Last Real Life Torpedo Sinking?

[Sawdust]

Just curious: :hmm:
What was the last time that a ship was sunk by an enemy torpedo from a submarine/U-boat in real life? Has this occurred since WWII?

I'm interested in actual hostile action, no training exercises. And no speculative sinkings please.

[GrimKnight]

Not sure, I think there was at least one british sub attacking an argentinian cruiser during the war for the falkland islands?

[SmokinTep]

British sub during the Falkland war.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/2/newsid_2480000/2480241.stm

[TAW_CZAREJS]

HMS Conqueror sank the Argentinian cruiser General Belgrano.To me the controversial thing wasn't the sinking. What really got people upset was the Conqueror coming back to port flying a Jolly
Roger flag. A time honored tradition but one that appeared to many as a callous act.( Personally I don't subscribe to that view) :arrgh!:

[Trefoil]

As a Brit, I shouldn' t be disloyal to the BBC, But the article wrongly supposed that the modern wire guided Tigerfish torpedo was used in the attack.

In fact, the 'General Belgrano' was sunk by two Mark VIII torpedoes which was the main British torpedo used in both World Wars and thought to be more reliable than the Tigerfish. I believe the attack was made at less tham 1000 metres, in a manner which would have been very familiar to U-Boat captains.

The Argentine cruiser formerly belonged to the Americans and dated back to WWII - A survivor of the Pearl Harbor attack.

[the_rydster]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/17/ARA_Belgrano_sinking.jpg

Found this cool picture of the sinking of ARA Belgrano, you can see how the bow has been destroyed.

3 Conventional MK 8 mod 4 torpedos were fired, two of which scored a hit. The first (and only I think) sinking of a surface warship by a nuclear sub.

Dunno why straight running torps were used? I would have thought in 1983 better alternatives were available. Reliability maybe as stated above?

[Gammel]

sorry, slightly off topic but maybe interesting.

some more ships ran into trouble that war...
http://www.naval-history.net/F62brshipslost.htm

Note: If the frequent unexploded bombs (1-13) had detonated on striking some of the ships listed below, the Royal Navy's additional losses quite possibly might have put the eventual success of the British Task Force in doubt.

so how about shooting planes down with an uboats flak gun? :rotfl:
Do you think that ships didn´t had air defence systems?
Sorry for completly hijacking the thread now.

[Ginger Beer]

The Argentine cruiser formerly belonged to the Americans and dated back to WWII - A survivor of the Pearl Harbor attack.

USS Phoenix, to be exact. Here she is on that day.

http://img272.imageshack.us/img272/3416/cl46phoenixpearl2ij.gif

HMS Conqueror remains the only nuclear submarine ever to engage an enemy warship with torpedoes.

[Ducimus]

HMS Conqueror sank the Argentinian cruiser General Belgrano.To me the controversial thing wasn't the sinking. What really got people upset was the Conqueror coming back to port flying a Jolly
Roger flag. A time honored tradition but one that appeared to many as a callous act.( Personally I don't subscribe to that view) :arrgh!:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/HMS_Conqueror_%28S48%29.jpg

YARRR!!

[Hartmann]

A nuclear submarine firing a wwII torpedo at black point range against a ww2 cruiser... :o

Belgrano don´t have any destroyer scort ???

[Ginger Beer]

A nuclear submarine firing a wwII torpedo at black point range against a ww2 cruiser... :o

Belgrano don´t have any destroyer scort ???

She had two frigates in company, but they failed to detect Conquerors presence.

[Trefoil]

The escorts' sonar system, which could have detected the 'Conquerer'
was switched off at the time. (The 'General Belgrano' did not possess a sonar system)

One, the 'Hipolito Bouchard' was hit by a torpedo which failed to explode. The second escort, the 'Piedra Bueno', dropped some depth charges, but, as stated, probably never detected the British sub.

[the_rydster]

The Argies didn't have the technology on those two destroyer escorts to detect a nuclear sub.

Also they did not know it was in the vicinity (how would they)?

After the attack the two destroyers left the area quickly one in each direction to save themselves (lacking good ASW gear). This is one reason why the Belgrano crew had to wait in the water for 2 day (I think) and many drowned.

Don't think the torps were fired at point blank range. I mean one missed and looks like at least one just hit (right on the bow). We know from playing SHIII (if you use manual at least!) how hard it is to hit a war ship. Captains of Nuclear hunter-killers to have a the ability to do 30 knots underwater though!

[urseus]

I read that modern torpedos have a long copper wire that is still attached to to the ship after fired, so it can recieve constant updates on positioning right up untill it hits.

[Razman23]

There was a show about this on the History/Military/Science/Yadda Yadda Channel about four months ago.

The cruiser was the pride of the Argentine Navy and the rest of the ships were not really up to par with the Royal Navy.

What the Argentine Navy lacked, their air force made up for in the French 'Exocert' A/S missile which the Royal Navy would soon discover.

[Sarge McSarge]

It wasn't just the exocet that did the damage. The Air Force A4 Skyhawks scored quite a number of bomb hits on British ships and if all hits had exploded there would have been a higher number of sinkings. I can't recall the exact details but one particular Argintinian squadron scored almost all the hits and this occured an missions led by two particular individuals. As usual it's not the weapon but the opperator that makes the difference.

Sarge

[MuscleBob.Buffpants]

The Argentine A4's were dropping slick (non retarded) Mk82 500lb bombs. They fuzed them with the M904 fuze (a point detonating mechanical fuze).

Only problem is the M904 when dropped as a slick takes time to arm - normally set about 15sec as that is adequate when droping from altitude or when toss-bombing. Any shorter and a low altitude release could plan the aircraft within the frag pattern of the bomb. Which is bad.

As the British SAMs and Harriers forced the A4's to keep low, the fuze didn't have sufficient time to arm before hitting.

If the Argentines had the Snake eye tail, set the fuze with a 1.5 sec arm time and a 20 millisecond delay, there may have been a lot more Royal Navy ships at the bottom.

MuscleBob
Ex A4 BB stacker.

[JohnnyPotPie]

really cool postings everybody :rock:

[Sarge McSarge]

I remember the Brits were very unhappy when the british media reported that there were unexploded bombs in some of the ships. They didn't want the Argintinians to know about the fuze situation. One thing that interested me was the ammount of damage caused by the impact of the bombs that did not explode. Damage to all sorts of systems, fires, crew injuries etc. I guess when you drop a 500lb (226kg) hunk of steel at a fwe hundred knots its going to make a mess. Same with the exocet. Quite a bit of the damage is caused by the impact and the unused rocket fuel even if the warhead does not explode.

Sarge

[John Channing]

Well... if I remember first year physics...

Force = Mass x Velocity.

500 Lbs moving at 300 Miles per hour could certainly ruin your day, even if it didn't explode.

JCC

[iambecomelife]

Well... if I remember first year physics...

Force = Mass x Velocity.

500 Lbs moving at 300 Miles per hour could certainly ruin your day, even if it didn't explode.

JCC

Yep. I read that the unexploded bombs often caused terrible damage & some casualties on the lightly-built British vessels they hit. Plus, the friction can still cause fires even if the warhead and explosives remain inert.

[dhw200]

The reason that WWII torps were used and not modern ones was cost. Its far cheaper to get vintage WWII torps than modern wire guided fish. The older torps also had a larger warhead, so they do more damage. The shot the Conquerer used was a classic Perisher shot. Fire one ahead of the ship, one at the center, one at the stern. The impacts was one bow hit and one stern hit. Perisher is the command qualification course that every British sub commander takes and MUST pass to command a sub.

And im american, not british in case ur wondering.

[Captain Vlad]

Didn't a Pakistani sub torpedo an Indian destroyer, or something like that, at some point?

[Razman23]

It wasn't just the exocet that did the damage. The Air Force A4 Skyhawks scored quite a number of bomb hits on British ships and if all hits had exploded there would have been a higher number of sinkings. I can't recall the exact details but one particular Argintinian squadron scored almost all the hits and this occured an missions led by two particular individuals. As usual it's not the weapon but the opperator that makes the difference.

Sarge

I agree totally with your assessment (SP?).

Have you seen the video of the attack on the Royal Navy in the bay? Its the one where you see all the supply ships and all the white dots flying around is the A4s.

I particulary like the A4 that explodes in mid-air. Quite a show even if the pilot didnt make it. :dead:

[Spaxspore]

Intresting Read guys, thanks for the info

[pampanito]

Didn't a Pakistani sub torpedo an Indian destroyer, or something like that, at some point?

Yes. Pakistan submarine HANGOR sank the Indian frigate KHUKRI on 9 December 1971 with the loss of 194 men.

Full article:
http://indiannavy.nic.in/Tr2Trmph/chapters/10_1971%20wnc1.htm