[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

Precisely!"The crew programmes the torpedo."

Originally Posted by BigWalleye

Erm, beggin' yer pardon, but yer a bit late to the party. You really should read all the posts on this thread. Then go check out tvre.org/en/ for an eyeopener as to what the Siemens T. Vh. Re. S3 actually was, and still is, capable of doing. That would include getting continuous input from the sub's gyrocompass and the periscope/UZO target bearing transmitter, continuously calculating a firing solution, and automatically (No human intervention!) setting the torpedo gyro angle while the eel is in the tube. The TVR S3 was in service in the KM from mid-1941 on.

Please note that tvre.org represents the results of reverse-engineering the existing Siemens S3 which was installed in U-995 when it was launched in 1943 and can still be seen on board that vessel at the Laboe museum today. Check it out. Better than a movie!

Apologies! I did include a "" after 'precisely' I couldn't believe the photo's verbatim caption myself. Another caption for the same photo reads "World War 2 torpedoes were quite fickle. They had to be pulled from their tubes and serviced every two or three days." As per snakedocpl: I assmed it would have to do with the 'eel's' notorious depth problems prior to Lt Ites pressure discvery/solution abord U-94. Yer Siemans-ship don't mean a thing if the eel won't run at depth!

On January 30,('42)!! the crew of U-94 made a little extra effort and conducted an on-board examination of their torpedoes amidst the Atlantic. They thus discovered an excess pressure in the torpedoes' balance chambers, where the hydrostatic valve controlling the depth at which the 'fish' ran was located. When they radioed back their findings, the Inspector of the Torpedo Department ordered a check on board all submarines in port. Half of the torpedoes were found to have the same problem, and the mystery of the torpedoes' deeper-than-set-depth run was finally fathomed. The results of this and later investigations were summed up into a Memorandum by Grand Admiral Raeder on Feb 9, 1942.

Proof: Heads rolled at German torpedo technology development (arrests and jail) and Ites, a POW until 1946, retired in 1977 as Konteradmiral!

America and Germany learned the hard way that torpedoes are finicky weapons that cannot tolerate shortcuts. The most complex naval weapons of World War II, they demanded meticulous design, rigorous testing and intensive maintenance—not to mention exacting targeting and launch procedures. Lack of rigor at any stage from initial design to the torpedo's use in combat could result in failure, and the many opportunities for mistakes made it hard to tell where the fault lay, even after the weapon's poor performance became obvious.

Seen in this light, German and American torpedo failures are quite understandable. Only in hindsight is it apparent that the more complicated torpedoes developed for World War II demanded an unprecedented level of technical and operational evaluation. And even Germany's veteran submarine leaders never thought to second-guess their Torpedo Directorate until the problems became obvious.

Germany fixed most of her torpedo problems in less than half the time it took the United States because her submarine leadership was more experienced and because submarines were the mainstay of her navy. Doenitz and his staff knew from the start how to establish a trusting relationship with U-boat skippers and how to evaluate their reports. Senior American submariners had to learn those skills on the job. U-boats took the lead in Germany's naval war, while American submarines played second fiddle to battleships before Pearl Harbor and to aircraft carriers afterwards. If U.S. carriers had lost the Battle of Midway because their bombs failed to explode, it's safe to say the problem would have gotten a lot more attention than torpedo failures did.

I've been following this thread with great interest, look'd up all the links and had actually written two previous posts but deigned to submit due to the superiority of the ongoing discussion upon which I could hardly improve.
It's the best discussion of the two systems I've seen in the forum in over two years. Anything though to get a rise out of a 'ol Wisconsinite A Hamm's all 'round!