If you could create the “composite WWII torpedo” to create the best torpedo with the available technology from 1939 to 1945, which design features from which torpedoes would you choose?
1. why did the Japanese use naval bombardment against Henderson Field if it wasn’t part of their doctrine & once they did do it, why didn’t they incorporate it into their doctrine? 2. What is the difference between torpex & cordite? Why was torpex used for torpedos while cordite was used in artillery shells? 3. What was the difference between light & heavy cruisers in different navies in WW2? I’ve tried to find a good answer on line but haven’t found any.
Copying another commenters question they didn't put here: "why did some nations used dual sizes of torpedoes on submarines? Examples are the french Redoutable class and minerve. They have 550mm torpedoes....but also some 400mm torpedo tubes (redoubtable internal, minerve external). What is the possible benefit and reason france did that? I believe italy also had some subs that did that."
Yeah, very "reliable!" When it wasn't working properly the first two years of the war, sailors could rely on it NOT WORKING on a very consistent basis. Then, after all the failures were mostly fixed, sailors could rely on it to be effective in sinking targets when it hit. But it was very consistent. Either it consistently didn't work or it consistently did work. After it started working it was one of the best torpedoes of WW2. It was just a couple years late for it's reputation!
The Royal Navy did really get lucky that the Germans also had a problem with their magnetic detonators. The RN could have seen several more capital ships sunk at the start of WW2 had Germany not faced those similar problems as well. But Germany trusted their U -boat Captains & quickly fixed the problems while the US & it's "Bureau of Ordinance" wanted to deny the claims & try to say that the Submariners just weren't using the torpedoes properly. When it wasn't just the Submariners having problems but the torpedo planes were also having the same problems. And with sailors & aviators dying in an effort to use torpedoes that did NOT explode the problems SHOULD HAVE BEEN fixed immediately in honor of the men that had already lost their lives trying to deliver faulty ordinance to the enemy.
@@stevebriggs9399 perun got that challenge from lazerpig, the history of everything and some others. This means the stage is now set for Tex of the BPL to suggest the MGM-51 Shillelagh, Davy Crocket, Locc and Gluger, and Christmas Bullet be added to the elbonian millitary.
@@thomasmolloy5447 You could replace or rework the impact detonator and make that functional. They did that in the later part of '43 and used them. The magnetic detonator still had problems.
MK 27 Cutie. Sub caliber submarine torpedo. Brutally slow, criminally short ranged, tiny warhead. But, it had an effective acoustic homing guidance system in 1943. Won't kill a BB, but would blow the screws of the DD coming to depth charge you.
Since everyone is expecting the US to be in the last place, I want to give a huge shout-out to the Mk24 and Mk27 homing torpedoes, they were both acoustic homing torpedo, in the case of the air dropped Mk24 it managed to sank at least 25 axis submarines and for the sub launched"Cutie" Mk27, it served mostly as a defensive weapon against pursuing enemy surface ships. Granted both torpedoes had suboptimal speed like 12-20kts, it's typical for an acoustic homing torpedo for their time.
Yes. The Americans and Germans both had Acoustic Homing Torpedoes. The Germans used theirs from Subs while the _"Fido"_ American was air dropped and used against subs. The Americans were so concerned with anyone realizing that they had a homing torpedo that the labeled the Mark 24 as a "Mine" ... and waited a damn long time before it was revealed to have existed. I didn't know if anyone else had any but a quick search reveals quite a few en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Acoustic+Homing+Torpedoes&sourceid=Mozilla-search&ns0=1 Perhaps a video on Homing Torpedoes and the countermeasures used against them? I believe that some of the more modern Homing Torpedoes were in fact Wire Guided while others could try - fail and then retry. Curiously - the British used a conventional torpedo on the _Belgrano_ but one was enough. I don't think they wanted to sink it - but - it's Water Tight Integrity wasn't all that great - and - the damage it caused took out the pumps (iirc). Fortunately - the ship had very sophisticated Life Boats and most of the crew survived. Argentina's Subs didn't have a lot of luck against the British Surface ships and the British didn't have a lot of luck finding them. Given the lack of opportunities this is the only actual shooting conflict I'm aware of involving subs since WWII. .
@@BobSmith-dk8nw actual modern torpedoes usually are glass fiber controlled, have active and passive sonar capabilities, and can switch to fire and forget mode if desired.
To add to your point, Mk-27 'Cutie' torpedoes, like any new weapon after initial teething problems, would go on to have a very commendable 33% success rate when it came to hitting their targets. When used against cargo vessels or escorts like destroyers, US submarines had to fire the Cutie at a certain depth before diving further below. Once the weapon impacted the enemy ship via acoustic homing, this either damaged the enemy's propellers or sank it outright. The Mk-27 'Cutie' sank a total of 24 ships with 9 others damaged. A very good development in US torpedo history.
FYI late war Italian torpedoes also carried warheads other than TNT, they could be carrying S1/S2 explosive warhead, or an unnamed mix that had 60% TNT, 20% RDX and 20% Aluminuum powder, so they should be a bit above in the air dropped torpedoes category, close to the UK MkXV. Also you should have considered other variables, such as the max speed and height for an air dropped torpedo. Italian ones right from the start of the war could be dropped at 300 kts and from 100 m, whereas any other torpedo could at most be dropped at a speed of 200 kts at 50 m (British and Japanese ones, American ones were even lower at 150 kts at 15 m)
From video game experience, I agree that the drop altitude and speed matter a lot, albeit only as long as the delivery plane is capable of such speed and altitude. Torps carried by Swordfish, for instance, would benefit very little of huge drop speed.
To add to the dropping characteristics: while at the start of the war, models like the Mark 13 torpedo had to be babied, at the end of the war, some torpedoes had crazy performance: the strengthened version of the Mark XV from 1945 could be dropped at 350 knots (at an unknown height), the last Type 91s from 1943 on could be dropped at up to 400 knots, and the latest Mark 13s could be dropped from 730m at up to 410 knots! Also, on warheads, Soviet torpedoes used a mixture called TGA, which was 60% TNT, 34% RDX, and 16% aluminum powder, and 1.45-1.5 times as powerful as TNT.
The FIDO torpedo is an absolutely crazy invention I had no idea existed until recently, I think it deserves more exposure for how advanced yet simple it was
There is in Tube long voice clip of Grumman Avenger hunting U-boat with sonobuoys, dropping Fido and sinking the U-boat. From mid 1944. That was real space magic at the time. Much more than German wunderwaffe.
It's amazing how nearly all "smart" weapons had their origins in WW2, which isn't something you normally picture. Rockets, sure, but guided torps? Radio-guided Bombs? Cruise missiles? Drones?
I was an apprentice in the Royal Naval Torpedo Factory from 1966 to 1971 - as well as making modern torpedoes there was still a huge workshop where the Mk VIII torpedoes came into be serviced and refurbished. When I first saw inside one I was surprised at just how small the burner cycle engine actually was.
@@adamjaquay4279 I found the following post in a German language subreddit thread (I'm not sure how correct it is tho): *_"Los" How to use it?_* "The suffix "-los" means "without". It then works similar to the English "-less". E.g. "jobless" = "arbeitslos". The word "los" by itself or used as a prefix, however, has a similar etymology as the English word "loose". Nowadays it is used in many different ways that are hard to consolidate. Many of the meanings mean "start", like "losgehen" (to start walking), "loslaufen" (to start running), or "lossingen" (to start singing). Other meanings, however, still use it to mean "loose" or in a broader sense "away", like "loslassen" (let loose), "losbinden" (to untie/loosen ties), or "loswerden" (to get rid off)."
11 nautical mile hit is still the record . . . On USS Strong while exiting a channel in the Solomans the night before the Battle of Kula Gulf as launched by IJN Destroyer "Niizuki". One of a 14 torpedo spread.
@ This was less of. problem than usually claimed (due to the main case study of this being a problem having been debunked entirely). There were still some cases of Japanese ships being fatally damaged by their own torpedoes, but not that many; it was way down on the list of things wrong with the IJN.
@bkjeong4302 Nothing wrong with the torpedo. When a shell fragment or anything else penetraded their torpedo tube they were as devastating as when used against us. They were also devestating when a bomb penetraded the decks of their carriers when they were arming aircraft with them. Towards the end of the war IJN Destroyer Captains often jettisoned their inventory of torpedoes so they might have survivors should their ship be sunk. They scored in several surface battles from the Java sea to Tassaferonga and others at ranges we didn't think capable because we didn't think pure compressed oxygen could be used as the oxidizer. It was the most advanced torpedo propulsion system of the war. The warhead as designed in the early '30s was meant to take out Battleships and was considerably potent as demonstrated on several of our cruisers. We didn't have anything like it's propulsion system until the '50s. It might not have changed the coarse of the war for them but it, along with their training and execution of it, was their tactical advantage in several night surface battles into '43 where we would otherwise have the gunnery advantage.
It was me, my torpedoes were the best of any Navy in the world. But as I'm a peaceable man, I refused to sell them to any of the warring parties. Instead, I gave the design to Andorra, with the promise they'd only use them for self defense. And as they're landlocked...
Hi Drach, given that the WW2 navies had differing strategic goals; the Japanese focus being on destroying capital ships whilst the Germans were primarily seeking to destroy merchant shipping, the missing 'rating' category seems to be 'target type'. Sure, if you're looking to overcome BB TDS then you need a very big warhead. However; if you primary targets are merchant ships - and their escorts - heavy warheads are excess baggage. Torpedo speed is also less relevant. One last thought - direct impact torpedoes vs magnetic. A direct impact on a TDS relies on explosive weight to damage the target. A magnetic detonator torpedo relies on the water blast effect to 'break the back' of the target - an attack which a TDS may, or may not, mitigate.
YOU try doing that rating for different types of targets... you'll quickly see why Drach didn't- each target type necessitates its own unique scoring criteria, meaning you'll have one score set for each target type, and you can't compare them to each other in any meaningfull way- each has specific unique circumstances.
Well they were predictable unreliable if that helps. Still am flabbergasted how the same ordinance department was able to cone up with the twin 5" mount but unable to fathom the concept of faulty detonators. Very odd
@@adamjaquay4279different sections inside the department, also head of the department didn't develop the 5 inch twin so it got an honest shake down before being fielded. The MK14 with magnetic explorer was who ended up becoming boss's pet project.
The poking device for performances, for technological level, the last German ones were amazing for the time. Obviously I comment before watching the video 😂 One point I really loved in Drach videos is how he takes the needed time to explain how he rates things ❤️👍
@@khaelamensha3624 I believe they came up with the first anti-shipping missile. I forget whether it was a Vichy French or Italian warship we captured that they used it on. It worked.
@@icewaterslim7260 The Fritz X guided bomb was used a number of times, the most famous case being against the Italian battleship _Roma,_ which was sunk.
Probably the only thing you didn't compare with the aerial torpedoes with altitude and speed of insertion into the water. The difference between the two US model 13 was considerable in these areas. This goes to your "delivery system" comparison.
Except I would say it's not an issue of delivery system. As far as I know except for a rare case or two the aircraft all had better performance than the ability of the torpedo to be launched. For example the avenger could still fly faster and higher than the US late war torpedos could be dropped.
From video game experience, I think the drop altitude can compensate the range a lot, as the torpedo can travel part of the range in the air (only starting to consume its fuel after hitting water, I presume). Similarly, high drop speed means the torp may actually travel a lot faster initially, so it compensates the speed it gets from its motors - or even neglects it if dropped close enoug to not fully slow down before reaching the target. In addition, higher drop speed means the delivery aircraft can do the run at higher speed and thus get closer and still spend less time within the range of AA guns. So, from my point of view, the drop speed matters more than the actual speed or range of the torpedo. And it would seem the Americans agreed with that. Of course, none of this matters if the plane is not capable of such speeds (or altitudes). Swordfish, for instance, would gain very little benefit from delivering the model 13. But that is a delivery system matter if anything.
At least for aerial torpedos, weight should have been part of the comparation. A torpedo, that is 50% heavier and has a 50% larger warhead is by no means better. It means less fuel or additional weapons for the aircraft.
In high school (back in the 1970s) we had a post WW2 torpedo (less the boom stuff) in shop class. It was jam packed full of tube electronics which occupied the space of a mini-fridge ! That's "valve" electronics for Drach.
That would have been one of the homing or wire guided torpedoes. Most of the WW2 torpedoes were resolutely mechanical marvels…(including the pattern running ones). They continued in service into the 1990’s.
14:14 I love how the Whitehead torpedo has a Chamber of Secrets (Chambre á Secret). Although with the way patent rights used to be guarded and enforced, I could almost see Robert Whitehead including a large venomous snake inside each and every torpedo's hydrostatic controller section. 😂
Fish controlled torpedoes! Great, but they run away from sharks and try to head to it's spawning rivers and the anglers don't like explody things on their hooks...
Where the super long range of those long lances came into play is when missing one ship in a formation, in multiple instances initial targets were missed and the torpedoes kept going and randomly hit another ship. I'm not sure if that's enough of a reason to give it a higher score as it's more or less dumb luck, but given enough chances those snakeyes did turn up a few times.
Those ranges are fairly reasonable for a submerged launched torpedo. A periscope at 10 foot above a flat surface will see just short of 4 miles (distance to the horizon). This reduces to about 1.5 miles if the periscope is only 1.5 foot above the surface.
Blucher: 10/10 - would sink again. Drach: insufficient data for WWII - and no, I'm not going to ask my Patreons if they want a WWI torpedo comparison video...
@@andrewallen9993 It is one of the cases where range really do not matter. If one had to design a torpedo for that specific use if would need very limited range, limited speed. but a sufficient amount of Boom.... but most important of all: You need to be able to put it in storage for decades.. and then take it out and use it. And it MUST work.
Honestly I'd love to see a video on the more weird, experimental, or technological dead end torpedoes throughout all of history like the Italian merchant one you mentioned in the beginning. I love when you talk about those more obscure or anomalous things in naval history. Though yeah I understand researching info on that stuff is probably also a lot harder
The Italians also had the only really reliable magnetic proximity fuse of the war. The most interesting thing about it however probably is how the designer,Carlo Calosi, the day of the Italian Armistice, destroyed all of his papers, to avoid them to be kept by the Germans, and joined a resistance group in the mountains. Then the Allies devised a daring operation (that inspired the novel and then the movie "cloak and dagger") to extract him from beyond the lines and transfer him to the US, to design a countermeasure agains his own invention (that he did).
@@neutronalchemist3241 In fairness, that reliability might be because they used it pretty much only in one enviroment (Mediterrenean). As one of the issues that made magnetic detonators unreliable was that different regions of Earth have different degrees of magnetism. So magnetic fuses that work perfectly well on German shores have issues when used in Northern Norway. I think some US torpedoes had similar issues of being tested in like Chesapeake Bay naval bases, and then not working properly when used in the Pacific near the tropics.
@ What the magnetic proximity fuse of Calosi solved was EXACTLY that problem. Instead of searching for the weak magnetic field of ships (that could be easily covered by the Earth magnetic field), the S.I.C. torpedo used the compressed air cylindre as an electromagnet, and exploded when the metal mass of the ship made it change direction, when the torpedo passed under it.
Thank you SIr. US torpedo classification reminds me of the challenge of M4 tank classification when ranking "best/worst." Depends on the sub model, date of manufacture, and field expediencies.
10:00 That photo is the Torpedo Factory in Alexandria, Virginia, near DC. The building is now an art center, with a torpedo on display in a small history exhibit.
The tried and true Mk 10 proved to be a real workhorse early in the war for the US not just in the old S class boats but also in the fleet boats due to the issues with the Mk 14. The fact the US had loads of these in storage worked in its favor as well. Submarine commanders at least were pretty confident that when firing a Mk 10 that it would hit the target and explode.
The American Mark 10 may have been obsolete, but at the Battle of Savo Island the submarine USS S44 fired four of them at the Japanese heavy cruiser Kako. Three hit, sinking the Kako. It was the only American success in that battle. Turns out that the only working torpedoes they had were the oldest.
Lolol Actually you’re absolutely incorrect. The U.S. has ridiculously awful torpedos for most of the war until the Bureau of Ordinance realized that they too, like ordinary mortals, screw up. Conversely, the Type 93 Long Lance was faster, more stealthy, longer ranged and had huge warhead compared to most.
I'd actually prefer a more subjective analysis video. Most of these torpedoes were capable of sinking their intended targets on-paper (and if they weren't, that'd be a good bit of info!). Spreadsheet analysis is a good starting point, but it's a bit like comparing "armor thickness" without considering layout, quality, etc. For example, were there any nations with particularly good guidance systems? Any models that had problems with maintaining proper depth setting? A video like that would be very exciting for a layman like myself. Anyone can check wikipedia for stats, but presenting and contemplating the historical detail is what makes your work so great to watch!
Am I the only one who wants to see a version of these videos that is just Drach going down the list of weapons and ranking them purely subjectively after a few drinks?
Definitely a really tough comparison to make - as you noted! Especially when you start adding the really extreme ranges and stuff where it's a technical marvel, but almost impossible to *use* at that kind of range, etc.
That the MKVIII was in service for so long is insane to me, originally designed in the 20s and still in use until the 90s at least. Did any other torpedoes have as long a service life? (Mod4's sank the Belgrano during the Falklands War)
Some weapon system at there core are a lot older than people think, the only changes being small updates as technology allows, mostly replacement/added electronics in the last 60 years it seems Often they are only replaced when a significant leap in technology is found, and then necessitate a completely new design to take advantage of it, and even then they might stay in inventory for a long time even if not deployed on potential fronts lines anymore Not a torpedo but M2 browning from mid 1920 to ? Ak pattern/system from around 1947 to ? AR type rifle/system from around 1958 to ?
For Ranking the air dropped torpedoes, I feel that it's possibly more important to factor in the speed and height they can be dropped from as well as what range they were supposed to be dropped on (combined with speed you could calculate a rough time to target) than the overall maximum range for these torpedoes, as they were usually dropped well inside that, at least to my understanding. Very useful video overall however, thanks for breaking down all these details.
With regards to range perhaps not mattering so much... as a hunter and a sportshooter, there is a saying: "You miss 100% of the shots you do not take." While it may not seem extremely important, there are instances where an extra thousand or two thousand yards can be the difference in being able to engage a target at all, or having to watch helplessly as that valuable enemy asset slips by.
As a sharpshooter, your ability to hit long range targets is probably far, far better than the ability of anybody to hit with a WW2 torpedo at a long range. Firing through the sea is very different from firing through the air. For one thing, there's no way to know how the currents are going to affect the shot in most situations: think of this as being subject to wind without being able to adjust for the effects of the wind (but see below). The torpedoes are relatively slow as well, so there's more time for the target to move and more time for the water to affect the torpedo, compared to a bullet. _This is why range doesn't matter much: nobody competent was going to fire torpedoes at extreme range. There's too much uncertainty in everything that goes into the shot: uncertainty in the measurements (which can be expected to have significant error), and in the medium (which can mess with you even if the measurements are perfect), and in the movement of the target in the time it takes the torpedo to reach the target._ How often do bullets take three or more minutes to reach their targets? That could happen with a torpedo salvo. Torpedoes were normally fired at far less than the theoretical maximum range, typically 1-2 miles by surface ships, and often less. The Battle of Vela Gulf in 1943, where the US fired at ~6k yards, was a rare exception for the Allies. Doetniz trained his submariners to fire at 600 yards pre-war, US PT boats preferred to fire at about 500 yards when they could. The US Mark 8 torpedo carried by the PT boats had a theoretical range of 16k yards. To have a decent chance of getting hit, they were firing at far less than that maximum range. Even the Japanese didn't use the full range of their torpedoes as doctrine: unlike everybody else they could fire large salvos at longer ranges because they had so many torpedoes and such long ranges, but they still didn't fire at extreme ranges (for them!). For example, at the Battle of the Java Sea they fired 43 torpedoes at 15k yards, but the theoretical max range was ~44k yards - so that still wasn't extreme range for their weapon. The longest range hit for the entire war was probably a torpedo fired at 22k yards during the same battle - which hit as much by luck as anything else. That torpedo probably traveled for 15 minutes before hitting it's target (and it only hit a destroyer, not a high value asset). At least one other Japanese torpedo hit later in the war would be at about the same range (it's not known) - that also would hit a destroyer. Aerial torpedoes were sometimes fired at 2k yards, but you would actually get closer if you wanted a decent chance to hit, except for the cases where large numbers of torpedo bombers could attack at once to generate a large salvo from their combined launches. Long range wasn't always an asset, which you'll also appreciate as a hunter. On at least two occasions the Japanese missed their targets then hit one or more of their own ships downrange. Torpedoes are different from bullets in other ways. For example, bullets don't have control systems. The control systems on a torpedo can try to adjust for currents and depth changes. A gyro and a special water pressure system were used to do this. You might think of these as a very specialized analog AI 'helmsman' for the torpedo. But nothing created by humanity is perfect. Control systems can misbehave. There are the two cases where US subs launched torpedoes that did circular runs and sank the launching sub. These were USS Tang and the USS Tullibee. The British cruiser HMS Trinidad also had a circular run that ended up hitting the ship. These are extreme cases. You could have other problems that aren't as extreme but which might pull the torpedo out of the desired course or depth, and over a long range this can lead to a miss. Note also that currents are vectors, and any component of the vector aiding or opposing movement (the component of the vector in the line of movement of the torpedo) can not be countered by the torpedo control system (unless you have acoustic torpedoes), so it may run faster or slower than you expect, thus potentially getting to the target track either before or after the target. Depth tracking wasn't all that great to begin with and can be affected by water temperature and density changes - even full sized submarines under direct human control would sometimes broach by accident. So the medium can definitely mess with the torpedo. Finally, you don't know how explosions in the water are going to affect the rather primitive control systems (by modern standards) of the WW2 torpedo. An explosion far enough away to not destroy the torpedo could still be close enough to affect the control system with a massive shock, as water transmits force very efficiently (which is why we use hydraulic brakes in cars). It's fairly easy to design control systems to handle small shocks. Large shocks are an entirely different problem, especially when they can bend or warp or jam components. What happens then is unknown, from an engineering perspective: there are a whole bunch of possible failure modes that control systems can exhibit and nobody really knows which ones could and did happen since this is all happening underwater and often at night ...
@@icewaterslim7260 Not really: Yamato took 11 (and was doomed after 9), Musashi took much more because she was hit on both sides so didn’t capsize until after she’d gone under. Though that’s still a lot of torpedoes compared to what most other battleships could have taken and survived in that situation. I have a feeling they both might have taken a few more if their TDS wasn’t among their few major design flaws (their armor layout was excellent for dealing with gunfire and bomb hits, but terrible against torpedoes).
The Mark 14 was actually a good design that was let down by its very poor testing and development. Once the deep running and exploder issues were resolved it proved to be a solid design during the last 1/2 of the war.
@@edwardpate6128 that’s like saying, “Yup. A little makeup and plastic surgery, she’s real pretty”. You’re right though, proper testing would have fixed it and they would’ve had a decent product from the start.
@@wolf310ii Issues would've been found and fixed quickly before the war started if they had bothered to test it, or even if BuOrd had listened to the sub captains when they reported the problems.
One thing I would have liked to see noted, even if it wasnt weighted was intended target (military vs merchant), to provide context for the weapon as some were deliberately made smaller because huge warheads werent needed for merchant vessels.
Perhaps a decent way to categorize effectiveness would be to compare tonnage sunk to torpedoes launched. And maybe further break that down into merchantmen sunk and warships sunk.
For surface-launched torpedoes the Long Lance is going to be hard to beat, even without Torpex (which applies to most non-American torpedoes) and the inherent flaws of being pointlessly long-ranged. For air-dropped torpedoes the Americans have that one cornered with the Mk. 13. Edit; looks like I was mostly right on both of these, though the Type 93 was in a separate category than what I expected
On paper one of the best, but in practice had a lot of deep running issues that were never fixed until mid 1943 (were showing up as late as the Battle of Komondorski Island, also a similar problem with the Japanese submarine torpedoes) and over sensitive detonator issues that weren't fixed until December 1942. So a lot of missed kills, as opposed to the British or Italian torpedoes which had no problems early in the war
How is the long range pointless? Torpedoes are not just about killing ships you know. Oh its certainly the main part of their purpose, but its not their entire purpose. Area denial, or limiting an enemies ability to manoeuvre are both important secondary effects of torpedoes. If you look into the accounts of some WWII actions, especially destroyer actions, there are cases of torpedoes being used in exactly that way. Torpedoes being used to limit the ability of the enemy to freely manoeuvre is not some kind of edge case, but something that was understood and utilised. Destroyers dumping torpedoes into the water to deter straight line pursuit for example. Then you have the worry of the possibility of torpedoes affecting an opponents ability to manoeuvre their ships freely. This was something on Jellicoe's mind at Jutland for example. There is at least one point where he made what some might consider the wrong decision because of the worry of sailing his fleet into the path of German torpedoes, a worry that was not unfounded given German Naval doctrine at the time. A weapon like a ship launched torpedo is not *just* about killing other ships, sure its their primary role, but they do have other uses that while perhaps used somewhat less often than their primary purpose are still valuable. In the case of the Long Lance the real issue was that even as late as late 1944 the USN was simply not aware of how long range the weapon actually WAS. As a result it did not hinder their ability to manoeuvre as much as it might have done if they had been aware of the true range of the weapon. On occasion that bit the USN in the rear.... So I do not consider the long range of the Long Lance pointless in the slightest. I consider it a very real benefit of the weapon, even if that long range was not always utilised it was ALWAYS an option.... So its a far from 'pointless' characteristic of the weapon.
@@alganhar1 The issue is that the Japanese very much intended the Long Lance to actually kill enemy ships, especially during the night engagement that was supposed to form the second stage of their Kantai Kessen doctrine (the first would be the carrier battle and the third being the battleline action), and do so at ranges that would prevent enemy counterattacks; the issue being that at those ranges NO unguided torpedo would be able to reliably hit anything (though most other torpedoes literally wouldn’t be able to travel that far to start with). There’s also the fact that the Type 93’s legendary stealth (due to its pure oxygen propellant leaving no bubble trail), while a good side benefit for actually attacking and damaging enemy ships, was actively detrimental in its use as a deterrent because the enemy wasn’t going to maneuver out of the way of a torpedo they didn’t know was there. The reason the Japanese didn’t see this as a problem was because they didn’t intend the Type 93 to be an area-denial weapon in the first place.
Excellent breakdown of the technical and scoring. There was one aspect that I think would have been highly valuable in comparing the aerial torpedoes that you didn’t explore. This is unique to aerial torpedoes and very important aspects of their design and use. I am speaking of drop speed maximum and the altitude drop envelope, minimum and maximum altitudes. This is extremely important for the attacking aircraft and go a long way to determining the performance of the aerial torpedoes. The higher and faster an aerial torpedo can be deployed the more likely the attacking aircraft will survive the attack. Just a thought, what do you think?
Answer: Hedy Lamarr The actress came up with the idea of a radio control device for torpedoes using frequency hopping, which couldn't be jammed. A composer named George Antheil helped her work on the design which was patented, rejected by the Navy, seized by the government and classified as top secret. It's the foundation for modern communications including everything from Bluetooth to GPS. It was the best torpedo design never used during WW2.
Of course It's a coincidence that her ex was an arms dealer and developper. Although she didn't sink any ships, she surely sunk a lot of men. That makes her a fair (in more than one way) nominee.
@@JZsBFFShe was very intelligent and definitely absorbed a lot from the meetings that her husband allowed her to observe. Unfortunately, there were people in the government who suspected her of being a Nazis spy, even though she was Jewish on both sides of her family!
It's a bit like asking 'What's the best car ?" Depending on who you ask, it may be a Rolls, Lamborghini or some big 4X4. But maybe it could also be the discreet one that transports the most people over the most miles every day.
I refuse to watch this video on the grounds that we all know he's not picking the mark 14 . That said, thank you for all the time and effort you put into your videos. Have a nice day.
I would weigh in the percentage of duds/failures to detonate as a reliability factor, mostly because that made a HUGE impact on torpedo effectiveness especially in the beginning of the war...
As you noted, most torpedoes had more than enough charge to sink lightly defended merchant ships. By comparing charge weights this really just answers the question "Who had the best torpedoes for sinking capital ships in WW2?" Torpedoes were a secondary weapons against warships in most contexts, while they were the best weapon against merchants, so this isn't the most useful question. We should be comparing things like cost, complexity of manufacture and reliability even if those comparisons are challenging and subjective.
One possible addition would be detectability, although that would be hard. You would compare the strength of the bubble trail (or lack thereof) in optimal spotting conditions to help show how likely a torpedo is to be seen before it's too late to be avoided
"When you say electric torpedo, almost everybody thinks..", actually something that doesn't contain EXPLOSIVES inside, but blue electric energy that'll shock the whole ship and incapacitate it for xx seconds.
General question for the channel-at what point did TNT become the standard used for explosives weight and why. I know Its not fully naval but i think it is important for references particularly when talking about torpedo's, shell fillings etc.
I’m still looking for sources, but I’m going to assume around July 16 1945. In short it was the simplest way to measure the energy output from an explosion in a common metric. 1 gram of TNT = 4184 joules.
Not sure when officially standardized but if you read patrol reports of US sub commanders they remark the Torpex is significantly stronger then TNT when given the first batch. Mush Morton of USS Wahoo is one I know for sure wrote it up. So probably due to that on the scene recounting let it become standardized.
@@5RndsFFE TNT equivalent is defined on the thermo-chemical calorie. The conversion is: 1 thermochemical calorie = 4184 J = 1 g TNT equivalent. A search using AI resulted in TNT equivalent being introduced in the "early 20th century". It was certainly defined before 1948, when Joule was defined as the SI-unit for energy.
@@knowshistory8740 For chemical explosives it's considerably more complex than that, as the speed of the explosion matters as well as the raw energy. Also, the value changes depending on whether the use is underwater vs in air - torpex is greatly more effective than TNT as a torpedo filler, but not as a shell filler for this reason. The reason for TNT being a standard is that it was a common military explosive used as a shell and bomb filler in a fairly pure form. It's pretty easy to make, and there's no secret formula or anything. Thus it's a fairly easy thing to compare to that doesn't reveal any special secrets.
Great video Drach. I think you have a sound methodology and I do agree that including a reliability factor would be rather difficult. Especially in the US case given how various workarounds and field mods did help improve the US torpedoes before the later variants which did solve the issues. One problem with the MK18 that perhaps should have been scored (and this may or may not apply to other sub and surface launched torpedoes) is the lack of circular run protection which cost the US Tang and perhaps other boats as well. I think when ranking aerial torpedoes range is somewhat irrelevant unless it’s constraining your preferred drop method. For example if the US late war (and I’m making this number up because I don’t know the answer) sought to drop at not greater than 2000yds then a torpedo range in excess of say 2500 yds is just wasted. What is far more valuable is torpedo speed (which you rank) which both prevents an enemy from just outrunning it and also improves the chance of a hit because run time from a given range is lower. But also the drop envelope (which you don’t rank) which can make the aircraft dropping it MUCH more likely to be shot down in the first place. The prime example of this being the early war US Mk13 with its very low limits on speed and altitude for a drop. Finally it may be worth considering just how much depth of water these torpedoes required. This is a bit iffy as nations that needed the ability to drop in shallow waters seem to have developed kits for this which may mean that those that didn’t just didn’t have a need. But it is another factor.
Going to have to disagree with you on range being somewhat irrelevant, at least if you want to get your air wing back. To take your 2000 yds example, fine if your target is just carrying 20mm Oerlikons as their effective range is roughly 1600 yds*. Unfortunately your opponents start mounting 40mm Bofors with an effective range of around 4000 yds. Oh dear, now you're losing aircraft. Range matters.
@gwtpictgwtpict4214 Which is why he mentioned preferred drop range and made-up numbers. If you have an unguided airdropped torpedo with a 10 km range, but your doctrine says to release it at 3 km, then at least 5 km of that range is useless. You'd be better off reducing the range for one or more of the following benefits: reduced weight (potentially allowing the carrying aircraft to be faster), reduced cost, increased warhead size (increased chance of a kill), increased speed (increased chance of a hit), and/or a guidance system (increased chance to hit). Even if you do release at 10 km range, you aren't hitting shit without an on board guidance system, so you would still be better off reducing the range anyway.
Thank you for your, as usual, thoughtful analysis of WW1/WW2 torpedos. I’d be interested in your views on two special purpose torpedos, the Allies Mk-24 anti-submarine torpedo and the German acoustic torpedo, particularly in light of the current debate about autonomous AI drones being given weapon release without a human supervision in the loop. The reason I raise this that both the Mk-24 and the German acoustic torpedo were unusual guided weapons in they were launched BEFORE the target was acquired and locked, unlike most other weapon systems (esp air-to-air). Granted, the nature of their sensor meant they could only home on propellor cavitation frequency noise. The only current similar system I’m aware of is the Captor mine, but really that’s just another type if static mine with an unusual kill mechanism.
Since the topic is torpedoes= why did some nations used dual sizes of torpedoes on submarines? Examples are the french Redoutable class and minerve. They have 550mm torpedoes....but also some 400mm torpedo tubes (redoubtable internal, minerve external). What is the possible benefit and reason france did that? I believe italy also had some subs that did that.
The theory went that smaller torpedoes either could have launchers fitted in areas larger tubes couldn't fit, and/or could be used on weaker targets like merchantmen while carrying more weapons and each one costing less. The Italian's for example launched an entire class of sub intended specifically for commerce raiding and they went with more smaller torpedoes and tubes as opposed to the conventional wisdom of fewer and heavier (21") weapons.
This was a great statistical comparison. I would like to see a comparison including launch systems and ask which was the most effective torpedo of the war?
I guess it shouldn't be too surprising that Japan is on the podium in nearly every category due to how obsessed they were with being able to force a capital ship parity within the first 6mo-1yr of a war.
It would be interesting to identify those torpedoes (surface launched) that could be gyro angled to steer a course other than the direction of the tube that launched them. That was a big thing with the US navy in the 1930s, where tubes on both sides of a Destroyer could be fired simultaneously and all would curve around to a pre-selected course. British torpedoes were launched only at a 90 degree to the ship’s heading, so you had to wait till the sights came on as the ship swung around before you could fire. Was a problem at Narvik. Angle Makes life much easier for a Destroyer skipper if you can launch at any heading.
I know it might be difficult, but I would add additional points for the addition of steering / homing systems, but only for those torpedos which were actively used in quantifiable numbers. There could be something like Bonus Point: Had x / y amount of steering/searching / homing options, (Point per option. Same goes for the detonator: Get a point per Detonator Option, lose two points if one does not actually work (in a certain version).
Love your Info! You got me with "air launched" as "I think" you wanted to say Airial, or Dropped torpedoes? as I recall "Air Launched" torpedoes were not new in WWII.
Though don't the electrics had the advantage of having less of a bubble trail? At least with later torpedoes, with passive sonar being used, the electrics gave little time for a target notice it's being shot at. By the time they'd decided to do anything about the fact they're getting shot at, the torpedo would already be close enough to have a vote in the course of action. That vote typically being 'oh no, you don't'.
A really nice follow up to this would be a compilation of the success of these various torpedos in warships sunk and cargo ships sunk and total tonnage. In other words, regardless of how they scored technically, how effective were they when used?
I can attest from personal experience that an 800 LB torpex warhead makes one helluva bang when it goes off and when that is done in 10m of water it makes a really deep hole and throws a lots of dirt and water a long way up in the air, especially when accompanied by 6 x 500Lb MC GP bombs. My biggest ever explosion. One of the benefits of being an RN MCDO course officer on exchange with the RAN at HMAS Penguin and deployed to Shoalwater Bay Military Training Area in QLD.
20:30 when you're done with all that fancy calculus at school, this looks much more like the monday mid-morning sort of engineering you'll actually be paid to be doing. like the architect who spent his school days designing skyscrapers, gets to work and opens a spreadsheet to go through the list of door furniture, corridor six, east wing, level two of some huge hospital modernisation programme to check off against the drawings and firm up pricing.
My father in law was presure testing the German/Norwegian G7(t1) in the late 80s for a liftime extension program. And he learned the hard way that the secondary explosion from the airtanks in the torpedos was suprisingly strong, the test was scheduled to be conducted in the sea but had to be moved to a bunker after the first test du to a limited window budget 😅, the bunker also had to undergo extensive refurbishment after the tests was concluded. But the program was successful and the T1 was in use until the early 2000's in Norway.
TNT equivalent payload should always be the measuring standard, because it also means you can have less weight for the same charge effectiveness and therefore more fuel for range, out of the same dimensions. Or any other tradeoff you can think of. This is a mistake I see often when discussing artillery shells or tank shells and so on. People will often say 'this one had 28g of HE, this one had 43g of HE, therefore xyz' and completely forget to look at what the type of explosive the charge actually is. The plane launched ones should def be judged way more on speed and altitude of release possible, which is going to be your first big problem even getting them in the water and working, while getting shot to pieces by AA meanwhile. A fair share of the brit air launched ones were pretty terrible in that department, and even in gamified simulator games are borderline impossible to use or hit anything with because also either extremely slow ranged or slow. Which makes it even more of a miracle that the whole Bismarck situation ever happened.
You should do a video on the type torpedoes that sank the Royal Oak, Barham, Prince of Wales, Pearl Harbor battleships, Musashi, Kongo and Yamato, plus all the carriers and heavy cruisers lost to torpedoes.
I think this really goes to show just how much damage the Bureau of Ordinance did to the US war effort. American torpedoes don't really set the world on fire, but they're all credible on paper. If they had worked properly they could have done significant damage. And holy moly the Japanese submarine torpedoes are nuts. No wonder USS _Wasp_ instantly blew up. Also I do think you should have included the maximum drop speed and altitude of the aerial torpedoes. The Japanese torpedoes had really good ones throughout and I'd argue that that was a significant factor in their effectiveness. It made their aircraft harder targets for AA guns and reduced the time fighters had to intercept them.
If you are going to ignore reliability in this video, I’d suggest doing a separate video that addresses reliability specifically. When judging if a torpedo is the best for a given war reliability is key. I don’t care how many bells whistles a weapon has, if it doesn’t work it is useless. So knowing which 1 was most reliable over the whole war is important.
Dutch torpedos were great in the early part of WW2. I wonder if they will get a mention.... Nope. Which is a pity as most of them did actually go Boom.
Hi Drach, these are all very interesting for a commonly used naval weapon of WW2, but could you discuss active and passive torpedo defences? How can you stop a running torpedo with another light torpedo for example (is it possible, was this concept tested back then) and how do you prevent a torpedo from opening up your internal bulkheads when it hits with passive defences. I know de-gaussing had some effect on torpedos (and sea mines) with a magnetic trigger, which is another form of passive defence.
Drach as dumped a full spread of Torps into the water, best turn away and open the distance or face them down Jutland style….. so do you feel lucky viewer?
Clearly an objective measure is the category of "How likely is the crew to strap BuOrd personnel to the torpedo before firing if they get their hands on them"
I was looking for this comment, thinking that I couldn't really be the only one whose mind went to Farragut's famous quote upon seeing this episode's title 😄
I know that Naval Weapons of WW2 gives the British 18” Mk XII torpedoes speed/range figures of 37kts/3500 yds and 40kts/1500 yds, I wonder if the first figure is correct? Admiral Schofield’s book on Taranto says the MkXII torpedoes were set to run at 27kts, which seems much more reasonable for the large increase in range for the slow setting. I wonder if the 37 is a typographical error that has crept in and been repeated in later reference books?
Can someone post the link to the video Drach was talking about, "who had the best guns of WW2"? I've seen the AA one, but can't find or remember seeing the one about main guns
During WWII what was the average range that submarines typically engaged their targets? The impression I got from reading Clay Blair's book "Silent Victory: The U.S. Submarine War Against Japan," generally regarded as the most authoritative book on that subject, that typical engagement ranges were 2000 yards or less. Having a torpedo that could range out to 7 or 8000 thousand yards is nice and all, but if you're not actually firing torpedoes from those distances it almost seems like a waste.
Something that isn't mentioned, unless I missed it, is how effective smaller warheads are when used with FUNCTIONING magnetic detonators below the keel of a warship.
Pinned post for Q&A :)
If you could create the “composite WWII torpedo” to create the best torpedo with the available technology from 1939 to 1945, which design features from which torpedoes would you choose?
Who had the better torpedos in the Russo-Japanese War? Given that, how excessive were Kamchatka's fears of torpedo boats?
1. why did the Japanese use naval bombardment against Henderson Field if it wasn’t part of their doctrine & once they did do it, why didn’t they incorporate it into their doctrine?
2. What is the difference between torpex & cordite? Why was torpex used for torpedos while cordite was used in artillery shells?
3. What was the difference between light & heavy cruisers in different navies in WW2? I’ve tried to find a good answer on line but haven’t found any.
Copying another commenters question they didn't put here: "why did some nations used dual sizes of torpedoes on submarines? Examples are the french Redoutable class and minerve. They have 550mm torpedoes....but also some 400mm torpedo tubes (redoubtable internal, minerve external). What is the possible benefit and reason france did that? I believe italy also had some subs that did that."
What was the longest range Long Lance torpedoes were successfully (hit a target and detonated) fired from in combat during WWII?
The US Mark 14 torpedo was an excellent design.
Signed,
Yamamoto Isoroku
The US Mark 14 was the most reliable torpedo in production in 1941. The Mark 13 and Mark 15 were far worse
Yeah, very "reliable!" When it wasn't working properly the first two years of the war, sailors could rely on it NOT WORKING on a very consistent basis. Then, after all the failures were mostly fixed, sailors could rely on it to be effective in sinking targets when it hit. But it was very consistent. Either it consistently didn't work or it consistently did work. After it started working it was one of the best torpedoes of WW2. It was just a couple years late for it's reputation!
The Royal Navy did really get lucky that the Germans also had a problem with their magnetic detonators. The RN could have seen several more capital ships sunk at the start of WW2 had Germany not faced those similar problems as well. But Germany trusted their U -boat Captains & quickly fixed the problems while the US & it's "Bureau of Ordinance" wanted to deny the claims & try to say that the Submariners just weren't using the torpedoes properly. When it wasn't just the Submariners having problems but the torpedo planes were also having the same problems. And with sailors & aviators dying in an effort to use torpedoes that did NOT explode the problems SHOULD HAVE BEEN fixed immediately in honor of the men that had already lost their lives trying to deliver faulty ordinance to the enemy.
When the Mark14 wasn't working, at least it made a decent cocktail with it's juice.
"Who designed these electric arming switches, anyways!" "Yamamoto, who do you think!"
Oh boy, i sure hope the Mark 14 does well in this competition
The funny thing is, by the end of the war it was actually not bad at all. Shame about that whole "1942" thing, though...
It will probably do well, in 1942, when it comes in volume of correspondence, complaining about its "lack of performance".
The Ordinance Bureau says it works perfectly so I'm sure it'll win
This is definitely what the Bureau of Ordinance would say covering their eyes and ears 😂
The torpedo was good; the firing mechanism not so much to start.
The Elbonian Navy's recent purchace of US mark 14 torpedoes manufacturerd in 1941 is absolutely certain to see them to glory!
Better if they were made late 41 and early 42 as the production would be even more sub-par as folks got to learn on the job then.
Nice nod to Perun.
@@stevebriggs9399 perun got that challenge from lazerpig, the history of everything and some others. This means the stage is now set for Tex of the BPL to suggest the MGM-51 Shillelagh, Davy Crocket, Locc and Gluger, and Christmas Bullet be added to the elbonian millitary.
@@SpaceMarine4040 forgotten weapons has been doing Elbonian videos for awhile now.
@@thomasmolloy5447 You could replace or rework the impact detonator and make that functional. They did that in the later part of '43 and used them. The magnetic detonator still had problems.
I'd personally love a "weird torpedoes" video.
MK 27 Cutie. Sub caliber submarine torpedo. Brutally slow, criminally short ranged, tiny warhead. But, it had an effective acoustic homing guidance system in 1943. Won't kill a BB, but would blow the screws of the DD coming to depth charge you.
This
Fido, AKA Mark VIII (if I remember correctly) mine, the air dropped anti submarine homing torpedo.
Idem
Hitler and Eva Braun escaped to Argentina. Watch the docudrama film Greywolf and Mark Felton videos; Find the Fuhrer, if you don’t believe me.
Since everyone is expecting the US to be in the last place, I want to give a huge shout-out to the Mk24 and Mk27 homing torpedoes, they were both acoustic homing torpedo, in the case of the air dropped Mk24 it managed to sank at least 25 axis submarines and for the sub launched"Cutie" Mk27, it served mostly as a defensive weapon against pursuing enemy surface ships. Granted both torpedoes had suboptimal speed like 12-20kts, it's typical for an acoustic homing torpedo for their time.
Yes. The Americans and Germans both had Acoustic Homing Torpedoes. The Germans used theirs from Subs while the _"Fido"_ American was air dropped and used against subs.
The Americans were so concerned with anyone realizing that they had a homing torpedo that the labeled the Mark 24 as a "Mine" ... and waited a damn long time before it was revealed to have existed.
I didn't know if anyone else had any but a quick search reveals quite a few
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Acoustic+Homing+Torpedoes&sourceid=Mozilla-search&ns0=1
Perhaps a video on Homing Torpedoes and the countermeasures used against them?
I believe that some of the more modern Homing Torpedoes were in fact Wire Guided while others could try - fail and then retry.
Curiously - the British used a conventional torpedo on the _Belgrano_ but one was enough. I don't think they wanted to sink it - but - it's Water Tight Integrity wasn't all that great - and - the damage it caused took out the pumps (iirc). Fortunately - the ship had very sophisticated Life Boats and most of the crew survived.
Argentina's Subs didn't have a lot of luck against the British Surface ships and the British didn't have a lot of luck finding them.
Given the lack of opportunities this is the only actual shooting conflict I'm aware of involving subs since WWII.
.
@@BobSmith-dk8nw actual modern torpedoes usually are glass fiber controlled, have active and passive sonar capabilities, and can switch to fire and forget mode if desired.
.. and the US Mark28, German T5, etc
To add to your point, Mk-27 'Cutie' torpedoes, like any new weapon after initial teething problems, would go on to have a very commendable 33% success rate when it came to hitting their targets. When used against cargo vessels or escorts like destroyers, US submarines had to fire the Cutie at a certain depth before diving further below. Once the weapon impacted the enemy ship via acoustic homing, this either damaged the enemy's propellers or sank it outright. The Mk-27 'Cutie' sank a total of 24 ships with 9 others damaged. A very good development in US torpedo history.
7:00 I don't know what Drach's going to decide, but in the case of the MK 14, I would like to see two different entries one early one late.
FYI late war Italian torpedoes also carried warheads other than TNT, they could be carrying S1/S2 explosive warhead, or an unnamed mix that had 60% TNT, 20% RDX and 20% Aluminuum powder, so they should be a bit above in the air dropped torpedoes category, close to the UK MkXV.
Also you should have considered other variables, such as the max speed and height for an air dropped torpedo. Italian ones right from the start of the war could be dropped at 300 kts and from 100 m, whereas any other torpedo could at most be dropped at a speed of 200 kts at 50 m (British and Japanese ones, American ones were even lower at 150 kts at 15 m)
From video game experience, I agree that the drop altitude and speed matter a lot, albeit only as long as the delivery plane is capable of such speed and altitude. Torps carried by Swordfish, for instance, would benefit very little of huge drop speed.
To add to the dropping characteristics: while at the start of the war, models like the Mark 13 torpedo had to be babied, at the end of the war, some torpedoes had crazy performance: the strengthened version of the Mark XV from 1945 could be dropped at 350 knots (at an unknown height), the last Type 91s from 1943 on could be dropped at up to 400 knots, and the latest Mark 13s could be dropped from 730m at up to 410 knots!
Also, on warheads, Soviet torpedoes used a mixture called TGA, which was 60% TNT, 34% RDX, and 16% aluminum powder, and 1.45-1.5 times as powerful as TNT.
Wow, that's impressive, but did the Italians have an aircraft that could go that fast while carrying this torpedo???
110%?
@@WushuMR2 The Italians used the Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 Sparviero, a three engined bomber to launch torpedoes.
0:35 General Kenobi, you are a bold one
Most uncivilised
@ “Let her go, Anakin” …
you didn't even do the quote correctly it's "bold one" not "brave one"
@ good catch, thank you
I knew someone was gonna do it
The FIDO torpedo is an absolutely crazy invention I had no idea existed until recently, I think it deserves more exposure for how advanced yet simple it was
There is in Tube long voice clip of Grumman Avenger hunting U-boat with sonobuoys, dropping Fido and sinking the U-boat. From mid 1944. That was real space magic at the time. Much more than German wunderwaffe.
The funny irony is that the FIDO was officially classified as a naval mine to conceal its real capabilities, which were originally called torpedoes.
have you never heard of the Zaunkönig?
@Lenn869 Fido was 3 dimensional homing torpedo.
It's amazing how nearly all "smart" weapons had their origins in WW2, which isn't something you normally picture. Rockets, sure, but guided torps? Radio-guided Bombs? Cruise missiles? Drones?
I was an apprentice in the Royal Naval Torpedo Factory from 1966 to 1971 - as well as making modern torpedoes there was still a huge workshop where the Mk VIII torpedoes came into be serviced and refurbished.
When I first saw inside one I was surprised at just how small the burner cycle engine actually was.
Just starting the video. I'm going to call it now that at some point Drac is going to channel his inner Khan and yell "aft Torpedoes fire!".
No old chap, he would say “aft torpedos shoot”
@@damedusa5107didn't the Germans say "loose" or is that some Hollywood nonsense we put into fact lol?
Hey now he may go for double Hollywood points and yell "Aft Torpedos Los!!!!"
@@adamjaquay4279 I’ve read ‘Los’
@@adamjaquay4279 I found the following post in a German language subreddit thread (I'm not sure how correct it is tho):
*_"Los" How to use it?_*
"The suffix "-los" means "without". It then works similar to the English "-less". E.g. "jobless" = "arbeitslos".
The word "los" by itself or used as a prefix, however, has a similar etymology as the English word "loose". Nowadays it is used in many different ways that are hard to consolidate. Many of the meanings mean "start", like "losgehen" (to start walking), "loslaufen" (to start running), or "lossingen" (to start singing). Other meanings, however, still use it to mean "loose" or in a broader sense "away", like "loslassen" (let loose), "losbinden" (to untie/loosen ties), or "loswerden" (to get rid off)."
Japanese Long Lance torps were no joke! They were reliable and packed a wallop.
11 nautical mile hit is still the record . . . On USS Strong while exiting a channel in the Solomans the night before the Battle of Kula Gulf as launched by IJN Destroyer "Niizuki". One of a 14 torpedo spread.
Though I heard they where very very explosive, especially for the ship they where on if something happened to hit a loaded deck mount...
@@Ospray3151 That's the problem with running them on pure oxygen instead of compressed air.
@ This was less of. problem than usually claimed (due to the main case study of this being a problem having been debunked entirely). There were still some cases of Japanese ships being fatally damaged by their own torpedoes, but not that many; it was way down on the list of things wrong with the IJN.
@bkjeong4302 Nothing wrong with the torpedo. When a shell fragment or anything else penetraded their torpedo tube they were as devastating as when used against us. They were also devestating when a bomb penetraded the decks of their carriers when they were arming aircraft with them. Towards the end of the war IJN Destroyer Captains often jettisoned their inventory of torpedoes so they might have survivors should their ship be sunk. They scored in several surface battles from the Java sea to Tassaferonga and others at ranges we didn't think capable because we didn't think pure compressed oxygen could be used as the oxidizer. It was the most advanced torpedo propulsion system of the war. The warhead as designed in the early '30s was meant to take out Battleships and was considerably potent as demonstrated on several of our cruisers. We didn't have anything like it's propulsion system until the '50s. It might not have changed the coarse of the war for them but it, along with their training and execution of it, was their tactical advantage in several night surface battles into '43 where we would otherwise have the gunnery advantage.
It was me, my torpedoes were the best of any Navy in the world. But as I'm a peaceable man, I refused to sell them to any of the warring parties. Instead, I gave the design to Andorra, with the promise they'd only use them for self defense. And as they're landlocked...
😂😂
Could you imagine how terrifying a torpedo that could travel through the ground would be?
@ Hmmm... [scribbles notes furiously]
@ wouldn’t that be a bunker buster?
@ Combine a tunnel-borer and a Grand Slam and we've got something.
Hi Drach, given that the WW2 navies had differing strategic goals; the Japanese focus being on destroying capital ships whilst the Germans were primarily seeking to destroy merchant shipping, the missing 'rating' category seems to be 'target type'.
Sure, if you're looking to overcome BB TDS then you need a very big warhead. However; if you primary targets are merchant ships - and their escorts - heavy warheads are excess baggage. Torpedo speed is also less relevant.
One last thought - direct impact torpedoes vs magnetic. A direct impact on a TDS relies on explosive weight to damage the target. A magnetic detonator torpedo relies on the water blast effect to 'break the back' of the target - an attack which a TDS may, or may not, mitigate.
Yes. This. Hence my query on tonnage sunk being a factor or not.
YOU try doing that rating for different types of targets... you'll quickly see why Drach didn't- each target type necessitates its own unique scoring criteria, meaning you'll have one score set for each target type, and you can't compare them to each other in any meaningfull way- each has specific unique circumstances.
24:30 - the US torpedos need a “predictability” rating, as opposed to “reliability”.
Well they were predictable unreliable if that helps. Still am flabbergasted how the same ordinance department was able to cone up with the twin 5" mount but unable to fathom the concept of faulty detonators. Very odd
@@adamjaquay4279different sections inside the department, also head of the department didn't develop the 5 inch twin so it got an honest shake down before being fielded. The MK14 with magnetic explorer was who ended up becoming boss's pet project.
@@adamjaquay4279Different departments run differently I suppose.
@@Pilotmario interesting thought
@@adamjaquay4279Pretty much just a different department. The gun side of BuOrd was working just fine
The poking device for performances, for technological level, the last German ones were amazing for the time.
Obviously I comment before watching the video 😂
One point I really loved in Drach videos is how he takes the needed time to explain how he rates things ❤️👍
@@khaelamensha3624 I believe they came up with the first anti-shipping missile. I forget whether it was a Vichy French or Italian warship we captured that they used it on. It worked.
@@icewaterslim7260 The Fritz X guided bomb was used a number of times, the most famous case being against the Italian battleship _Roma,_ which was sunk.
Definitely want that 'experimental/specialist torpedoes" video!
Probably the only thing you didn't compare with the aerial torpedoes with altitude and speed of insertion into the water. The difference between the two US model 13 was considerable in these areas. This goes to your "delivery system" comparison.
Except I would say it's not an issue of delivery system. As far as I know except for a rare case or two the aircraft all had better performance than the ability of the torpedo to be launched. For example the avenger could still fly faster and higher than the US late war torpedos could be dropped.
From video game experience, I think the drop altitude can compensate the range a lot, as the torpedo can travel part of the range in the air (only starting to consume its fuel after hitting water, I presume). Similarly, high drop speed means the torp may actually travel a lot faster initially, so it compensates the speed it gets from its motors - or even neglects it if dropped close enoug to not fully slow down before reaching the target.
In addition, higher drop speed means the delivery aircraft can do the run at higher speed and thus get closer and still spend less time within the range of AA guns.
So, from my point of view, the drop speed matters more than the actual speed or range of the torpedo. And it would seem the Americans agreed with that.
Of course, none of this matters if the plane is not capable of such speeds (or altitudes). Swordfish, for instance, would gain very little benefit from delivering the model 13. But that is a delivery system matter if anything.
At least for aerial torpedos, weight should have been part of the comparation. A torpedo, that is 50% heavier and has a 50% larger warhead is by no means better. It means less fuel or additional weapons for the aircraft.
@@orbiradio2465to be fair, most planes only could carry 1 torpedo , only medium(or larger)land based bombers or flying boats could carry 2.
In high school (back in the 1970s) we had a post WW2 torpedo (less the boom stuff) in shop class. It was jam packed full of tube electronics which occupied the space of a mini-fridge ! That's "valve" electronics for Drach.
That would have been one of the homing or wire guided torpedoes.
Most of the WW2 torpedoes were resolutely mechanical marvels…(including the pattern running ones). They continued in service into the 1990’s.
14:14 I love how the Whitehead torpedo has a Chamber of Secrets (Chambre á Secret). Although with the way patent rights used to be guarded and enforced, I could almost see Robert Whitehead including a large venomous snake inside each and every torpedo's hydrostatic controller section. 😂
so they didnt leave wakes so much as ...slitherine tracks..... also explains the sidewinder missile
Had the Whitehead torpedo achieved performance approaching one of the better Japanese torpedoes, it could have been given the nickname "The Basilisk."
Wait a min man, don't be giving the MOD any ideas, they invented a Chicken Bomb, who knows what they would come up with allowed to use snakes as well.
And his grand children singing a song about it (Look up who the von Trapp’s were descendants of).
Fish controlled torpedoes! Great, but they run away from sharks and try to head to it's spawning rivers and the anglers don't like explody things on their hooks...
Where the super long range of those long lances came into play is when missing one ship in a formation, in multiple instances initial targets were missed and the torpedoes kept going and randomly hit another ship. I'm not sure if that's enough of a reason to give it a higher score as it's more or less dumb luck, but given enough chances those snakeyes did turn up a few times.
What about when they miss the US target, and continue on to hit a Japanese ship in the distance?
What type of torpedo sank Belgrano ?
@@williamcarrington61, Mark 8 Mod 4 Torpedo
Those ranges are fairly reasonable for a submerged launched torpedo. A periscope at 10 foot above a flat surface will see just short of 4 miles (distance to the horizon). This reduces to about 1.5 miles if the periscope is only 1.5 foot above the surface.
☝thank you. That gives a much needed perspective, at least in my opinion.
They needed flat earther torpedos.
@@JoshuaTootell they had a problem with those. They weren’t designed to “nose down” and follow the curve so they kept breaching the surface.
I know it is horribly outdated but I am curious how the Whitehead Torpedo used by the Oscarborg Fortress to sink the Blucher would stack up.
Blucher: 10/10 - would sink again.
Drach: insufficient data for WWII - and no, I'm not going to ask my Patreons if they want a WWI torpedo comparison video...
Well, it didn’t sink the fortress that fired it, so probably above the 1942 Mk IVX.
Very much better than the early US torpedoes. The proof of my statement is that they actually hit and sank the Blucher.
@@andrewallen9993 It is one of the cases where range really do not matter.
If one had to design a torpedo for that specific use if would need very limited range, limited speed.
but a sufficient amount of Boom.... but most important of all: You need to be able to put it in storage for decades.. and then take it out and use it. And it MUST work.
@thomasbaagaard Like a Whitehead not the US BO torpedoes. That didn't work straight from the factory.
Honestly I'd love to see a video on the more weird, experimental, or technological dead end torpedoes throughout all of history like the Italian merchant one you mentioned in the beginning. I love when you talk about those more obscure or anomalous things in naval history.
Though yeah I understand researching info on that stuff is probably also a lot harder
The Italians also had the only really reliable magnetic proximity fuse of the war.
The most interesting thing about it however probably is how the designer,Carlo Calosi, the day of the Italian Armistice, destroyed all of his papers, to avoid them to be kept by the Germans, and joined a resistance group in the mountains. Then the Allies devised a daring operation (that inspired the novel and then the movie "cloak and dagger") to extract him from beyond the lines and transfer him to the US, to design a countermeasure agains his own invention (that he did).
@@neutronalchemist3241 In fairness, that reliability might be because they used it pretty much only in one enviroment (Mediterrenean).
As one of the issues that made magnetic detonators unreliable was that different regions of Earth have different degrees of magnetism. So magnetic fuses that work perfectly well on German shores have issues when used in Northern Norway. I think some US torpedoes had similar issues of being tested in like Chesapeake Bay naval bases, and then not working properly when used in the Pacific near the tropics.
@ What the magnetic proximity fuse of Calosi solved was EXACTLY that problem.
Instead of searching for the weak magnetic field of ships (that could be easily covered by the Earth magnetic field), the S.I.C. torpedo used the compressed air cylindre as an electromagnet, and exploded when the metal mass of the ship made it change direction, when the torpedo passed under it.
Thank you SIr. US torpedo classification reminds me of the challenge of M4 tank classification when ranking "best/worst." Depends on the sub model, date of manufacture, and field expediencies.
10:00 That photo is the Torpedo Factory in Alexandria, Virginia, near DC. The building is now an art center, with a torpedo on display in a small history exhibit.
More quality material. A terrific use of this platform.
The tried and true Mk 10 proved to be a real workhorse early in the war for the US not just in the old S class boats but also in the fleet boats due to the issues with the Mk 14. The fact the US had loads of these in storage worked in its favor as well. Submarine commanders at least were pretty confident that when firing a Mk 10 that it would hit the target and explode.
The best torpedo was definitely from Barbados. A jigger each of rum, cognac, creme de menthe and vodka. Serve on the rocks.
@@VintageCarHistory nice one
They go well with coconut breaded torpedo shrimp.
why did that give me a 'Danger 5' vibe?
And then you have a nice lie down.
Oh Man now I'm thirsty
The American Mark 10 may have been obsolete, but at the Battle of Savo Island the submarine USS S44 fired four of them at the Japanese heavy cruiser Kako. Three hit, sinking the Kako. It was the only American success in that battle. Turns out that the only working torpedoes they had were the oldest.
I really enjoyed this. Thanks! I bet that you had fun putting all of this information together and figuring out the ratings too.
Without watching: USA : Last place, Japan: 1st
Yup
You beat me to it
USA.❤
Lolol Actually you’re absolutely incorrect. The U.S. has ridiculously awful torpedos for most of the war until the Bureau of Ordinance realized that they too, like ordinary mortals, screw up. Conversely, the Type 93 Long Lance was faster, more stealthy, longer ranged and had huge warhead compared to most.
Yeaaah, not much debate here 😂
Finally have time to watch this. I always enjoy these Patreon picked videos. They're always pretty direct.
I'd actually prefer a more subjective analysis video. Most of these torpedoes were capable of sinking their intended targets on-paper (and if they weren't, that'd be a good bit of info!). Spreadsheet analysis is a good starting point, but it's a bit like comparing "armor thickness" without considering layout, quality, etc. For example, were there any nations with particularly good guidance systems? Any models that had problems with maintaining proper depth setting? A video like that would be very exciting for a layman like myself. Anyone can check wikipedia for stats, but presenting and contemplating the historical detail is what makes your work so great to watch!
Am I the only one who wants to see a version of these videos that is just Drach going down the list of weapons and ranking them purely subjectively after a few drinks?
Yes! We need a "weird torpedoes" video!
Definitely a really tough comparison to make - as you noted! Especially when you start adding the really extreme ranges and stuff where it's a technical marvel, but almost impossible to *use* at that kind of range, etc.
That the MKVIII was in service for so long is insane to me, originally designed in the 20s and still in use until the 90s at least. Did any other torpedoes have as long a service life? (Mod4's sank the Belgrano during the Falklands War)
The US Mk14 had just as long a service life (as the Mk16). The Mk 16 was active into the 80s.
Some weapon system at there core are a lot older than people think, the only changes being small updates as technology allows, mostly replacement/added electronics in the last 60 years it seems
Often they are only replaced when a significant leap in technology is found, and then necessitate a completely new design to take advantage of it, and even then they might stay in inventory for a long time even if not deployed on potential fronts lines anymore
Not a torpedo but M2 browning from mid 1920 to ?
Ak pattern/system from around 1947 to ?
AR type rifle/system from around 1958 to ?
The G7 was also very long in service, in Norway till the early 2000s
For Ranking the air dropped torpedoes, I feel that it's possibly more important to factor in the speed and height they can be dropped from as well as what range they were supposed to be dropped on (combined with speed you could calculate a rough time to target) than the overall maximum range for these torpedoes, as they were usually dropped well inside that, at least to my understanding. Very useful video overall however, thanks for breaking down all these details.
With regards to range perhaps not mattering so much... as a hunter and a sportshooter, there is a saying:
"You miss 100% of the shots you do not take."
While it may not seem extremely important, there are instances where an extra thousand or two thousand yards can be the difference in being able to engage a target at all, or having to watch helplessly as that valuable enemy asset slips by.
Or, in some cases, you launch torpedoes from out of range anyways and get no hits. See: Battle of the Bay of Biscay
As a sharpshooter, your ability to hit long range targets is probably far, far better than the ability of anybody to hit with a WW2 torpedo at a long range.
Firing through the sea is very different from firing through the air. For one thing, there's no way to know how the currents are going to affect the shot in most situations: think of this as being subject to wind without being able to adjust for the effects of the wind (but see below). The torpedoes are relatively slow as well, so there's more time for the target to move and more time for the water to affect the torpedo, compared to a bullet.
_This is why range doesn't matter much: nobody competent was going to fire torpedoes at extreme range. There's too much uncertainty in everything that goes into the shot: uncertainty in the measurements (which can be expected to have significant error), and in the medium (which can mess with you even if the measurements are perfect), and in the movement of the target in the time it takes the torpedo to reach the target._
How often do bullets take three or more minutes to reach their targets? That could happen with a torpedo salvo.
Torpedoes were normally fired at far less than the theoretical maximum range, typically 1-2 miles by surface ships, and often less. The Battle of Vela Gulf in 1943, where the US fired at ~6k yards, was a rare exception for the Allies.
Doetniz trained his submariners to fire at 600 yards pre-war, US PT boats preferred to fire at about 500 yards when they could. The US Mark 8 torpedo carried by the PT boats had a theoretical range of 16k yards. To have a decent chance of getting hit, they were firing at far less than that maximum range.
Even the Japanese didn't use the full range of their torpedoes as doctrine: unlike everybody else they could fire large salvos at longer ranges because they had so many torpedoes and such long ranges, but they still didn't fire at extreme ranges (for them!). For example, at the Battle of the Java Sea they fired 43 torpedoes at 15k yards, but the theoretical max range was ~44k yards - so that still wasn't extreme range for their weapon.
The longest range hit for the entire war was probably a torpedo fired at 22k yards during the same battle - which hit as much by luck as anything else. That torpedo probably traveled for 15 minutes before hitting it's target (and it only hit a destroyer, not a high value asset). At least one other Japanese torpedo hit later in the war would be at about the same range (it's not known) - that also would hit a destroyer.
Aerial torpedoes were sometimes fired at 2k yards, but you would actually get closer if you wanted a decent chance to hit, except for the cases where large numbers of torpedo bombers could attack at once to generate a large salvo from their combined launches.
Long range wasn't always an asset, which you'll also appreciate as a hunter. On at least two occasions the Japanese missed their targets then hit one or more of their own ships downrange.
Torpedoes are different from bullets in other ways.
For example, bullets don't have control systems. The control systems on a torpedo can try to adjust for currents and depth changes. A gyro and a special water pressure system were used to do this. You might think of these as a very specialized analog AI 'helmsman' for the torpedo.
But nothing created by humanity is perfect. Control systems can misbehave. There are the two cases where US subs launched torpedoes that did circular runs and sank the launching sub. These were USS Tang and the USS Tullibee. The British cruiser HMS Trinidad also had a circular run that ended up hitting the ship. These are extreme cases. You could have other problems that aren't as extreme but which might pull the torpedo out of the desired course or depth, and over a long range this can lead to a miss.
Note also that currents are vectors, and any component of the vector aiding or opposing movement (the component of the vector in the line of movement of the torpedo) can not be countered by the torpedo control system (unless you have acoustic torpedoes), so it may run faster or slower than you expect, thus potentially getting to the target track either before or after the target. Depth tracking wasn't all that great to begin with and can be affected by water temperature and density changes - even full sized submarines under direct human control would sometimes broach by accident. So the medium can definitely mess with the torpedo.
Finally, you don't know how explosions in the water are going to affect the rather primitive control systems (by modern standards) of the WW2 torpedo. An explosion far enough away to not destroy the torpedo could still be close enough to affect the control system with a massive shock, as water transmits force very efficiently (which is why we use hydraulic brakes in cars). It's fairly easy to design control systems to handle small shocks. Large shocks are an entirely different problem, especially when they can bend or warp or jam components. What happens then is unknown, from an engineering perspective: there are a whole bunch of possible failure modes that control systems can exhibit and nobody really knows which ones could and did happen since this is all happening underwater and often at night ...
Great video Drach. This helps to explain how the US Navy was able to sink Musashi and Yamoto with "tiny" air-launched torpedoes.
@@patw1687 I think they each soaked up over 20 of them.
@@icewaterslim7260
Not really: Yamato took 11 (and was doomed after 9), Musashi took much more because she was hit on both sides so didn’t capsize until after she’d gone under.
Though that’s still a lot of torpedoes compared to what most other battleships could have taken and survived in that situation. I have a feeling they both might have taken a few more if their TDS wasn’t among their few major design flaws (their armor layout was excellent for dealing with gunfire and bomb hits, but terrible against torpedoes).
@bkjeong4302 I stand corrected.
Drach, if your Patreon Drydocks are any indication, we would sit here all week and watch your complete explanation for each torpedo in each category
The Mark 14 was actually a good design that was let down by its very poor testing and development. Once the deep running and exploder issues were resolved it proved to be a solid design during the last 1/2 of the war.
A good design doesnt need half of war fixing its design problems
^ turned out to be very deadly once ordnance stopped being dumb. It's the weapon most responsible for genuinely throttling the nation of japan
@@edwardpate6128 that’s like saying, “Yup. A little makeup and plastic surgery, she’s real pretty”.
You’re right though, proper testing would have fixed it and they would’ve had a decent product from the start.
@@wolf310ii Issues would've been found and fixed quickly before the war started if they had bothered to test it, or even if BuOrd had listened to the sub captains when they reported the problems.
@ It had all the issues because of its bad design. And even with testing, it would have taken lots of time to fix all the problems
One thing I would have liked to see noted, even if it wasnt weighted was intended target (military vs merchant), to provide context for the weapon as some were deliberately made smaller because huge warheads werent needed for merchant vessels.
Wow, Drach - hope you took a lot of breaks between tallies! Thanks for the very comprehensive list!
Perhaps a decent way to categorize effectiveness would be to compare tonnage sunk to torpedoes launched. And maybe further break that down into merchantmen sunk and warships sunk.
For surface-launched torpedoes the Long Lance is going to be hard to beat, even without Torpex (which applies to most non-American torpedoes) and the inherent flaws of being pointlessly long-ranged.
For air-dropped torpedoes the Americans have that one cornered with the Mk. 13.
Edit; looks like I was mostly right on both of these, though the Type 93 was in a separate category than what I expected
You mean the Mk 13?
@@ph89787yeah got the two confused for a second.
On paper one of the best, but in practice had a lot of deep running issues that were never fixed until mid 1943 (were showing up as late as the Battle of Komondorski Island, also a similar problem with the Japanese submarine torpedoes) and over sensitive detonator issues that weren't fixed until December 1942. So a lot of missed kills, as opposed to the British or Italian torpedoes which had no problems early in the war
How is the long range pointless? Torpedoes are not just about killing ships you know. Oh its certainly the main part of their purpose, but its not their entire purpose.
Area denial, or limiting an enemies ability to manoeuvre are both important secondary effects of torpedoes. If you look into the accounts of some WWII actions, especially destroyer actions, there are cases of torpedoes being used in exactly that way. Torpedoes being used to limit the ability of the enemy to freely manoeuvre is not some kind of edge case, but something that was understood and utilised. Destroyers dumping torpedoes into the water to deter straight line pursuit for example.
Then you have the worry of the possibility of torpedoes affecting an opponents ability to manoeuvre their ships freely. This was something on Jellicoe's mind at Jutland for example. There is at least one point where he made what some might consider the wrong decision because of the worry of sailing his fleet into the path of German torpedoes, a worry that was not unfounded given German Naval doctrine at the time.
A weapon like a ship launched torpedo is not *just* about killing other ships, sure its their primary role, but they do have other uses that while perhaps used somewhat less often than their primary purpose are still valuable.
In the case of the Long Lance the real issue was that even as late as late 1944 the USN was simply not aware of how long range the weapon actually WAS. As a result it did not hinder their ability to manoeuvre as much as it might have done if they had been aware of the true range of the weapon. On occasion that bit the USN in the rear....
So I do not consider the long range of the Long Lance pointless in the slightest. I consider it a very real benefit of the weapon, even if that long range was not always utilised it was ALWAYS an option.... So its a far from 'pointless' characteristic of the weapon.
@@alganhar1
The issue is that the Japanese very much intended the Long Lance to actually kill enemy ships, especially during the night engagement that was supposed to form the second stage of their Kantai Kessen doctrine (the first would be the carrier battle and the third being the battleline action), and do so at ranges that would prevent enemy counterattacks; the issue being that at those ranges NO unguided torpedo would be able to reliably hit anything (though most other torpedoes literally wouldn’t be able to travel that far to start with).
There’s also the fact that the Type 93’s legendary stealth (due to its pure oxygen propellant leaving no bubble trail), while a good side benefit for actually attacking and damaging enemy ships, was actively detrimental in its use as a deterrent because the enemy wasn’t going to maneuver out of the way of a torpedo they didn’t know was there. The reason the Japanese didn’t see this as a problem was because they didn’t intend the Type 93 to be an area-denial weapon in the first place.
According to the US Navy Bureau of Ordnance: USA, Mk XIV torpedo.
The perfect torpedo. Nothing, NOTHING is wrong with it.
"NOTHING!!!" - Buord(God)
Excellent breakdown of the technical and scoring. There was one aspect that I think would have been highly valuable in comparing the aerial torpedoes that you didn’t explore. This is unique to aerial torpedoes and very important aspects of their design and use. I am speaking of drop speed maximum and the altitude drop envelope, minimum and maximum altitudes. This is extremely important for the attacking aircraft and go a long way to determining the performance of the aerial torpedoes. The higher and faster an aerial torpedo can be deployed the more likely the attacking aircraft will survive the attack. Just a thought, what do you think?
Answer: Hedy Lamarr
The actress came up with the idea of a radio control device for torpedoes using frequency hopping, which couldn't be jammed. A composer named George Antheil helped her work on the design which was patented, rejected by the Navy, seized by the government and classified as top secret. It's the foundation for modern communications including everything from Bluetooth to GPS. It was the best torpedo design never used during WW2.
Of course It's a coincidence that her ex was an arms dealer and developper.
Although she didn't sink any ships, she surely sunk a lot of men. That makes her a fair (in more than one way) nominee.
@@JZsBFFShe was very intelligent and definitely absorbed a lot from the meetings that her husband allowed her to observe. Unfortunately, there were people in the government who suspected her of being a Nazis spy, even though she was Jewish on both sides of her family!
It's a bit like asking 'What's the best car ?"
Depending on who you ask, it may be a Rolls, Lamborghini or some big 4X4.
But maybe it could also be the discreet one that transports the most people over the most miles every day.
I refuse to watch this video on the grounds that we all know he's not picking the mark 14 . That said, thank you for all the time and effort you put into your videos. Have a nice day.
I would weigh in the percentage of duds/failures to detonate as a reliability factor, mostly because that made a HUGE impact on torpedo effectiveness especially in the beginning of the war...
Just in time for my work shift, excellent as usual
Definitely interested in a video on the weird specialist torps!
Great topic keep them coming!!
As you noted, most torpedoes had more than enough charge to sink lightly defended merchant ships. By comparing charge weights this really just answers the question "Who had the best torpedoes for sinking capital ships in WW2?" Torpedoes were a secondary weapons against warships in most contexts, while they were the best weapon against merchants, so this isn't the most useful question. We should be comparing things like cost, complexity of manufacture and reliability even if those comparisons are challenging and subjective.
Great comparison video Drach. On the usefulness of submarine launched torpedo range there is I-19's salvo.
Thank you for covering the torpedoes 😊
One possible addition would be detectability, although that would be hard. You would compare the strength of the bubble trail (or lack thereof) in optimal spotting conditions to help show how likely a torpedo is to be seen before it's too late to be avoided
"When you say electric torpedo, almost everybody thinks..", actually something that doesn't contain EXPLOSIVES inside, but blue electric energy that'll shock the whole ship and incapacitate it for xx seconds.
Excellent video! 🫡🇺🇸
General question for the channel-at what point did TNT become the standard used for explosives weight and why. I know Its not fully naval but i think it is important for references particularly when talking about torpedo's, shell fillings etc.
I’m still looking for sources, but I’m going to assume around July 16 1945.
In short it was the simplest way to measure the energy output from an explosion in a common metric.
1 gram of TNT = 4184 joules.
Good question
Not sure when officially standardized but if you read patrol reports of US sub commanders they remark the Torpex is significantly stronger then TNT when given the first batch. Mush Morton of USS Wahoo is one I know for sure wrote it up. So probably due to that on the scene recounting let it become standardized.
@@5RndsFFE TNT equivalent is defined on the thermo-chemical calorie. The conversion is: 1 thermochemical calorie = 4184 J = 1 g TNT equivalent.
A search using AI resulted in TNT equivalent being introduced in the "early 20th century". It was certainly defined before 1948, when Joule was defined as the SI-unit for energy.
@@knowshistory8740 For chemical explosives it's considerably more complex than that, as the speed of the explosion matters as well as the raw energy. Also, the value changes depending on whether the use is underwater vs in air - torpex is greatly more effective than TNT as a torpedo filler, but not as a shell filler for this reason.
The reason for TNT being a standard is that it was a common military explosive used as a shell and bomb filler in a fairly pure form. It's pretty easy to make, and there's no secret formula or anything. Thus it's a fairly easy thing to compare to that doesn't reveal any special secrets.
Great video Drach. I think you have a sound methodology and I do agree that including a reliability factor would be rather difficult. Especially in the US case given how various workarounds and field mods did help improve the US torpedoes before the later variants which did solve the issues.
One problem with the MK18 that perhaps should have been scored (and this may or may not apply to other sub and surface launched torpedoes) is the lack of circular run protection which cost the US Tang and perhaps other boats as well.
I think when ranking aerial torpedoes range is somewhat irrelevant unless it’s constraining your preferred drop method. For example if the US late war (and I’m making this number up because I don’t know the answer) sought to drop at not greater than 2000yds then a torpedo range in excess of say 2500 yds is just wasted.
What is far more valuable is torpedo speed (which you rank) which both prevents an enemy from just outrunning it and also improves the chance of a hit because run time from a given range is lower. But also the drop envelope (which you don’t rank) which can make the aircraft dropping it MUCH more likely to be shot down in the first place. The prime example of this being the early war US Mk13 with its very low limits on speed and altitude for a drop.
Finally it may be worth considering just how much depth of water these torpedoes required. This is a bit iffy as nations that needed the ability to drop in shallow waters seem to have developed kits for this which may mean that those that didn’t just didn’t have a need. But it is another factor.
Going to have to disagree with you on range being somewhat irrelevant, at least if you want to get your air wing back. To take your 2000 yds example, fine if your target is just carrying 20mm Oerlikons as their effective range is roughly 1600 yds*. Unfortunately your opponents start mounting 40mm Bofors with an effective range of around 4000 yds. Oh dear, now you're losing aircraft. Range matters.
@gwtpictgwtpict4214 Which is why he mentioned preferred drop range and made-up numbers. If you have an unguided airdropped torpedo with a 10 km range, but your doctrine says to release it at 3 km, then at least 5 km of that range is useless. You'd be better off reducing the range for one or more of the following benefits: reduced weight (potentially allowing the carrying aircraft to be faster), reduced cost, increased warhead size (increased chance of a kill), increased speed (increased chance of a hit), and/or a guidance system (increased chance to hit). Even if you do release at 10 km range, you aren't hitting shit without an on board guidance system, so you would still be better off reducing the range anyway.
I'm a simple man. I see a Drach video, I watch it twice.
Thank you for your, as usual, thoughtful analysis of WW1/WW2 torpedos. I’d be interested in your views on two special purpose torpedos, the Allies Mk-24 anti-submarine torpedo and the German acoustic torpedo, particularly in light of the current debate about autonomous AI drones being given weapon release without a human supervision in the loop. The reason I raise this that both the Mk-24 and the German acoustic torpedo were unusual guided weapons in they were launched BEFORE the target was acquired and locked, unlike most other weapon systems (esp air-to-air). Granted, the nature of their sensor meant they could only home on propellor cavitation frequency noise. The only current similar system I’m aware of is the Captor mine, but really that’s just another type if static mine with an unusual kill mechanism.
Since the topic is torpedoes= why did some nations used dual sizes of torpedoes on submarines? Examples are the french Redoutable class and minerve. They have 550mm torpedoes....but also some 400mm torpedo tubes (redoubtable internal, minerve external). What is the possible benefit and reason france did that? I believe italy also had some subs that did that.
Because that’s the most French thing the French could come up with…
The theory went that smaller torpedoes either could have launchers fitted in areas larger tubes couldn't fit, and/or could be used on weaker targets like merchantmen while carrying more weapons and each one costing less. The Italian's for example launched an entire class of sub intended specifically for commerce raiding and they went with more smaller torpedoes and tubes as opposed to the conventional wisdom of fewer and heavier (21") weapons.
Given a certain French fixation on some of their ship designs, they might have felt that there were giving themselves more “windows” of opportunity.
@ Okay! thanks Drachi!
@@Drachinifel was there any plans for a only small torpedo submarines? Being the submarine version of the commerce raider surface ships?
This was a great statistical comparison. I would like to see a comparison including launch systems and ask which was the most effective torpedo of the war?
I guess it shouldn't be too surprising that Japan is on the podium in nearly every category due to how obsessed they were with being able to force a capital ship parity within the first 6mo-1yr of a war.
It would be interesting to identify those torpedoes (surface launched) that could be gyro angled to steer a course other than the direction of the tube that launched them. That was a big thing with the US navy in the 1930s, where tubes on both sides of a Destroyer could be fired simultaneously and all would curve around to a pre-selected course. British torpedoes were launched only at a 90 degree to the ship’s heading, so you had to wait till the sights came on as the ship swung around before you could fire. Was a problem at Narvik. Angle Makes life much easier for a Destroyer skipper if you can launch at any heading.
Very interesting. WRT the Italian Si270I there seems to be a typo - slow speed range is less than fast speed range?
I know it might be difficult, but I would add additional points for the addition of steering / homing systems, but only for those torpedos which were actively used in quantifiable numbers. There could be something like Bonus Point: Had x / y amount of steering/searching / homing options, (Point per option. Same goes for the detonator: Get a point per Detonator Option, lose two points if one does not actually work (in a certain version).
The last time I was this early, Basil Zaharoff was still a 'fireman' in Istanbull!
44000 yards? That's 25 miles of range, that's insaaaane
Let's do the weird torpedoes too , sounds interesting
Suggested additional rating category:
Does it work?
Great topic and a great video!
But I still like the old theme music better….
0:34 “in robot vice” Admiral Drachinifel, You are a bold one.
Weird torpedoes? Yes, please!
Love your Info! You got me with "air launched" as "I think" you wanted to say Airial, or Dropped torpedoes? as I recall "Air Launched" torpedoes were not new in WWII.
Though don't the electrics had the advantage of having less of a bubble trail?
At least with later torpedoes, with passive sonar being used, the electrics gave little time for a target notice it's being shot at. By the time they'd decided to do anything about the fact they're getting shot at, the torpedo would already be close enough to have a vote in the course of action. That vote typically being 'oh no, you don't'.
A really nice follow up to this would be a compilation of the success of these various torpedos in warships sunk and cargo ships sunk and total tonnage. In other words, regardless of how they scored technically, how effective were they when used?
The weird torpedoes of ww2 vid would be nice
I can attest from personal experience that an 800 LB torpex warhead makes one helluva bang when it goes off and when that is done in 10m of water it makes a really deep hole and throws a lots of dirt and water a long way up in the air, especially when accompanied by 6 x 500Lb MC GP bombs. My biggest ever explosion. One of the benefits of being an RN MCDO course officer on exchange with the RAN at HMAS Penguin and deployed to Shoalwater Bay Military Training Area in QLD.
20:30 when you're done with all that fancy calculus at school, this looks much more like the monday mid-morning sort of engineering you'll actually be paid to be doing. like the architect who spent his school days designing skyscrapers, gets to work and opens a spreadsheet to go through the list of door furniture, corridor six, east wing, level two of some huge hospital modernisation programme to check off against the drawings and firm up pricing.
My father in law was presure testing the German/Norwegian G7(t1) in the late 80s for a liftime extension program. And he learned the hard way that the secondary explosion from the airtanks in the torpedos was suprisingly strong, the test was scheduled to be conducted in the sea but had to be moved to a bunker after the first test du to a limited window budget 😅, the bunker also had to undergo extensive refurbishment after the tests was concluded. But the program was successful and the T1 was in use until the early 2000's in Norway.
TNT equivalent payload should always be the measuring standard, because it also means you can have less weight for the same charge effectiveness and therefore more fuel for range, out of the same dimensions. Or any other tradeoff you can think of.
This is a mistake I see often when discussing artillery shells or tank shells and so on. People will often say 'this one had 28g of HE, this one had 43g of HE, therefore xyz' and completely forget to look at what the type of explosive the charge actually is.
The plane launched ones should def be judged way more on speed and altitude of release possible, which is going to be your first big problem even getting them in the water and working, while getting shot to pieces by AA meanwhile.
A fair share of the brit air launched ones were pretty terrible in that department, and even in gamified simulator games are borderline impossible to use or hit anything with because also either extremely slow ranged or slow. Which makes it even more of a miracle that the whole Bismarck situation ever happened.
You should do a video on the type torpedoes that sank the Royal Oak, Barham, Prince of Wales, Pearl Harbor battleships, Musashi, Kongo and Yamato, plus all the carriers and heavy cruisers lost to torpedoes.
I think this really goes to show just how much damage the Bureau of Ordinance did to the US war effort. American torpedoes don't really set the world on fire, but they're all credible on paper. If they had worked properly they could have done significant damage. And holy moly the Japanese submarine torpedoes are nuts. No wonder USS _Wasp_ instantly blew up.
Also I do think you should have included the maximum drop speed and altitude of the aerial torpedoes. The Japanese torpedoes had really good ones throughout and I'd argue that that was a significant factor in their effectiveness. It made their aircraft harder targets for AA guns and reduced the time fighters had to intercept them.
If you are going to ignore reliability in this video, I’d suggest doing a separate video that addresses reliability specifically. When judging if a torpedo is the best for a given war reliability is key. I don’t care how many bells whistles a weapon has, if it doesn’t work it is useless. So knowing which 1 was most reliable over the whole war is important.
Dutch torpedos were great in the early part of WW2. I wonder if they will get a mention.... Nope. Which is a pity as most of them did actually go Boom.
Yes, actually going boom, especially when hitting the target, is a useful feature for a torpedo which not that many achieved at the start of WWII.
Hi Drach, these are all very interesting for a commonly used naval weapon of WW2, but could you discuss active and passive torpedo defences? How can you stop a running torpedo with another light torpedo for example (is it possible, was this concept tested back then) and how do you prevent a torpedo from opening up your internal bulkheads when it hits with passive defences. I know de-gaussing had some effect on torpedos (and sea mines) with a magnetic trigger, which is another form of passive defence.
Drach as dumped a full spread of Torps into the water, best turn away and open the distance or face them down Jutland style….. so do you feel lucky viewer?
Mark xiv? Fuck ye we ball.
Clearly an objective measure is the category of "How likely is the crew to strap BuOrd personnel to the torpedo before firing if they get their hands on them"
Damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead!
I was looking for this comment, thinking that I couldn't really be the only one whose mind went to Farragut's famous quote upon seeing this episode's title 😄
I know that Naval Weapons of WW2 gives the British 18” Mk XII torpedoes speed/range figures of 37kts/3500 yds and 40kts/1500 yds, I wonder if the first figure is correct? Admiral Schofield’s book on Taranto says the MkXII torpedoes were set to run at 27kts, which seems much more reasonable for the large increase in range for the slow setting. I wonder if the 37 is a typographical error that has crept in and been repeated in later reference books?
Can someone post the link to the video Drach was talking about, "who had the best guns of WW2"?
I've seen the AA one, but can't find or remember seeing the one about main guns
It's called "battleship guns of WW2, a series of tubes"
During WWII what was the average range that submarines typically engaged their targets? The impression I got from reading Clay Blair's book "Silent Victory: The U.S. Submarine War Against Japan," generally regarded as the most authoritative book on that subject, that typical engagement ranges were 2000 yards or less. Having a torpedo that could range out to 7 or 8000 thousand yards is nice and all, but if you're not actually firing torpedoes from those distances it almost seems like a waste.
Yes please, weird torpedos. Please, pretty please.
Something that isn't mentioned, unless I missed it, is how effective smaller warheads are when used with FUNCTIONING magnetic detonators below the keel of a warship.