Quote:
Originally Posted by Platapus
If your intended target is an armoured hull of a military ship, the story changes. To penetrate armour (as opposed to spalding the armour) you will need a higher Brisance explosive.
In this case, the US torpedoes with Torpex woudl be more effective at compromising the integrity of the armoured hull of a military ship..... assuming the damned Mark 14/Mark 6 even functioned.. but that is another story.
|
This is where I disagree. It's my understanding (I've read some actual sources but don't have them handy right now, so "it's my understanding" is as far as I will commit right now) that tests were done during the First World War that concluded that hardened armor isn't really more resistant to a torpedo hit than mild steel. The armor was designed to resist 'point hit's from a shell coming in at supersonic speeds. What did help a little was the fact that the armor was much thicker than the usual 1/4-to-1/2 inch steel plates found on destroyers up through merchants, but the very weight of the armor meant that it couldn't be very wide, usually ending just a few feet below the waterline. This left the lower hull exposed, and toward the end of World War 1 the British started experimenting with TDS (Torpedo Defense Systems). These usually consisted of a 'bulge' of mild steel which was filled with some liquid, allowing the torpedo to rupture the bulge and not reach the hull. The magnetic detonator was originally created to counter that, since the bulge itself couldn't be made to wrap around the bottom of the ship.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-047.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-torpedo_bulge