[WIP] Dud Torpedoes Hardcore - testers needed

[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. 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

[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

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!:hmm:

[Jungman]

Originally Posted by joea

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.

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!

[CCIP]

http://files.filefront.com/Torpedoes.../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.

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.