Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: A little more about Japanese Depth Charges | Forums

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    In your baffles; .....and opening my outer doors.
    Posts
    3,652
    A recent thread concerning Japanese depth charges sparked my interest, so I did a bit of investigating.

    The Japanese started the War (at least the portion that included the U.S.) with the "Type 95" Depth Charge. The specifications follow:

    Date of design: - 1935
    Date of service: - 1940
    Total weight: - 325lb (160kg)
    Explosive charge: - 220lb (100kg)
    Sink rate: - 6 fps (1.9 mps)
    Possible depth settings: - 98, 197, or 295 feet (30, 60, or 90 meters)
    Note: Early War Type 95s only had the 30 and 60 meter settings, but this was quickly changed.


    In 1943, the Japanese introduced an improved version called the Type 2; ....which came in three variants:

    Date of design: - 1942
    Date of service: - 1943
    Total weight: - n/a
    Explosive charge: - Model 0 – 231lb (105kg)
    ...........................Model 1- 357lb (162kg)
    ...........................Model 2 - 243lb (110kg)
    Sink rate: - 9.9 fps (3 mps)
    Possible depth settings: - down to 475 ft (145m) in 25 ft (7.6m) increments.

    Both types could be launched from stern racks, or "K" and "Y" depth charge launchers.

    Both of these Depth Charges had some interesting features. Unlike many of their Allied counterparts, the detonator did not sense hydrostatic pressure directly. Instead, it consisted of a variable orifice that allowed a cylinder to fill with water at a predicable rate. When the accumulating volume of water had moved a captive piston a certain distance, the charge was fired. This system had the advantage of making the Depth Charge immune to surface detonation, if it happened to land sensor side down. It was also vastly cheaper and more reliable than a complex hydrostatic pressure sensor.

    Another interesting feature was that both types were equipped to deploy small, optional "******ing" parachutes, when launched from either "K" or "Y" guns. This allowed slower vessels to use shallow settings, and still get clear of the damage radius.



    A PAIR OF "K" GUNS



    A "Y" GUN AND RELOAD RACK

    *
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    In your baffles; .....and opening my outer doors.
    Posts
    3,652
    A recent thread concerning Japanese depth charges sparked my interest, so I did a bit of investigating.

    The Japanese started the War (at least the portion that included the U.S.) with the "Type 95" Depth Charge. The specifications follow:

    Date of design: - 1935
    Date of service: - 1940
    Total weight: - 325lb (160kg)
    Explosive charge: - 220lb (100kg)
    Sink rate: - 6 fps (1.9 mps)
    Possible depth settings: - 98, 197, or 295 feet (30, 60, or 90 meters)
    Note: Early War Type 95s only had the 30 and 60 meter settings, but this was quickly changed.


    In 1943, the Japanese introduced an improved version called the Type 2; ....which came in three variants:

    Date of design: - 1942
    Date of service: - 1943
    Total weight: - n/a
    Explosive charge: - Model 0 – 231lb (105kg)
    ...........................Model 1- 357lb (162kg)
    ...........................Model 2 - 243lb (110kg)
    Sink rate: - 9.9 fps (3 mps)
    Possible depth settings: - down to 475 ft (145m) in 25 ft (7.6m) increments.

    Both types could be launched from stern racks, or "K" and "Y" depth charge launchers.

    Both of these Depth Charges had some interesting features. Unlike many of their Allied counterparts, the detonator did not sense hydrostatic pressure directly. Instead, it consisted of a variable orifice that allowed a cylinder to fill with water at a predicable rate. When the accumulating volume of water had moved a captive piston a certain distance, the charge was fired. This system had the advantage of making the Depth Charge immune to surface detonation, if it happened to land sensor side down. It was also vastly cheaper and more reliable than a complex hydrostatic pressure sensor.

    Another interesting feature was that both types were equipped to deploy small, optional "******ing" parachutes, when launched from either "K" or "Y" guns. This allowed slower vessels to use shallow settings, and still get clear of the damage radius.



    A PAIR OF "K" GUNS



    A "Y" GUN AND RELOAD RACK

    *
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  3. #3
    Senior Member lane2512's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,064
    great info. great post. thanks!

    Dance of the Dragon
    [URL=http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=6421019045&m=5111
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  4. #4
    Yes indeed thanks for that. I most most intrigued to read of the ******er parachutes for shallow water use.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  5. #5
    Thanks for a really interesting post.

    Do you happen to kmow which ships carried depth charges? I have yet to be depth charged in the game so was wondering how widely the Japanese used them.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    In your baffles; .....and opening my outer doors.
    Posts
    3,652
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Do you happen to kmow which ships carried depth charges? I have yet to be depth charged in the game so was wondering how widely the Japanese used them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Funny you should ask!

    I just bumped this thread back up to the top.

    http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t...6581072435/p/1

    I think you'll find your answers there.

    *
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  7. #7
    Senior Member RedTerex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,373
    Some nice info there Klcarrol !
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    804
    Are we all playing the same game? I can't believe all of these people who claim they are attacking convoys and task forces, and haven't been depth charged. I'll admit, the attacks for the most part have not been as devestating as the ones in SH3, and it seems easier to lose the escorts (maybe because we know when we pass a thermal), but I've been attacked at least once per patrol so far.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  9. #9
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Are we all playing the same game? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Now this truly isn't meant to be a *****, but I've been wondering similarly for a couple of days now. Okay, obviously we have the same game code, but how is it that some people see one thing endlessly (such as failing to complete missions, getting sacked after sinking carriers, etc) while others see nothing of the sort?

    My current bug is about repeated missions - I just transported a guy to China, docked at Pearl, and got the same mission again... previously I've had 'Patrol Truk' three times on the trot (which, as I had the corrupted savegame problem, meant about 20 trips to that neck of the woods). On the other hand I have never had a problem getting a mission completion for patrolling a given area whilst it seems to be sending some people here doolally.

    My best guess is there are a few oddities (possibly bugs, maybe nothing worse than a random number going wonky) that cause dumb things to repeat on some installs - probably pure luck of the draw. We notice them more becuase they repeat - it may be we all had a quiet spell then went off to torp the Hiryu, but for some people it's stuck in a quiet spell loop?
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  10. #10
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    22
    I'd say the escorts look about for a few seconds half of the time. They may drop a few depth charges the rest of the time, and usually they are about 300m away from my actual position, though they have sunk me a few times, and I have yet to finish a career. Pity I can't get the repair crew to work properly, even the slightest leak (oops, spilled a glass of water) sinks the boat...
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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