Nuclear Torpedos and Depth Charges

[JamesHunt]

Just played a couple of scenarios of Northern Inferno and had the opportunity to test some of the tactical nuclear depth charges and torpedos and while checking the effects in CMO, I became curious about the kill/damage radius of these warheads. Tried to enlighten myself and invested some minutes.

I just recently listened to an audiobook of an ex-skipper, claiming the T-5 Torpedo (RDS-9 warhead, CMO reports 15kt, open sources range wild from 5-15kt, known from the Cuban Missile Crisis) had a kill range of 16km.
Furthermore there is this widespread rumour among sub skippers, historians, and others real or self-declared experts that tactical nuclear torpedos such as the Mk45 ASTOR (11kt) woud have a kill probability of 2 or 200%, means sarcastic coming with a high risk to kill ownship even at max range. Some calling it a suicide weapon. For me this always sounded unlogic, why select a yield like that.

Knowing from the first hand that rumours and myths in the military spread like wildfire, being trained in (OS)INT, and received education in some basics about the involved physics, I dug deeper.

There is this single secondary source that among multiple Soviet T-5 tests, one in 1957 achieving with ~5kt detonating at "20 m (66 ft) under the surface" among "(t)hree decommissioned submarines (...) at a distance of 10.5 km (6.5 mi) (...) S-20 and S-34 sank while S-19 received critical damage" Polmar N, Moore KJ. (2004)

Sounds impressive for 5kt, however I never could locate a primary source or another mentioning. There seems to be videos of these T-5 testings, with reported yields ranging again wildly from 3-5kt but the had different dates and the surfaced subs seemed to be parked closer.

Then I found which appears to be the primary source in form of a declassified document covering the Operation WIGWAM trials specifically conducted to test deep nuclear blast effects against (sub)surface targets. They tested with a 30+kt yield which is quite big compared. If you read the abstract the effects and kill/damage range estimates are more grounded. Take into consideration that a warhead detonating more shallow might achieve more effect against surface targets.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA995030.pdf

CMO Database reports the surface effect range of the T-5(15kt) at 3nm while if I recall unreliably ASTOR(11kt) around ASW range 0,5-1nm.

Didn´t really dive deeper and there more to discover but I´m done for today. While I lack the deeper insight to have an educated opinion on this matter, for the time being I feel satisfied with the values of the CMO database.

Leaving my findings here, perhaps one finds its interesting.

[Nikel]

There are 2 articles in the russian wikipedia describing the tests in 1955 and 1957 of the T-5 torpedo.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Испытание ... _1955_году

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Испытание ... _1957_году

[JamesHunt]

There are 2 articles in the russian wikipedia describing the tests in 1955 and 1957 of the T-5 torpedo.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Испытание ... _1955_году

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Испытание ... _1957_году

Test dogs...

Thanks, interesting find. From what I´ve interpreted quickly the test setup and results vary drastically from what Polmar N, Moore KJ stated, might match the videos I´ve seen, and is more in line with the WIGWAM scientific results and the CMO database. However I used a translator and just skimmed it, will check it completely later.

I am not a fan of all the internet secondary sources but there was also a mentioning of an author need to take a look one day. Analyzing both/all perspectives on a matter is often the better approach as Glantz and others have shown.

[Nikel]

Yes, the source in russian is linked and visible in the 1955 article, Shitikov E. A. History of the Navy's Nuclear Weapons (Essays on the Creation of a Test Site and Tests on Novaya Zemlya) in 2 Volumes.

Shitikov.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A8%D0 ... 0%B8%D1%87


The 1957 test (10 kilotons) graphic, missing in the wikipedia article, is visible in page 84 of the book. Here it is for comparison with the test in 1955 (3,5 kilotons).

1955.png (44.94 KiB) Viewed 698 times

1957.png (51.06 KiB) Viewed 698 times

[JamesHunt]

Yes, the source in russian is linked and visible in the 1955 article, Shitikov E. A. History of the Navy's Nuclear Weapons (Essays on the Creation of a Test Site and Tests on Novaya Zemlya) in 2 Volumes.

Shitikov.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A8%D0 ... 0%B8%D1%87


The 1957 test (10 kilotons) graphic, missing in the wikipedia article, is visible in page 84 of the book. Here it is for comparison with the test in 1955 (3,5 kilotons).



1955.png1957.png

So far this lines up with the WIGWAM scientific report, and both these US and Soviet trials were influential to develop maritime tactical weapons.

Interesting bit from the WIGWAM 30kt depth charge report:
"Surface ships at ranges in excess of 7000 ft should suffer only minor equipment damage which could be repaired at sea. This type of minor trouble may be expected out to ranges of several miles and should be the result of the shock wave reflected from the bottom rather than from the direct shock wave. It could become serious in shallower water. Under urgent conditions a surface vessel finding itself directly above a submarine could fire a nuclear depth charge off to a range of a mile downwind, thereby killing the submarine while sustaining minor damage itself."

Although in operational usage, standoff and/or yield of many tactical weapons seem were drastically modified to reduce the risks of collateral/friendly fire, countering this claim the Navy sends you out with "suicidal weapons".

I won´t conlcude my mind on this as this is matter for a professional job not my leisure time but I am satisfied. This highlights why it is important to always stay frosty and double check data, no matter how acclaimed and VIP historians and analysts are, or how many skippers and military experts repeat stories while pulling nothing more than "trust the pro ". Especially if everything of this is not lining up with educated common sense or the math. Too many times reading/listening to decorated military science/history authors, I found out stories or claims don´t stand the test of research.

Thats why I value CMO already for its database alone. I remember years ago we had these extreme MAD sensors dominating the ASW sim, which others and me criticized and instead of doubling down, developers double checked their data and over time evolved the simulation further.
If one like Tom Clancy nowadays would be in need of a simulation to test the plausibilities of his fictional air and sea engagements, he would likely pick CMO.