So what was the historical torpedo load for an IXD2?

denis_469 · 10-17-06, 10:32 AM

Submarine IX D/2 have many modifications. Submarine can have from 19 to 28 torpedoes and intrnal storage (including tt) was 12-18. External torpedoes load was from 3 to 16.
Few boats was building in variant minelayer and have 6 torpedoes.
Submarine in cargo patrol in Japan have 2 torpedoes only (aft tt).

Jmack · 10-17-06, 12:06 PM

These boats, designed in 1939-40, have been called IXD/41, IXD and my main source gives them as IX D1 and IX D2. The difference between D1 and D2 was mostly in engine layout and power. The D1 had teething troubles and the D2 boats had a more proven layout.

These were more than 500 tons heavier and almost 10 meters longer than the IXC/40. They were armed with 24 torpedoes in 6 tubes (4 at the bow and 2 at the stern) and had the secondary armament in the form of the Utof 105mm/45 deck gun with roughly 150 rounds of ammunition.

In 1943-44 the torpedo tubes were removed from the D1 boats (U-180 and U-195) and they converted for transport use. In their new role the could transport 252 tons of freight.

Jmack · 10-17-06, 12:08 PM

now .. looking at this i discover the type VIIF

These boats, designed in 1941, were primarily built as torpedo transports and were never fitted with the typical 88mm deck guns found on other VII type boats. They had 5 torpedo tubes (4 at the bow and 1 at the stern) and as attack boats they would carry 14 torpedoes but in their transport role they would have up to 39 torpedoes onboard.

*GW DEV TEAM*

Two of them, U-1062 and U-1059, were sent to support the Monsun boats in the far East waters. They were the largest and heaviest type VII boats built.

Ducimus · 10-17-06, 03:50 PM

I thought about the VIIF before. I remember reading that the main torpedo transport storage area was acutally AFT of the control room. The boat couldn't use them. So technically speaking, the inclusion of that uboat is rather pointless. I've thought about "fudging" it and putting them forward, but it felt kinda cheesy.

edit:
Back on topic, yes i remember reading that prisoner interigation report on uboatarchieve.net. In specific i know the interrigatee said 26 torpedo's. If you d/l and look at the boat plans, you can count the cansiters. Again, i think the answer is BOTH. Orignally 26, but later two canisters were delelted for a snorkel installation, which would put the count to 24 torpedo's. Thats just a theory though.

VonHelsching · 10-17-06, 04:31 PM

I think this might be the same case with the Typ II and how many torpedoes it would carry. Theoretically it was 6, but most war patrols were carried out with 5, since the only place available to put the 6th, it was above the hatch to the battery area, virtually blocking it, IIRC.

Maybe this is a similar case with the IXD/2. It's a big fat sub. If you really needed more torpedos there should ve been space to put them. It just probably wasn't practical for the "average" war patrol, whatever average means.

Actually I like the IXD/2 better than the IXB,C. Feels safer (isn't actually) and has more torps.

Ducimus · 10-17-06, 04:44 PM

In SH3 the IXD2 has one major allure, and that is its fuel capacity. Can cruise ANYWHERE, and not have to be overly concerned with fuel consumption. Maximizing submerge time in order to save fuel sometimes gets really oldwith me, but often i have no choice if i expect to make it back to base. A hit in the fuel tanks in my opinion, is tantamount to death sentence if at 100% realism and/or no nearby milk cow avialable.

My only beef with it, is its a really large target.

(after having been DC'ed and forced to surface, subsquently rammed by attacking DD, )

Jimbuna · 10-18-06, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus

In SH3 the IXD2 has one major allure, and that is its fuel capacity. Can cruise ANYWHERE, and not have to be overly concerned with fuel consumption. Maximizing submerge time in order to save fuel sometimes gets really oldwith me, but often i have no choice if i expect to make it back to base. A hit in the fuel tanks in my opinion, is tantamount to death sentence if at 100% realism and/or no nearby milk cow avialable.

My only beef with it, is its a really large target.

(after having been DC'ed and forced to surface, subsquently rammed by attacking DD, )

Had you been drinking again Ducimus

The fuel I mean

10-17-06, 10:32 AM	#1
denis_469 Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Russia Posts: 700 Downloads: 136 Uploads: 0	about IX D/2 Submarine IX D/2 have many modifications. Submarine can have from 19 to 28 torpedoes and intrnal storage (including tt) was 12-18. External torpedoes load was from 3 to 16. Few boats was building in variant minelayer and have 6 torpedoes. Submarine in cargo patrol in Japan have 2 torpedoes only (aft tt).

10-17-06, 12:06 PM	#2
Jmack Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 669 Downloads: 23 Uploads: 0	These boats, designed in 1939-40, have been called IXD/41, IXD and my main source gives them as IX D1 and IX D2. The difference between D1 and D2 was mostly in engine layout and power. The D1 had teething troubles and the D2 boats had a more proven layout. These were more than 500 tons heavier and almost 10 meters longer than the IXC/40. They were armed with 24 torpedoes in 6 tubes (4 at the bow and 2 at the stern) and had the secondary armament in the form of the Utof 105mm/45 deck gun with roughly 150 rounds of ammunition. In 1943-44 the torpedo tubes were removed from the D1 boats (U-180 and U-195) and they converted for transport use. In their new role the could transport 252 tons of freight. __________________ "victim's ? ... arent we all ? "

10-17-06, 12:08 PM	#3
Jmack Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 669 Downloads: 23 Uploads: 0	now .. looking at this i discover the type VIIF These boats, designed in 1941, were primarily built as torpedo transports and were never fitted with the typical 88mm deck guns found on other VII type boats. They had 5 torpedo tubes (4 at the bow and 1 at the stern) and as attack boats they would carry 14 torpedoes but in their transport role they would have up to 39 torpedoes onboard. GW DEV TEAM Two of them, U-1062 and U-1059, were sent to support the Monsun boats in the far East waters. They were the largest and heaviest type VII boats built. __________________ "victim's ? ... arent we all ? "

10-17-06, 03:50 PM	#4
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	I thought about the VIIF before. I remember reading that the main torpedo transport storage area was acutally AFT of the control room. The boat couldn't use them. So technically speaking, the inclusion of that uboat is rather pointless. I've thought about "fudging" it and putting them forward, but it felt kinda cheesy. edit: Back on topic, yes i remember reading that prisoner interigation report on uboatarchieve.net. In specific i know the interrigatee said 26 torpedo's. If you d/l and look at the boat plans, you can count the cansiters. Again, i think the answer is BOTH. Orignally 26, but later two canisters were delelted for a snorkel installation, which would put the count to 24 torpedo's. Thats just a theory though. Last edited by Ducimus; 10-17-06 at 03:53 PM.

10-17-06, 04:31 PM	#5
VonHelsching Ace of the Deep Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Athens, Greece Posts: 1,025 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I think this might be the same case with the Typ II and how many torpedoes it would carry. Theoretically it was 6, but most war patrols were carried out with 5, since the only place available to put the 6th, it was above the hatch to the battery area, virtually blocking it, IIRC. Maybe this is a similar case with the IXD/2. It's a big fat sub. If you really needed more torpedos there should ve been space to put them. It just probably wasn't practical for the "average" war patrol, whatever average means. Actually I like the IXD/2 better than the IXB,C. Feels safer (isn't actually) and has more torps. __________________

10-17-06, 04:44 PM	#6
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	In SH3 the IXD2 has one major allure, and that is its fuel capacity. Can cruise ANYWHERE, and not have to be overly concerned with fuel consumption. Maximizing submerge time in order to save fuel sometimes gets really oldwith me, but often i have no choice if i expect to make it back to base. A hit in the fuel tanks in my opinion, is tantamount to death sentence if at 100% realism and/or no nearby milk cow avialable. My only beef with it, is its a really large target. (after having been DC'ed and forced to surface, subsquently rammed by attacking DD, ) Last edited by Ducimus; 10-17-06 at 04:49 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode