Germans and Italians Use the Type 93 Long Lance?

There have been a lot of what if's, concerning technology. What if the Germans had the Me-262 earlier, etc.

Here's a subtle one. What if the Japanese had shared the design and technology of the Type 93 Long Lance torpedo with the Germans and Italians?

The development of the torpedo bean in in 1928, so there would have been time after the signing of the Axis treaty I think, for the information to be shared. The Type 93 torpedo had it faults, that perhaps the Germans could have corrected, and maybe even coupled their homing technology to the Type 93.

Said torpedo, with or without homing technology would have made life difficult for the convoys and the RN.

If the Japanese sent advisors as well, and trained the Germans and Italians in night torpedo attacks, the Italians might have decimated the RN fleet in the med. You'll remember that the IJN didn't rely on radar for their night attacks, and did very well because the allies didn't understand that they were launching torps from so far away. Not to mention E-Boats, U-Boats and Italians subs equipped to launch the Type 93.

So with the Med theoretically in the hands of the axis, the North African war would take a whole new turn, and Malta would have fallen.

In the Atlantic, U-Boats equipped with a Type 93, firing from well outside the escort screen, and leaving almost no bubble trail, might have caused huge losses to UK and Murmansk bound convoys.

Would the war ultimately turned out different? No. But would the war have been prolonged? Yes, I think.

Without supplies reaching Malta, it would have fallen, and no more aerial thorn in the side of the Afrika Korps. All supplies to North Africa would have to come around the horn. Far longer to travel, and more time at sea means more chance of being attacked as well. The Germans could very well have wrapped up North Africa, and further secured their oil supplies in Romania. More oil, more Kreigsmarine action, more Luftwaffe action, more Wehrmacht action.

D-Day might have taken far longer to launch if convoys were savaged more then they were. The Type 93 would have been ideal for taking out escorts, leaving the convoys wide open.

Your thoughts?

 

This would have necessitated the Germans refitting their U-Boat fleet. Both the Type VII and Type IX (and many other types I am sure) used torpedoes in the 533mm to 550mm diameter range. The Type 93 was 610mm in diameter. The logistical effort needed is nightmarish to say the least.

Now, suppose the U-Boats DID have that size torpedo tube. In that case then yes, I think the war could have been prolonged. Won by the axis? no. But it would have maybe meant MANY more escorts of longer range ranging farther out from the convoy. Remember the Germans preferred (I believe) to attack from a surface firing position as their conning tower optics were much better than their periscope optics (probably the case with all subs). But it would certainly have caused more than a few nightmares in London, Washington, and quite a few naval HQs.

 

The Japanese had extreme difficulty putting the Type 93 on a submarine. Only a few classes of their largest (and far larger than German boats) were so equipped. The danger here is that having a LOX plant and storage on board is extremely dangerous in itself. The boat would have to be surfaced to really make LOX in any case. I doubt that you could do it on the snorkel.

As for surface ships the larger German combatants really don't need this sort of torpedo. Their tubes, as on Panzerschiffe were primarily for finishing off prizes and commercial vessels they captured or damaged with gunfire.
The smaller ships like E-boats can't use them again simply because the facilities for fueling them (LOX is volatile and off gasses fairly quickly so topping off a torpedo is done shortly before firing). Destroyers could have had them but, I don't think they would have made any great difference as most German destroyers had serious plant problems with their very high pressure steam plants. This meant a good portion were chained to a pier most of the time.

Its not like the Type 93 was purely a Japanese invention in any case. In the early 30's the British hit on the idea too but dropped it because the fuel was simply too dangerous.

As for wakes, the Germans made extensive use of electric torpedoes already. Their U-boats generally didn't carry many steam driven ones because of the wake problem. But, that issue is overblown in any case. A US study between electric torpedoes and steam driven ones that left a wake concluded rather decisively that the steam torpedo was far, far better because of its speed and range against merchant ships. The electric was only better for attacking naval vessels where lookouts were far more likely to see the wake of an approaching torpedo.

The US study concluded that had US boats used electric torpedoes exclusively they would have sunk 100 less merchant ships than they actually did.

What the Germans really needed wasn't a better torpedo for their U-boats it was a much better electronics suite like Allied boats got by mid-war.

 

TA, you're talking about why it wasn't done. This is a "What If." In the "What If," it HAS been done. What might the results have been.

Italian cruisers and destroyers with the Type 93, and trained for night attacks? Can you imagine the devastation that could have been caused to the RN based in Alexandria? Or any where else in the Med? It wasn't until 1943 that the US figured out they were getting it by surface launched torpedos at Savo. The British would likely have come to the same erroneous conclusion, that they were getting hit by submarines, and defended accordingly. Not realizing those blips on their radar were launching torpedos from a distance they thought impossible.

Consider German destroyers having such a deadly weapon at their disposal. The British were so worried about the Bismarck and the Tirpitz attacking convoys.

 

The first thing I see wrong here is that the training with the use of the "Long Lance" is paramount, and even the Japanese (who didn’t use it in subs), and had trained with the Type 93 extensively had a rather unimpressive record with the torpedo in many instances. It was a fine torpedo, dangerous to the users as well as the receivers, but no where near the "mythic" power some wish to give it. The Germans were pretty short of surface ships after the Norway invasion, especially destroyers.

I don’t see the Italian Navy doing any better than the IJN, in fact probably would have had even less success. The very best ratio of hits was 25% in a single action, but the ratio was more often under 15% when they were fired.

The Battle of Ormoc Bay: A USN force of three DDs attacked an(d) disrupted Japanese forces including two small DDs unloading troops into Leyte. They thoroughly shot up the IJN force, sinking a small DD, but failed to get away unscathed, losing one DD to a Japanese torpedo. During the action the IJN conducted at least one launch of 4 Type 93 torpedoes, scoring 1 hit which sank USN DD Cooper. This is a probable hit rate of 25%. This action fits into the Decisive Battle scenario as an example of a small unit action.

See:

Were the Best Good Enough?

I don't see the "Long Lance" being that much of deciding factor in the Med. or the Atlantic for the Axis.

 

No, I am not so much saying why it wasn't done as opposed to even knowing about this weapon why it wouldn't be done.

First, pre-war the Germans and Italians have no real idea of the Type 93's effectiveness or ineffectiveness. There would have to be a massive "buy in" on their part that adopting it would make an actual massive difference. I doubt that they could be sold on the idea.

Second, as I pointed out there are real and very significant technological issues in putting a Type 93 on any ship. The Italians and Germans would have had to perform massive refits on their destroyers and cruisers to get this weapon aboard. First, they would have to install the LOX plant and piping. Then they would have to replace their torpedo mounts. Next, the torpedo fire control systems would have to be revised. On many ships these torpedo systems simply could not fit because there is insufficent reserve bouyancy and stability for heavier mounts, heavier torpedoes and, no room for added plant. This is particularly true of existing ships which is the overwhelming case for the Italians in particular.

Then there is the problem of security. The Japanese were very protective of the secret of the Type 93. Given that the Germans and Italians are far poorer at keeping such secrets, particularly pre-war, it is likely that such a weapon would be discovered if made available for widespread fleet use.

The problem with the scenario is that projecting what the IJN did and trained for onto the German and Italian navies is thin. Both have social, technical and, bureaucratic differences that would have made copying Japanese tactics difficult at best. Just because they get a particular weapon is no indication that the leadership would adopt it in some useful fashion.

Aside from that, if you look at the use of the Type 93 it is not that much more effective than other torpedoes. Yes, the Japanese did score some impressive victories early war with it. But, it also overall had about the same hit rate as other nation's torpedo systems. For example at Second Savo over 40 Type 93's were fired at South Dakota after she was back illuminated by the sinking destroyer Duncan. Yet, not one of these actually hit the battleship. The same holds true in battles in the DEI against the ABDA flot.
Firing against a squadron of ships in line ahead they could be very dangerous. Against individual maneuvering ships or ships in small formations they were not very useful and proved little better than other torpedoes.

 

It would appear that the Japanese and Germans exchanged torpedo data and examples of other weapons from 1942 on. Included in the cargoes were Long Lance type torpedoes as well as the Type 91 air dropped design and other weapons.

The Germans must have discovered things they didn't like about the Type 93 "Long Lance", since they had examples, data drawings, and tubes for them for years and years but never put them into use.

See:

World War II: Yanagi Missions — Japan's Underwater Convoys » HistoryNet

There are three pages in the article, and describes the cargo subs, their cargos, and their fates. Pretty interesting in reality, and once again shows the import of code-breaking.

 

IIRC The story is actually the other way round as the Japanese adopted the shape of the Italian 21" W270 veloce late thirties topedo for the latest versions of the Type 93 (24" long lance) and Type 95 (21" oxigen for subs) torpedoes and the Type 92 Mod 2 was to be a copy of the German G7e.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTJAP_WWII.htm

 

My understanding is that only the cruisers had the LOX plants. The DD's needed to "top off" thier torpoes periodically.

A couple more negatives for the type 93's. You can only put about 3 of them in the place of 4 21" torpedoes. They tended to detonate prematurely. There was a temptation to use their extreme range which resulted in very few hits. For instance from:
Imperial Battleships

http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/Battleship_Action_Guadalcanal.pdf
Indicates the Japanese may have fired more than 50 torpedoes in the above action for 3 hits.

The type 93 was designed to take out battleships and do so at considerable range. It's overkill vs a DD in most cases and given the low hit probability of torpedoes in general more 21" ones may well be of more use vs most foes.
Then there are the cases were the long range becomes a problem. The Japanese managed to sink some of thier own transports due to it. Have we mentioned the danger of haveing lox in the vacinity of rapidly moveing pieces of metal, fire, and detonating explosives. There's been some discussion that the tye 93 on Japanese cruisers may have done more damage to said curisers than to their opponents.

 

How about the type 95 (21" version of the type 93)? Easier to modify the Nazi Germany Torpedo Tubes....Also, imagine the 95's range increase when the Nazi's use their (much better) turbine engine .vs. the IJN's piston engine! The 95 had a much bigger warhead than any other country's standard 21" torp., however, I am not sure on the filler (what goes bang) of the IJN's torps (incl. the 93). Perhaps here would be where the Nazi's could have helped the IJN.