Let's... not talk about a certain 'armored' carrier then.
(One torp. And from Albacore, no less.)
Incidentally how do the Type 93 Oxygen torpedoes fare against the Mk XV? I've usually hear that the Long Lances were far better (range and reliability-wise), but from the point of explosive yield both are around the same. Not to mention that Long Lances in stock have a nasty habit of blowing up whenever the ship is attacked.
What torpedo is Verniy likely to use? Wiki states that she was refitted with Russian 533mm torpedo tubes, but doesn't specify which torpedo were used. How do the possible Type-53 variants (53-38? 53-39? 53-51?) fare against the Japanese and American torpedoes?
Though armaments are not my field of expertise but...
Type 93 long lance torpedoes, considered as the most advance torpedo during that time, they weigh 2.8 tonnes, length is 9 meters, and 64 inch diameter, had effective range of 22 km at 48–50 knots and max of 40 km at 34–36 knots, their speed 52 knots and carries 490 kg warheads. Type 93 were mostly operated by light cruisers, torpedo cruisers, and destroyers. Their record, manage to sink 11 cruisers, 11 destroyers, and an aircraft carrier. Very effective during the early stages of the war.
Mark 15 torpedoes, they weigh 1.7 tonnes, length is 7.1 meters, and 21 inch diameter, and 21 inch diameter, had effective range of 5.5 km at 45 knots and max of 15 km at 26.5 knots and carries 375 kg warheads. They were very effective for ambush during the battle of Vella Gulf which is a known destroyer-vs-destroyer engagement as part of the Solomons Campaign.
The torpedo which used against Taihou must be a Mark 18 which were equipped on the Gato-class submarines during the late stages of war. They weigh 1.4 tonnes, 6.2 meters in length, and 21 inch diameter, effective range of 3.65 km, speed of 29 knots, and carries 261 kg of warheads.
The torpedoes which hit Yamato and Musashi were Mark 13 torpedoes from Grumman TBF Avenger, they weigh 0.9 tonnes, 4 meters length, and 22.5 inch diameter, their effective range is 5.7 km, their speed is 33.5 knots and carries 272 kg warheads.
And for the Russian Type-53, Hibiki was acquired by the Soviet Navy in April 5, 1947, so let us say that she's fitted with a Type 53-39 variant, they weigh 1.78 tonnes, length is 7.5 meters, and 21 inch diameter. Their effective range is 4 km in 51 knots and could max to 10 km in 34 knots, their maximum speed is 51 knots and carries 317 kg of warheads.
Close, but I'm going to correct you on a few things here.
Lunatic6 said:
Type 93 long lance torpedoes, considered as the most advance torpedo during that time
They weren't. They were considered the most powerful torpedo of the time. In fact, judging by pure contact detonation capability, they are still the most powerful.
However, the most advanced torpedo of the early war period was, ironically, the Mark 14/15 torpedoes used by the Americans... and it was that very same parts that made it 'advanced' that caused them so much trouble.
The most advanced torpedo to be used in the war was the Mark 28 Acoustic Homing Torpedo, which is the ancestor ( grandparent, actually) to the US' current Mk48.
Lunatic6 said:
Mark 15 torpedoes
Keep in mind that the big pusher for the Mark 15s were that they were back-breaker torpedoes, as compared to contact torpedoes. They traded range for this capability. When they worked, they did the same type of damage as a modern Mark 48, and roughly the same amount of damage. Of course, when they didn't work they did about as much damage a 5in/38cal (which could still sink a destroyer if it hit underwater, but would amount to a bunch of nothing on a CA or above)... and this is assuming that it hit. Which the late war Mk15-M2s did with a good deal of reliability, but didn't outright break their backs nearly as often.
All of this holds for the Mk14 Sub Torpedo as well. I point to Samidare as proof, she split in half from one torpedo (which went unnoticed by the sub that shot it, ironically).
Lunatic6 said:
The torpedo which used against Taihou must be a Mark 18 which were equipped on the Gato-class submarines during the late stages of war.
Must?
...No. No. No. No. From what I remember, the torpedoes used by the Albacore in that engagement were Mk14-M2s, and the one that hit failed to work properly. The Mk18s were rarely used against any target larger than a big merchant ship (destroyers and light cruisers were fine), since it lacked the power to actually sink them.
I was assuming though, I have two choices and had to pick one... anyway thanks for correcting me.
One more question, does the Balao-class were armed with the same MK-14 torpedoes, which took out the Shinano with 4 hits?
Oh, I wasn't really complaining. I just have this personal issue with the Mk18. ...It's strange, I admit it.
--
To the best of my knowledge, the USS Archerfish was likewise equipped with Mk14-M2s for that kill, although I'm not certain what one she fired (I'd assume the Mk14, since the Shinano was just that huge). All US Submarines had at least some of them (Mk14s in general) on board throughout the war. Aggressive captains tended to trade off some of them for Mk27 'Cutie' anti-submarine torpedoes (or Mk28s near the end of the war); but upon introduction of the Mk18, they began replacing them instead.
Lunatic6 said: ... Type 93 were mostly operated by light cruisers, torpedo cruisers, and destroyers. Their record, manage to sink 11 cruisers, 11 destroyers, and an aircraft carrier. Very effective during the early stages of the war. ...
As is most things Japanese during the Pacific War, I guess. Bleeding-edge technology when first introduced, a blatant disregard for operator safety (cf. Mistsubishi Zero), as well as becoming obsolete near the end of the war due to a severe lack of resources.
Lunatic6 said: ... And for the Russian Type-53, Hibiki was acquired by the Soviet Navy in April 5, 1947, so let us say that she's fitted with a Type 53-39 variant, they weigh 1.78 tonnes, length is 7.5 meters, and 21 inch diameter. Their effective range is 4 km in 51 knots and could max to 10 km in 34 knots, their maximum speed is 51 knots and carries 317 kg of warheads.. ...
Well she was in service until 1953, so I was wondering if she would have access to Type 53-51's. Of course, the Soviets were cheapskates, and Verniy was pretty much a 'captured' enemy vessel anyway, so maybe she didn't get that luxury. Also by the time 51's were introduced, Verniy was already renamed to Dekabrist (Hibiki Mk III?).
51's do seem to have a far better propulsion system, but the payload seems to be around the same.
-- Another question, how do we compare warhead payloads between different torpedoes? I mean, generally the heavier the warhead, the stronger its destructive capability, but not all warheads use the same type of explosive, so isn't it like comparing apples with oranges?
'though I do suppose contemporary torpedoes should have had around the same type of explosive, or at least similar ones with similar detonation properties.
Another question, how do we compare warhead payloads between different torpedoes? I mean, generally the heavier the warhead, the stronger its destructive capability, but not all warheads use the same type of explosive, so isn't it like comparing apples with oranges?
'though I do suppose contemporary torpedoes should have had around the same type of explosive, or at least similar ones with similar detonation properties.
Well, you're right in that the explosive used does make a bit of a difference. However, weight actually is the primary factor in such comparisons.
From memory (meaning that I could be wrong, so take it with a grain of salt), the common Japanese explosive of the time was roughly 1.2 times stronger per oz than the American equivalent. The O2 torpedoes, for all of their hype, were actually only about the same as their normal explosive... just denser, so they could cram more weight in a smaller area.
Why'd the Americans use 'inferior' explosive? Affordability and production rate. We could produce 6 times as much as ours for the same cost and over the same length of time as they could produce theirs... and that's not even counting our massively larger industrial base.
Also, if you want to extend your comparison to effective power, you have to consider the application of a torpedo as well... but that's another topic.
Though chemistry is not my field of expertise but...
The warheads that were carried by MK-15 torpedoes were called HBX (High Blast Explosive) a slightly modified version of the TorpEx. TorpEx (torpedo explosives) that were carried by the MK-14s is 50% more powerful than TNT by mass, there contents are 42% RDX, 40% TNT and 18% aluminum powder. HBX has the same power of the TorpEx while reducing much of its sensitivity. There were 3 types of HBX, HBX-1, HBX-3, and H-6, HBX-1 have high TNT content, HBX-3 have high aluminum content, while H-6 have high RDX content. I'm not sure what type of HBX that were armed by the MK-15 torpedoes.
Again I would assume that the Japanese explosives were using Trinitroanisole (TNA) and Trinitrotoluene (TNT), just have several different amount of the TNT contents of each type of explosives, I still don't know which type of explosives that were put on Type-93 torpedoes. I could only find two types. Type 91 explosives that used Trinitroanisole while the Type 97 explosives that have 60% of TNT content and 40% of HNDA content.
Again I'm not a chemist that can determine which explodes better.
Also feel free to correct me if I have mistaken some parts... again.
Actually, Yamato received eleven torpedoes before sinking, while Musashi received nineteen torpedoes and still able to operate.
This is actually quite possibly effectively propaganda. [expand=What probably actually occured] See the problem is that interrogations done post war pretty heavily indicate that the damage sustained was very likely bloated in reports by senior surviving officers probably out of a mix of pride and ego soothing. It was just more palatable and in a twisted way 'uplifting' to report that the ship was overwhelmed by a ludicrous number of hits that made her appear almost super human, rather then being crippled and sunk by a much more reasonable number that actually largely fits in with her design and known durability from other incidents. (Similar forces can be seen at play in for instance the ridiculous assertions that Bismark was scuttled and attempts to play up how many shell hits she took before that) For instance the initial Japanese report insisted that Musashi had, in additional to all the torps, also taken a truly outrageous 40 bomb hits.
That nonsense doesn't seem to have survived into the history books, being cut more then in half and actually largely adopting something like the number the post war US report arrived at of about 16 or so, but for some reason the 20 odd torpedo hit number from the same reports is just accepted at face value and has been repeated endlessly ever since. It might be because while the report is pretty critical of the idea it stops just short of saying "the japs are full of it, there weren't 20 god damn torp hits" instead it sort of wiggles about and mostly says the extra's various flavors and degrees of "improbable" based on lack of damage reports and observation of the ships behavior regarding list and trim. It's more unequivocal in shooting down the insanity of the ship taking 40 bombs as it doesn't even give it lip service and just lists off hits that caused known recorded damage coming up with the above 16, this may be why this number took and was repeated roughly going forward.
It still baffles me why so many supposedly "informed" people repeat it though. The full report has been scanned and can be read online I'll link a pdf of the relevant section below. At the very least it makes a very compelling argument that the 20 torpedo number should be considered "disputed" and the alternative mentioned, yet I've found only a handful of books and forum posts that seem to mention it at all. The huge, huge majority of them ape the 21-2 duds line more or less to the letter. I suppose though that even for the person that sunk it there is a certain bit of chest thumping to be had by talking up your foe as bigger then he really was.
Certainly the idea of the "Super" battleship absorbing enough torpedoes to kill others battleships three or even four times over in a futile last stand is more dramatic then "the choice to attack from both side by the US to split AA fire while logical due to the low raid strength resulted in an even spread of torpedoe hits on both sides which largely equalized flooding and prevented a loss of stability that her otherwise inadequate counter flooding systems could not have stopped if even half the total number of hits had been concentrated on only one side. This was factored in when targeting Yamato and she was subsequently induced to capsize very quickly by a similar number of hits mostly applied to one side as opposed to Musashi's slow but equally inevitable death due to progressive buoyancy loss."
I suppose it's one of those things where the legend is so much neater then the probable truth that we rather prefer the lie.
I don't understand what the big deal is about the Bismarck being scuttled or not. I mean, if the order was given to scuttle her and if the British navy intended to sink her and both happened at the same time, just what the heck are they trying to argue? Claiming credit for the sinking of a ship that was doomed either way?
I don't understand what the big deal is about the Bismarck being scuttled or not. I mean, if the order was given to scuttle her and if the British navy intended to sink her and both happened at the same time, just what the heck are they trying to argue? Claiming credit for the sinking of a ship that was doomed either way?
For the same reasons I noted one might be inclined to inflate the number of hits on Musashi, it makes a better narrative and people love narratives. They see them everywhere and often try to build them even when it doesn't make much sense or even if they need to bend a few facts here and there.
The idea that Bismark fought to the end when already hamstrung and then defiantly committed suicide thus remaining 'unbeaten' by her enemy is more romantic and 'badass' then the reality that she was cornered, beaten mercilessly without really fighting back in any meaningful way, then shot in the back of the head as she already lay bleeding to death on the pavement.
Bismark's futile if glorious death ride made her a legend, and as with any legend the drive to embellish and distort is very strong.
пшшш......wait.I heard a loud explosion! Are you guys okay?!SNAPGrr...Commander, could it be...You definitely won't get away with this!!dashдashWhy is he directing that unreasonable rage towards me?!Hibi- I mean... Verniy!What....you're weak?