|
|
Post by admiralhood on Jan 2, 2019 16:40:04 GMT -6
Hi guys, I just came up with some interesting aspects of torpedo and mine related technology which could be added into the tech tree of RTW2: 1. Fuse(Pistol) of torpedo and mines. Other than direct hit, magnetic pistol could be added in the tech tree for mine and torpedo. As for mine itself, acoustic and pressure pistol had been proved to be useful in the WW2. 2. Homing and guiding mechanism, in the WW2 the Kriegsmarine and US navy has put acoustic homing torpedo into practice(both passive and active). Which could be a field worthwhile researching because it could increase the efficiency of submarines considerably. As for wake homing and wire-guidance, could any history buff told me when did they came into practice?  3. Torpedo fire control, Torpedo Data Computer played a key role in the US navy's commerce raiding warfare in WW2. 4. Propulsion, both heated engine torpedo and electric torpedoes were used in WW2. I would like to discuss with you guys on which one is better. With all these technologies researched, submarine fleets will have a stealth however mighty and lethal forces in the RTW2.  |
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on Jan 2, 2019 17:20:18 GMT -6
As for wake homing and wire-guidance, could any history buff told me when did they came into practice? IIRC there were 19th century wire guided torpedoes used as harbor defense weapons. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 2, 2019 17:54:39 GMT -6
As for wake homing and wire-guidance, could any history buff told me when did they came into practice? IIRC there were 19th century wire guided torpedoes used as harbor defense weapons. I think you are referring to this torpedo - www.torp.esrc.unimelb.edu.au/biogs/E000124b.htm |
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jan 2, 2019 21:58:28 GMT -6
On fusing it is important to take into account that there are two separate types of "magnetic" proximity fuses. The passive magnetic fuse relied on the disturbance caused by the target ship in the earths's magnetic field and therefore was very unreliable, e.g. the localized magnetic conditions around Norway practically rendered German passive magnetic fuses useless during Weserübung. However, there is also the active magnetic fuse which generates its own magnetic field for detection of the ship's keel above it. This one is far, far more reliable and still in use today. The German Navy introduced it in the later guided G7's like the Zaunkönig II.
In guidance the IBIS wake homing torpedo, prototype fired in 1944 at the Torpedoversuchsanstalt (TVA), would have been the most dangerous to surface ships, especially in combination with the active magnetic fuse. Then there was passive and active/passive acoustic homing, also combined with wire guidance and/or swiveling "searchlight" sonar. All in trials in 1942-44 and some of it in early frontline use in WWII.
Earliest electric wire guidance was in WWI coastal defence torpedoes, but that was with optical guidance where a flare was put on the torpedo. That concept was pursued a bit in the TVA ("Spinne") in the late 1920's to early 1930's. True wire guidance of homing torpedoes, i.e. two-way communication between torpedo and firing unit with at least a "lock on" signal from the torpedo and the command guidance option from the unit to the torpedo was trialled by the TVS in 1944 as well. I would need to look at some documentation to quote the project name though.
Electric propulsion has only recently become fully superior to thermodynamic propulsion with the power/energy density jump on the 1990's. Within the RTW timeframe electric propulsion is markedly inferior to thermodynamic (within this timeframe wet heater/air, perhaps oxygenized, with piston or turbine engine) in regards to speed and tactical range, albeit with the advantages of "optic stealth" and cheap construction as well as suitability for homing torpedoes. The electric WWII torpedo had lead-acid batteries which were a hassle for the crew due to the need for on-board maintenance and charging but were far, far quicker and cheaper to produce than thermodynamic propulsion units, especially by "non-arsenal" wartime contractors. Wit electric propulsion it is also easier to operate homing torpedoes due to lower self-noise. And there is one exception to the range, the longest ranged torpedo used in WWII, the "Dackel", was electrically propelled, fired over-the-horizon by E-Boats at the Normandy invasion. But even with the pattern runnning mechanism it was a relatively ineffective weapon.
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair on Jan 5, 2019 1:50:22 GMT -6
2. Homing and guiding mechanism, in the WW2 the Kriegsmarine and US navy has put acoustic homing torpedo into practice(both passive and active). Which could be a field worthwhile researching because it could increase the efficiency of submarines considerably.
In regards to the above, I would point out that countermeasures to homing torpedoes were also developed in response. So those perhaps ought to be included as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jan 6, 2019 15:38:27 GMT -6
2. Homing and guiding mechanism, in the WW2 the Kriegsmarine and US navy has put acoustic homing torpedo into practice(both passive and active). Which could be a field worthwhile researching because it could increase the efficiency of submarines considerably.
In regards to the above, I would point out that countermeasures to homing torpedoes were also developed in response. So those perhaps ought to be included as well.
And we even had the first two rounds of the countermeasure-countercountermeasure evolution cycle there during WWII as reflected by the steps from Falke (first passive homing torpedo that was susceptible to evasive throttling as it could home only on escorts when they were within a certian speed segment) to Zaunkönig I (which led to the Foxer decoy) and Zaunkönig II. Arguably, Ibis (wake homer), Geier (active-passive homer) and the wire guided Lerche also were part of this cycle, as even if they did not enter frontline use due to the 1944 war emergency program cut-off at the TVA their technology was used and implemented in the Cold War.
In RTW2 terms it will be very difficult to implement the different homing torpedo mechanisms while respecting the countermeasure-countercountermeasure cycle. Kinematic and sensor simulation of torpedo performance is difficult, extensive and mostly done only in the classified realm. Nothing I have seen in games, that includes Dangerous Waters and Cold Waters, truly does it "right".
Perhaps it will be easiest if homing and countermeasure effectiveness get abstracted a bit. Early homing mechanisms and proximity fuses were unreliable even when not faced with countermeasures. Just have a tech step in torpedo homing provide two different values, one is initiation distance (in yards), i.e. the distance at which the torpedo detects and begins homing on a target. The second value would be initiation probability, i.e. the probability that a given torpedo's homing mechanism will work until hit. "Work" in this case, to simplify implementation, would therefore mean a hit against the closest surface ship (so that no complex kinematics need to be simulated, let alone target-loss and reattack maneouvres, interference, self-noise vs. speed etc.). If the homing mechanism and proximity fuse does not "work" due to a failed probability roll (easiest to do this roll in the launch turn) the torpedo would act as a straight runner with an impact fuse. So an early homing mechanism could have a 250yds 30% capability, i.e. the torpedo would home (and hit) in 30% of the cases it enters within 250yds of a ship. Countermeasures would impose negatives on these stats, e.g. -50 and -20% with the first generation Foxer. At the beginning of the scenario the respective techs would be compared and the values for the scenario assigned, e.g. if both sides have 1st gen homing and countermeasures homing torpedoes would only home in 10% of the cases when they enter 200yds of a surface target. If one side does not have the countermeasure tech its enemy's torps would home at 250yds in 30% of cases. Oh, and do not forget a 1 or 2 minute/turn safety distance before turning "homing" live to avoid sui- or fratricide.
Another advantage of this approach is that the AI would not need to "learn" using homing torpedoes since it would continue to use them the same as straight runners. This also would mean that the final "home run" distance would in most
cases be covered by the torpedo within two "minute turns" anyways, so
there is really no huge point not to abstract this stretch as simulated torpedo himong behaviour would not cover more than those two tunrs anyways (the rare exception of the approach directly from aft at a high speed target should be ignored here as the AI will not willingly shoot for it anyways).
Further generations in torpedo homing and torpedo couintermeasures, in their abstraction, would incorporate general homing mechanism improvement, countermeasure and countercountermeasure development by raising both stat types (positive tor homing tech, negative for countermeasure tech). To avoid "gamey" effectiveness of homing torpedoes implelent a "hard" ceiling on initiation range and initiation probability (e.g. 750yds and 60%), even if the "consolidated tech level" of a scenario is higher due to one side having late gen homing and the other no countermeasure tech.
|
|
|
|
Post by achanos on Jan 6, 2019 19:02:31 GMT -6
Actually fusing for shells and torpedoes was quite important, and would make a good tech tree.
Magnetic fusing has been mentioned above, but even contact fusing for torpedoes was important. The US, in particular, suffered from poor contact fuses on their torpedoes at the onset of WW2 and that wasn't fully rectified for two years after the war started. One major issue for all naval torpedoes was the angle of attack when making contact. If a torpedo struck a target at too acute of an angle, the fuse would not fully crimp and fail to detonate. That was the reason that most "ideal" torpedo shots occurred broadside on, to insure the fuse had the best chance of detonating.
One of the reasons that magnetic fuses were developed was to address the impact angle for contact fuses. Also important was where the detonation occurred. The other major advantage seen by magnetic fusing was the development of detonation under the keel. In ideal conditions, a magnetically triggered detonation under the keel of a ship could break the back of the ship and sink it quickly due to catastrophic failure of the ships frame. Unfortunately (or fortunately for ship crews) getting the ideal shot proved to be problematic.
Historically torpedo effectiveness was pretty poor when it first arrived. It was devastating when it worked, because ships were not built to handle the stress of a torpedo hit at close range. While the early Whitehead pattern torpedoes could be devastating, they usually required the torpedo boat to get suicidal close to get an effective shot in. Rapid fire guns and the evolution of the Destroyer made that risky at best. That led to torpedoes developing longer range, and higher speeds to improve their odds of a successful hit. Reliable fusing became a higher priority issue, since the likelihood of hitting a ship perfectly broadside during a moving engagement was nothing that could be counted on.
From a tech perspective, I think the way RTW handles it in an abstract works. Internally, there were big jumps in technology which made them more effective. That can be carried on further in the existing tech tree. Adding additional "steps" in effectiveness for the torpedo warfare tree would make sense.
Early wake homing and acoustic torpedoes were scary when first introduced, but also just as quickly countered. Arguably, the best torpedo from WW2, the Japanese Type 93, was not a technology wonder weapon, but it was a dramatically effective combination of long range, high speed, large warhead, and wakeless propulsion. I think that, arguably, you could break the torpedo tech into those branches IF you wanted to get to that level of detail, so something like range/speed/payload/reliablility. Reliability would cover all of the issues around power plant, plant type (oxygen, thermal, electric) and your fusing. That would also play in to air dropped torpedoes as aircraft make their appearance on scene. All of this would still be a lot of detail for research, with additional complexity.
Now, from a related angle, one thing that WOULD be interesting would be the fusing of naval shells. Particularly when you get into anti-aircraft showing up on ships. AA was kind of a "more is better" argument until the development of the radio fused AA shell, and then close engagement of ships by aircraft became very very dangerous for the aircraft. That would definitely big a huge technology shift for aircraft effectiveness in the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair on Jan 7, 2019 0:37:30 GMT -6
In RTW2 terms it will be very difficult to implement the different homing torpedo mechanisms while respecting the countermeasure-countercountermeasure cycle.
That probably applies to a lot of other technologies as well. E.g. you develop radar, chaff gets developed in response. A bigger issue to me is the one of hindsight, as we sitting here in the early 21st century have the benefit of knowing how things unfolded and thus which technologies are the ones to focus on. It's a rather thorny matter to try and figure out the best way to handle the hindsight issue while retaining flexibility and good game play.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jan 7, 2019 2:11:25 GMT -6
Early wake homing and acoustic torpedoes were scary when first introduced, but also just as quickly countered. There is no in-service "counter" to wake homers even today. Evasive manoeuvering and/or speeding up is more placebo than effective. The old 1960's idea is still the only thing that -sorta- works: have a more expendable ship following close in the more important ship's wake... |
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Jan 7, 2019 10:09:12 GMT -6
Early wake homing and acoustic torpedoes were scary when first introduced, but also just as quickly countered. There is no in-service "counter" to wake homers even today. Evasive manoeuvering and/or speeding up is more placebo than effective. The old 1960's idea is still the only thing that -sorta- works: have a more expendable ship following close in the more important ship's wake... There have been deployments of 'anti-torpedo' torpedo systems, they are indeed mainly designed to counter wake homers. As an example, the USN has the Countermeasure Anti-Torpedo (CAT) as part of the Surface Ship Torpedo Defense (SSTD) system which is now on US carriers. |
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jan 7, 2019 13:16:04 GMT -6
There is no in-service "counter" to wake homers even today. Evasive manoeuvering and/or speeding up is more placebo than effective. The old 1960's idea is still the only thing that -sorta- works: have a more expendable ship following close in the more important ship's wake... There have been deployments of 'anti-torpedo' torpedo systems, they are indeed mainly designed to counter wake homers. As an example, the USN has the Countermeasure Anti-Torpedo (CAT) as part of the Surface Ship Torpedo Defense (SSTD) system which is now on US carriers. The SSTDS R&D program has been defunded and NOT procured. The program failed in its task due to massive technical overreach. The search for alternatives is on. See page 401 ff:
The "fielded" CAT systems are unlikely to provide any really useful capability, if you read the DOTE FY2017 report and reflect it with the defunding in the FY2019 DON budget (i.e. after the 2018 QRA results were in) the verdict is damning with faint praise:
www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2017/pdf/navy/2017sstd_tws_cat.pdf
If you know anything about the variability of the underwater environment this tells you that the system is essentially useless. Also, if you are willing to dig into the succession of DOTE reports over more than a decade, you will read that the CAT never has been faced with the "wake" environment.
|
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Jan 7, 2019 15:16:22 GMT -6
Too bad...it had the potential to be a good system if the kinks were worked out, IMO.
My apologies, back to the subject at hand in this thread...
|
|
|
|
Post by achanos on Jan 16, 2019 22:20:05 GMT -6
Early wake homing and acoustic torpedoes were scary when first introduced, but also just as quickly countered. There is no in-service "counter" to wake homers even today. Evasive manoeuvering and/or speeding up is more placebo than effective. The old 1960's idea is still the only thing that -sorta- works: have a more expendable ship following close in the more important ship's wake... To be fair, I did say early torps, For current one, yes, completely agree. The early torpedoes were (relatively) slow, and had limited endurance, turning away and crossing wakes could confuse the seeker enough to outdistance the weapon. The current ones? Yeah, very very hard system to counter. Acoustics had similar issues, the early ones were scary, but some of the early German systems were spoofable just by going silent or making enough noise to "jam" the acoustic head. Obviously they got more sophisticated, and more effective, and the US countered with noisemakers. Obviously they are still in use, as the passive sonar components of most modern torpedoes. |
|
