Book Research

[merc4ulfate]

Average January temperatures are −10 °C (14 °F) in the north and 3 °C (37 °F) in the south Yellow Sea area. The water temperature is close to freezing in the northern part in winter, so drift ice patches and continuous ice fields form and hinder navigation between November and March.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Sea



Batteries are less efficient in the cold. All batteries deliver their power via a chemical reaction inside the battery that releases electrons. When the temperature drops, the chemical reactions happen more slowly and the battery cannot produce the same current that it can at room temperature. A change of ten degrees can sap 50 percent of a battery's output. In some situations, the chemical reactions will happen so slowly and give so little power that the battery will appear to be dead when, in fact, if it is warmed up, it will go right back to normal output.

[TorpX]

Originally Posted by merc4ulfate

Batteries are less efficient in the cold. ...

Yes, I understand the chemistry well enough. However, this was late in the war, and I was under the impression that pre-heating the batteries and insulation, had more or less eliminated the problem. If that was not the case, why issue the Mk. 18? They knew where they were going, and as you pointed out, cold temps. there were not exceptional.

It makes me wonder if the Mk. 18's were used by choice, or if they were forced upon the crews. A torpedo that can't reliably make a 2,000 yd. run, isn't much of a torpedo.

[Sailor Steve]

Google is your friend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_18_torpedo

The Mk 18 was based on the German G7e. They wanted a wakeless electric torpedo. They accepted that there would be problems, but the wakeless torpedo was needed. Apparently it was popular because the potential problems were unknown and the benefits were believed at the time to outweigh any negatives.
http://www.hnsa.org/doc/torpedomk18/index.htm

[TorpX]

Ok, I don't know why people are assuming my comments about the Mk. 18 are based on ignorance, and that I've never read anything about torpedoes before. I'll just state that that is not the case.

They wanted a wakeless electric torpedo. They accepted that there would be problems, but the wakeless torpedo was needed.

I'm not sure who wanted the wakeless torpedo. Certainly, many liked the idea, but it is not clear to me that there was any pre-existing yearning, much less need, for such. The problems written about, seemed to come as a rude surprise, and I question whether either the Navy or it's skippers, would have accepted the electric torpedo, if they had known of the disadvantages that came with it.

I think most of the impetus for the Mk. 18 came from the extraordinary frustration with the Mk. 14, and perhaps, a certain amount of German-envy. (I'm talking about the common, prejudiced idea that any German weapon/technology was superior to the Allied counterpart.) If you have been stuck depending on a defective tool (whatever the reasons), you would naturally be looking around for something else to try.

Of course, that is just my opinion. I'm sure others will disagree.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by TorpX

Ok, I don't know why people are assuming my comments about the Mk. 18 are based on ignorance, and that I've never read anything about torpedoes before. I'll just state that that is not the case.

Sorry. I didn't mean to sound condescending. The truth is that I haven't read all that much about torpedoes myself, and sometimes when I come across something that seems obvious to me I tend to forget that it may or may not even be true, much less "obvious" to someone who may know more than I do.

I'm not sure who wanted the wakeless torpedo. Certainly, many liked the idea, but it is not clear to me that there was any pre-existing yearning, much less need, for such.

Upon closer reading of the Wiki article I linked, the "they" who wanted the electric torpedo seems to have been Admiral King, period. He may not have been the only one, which is why I wrote "seems to be".

The problems written about, seemed to come as a rude surprise, and I question whether either the Navy or it's skippers, would have accepted the electric torpedo, if they had known of the disadvantages that came with it.

Probably not. To quote the article:

The first submarines to use Mark 18s (still not perfected) were Eugene Sands' Spearfish and Mush Morton's Wahoo in September 1943. Wahoo disappeared, and Sands "experienced enough torpedo problems to drive an ordinary man berserk": one sank, one broached and ran wild, three fishtailed at launch and hit the outer doors before disappearing, and seven missed astern. His results, as described by his squadron commander, "Gin" Styer, in a masterpiece of understatement, "were disappointing".

I think most of the impetus for the Mk. 18 came from the extraordinary frustration with the Mk. 14, and perhaps, a certain amount of German-envy. (I'm talking about the common, prejudiced idea that any German weapon/technology was superior to the Allied counterpart.) If you have been stuck depending on a defective tool (whatever the reasons), you would naturally be looking around for something else to try.

Of course, that is just my opinion. I'm sure others will disagree.

Others possibly, but not me. That makes as much sense as anything I've heard.