Hmmm...Where did everybody go???

[Buckrock]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: fcooke

fair point BB. but sometimes USN torps did actually explode......generally when they came from S boats or 4 pipers.....

No, the 4 pipers fired the Mark 15s which also had their own problems. Although four of them did a number on the Balikpapen invasion force and got away. Most of those torpedoes also ran too deep.

The Clemson and Wickes classes started the war equipped with Mark 8 torpedoes and those involved in the early '42 actions in the DEI (Balikpapan, Badoeing Strait, Java Sea) only used that torpedo type. Regardless of what the game has them carrying, I can't recall off hand seeing historical accounts showing these two destroyer classes ever being equipped with the longer Mark 15 torpedo during the war.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Basically the Mk-15 and Mk-14 were very similar, designed at the same time. They both had the same exploder and both ran deeper that set.
As the Mk-14 deficiencies were corrected, the Mk-15 ones were too. The Mk-15 was not a bad torpedo when it problems were fixed.

I read this really interesting article about the whole dud torpedo thing - basically the argument was they weren't duds, they were just misused. it goes like this:

- The new magnetic exploders were set so that the torpedo went off when it was a certain distance from the ship.

- The torpedos were designed so they ran at a depth that would take them under the ship and if all worked, they would go off under the keel, so the shockwave could hit the ship below the torpedo protection bulkheads and break its back.

- Unfortunately no-body explained this to the sub skippers, who not only continued to take hull shots, but interfered with the depth settings so the torpedo ran shallow; this of course meant that if it did explode at the designed distance from the ship, the shockwave dissipated against the horizontal torpedo protection/armour belt of the target. Think of a circle and its radius, with the target in the middle.

- There were also explosive duds which is a different problem.

So basically, the author reckoned that had the sub skippers been educated properly, they would have understood that having their torpedos run deep, and explode under the keel of the target is actually a good idea .... (which is pretty much how torpedoes are set up to operate nowadays).

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Basically the Mk-15 and Mk-14 were very similar, designed at the same time. They both had the same exploder and both ran deeper that set.
As the Mk-14 deficiencies were corrected, the Mk-15 ones were too. The Mk-15 was not a bad torpedo when it problems were fixed.

I read this really interesting article about the whole dud torpedo thing - basically the argument was they weren't duds, they were just misused. it goes like this:

- The new magnetic exploders were set so that the torpedo went off when it was a certain distance from the ship.

- The torpedos were designed so they ran at a depth that would take them under the ship and if all worked, they would go off under the keel, so the shockwave could hit the ship below the torpedo protection bulkheads and break its back.

- Unfortunately no-body explained this to the sub skippers, who not only continued to take hull shots, but interfered with the depth settings so the torpedo ran shallow; this of course meant that if it did explode at the designed distance from the ship, the shockwave dissipated against the horizontal torpedo protection/armour belt of the target. Think of a circle and its radius, with the target in the middle.

- There were also explosive duds which is a different problem.

So basically, the author reckoned that had the sub skippers been educated properly, they would have understood that having their torpedos run deep, and explode under the keel of the target is actually a good idea .... (which is pretty much how torpedoes are set up to operate nowadays).

That theory sounds like the BuShips argument against the sub skippers for a year and a half. But the sub crews were not stupid, and they testified they tried every combination of depth settings and exploder type (I gather the magnetic exploder could be turned off in favour of the contact exploder for shallow water shots). Testing that was eventually done showed the depth setting problem - they set the depth wanted and fired at a sheet of some kind which showed the actual depth of impact.

Tests also showed that the contact exploder bent when impact was close to 90º to the hull. It was made of aluminum or some light alloy which, when replaced with good strong steel, worked. Not sure if the US was using the copper shaped charge cone in the warhead at that time but that would necessarily mean the firing pin was quite long to reach to the bottom of the cone.

[Zorch]

Drachinifel has a video, The Mark 14 Torpedo - Failure is Like Onions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ5Ru7Zu_1I

[fcooke]

the US torp failure was not good. I forget which boat it was, but crippled an IJN tanker but could not put her down despite I think using another 20 torps. Then we finally got the net firing tests which proved the mk 15 was running something like 15 feet under what was selected.

And then that doofus politician saying that US subs were running lower than IJN depth charges.....fairly criminal.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: fcooke

the US torp failure was not good. I forget which boat it was, but crippled an IJN tanker but could not put her down despite I think using another 20 torps. Then we finally got the net firing tests which proved the mk 15 was running something like 15 feet under what was selected.

And then that doofus politician saying that US subs were running lower than IJN depth charges.....fairly criminal.

It was a Tonan Maru, a whaler, that was crippled, towed to Truk, and used as a large oil tank.

The politician was a Congressman from Illinois, Chicago I do believe

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Basically the Mk-15 and Mk-14 were very similar, designed at the same time. They both had the same exploder and both ran deeper that set.
As the Mk-14 deficiencies were corrected, the Mk-15 ones were too. The Mk-15 was not a bad torpedo when it problems were fixed.

I read this really interesting article about the whole dud torpedo thing - basically the argument was they weren't duds, they were just misused. it goes like this:

- The new magnetic exploders were set so that the torpedo went off when it was a certain distance from the ship.

- The torpedos were designed so they ran at a depth that would take them under the ship and if all worked, they would go off under the keel, so the shockwave could hit the ship below the torpedo protection bulkheads and break its back.

- Unfortunately no-body explained this to the sub skippers, who not only continued to take hull shots, but interfered with the depth settings so the torpedo ran shallow; this of course meant that if it did explode at the designed distance from the ship, the shockwave dissipated against the horizontal torpedo protection/armour belt of the target. Think of a circle and its radius, with the target in the middle.

- There were also explosive duds which is a different problem.

So basically, the author reckoned that had the sub skippers been educated properly, they would have understood that having their torpedos run deep, and explode under the keel of the target is actually a good idea .... (which is pretty much how torpedoes are set up to operate nowadays).

That theory sounds like the BuShips argument against the sub skippers for a year and a half. But the sub crews were not stupid, and they testified they tried every combination of depth settings and exploder type (I gather the magnetic exploder could be turned off in favour of the contact exploder for shallow water shots). Testing that was eventually done showed the depth setting problem - they set the depth wanted and fired at a sheet of some kind which showed the actual depth of impact.

Tests also showed that the contact exploder bent when impact was close to 90º to the hull. It was made of aluminum or some light alloy which, when replaced with good strong steel, worked. Not sure if the US was using the copper shaped charge cone in the warhead at that time but that would necessarily mean the firing pin was quite long to reach to the bottom of the cone.

From what I remember reading about this, the Earth's magnetic field in the Western Pacific causes the ships' magnetic fields to run more horizontally than vertically which sets off the magnetic detonator too soon, something that BuOrd dd not realize. They fired the torpedoes trough a series of nets to see how the torpedoes moved like a porpoise, from the actual depth setting to too deep by about 10 to 11 feet, on average. Part of the problem as that during the testing, the torpedoes id not have the same weight as the warhead so it was lighter.

The first, improved firing pin was made from a wrecked Japanese aircraft propeller. The aluminum was light enough to travel back fast enough to detonate the exploder before the front of the torpedo deformed, the slower heavier steel firing pin would be trapped before hitting the exploder if the impact angle was close to 90 degrees, in other words, normally the best angle.

[fcooke]

Interesting - everything I have ever read said hitting the target off 90 worked better. Not intuitive but the data seems to back it up.

[CV10]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
The politician was a Congressman from Illinois, Chicago I do believe

Andrew May of the Kentucky 7th District. He was the Chairman of the House Military Affairs Committee.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: fcooke

Interesting - everything I have ever read said hitting the target off 90 worked better. Not intuitive but the data seems to back it up.

That normally would be the best shot but not with the wrong firing pins!

[fcooke]

Some skippers figured it out.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: fcooke

Some skippers figured it out.

Yeah, they used their deck guns!

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: DD696

Since it was announced that beta players are wanted for a new WWII game a lot of the regulars here seem to have flown the coop. Where have they gone? Did they try to cross the road and were run over? Hopefully, maybe some.

Rest good, Joe, I won't reveal the secret even tho I did not sign an NDA many years ago. I hope this turns out spectacularly. I await anxiously for the new reveal - just don't set off fireworks and burn down lots of this country. I sure hate the word "reveal" in these days of revealing baby genders and what flavor edible undies some bimbo is wearing.

Some of us old folk still swing by these parts now and again.

[Ambassador]

ORIGINAL: CV10

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
The politician was a Congressman from Illinois, Chicago I do believe

Andrew May of the Kentucky 7th District. He was the Chairman of the House Military Affairs Committee.

Not only did that idiot’s loose lips sink ships, but he was also corrupt, and condemned for bribery after the war.

And still got his pardon from Truman.[8|]

[CV10]

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

ORIGINAL: CV10

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
The politician was a Congressman from Illinois, Chicago I do believe

Andrew May of the Kentucky 7th District. He was the Chairman of the House Military Affairs Committee.

Not only did that idiot’s loose lips sink ships, but he was also corrupt, and condemned for bribery after the war.

And still got his pardon from Truman.[8|]

There was a lot of that going round: on two different occasions, Robert McCormick's Chicago Tribune published confidential defense information: it leaked the 1941 Victory Program plan 3 days before Pearl Harbor, and then it published an article after Midway about how the U.S. had advanced warning of Japan's attack.

The Justice Department wanted to prosecute on both occasions, but Roosevelt blocked them each time. With the Victory Program, Roosevelt was worried that prosecuting the Tribune would look like revenge (McCormick loathed FDR). The second time, military leaders persuaded the Justice Department that a public trial would give the security breach even more publicity and that it was better to hush it all up.

[fcooke]

pardons IMO should be abolished. And some of the press today is equally as bad. but I will leave it at that so the thread does not get shut down

[RangerJoe]

Pardons can help if the person is truly innocent and that is the fastest way to obtain relief. Sometimes, it may be the only way.

[fcooke]

Fair point, but that is not normally how they are used.

[Orm]

Indeed. But a system should, in my humble opinion, have some sort of safeguard when the justice system fails.

When a politician fails the public can select another politician in the next election. That remedy does not usually correct a miscarriage of justice.

[fcooke]

justice system failing - certainly agreed. Letting your cronies out -nah.