Mark 10 issues?

Galanti · 04-03-07, 08:00 AM

In my campaign (S-41, Mk. 10 torpedoes), the last six 'hits' I have scored have produced no discernable damage. The hits were scored on three different ships, and they sailed merrily on with only minor, if any, reduction in speed, and an external camera look showed no damage to the hulls. However, in one case, fires were started on the deck. Vusually, the torpedoes appeared to have impacted normally, with the water plume enveloping both sides of the ship.

I am using a modified Zones file to slightly increase flooding times, but no changes to the hitpoints or any other values. Also, if I play the quick missions with Gatos or Balaos, I can punch holes in marus with 14s and 23s and they sink normally, with the graphical damage to the hulls visible.

I am using no other mods that would affect torpedos or damage.

What I haven't done yet is actually track the path of my Mk 10 torps into the target to see if they are actually making contact or detonating prematurely. I'll try that tonight.

My depth settings vary, and I'm using contact fusing only.

Has any one else had similar experiences using mk. 10s? I had thought they were the most reliable of the fish available to the USN, at least in the early war.

Has anyone lookied into the files to checkout dud rate, or warhead weight?

Gildor · 04-03-07, 08:38 AM

I read somewhere that the contact switch is allegedly reversed. Therefore your contact shots are possibly contact influence shots. There could be a bit of premature detonation and the shots are exploding some distance from the hull side.

As a test, I did not switch my shots from contact influence to contact as I normally would, and it seems that I am scoring bigger hits, if you get what I mean. More damage, holes in the hull; not always but more often.

Also, I tried a contact shot with the torp set 3 feet below the draft of the hull and it did explode. I followed this torp to see what it would do. It was in fact below the hull when it blew up. That ship only took the one shot to sink. This would seem to confirm the reverseal of the switch.

Galanti · 04-03-07, 08:53 AM

Could be, and therefore the reason the late-war Gatoes and Balaos are putting holes in marus is that by then, the magnetic/contact issues are straightened out in the game.

Thanks Gildor, I'll give that a shot! No other explanation makes sense.

Blood_splat · 04-03-07, 09:35 AM

I had a mark 10 hit a propeller shaft blow up and there was no visible damage. The ship just carried on like nothing ever hit it.

akdavis · 04-03-07, 10:04 AM

I had no issues with Mk. 10s in my last patrol. A huge passenger liner fell to 2 Mk. 10s (actually three hits total, but secondaries started after second hit).

Galanti · 04-03-07, 09:47 PM

Ugg, I tried setting pistols to magenetic and back and forth in two quick missions: the 1942 Balikapan and the 1944 Borneo Convoy one. In 1944, all hits resulted in gaping holes, regardless of pistol settings. In 1942, all hits resulted in SFA (Sweet Farg all).

Also, the 1942 test involved steep angles on the strikes, I was thinking this historical problem was modelled, but no luck. Any ideas or similar experiences?

TheSatyr · 04-03-07, 10:02 PM

People seem to think that only MKIVs had problems. The MkXs had the same dud and premature explosion probs that the 14s had...only not quite as severe.

You probably just had a bad run of duds.

Galanti · 04-04-07, 07:00 AM

Satyr, I'm hoping this is the case. Do you have any evidence that this is modelled in the game? If it's modelled that the early 10s have the same issues, only to a lesser degree, that's cool.

ijozic · 04-04-07, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSatyr

People seem to think that only MKIVs had problems. The MkXs had the same dud and premature explosion probs that the 14s had...only not quite as severe.

IIRC, Mk10 doesn't have a magnetic detonator so there were no premature detonations. It is also slower than Mk14 so it didn't have the contact detonator issues at high angles. What it did have is the somewhat deeper-than-set running depth (not as severe as Mk14) but not due to the faulty pressure sensors as in Mk14, but because it's warhead was heavier than the testing head which was fixed by the beginning of 1942.

MadMike · 04-04-07, 08:55 AM

Some basic background on the Mk10 torpedo-

scroll down to bottom of page...

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

and discussion about the Mk14 problem-

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

Yours, Mike

AVGWarhawk · 04-04-07, 09:03 AM

I used the Mark 10 last night in my tired S Class. No issue.

04-03-07, 08:00 AM	#1
Galanti Captain Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Ottawa Posts: 536 Downloads: 106 Uploads: 0	Mark 10 issues? In my campaign (S-41, Mk. 10 torpedoes), the last six 'hits' I have scored have produced no discernable damage. The hits were scored on three different ships, and they sailed merrily on with only minor, if any, reduction in speed, and an external camera look showed no damage to the hulls. However, in one case, fires were started on the deck. Vusually, the torpedoes appeared to have impacted normally, with the water plume enveloping both sides of the ship. I am using a modified Zones file to slightly increase flooding times, but no changes to the hitpoints or any other values. Also, if I play the quick missions with Gatos or Balaos, I can punch holes in marus with 14s and 23s and they sink normally, with the graphical damage to the hulls visible. I am using no other mods that would affect torpedos or damage. What I haven't done yet is actually track the path of my Mk 10 torps into the target to see if they are actually making contact or detonating prematurely. I'll try that tonight. My depth settings vary, and I'm using contact fusing only. Has any one else had similar experiences using mk. 10s? I had thought they were the most reliable of the fish available to the USN, at least in the early war. Has anyone lookied into the files to checkout dud rate, or warhead weight?

04-03-07, 08:38 AM	#2
Gildor Lieutenant Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto, Ontario Posts: 251 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Contact switch reversed. I read somewhere that the contact switch is allegedly reversed. Therefore your contact shots are possibly contact influence shots. There could be a bit of premature detonation and the shots are exploding some distance from the hull side. As a test, I did not switch my shots from contact influence to contact as I normally would, and it seems that I am scoring bigger hits, if you get what I mean. More damage, holes in the hull; not always but more often. Also, I tried a contact shot with the torp set 3 feet below the draft of the hull and it did explode. I followed this torp to see what it would do. It was in fact below the hull when it blew up. That ship only took the one shot to sink. This would seem to confirm the reverseal of the switch. __________________ U-46: Oct 1943 off Portugal

04-03-07, 10:04 AM	#5
akdavis Samurai Navy Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Fort Worth, Texas Posts: 597 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I had no issues with Mk. 10s in my last patrol. A huge passenger liner fell to 2 Mk. 10s (actually three hits total, but secondaries started after second hit). __________________ -AKD

04-04-07, 09:03 AM	#11
AVGWarhawk Lucky Jack Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: In a 1954 Buick. Posts: 28,254 Downloads: 90 Uploads: 0	I used the Mark 10 last night in my tired S Class. No issue. __________________ “You're painfully alive in a drugged and dying culture.” ― Richard Yates, Revolutionary Road

04-03-07, 08:53 AM	#3
Galanti Captain Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Ottawa Posts: 536 Downloads: 106 Uploads: 0	Could be, and therefore the reason the late-war Gatoes and Balaos are putting holes in marus is that by then, the magnetic/contact issues are straightened out in the game. Thanks Gildor, I'll give that a shot! No other explanation makes sense.

04-03-07, 09:35 AM	#4
Blood_splat Samurai Navy Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Beneath the waves Posts: 568 Downloads: 20 Uploads: 0	I had a mark 10 hit a propeller shaft blow up and there was no visible damage. The ship just carried on like nothing ever hit it.

04-03-07, 09:47 PM	#6
Galanti Captain Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Ottawa Posts: 536 Downloads: 106 Uploads: 0	Ugg, I tried setting pistols to magenetic and back and forth in two quick missions: the 1942 Balikapan and the 1944 Borneo Convoy one. In 1944, all hits resulted in gaping holes, regardless of pistol settings. In 1942, all hits resulted in SFA (Sweet Farg all). Also, the 1942 test involved steep angles on the strikes, I was thinking this historical problem was modelled, but no luck. Any ideas or similar experiences?

04-03-07, 10:02 PM	#7
TheSatyr Captain Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 545 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	People seem to think that only MKIVs had problems. The MkXs had the same dud and premature explosion probs that the 14s had...only not quite as severe. You probably just had a bad run of duds.

04-04-07, 07:00 AM	#8
Galanti Captain Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Ottawa Posts: 536 Downloads: 106 Uploads: 0	Satyr, I'm hoping this is the case. Do you have any evidence that this is modelled in the game? If it's modelled that the early 10s have the same issues, only to a lesser degree, that's cool.

04-04-07, 08:55 AM	#10
MadMike Watch Officer Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 342 Downloads: 241 Uploads: 0	Some basic background on the Mk10 torpedo- scroll down to bottom of page... http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_PreWWII.htm and discussion about the Mk14 problem- http://www.ww2pacific.com/torpedo.html Yours, Mike