[TorpX]

Originally Posted by merc4ulfate

"the abrupt deceleration caused the guide rods to bend or bind"

That is what I define as broke. Because they were using detonators designed for slower speeds they broke. If they had moved the detonator back 1/2 to 1 inch in my opinion they would have had less failures due to high speed because the nose would have absorbed some impact reducing the negative G-force when broke the the rails. It is the same principle now used in every automobile manufactured ... a crumple zone.

I don't mean to say they didn't break, but wanted to clarify that it broke because of inertia, and not because it was crushed. Much of what is written about the Mk. 14 is misleading. Many sources imply that they were crushed.

A crumple zone, would have worked if it was thick enough to do the job, but would likely require a longer torpedo and tube. I doubt that moving the exploder back would have helped. It would still be subject to the same forces.

http://www.hnsa.org/doc/torpedo/index.htm {Mark 14 and 23 ...see figure 2 and 4 for exact detonator and rail placements and 6-8b for closer details}

Figures 7 to 8 show a good view of the Mk. 6 exploder, however, the one pictured is not the notorious one which malfunctioned so many times, but rather, the late war model which replaced it. The former used a inertial ring to release a spring loaded firing pin, the latter used the ball switch to close a circuit to electrically fire the detonator.

It always seemed a bit odd to me that the Navy did not try previous exploders in the Mk. 14 when the Mk. 6 was discovered to be faulty. Perhaps they would not have worked any better. That would have been the first thing I tried. I don't remember anything being written, about slow-speed settings being used either.