Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 52

Thread: WW1 Mk.II Torpedo.

  1. #1

    Default WW1 Mk.II Torpedo.

    During Jagers 'Sink the Von Der Tann' game on Sunday at Doncaster there was some discussion about what speed the torpedo would be doing. I suggested 30 kts but was contradicted by others who suggested 20 kts as more probable.
    Been doing a little research and can now state with some confidence that the Mk.II British Torpedoes of WW1 did between 29 and 35 kts. Originally designed to do 45 kts the set speeds were reduced to improve reliability.
    No matter what the speed however I did manage to put two Torps into the Von Der Tann from two sorties in a Sopwith Cuckoo and this despite the fact that the Cuckoo never actually flew operationally in the War.
    Still didn't come anywhere near sinking the bugger but apparently only managed to reduce it to 2/3 speed.
    Last edited by Rebel; 09-18-2017 at 15:51. Reason: Added last sentence
    Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm. Winston S. Churchill

  2. #2

    Default

    Good Gen Reg, for a moment thought you were going to say you'd reduced it to 2/3 length !

    "He is wise who watches"

  3. #3

    Default Best intentions

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post
    Good Gen Reg, for a moment thought you were going to say you'd reduced it to 2/3 length !
    That was my aim but alas it was not to be!
    Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm. Winston S. Churchill

  4. #4

    'Warspite''s Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Blog Entries
    4
    Name
    Barry
    Location
    north west Norfolk
    Sorties Flown
    636
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default

    Your assessment of the speed is correct. Torpedo speeds in WW1 or WW2 could cover a speed difference of 10 to 15 knots between the lowest speed and the highest. Generally the slower speeds were used for large ships such as cruisers and destroyers as this slow speed also conferred greater range and allowed the ships to 'stand-off' a bit in a gun action. The slower speed was the 'economical' or cruising speed.

    The higher speeds were used by submarines as they only required a short range and a higher speed allowed them a higher hit chance. It is logical that aircraft will also drop at closer ranges especially in WW1 when there was an absence of close-in weapon systems.

    Barry
    Last edited by 'Warspite'; 09-21-2017 at 12:53.

  5. #5

    Default

    We've been working on a torpedo equipment card with old guy 59 (Mike). Soon to be published I hope....Mike?
    See you on the Dark Side......

  6. #6

    Default

    It is rather tricky to balance realism and gameplay. Yes the Von der Tann would take several torpedoes to sink. Reg did rather well to hit twice. IIRC, a total of 5 torpedoes were dropped, with his being the only 2 hits. I will be rethinking the rules, and ship size, based on the game played.
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skafloc View Post
    We've been working on a torpedo equipment card with old guy 59 (Mike). Soon to be published I hope....Mike?
    Yeah...

    We decided we didn't actually need one of these:

    Name:  WGF_Torpedo_2Sided.jpg
Views: 102
Size:  184.1 KB

    And we were working on the rules for something like this:

    Name:  Equipment_Card--MkVIII_Torp-Std1.jpg
Views: 103
Size:  218.9 KB

    Name:  Equipment_Card--MkVIII_Torp-Adv1.jpg
Views: 103
Size:  225.7 KB

    I have cards for the Cuckoo and the Caproni Ca.450 (Clipper1801 made one, so... Link: OldGuy59's WWI Entente Bombers Album- Ca.450 Plane Card).
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  8. #8

    Default Mk.VIII Torpedoe

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    Yeah...

    We decided we didn't actually need one of these:

    Name:  WGF_Torpedo_2Sided.jpg
Views: 102
Size:  184.1 KB

    And we were working on the rules for something like this:

    Name:  Equipment_Card--MkVIII_Torp-Std1.jpg
Views: 103
Size:  218.9 KB

    Name:  Equipment_Card--MkVIII_Torp-Adv1.jpg
Views: 103
Size:  225.7 KB

    I have cards for the Cuckoo and the Caproni Ca.450 (Clipper1801 made one, so... Link: OldGuy59's WWI Entente Bombers Album- Ca.450 Plane Card).
    I have a feeling that the Mk.VIII was a 1939 version so not a Great War weapon.
    The Mk.II was in general use throughout the 1914-18 conflict.
    Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm. Winston S. Churchill

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    Yeah...

    We decided we didn't actually need one of these:

    Name:  WGF_Torpedo_2Sided.jpg
Views: 102
Size:  184.1 KB

    And we were working on the rules for something like this:

    Name:  Equipment_Card--MkVIII_Torp-Std1.jpg
Views: 103
Size:  218.9 KB

    Name:  Equipment_Card--MkVIII_Torp-Adv1.jpg
Views: 103
Size:  225.7 KB

    I have cards for the Cuckoo and the Caproni Ca.450 (Clipper1801 made one, so... Link: OldGuy59's WWI Entente Bombers Album- Ca.450 Plane Card).
    The two optional rule cards appear to be identical apart from the medal shaped symbols in the heading. What do they mean and what is the difference between 1 x green and 2 x brown and 3 x red?
    Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm. Winston S. Churchill

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebel View Post
    I have a feeling that the Mk.VIII was a 1939 version so not a Great War weapon.
    The Mk.II was in general use throughout the 1914-18 conflict.
    The information for the Cuckoo said Mk.IX. However, when I checked, the Mk.IX is a 14" torpedo, and the Cuckoo was said to carry an 18", which the Mk.VIII is. Both listed as having 1913 entry dates.
    Also, after 1925, the Mk.VIII is a 21" torpedo for subs and MTBs
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebel View Post
    The two optional rule cards appear to be identical apart from the medal shaped symbols in the heading. What do they mean and what is the difference between 1 x green and 2 x brown and 3 x red?
    Green is Basic Rules, Brown is Standard and Red is Advanced Rules.

    Advanced adds altitude to the card.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebel View Post
    I have a feeling that the Mk.VIII was a 1939 version so not a Great War weapon.
    The Mk.II was in general use throughout the 1914-18 conflict.
    Amongst a few references, which included searching through the history of the Whitehead family of torpedoes, I used this:

    18 inch Mark VIII
    Year: 1913
    Role: Submarines and aircraft (Note: During World War II and after the Mk.VIII was a 21-inch torpedo)
    Warhead: 320 lb (150 kg) TNT
    Propulsion: Wet heater
    Performance: 35 knots (65 km/h; 40 mph) for 2,500 yd (2,300 m)

    Wikipedia.org - British 18 inch Torpedo (Scroll down for the Mk VIII)
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    Amongst a few references, which included searching through the history of the Whitehead family of torpedoes, I used this:

    18 inch Mark VIII
    Year: 1913
    Role: Submarines and aircraft (Note: During World War II and after the Mk.VIII was a 21-inch torpedo)
    Warhead: 320 lb (150 kg) TNT
    Propulsion: Wet heater
    Performance: 35 knots (65 km/h; 40 mph) for 2,500 yd (2,300 m)

    Wikipedia.org - British 18 inch Torpedo (Scroll down for the Mk VIII)
    I stand corrected!
    Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm. Winston S. Churchill

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stumptonian View Post
    Green is Basic Rules, Brown is Standard and Red is Advanced Rules.

    Advanced adds altitude to the card.
    Thanks Pete!
    Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm. Winston S. Churchill

  15. #15

    Default

    Hi Chaps
    This all sounds great any chance of one for a Swordfish or has this been done?

    Regards Kev

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    The information for the Cuckoo said Mk.IX. However, when I checked, the Mk.IX is a 14" torpedo, and the Cuckoo was said to carry an 18", which the Mk.VIII is. Both listed as having 1913 entry dates.
    Also, after 1925, the Mk.VIII is a 21" torpedo for subs and MTBs
    Karl
    Have a look through this little lot chaps - Seems each 'calibre' came in different marks so you have an 18" Mk.VIII & a 21" Mk.VIII for instance on different dates:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_torpedoes_by_name.

    Look forward to picking up my Cuckoo when I next meet Chris, Karl, I understand you're responsible for that prize at Doncaster so thanks for that.
    Wish a torp would do more than 2 C deck damage though, lots of zeroes in that deck. Maybe take them out and roll a D deck into the mix for something much more explosive !

    "He is wise who watches"

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post
    Have a look through this little lot chaps - Seems each 'calibre' came in different marks so you have an 18" Mk.VIII & a 21" Mk.VIII for instance on different dates:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_torpedoes_by_name.

    Look forward to picking up my Cuckoo when I next meet Chris, Karl, I understand you're responsible for that prize at Doncaster so thanks for that.
    Wish a torp would do more than 2 C deck damage though, lots of zeroes in that deck. Maybe take them out and roll a D deck into the mix for something much more explosive !
    My prototype torpedo rules, which I ran past Neil a year or two back, exclusively used the 'D' chits for damage.
    I'll try to find them, before dropping a semi-accurate memorecall on here!

  18. #18

    Default

    Guys, I consider this a work-in-progress, and am relying on our Forum to provide advice. From my limited knowledge on the subject, torpedoes were notoriously unreliable (perhaps shaded by information on Japanese WWII sub torpedoes? Which may, or may not, be accurate).

    Also, damage would be a play-test / game-balance thing, dependent on the target. Battleships had anti-torpedo armor bands, in some cases, making them hard to sink. Escort ships were light and fast, as well as maneuverable, to avoid torpedoes. Airborne torpedoes had to be lighter, and smaller, to allow them to be carried by planes. All that to say, damage, and the amount of "0" s in the mix is problematic, and situational, on the scenario. It would be nice, if there was a consistent ship damage design (like Neil is working on) to keep it all relative.

    Have fun with this?
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  19. #19

    Default

    I used the torpedo damage deck Neil posted in the files. It's in 3 word files:
    https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/do...o=file&id=1343
    https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/do...o=file&id=1344
    https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/do...o=file&id=1356
    and the running cards: https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/do...o=file&id=1346

    As I said, I need to tweak the play of this a bit; maybe use the G* deck for a loaded Cuckoo, and a J deck for an unloaded one.
    Also address torpedo speeds and min/max run distances.
    In any case, a major capital ship should be able to survive a few torpedo hits, though some addressing of crits would be in order.
    Use of the standard damage decks would simplify things, so a look at that as well

    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  20. #20

    Default

    One thing Neil and I discussed about the speed of torpedoes in WoG, considering the size of the play area, and ground scale of the game, was: do we need a counter, or card, for a torpedo at all? Could we use modified rocket rules, where a launched torpedo hits right away, or the turn after launch?

    This is why I mentioned above that a torpedo card wouldn't be useful. Is the target within a certain range on launch, or not? It hits, or not. No speed need be mentioned, if it is launched within the confines of a game area.

    Thoughts?
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  21. #21

    Default

    From what I saw with the two games run, particularly Doncaster, yes, a movement card is needed. Given relative speeds of target and torpedo, and the possible max range, it will be much more difficult to hit further out. Now, the players had it easy, since the Von der Tann had no AA at all; give the target ship even a few MGs or light AAA (which really need different rules than FLAK), then the incentive to launch further out comes into play. This was apparently the reason the Germans discontinued aerial torpedo attacks in WW1; to many losses from MGs. Of course, the whole subject of naval AAA needs to be addressed, but that's a different thread.
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  22. #22

    Default

    My 1st draft torpedo rules had each "fish" inflicting 5 'D' chits damage - only the highest one scoring on the target.

    Each half ruler "run" cancelled one 'D' chit

    Each AA chit also cancelled a 'D' chit, with the proviso that the owning player could choose to accept the AA damage to his plane, and retain the 'D' chit, for a chance of increased damage on the target (but with a much higher risk of being shot down before release).

    eg:

    an He-111 torpedo bomber (30 points) is struck for 2 x 'C' chits and 1 x 'A' chit while still 1.5 rulers distance from its target.
    The owning player chooses to discard 2 x 'D' chits to cancel out the 2 x 'C' chits, and declares his torpedo launched.
    The remaining single 'A' chit is resolved against the plane; if it survives, the torpedo runs for 1.5 rulers (discarding 3 'D' chits) and strikes for 2 x 'D' chits (the higher one pulled is the damage inflicted).

    In this way, the closer the drop, the more effective the torpedo; also, determination to fly "straight and level" through a flak cloud increases the chance of a crippling hit, at the risk of being shot down before torpedo release.


    The torpedoes launched in the Doncaster game travelled 8 times as fast as the target! I'm VERY surprised that they didn't all hit.
    At the same scale speed as the target (a 24 knot Battlecruiser, moving 5/8 inch per TURN) the torpedoes should have travelled 1.5 times the distance (if set for 36 knots), or only just less than 1 inch per turn.
    The game torpedoes resembled missiles, not torpedoes.

    For this reason, and for increased playability, I chose to resolve hits and damage based on chit draws alone.

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Helmut View Post
    My 1st draft torpedo rules had each "fish" inflicting 5 'D' chits damage - only the highest one scoring on the target.

    Each half ruler "run" cancelled one 'D' chit

    Each AA chit also cancelled a 'D' chit, with the proviso that the owning player could choose to accept the AA damage to his plane, and retain the 'D' chit, for a chance of increased damage on the target (but with a much higher risk of being shot down before release).

    eg:

    an He-111 torpedo bomber (30 points) is struck for 2 x 'C' chits and 1 x 'A' chit while still 1.5 rulers distance from its target.
    The owning player chooses to discard 2 x 'D' chits to cancel out the 2 x 'C' chits, and declares his torpedo launched.
    The remaining single 'A' chit is resolved against the plane; if it survives, the torpedo runs for 1.5 rulers (discarding 3 'D' chits) and strikes for 2 x 'D' chits (the higher one pulled is the damage inflicted).

    In this way, the closer the drop, the more effective the torpedo; also, determination to fly "straight and level" through a flak cloud increases the chance of a crippling hit, at the risk of being shot down before torpedo release.


    The torpedoes launched in the Doncaster game travelled 8 times as fast as the target! I'm VERY surprised that they didn't all hit.
    At the same scale speed as the target (a 24 knot Battlecruiser, moving 5/8 inch per TURN) the torpedoes should have travelled 1.5 times the distance (if set for 36 knots), or only just less than 1 inch per turn.
    The game torpedoes resembled missiles, not torpedoes.

    For this reason, and for increased playability, I chose to resolve hits and damage based on chit draws alone.
    Wrong war, wrong thread, Tim.
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  24. #24

    Default

    I'm trying to figure out the range/speed thing, and at 65kph per torpedo, it would only cover a portion of a card per turn? My math is bad.

    Anyway, looking at maneuver decks, I might be inclined to use a single 'XA' straight card every three phases to move the torpedo, once launched?

    And, Neil's example card he exchanged with me had D damage cards, not C.

    PS: Hmmm... Perhaps a 'D' straight each turn (last phase of the turn)? How many turns, max, for the torpedo? Or would it actually run off the play area, or hit something else?
    Last edited by OldGuy59; 09-24-2017 at 13:45.
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    I used the torpedo damage deck Neil posted in the files. It's in 3 word files:
    https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/do...o=file&id=1343
    https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/do...o=file&id=1344
    https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/do...o=file&id=1356
    and the running cards: https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/do...o=file&id=1346

    As I said, I need to tweak the play of this a bit; maybe use the G* deck for a loaded Cuckoo, and a J deck for an unloaded one.
    Also address torpedo speeds and min/max run distances.
    In any case, a major capital ship should be able to survive a few torpedo hits, though some addressing of crits would be in order.
    Use of the standard damage decks would simplify things, so a look at that as well

    Karl
    Which war, and is there a need to use two decks, Karl? Just use the WWI bomber rules, I'd think. Isn't that a stall each turn, if fully loaded?
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  26. #26

    Default

    If we start putting torpedo and target speeds into the game then we are extending the game turn for a. ship maneuvering and b. moving the torpedo. I think just letting the torpedo have a minumum range of half a ruler and max say 2 rulers then draw 1 damage chit and apply damage. The lesser damage taken enables the abstract for ship maneuvering, bad aiming etc to great shot and huge amounts of damage. Otherwise we are moving ships and torpedoes every turn as well as keeping track of aircraft ec.
    See you on the Dark Side......

  27. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    Wrong war, wrong thread, Tim.
    It was intended for any war, and any thread.....................................

    oh, well, never mind

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Helmut View Post
    My 1st draft torpedo rules had each "fish" inflicting 5 'D' chits damage - only the highest one scoring on the target.

    Each half ruler "run" cancelled one 'D' chit

    Each AA chit also cancelled a 'D' chit, with the proviso that the owning player could choose to accept the AA damage to his plane, and retain the 'D' chit, for a chance of increased damage on the target (but with a much higher risk of being shot down before release).

    eg:

    an He-111 torpedo bomber (30 points) is struck for 2 x 'C' chits and 1 x 'A' chit while still 1.5 rulers distance from its target.
    The owning player chooses to discard 2 x 'D' chits to cancel out the 2 x 'C' chits, and declares his torpedo launched.
    The remaining single 'A' chit is resolved against the plane; if it survives, the torpedo runs for 1.5 rulers (discarding 3 'D' chits) and strikes for 2 x 'D' chits (the higher one pulled is the damage inflicted).

    In this way, the closer the drop, the more effective the torpedo; also, determination to fly "straight and level" through a flak cloud increases the chance of a crippling hit, at the risk of being shot down before torpedo release.


    The torpedoes launched in the Doncaster game travelled 8 times as fast as the target! I'm VERY surprised that they didn't all hit.
    At the same scale speed as the target (a 24 knot Battlecruiser, moving 5/8 inch per TURN) the torpedoes should have travelled 1.5 times the distance (if set for 36 knots), or only just less than 1 inch per turn.
    The game torpedoes resembled missiles, not torpedoes.

    For this reason, and for increased playability, I chose to resolve hits and damage based on chit draws alone.
    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    Wrong war, wrong thread, Tim.
    Tim's system is valid for either/all wars, though the difference between WGF decks and WGS chits would need to be addressed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Skafloc View Post
    If we start putting torpedo and target speeds into the game then we are extending the game turn for a. ship maneuvering and b. moving the torpedo. I think just letting the torpedo have a minumum range of half a ruler and max say 2 rulers then draw 1 damage chit and apply damage. The lesser damage taken enables the abstract for ship maneuvering, bad aiming etc to great shot and huge amounts of damage. Otherwise we are moving ships and torpedoes every turn as well as keeping track of aircraft etc.
    I will admit that I'm approaching this from the hard wargame aspect a la Fighting Wings and Harpoon/Dreadnought. Many of my stumbles in house rules and scenario design come from this issue. And Tim and Neil are right, it would be a drag on game play to have exacting movement of torpedoes (though, Neil, this is exactly what your system in the files does ). I admit that it is exciting to watch, and see if you get a hit, but perhaps not for this game. I will definitely have to think on this.
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  29. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    Which war, and is there a need to use two decks, Karl? Just use the WWI bomber rules, I'd think. Isn't that a stall each turn, if fully loaded?
    My cuckoos use the K deck (WGF) based on their rated speed; the problem, as with many of the 2 seaters, is that if you get behind one, it's hard/impossible to catch it. he DH-4s are a prime example of this.
    We don't have an energy system in the WoG engine to account for increased speed acquired in a dive. This is a much bigger distortion of reality in WW2, but still is a problem in WW1.
    And what I don't like with the 1 stall per turn is two things: first, it doesn't slow the bomber enough (IMO), and second, it adds an unevenness to the movement over the turn. Since the owning player can chose which phase is the stall, the plane can potentially move 4 straights in a row before it has to stall again. I know using 2 different decks complicates things, but I feel it is more realistic. Of course, you need a deck from a different plane to do this
    With the Cuckoos being described as "fully maneuverable" when not carrying a torpedo, they might be entitled to a J deck.
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  30. #30

    Default

    I can understand that torpedo rules for Wings of Glory could apply for both versions of the game, but based on the original posting, and from the point of view to producting equipment cards for the correct version, I'll like to keep the discussion to WWI, please.

    That way, I don't get any more confused than usual.

    The rules are different enough that separate cards are warranted, and I do, now, have templates for both.

    Sample WWII WoG Equipment Card:
    Name:  Equipment_Cards_BR21_FightersNew.jpg
Views: 79
Size:  260.9 KB

    PS: Wait! What?!?

    Name:  FW-190_Torpedo_bomber_b0295d97819ef91aebf435a76151a350.jpg
Views: 79
Size:  39.9 KB

    "Flugeltorpedo" LT 950 torpedo, equipped with glider-attachment (wings and rudders). A maximum range of 2300m glidepath when dropped from a height of 800m were obtained during testing. Speed 40 knots?
    Last edited by OldGuy59; 09-24-2017 at 20:04.
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  31. #31

    Default

    Following with interest. I developed my torpedo rules time ago... And you give me a lot of ground to rethink them.

    Besides, I always loved the Caproni Car.3 torpedo bomber even if it ad only one, unlucky mission (fault of a sailor). Clipper made it:

    http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...-Ca-3-Repaint-!!!

  32. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    My cuckoos use the K deck (WGF) based on their rated speed; the problem, as with many of the 2 seaters, is that if you get behind one, it's hard/impossible to catch it. he DH-4s are a prime example of this.
    We don't have an energy system in the WoG engine to account for increased speed acquired in a dive. This is a much bigger distortion of reality in WW2, but still is a problem in WW1.
    And what I don't like with the 1 stall per turn is two things: first, it doesn't slow the bomber enough (IMO), and second, it adds an unevenness to the movement over the turn. Since the owning player can chose which phase is the stall, the plane can potentially move 4 straights in a row before it has to stall again. I know using 2 different decks complicates things, but I feel it is more realistic. Of course, you need a deck from a different plane to do this
    With the Cuckoos being described as "fully maneuverable" when not carrying a torpedo, they might be entitled to a J deck.
    Karl
    You're not wrong Karl, playing catch up can be a sod with this game and usually needs some intervention to slow some of them down (I was disappointed the Alb C.III was a Y deck !). I've done similar to you with a DH4 bombing game, using K decks when bombed up & reverting to H deck when unencumbered - it does make for smoother manoeuvring but as you know getting other decks can be a nuisance, though I used a single deck as they were flown in formation.
    "The T.1 was easy to control and was fully aerobatic without a torpedo payload." quotes Wiki so whilst the K deck is the right speed for the Cuckoo you could consider the V deck for an unencumbered machine (same as the Strutter) and maybe the Y deck when loaded.
    Interesting discussion about play options.

    "He is wise who watches"

  33. #33

    Default

    Purely on the issue of obtaining manoeuvre decks (which seemed a problem to me, as a newbie, with using non-official aircraft), one of the files for download is a set of manoeuvre cards someone produced with each deck condensed onto one or two cards. I can't, at the moment, remember which file but having printed the decks (I think they were referred to as 'MATES') I found them very useful (the manoeuvres are numbered and you pick the three numbers for your card selection) and you then have a complete (I think) set of the manoeuvre packs.

  34. #34

    Default

    They'd certainly do the trick Andrew but I'd prefer a handful of cards to scribbling numbers down at an event.

    Quote Originally Posted by OldGuy59 View Post
    I'm trying to figure out the range/speed thing, and at 65kph per torpedo, it would only cover a portion of a card per turn? My math is bad.
    Anyway, looking at maneuver decks, I might be inclined to use a single 'XA' straight card every three phases to move the torpedo, once launched?
    XB deck is for speeds up to 130kmh (measures 1.3cm) so you'd be looking at half that, the XA deck is a fraction over that for speeds <100kmh (0.7cm) so I'd suggest you use the XA deck each phase or a XD deck + 3 card lengths once per turn if that suits your play better. It's a little over (2.3cm) but the nearest fit.
    The 18" Mk.VIII has a 2.3km range so set max/min release ranges & let it run.
    Last edited by flash; 09-27-2017 at 02:23.

    "He is wise who watches"

  35. #35

    'Warspite''s Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Blog Entries
    4
    Name
    Barry
    Location
    north west Norfolk
    Sorties Flown
    636
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    Yes the Von der Tann would take several torpedoes to sink.
    Karl
    Not so.

    Torpedoes are much misunderstood as underwater explosions propagate differently to above-water.
    Key issues are:
    1) where did the torpedo strike? Hits at the ends of the ship would be less likely to sink IF the water-tight doors are closed. Hits in the central area would cause greater damage but might expose the torpedo to defensive countermeasures such as bulges or improved internal compartmentation.
    2) is the target 'modern'? - say post 1930. More modern ships of 1930 to 1945 vintage have improved internal compartmentation to cope with such hits.
    3) is the target 'bulged'? - post 1916 on some RN ships, more later. Bulges act like the side skirts on German WW2 tanks and attempt to hold the blast away from the main hull. Bulging became internal post 1930 (see - 2) ) because higher speeds were needed. Bulges increase stability (see 5) but create greater drag.
    4) How deep or how high was the hit? Hits underneath the ship cause greater damage while a flooding ship which is rolled towards the attacker can also be hit ABOVE its underwater protection or bulges.
    5) how many hits on the same side? In big ship losses, capsize is the biggest ship killer. Ships will turn over long before they actually sink if they take hits on the same side and flood asymmetrically. This is why damage control crews were taught to 'counter-flood' on the opposite side of the ship. This reduces the capsize risk and levels the decks for gunnery purposes. Guns work best if the ship is horizontal. Both sides noted that Bismarck was listing 4 degrees on her last morning yet her previously good gunnery was absent, she scored no hits. This is almost certainly because the 4 deg list was throwing out her gunnery and her crew had not made allowance.

    In the case of Von Der Tann she was unbulged and quite primitive in terms of her internal design. Her belt armour is useless against torpedoes. The larger Seydlitz took one hit amidships but was reduced to a sinking condition while the even larger Lutzow took eight shells hits low forward (analagous to a torpedo hit) but started flooding uncontrollably due to her being a new ship whose compartmentation had not been thoroughly tested yet. She was leaking around the bulkheads and through pipe glands, etc, from her own the forward torpedo tube compartment. I would give Von Der Tann a 50/50 chance of surviving one torpedo hit - amidships - and a 75 to 80% chance of surviving a hit on her ends. Any second hit would be an immediate kill, especially on the same side. No active WW1 battleship survived two torpedo hits.

    Barry
    Last edited by 'Warspite'; 09-25-2017 at 05:15. Reason: spelling and grammar errors + accuracy

  36. #36

    Default

    Like with everything we do house rules wise they can be as simple or as complicated as players wish for their own style of play.

    Mike and I are trying to stay within the simple and fun aspect where it is the aircraft that are the priority and the target remains just that a target. However using any deck there should be a chance of missing with a bonus for the closer you get before releasing. The down side to that you take more chance of being hit.

    I agree with belted armour etc and I did try to work in to the WW2 variant rules for this but it just complicates the book keeping end. There again as I stated above each to his own, make them as simple or complicated as to your own personal tastes.

    We are just giving you something that works within the system, is simple to use and fun.
    See you on the Dark Side......

  37. #37

    'Warspite''s Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Blog Entries
    4
    Name
    Barry
    Location
    north west Norfolk
    Sorties Flown
    636
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skafloc View Post

    I agree with belted armour
    Armour belts have little or no effect on torpedoes. The armour belt is designed to protect the waterline area from shellfire. Most armour belts cover about two or three feet above water and several feet below. This is the area perceived by designers to be at risk from an incoming shell. A torpedo set to run 'shallow' might just clip the lower edge of armour belt but any torpedo running 'deep' will go a lot lower and should open the hull below the armour belt.

    A direct hit on an armour belt can actually be dangerous. One WW2 British aircraft carrier had part of her 3 inch/4 inch armour belt broken and a large fragment was thrown into the ship and severely damaged a boiler room, the armour belt effectively became secondary fragmentation. Even a thicker belt risks being drive inwards and at least displaced - potentially splitting the hull plating behind. Remember that the Titanic was sunk by splits in her hull, not gaping holes. And the lower the ship sinks, the greater pressure and the faster the water will come in through the splits.

    Barry

  38. #38

    Default

    Just for the record though Von der Tann:

    10-7" thick amidships running 14.5ft wide with about 10ft above the waterline.
    4" belt bow & stern 11.5ft wide but does not rise to the main deck as in midships.
    See you on the Dark Side......

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skafloc View Post
    ... However using any deck there should be a chance of missing with a bonus for the closer you get before releasing. The down side to that you take more chance of being hit..
    I can see that in a game where you don't track a torp to target ie you get in range, release the weapon and X turns later you draw Y number of damage cards depending on range at release. (What determines a hit or miss - first card ?)
    However, if you're tracking the torp my thinking was that takes care of the hit or miss aspect, range of release only has a bearing on the damage you take and your chances of a hit, the damage cards the torp draws will be the same however far it travels as the amount of explosive is constant; effectiveness of damage caused may depend on whereabouts the weapon strikes the target.
    Interesting subject - lots of different views, info & suggestions coming out.

    "He is wise who watches"

  40. #40

    'Warspite''s Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Blog Entries
    4
    Name
    Barry
    Location
    north west Norfolk
    Sorties Flown
    636
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default

    I have Warship Profile 14 on the battlecruiser SMS Seydlitz to hand as I write. Photos of the torpedo hits on Moltke and Seydlitz are included. Both ships are somewhat larger than the battlecruiser SMS Von Der Tann. Both torpedo hits struck BELOW the belt armour which, in both photographs, can been seen continuing as a straight line above the damaged areas. This supports my earlier statements that belt armour has little or no effect against torpedoes.

    In the Baltic on August 19, 1915, H.M. submarine E1 fired an 18-inch torpedo at Seydlitz which missed her but struck the Moltke well forward. The dry dock photo of Moltke shows her stoved-in between the lower edge of the armour belt (untouched) and her keel. Being hit well forward, the hit only allowed an estimated 1,500 tons on board but she kept up with the Seydlitz.

    At Jutland the Seydlitz took a slightly larger 21-inch torpedo from the destroyer HMS Petard just forward of 'A' turret. This resulted in a seemingly smaller hole below the line of the armour belt but much more eventual flooding. Combined with shell holes and other openings which flooded as the bow went lower underwater Seydlitz had 2,626 tons of water on board at midnight May 31/June 1 but by the evening of June 1 - and with the addition of much counter-flooding - she now had 5,308 tons of water on board. The bow was only kept out of the water by counter-flooding many wing compartments aft plus the aft trimming tanks. She was so far underwater that to get Seydlitz into harbour her two 50 ton guns had to be lifted out of the front turret by a floating crane and many portable pumps were brought aboard to try and keep the ingress of water at bay. By midnight Seydlitz was a mission kill but, had she not been close to her home base, she would have sunk by June 2 due to unstoppable flooding.

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_lEtkuz8ScY...Seydlitz+8.jpg

    The above shows the Seydlitz's damage. Note the untouched armour belt passing about the hit. The long ladder conveys a good sense of scale.

    What we get from this is that VDT is good for one hit outside of the forward or after gun turret but one hit amidships could be a kill. A second hit is a certain kill.

    Barry
    Last edited by 'Warspite'; 09-25-2017 at 07:34. Reason: additional comment + inaccuracy corrected

  41. #41

    Default

    Belt armor's effectiveness varies with ship design -- I recall one of the many faults Russian pre-dreadnoughts suffered from was the belt armor being ineffective, due to the entire ship being overweight, and thus the belt armor was "in the wrong place" to do its job.

  42. #42

    Default

    Well, now it's time to rethink the whole thing.
    glad I have until June for the next one.
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  43. #43

    Default

    For demo/participation games perhaps deciding before hand how many torp hits will sink the ship or draw damage chits and play test average chit scores to arrive at a damage total for the ship would simplify the book keeping and worrying about ship movement, turning, torpedo movement etc. Include special damage and that really hits home, ie fire, engine damage ie dead in the water etc. I did a whole set for SMS Wittlesbach for Rob andd they are in teh file section under WW1.
    See you on the Dark Side......

  44. #44

    'Warspite''s Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Blog Entries
    4
    Name
    Barry
    Location
    north west Norfolk
    Sorties Flown
    636
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by csadn View Post
    Belt armor's effectiveness varies with ship design -- I recall one of the many faults Russian pre-dreadnoughts suffered from was the belt armor being ineffective, due to the entire ship being overweight, and thus the belt armor was "in the wrong place" to do its job.
    Indeed. Belt armour can also become ineffective due to time. Many ships increase in weight as time goes by and more equipment, weapons or fuel are added beyond their designed tonnage and displacement. This weight increase pushes the belt further underwater, increasing its underwater coverage but decreasing its ability to protect above the waterline. I cannot recall the class name but I do remember that one pre-dreadnought started with some two feet of armour above water but this had decreased to just six inches above water by the time it was scrapped.

    The point of my posts, however, is that belt armour has nothing to do with torpedoes. The belt is designed to protect against incoming shellfire. While a hit on the belt is not totally impossible - say if the torpedo malfunctions and runs very shallow or if the target is already listing heavily - belt hits are most unlikely. Even if they do occur, the armour will have little effect and may either shatter or simply transmit the shock to where it can cause real harm. Water tamps the blast against the target - which is what Barnes Wallis relied upon when he designed the 'Upkeep' Dambuster bomb. So the effect on the ship will resemble a modern HESH hit on a tank.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-e...ve_squash_head

    Blast damage from a torpedo or mine can occur due to the 'whip' of the ship, its sudden and violent oscillating movement due to the explosion. A torpedo or mine blast at one point can result in gun mounts, radar mounts or director control tower mounts being jammed or thrown off their tracks, boiler pipes broken, turbine mounts (often cast iron) broken, steering jammed, oil fuel lines broken and crew suffering broken legs and ankles, often some distance from where the torpedo struck.

    Both Britain and Germany were working on the 'duplex pistol' for torpedo detonation in early WW2 - this was designed to run under the target and explode below it, detonating in the ship's natural magnetic field, causing maximum damage due to 'hogging' and 'sagging'. Basically an explosive gas ball forms beneath the ship causing the centre of the ship to first rise significantly and then fall back into the 'hole in the sea' which the explosion had created. I have seen British test photographs taken post-WW2 on a captured German destroyer and the curvature of the deck in both directions is visual and quite significant. The result? - this ship's back was broken although it remained afloat. Most internal equipment was useless and many crew would have been injured.
    The same thing happened with HMS Belfast soon after she was built, she ran over a German magnetic mine, it broke her back and smashed her turbines off of their mountings. The Belfast was actually considered for scrapping as 'a constructive loss' (naval jargon for a write-off) but she was eventually repaired and remains in London today, as a museum ship.

    The duplex was difficult technology and failed badly at the First and Second Battles of Narvik where the presence of local iron ore deposits prevented many German torpedoes from detonating. Some bounced off of target ships while at least one ran up a beach and was recovered by the Royal Navy. Only the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm was experimenting with the duplex in this period and anyone who knows the story of the sinking of the Bismarck will know that duplex pistols failed in the choppy water of the Atlantic, saving HMS Sheffield which had been the target of a mistaken attack. The technology was refined after WW2 but, sadly, its only effective use was the sinking of the ARA General Belgrano in 1982 - a 1938 cruiser sunk by 1943 torpedoes!

    Barry

  45. #45

    Default WW1 Torpedo

    Hi Chaps
    The one thing I like about this site is the depth of knowledge that is posted on any and all subjects listed thank you all for your time and efforts.

    Kev

  46. #46

    Default

    Barry;
    I don't suppose you have a good source (internet preferably, but book if necessary) for detailed ship damages in WW1 and WW2?
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  47. #47

    'Warspite''s Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Blog Entries
    4
    Name
    Barry
    Location
    north west Norfolk
    Sorties Flown
    636
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default

    The books of D.K. Brown are excellent as they cover design, construction and damage.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_K._Brown

    He also wrote articles for Warship when it was a quarterly. A series of these were on damaged ships and provided some very interesting statistics.

    His best two books are Warrior to Dreadnought and Nelson to Vanguard. See link for his full book list.

    In addition John Campbell's book on Jutland is a must. He not only records all damage received in great detail on both sides he also has a fair stab at assigning various hits to the ships which were firing at them. While the Royal Navy at Jutland is criticised for the poor performance of its armour-piercing ammunition and the cordite ammunition explosions of at least four (probably five) big ships what does come out of Campbell's book is that RN torpedoes were better (more hits for fewer torpedoes expended) and the RN light cruisers stood up very well to gunfire. While HMS Chester was devastated by 18 hits in a few minutes. which knocked out most her exposed gun crews, the vessel was never at serious risk as her belt and deck armour stood up well to equivalent calibre hits and her machinery spaces were untouched. This was repeated - on a smaller scale - among the other light cruisers at Jutland.

    I can also recommend 'Sunk and Damaged' by Paul Kemp published by ISO Publications. I bought a copy from their London shop in the 1980s. Photos include HM Submarine Tally Ho in dock in the Far East after her night-time collision with a Japanese destroyer. The DD left more than 50 'slices' in the submarine's hull as its propellor ran down the side of the sub. The sub survived. Also featured are close-ups of 'bulge' damage to HMS Malaya and HMS Queen Elizabeth demonstrating how bulges could work. The most dramatic is submarine HMS Triumph in dry dock after hitting a mine in 1939. The mine blew the bow caps off of all eight of her loaded torpedo tubes and forced six of the tubes six-inches backwards into the submarine. Despite this, none of the armed torpedoes detonated and the submarine came home.

    Barry

  48. #48

    Default

    Hmm, none of these in either of my local library systems
    Ordered Champbell's book on Amazon for $5.00
    So more research in the future.
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  49. #49

    'Warspite''s Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Blog Entries
    4
    Name
    Barry
    Location
    north west Norfolk
    Sorties Flown
    636
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default

    Campbell's book will not disappoint!
    Barry

  50. #50

    Default

    OK,
    So, no simple solution, and therefore no simple card, for this?
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Missions

  1. Torpedo bombing
    By spindoc in forum House Rules
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-05-2015, 11:11
  2. Torpedo attack
    By Skafloc in forum Historical Discussions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-03-2014, 00:31
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-06-2012, 22:05
  4. ship and torpedo
    By darkeldar70 in forum Mission Discussions
    Replies: 75
    Last Post: 01-23-2012, 03:16
  5. Zero with torpedo
    By Shivaja in forum Hobby Room
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-01-2011, 05:16

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •