Submerged Torpedoes Tubes
#1
Posted 15 January 2013 - 01:36 AM
I also find (based on Friedman and others) that these torpedoes required an not insignificant amount of displacement. For example the Minotaur class armored cruisers devoted 800 plus tons of their 14,600 tons total displacement to their fore and aft 18" torpedo flats (heck, they are not even 21") and that does not take into acount the wieght of the torpedoes themselves. That's a lot of displacement that could have been devoted to more speed (their greatest need) or protection (their greatest point of complaint) or more range or more anything but a weapon system that is almost useless.
Yet, almost all navies continued design ships with submerged torpedoes right into 1920s (the Nelson and Rodney had them for instance). The question begs, why? Could it be that they never discovered that their submerged torpedoes would not fire at speeds exceeding 10 knots or not have functioned as designed at those faster speeds?
I for one can not determine when it became common knowledge that submerged torpedoes were an absolute waste of space, not to mention weight. Could someone point me towards an author or authors that will enlighten me on this point. The idea that such a commonly used weapon system could have survived for that long a period including going through a world war when it was that useless amazes me. I used to have a higher opinion of warship design during the period and would like to determine if my new low opinion is fair.
I don't doubt that the FAI limitations on submerged torpedoes is right as well researched as I find the rules to be. It just adds to my wonder when it comes to warship design and what those guys were thinking every time they added hundreds of tons of useless submerged torpedoes to every single ship class they designed.
#2
Posted 15 January 2013 - 03:16 PM
#3
Posted 15 January 2013 - 03:16 PM
#4
Posted 15 January 2013 - 03:30 PM
Submerged torp tubes
I agree they were not a success. DK Brown has a short section on them (largely negative) in the Grand Fleet and probably also makes small comments on them with regard to specific designs in Warrior to Dreadnought and Nelson to Vanguard too. Strictly in reference to RN though. Also found this thread though there are some annoying adverts on the forum.
http://alltheworldsb...on-battleships#
Adrian
#5
Posted 16 January 2013 - 12:48 AM
I just received Friedman's Naval Weapons of World War I in a failed attempt to shed some light on this point. Friedman does not mention any problems with submerged torpedoes at all and in fact he says that comtemporary British thinking was that most of the torpedoes fired at battleships in a fleet action would be by battleships (and all of their tubes were submerged). And, as I stated before almost every navy continued to demand submerged torpedoes in their larger ship designs right into the 1920s so obviously the Admirals were of the opinion that their submerged torpedoes were effective and needed. I'm not certain why the brass thought that. I'm not aware of any successful submerged torpedo shots by a battleship in any navy during the period. In fact the only possibly successful submerged torpedo shot that I can think of off the top of my head was by the Weisbaden at Jutland after she was dead in the water. Even then I'm not certain that shot was from a submerged tube as she also had a/w trainable tubes.
So, to anyone out there with info on this; your response will be greatly appreciated as the derth of information about the merits of submerged torpedo tubes one way or the other is driving me crazy. It appears to me that if FAI had ommitted submerged torpedo tubes all together under their current limitations in the rules who would miss them?
Thank you, going nuts in Oregon.
#6
Posted 16 January 2013 - 02:21 AM
As a final note: The WWII Scharnhorst carried deck mounted torpedo tubes for use against merchants. The idea was to use the torpedoes to dispatch any stopped merchantmen while operating as a raider.
#7
Posted 18 January 2013 - 03:18 AM
I guess the one point you could clear up is where FAI learned that submerged torpedo tubes won't fire at speeds in excess of 10 knots. I've yet to find anything in print about any limitations on submerged torpedoes that don't aply to a/w mounts also. The only crititsism in print that I've found recently about submerged tubes is how vunerable their flats are to flooding when damaged.
Don't get me wrong; I believe FAI has it right as far its rule for this goes. I vaguely remember hearing or reading something about it years ago that bears out with the rule. However, when I'm running a game and someone asks why a rule is the way ii is; I find because the rule says so to be a poor answer and at the moment that is as good an answer as I have.
#8
Posted 18 January 2013 - 03:58 AM
Again, thank you for your response.
I guess the one point you could clear up is where FAI learned that submerged torpedo tubes won't fire at speeds in excess of 10 knots. I've yet to find anything in print about any limitations on submerged torpedoes that don't aply to a/w mounts also. The only crititsism in print that I've found recently about submerged tubes is how vunerable their flats are to flooding when damaged.
Don't get me wrong; I believe FAI has it right as far its rule for this goes. I vaguely remember hearing or reading something about it years ago that bears out with the rule. However, when I'm running a game and someone asks why a rule is the way ii is; I find because the rule says so to be a poor answer and at the moment that is as good an answer as I have.
"Battleship Design and Development 1905-1945" and "U..S. Battleships An Illustrated Design History", both by Norman Friedman, mention the impossilibity of launching beam mounted underwater torpedoes at any kind of speed. This was from on a 1916 report from the USN Bureau of Ordnance based on Royal Navy wartime experience. Additionally, I recall reading an article in Warship (many years ago) that mentioned increasing difficulty from 10 to 15 knots, at which time it was impossible to launch.
#9
Posted 18 January 2013 - 12:04 PM
It figures, I bought the wrong Friedman book(s). Warship sounds right; I have several old copies from the 80s now that you mention it. That probably acounts for my vague memory. Again, thanks and I'll take it from there.
#10
Posted 07 April 2013 - 12:22 PM
#11
Posted 07 April 2013 - 12:38 PM
#12
Posted 07 April 2013 - 07:45 PM
According to some sources, the German experience was much the same as the British. As ship speed increased, the utility of mounting these batteries become less and less viable. That some launches performed as designed is more the random off chance; the overall performance was much less as reflected by wartime reports from the Grand Fleet. Most commented that effective launches became nearly impossible on all ships at speeds above 15 kts (in some cases, even less).What I have read indicated that the British only ran into problems with submerged torpedo launching when the truly high speed battlecruisers (Renowns) and the "large light cruisers" came out. At maximum speeds, these ships found that they were unable to launch due to the water pressure bending the "guiding bar" as it emerged from the torpedo tube. I haven't seen specifically what a "guiding bar" was, but it sounds like a sort of rail to ensure that the torpedo remained straight as it came out of the tube and wasn't subjected to a bending stress with the front end out and the tail still in the tube as it came out. So, it seems that the British could launch at up to 27 - 28 knots. Up to the very end, German battleship and battlecruiser designs were optimized toward relatively short range combat (one of the reasons Bismarck stood up to the shelling so well - by closing in the British played right into her designers' assumptions), reflecting the highly variable visibility in the North Sea. Hence, a fairly heavy torpedo battery was included for use in a sudden, short range encounter. No telling which tube in Wiesbaden did the job, but she sure put up one hell of a fight! I'm probably going to come up with some sort of a house rule allowing multiple firing from submerged tubes. There is precedent (Rodney at Bismarck, several torpedoes fired by Moltke at Jutland). As I understand, these tubes were usually well adapted for relatively rapid fire ("coffin lid" loading and chainfall rather than breechloading) with torpedo flats roomier than a submarine's torpedo room (to Luetzow's sorrow and Seydlitz' benefit at Jutland).
As for multiple fires from an underwater tube, I'd say that would not be possible. The torpedo salvo, as presented in the rules, represents the launching of multiple torpedoes from a mount with the torpedoes on the same bearing and hitting the water within seconds of one another. A salvo from a underwater tube would be several torpedoes launched individually over several minutes (since the tube would have to be reloaded). This 'salvo' would be several individual torpedoes (each on their own course) with launch points spread over several thousand yards. This is definitely NOT a torpedo salvo. As for their utility, I'll only note that the RN removed the torpedo tubes from Rodney and Nelson during their first wartime refit.
#13
Posted 07 April 2013 - 08:53 PM
The deck mounted torpedo tubes on the Scharnhorst class and Tirpitz were (according to German sources) to be used in conjunction with raider operations. The idea was to use the torpedoes to sink any stopped merchants instead of using gunfire (although that does raise the question of why use torpedoes in lieu of opening the ship's seacocks).Oh, forgot to mention. The Germans seem to have been fond of the capital ship torpedo tube concept in WWII. In addition to Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and Tirpitz had them added. In all 3 cases, the tubes seem to have come from light cruisers cut back from 12 tubes to 6 (or, in Leipzig's case, zero). The OPQ battlecruiser design incorporated a hull-mounted above water battery, and all of the H class variants had submerged tubes. In accordance with my perverse nature, back in my Seapower III days, in many a WWII fight Royal Oak made free use of her four above water hull-mounted tubes! LOL!
#14
Posted 10 April 2013 - 05:23 PM
#15
Posted 13 April 2013 - 05:35 PM
#16
Posted 13 April 2013 - 06:06 PM
#17
Posted 13 April 2013 - 07:30 PM
#18
Posted 13 April 2013 - 10:41 PM
#19
Posted 13 April 2013 - 11:14 PM
#20
Posted 14 April 2013 - 10:40 AM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users