ID'ing of an 'object' wedged under torpedo tubes

[Kev D]

The below colour photos show an 'object' wedged under the port torpedo tubes on HMS Exeter.

What is it? It looks and measure suspiciously like a torpedo warhead, but if so what is it doing there? As far as I am aware there was no report of a misfire, although all three were fired at the northern two Jap cruisers not long beofre the fatal shell hit. (Surely they woulkd not have been carrying a 'practice' warhead?)

The diameter is basically 21 inches (certainly less than 22, which allowing for u/w growth is par for the course), the end we cannot see is concave, and has two or three very small round holes in. Overall length, presently not found with my notes, so what would be the length of a warhead?

Any suggestions on its ID much appreciated.

EDIT; Unfortunately I have to split the photos into three posts, as it seems only 3 images are allowed per post, so the b/w photos further below are just for reference / comparison.

[Kev D]

Two more u/w shots from slightly different angle.

[Kev D]

Some historical b/w torpedo photos.

[marcelo_malara]

Hi Kev. It certainly seems to be a warhead. Question is, why was it separated from a body and why was it there? If you look in Exeter´s plans there is a compartment labeled "Gunner´s I Torpedo Store" on the platform deck, between frames 86 and 102, starboard side. I think that the warheads were stored separately there, and the bodies on the upper deck, and were joined before being loaded into the tubes. There would be no room to store the completed torpedoes down below (and you would need quiet a hoist to bring them to the upper deck), and it would be too dangerous to store the completed torpedoes up. May be the warhead was bring up to join to a body and the rolling of the ship before sinking moved it and lodged it there.

[marcelo_malara]

You can see in the body the ring of elongated slots where the bolts attaching warhead and body were.

[Kev D]

Hi Kev. It certainly seems to be a warhead. Question is, why was it separated from a body and why was it there? If you look in Exeter´s plans there is a compartment labeled "Gunner´s I Torpedo Store" on the platform deck, between frames 86 and 102, starboard side. I think that the warheads were stored separately there, and the bodies on the upper deck, and were joined before being loaded into the tubes. There would be no room to store the completed torpedoes down below (and you would need quiet a hoist to bring them to the upper deck), and it would be too dangerous to store the completed torpedoes up. May be the warhead was bring up to join to a body and the rolling of the ship before sinking moved it and lodged it there.

Thanks for your input Marcelo. Re my now bolded above, how many torps did Exeter carry? That is, did she carry "reloads"?

[marcelo_malara]

Thanks for your input Marcelo. Re my now bolded above, how many torps did Exeter carry? That is, did she carry "reloads"?

Look at this, from AOTS´s The cruiser Belfast.



Japanese cruisers did carry reloads

[Kev D]

Thanks again Marcelo! I didnt think she did, but was just trying to come up with some explantion regards what that 'warhead' is doing there / how it got there? Maybe it as you say, I'll give that some thought.

Do 'we' know exactly what mod torp she carried, i.e. MkVII, MkIX, or MkIX**? (As per page below, courtesy NavWeps )

British-Mk-IX-torps.jpg

(80.91 KiB) Not downloaded yet

[marcelo_malara]

Do 'we' know exactly what mod torp she carried, i.e. MkVII, MkIX, or MkIX**?

Difficult to say for sure. I would go for the MkIX, which is a more advanced torpedo. The MkIX had a longer range, due to the use of the burner cycle. In the burner cycle the steam, generated by spraying water directly on the flame, is admitted to the cylinders, and rather than simply pushing the piston by the expanding pressure, is aided by a drop of fuel directly injected into the cylinder and ignited, augmenting considerable the steam pressure. An exercise you can do is looking for the use of Exeter´s torpedoes, real or attempted, and look for the ranges at it was or was to be used.

[Kev D]

Thanks again Marcelo.The only engagement I recall when she used her torpdoes post refit was just prior to her sinking, I have the charts for that (both IJN and Capt. Gordons - his from 'memory' post war though) so I'll dig them out and check, but IIRC the ranges were considerably(?) longer - to port at least - than stated on the above torp chart I posted. But no hits were made and maybe thats why.

BTW, is the length of just the warhead itself known? Or a side-on photo of the MkIX torp where one could make a good guestimate of warhead length?

[marcelo_malara]

According to plans in British Naval Weapons of WWII (Lambert) the Mk IX warhead is 53.8" long. I have no plans nor side views of Mk VII, but interestingly in Naval Weapons of WWII (Campbell), the author says that only 7 were expended (ie launched) in all the war, so it seems to be rare to had them aboard.

[marcelo_malara]

Scaling your photos the object seems to be around 1.27 m long, what is remarkably close to the warhead´s 1.36 m, bearing in mind the crudeness of the measuring.

[Kev D]

Scaling your photos the object seems to be around 1.27 m long, what is remarkably close to the warhead´s 1.36 m, bearing in mind the crudeness of the measuring.

Would that 1.36m include the 'nipple' on the front (as shown in the historical b/w photo of 'mine' you reposted)?

[Kev D]

Another pic of a torp body without warhead, showing those slots for the bolts to attach the warhead. They certainly didnt skimp on them, the one in the b/w photo even has quite a few more!

[marcelo_malara]

Scaling your photos the object seems to be around 1.27 m long, what is remarkably close to the warhead´s 1.36 m, bearing in mind the crudeness of the measuring.

Would that 1.36m include the 'nipple' on the front (as shown in the historical b/w photo of 'mine' you reposted)?

No, the nipple is an additional 6" according to Lambert, I didn´t take it into my estimate.

Regards