Torpedoes

Guns, torpedoes, mines, bombs, missiles, ammunition, fire control, radars, and electronic warfare.
Francis Marliere
Senior Member
Posts: 276
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:55 pm

Torpedoes

Post by Francis Marliere »

Gentlemen,

I know that torpedoes must travel a certain distance before they can explode :they will be a dud if launched too close. Do you know what is this distance ? I am mostly interested in US Mk 8 torpedoes.

Thanks for any help,

Francis Marliere
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Torpedoes

Post by alecsandros »

Francis Marliere wrote:Gentlemen,

I know that torpedoes must travel a certain distance before they can explode :they will be a dud if launched too close. Do you know what is this distance ? I am mostly interested in US Mk 8 torpedoes.

Thanks for any help,

Francis Marliere
From memory it was about 600 meters for the Mark 8... and 400 meters for the Mark 14

The torpedo required a given time to arm itself after launch. That time x torp speed gives you the necessary traveling distance before torp becomes operational.
Francis Marliere
Senior Member
Posts: 276
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: Torpedoes

Post by Francis Marliere »

Ok thanks.
lynn1212
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 2:41 pm

Re: Torpedoes

Post by lynn1212 »

us ww2 torps used either a paddle wheel or a nose mounted propeller the measure the arming distance
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Torpedoes

Post by paul.mercer »

Gentlemen,
Re RN torpedoes, were the ones carried by Swordfish and other aircraft smaller, lighter and with less less explosive than those carried on a cruiser or destroyer?
The reason for my question is that at least one Swordfish torpedo hit Bismarck somewhere near the middle without doing much damage, where as those fired from Dorsetshire at the end appeared to do the final damage that sank her, even though she was probably going to sink sooner or later anyway? (Whether or not she was scuttled first is a another matter which has already been debated at length elseware in this forum)
Mostlyharmless
Member
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:45 pm

Re: Torpedoes

Post by Mostlyharmless »

There is a good site for torpedo specifications at http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/index_weapons.php, which suggests that the warhead of the torpedoes dropped by the Swordfish would have been 388 lb of TNT whilst those of cruisers might be 740 or 750 lb of TNT.
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Re: Torpedoes

Post by marcelo_malara »

Full sized (submarine or destroyer) 21" torpedoes are about 7 m long, that is too long for a plane. The USN developed the Mk13 torpedo, that is about 4 m long, but gave it a 22.5" diameter. Other naval powers stayed with 18" diameter.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Torpedoes

Post by dunmunro »

paul.mercer wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 9:26 am Gentlemen,
Re RN torpedoes, were the ones carried by Swordfish and other aircraft smaller, lighter and with less less explosive than those carried on a cruiser or destroyer?
The reason for my question is that at least one Swordfish torpedo hit Bismarck somewhere near the middle without doing much damage, where as those fired from Dorsetshire at the end appeared to do the final damage that sank her, even though she was probably going to sink sooner or later anyway? (Whether or not she was scuttled first is a another matter which has already been debated at length elseware in this forum)
The Mk12 aerial torpedoes used against Bismarck contained a 440lb warhead:
Enclosure 4

An extract from D.N.C's dealing specifically with para. 8 of First Sea Lord's minute of 1st February (Enclosure 2.)

10. Para 8 of the 1st Sea Lord's minute of 1/2/42 is not understood. The derailed report M.0251/42, which contains the survivors' narratives, shows that in the first attack the ship was hit certainly by 3 and possibly by 4 torpedoes, and in the second attack, forty minutes later, by 4 torpedoes. British aircraft torpedoes that struck "BISMARCK" contained an explosive charge of 440lbs., whilse those fired by Destroyers contained an explosive charge of 750lbs. D.N.I. has stated on N.I.D. 04842/41 that Japanese aircraft torpedoes may contain an explosive charge as heavy as 867lbs., and it would appear, from a comparison of the damage caused by Japanese torpedoes to "PRINCE OF WALES" with other torpedo damage caused by German torpedoes and British charges used for experiments, that charges as large as 867lbs. Were used against "PRINCE OF WALES". Furthermore, "BISMARCK'S" standard displacement was at the very least 41,150 tons, compared with 37,500 tons of "PRINCE OF WALES", and ceteris paribus the larger the ship the better she can withstand underwater attack.

(Signed)

SV Goodall

13/2/42[
http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 9to144.htm
/quote]
Kev D
Member
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:27 am
Contact:

Re: Torpedoes

Post by Kev D »

As regards British ship carried torpdoes.

Re the explosive warhead; how was it fitted / attached to the torp body, i.e. what kept / held it in place? And other than being fitted to the nose of the torpedo, was there any other 'connection" to the after part of the torpedo, i.e, wiring, thin pipeing, etc?

I ask as we once found an object that looked very much like a torp warhead, laying next to a set of empty torp tubes, but it had what appeared to be either short (i.e. broken off) wires or thin piping, too coral encrusted to be sure which, but I "think" wiring, exiting center back.

TIA for any help. :wink:
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant. HMS Repulse. Dec. 8 1941
A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Re: Torpedoes

Post by marcelo_malara »

Hi Kev. The warhead is attached to the body with a ring of bolts. For a steam torpedo (that is, compressed air, fuel and water) I see no use of a cabling to the warhead as it has no electric source. I know that some detonators are electrically fired (for example the USN steam Mk14 torpedo), but in this case the electric current is generated by a stream turning wheel attached to a small generator located in the detonator itself. May be you found an electric propelled torpedo whose detonator was electric too and was feed from the motor battery. It would help if we can discern the torpedo model.

Kind regards.
Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 919
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Torpedoes

Post by Thorsten Wahl »

Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!
Kev D
Member
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:27 am
Contact:

Re: Torpedoes

Post by Kev D »

marcelo_malara wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 3:05 pmHi Kev. The warhead is attached to the body with a ring of bolts. For a steam torpedo (that is, compressed air, fuel and water) I see no use of a cabling to the warhead as it has no electric source. I know that some detonators are electrically fired (for example the USN steam Mk14 torpedo), but in this case the electric current is generated by a stream turning wheel attached to a small generator located in the detonator itself. May be you found an electric propelled torpedo whose detonator was electric too and was feed from the motor battery. It would help if we can discern the torpedo model.
Kind regards.
Gracias Marcelo, muy bueno.

But you know, rather than hijack this thread, I'll gather some pics and post a separate thread a little later, hopefully today - if not then tomorrow, as there might be more to it than just a single post (or two) and as I said I don't want to hijack this thread. As for the 'where', on our favourite ship. :wink:

Oh, and since posting my above, and looking up my actual survey notes, rather than going on my fallible memory as I did above, I see that it was not 'wires or small pipes' (or anything!) coming out of the concave back, but two or three very small circular 'holes' there. Twas a different 'vessel / object' I was thinking of above (on IJN Amagiri) and managed to confuse the two. :oops:

Kevin
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant. HMS Repulse. Dec. 8 1941
A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Re: Torpedoes

Post by marcelo_malara »

Kev, for sure you know it, in case you don´t here is a manual for the USN Mk14 torpedo.

https://archive.hnsa.org/doc/torpedo/index.htm

Here you have the exploder mechanism with its electric generator.

https://archive.hnsa.org/doc/torpedo/index.htm#pg17
Kev D
Member
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:27 am
Contact:

Re: Torpedoes

Post by Kev D »

Actually no Marcelo, I dont have those sheets at the 'end' of your links. Thanks! :clap:

But would it be same / similar warhead and connection for a British Mk VII (or maybe Mk IX)?
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant. HMS Repulse. Dec. 8 1941
A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942
Kev D
Member
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:27 am
Contact:

Re: Torpedoes

Post by Kev D »

We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant. HMS Repulse. Dec. 8 1941
A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942
Post Reply