Japanese long lance torpedoes

[Troy Tempest]

Wasn't sure where to post this, so here goes! It's well-known that the Japanese Type 93 torpedo used compressed oxygen instead of compressed air as the oxydizer for its wet heater engine. This, combined with its immense size (nearly 3 tons), gave it exceptional range and speed, even while carrying the largest warhead of its day. What is not as well-known is the price the Japanese paid for this performance.

Six Japanese cruisers were sunk due, at least in part, to fires and/or explosions among their oxygen torpedoes.

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.

Now I ask, were these torpedoes really the best? It turns out that few hits were obtained by oxygen torpedoes from Japanese cruisers that could not have been managed by regular compressed-air torpedoes. The damage listed above exceeds the total of that extra damage due the the performance of oxygen torpedoes. It's a net loss.

There's more. On one occasion, some Japanese torpedoes missed their intended targets (Allied cruisers USS Houston and HMAS Perth) and went far into the distance to hit some Japanese transports. There may be such a thing as too much range in an unguided weapon.

Troy

[phylo_roadking]

On one occasion, some Japanese torpedoes missed their intended targets (Allied cruisers USS Houston and HMAS Perth) and went far into the distance to hit some Japanese transports. There may be such a thing as too much range in an unguided weapon.

There are several accounts in both world wars of both British and German submariners - IF they could linger safely in an area - recovering "conventional" torpedoes that had been fired, missed, expended their fuel and were dead in the water. Particularly on long cruises. Naismith on the E11, stuck in the Sea of Marmara and at the wrong end of the Dardanelles, recovered a torpedo this way.

[Tiornu]

Just so everyone can appreciate what we're talking about:
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/imag ... 84703a.jpg
There are a couple issues here worth discussing. First, the topic of self-inflicted injury usually centers on the Japanese decision to mount large batteries of torpedoes aboard their heavy cruisers. The best published source for this is Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War by Lacroix and Wells (arguably the finest warship reference ever produced). The Japanese hotly debated this issue, even before the Long Lance was in the picture (not all Japanese torpedoes were Long Lances, and not all their 24in torpedoes were Long Lances). Probably the deciding factor was the role intended for these ships in Japan's anticipated Decisive Battle against the USN. Because the Americans had a more powerful battle line, the IJN heavy cruiser had to help even the odds; the only way to provide cruisers with battleship-killing power was with torpedoes.
But of course, no such Decisive Battle took place. If you look at the hsitorical events of the Pacific War, you will find that heavy cruiser torpedoes didn't score a single hit in combat after the Battle of Savo Island. At Savo, the cruiser Chicago, Vincennes, and Quincy were torpedoed. Chicago's damage was light, and while Vincennes and Quincy both sank, it's unclear how important Long Lances were in sinking them. Prior to Savo, Long Lances sank Perth and Houston in Sunda Strait (not to mention the friendly fire losses already noted); the one shining success of CA-launched Long Lances was at Java Sea.
Long Lances fored from platforms other than heavy cruisers continued to have great success through much of the Solomons Campaign, but after the Battle of Empress Augusta Bay in November 1943 all the way to the end of the war, the Japanese scored only one more Long Lance hit.
There's more to assessing the torpedoes than simply counting the hits. There are also the tactical concerns imposed on the enemy who has to account for the torpedo threat (which the American were slow to do). But it's clear that the Long Lance added little to Japanese accomplishments, and except for Java Sea, the Long Lance did little that earlier 24in models could not have managed.
Since the "cost" of having Long Lances has been mentioned, we can look at it literally. The Japanese invested quite a lot of time and money in the Long Lance, assets which might have been better spent elsewhere.

[phylo_roadking]

Same as "specialised" weapons all through the war. Look at the time and energy spent by the British on developing "Highball" out of the Dambuster weapon, especially for use against the Yamato and others. Just never used. It was a war when the majority of weapons designed for one prototypical engagement and used out of its intended set of circumstances proved ill-fitting - just off the top of my head I can think of the terrible attrition of Gigant "transports" that were really supposed to be ONE-WAY assault gliders with an element of suprise, British Centaur howitzer-equiped Cromwell variants that got used as main battle tanks and attrited severely, German tactical bombers used as strategic, Stukas used without air superiority etc.

What WWII did show was that there was a big gulf between the vast majority of weapons scientists and the soldiers using those weapons, oddities like Barnes Wallis and Hobart notwithstanding. The vast majority of designers and engineers took technical problems they were given and built the best-fit answer; only use in the field ever proved if their solution was truly effective...by which time the services were left with the weapons they'd had handed to them at vast cost and no time or way to fully design a replacement.

[Troy Tempest]

Thanks fellas! I should have written at the start of the post, that this question was posted on another forum, on an IMDb board by a mate, and myself knowing bugger all about Imperial Japanese Naval torpedoes, re-posted it over here to see what the felgrau brainiacs could come up with. Naturally they came through! I'll pass it on and thanks again

Troy

[Tiornu]

You were discussing Japanese torpedoes at a cinema forum?

[Troy Tempest]

Why, yes tiornu! The Saving Private Ryan board began as a dicussion board about SPR, then over a period of time became a defacto military board for the IMDb. Despite frequent requests from myself and others for the IMDb to set up a specific war movies board or military board, as they have done with other genres such as westerns, sci-fi, horror etc etc, they refuse. So for one reason or another, the SPR board now handles military topics that, for the most part, have little or absolutely nothing to do with SPR. It has morphed again over the last year or so to be a 'community board' and now has masses of Off Topic threads. Why just last night I started one dealing with who is the best James Bond? Fun for the whole family! I have learnt a lot about other countries and their customs and perculiarites from these OT posts.

Anyhow mate, here is the original post, along with the comments that came after I took it here and over on the Axis History Forum board if you want to read what some other people have to say about it -

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120815/boa ... 4#64162094

If you care to wade through the OT threads, I'm sure guys like you and phylo could make incisive contributions! Thanks again for your help re the Long Lance, I've posted the link for this thread and the one from the Axis History Forum over on the SPR thread, I'm sure the OP appreciates your efforts. I do know some of the guys over there check out both feldgrau, AHF and 12oclockhigh from time to time. The original SPR poster was the one who prompted me to check here and at AHF re the myth about the Ju 390 New York flight, and the info I received from here and at AHF convinced me it was all a load of old cobblers, which backed up what the SPR poster told me in the first place.

[Hagen von Tronje]

Another thing to discuss is how many attack runs the Japanese needed to obtain the hits at the battle of Java Sea (not even mentioning the effect of Japanese gunnery at that particular engagement, or Japanese design concerning turret 'protection'). Kinda sad, really, since I'm particularly fond of Japanese cruisers - must have been some of the most beautiful ships ever built.

[Tiornu]

I find the Takaos the most handsome of wartime cruisers.
Lacroix and Wells gives the hit percentages achieved at Java Sea.

[Hagen von Tronje]

I find the Takaos the most handsome of wartime cruisers.
Lacroix and Wells gives the hit percentages achieved at Java Sea.

I know, and iirc they found the numbers abysmal...

Agreed, the Takaos were beauties.