Any allowance for "defective US torpedoes"?

[Red Harvest]

Since global includes a tech tree, has there been any discussion of an historical variant where the initial U.S. torpedoes are defective?  I could see reducing sub attack down to 1 for the U.S. for five or six turns…perhaps allowing some sort of tech upgrade IPC payment to get their 2 attack earlier.  (The same sort of problems afflicted U.S. torpedo bombers and destroyers making torpedo runs.)

The “running too deep problem” was an amateurish design location change that should have been flagged by anyone familiar with fluid pressure calcs.  Then there was the issue with the contact detonator, and of course the magnetic exploder.  Inadequate design review, improper testing, and an inability to even re-evaluate when problems were obvious plagued the Newport Torpedo Station.

The problem was so bad and persistent that one former submariner observed that 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.”  :-D

[Gargantua]

Didn’t know this.

But be careful, if you say anything anti-american here you run the risk of moderation.

[JimmyHat]

How would you propose?  I think this is going to get moved to House rules because in reality you are proposing the US handle a unit differently than other powers.

As an aside, German torps were some of the best in the war once they switched to electric torps, these would not leave a bubble trail for spotters to see.

[Red Harvest]

@JimmyHat:

How would you propose?  I think this is going to get moved to House rules because in reality you are proposing the US handle a unit differently than other powers.

I don’t have Europe so I haven’t played Global or experienced the tech tree.  It just seemed a way to account for a serious strategic deficiency in a type of ordnance.

I haven’t looked at house rules.

[Jennifer]

@Gargantua:

But be careful, if you say anything anti-american here you run the risk of moderation.

Not from me, you wouldnt!  I think you’re all a bunch of hegemonistic American pig-dogs!  Long Live the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics!  You westerners will crumble under the red army!  It might take a century to rebuild it, but we’ll eventually kill you all!!!

(Besides, Larry always makes America ridiculously over powered in these games, if you ask me.  I would say America should be docked 15 IPC a round from rounds 1-3 and be permanently dinged another 5 IPC a round, perhaps gank all their starting units that are not bases or facilities.  Course, I might consider allowing them to keep 2 Aircraft Carriers - because I’m feeling generous.)

ANYWAY!  Sounds like a great house rule!

[Jercules]

This reminds me of that fellow who was an expert in (presumably) his native country’s contribution to WW2: Norway.

He advocated splitting Norway in two, adding a railroad, adding ‘resistance’ fighters, changing the amount/composition of units… I mean, sorry, you’ve got to draw the line somewhere, no?

[Red Harvest]

@Jercules:

This reminds me of that fellow who was an expert in (presumably) his native country’s contribution to WW2: Norway.

He advocated splitting Norway in two, adding a railroad, adding ‘resistance’ fighters, changing the amount/composition of units… I mean, sorry, you’ve got to draw the line somewhere, no?

Uh, no, failed analogy there.  :roll:  The U.S. was a major power and you will notice is represented as such in the game.

Very few U.S. torpedoes actually worked until the last half of 1943.  It didn’t just impact one branch of the naval arm either…half of a typical fleet carrier’s tactical bombers were torpedo planes.  Destroyer torpedoes had similar problems (and the Japanese had way more effective “long lance” torpedoes for their ships.)  But it seemed best to limit the impact of this to the one arm that relies solely on the torpedo to engage other armed targets, the submarine.

“National advantages” is nothing new in the realm of strategic wargaming and from what I gather, A&A has used variants of it before.  At any rate, it’s not a huge thing, just something worth considering.

[radar231]

Hi,

In Global 1939, with the D12 system, the american subs hit on a 3 or less untill turn 9 then hit on a 4 after. Since I got Global 1939, I don’t play Global 1940 anymore. I know there are still some trimmings to do with G1939 but with all the new units from HBG and FMG, that’s the only way to go for me. Cheers

J.  8-)

[salan]

Ya I can never go back to 1940 now… we play a completely reworked 1939 version ourselves. Kicks 1940 out the window!

[Red Harvest]

@radar231:

In Global 1939, with the D12 system, the american subs hit on a 3 or less untill turn 9 then hit on a 4 after. Since I got Global 1939, I don’t play Global 1940 anymore. I know there are still some trimmings to do with G1939 but with all the new units from HBG and FMG, that’s the only way to go for me.

Sounds like they are still a bit overpowered if they are hitting on a 3 with twelve sided dice (that is what D12 means, right?)  I would be tempted to start them at 1 for defense, and 2 for offense in a D12 system, then take them to 2 and 4.  The useful thing about doing this with subs is that it only impacts surface combat since they can’t score against aircraft anyway.  They still function as fodder for combat though…

The increased granularity of D12 would even allow for some difference in destroyers with respect to the torpedoes, perhaps give the Japanese an extra point for attack with a destroyer because of their “long lance torpedoes” and expertise in conducting torpedo attacks.

Japanese cruisers benefitted from their long range torpedoes as well (and could reload the tubes during combat), while U.S. cruisers had deleted them…but the U.S. cruisers had other advantages so I would rate this a wash in the cruiser category.  The one negative of those big, fast, long range Japanese torpedoes was that while the oxygen they used made them bubble-free, that same oxygen also made them dangerous to the ship carrying them since they were exposed on the deck.  One of the Japanese cruisers that attacked the Taffy 3 escort carriers was taken out by a lucky hit to its torpedoes by the stinger 5" gun of one of these jeep carriers.

I’ve read of some problems with the German torpedoes being about half duds early on as well, and the Fighting Steel naval surface combat simulator includes that.  Actually, the simulator seems to go overboard with the de-rating of German destroyer/cruiser torps as I very rarely have a German torpedo detonate in the 1940-41 time frame.

[almashir]

If you want a more detailed analysis of the effectiveness of Japanese torpedoes:

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-067.htm

[Red Harvest]

@almashir:

If you want a more detailed analysis of the effectiveness of Japanese torpedoes:

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-067.htm

Thanks, it is a good review.  The Japanese results for the first year of the war were quite good (10-11%), especially when you consider how the torpedoes were fired in a surface action.  The best one could really hope for is a single hit from each spread fired from a 3 or 4 tube launcher at long range.  So one could use 25-33% rate for the ideal.  Getting 1/2 to 1/3 of that value in actual combat at long range is really impressive, dud rate must not have been very high and/or the torpedo attacks were extremely well executed on average.

I wouldn’t have expected such a high hit rate with this sort of weapon even at a fraction of the range (like the US torpedoes had.)  Unfortunately for Japan they were assuming 15% hit rate for planning purposes…which would be phenomenal.

By 1943 improvements in radar, hard-earned U.S. experience, and air cover/etc. would make the plan obsolete…and you can see this when you try to run campaign simulations:  with the veil of night removed by radar, it is difficult to get a destoyer attack force close enough to do a torpedo run without getting pummeled, even with these long lance weapons.  Once you are detected heavy cruisers start shooting and they don’t stay on an unaltered course…plus an 8" shell really ruins a destoyer’s night.  Takes about 2 exploding torpedo hits in the simulator per cruiser and there is a 20% dud rate to apply on top of that.

[almashir]

In fairness to the Japanese planners:

“After the initial salvo at long range (20,000 meters), the four Kongo Class battleships and 17 Class A cruisers detailed to the night attack force were to break through the American screen–suicidally if necessary–and clear the way for the force’s two torpedo cruisers and the light cruiser and 14 destroyers of a destroyer squadron to expend the remainder of their ready torpedoes in a close range attack from as little as 2,000 meters.”

IF they had ever actually gotten the massive fleet battle at night (without radar, which they couldn’t plan for, since they didn’t know about it), and acually managed to get a significant number of cruisers and destroyers to 2,000 meters or less, they might have had a chance of achieving the 15% hit rate.  But a lot of their planning DID involve timing their actions to coincide with Mr. Murphy’s annual vacation  :lol: