2 replies to this topic

[W. Clark]

During my recent frantic search for info on submerged torpedoes I came across something concerning USN torpedo doctrine that I had not been aware to have existed during the WWI period. That is the concept of using gyro angling to fire a destroyer's entire torpedo battery at a target to it's front. In fact, it appears that 12 torpedo battery (4x3) of the flush deckers was designed with that doctrine in mind. I had always thought that they could only salvo 6 fish at a time and then had to turn 180 degrees to fire the second set of 6. I've bemoaned that more than once during Java Sea scenarios.

I was aware that the USN had the concept in WWII and that the Gridleys, Bagleys and Benhams destroyer classes were given a torpedo battery of 16 tubes (4x4) for just that reason. What I have not found is any example of a successful attack in either period using "Curved Ahead Firing" of torpedoes.

Does anyone know of such an example? I figured that the torpedo rules limiting torpedoes to a port or starboard firing arc probably means that it did not work; but I have not found anything directly saying it does not work.

How about it, Coastal, did I guess right or should USN destroyers, starting with the Flush Deckers be able to fire their torpedoes at any angle? That capability would be a major advantage for the USN destroyers if they could just get their torpedoes to go off.

[Cpt M]

During my recent frantic search for info on submerged torpedoes I came across something concerning USN torpedo doctrine that I had not been aware to have existed during the WWI period. That is the concept of using gyro angling to fire a destroyer's entire torpedo battery at a target to it's front. In fact, it appears that 12 torpedo battery (4x3) of the flush deckers was designed with that doctrine in mind. I had always thought that they could only salvo 6 fish at a time and then had to turn 180 degrees to fire the second set of 6. I've bemoaned that more than once during Java Sea scenarios.

Actually, the mounting of the torpedo tubes on the deck edge had more to do with a belief that the torpedoes launched from centerline tubes could not clear the deck edge. As would be proven later, this was in error. The standard attack model with the US DDs was to launch a spread of 6 torpdoes then execute a 180 degree turn and launch the remaining tubes.

I was aware that the USN had the concept in WWII and that the Gridleys, Bagleys and Benhams destroyer classes were given a torpedo battery of 16 tubes (4x4) for just that reason. What I have not found is any example of a successful attack in either period using "Curved Ahead Firing" of torpedoes.

Does anyone know of such an example? I figured that the torpedo rules limiting torpedoes to a port or starboard firing arc probably means that it did not work; but I have not found anything directly saying it does not work.

How about it, Coastal, did I guess right or should USN destroyers, starting with the Flush Deckers be able to fire their torpedoes at any angle? That capability would be a major advantage for the USN destroyers if they could just get their torpedoes to go off.

The first mention of 'curved ahead firing' appears in USN cruiser/destroyer doctrine from the interwar period. Consequently, it would not apply to WWI. And as far as can be determined from AARs from WWII, there doesn't seem to be any instance of 'curved ahead firing' being used in combat (and, in fact, it doesn't appear in WWII period doctrine manuals). It may well have been considered for a short while and then subsequently rejected. Since I can find no mention of it in WWII doctrine, I would not allow it.

[W. Clark]

Thanks, I figured it would something like that. I got the idea of the concept begining during WWI USN thinking from reading Friedman. I knew the USN had intertained some thought about it during the 30's. However, I could not find a single example of it being used successfully in combat during either war. I then re-examined the rules for both FAI & GQ3 and determined that neither made any provision for it; so based on past practice (of the rules having it right) I figured it was a non-starter. But, as usual I wanted to hear it from the horse's mouth directly.

Too bad, I would have loved to have shocked the IJN in our next night engagement in our ongoing TSC with end on torpedo fire. But, we are talking about USN torpedoes during late 42 and a navy just like a man has to know its limitations.