Soviet vs US Torpedo

[Unter Wasser]

In the real world was soviet ASW technology better than the US?

On playing the game and on submarine on submarine basis the SET-65 in an old Whiskey submarine seems to be much better than the MK37 which is too slow and overall lame in the '68 campaign. Is this comparison valid was the US playing catchup in torpedo tech in the real world

Also, that surface ship rocket system kicks backside and has sunk me many times in the 68 and 84 campaign? Thoughts?

[Erik]

I believe it is correct. Mk37 was very slow and apparently unreliable.

However it is not without advantages compared to the Soviet SET-65. Being a swim-out torpedo it creates no launch transient, and moreover it is wire-guided which is a very important feature.

[Bilge_Rat]

depends what period, up to 1970, the US was playing catchup.

WW2 submarine torpedoes, once the targeting/reliability problems were resolved in 1943 were decent, but not as performing as the more advanced japanese and german models. The MK16 we have in game is perfectly decent, but is basically just a more reliable WW2 era weapon.

The MK37 design was perfectly fine as a anti-submarine torpedo when it was issued in the early 50s. remember it was designed when only diesel-electric subs were around with a top underwater speed of 7-8 knots. In WW2, the MK24 FIDO acoustic torpedo managed to sink/damage 55 German/japanese subs even though it only had a top speeed of 12 knots.

The MK37 only became obsolete because the Soviets started using SSNs with a top underwater speed of 30-42 knots. However, once the MK48 came out, the US had a torpedo that was perfect for ASW work.

[SaltiDawg]

As Weapons Officer on a 637 in the late 1960s and early 1970s, I did everything to avoid carrying MK-16 Torpedos.



The Non-nuclear weapons of choice were the MK-14 against surface Targets and MK-37 With and without wire guide against submarines.


You are absolutely right about with the Soviets developing more Nuke Boats, the MK-37 became less attractive and less effective.


The MK-14, with all of its problems during WWII, was a reliable weapon in the 1960s-1970s.

[The Bandit]

Originally Posted by SaltiDawg

As Weapons Officer on a 637 in the late 1960s and early 1970s, I did everything to avoid carrying MK-16 Torpedos.



The Non-nuclear weapons of choice were the MK-14 against surface Targets and MK-37 With and without wire guide against submarines.


You are absolutely right about with the Soviets developing more Nuke Boats, the MK-37 became less attractive and less effective.


The MK-14, with all of its problems during WWII, was a reliable weapon in the 1960s-1970s.

Your thoughts and experience bring up some things I've been wondering about the Mk 16 torpedo. I can recall reading that the Mk 14 was planned to be fully retired by some time in the early 60s but ended up being kept in service even after the Mk 16s were retired, up until around 1980.

Specifically what I'm dying to know about the Mk 16 is if the circle-pattern running variant (not sure if it was given a Mod designation) was ever used in significant numbers / retained for very long past its development? I can remember reading an article that went back to the late 40s talking about evaluations which I think were done at the Newport torpedo station of the different pattern running mechanisms that had been used by the Germans and that the decision was made that due to complexity (amount of small precision-cut gears the thing would need) vs. affordability / mass-production considerations that it would be best to use a simple circle-running setting vs. the "legs" of the FaT, so that's what they ended up doing with at least some Mk 16s.

[SaltiDawg]

I was a successful Weapons Officer, which means to say I never did carry a MK-16 Torpedo! I did go to School on them, along with all other SSN-637 Class usable weapons.


I do not know the answer to your question.


A fun story, I think, involves the Torpedo Record Book for some of the MK-14s. (Every Torpedo had a Record Book, that recorded major maintenance, transfers to different boats and ships and stations, Mods, etc.)


Occasionally we would receive a MK-14 Torpedo that had been built and loaded on a boat prior to August 1945. One or two, IIRC, had been built at the old Torpedo Factory in Virginia. We always got a chuckle out of the notion that the weapon in front of us had been loaded onto a boat as a warshot under wartime conditions and disappointingly had come home to be off-loaded. (Kind of like a long career as a Kamikaze Pilot.)



We always treated those old girls as something special and showed a little extra respect for where it had been.

[Julhelm]

What was the reason for not wanting the Mk16s?

[SaltiDawg]

Originally Posted by Julhelm

What was the reason for not wanting the Mk16s?

Julhelm,


The main reason most of us Weapon Officers avoided MK-16s in the 1960s and 1970s is Navol as a propellant. In addition to the hazard, the MK-16 required additional efforts in the areas of training, shipboard handling, and recovery of expended exercise shots.


I don't know any Weapon Officer on the river in those days in New London that had not convinced his CO to avoid carrying MK-16s.

[GoldenRivet]

One has to wonder how much impact Project Azorian had on the development of American torpedo capabilities

[ETR3(SS)]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

One has to wonder how much impact Project Azorian had on the development of American torpedo capabilities

Probably not a lot, since the aim of the project was the recovery of a sunken Soviet submarine with emphasis on it's nuclear missiles.