Long lance torpedoes

Discussions on all aspects of the Japanese Empire, from the capture of Taiwan until the end of the Second World War.
User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

#16

Post by LWD » 19 Jan 2007, 21:59

Just remembered that the first astronauts we lost died in a fire because they were using pure oxygen in the capsul at the time. I think an electrical spark ignited the fire.

Wargames
Member
Posts: 452
Joined: 12 Nov 2006, 21:11
Location: USA

#17

Post by Wargames » 20 Jan 2007, 12:03

LWD wrote:
Wargames wrote: The argument that IJN ships were at risk from their own torpedoes while under air attack is meaningful only if US ships were not at risk from their own torpedoes while under air attack. Otherwise, a torpedo is a torpedo. Set a ship on fire carrying torpedoes and you can expect them to explode regardless of what country they were built in.
Part of the problem here is the nature of the Japanese torpedos. ie it is not correct to say "a torpedo is a torpedo" . The long lance relied on compressed oxygen. In the pressence of pure oxygen most things on a ship become flamable. Furhtrermore the oxygen could not be stored in the torpedos indefinitily so facilities had to be on board ship to recharge it. The oxygen may have been a more serious threat in many ways than the warhead. One of the outstanding successes of Japanese damage control occured at Midway (on the Tone ?) where the Japanese damage control officer took the unusual initiative to jettison the torpedos after the ship was damaged. Had these been on board when the ship was hit later in the day she woulld very likely have been lost at that point.
The US destroyers Jarvis and Ross also jettisoned torpedoes when they were set afire. This is a universal hazard. It is simply not a good idea to have a fire reach torpedoes. Ask the crew of the Hood.
...

And, so far as placing them aboard CA units, the ships so equipped benefitted from it, particularly in night actions....
And they also clearly had problems because of it. Note that the Japanese DD's were more successful with their torpedos than the CAs
Japanese CA's were also more frequently hit by bombs than DD's. The problem was that they were bigger targets and not that they carried torpedoes. Unless you have evidence that a Japanese DD could fire its torpedoes more accurately than a Japanese CA, I don't see why you identify a torpedo fired from a DD as more successful than one fired from a CA.
The argument of whether a ship should be equipped with torpedoes or not is directly related to expected combat ranges. Clearly, HMS Hood had no use for torpedoes and they proved a liability and not an asset. Since Japanese CA units were without radar, their night combat ranges included Japanese torpedo ranges.
No it is not the expected combat ranges but the expected mission. The long lance had a range similar to that of battle ship guns (although few if any hits could be expected at that range). The rational for including them on the Japanese CAs was that they were to be used to attrit the US battle line prior to it being engaged by the Japanese battle line in the planned "decisive battle". For this reason it was rational to include the long lances on the CAs.
Then I guess Britain and France had plans for a "decisive battle" too since their CA's also carried torpedoes? Italy's Zara class CA was noted for not carrying torpedoes (And they only didn't carry them due to weight.). Even the Graf Spee carried torpedoes - As did the Hood - stupid though it was.

Your "decisive battle" plans requires an expected combat range. A Japanese CA had pretty much no chance of hitting with torpedoes what was out of range of its 8" guns (Your "few if any hits" comment). It didn't outrange battleships. The idea that the Japanese mounted torpedoes on CA's for a "decisive battle" fails to explain why virtually every other Navy was also equipping their CA's with torpedoes. What the "decisive battle" theory explains isn't the presence of the torpedo on the CA but the designed range of the torpedo on the CA.
Last edited by Wargames on 21 Jan 2007, 05:51, edited 1 time in total.


Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004, 02:12
Location: Europe

#18

Post by Jon G. » 20 Jan 2007, 13:00

Eugen Pinak wrote:And "the funniest" thing is that the risk of damage from your own torpedoes was perfectly known to the Japanese (creator of "standard" Japanese heavy cruiser design - Hiraga, was strong opponent of such design feature) - but they choose to take the risks :(
Several other navies experimented with compressed oxygen as a torpedo propellant in the inter-war years. Only the Japanese were willing to take the risk that comes with having highly inflammable oxygen on board as you write - other navies discarded the idea because it was deemed too dangerous, not because the technology wasn't known to them. A short history of torpedoes

Wargames
Member
Posts: 452
Joined: 12 Nov 2006, 21:11
Location: USA

#19

Post by Wargames » 21 Jan 2007, 05:58

Jon G. wrote:
Several other navies experimented with compressed oxygen as a torpedo propellant in the inter-war years. Only the Japanese were willing to take the risk that comes with having highly inflammable oxygen on board as you write - other navies discarded the idea because it was deemed too dangerous, not because the technology wasn't known to them. A short history of torpedoes
The site says the British actually fielded such a torpedo for its cruisers in WWII. There is no mention of it being deemed too dangerous, only "capricious" and "corrosive".

Wargames
Member
Posts: 452
Joined: 12 Nov 2006, 21:11
Location: USA

Re: Long lance torpedoes

#20

Post by Wargames » 21 Jan 2007, 07:56

generalderpanzertruppen wrote: 6 June 1942: Mikuma is hit by bombs, fire breaks out among the torpedoes, torpedoes explode, ship sinks. (Sister Mogami, also bombed that day, has already jettisoned her torpedoes and survives.)

11 October 1942: Furutaka hit by American naval gunfire at night, fires almost immediately break out among her torpedoes, illuminating the ship, apparently drawing more gunfire. Ship is sunk.

3 April 1943: Aoba is hit by bomb from a B-17, torpedoes explode, ship is beached to avoid total loss. Later salvaged.

25 October 1944: Mogami hit by two American 8-inch shells. Fire breaks out, she collides with Nachi (her third collision of the war), then her torpedoes explode. She is bombed and torpedoed again by American aircraft, and finally must be scuttled.

25 October 1944: Suzuya is missed by bombs, but fragments from near misses ignite fires among her torpedoes, torpedoes explode, ship sinks.

25 October 1944: Abukuma is hit by 3 bombs dropped by B-24s. Fires detonate 4 Type 93 torpedoes, ship sinks.
The suggestion has been made that these cruisers were all sunk by their own torpedoes due to their using oxygen tanks. A Google search showed the cause of the ships sinkings as follows:

Mikuma: The Mikuma had been rammed resulting in a huge oil spill (which would have resulted in the loss of the ship itself) and was so crippled as to make only 12 knots. It was then hit by five bombs minimum, over three attacks, one of which penetrated the # 3 8 inch turret. An engine room explosion killed the entire crew there.

80 minutes later, the Mikuma suffered the torpedo detonations. Eight hours later, she sank.

Did her torpedoes sink her or the fatal ramming combined with 5+ bombs sink her?

Furutaka: One type 93 torpedo detonated aboard the Furutaka while she had taken 90 gunnery hits and one torpedo hit.

Did her torpedoes sink her or the 90 hits and torpedo hit sink her? And was it the oygen tanks or the torpedo warhead that exploded?

Aoba: The Aoba had two type 91 torpedoes detonate due to a bomb hit. This is correct. Either the bomb or the torpedo detonations resulted in permanent damage to her engines.

Mogami: The Mogami had been hit by 14" and 16" shell hits, was on fire, and could only make 8 knots. She was then rammed by another cruiser. She was subsequently torpedoed by CVE aircraft the next day and then sunk by friendly fire.

Did her torpedoes sink her?

Suzuya: It is overlooked that the Suzuya had her magazines explode by bombing. Suzuya was left behind with the destroyer Okinami standing by. Fire aboard the cruiser finally reached her torpedo locker, setting off violent explosions. The Suzuya sank at 1300, 25 Oct and the Okinami took aboard survivors.

Did this magazine explosion have anything to do with her sinking?

Abukuma: The Abukuma was of the Nagara class which, according to one website, was not equipped with oxygen torpedoes (This is contradicted by other sites.).
Last edited by Wargames on 21 Jan 2007, 22:11, edited 2 times in total.

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004, 02:12
Location: Europe

#21

Post by Jon G. » 21 Jan 2007, 12:12

Wargames wrote:
Jon G. wrote:
Several other navies experimented with compressed oxygen as a torpedo propellant in the inter-war years. Only the Japanese were willing to take the risk that comes with having highly inflammable oxygen on board as you write - other navies discarded the idea because it was deemed too dangerous, not because the technology wasn't known to them. A short history of torpedoes
The site says the British actually fielded such a torpedo for its cruisers in WWII. There is no mention of it being deemed too dangerous, only "capricious" and "corrosive".
Well, it's not stated that the Mk VII (which used oxygen-enriched air as a propellant) extended its service life into WW2. The only two years given for the RNTF oxygen-powered torpedo are 1928 and 1936.

From a small geocities site about US torpedoes, it's stated that
...The USN [compressed oxygen-powered torpedo] program apparently ran for about two years, 1929-1930, and produced a power plant that was dynamometer tested. The program was discontinued in favor of "chemical" power sources. Other navies also had short lived programs, but the Imperial Japanese Navy developed and issued for service several torpedoes that used pure oxygen as the oxidant. The best known of these was the 24" Type 93, known as the Long Lance which had a range of over 29,000 y. at speeds of 48-50 k and carried 1080 lbs. of Type 97 high explosive (roughly equivalent to TNT in performance) in its warhead.
And also, interestingly:
...BuOrd OP 1507 "Japanese Underwater Ordnance" April 1945 indicates that at the time of writing only one Type 93 had been recovered by the US Navy. The Type 93 became famous as the Long Lance a name that seems to have been coined by Samuel E. Morison...

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

#22

Post by LWD » 22 Jan 2007, 15:54

Wargames wrote:...
The US destroyers Jarvis and Ross also jettisoned torpedoes when they were set afire. This is a universal hazard. It is simply not a good idea to have a fire reach torpedoes. Ask the crew of the Hood.
I believe it was SOP as part of the DC effort on US ships to dump the torpedoes. The Japanese seamed to be far more reluctant to do so. Part of this may have been due to the relative cost of the torpedos and part may have been due to the view of them as the primary CA weapon for the "Decisive Batle".
.... Note that the Japanese DD's were more successful with their torpedos than the CAs
Japanese CA's were also more frequently hit by bombs than DD's. The problem was that they were bigger targets and not that they carried torpedoes. Unless you have evidence that a Japanese DD could fire its torpedoes more accurately than a Japanese CA, I don't see why you identify a torpedo fired from a DD as more successful than one fired from a CA.
From what I remembe reading the Japanese DD's had a higher hit rate in addition to firing more torpedos than the Japanese CAs. Part of this may have been their ability to get closer. Some of this was due to being a smaller ships some of it due to how they were used doctrinally. Whatever the cause if one examines the damage loss data it looks like the torpedos on the Japanese CA's may have done more damage to the IJN than they did to the allies where the inverse is true of those on the Japanese DDs.
...
Then I guess Britain and France had plans for a "decisive battle" too since their CA's also carried torpedoes? Italy's Zara class CA was noted for not carrying torpedoes (And they only didn't carry them due to weight.). Even the Graf Spee carried torpedoes - As did the Hood - stupid though it was.
No. The Japanese needed the Type 93 if their CAs were going to fulfill the role that their plan for the "decisive battle" called for. The Type 93 was in many ways overkill when used against smaller vessels. It was designed to take out BBs.
Your "decisive battle" plans requires an expected combat range. A Japanese CA had pretty much no chance of hitting with torpedoes what was out of range of its 8" guns (Your "few if any hits" comment). It didn't outrange battleships. The idea that the Japanese mounted torpedoes on CA's for a "decisive battle" fails to explain why virtually every other Navy was also equipping their CA's with torpedoes. What the "decisive battle" theory explains isn't the presence of the torpedo on the CA but the designed range of the torpedo on the CA.
The fact that they managed few hits at those ranges doesn't mean that they didn't expect them. Consider also that they were planning a mass launch against a battle line that normallly would be steaming a pretty constant course and not expecting a torpedo attack at that range. But they weren't my "'decisive battle'plans" they were the ones the Japanese Navy developed. Putting torpedos on cruisers involves a certain amount of risk. All nations prior to WWII were willing to accept that risk with at least some of their cruisers. However putting oxygen plants and reloads on cruisers was unique to the IJN as was the power and propulsion of their torpedos. As the war turned out (using 20 20 hind sight) this was the wrong choice. Had aircraft not played as decisive a role it might not have turned out to be on the otherhand the Japanese "decisieve battle" plans had a number of serious flaws that meant that they were very unlikely to be successful even in such a world.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

#23

Post by LWD » 22 Jan 2007, 15:58

Jon G. wrote:...

Well, it's not stated that the Mk VII (which used oxygen-enriched air as a propellant) extended its service life into WW2. The only two years given for the RNTF oxygen-powered torpedo are 1928 and 1936.
...
I have seen reports that the Japanese oxygen powered torpedo project was a consequence of them becoming awair of the Britihs program. Apparently they heard that the British were working on them but didn't hear or didn't believe that they had dropped them.

Mark V
Member
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002, 10:41
Location: Suomi Finland

#24

Post by Mark V » 22 Jan 2007, 20:09

LWD wrote:
I have seen reports that the Japanese oxygen powered torpedo project was a consequence of them becoming awair of the Britihs program. Apparently they heard that the British were working on them but didn't hear or didn't believe that they had dropped them.
I have read the same. What is exceptional was the fact that Japanese made it work !! Pure oxygen causes really serious problems in combustion engine. In itself that is an proof of an exceptional level of engineering, and the ability to field it successfully all through their fleet, an proof of high training level of IJN crews.

To me it seems that Japanese did go a bit overboard with 61cm Type 93. It had an exceptional range, but half of it was an waste.

Still, don't forget that 24-inch size was fielded by Japanese in compressed air torpedoes in turn of 20s/30s - the "decisive battle" scheme where torpedoes would "level" the playground was an old invention - i guess in the end they developed it in some ways too powerfull. They had too large envelope to play with.

Late in war Japanese increased the Type 93 warhead (to 780kg !! 8O ) and still gained an range double of the weapons of their enemies.

BTW. Is there battle record of that monster hitting something floating ?? OK - it was not Torpex, but who cares with 1700 pound warhead...

In the end, an variant of Type 95 would had served their surface ships maybe a bit better. They had big destroyers that could carry lots of 53cm tubes, a bit cheaper per unit, still having 400kg warhead - around 20.000 metres range at 40 knots, which is plenty.


Regards, Mark V

Mark V
Member
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002, 10:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Re: Japanese Torpedoes

#25

Post by Mark V » 22 Jan 2007, 20:32

donsor wrote:Us torpedoes during much of the war used flasks charged with 3k pounds of compressed air. when launched, there is an alcohol fueled igniter which heats up the compressed air to increase expansion allowing higher air pressure to drive the turbine that drives two counter rotating propellers. How was the Japanese torpedo propelled?
Hi.

Japanese torpedoes (surface, and submarine launched) during WW2 were propelled by kerosene based fuel. OK - that is not something exceptional. The fuel of torpedo combustion engine is pretty insignificant.

On the other hand, an torpedo with internal combustion engine carried also all the oxidizer onboard (like the rocket engine also carries). In other nations basically otherways similar torpedoes that was air - an mixture of gasses that contains around 21% of oxygen that functions as oxidizer. 79% is waste in form of inert nitrogen and some trace amount of other gasses. Large part of torpedos bulk and weight was made of air-vessel containing that inefficient oxidizer. Fuel took only insignificant volume and weight.

In Japanese torpedoes oxidizer vessel contained 100% oxygen - with corresponding difference in range and speed of torpedo.

Mark V

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

#26

Post by LWD » 22 Jan 2007, 21:01

Also the nitrogen added to the "wake" so compressed air torpedos were easier to spot.

Wargames
Member
Posts: 452
Joined: 12 Nov 2006, 21:11
Location: USA

#27

Post by Wargames » 22 Jan 2007, 21:02

LWD wrote: I believe it was SOP as part of the DC effort on US ships to dump the torpedoes. The Japanese seamed to be far more reluctant to do so. Part of this may have been due to the relative cost of the torpedos and part may have been due to the view of them as the primary CA weapon for the "Decisive Batle".
I agree that failure to jettison torpedoes when hit would represent a serious doctrine flaw. But that is the fault of Japanese Damage Control policies and not the fault of the torpedo designers. The difference between saying the torpedoes were too dangerous to carry as weapons or saying they were too dangerous to carry aboard during a fire are two entirely different arguments.

If one wants to argue that Japanese Damage control was faulty I will agree 100%. In one case I cited (assuming the source I used was correct), 80 minutes passed between when a Japanese cruiser's torpedoes exploded and when it was first set on fire. The opportunity to jettison was not taken.

It's possible that Japanese DC believed it could keep the torpedoes from exploding during fire and so failed to jettison them. I believe most of their CA's could launch 12 torpedoes with one set of reloads or 24 torpedoes total using three launchers - or 8 torpedoes per launcher. Yet there is no incident of all 8 torpedoes of a launcher (or all 24 total) detonating from fire. The number that detonated ranges from 1-4. This indicates that the reloads were seperated, safetywise, from those in the launchers, so the maximum that could detonate was four and even this number was rare. It would appear then, that Japanese ship design took great care to keep those torpedoes from detonating under fire and were at least 50% successful. It appears that Japanese DC considered "at least 50% successful" to be either 100% successful or an acceptable risk. If so, it was a false sense of security. It's like saying "over half of our planes don't have the wings fall off."
LWD wrote:
Wargames wrote: The idea that the Japanese mounted torpedoes on CA's for a "decisive battle" fails to explain why virtually every other Navy was also equipping their CA's with torpedoes. What the "decisive battle" theory explains isn't the presence of the torpedo on the CA but the designed range of the torpedo on the CA.
Putting torpedos on cruisers involves a certain amount of risk. All nations prior to WWII were willing to accept that risk with at least some of their cruisers. However putting oxygen plants and reloads on cruisers was unique to the IJN as was the power and propulsion of their torpedos. As the war turned out (using 20 20 hind sight) this was the wrong choice. Had aircraft not played as decisive a role it might not have turned out to be.
I don't dismiss arming the Japanese CA with torpedoes as the "wrong choice" (As it was for the Graf Spee and the Hood). It can be argued that since the "decisive battle" never took place that their intended purpose never took place. Yet, even so, in surface to surface combat, they were still a very effective weapon. A Japanese CA engaging an American CA had a huge advantage and, in the early part of the war, such encounters will, and did, take place.

If one expands the debate to include aircraft as a means of demonstrating Japanese CA's carrying torpedoes were obsolete, that same argument can be applied to the entire CA itself. In the face of American aircraft, Japanese CA's were obsolete whether they carried torpedoes or not.

Mark V
Member
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002, 10:41
Location: Suomi Finland

#28

Post by Mark V » 27 Jan 2007, 21:48

Wargames wrote:
The site says the British actually fielded such a torpedo for its cruisers in WWII. There is no mention of it being deemed too dangerous, only "capricious" and "corrosive".
They did field enriched air torpedoes before war. Few vessels were still carrying them at initial stages of war IIRC.

The oxygen enriched air in those torpedoes (57% oxygen content) made them only little different from pure oxygen torpedoes from engineering hurdles point of view. The purification demands on every machinery components to prevent accidents were the same. One speck of engine grease in wrong place would make this kind of weapon an time-bomb.

I have wondered, if British (or others) would had tried with enriched air torpedo of max 40% oxygen content. Some Japanese models used this kind of oxidizer - and with that oxygen content the same basic handling as torpedoes using common air could be used. Also lubrication of engine parts is still straightforward.

Still have around double the performance of common air oxidizer per given volume.

Ofcourse, manufacturing of oxygen still has to be supplied aboard vessels, or 100% tight air-vessels. This is complication that is hard to overcome.


Regards, Mark V

Mark V
Member
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002, 10:41
Location: Suomi Finland

#29

Post by Mark V » 27 Jan 2007, 22:13

LWD wrote: The Type 93 was in many ways overkill when used against smaller vessels. It was designed to take out BBs.
Overkill yes.

But i think the warhead was the least of problems. It was too bulky in itself and had way too long range. Also, with that kind of propulsion effeciency, the use of different weapon between submarines and surface ships is waste.

40.000 meters range ?? I don't find an need for that.

Same time torpedoes of other countries were decidedly short of needed performance.

As an naval commander i surely would had found good use for torpedo of 53cm and 7m envelope that could be carried by almost all naval assets with 20.000-25.000 metres range at 40 knots (and 10.000 metres with 50 knots) carrying something like 300-350kg warhead. ***

- which would be effectively an slightly shortened and lightened Type 95 torp (kinda funny that my idea of "universal" torpedo is lightened variant of already "shrinked" variant for submarine use).

That is well beyond anything possible with technology used by other than Japanese.


Mark V


*** with 40% enriched air rougly the same range performance could had been reached, just cut 10 knots from torpedo speed at any given range

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

#30

Post by LWD » 29 Jan 2007, 19:38

As Wargames has noted the question(s) being answered are becoming increasingly convoluted. I'll note what I think the questions are below along with my answers. Before that however may I point out an interesting article at:
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-067.htm

1) Was the long lance a good or the best torpedo?
In engineering terms it was clearly a very impressive weapon. Were I on a ship in WWII I would prefer to be hit by just about any other kind (the exception being if the type 93 were a dud). If one expands the question to was it the best weapon to put on ships it becomes somewhat harder to answer. If your target is a BB it is probably still the weapon of choice. However if one had the choice of smaller weapons with say a similar speed and a range of 30,000 yards or less then in most cases the answer would be no. Especially if said smaller weapons were not oxygen powered.

2) Should the LL have been put on board the Japanese CAs?
Given their role of attriting the US Battle line the answer here is a qualified yes. For general cruiser use I would say no. The reason being that the long lances in particular the number carried and the oxygen also on board present to much of a risk to IMO. The Japanese obviously felt it was acceptable. I think the risk was compounded by both the expense of the torpedos and the mission of these CAs. These facter produced a mind set that was relluctant to jettison them in case of fire or damage. I'm also not sure how easy the reloads were to jettison and how much O2 was stored on board. Indeed :jetisoning the O2 if it was done by venting would have created a hazard in and of itself. Furthermore the inclusion of these large torpedos, their reloads, and the associated O2 machinery took up space and volume that had other uses both offensive and defensive.

3) Did torpedos make sense on CAs in WWII?
I think to answer this question it is best to look at the state of ship design and naval doctrine in the 30's. In this case I would say yes for most navies. The US navy is an exception to this because of their doctrine of long range gunfire which would have made torpedos of little utility and some danger in addition the US had a goodly number of DDs which could carry torpdedos which put smaller, faster, more maneuverable, and less expensive units at risk and allowed the US CAs to use the space/weight for other purposes.. The Japanese had a similar doctrine but as noted they also were relying on torpedo attacks to even the odds for the battle line.

4) Were CA torpedos useful in WWII?
My take here is yes and no.. If one actually looks at the number of successful torpedo launches by CAs the number is quite small. The above referance notss most of the Japanese torpedo launches and it is clear that the vast majority were due to DDs. The number of other successful CA torpedo launches is pretty small as well and even some of these had little real effect (vs Bismark for instance). It has been argued that the lack of torpedos put the US CAs at a handicap vs their opponents in the Pacific. Given their low probability of hit and the additional space for armor and weapons provide by not having them I would argue that this is not the case for most of the war if at all. Certainly by the end of the war there was no reason for US cruisers to get in effective range of the torpedos of Japanese CAs.

) Were surface ship born torpedos useful in WWII?
The answer here is clearly yes. The numerous success (both American and Japanese) mentioned above are mostly due to DDs. In addition there are also a goodly number of success (mostly due to DDs but other craft as well) in the Atlantic (I admit to being unfamiliar with the Med)

Post Reply

Return to “Japan at War 1895-1945”