Mark14 "better" than Mark10

[7Enigma]

Hello everyone. I've been strictly using the Mark10 torpedo due to the contact influence issue as well as dud rate after being recommended that the Mark10's don't suffer the high rate of failure. But after reading a separate thread where someone posted the specs of these 2 torps I'm wondering if the Mark14 when using contact is actually the "better" torp.

By better I mean more destructive.

Here's the specs from the other post:

Mark 10 WarHead: 226 Kg TNT

Mark 14 WarHead: 292 Kg Torpex

Now it doesn't take a genius to see the Mark10 is carrying more payload in Kg amount, and I would assume Torpex is a more damaging compound (please correct if I'm mistaken), so is a Mark14 torpedo in fact capable of more damage per shot?

I'd love to minimize the swiss cheese firing required to down some of these ships!

Thanks

[Sailor Steve]

The Mark 10 was more reliable. It was also a WW1-era weapon and was assigned (as far as I know) only to the S-class.

As for Torpex:
Torpex is a mixture of 37-41% TNT, 41-45% RDX (cyclonite, cyclomethylene trinitramine) and 18% aluminum. HBX and H-6 are also TNT based with additives to increase their explosive power or increase their stability.
Torpex is attractive because of the increased explosive energy and higher detonation velocity of RDX as compared to TNT and the prolongation of the pressure wave by the aluminum. On a weight basis, Torpex is conservatively estimated to be about 50% more effective than TNT as an underwater explosive against ships. However, Torpex is more sensitive than TNT and RDX is expensive and difficult to make safely.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_Notes.htm

[mookiemookie]

Not sure where they got their info from. Mark 14's had 643 lbs of Torpex in the warhead.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_WWII.htm

[Hans Schultz]

Not sure where they got their info from. Mark 14's had 643 lbs of Torpex in the warhead.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_WWII.htm

643lbs ~ 292 Kg not everyone uses imperial ;)

[Ostfriese]

Not sure where they got their info from. Mark 14's had 643 lbs of Torpex in the warhead.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_WWII.htm

1 lb is equal to 0.4536 kg, so the 643 lbs transfers to 643 * 0.4536 = 291,665 kg.

292kg is close enough, I'd say.

[Steeltrap]

LMAO.....only you USA lot persist with the absurd 'imperial' system although use decimal for your currency. Go figure.

Incidentally, AFAIK the mk14 initially didn't have Torpex. I believe that was introduced in 1943 (could be wrong, haven't looked it up).

[Ostfriese]

LMAO.....only you USA lot persist with the absurd 'imperial' system although use decimal for your currency. Go figure.

Incidentally, AFAIK the mk14 initially didn't have Torpex. I believe that was introduced in 1943 (could be wrong, haven't looked it up).
Hey, don't you call me US American! ;)

The Mk 14 was introduced in 1931 and indeed used TOPREX. You probably mix it up with some other torpedo.

[OakGroove]

I'd love to minimize the swiss cheese firing required to down some of these ships! Sometimes even 2044kg of torpex/ HBX isn't enough to bring down a large modern oiler.

[Steeltrap]

LMAO.....only you USA lot persist with the absurd 'imperial' system although use decimal for your currency. Go figure.

Incidentally, AFAIK the mk14 initially didn't have Torpex. I believe that was introduced in 1943 (could be wrong, haven't looked it up).
Hey, don't you call me US American! ;)

The Mk 14 was introduced in 1931 and indeed used TOPREX. You probably mix it up with some other torpedo.

Interesting. Dick O'Kane mentions in Wahoo making an attack with a mk14 using the 'new' explosive type, torpex. I'd have thought he'd hardly have called it new if it had been in service from day 1. Curious.....

And FYI, my comment about USA and imperial was directed (playfully) at mookie, who posted the comment about it having 643lb, not 242kg....

[Uber Gruber]

LMAO.....only you USA lot persist with the absurd 'imperial' system although use decimal for your currency. Go figure.

Though it was the English Empire that gave the US the "imperial" system, which they then cunningly "tweaked" and claimed it as their own the sneeky little beggers. The same could be said for nappies (diapers), curtains (drapes), colour (color), lorries (trucks) and Aubergine (egg-plant?!!! who the hell thought that one up?!!).

That said, they were clever enough not to adopt the old "imperial" currency system of guinees, farthings, thrupenny bits and hapennys....which thankfully we dropped in the 1970s during a strange thing called "decimalisation".

[mookiemookie]

Not sure where they got their info from. Mark 14's had 643 lbs of Torpex in the warhead.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_WWII.htm
643lbs ~ 292 Kg not everyone uses imperial ;)

:damn::oops: Missed the "kg" part!

Hee hee hee....silly colonists, right? :rotfl:

[Steeltrap]

Well I'm a colonist as well, I guess!

We got all the criminals, you got the religious zealots. These days it's interesting to discuss who's better off!!!! :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Steeltrap]

Sheesh!! WTF has happened to my avatar?????

Edit: hmm, this post fixed it....had some horror called "rough night at Langtree's brothel"!!

[OakGroove]

Some figures:

TNT ~In-service date: 1911
Torpex ~ In-service date: 1930's
HBX ~ In-service date 1940's

MK 10 Torpedo
Dev. Date: 1915
Ap. In-Service date: 1915-1945

Torpedo Mk 10 was developed by the E.W. Bliss Co. and the Naval Torpedo Station, Newport, R.I., and produced in 1915 by the Torpedo Station, to be used as a fast, short-range, antisurface ship torpedo. The Mk 10 featured the largest payload (warhead of =500 pounds) of any torpedo developed up to that time. Used in R- and S-class submarines after World War I, this torpedo saw service in the early years of the second World War.

CHARACTERISTICS

PHYSICAL

Length
195 inches
Diameter
21 inches
Weight
2215 pounds
Propulsion
Steam turbine,alcohol
Enabling
No
Guidance
Gyro, straight running
Flask Air Pressure
2500 psi
Homing
None
FC Settings
Mechanical
Warhead
Mk 10 Mod 3 497 pounds TNT
Exploder
Mk 3
Contact

PERFORMANCE
Speed
36
Range
3500 yards



MK 14 Torpedo
Dev. Date: 1931
In-service Date: 1938

Torpedo Mk 14, developed as a replacement for the Mk 10 torpedo had a longer range than the Mk 10 and had a 100-pound heavier warhead charge. This torpedo was the primary submarine-launched, antisurface ship torpedo used in World War II until the introduction of the electric Torpedo Mk 18. Approximately 4,000,000 tons of Japanese shipping were sunk by the Mk 14 torpedo. Originally introduced for use as mechanically-set torpedo, the Mk 14 was modified for use with modern fire control systems (and designated Mod 5). This torpedo is still in service use. Torpedo Mk 14 was developed by the Naval Torpedo Station, Newport, R.I. and approximately 13,000 were produced during the second World War by the Naval Torpedo Stations in Newport; Alexandria, Va.; and Keyport, Wash.; and the Naval Ordnance Plant, Forest Park, Ill.

CHARACTERISTICS

PHYSICAL

Length
246 inches
Diameter
21 inches
Weight
3209 pounds
Propulsion
Turbine
Guidance
Gyro
Enabling
No
Homing
No
FC Settings
Electrical
Warhead
Mk 16 Mod 6 643 pounds HBX
Exploder
Mk 6 Mod 13
Contact

PERFORMANCE
Speed (knots)

Low
31.1
High
46.3
Range (yards)
Low
9,000
High
4500

[Uber Gruber]

We got all the criminals, you got the religious zealots. These days it's interesting to discuss who's better off!!!!

:rotfl:

It reminds me of an English film called "Hope 'n Glory", a parody of life during the Blitz in WWII. A stoic english teacher slaps here ruler against a map of the world and addresses her class with:

"What are all these pink bits?....Anyone?"

A little boy raises his hand and answers:

"They're ours miss"

"That's right lad, they're ours. That's what this wars about....the pink bits!"

So all you colonists are really subjects of Her Majesty's pink bits.....nice!

[7Enigma]

So 14 posts and no one attempts to answer my question!:o (except for SailorSteve whom's quote would mean the MK14 is about 2X as powerful as the MK10)

Steeltrap,

SailorSteve's link has this excerpt which would coincide with your post:
The earliest weapons used wet gun-cotton. Just prior to World War I, this was replaced with TNT. Torpex was introduced in the Fall of 1942. In the late 1940s Torpex was replaced by HBX, then H-6 in the 1960s and by PBX in the 1970s.

Comon people, its eating away at me. Logically the larger the explosive payload the bigger the hole/damage. Can someone please confirm this is true (therefore MK14>MK10). Ignoring the dud ratio...

[Hans Schultz]

So 14 posts and no one attempts to answer my question!:o (except for SailorSteve whom's quote would mean the MK14 is about 2X as powerful as the MK10)

Comon people, its eating away at me. Logically the larger the explosive payload the bigger the hole/damage. Can someone please confirm this is true (therefore MK14>MK10). Ignoring the dud ratio...
yes, mark 14s make a bigger boom/cause more damage. but you answered your own question in the first post.

[SteamWake]

So 14 posts and no one attempts to answer my question!:o (except for SailorSteve whom's quote would mean the MK14 is about 2X as powerful as the MK10)

Comon people, its eating away at me. Logically the larger the explosive payload the bigger the hole/damage. Can someone please confirm this is true (therefore MK14>MK10). Ignoring the dud ratio...

I found Oak Grooves post quite enlightning.

Question is are these "specs" applicable to the sim ?

[Galanti]

Yes, they are. Mk 10 does 50-100 points of damage, vice the mk 14, which weighs in at 100-150. Or something close to that. I can't confirm right now, but I know absolutely that the mk 14 is more powerful in-game. Unless you're using modded Ice-9-tipped (Kurt Vonnegut, RIP) plasma torpedoes with cobalt boosters.

[7Enigma]

So 14 posts and no one attempts to answer my question!:o (except for SailorSteve whom's quote would mean the MK14 is about 2X as powerful as the MK10)

Comon people, its eating away at me. Logically the larger the explosive payload the bigger the hole/damage. Can someone please confirm this is true (therefore MK14>MK10). Ignoring the dud ratio...
I found Oak Grooves post quite enlightning.

Question is are these "specs" applicable to the sim ?
His post was wierd. If you look at it closely it says Mark14 but then under the explosives its giving data for the Mark16. So I couldn't compare them directly.

Galanti, you posted EXACTLY what I was looking for (something coded into the game). I will be changing my loadout to exclusively Mark14 from now on. If they are doing on average 60% more "damage" there is no reason not to, even with the extra chance of failure.

[OakGroove]

So 14 posts and no one attempts to answer my question!:o (except for SailorSteve whom's quote would mean the MK14 is about 2X as powerful as the MK10)

Comon people, its eating away at me. Logically the larger the explosive payload the bigger the hole/damage. Can someone please confirm this is true (therefore MK14>MK10). Ignoring the dud ratio...
I found Oak Grooves post quite enlightning.

Question is are these "specs" applicable to the sim ?
His post was wierd. If you look at it closely it says Mark14 but then under the explosives its giving data for the Mark16. So I couldn't compare them directly.

Galanti, you posted EXACTLY what I was looking for (something coded into the game). I will be changing my loadout to exclusively Mark14 from now on. If they are doing on average 60% more "damage" there is no reason not to, even with the extra chance of failure.

MK 16 Mod 6 is the Warhead- , not the torpedo designation. :hmm:

[7Enigma]

So 14 posts and no one attempts to answer my question!:o (except for SailorSteve whom's quote would mean the MK14 is about 2X as powerful as the MK10)

Comon people, its eating away at me. Logically the larger the explosive payload the bigger the hole/damage. Can someone please confirm this is true (therefore MK14>MK10). Ignoring the dud ratio...
I found Oak Grooves post quite enlightning.

Question is are these "specs" applicable to the sim ?
His post was wierd. If you look at it closely it says Mark14 but then under the explosives its giving data for the Mark16. So I couldn't compare them directly.

Galanti, you posted EXACTLY what I was looking for (something coded into the game). I will be changing my loadout to exclusively Mark14 from now on. If they are doing on average 60% more "damage" there is no reason not to, even with the extra chance of failure.
MK 16 Mod 6 is the Warhead- , not the torpedo designation. :hmm:

Then what is HBX? Another form of Torpex or something that came along later in the war?

[Calbeck]

On my current run in a P-class, I'm taking a mixed bag --- Mk10s in the first salvoes for reliability, 14s in the reserve bays. That way if I run across a carrier or battleship early on, I can dump a spread at an escort or two to open a hole, reposition to reload the 14s, and dart back in to whack the big 'un.

Against smaller targets, the 10s are plenty deadly.

[OakGroove]

So 14 posts and no one attempts to answer my question!:o (except for SailorSteve whom's quote would mean the MK14 is about 2X as powerful as the MK10)

Comon people, its eating away at me. Logically the larger the explosive payload the bigger the hole/damage. Can someone please confirm this is true (therefore MK14>MK10). Ignoring the dud ratio...
I found Oak Grooves post quite enlightning.

Question is are these "specs" applicable to the sim ?
His post was wierd. If you look at it closely it says Mark14 but then under the explosives its giving data for the Mark16. So I couldn't compare them directly.

Galanti, you posted EXACTLY what I was looking for (something coded into the game). I will be changing my loadout to exclusively Mark14 from now on. If they are doing on average 60% more "damage" there is no reason not to, even with the extra chance of failure.
MK 16 Mod 6 is the Warhead- , not the torpedo designation. :hmm:
Then what is HBX? Another form of Torpex or something that came along later in the war?

HBX is a binary explosive; RDX, TNT, and aluminum powder are combined in "High Brissance Explosives" i.e. "HBX-1", "HBX-3", and "H-6". These formulations are more powerful than TNT. HBX-3 has a high proportion of aluminum powder enhancer for shock effect, and is used in underwater munitions such as depth charges.

BTW. I've found an excellent site on the torpedo topic, right now i'm compiling all information into one easy to access .pdf. From the Howell to the MK48 torpedo, everything is covered.

[7Enigma]

Sounds awesome. Please post a link in here if you can.

[Ping Jockey]

Good post OAKGROOVE:up: :up:

[OakGroove]

http://www.speedyshare.com/377306491.html
.pdf is up, 58 US torpedoes are included. Enjoy. :ping:

[TheSatyr]

~rant on~

Too bad the fact that the manufacturing of MkXs had been discontinued long before the war started isn't factored into the game. There was a finite number of them available and the ONLY time fleet boats ever used them is when a base was running low on MkIVs. Other than that,they were only used on S-Boats.

To me,having anything other than MkIVs on a fleet boat is gamey and unrealistic.(At least until the Mk18s came into use).

~rant off~

[ccruner13]

~rant on~

Too bad the fact that the manufacturing of MkXs had been discontinued long before the war started isn't factored into the game. There was a finite number of them available and the ONLY time fleet boats ever used them is when a base was running low on MkIVs. Other than that,they were only used on S-Boats.

To me,having anything other than MkIVs on a fleet boat is gamey and unrealistic.(At least until the Mk18s came into use).

~rant off~

well that happened to me once...i had to take on about 6 mk10s because there werent enough 14s but usually there are a ton of both