Too many dids...

[TorpX]

Originally Posted by neilbyrne

I don't think that aiming for glancing shots decreases the dud rate in game. At least I haven't seen that.

Originally Posted by merc4ulfate

I began to notice through coincidence or programming that when I used large obtuse angles I not only got more detonations I also got twisted hunks of metal sinking to the bottom with as few as one torpedo and many of those splitting in two.

I haven't verified it with tests, but in the torpedo files there is a structure in place for changing the dud % vs. angle. So, it should make a difference. Don't know why it would change the damage though. Of course, mods have different dud rates and all.

In RFB, one can expect about 80% duds in the early war period, if I'm not mistaken.



In the literature I've read, Captains were taught to use a track angle referred to as the "optimum track angle"

This provided for the greatest amount of error tolerance in the target's course. It usually was about 110 degrees or so (for the Mk. 14 torpedo). The 90 degree "textbook" angle was something that the Germans used; their contact exploders required impact at the nose of the torpedo, which limited their range of acceptable track angles.

[merc4ulfate]

TorpX, "In the literature I've read, Captains were taught to use a track angle referred to as the "optimum track angle""

While this is true because of the malfunctions of the torpedoes the optimum became the "never use". It was only a temporary fix until the string of errors had been tracked down and resolved but skippers were told not to use the textbook firing procedures when it came to optimum track angles.

In the diagrams I have listed what I labeled as "worst" was actually what they recommended but Admiral Lockwood changed that because of the better success with the large obtuse angles. Glancing hits caused less duds when using the contact detonators. This fault was due to the guide rails and firing pins being crushed upon impact at optimum angles.

[Raven Morpheus]

So basically until I get to late 1943 I should be trying for hits at greater than 90 degrees.

I had another few goes again at the sub school sink the warship mission, I do it frequently to check I'm doing things right, and I tried with low speed and magnetic detonators and I repeatedly hit with all 4 torpedoes I fired at once. I think only once did I get one explode prematurely.


Although I've not tried it with contact detonators and obviously the enemy ship has far more time to spot your torpedoes...


So in game terms I think perhaps at least one other solution could be to use low speed on the torpedoes, seems to have worked for me in that sub school mission at least, I'm going to try to put it into practice on my 3rd career mission and see how I get on.

[TorpX]

Originally Posted by merc4ulfate

While this is true because of the malfunctions of the torpedoes the optimum became the "never use". It was only a temporary fix until the string of errors had been tracked down and resolved but skippers were told not to use the textbook firing procedures when it came to optimum track angles.

In the diagrams I have listed what I labeled as "worst" was actually what they recommended but Admiral Lockwood changed that because of the better success with the large obtuse angles. Glancing hits caused less duds when using the contact detonators. This fault was due to the guide rails and firing pins being crushed upon impact at optimum angles.

Yes, that is true, but Lockwood really didn't know this before he had the drop tests conducted, which was well into the war. Prior to that, all he could really be sure of, is that sometimes they functioned as intended, and sometimes they didn't. The nature of the problem was unknown.



The drop tests, where concrete filled warheads with Mk. 6 exploders were dropped on steel plates, were simple and easy to do. BuOrd could have done them before the outbreak of war, without destroying a single torpedo, but did not. It was a tragedy, really.
[I realize, you probably already know most of this.]

Another wrinkle that occurred to me, is that a torpedo warhead being dropped on a steel plate is not the same as one hitting a ship's hull. One dropped on a thick steel plate will be subjected to the full force of the impact (only reduced by the angle of the plate), whereas, one hitting a ships hull may dent or even burst through the hull plates, and suffer a less violent impact. This may account for the seemingly random results obtained by the Mk. 6. [I read one account of a German torpedo bursting through the side of a hull, skidding along the bottom, before smashing it's way out the other side; so this is not just speculation on my part.]

So basically until I get to late 1943 I should be trying for hits at greater than 90 degrees.

..................

I think, no matter what tactics you decide to use, you will have to reckon on using more torpedoes for every ship sunk. Adjusting speeds or gaming angles may give you more detonations, but will likely also get you more misses, as well. This is like a hitter in baseball that swings for the outfield every time. He gets a lot of home runs, but also strikes out a lot. There isn't rally a good substitute for a properly functioning torpedo (Lockwood's request for a giant book hook, aside.).

[merc4ulfate]

There are several instances where torpedoes went through the hull of Japanese ships without exploding.

================

Because of this logistics fiasco, veteran submariner and historian Paul Schratz said he "was only one of many frustrated submariners who thought it a violation of New Mexico scenery to test the A-bomb at Alamagordo when the naval torpedo station was available."

[TorpX]

Originally Posted by merc4ulfate

Because of this logistics fiasco, veteran submariner and historian Paul Schratz said he "was only one of many frustrated submariners who thought it a violation of New Mexico scenery to test the A-bomb at Alamagordo when the naval torpedo station was available."

Yes, there is no doubt the torpedo establishment let the Navy down, big time.