Dud Torps

[Red Devil]

cheers Dread

[merc4ulfate]

Sadly, some Skippers may have 'cooked the books' in their attack reports - reporting setting torpedoes as ordered, when in reality they set them to a shallower depth for impact and not run under.

This made diagnosing the problems with the torpedoes harder.
==============

It wasn't that this practice, which did happen, made it hard to diagnose to problem it simply kept good men out of hot water. There were orders to follow and consequence if you did not.

When they moved the depth sensor to the tail of the torpedo they did not count on the curved shape of the tail altering the sensor, which it did, and caused them to run deeper and made the magnetic detonator ineffective. This wasn't tested.

When they used detonators designed for WW1 speed torpedoes on faster torpedoes in WW2 they did not expect that they would break under the force of impact but they did. This wasn't tested.

Unlike the German Navy no one at that time had thought about the deviation of the magnetic filed around the earth and how they affected those bodies it in either.

It wasn't sad that skippers lied in their reports. It saved lives. What was sad was the Buords and Navy command not taking the time to study the issue.

It was the inadequacy of Buord and those in command dealing with quality control that led to many men dieing from subsequent counter attack due to the failure of the weapons they were given.

TMO does a great job of modeling the issue and I can't tell you how many times I cussed the screen while imagining how those men must have felt to have a perfect set up and a failure for a weapon.

[aanker]

Originally Posted by merc4ulfate

It wasn't sad that skippers lied in their reports. It saved lives. What was sad was the Buords and Navy command not taking the time to study the issue.

This is what I was getting at - trying to anyway.

Skippers returned to base with tonnage sunk, claiming to have followed orders, so the obvious question was, why wasn't everyone getting results. Rather than study the torpedoes, good men were blamed.

Finally testing was done, including dropping torpedoes off a cliff & other tests thanks to Admiral Lockwood.

Good article here:
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/s...u-of-ordnance/

That's why I don't mind having duds, premature detonations, and deep runners before 43.

Happy Hunting!

[TorpX]

Originally Posted by aanker

That's why I don't mind having duds, premature detonations, and deep runners before 43.

I don't either. Especially, considering we have it much easier than our RL counterparts did. We know what to expect, and have workarounds that they couldn't really use.

[merc4ulfate]

They drop them from a crane not a cliff. The cliff test was done by a submarine who fired into the cliff to test for duds but not dropped from them.

If they would have kept the depth sensor where it was and moved the contact detonator 1/2 to 1 inch back away from the nose it would have helped greatly.

[aanker]

Originally Posted by merc4ulfate

They drop them from a crane not a cliff. The cliff test was done by a submarine who fired into the cliff to test for duds but not dropped from them.

If they would have kept the depth sensor where it was and moved the contact detonator 1/2 to 1 inch back away from the nose it would have helped greatly.

Well, if you've been in the Navy or any service, you know how easy that would be... lol. - Most CO's don't like suggestions.

We were lucky to have Admiral Lockwood - he listened.

[anotherdemon]

It actually kinda feels like I'm cheating when I run slow, shallow and impact only.

I can imagine how far smarter and trained men than I would have gone knowing this in the real boats in the real war.

[TorpX]

Originally Posted by merc4ulfate

They drop them from a crane not a cliff. The cliff test was done by a submarine who fired into the cliff to test for duds but not dropped from them.

If they would have kept the depth sensor where it was and moved the contact detonator 1/2 to 1 inch back away from the nose it would have helped greatly.

The Mk. 6 exploder wasn't fitted in the nose. It was back from the nose, on the bottom of the warhead. The problem wasn't that the mechanism was crushed in the impact, but rather the 'inertial forces' of the torpedo going from 46 kts. to 0, suddenly. The firing pin's axis of movement was vertical, and the abrupt deceleration caused the guide rods to bend or bind.

[Red Devil]

Thanks for the tech explanations very interesting, something I did not know and appreciated. Going back to the 'i feel like cheating' comment earlier - nobody is cheating anybody.

To my mind 'normal' setting is precisely what it says ' normal' ww2 scenario. If a person hits the hard or what I call 'unlikely' settings then in the game its an achievement to complete a career as such but totally not essential.

All it proves is that a person can, if he desires, master a fight against an enemy that has superhuman powers which was not correct in reality.

Later on in the war, the IJN did get a lot better but still not around superhuman.

Not having dud torps only means to me that IF I hit the target, I get a detonation, my torps are also enabled at close contact, not physical, so its in the laps of the dice whether its fatal, or not.

Its not cheating, its a game.

[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.

You can read a very good article on the situation here:

http://www.historynet.com/us-torpedo...rld-war-ii.htm

They outlined the whole story including the cliff test and torpedo drops. I guess we will have the thank the Japanese for having light weight propellers on their aircraft at Pearl Harbour. Thanks to their blades we fixed the issue.


Read the manuals and documentation:

http://www.hnsa.org/doc/s-boat/index.htm

http://www.hnsa.org/doc/jolie/index.htm

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}

http://www.hnsa.org/doc/torpedomk18/index.htm#pg9 {Mark 18}

http://www.hnsa.org/doc/torpedomk18-maint/index.htm {Maintenance - Mark 18}

[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.