Mk-48 Torpedo Results

[TorpX]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I think you are being a bit harsh

Remember that after the attack on Cavite , the US Navy lost a good number of torpedoes. About half in the PTO If my poor memory serves. This meant that there was a critical shortage of torpedoes in the early years of the war.

Yes, this is true. BuOrd used this as an excuse to avoid live testing. So, for month after month, torpedos (and opportunities) were wasted because of a defective exploder. It would have been much better to sacrifice a few torps to put the matter beyond doubt, than continue adrift, wondering why enemy ships aren't being hit.

There was a choice. Fight with the weapons you have, or keep the subs berthed. During wartime the latter is not a popular decision.

I agree keeping subs berthed would have been unacceptable. The torps could have been fixed, however. Really, there was no good reason why it couldn't have been done before the outbreak of war.

There was not a lot of money or spare torpedoes for testing, even during the war. Sure with 70 years of hindsight the decision is self-evident. But when evaluating historical decisions, it is important to only evaluate them with the data that was available to the decision makers at that time.

I agree people had to use the tools available at the time, but the notion that testing could not be done, even after the defense budget increases in the late 30's is absurd. What does it cost to build whole squardrons of state-of-the-art fleetboats?

The Mk 14 had checked out satisfactory in testing. That is a documented fact. However, as found out later, the testing process was flawed. But at the time no one knew about it.


The Mk6 exploder also checked out satisfactory in testing. But as discovered later, the testing was not a rigorous or as extensive as was needed. But no one knew that at the time.

The point is they should have known. There was almost no testing of the exploder, and little testing of depth control. Nor was such testing especially difficult; they simply chose not to do it.

It is very hard to diagnose errors in a system of systems when there may be multiple things wrong with it. Also, the shooting skill of early sub captains was rightfully suspect in the early years of the war.

All the more reason to put the matter beyond doubt with proper tests. Net shots are childishly simple, and impact testing of the exploder need not be difficult either. I'll grant you the MI feature of the Mk 6 was probably, given the tools available, impossible to adequately test. That being the case they should have made darned sure the impact mechanism worked properly.

Early war patrol reports showed that torpedoes simply missed. Who knows of those missed torpedoes ran deep, or had a faulty pistol?

Indeed. Without any real testing you can only guess.

Rockin Robins and others can tell us more than we ever wanted to know about how much the captains did NOT know about their targets or how to hit them.

Given only the information available at the time, and not having the advantage of 70 years of after action research, the Navy did not do all that bad. Were there political influences concerning torpedo development. Oh boy yes (Check out the book, Hellions of the deep). Where there bureaucratic fighting between BuOrd and ops. Double oh boy yes.

But there were no traitors involved, not even Capt English. Every one involved was making the best decision based on the limited data they had access to.

I have read the book. I don't see how anything in it excuses the failures of BuOrd or the Navy.

That is the tricky part about historical research. It is so important to segregate any and all knowledge that the people you are studying did not have. This is party of my professional job and it is tough. We lose a lot of analysts who can't segregate.

Wrong decisions were made. That is undeniable. But they are also, at the same time understandable.

Again, I don't see how these things can simply be written off to "understandable mistakes". It is one thing, if you test a device to the limits of your ability, and defects get by. It is something else, when you just refuse to make any worthwhile tests of a grossly defective device. (I am of course speaking of the exploder, not the torpedo as a whole.)

It is worth pointing out that Adm. Lockwood thought the matter important enough to make live test shots at Pearl Harbor. That he needed to take time and effort away from his regular duties, in a time of war, is a disgrace, IMO. What was the response from BuOrd? Did they promptly get to work fixing the defects shown? No, their response was to criticise the tests.

Really, the Mk 6 exploder, was not the Manhattan Project. The Army (and Navy) managed to come up with ways to get bombs and shells to explode on target. The 'VT' proximity fuze was fielded. It is hard to see why the Navy could not have done the same with their torpedos.