6...

Reach Periscope depth, rudder amidships... At this point the freighter had gone into flank and one of the DD's is steaming right for my scope, quick calcs, some guesses and "Fire 5, 6" Down scope, left full rudder, crash dive !

We reached about 120 feet when "Torpedo was a dud sir" and again the 6th was also a dud.

The first salvo of DC's was brutal with two close ones causing flooding engine and other damage not to mention the crew.

Finally passing the thermal we slowed and centered the rudder. Could not afford to call for silent running as the flooding was getting ahead of us.

Ping, ping, Crap he has us boadside... This time they found the depth and ... well... killed. All hands lost....

6 duds in a row :damn:

Captin Fred Plunkem and the crew of the Pickrel... Hell of a carrier about 10 tours and more than enough tonnage.

Smells like sabotage to me.. But then again we'll never know now

Thats what you get for playing with invincibility off...:shifty: ...your mama should have warned you...;)

That's perzactly why I never check 'dud torpdeos' in options.

I think that liner had invincibility ON... I mean 6 duds in a row !!! :hmm:

Thats a record for me at least, anyone have more than 6 in a row? Not misses... duds.

LOL on my next 'new' carrier starting in 1943 first two torps out of the box... duds.. here we go again :rotfl:

At this point what you would do is take the torpedo room's LPO stuff in the tube and see if he's a dud too. :huh: :stare: :shifty: :arrgh!:

I remember chasing a particularly lucky one: Fired spread of 4, all hits with 1 detonation. She didn't sink, so I fired 2 more as she was maneuvering. Both hit, both dud. Surfaced and engaged with the gun, staying out of range of theirs. 70 shells later, nothing, not a scratch. Fired 4 more torps in a surface attack, all duds. Fired remaining 80 shells, again not any more flooding, but at least I brought her to a dead stop. Submerged to get close, postioned to hit her flank, and this one finally blew. Down she went.

I think the third torp in the first spread was good, so the fourth + 2 duds after that + 4 duds after the gun didn't do anything makes 7 in a row (at least 6 if the fourth in the spread was the good one), total of 9 in that engagement. :doh:

NSM + ROW/PE + RFB + RSRD.

At least it was un-escorted evidently.

If ANY of the first four in the salvo would have detonated we would have continued evasion and be 'alive' today.

It was the frustration, and frankly the stupidity of the captain (me) comming back to fire the last two fish in the bow tubes. Yes the second attempt is what got them destroyed.

Isn't the chance of a dud reduced by 50% when firing with the slow setting??

I mean it would make sense to mdel that, especially giving the nature of what caused the duds. (The pin being crushed from the force)

Yes, spot on. ;)

Also, having a torpedo strike at less then 90deg angle will reduce duds, because the forces exerted on the pin are reduced as well. I aim for around 75deg.Obviously. :lol:

I hate destroyers, and they're not particularly fond of me either.

Too bad you got sunk. Let's hope that the lessons learned that day live on to save another crew someday. ;)

Possibly true. Would be news to me though :hmm: Ill have to consider this if it can be confirmed.

However in retrospect I still would have used the fast settings. Ive attacked this type of convoy before and watched in disbelief as they altered course nearly as soon as the torps left the tubes resulting in a bunch of misses.

So now I get in close and fire them at fast so even if they do react they prob wont be able to in time. Out of a salvo of 4 you would think at least one would go off. :|\\

This came from the RFB forum:http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...postcount=1176


But out of 4 torpedoes, you would think at least one would go off, but certainly makes you realize how some skippers were convinced the malfunctions were caused by an error in OP, not an equipment malfunction

ah nice find orion im sure that will help a bunch of people.

You know if your like me (realism rating 35) you dont need to worry about duds, if it makes you feel better you can throw a can at your computer after every..2 torpedo shots.

I don't mind the dudes so much, as later in the war they aren't a problem, and since Luke pointed out the slow speed setting, I'd say 70% of my contacts that I close within 1000yards of go down. Not that is of course still excluding DD's and most any Warship as slow torpedoes are easily dodged.

Ouch!:doh:

Well take comfort in the fact that it happened like that in real life. I think 16 duds in a row was the record!:huh:

Ah, yes, that would be the experience of the USS Tinosa. From Hellions of the Deep:

Fun times, ain't it? :damn:

Fired yesterday a 5-spread against a Shokaku, Dud-Dud-Dud-Torpedo Impact-Dud. The next hour i was busy evading the Escorts and the carrier got away. But that's what mods with added realism are for.

I've fired ALL my torps at ships in a port & only had one go off out of the entire load out; what's that 23 out of 24 duds? So now I load Mk10's in the tubes in port & have the 14's as reserve. The folks that say it's all about angle & speed are correct, I believe their observation of the issue is spot on.

Fun times, ain't it? :damn:[/quote]

If I was him I would have made that a rectal exam :rotfl:

Most of you probably now this, but:

The history on the MK14 torpedo problems was almost criminal. The torpedoes had 3 problems:

1. They ran too deep, because they were tested without the explosive charge in the warhead. The "gun club" (Bureau of Ordnance) insisted that nothing was wrong with the running depth of the torpedo. It took a covert "testing", authorized by Admiral Lockwood to determine that the torpedoes were in fact running too deep.

2. The magnetic exploder did not function as it should. The "gun club" insisted that the magnetic exploder worked as design. Admiral Christie, in charge of sub operations in Australia, was part of the design team of the magnetic exploder and was adamant that there was nothing wrong. He even accused some of his skippers of incompetency Even after the light started shining at Pearl Harbor, and Nimitz ordered the magnetic exploder be deactivated, Christie still insisted that the exploder work fine and threatened his skipper's with disciplinary actions if they disengaged the exploder.

3. The contact exploder did not work 100% of the time. There were numerous complaints of this early in the war. As with the magnetic exploder, the skippers were accused of poorly executed attacks. After reknown skippers started to adamantly complain, the torpedo was dropped straight down from a crane. The discovery was that with a "perfect" 90-degree firing solution, the firing pin would not activate the explosives. The pin would only activate the explosivies if the torpedo hit the target at an angle. So in other words, the better your solution, the higher chance of a dud.

As I said, most of you probably already know this. To me, it is amazing that the Mk14 torpedo had so many problems and the "higher ups" not only ignored the reports of their skippers, but accused them of not being good at their jobs. If it wasn't for Lockwood, the problems would not have been corrected until even later.