Mk-48 Torpedo Results

Roger Dodger · 02-13-12, 01:52 PM

I thought some of you would like to see how our torpedoes have improved since WWII. Too bad the Mk-14's magnetic exploders didn't work this well.

Use the links to view the video.

http://s204.photobucket.com/albums/b...ustraliano.mp4

You have never seen footage where a single torpedo does damage like this. It's a US made (non-nuclear) torpedo that is in use today by our submarines. Very precise, very accurate and very powerful.

This is the Australian Submarine Navy doing a live torpedo practice shot on one of their decommissioned ships. They used a MK 48 torpedo developed in the USA .

It is not a contact weapon. It is designed to go off directly underneath the ship at about 50 feet under the keel. The effect is devastating as you can see from the video. This lethal weapon can break the back of ships much larger than the one shown in this video. They don't even have a chance of survival.

http://s204.photobucket.com/albums/b...ustraliano.mp4

Wikipedia article on this torpedo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_48_torpedo . Lots of interesting specs including the $3.8 MILLION cost per EACH. NOTE: the Mk-14 cost around $10,000 each, and were thought to be too expensive for 'live' testing. "Don't worry, they work fine in the blueprints."

Sailor Steve · 02-13-12, 01:55 PM

That video is several years old now, and it's been put up here a dozen times or more. I'm sure there are some newbies who will appreciate it, though.

Stealhead · 02-13-12, 07:31 PM

[/QUOTE]Wikipedia article on this torpedo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_48_torpedo . Lots of interesting specs including the $3.8 MILLION cost per EACH. NOTE: the Mk-14 cost around $10,000 each, and were thought to be too expensive for 'live' testing. "Don't worry, they work fine in the blueprints."[/QUOTE]

They did test the Mk.14 but with the magnetic detonator they did not test a live round and it was off the east coast the reason they did so little testing was because they wanted to keep it secret (this was in the late 30s) the problem with the mk.14 was that it went through a very limited and unrealistic testing program.Once they ran tests in Fremantle and Hawaii the submariners solved the mk.14s problems without the help of engineers.

That is $10,000 in 1941 dollars it would be much closer to the cost of the current Mk.48 do not forget that in 1940 the Mk.14 was cutting edge.Its cost in modern dollars would be about the same as the Mk.48. A Mk.14 torpedo would cost about $155,446.10 in 2011 dollars.A mk.48 would cost about $257,323.92 in 1941 dollars.

People would be shocked if they knew how much weapons cost one JADM costs $35,000-70,000 depending on the bomb size one B-2 bomber costs 2 billion dollars can you believe that for just one plane a US Navy carrier you could almost argue is priceless if you counted the value of the its crew and aircraft warfare is very expensive and that is just in monetary terms not mention in the lives makes you think about Eisenhower's famous speech .

inflation calculator actually very interesting: http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm

kstanb · 02-13-12, 10:06 PM

Yes, at $3.8M it is expensive, but it is a +90% sure kill; Mark 14s were expected to be launch in salvos and a 10% success rate more than acceptable according to :
http://www.hnsa.org/doc/subsinpacific.htm#pg9

"Number of Torpedoes Fired by U.S. Submarines

Total number fired = 14,748
Average number fired per attack = 3.586 Average number fired per ship sunk = 14,748 /1,392 = 10.59.
(8 in 1942; 11.7 in 1943; 10 in 1944) "

Something interesting I recently read: at the Java Sea battle, the Japanese launched 92 torpedos in one salvo and achieved 1 hit ! ... and that was in some ways successful since in the end they won the battle with fewer losses than if those torpedoes would not had been fired

Roger Dodger · 02-14-12, 12:35 AM

Wikipedia article on this torpedo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_48_torpedo . Lots of interesting specs including the $3.8 MILLION cost per EACH. NOTE: the Mk-14 cost around $10,000 each, and were thought to be too expensive for 'live' testing. "Don't worry, they work fine in the blueprints."[/QUOTE]

They did test the Mk.14 but with the magnetic detonator they did not test a live round and it was off the east coast the reason they did so little testing was because they wanted to keep it secret (this was in the late 30s) the problem with the mk.14 was that it went through a very limited and unrealistic testing program.Once they ran tests in Fremantle and Hawaii the submariners solved the mk.14s problems without the help of engineers.

That is $10,000 in 1941 dollars it would be much closer to the cost of the current Mk.48 do not forget that in 1940 the Mk.14 was cutting edge.Its cost in modern dollars would be about the same as the Mk.48. A Mk.14 torpedo would cost about $155,446.10 in 2011 dollars.A mk.48 would cost about $257,323.92 in 1941 dollars.

People would be shocked if they knew how much weapons cost one JADM costs $35,000-70,000 depending on the bomb size one B-2 bomber costs 2 billion dollars can you believe that for just one plane a US Navy carrier you could almost argue is priceless if you counted the value of the its crew and aircraft warfare is very expensive and that is just in monetary terms not mention in the lives makes you think about Eisenhower's famous speech .

inflation calculator actually very interesting: http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm[/QUOTE]

Interesting calculator! A dollar today = 7 CENTS in 1942.

A USS Virginia class sub today runs around $2 Billion ($14 Million in 1942). What was the price of a Gato/Balao class sub in WWII? Of course the new subs are 'somewhat' more sophisticated than they were in WWII.

God Bless Electric Boat

PacificWolf · 02-14-12, 10:44 AM

Wow that was an amazing split-in-half explosion, i'd like to see how the battleship or aircraft carrier "reacts" to this beauty.

Sailor Steve · 02-14-12, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PacificWolf

Wow that was an amazing split-in-half explosion, i'd like to see how the battleship or aircraft carrier "reacts" to this beauty.

Not as well. They have much thicker, stronger keels and are much harder to break. A destroyer is a lightweight by any standard.

PacificWolf · 02-14-12, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Not as well. They have much thicker, stronger keels and are much harder to break. A destroyer is a lightweight by any standard.

Yes youre right, but i wonder how many of them needs to hit a battleship to sunk.
And another question, was there a battleship that was split in two in any war? Im just curious.

kstanb · 02-14-12, 02:14 PM

google "HMS Barham" ; it didn't split in half, but looks kind of scary

i think BBs were too strong to split in half ... most of the spectacular sinkings were due to magazine explosions

Sailor Steve · 02-14-12, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PacificWolf

Yes youre right, but i wonder how many of them needs to hit a battleship to sunk.

Musashi was hit by 17 bombs and 19 torpedoes. Yamato was hit by 12 bombs and 7 torpedoes. Both cases were probably overkill, and I would guess it would take not more than four of five Mk 48s to sink them. Their sister Shinano was turned into an aircraft carrier which was sunk by 4 torpedoes from USS Archerfish, but there were special circumstances contributing to her sinking.

Quote:

And another question, was there a battleship that was split in two in any war? Im just curious.

Hood, of course. Any ship suffering a main magazine explosion involving firing charges for 80-100 shells will certain crack the keel and break the ship in two.

Stealhead · 02-14-12, 06:34 PM

I think a Gato cost about $400,000.00~$450,000.00 that was just for initial build each refit might cost $100,000.00 or more so talking 1940s dollars around $6,217,843.97 in 2011 dollars.

TorpX · 02-15-12, 03:47 AM

Quote:

Yes, at $3.8M it is expensive, but it is a +90% sure kill; Mark 14s were expected to be launch in salvos and a 10% success rate more than acceptable...

How does torpedoing a small, uncrewed, ship at anchor prove a weapon is capable of giving 90% sure kills in battle? This sort of test strikes me as being no more serious than those done with the Mk 14's and others before WWII.

Quote:

They did test the Mk.14 but with the magnetic detonator they did not test a live round and it was off the east coast the reason they did so little testing was because they wanted to keep it secret (this was in the late 30s) the problem with the mk.14 was that it went through a very limited and unrealistic testing program.Once they ran tests in Fremantle and Hawaii the submariners solved the mk.14s problems without the help of engineers.

In 1926, they did two live tests with a Magnetic Influence exploder. In the first one, the torp ran under the target without exploding, it being considered to have run too deep. When the torpedo was adjusted and fired again, it exploded under and sank the target (an obsolete sub). It should be noted that these were not production Mk 14's and Mk 6 exploders, but rather prototypes that were modified later, so these were not really "battlefield" tests of frontline weapons. Nevertheless, they were impressive enough to be considered a success.

I believe the main reason for such skimpy testing was the expense, not secrecy. Not only were the torpedos themselves very expensive, but suitable "targets" were nearly impossible to obtain. Further testing was done with test warheads, using "electric eyes" and recording devices and the like.

IMO, proving the effectiveness of the MI exploder would be almost impossible without blowing up a large number of ships. The Navy would have been much better off to focus on impact detonation, which could be tested and didn't have all the messy unknowns of MI. Verification of running depth was easily done with net shots, and testing of impact exploders can be done by dropping test warheads against steel plates and the designs analyzed afterwards. Impact forces can be calculated and this does not require live shots, or mapping magnetic forces around a ship, or adjusting for the earth's magnetic field.

Roger Dodger · 02-15-12, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TorpX

IMO, proving the effectiveness of the MI exploder would be almost impossible without blowing up a large number of ships. The Navy would have been much better off to focus on impact detonation, which could be tested and didn't have all the messy unknowns of MI. Verification of running depth was easily done with net shots, and testing of impact exploders can be done by dropping test warheads against steel plates and the designs analyzed afterwards. Impact forces can be calculated and this does not require live shots, or mapping magnetic forces around a ship, or adjusting for the earth's magnetic field.

Ah, you must have seen the movie "Operation Pacific" (1951). That John Wayne is such a hero

. The film is supposed to have been based on real events (except the sappy love interest

).

From IMDb:
During WWII, a submarine's second in command inherits the problem of torpedoes that don't explode. When on shore, he is eager to win back his ex-wife.

Bilge_Rat · 02-15-12, 11:17 AM

To be fair, the magnetic influence exploder was the "wonder weapon" of submariners in the pre-war period and was being developped by the Kriegsmarine and the Royal Navy as well. The same concept was used in British, American and German magnetic mines. It was not all the U.S. Navy's fault since Congress had cut military budgets to the bone in the 20's (disarmament) and 30's (depression) which severely limited live testing. The Kriegsmarine which had an unlimited budget after 1933 still wound up with a malfunctioning torpedo MI in 1939.

kstanb · 02-15-12, 01:59 PM

What was completely US navy's fault was to stick to this magnetic detonator for one year and a half; even after numerous reports from captains... There is a big problem when you put more trust on office bureaucrats than front line captains.

02-13-12, 01:52 PM	#1
Roger Dodger Sonar Guy Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 384 Downloads: 74 Uploads: 0	Mk-48 Torpedo Results I thought some of you would like to see how our torpedoes have improved since WWII. Too bad the Mk-14's magnetic exploders didn't work this well. Use the links to view the video. http://s204.photobucket.com/albums/b...ustraliano.mp4 You have never seen footage where a single torpedo does damage like this. It's a US made (non-nuclear) torpedo that is in use today by our submarines. Very precise, very accurate and very powerful. This is the Australian Submarine Navy doing a live torpedo practice shot on one of their decommissioned ships. They used a MK 48 torpedo developed in the USA . It is not a contact weapon. It is designed to go off directly underneath the ship at about 50 feet under the keel. The effect is devastating as you can see from the video. This lethal weapon can break the back of ships much larger than the one shown in this video. They don't even have a chance of survival. http://s204.photobucket.com/albums/b...ustraliano.mp4 Wikipedia article on this torpedo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_48_torpedo . Lots of interesting specs including the $3.8 MILLION cost per EACH. NOTE: the Mk-14 cost around $10,000 each, and were thought to be too expensive for 'live' testing. "Don't worry, they work fine in the blueprints." __________________ Last edited by Roger Dodger; 02-13-12 at 02:12 PM.

02-13-12, 01:55 PM	#2
Sailor Steve Eternal Patrol Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: High in the mountains of Utah Posts: 50,369 Downloads: 745 Uploads: 249	That video is several years old now, and it's been put up here a dozen times or more. I'm sure there are some newbies who will appreciate it, though. __________________ “Never do anything you can't take back.” —Rocky Russo

02-13-12, 07:31 PM	#3
Stealhead Navy Seal Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Kentucky Posts: 5,421 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	[/QUOTE]Wikipedia article on this torpedo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_48_torpedo . Lots of interesting specs including the $3.8 MILLION cost per EACH. NOTE: the Mk-14 cost around $10,000 each, and were thought to be too expensive for 'live' testing. "Don't worry, they work fine in the blueprints."[/QUOTE] They did test the Mk.14 but with the magnetic detonator they did not test a live round and it was off the east coast the reason they did so little testing was because they wanted to keep it secret (this was in the late 30s) the problem with the mk.14 was that it went through a very limited and unrealistic testing program.Once they ran tests in Fremantle and Hawaii the submariners solved the mk.14s problems without the help of engineers. That is $10,000 in 1941 dollars it would be much closer to the cost of the current Mk.48 do not forget that in 1940 the Mk.14 was cutting edge.Its cost in modern dollars would be about the same as the Mk.48. A Mk.14 torpedo would cost about $155,446.10 in 2011 dollars.A mk.48 would cost about $257,323.92 in 1941 dollars. People would be shocked if they knew how much weapons cost one JADM costs $35,000-70,000 depending on the bomb size one B-2 bomber costs 2 billion dollars can you believe that for just one plane a US Navy carrier you could almost argue is priceless if you counted the value of the its crew and aircraft warfare is very expensive and that is just in monetary terms not mention in the lives makes you think about Eisenhower's famous speech . inflation calculator actually very interesting: http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm Last edited by Stealhead; 02-13-12 at 08:00 PM.

02-14-12, 12:35 AM	#5
Roger Dodger Sonar Guy Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 384 Downloads: 74 Uploads: 0	Wikipedia article on this torpedo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_48_torpedo . Lots of interesting specs including the $3.8 MILLION cost per EACH. NOTE: the Mk-14 cost around $10,000 each, and were thought to be too expensive for 'live' testing. "Don't worry, they work fine in the blueprints."[/QUOTE] They did test the Mk.14 but with the magnetic detonator they did not test a live round and it was off the east coast the reason they did so little testing was because they wanted to keep it secret (this was in the late 30s) the problem with the mk.14 was that it went through a very limited and unrealistic testing program.Once they ran tests in Fremantle and Hawaii the submariners solved the mk.14s problems without the help of engineers. That is $10,000 in 1941 dollars it would be much closer to the cost of the current Mk.48 do not forget that in 1940 the Mk.14 was cutting edge.Its cost in modern dollars would be about the same as the Mk.48. A Mk.14 torpedo would cost about $155,446.10 in 2011 dollars.A mk.48 would cost about $257,323.92 in 1941 dollars. People would be shocked if they knew how much weapons cost one JADM costs $35,000-70,000 depending on the bomb size one B-2 bomber costs 2 billion dollars can you believe that for just one plane a US Navy carrier you could almost argue is priceless if you counted the value of the its crew and aircraft warfare is very expensive and that is just in monetary terms not mention in the lives makes you think about Eisenhower's famous speech . inflation calculator actually very interesting: http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm[/QUOTE] Interesting calculator! A dollar today = 7 CENTS in 1942. A USS Virginia class sub today runs around $2 Billion ($14 Million in 1942). What was the price of a Gato/Balao class sub in WWII? Of course the new subs are 'somewhat' more sophisticated than they were in WWII. God Bless Electric Boat __________________

02-14-12, 10:44 AM	#6
PacificWolf Ensign Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Gdańsk, Poland. Posts: 233 Downloads: 237 Uploads: 3	Wow that was an amazing split-in-half explosion, i'd like to see how the battleship or aircraft carrier "reacts" to this beauty. __________________ "All ships can dive, only submarines can surface"

02-13-12, 10:06 PM	#4
kstanb Sparky Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 153 Downloads: 105 Uploads: 0	Yes, at $3.8M it is expensive, but it is a +90% sure kill; Mark 14s were expected to be launch in salvos and a 10% success rate more than acceptable according to : http://www.hnsa.org/doc/subsinpacific.htm#pg9 *"Number of Torpedoes Fired by U.S. Submarines* Total number fired = 14,748 Average number fired per attack = 3.586 Average number fired per ship sunk = 14,748 /1,392 = 10.59. (8 in 1942; 11.7 in 1943; 10 in 1944) " Something interesting I recently read: at the Java Sea battle, the Japanese launched 92 torpedos in one salvo and achieved 1 hit ! ... and that was in some ways successful since in the end they won the battle with fewer losses than if those torpedoes would not had been fired

02-14-12, 02:14 PM	#9
kstanb Sparky Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 153 Downloads: 105 Uploads: 0	google "HMS Barham" ; it didn't split in half, but looks kind of scary i think BBs were too strong to split in half ... most of the spectacular sinkings were due to magazine explosions

02-14-12, 06:34 PM	#11
Stealhead Navy Seal Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Kentucky Posts: 5,421 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	I think a Gato cost about $400,000.00~$450,000.00 that was just for initial build each refit might cost $100,000.00 or more so talking 1940s dollars around $6,217,843.97 in 2011 dollars.

02-15-12, 11:17 AM	#14
Bilge_Rat Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: standing watch... Posts: 3,855 Downloads: 344 Uploads: 0	To be fair, the magnetic influence exploder was the "wonder weapon" of submariners in the pre-war period and was being developped by the Kriegsmarine and the Royal Navy as well. The same concept was used in British, American and German magnetic mines. It was not all the U.S. Navy's fault since Congress had cut military budgets to the bone in the 20's (disarmament) and 30's (depression) which severely limited live testing. The Kriegsmarine which had an unlimited budget after 1933 still wound up with a malfunctioning torpedo MI in 1939. __________________

02-15-12, 01:59 PM	#15
kstanb Sparky Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 153 Downloads: 105 Uploads: 0	What was completely US navy's fault was to stick to this magnetic detonator for one year and a half; even after numerous reports from captains... There is a big problem when you put more trust on office bureaucrats than front line captains.