Questions, always questions
#1
Posted 12 February 2007 - 12:33 PM
#2
Posted 12 February 2007 - 05:52 PM
#3
Posted 16 February 2007 - 09:55 PM
#4
Posted 17 February 2007 - 08:43 AM
Lonnie's explanation coincides with much of the in-depth research I have read. The Type 93's advantages were:[ol][li]reliability — when it hit something, it detonated[/li][li]range — most of its long length was propellant[/li][li]warhead size — though it was not so much larger than other navies' torpedoes[/li][/ol]It ran straight and true, fast and far, and blew up on contact. American torpedoes would have had much greater success in the early war years if they could only have done the same.Gregory"Running barefoot through the Long lances" - evocative, but not a pretty sight! Now that the PC is up and running again, here's my response to some good questions. 3. Several comments on the IJN's Long Lance torpedo. First, the Type 93's warhead at 1080 pounds was bigger, but not 50% bigger as often related, than the warhead of the USN Mark 15 (825 pounds) or the RN's Mark IX (810 pounds) for example. Thus, there's a difference, but not as pronounced as often thought. With a simulation system utilizing a limited number of Hull Boxes, small changes can have a pronounced effect. Hence, I took a fairly conservative approach to reflecting the effect of the Type 93's larger warhead. The end result corresponds with historical experience in the Solomons, etc. One hit will probably badly damage, but not sink a cruiser, while a second is highly likely to be more than enough. One hit will probably cause major damage to a CV or BC and significant damage to a larger BA or BB. I admit that I was "on the cusp" of increasing the effect in several parts of the table and that others may want more distinction. There's not enough historical evidence to determine this conclusively. No Allied BA or BB, for example, was hit by a Long Lance; but the USS North Carolina took significant damage from a smaller warhead submarine torpedo hit in the Solomons. Second, Torpex, with 50% more explosive power, gave the 800+ pound American and British torpedo warhead a great deal more effect than their standard warheads and more power than the Long Lance as well. Among the various navies, there was a considerable variation in warhead weight and explosive power per pound. In the interest of streamlining play, I broke this spectrum down into several categories: smaller 18" and aerial, the typical 21", Long Lance and finally the late war Torpex warhead. If this is an area you and your group would like to simulate in more detail, you can alter the CRT. I would be interested in your proposed changes.
#5
Posted 21 February 2007 - 04:20 PM
Ah, but for heavy cruisers the cut-off is only 6,000 yards when shooting at another cruiser. When shooting at DDs, the 8" is up one band to 9,000, then back down to 6,000 because of the spotting aircraft. I would think the aircraft spotting would be least effective against fast-moving DDs, particularly when they get in close (and the 8" probably have trouble tracking them as targets). I suppose this falls into the 'no rules can cover everything' area, but it seems to give spotting aircraft way too much effect, more than I've ever read about.1. Certainly, there is a point of diminishing returns where aerial spotting does not convey any real advantage over director spotting. The GUNFIRE CRT shows that to be at 6,000 yds. When you're in the 9,000 yd range band (6,100 - 9,000 yds) Air Spot still enables you to shift down one row; but once you reach 6,000 yds or less, you are at the bottom of the table and can't derive any additional advantage. Further, you'll note that most capital ship batteries - which had the most sophisticated fire control and longer base optical rangefinders - do not derive any benefit when they're in the 9,000 yd range band as the "to hit" probability is the same as the lower 6,000 yd row. Thus, the minimum benefit limit for air spotting is built into the CRT
#6
Posted 24 February 2007 - 01:47 PM
The presence of an aerial spotter when used when firing on a DD corrects the fall of shot and, in essence, corrects any ranging errors. The impact is to nullify the DDs target size advantage. BTW, this effect applies at all ranges, so in your example (firing at 6000yds), it would be correct for the solution to remain on the 6000yd line. (BTW, the above is based on USN doctrine for the use of aerial spotters. The USN, like others, spent an extraordinary amount of time and money on developing aerial spotting during the '20s and '30s).Regarding the ability of an 8" battery to track a DD at close range: The training rate of the slowest main battery of this period was around 2 degrees per second (this applies to even the Yamato's 18" triple turret). Given the turn length, a turret with a 2 degree rate of train could sweep a full 360 degrees, which, at a range of 6000 yds, means sweeping a circle with a circumference of over 37000yds. A DD, moving at 40kts will cover only 4000yds. And given that many of the later turret designs had training rates of 4 to 6 degrees per second, and all were linked to state-of-the-art fire control systems (which were designed to track aircraft as well as ships), I think we can dismiss this long standing gaming myth.What does have impact is the size of the target relative to the impact area of the larger guns and their rate of fire. The area covered by the straddle of the larger shells is significantly larger than that of smaller shells (6' and below). Any reduction in lethality is due to the smaller footprint of the target (the average DD) and the lower number of potential shells striking (due to the lower rate of fire). In reality, the difference between the various calibers should be on sliding scale, but that would be impractical for gaming purposes.Ah, but for heavy cruisers the cut-off is only 6,000 yards when shooting at another cruiser. When shooting at DDs, the 8" is up one band to 9,000, then back down to 6,000 because of the spotting aircraft. I would think the aircraft spotting would be least effective against fast-moving DDs, particularly when they get in close (and the 8" probably have trouble tracking them as targets). I suppose this falls into the 'no rules can cover everything' area, but it seems to give spotting aircraft way too much effect, more than I've ever read about.
#7
Posted 13 March 2013 - 06:26 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users