Cruiser torpedoes

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Throd	Cruiser torpedoes	Lead	[-]
Posts: 512 ( 7-Feb-2008 03:03:25) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	How dangerous were torpedoes to the ships that carried them? The theory that torpedoes should not be carried on cruisers in WW2 seems unique to the US. All other nations mounted them, the RN even carried them on those BB's that still retained the capability. Both the RN and the Japanese cruisers, at least, used torpedoes, often to good effect. Granted only the Germans retained them in WW2 for BB sized vessels. The Japanese Long Lance had a reputation for exploding under fire. This could be taken as a confirmation of US doctrine but the US dropped cruiser torpedoes well before WW2. Does anyone know of any other nations cruisers that had their torpedoes explode? The RN were still keen to fit them on post war cruisers so they do not seem to have any doubts. The US torpedoes were not very good until well into the war, so could it be that in this case the risk seemed to outweigh the benefits.
emc		#1	[-]
Posts: 3446 ( 7-Feb-2008 03:13:55) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	My (late) father served on PT boats in WW2; his reminiscence was that the sailors worried about the torpedo's air flasks, not their warhead. He told a story about a torpedo turbine getting loose and doing a fair imitation of a buzzsaw chewing up one of the boat's pilot house. He also saw gunfire go through a warhead, with no explosion. Through the air flask, and kaboom. My suspicion is that the two worst danger for most torpedoes were the high-pressure air flasks and the torpedo fuel (can't keep sailors away from alcohol). Oxygen -- either liquid or gas -- is tricky to handle: most oils will spontaneously combust when in contact with high-pressure lubricants oxygen. Last Edited By: emc 8-Feb-2008 01:04:07. Edited 1 times.
seasick		#2	[-]
Posts: 4380 ( 7-Feb-2008 03:36:09) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I recall hearing that a IJN light cruiser was blown in half when a torpedo exploded when the ship was strafed by a plane. Compressed gas is always dangerous. It is suspected that the Kursk sank when a Hydrogen Peroxide powered torpedo developed a leak. Hydrogen peroxide is very dangerous. The weak version you buy at the pharmacy (chemist in Britain) kills those little critters that get into your cuts on contact, better than alcohol. Full strength hydrogen peroxide reacts with metals readily. Hydrogen Peroxide is a water molecule with an extra oxygen atom forced to join in, and its looking for a reason to break free. Nicotine: America's number one mind altering chemical.
Tiornu		#3	[-]
Posts: 6925 ( 7-Feb-2008 04:42:54) Corn Boss Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I can't say that Long Lances had a reputation for exploding like that, but it certainly was a hazard. Consider: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/g280000/g284703.jpg I'm not aware of any light cruisers being blown in two after strafing, but Suzuya probably gives the best example of the risk, being lost after a near-miss bomb started a fire in her torpedo weaponry. Dropping the torpedos from their cruisers was one of the smart things the US did. You don't need the Long Lance as evidence. Consider the whole record of cruiser torpedoes, and you'll see limited success at best. For most cruisers, they were just deadweight.
pppet		#4	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 7 ( 7-Feb-2008 16:15:24) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Apart from Savo Island & HMS Dorsetshire using them to sink the hulk of the Bismarck were there any other instances of cruisers using their torpedoes gainfully ? Perhaps against Doorman at Java Sea but even there I believe that the bad luck of ABDA started when the Nachi hit the Exeter with an 8 inch shell started a fire & forced her off the line. Peter
Dave Bender	How dangerous were torpedoes	#5	[-]
Posts: 6083 ( 7-Feb-2008 16:26:46) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Were they more dangerous then seaplanes and the accompanying aviation gasoline storage? Not to mention mines carried by CLs. Unless you are caught by surprise you can jettison deck mounted torpedoes pretty quickly. The real hazard is having torpedo reloads on board. In my opinion that was a Japanese mistake. By the time you get the tubes reloaded the enemy fleet is wide awake, making a successful torpedo attack almost impossible. Hence the torpedo reloads are a serious fire hazard for very little benefit.
Tiornu		#6	[-]
Posts: 6927 ( 7-Feb-2008 16:45:39) Corn Boss Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	There was Java Sea, and there was Sunda Strait--though there's some debate about how "gainful" that was. There were several instances of cruisers scuttling enemy or friendly ships with torpedoes. There were some Italian merchant ships that may have been hit by cruiser torpedoes. Which Town torpedoed herself? And a British cruiser managed to torpedo an Italian jetty. That's all from memory.
ickysdad	Well IMHO	#7	[-]
Posts: 3024 ( 7-Feb-2008 16:49:44) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	For topredoes to be effective rather then lucky you need to get close which I think is true for even Long Lances. That means charging or heading for the battleline and in that regard DD's are a far better deal being faster ,more manuverable and a harder /smaller target to hit then a cruiser. The Dorsetshire was able to torpedo the Bismarck because that ship was nothing but a floating hulk by the time Dorsetshire fired torpedoes. Savo Island was a case where one side was able to completely sneak up on the other side and even at that thee is debate about wether Canberra may have been torpedoed by her own side. So tatically a cruiser just doesn't oftean enough get into a position to use them effectively .
Duncan MacKinnon		#8	[-]
Posts: 224 ( 7-Feb-2008 18:07:03) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I don't know if a town managed to torpedo herself but Trinidad did on a Murmansk convoy.
Dave Bender	Need to get close	#9	[-]
Posts: 6088 ( 7-Feb-2008 18:40:15) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I agree. But given the zillion island geography of the Pacific getting in close at night is not unrealistic prior to about 1943. After that radar is good enough that such close approaches are suicidal.
Tiornu		#10	[-]
Posts: 6929 ( 7-Feb-2008 19:07:16) Corn Boss Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Ah, Trinidad. That must be what I was thinking of.
dunmunro1		#11	[-]
Posts: 1397 ( 7-Feb-2008 22:41:06) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	How many times did BBs and BCs turn away for fear of enemy torpedoes?
E F Draaijers		#12	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 101 ( 7-Feb-2008 23:50:12) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	As far as history records, all battleships and battlecruisers truned away if spotting torpedotract, since only a direct torpedohit could knock such a ship out instantly, if placed well. Torpedoes were and still are the most potent shipkilling weapons in any navalwar. Shellfire almost never succeded in sinkin a ship on itself, unless a magazine was detonated directly. Torpedoes killed far more capital ships in wartime than any other weapon.
Fermi2	Really?	#13	[-]
Posts: 3193 ( 8-Feb-2008 00:51:09) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	E F Draaijers wrote: As far as history records, all battleships and battlecruisers truned away if spotting torpedotract, since only a direct torpedohit could knock such a ship out instantly, if placed well. Torpedoes were and still are the most potent shipkilling weapons in any navalwar. Shellfire almost never succeded in sinkin a ship on itself, unless a magazine was detonated directly. Torpedoes killed far more capital ships in wartime than any other weapon. Given there's a historical sample of three times I'm not sure this can be considered conclusive. Mike
CA30ist		#14	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 9 ( 8-Feb-2008 01:27:16) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hello, Yes, Japanese cruiser torpedoes were "gainfully" employed at Sunda Strait...against five of their own vessels. Four transports and one minesweeper. Some, if not all, of the transports were salvaged, but the M/S was split in half, leaving it much the worse for wear...
Throd	Worth their weight?	#15	[-]
Posts: 513 ( 8-Feb-2008 02:23:46) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Reading these posts does seem to confirm that torpedoes, non Japanese ones anyway, were in practice not that great a threat to the ships that carried them. They were however powerful weapons with the potential to cripple even the largest opponent. Their presence must have had added a tactical complication in the minds of their adversaries. Although no torpedo hits were scored at the River Plate the fact that all four ships carried them was significant. Graf Spee could have used hers to finish the Exeter and they were the RN CLs only real chance of winning. Wasn't the fact that that the PE thought she had detected torpedoes from the accompanying cruisers that made the Bismarck turn away from the damaged PoW? Considering their destructive power vs their small size and ease of fitting it is hardly surprising that other navies continued to fit them. Perhaps if the US had built smaller CLs (rather than mini BBs) and had an adequate torpedo design they might have valued them as did other navies.
jlyons97	USN and cruiser torpedoes	#16	[-]
Posts: 1272 ( 8-Feb-2008 05:53:26) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Throd wrote: Reading these posts does seem to confirm that torpedoes, non Japanese ones anyway, were in practice not that great a threat to the ships that carried them. They were however powerful weapons with the potential to cripple even the largest opponent. Their presence must have had added a tactical complication in the minds of their adversaries. Although no torpedo hits were scored at the River Plate the fact that all four ships carried them was significant. Graf Spee could have used hers to finish the Exeter and they were the RN CLs only real chance of winning. Wasn't the fact that that the PE thought she had detected torpedoes from the accompanying cruisers that made the Bismarck turn away from the damaged PoW? Considering their destructive power vs their small size and ease of fitting it is hardly surprising that other navies continued to fit them. Perhaps if the US had built smaller CLs (rather than mini BBs) and had an adequate torpedo design they might have valued them as did other navies. Actually, they did, and called them CLAAs and put torpedoes on them. And they thought they had an adequate torpedo design. Can you really see the General Board saying around 1940, "Well, since our torpedoes are inadequate; don't put them on the cruisers, but keep them on the DDs?" Let's fast-foward this hinsight capability a year or two. Carrier TGs with 8 DDs in the screen are sitting on 80 torpedoes (nominally) - are 8 or 10 more on the cruisers worth the effort? As pointed out, they were present at the River Plate battle but not used. Hindsight might say they were not worth the effort there.
Creeping Death1929		#17	[-]
Posts: 962 ( 8-Feb-2008 06:34:11) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Mustn't forget Savo Island, where cruiser torpedoes scored five hits, two on Quincy and one or two on Vincennes and one on Chicago. At Java Sea, cruiser torpedoes scored one hit each on DeRuyter, Java, and Kortenaer. As CA30ist noted, Mogami scored five hits of six launched on Sakura, Horai, Tatsuno, and Shinshu marus, which were hit and sunk as well as minesweeper W-2. Tatsuno and Shinshu Marus were refloated and repaired according to Lacroix and Wells. Dorsetshire torpedoed Bismarck as noted. Cruiser torpedoes may also have scored hits at Second Guadalcanal, where Nagara contributed to torpedo spreads that hit Benham and Walke. Belfast and Jamaica also contributed to torpedo spreads fired at Scharnhorst that hit her.
Theodore		#18	[-]
Posts: 8417 ( 8-Feb-2008 07:52:12) Wheat Boss Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Fires and explosions among their own torpedoes was a major contributing factor in the loss of at least five Japanese cruisers, perhaps more. While the risk might have been acceptable among destroyers, the wisdom of installing such vulnerable weapons in valuable and scarce cruisers is questionable. But then, these are the same people who planned to expend battleships to clear the way for destroyers. Give the Japanese credit; when faced with a naval problem insoluble by conventional means, they came up with plenty of unconventional means. That those means also failed to solve the problem perhaps says more about the nature of the problem than it does about the IJN.
NewGolconda		#19	[-]
Posts: 3111 ( 8-Feb-2008 07:58:22) Commonwealth Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	As pointed out, they were present at the River Plate battle but not used. Hindsight might say they were not worth the effort there. They had a major effect on the tactical handling and the fire distribution of the German ship. It may well have been this threat that prevented them from destroying completely one of the smaller antagonists. How many of the numerous British cruisers damaged during the war were lost due to their torpedo armerment?
Throd	Torpedoes and Task Forces	#20	[-]
Posts: 514 ( 8-Feb-2008 11:50:36) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I agree that a DD escorted Task Force generally didn't need torpedoes on cruisers but cruisers are often tasked to perform solitary duties. There their own torpedoes would be the only ones available. Or the DDs couldn't keep up in heavy weather. The Japanese initially gained great benefit from their torpedoes. It is often said that the S. Dakota was lucky not to have been hit by all the torpedoes launched at her. The US decision not to fit them on their cruisers was quite logical but I do not see that this makes every other navy that did automatically wrong. NB Is there that much difference between torpedoes and the modern deck mounted anti ship missiles in regards vulnerability to unwanted detonation?

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Cruiser torpedoes

Cruiser torpedoes

Quick Reply