Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
trgtdron

torpedoes failure rate

58 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
1 post
1,682 battles

You know as anyone who studied and/or have relatives who fought in the war, the failure rate of torpedoes was terrible 80+% for the Americans at the beginning, average it over the 5 years and it still was 20% to 30% not so bad for everyone else but still not good. One of my uncles actually had 4 of them that served, 3 in the pacific, 1 in Europe. I do know the subs had better luck beating on the side of the sub with a hammer than getting a detonation at the beginning. Tell you what, why don't you gank the AC's like you did the arty... That would only be fair. Having air drops arm in less space than the length of a ship is [edited] and you know it. You also know the Russians had a guy with a hand crank and a bomb on the front of their "tub" as their "torpedoes".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,729
[WORX]
Members
12,050 posts
19,514 battles

In war, Germany was the torpedo kings... If fact, if Germany would've concentrated on the wolf pack sub fleet instead of making big or bigger ships...

German would've been the top 5 must spoken language in the world.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,495
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
27,526 posts
14,836 battles
5 minutes ago, trgtdron said:

You know as anyone who studied and/or have relatives who fought in the war, the failure rate of torpedoes was terrible 80+% for the Americans at the beginning, average it over the 5 years and it still was 20% to 30% not so bad for everyone else but still not good. One of my uncles actually had 4 of them that served, 3 in the pacific, 1 in Europe. I do know the subs had better luck beating on the side of the sub with a hammer than getting a detonation at the beginning. Tell you what, why don't you gank the AC's like you did the arty... That would only be fair. Having air drops arm in less space than the length of a ship is [edited] and you know it. You also know the Russians had a guy with a hand crank and a bomb on the front of their "tub" as their "torpedoes".

Actually it was about 70% for the Mk 14 mechanical trigger and near 100% for the magnetic trigger.

The reason it seems the torpedoes arm in such a short distance is the ships are much larger than they would be to scale.

5 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

In war, Germany was the torpedo kings... If fact, if Germany would've concentrated on the wolf pack sub fleet instead of making big or bigger ships...

German would've been the top 5 must spoken language in the world.

Everyone that tried the magnetic triggers had problems but there was no excuse for the failure rate of the US mechanical ones. Once the problem was figured out the failure rate dropped to a still significant 14%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
986
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,380 posts
13,079 battles
16 minutes ago, trgtdron said:

You know as anyone who studied and/or have relatives who fought in the war, the failure rate of torpedoes was terrible 80+% for the Americans at the beginning, average it over the 5 years and it still was 20% to 30% not so bad for everyone else but still not good. One of my uncles actually had 4 of them that served, 3 in the pacific, 1 in Europe. I do know the subs had better luck beating on the side of the sub with a hammer than getting a detonation at the beginning. Tell you what, why don't you gank the AC's like you did the arty... That would only be fair. Having air drops arm in less space than the length of a ship is [edited] and you know it. You also know the Russians had a guy with a hand crank and a bomb on the front of their "tub" as their "torpedoes".

Not certain how Armored Cruisers (AC's) are getting air dropped torps, that's more an Aircraft Carrier (CV) thing.

As far as arming distance, air dropped torps were planned for a run of 800 yards, after flying through the air for as much as 1200 yards. The torps actually armed after 300 to 400 yards in the water, in order to get the plane a chance to get away from the torpedo before it could explode. The reason the planned water run is 800 yards, is due to errors in estimating range from an aircraft, especially with no land marks. You could be off by a couple hundred yards and have still done a good job.

The entire map is effectively scaled down, and ships in game are going between islands that are so close together that actual ships would never attempt passage between them, much less run themselves ashore without wrecking the ship. As @BrushWolf mentioned, ships are also scaled up. Looks like WG took the 2000 yard total drop, and divided it by 4 for the range they planned on USN CV's dropping at. They then adjusted it for other nations to make them feel  different.

And Russian don't use hand cranked torps, their torps are extremely efficient and can go hundreds of kilometres on a couple liters of Vodka. Unfortunately, this means they actually will go 4 kilometres or less on the fumes left in the tank after the crew drinks it.

23 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

Actually it was about 70% for the Mk 14 mechanical trigger and near 100% for the magnetic trigger.

The reason it seems the torpedoes arm in such a short distance is the ships are much larger than they would be to scale.

Everyone that tried the magnetic triggers had problems but there was no excuse for the failure rate of the US mechanical ones. Once the problem was figured out the failure rate dropped to a still significant 14%.

 The Mk14 was a terrible design overall, and 14% is impressive as the USN was still saddled with a terrible mechanical trigger design, with no way of truly fixing the problem short of designing a whole new weapon. Everyone else just avoided the problem like they knew what they were doing and got the failure rate down into the low single digits.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,071
[PISD]
Members
1,710 posts
5,856 battles
1 hour ago, Navalpride33 said:

In war, Germany was the torpedo kings... If fact, if Germany would've concentrated on the wolf pack sub fleet instead of making big or bigger ships...

German would've been the top 5 must spoken language in the world.

The bigs ships did have a massive impact in the war. Forcing convoy to be escorted by Battleship just in case of a surface raid was in itself a huge loss of material for the allied.

 

and German uboat success dropped dramatically once their aces were killed and replace with rushed crew. In late war it was basically one u boat loss for any merchant ships sunk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,729
[WORX]
Members
12,050 posts
19,514 battles
21 minutes ago, Y_Nagato said:

The bigs ships did have a massive impact in the war. Forcing convoy to be escorted by Battleship just in case of a surface raid was in itself a huge loss of material for the allied.

 

and German uboat success dropped dramatically once their aces were killed and replace with rushed crew. In late war it was basically one u boat loss for any merchant ships sunk.

Regardless of the rushed crews... IMO, their number one fault of Germany, even before the war started, was concentrating on building the big ships..

IF they would've concentrated on building more subs with those resources, instead of maintaining support for and building the big German ships...

A lot of countries would be speaking German.

The big ships had a physiological edge, YES! Big time... HOWEVER, Subs were the critical threat in which, England had no answer for. It was suffering from being choked by those subs.

The biggest totality of tonnage sunk by German U-boats, is still an unmatched record that still stands today.

Edited by Navalpride33
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,037
[HINON]
Members
13,845 posts
25 minutes ago, Y_Nagato said:

The bigs ships did have a massive impact in the war. Forcing convoy to be escorted by Battleship just in case of a surface raid was in itself a huge loss of material for the allied.

 It wasnt worth it due to the massive quantities of fuel oil she consumed much less the resources spent on building her.

4 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

 

Great Britain would have been in trouble but the USA could still churn out a huge number of merchant ships to replace losses and as always the technology and tactics to defeat the subs would have evolved anyway. The Germans also had no viable ability to invade the UK.

Edited by RipNuN2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,729
[WORX]
Members
12,050 posts
19,514 battles
4 minutes ago, RipNuN2 said:

 

Great Britain would have been in trouble but the USA could still churn out a huge number of merchant ships to replace losses and as always the technology and tactics to defeat the subs would have evolved anyway. The Germans also had no viable ability to invade the UK.

It goes back on my point. Germany messed up in wasting time and resources in building big ships.. The US had the adv. there on mass production.

The German invasion would've been easier, IF the UK had no way or means to feed their population or troops. In the end we all know the outcome..

At the same time, one would've think what could've or would've been.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,495
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
27,526 posts
14,836 battles
1 hour ago, Y_Nagato said:

The bigs ships did have a massive impact in the war. Forcing convoy to be escorted by Battleship just in case of a surface raid was in itself a huge loss of material for the allied.

 

and German uboat success dropped dramatically once their aces were killed and replace with rushed crew. In late war it was basically one u boat loss for any merchant ships sunk.

Surface attacks on convoys were a very real fear for the arctic convoys. The  Atlantic convoys far less so.

What caused the German uboat success rate to plummet was the closing of the air gap and much improved ASW weaponry such as the Hedge Hog which allowed the attack to be made while they still had sonar contact.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,104
[FOXEH]
Banned
14,364 posts
20,342 battles
3 hours ago, Y_Nagato said:

The bigs ships did have a massive impact in the war.

Oh I really have to disagree with that; maybe we should discuss Tirpitz combat record?

3 hours ago, Y_Nagato said:

In late war it was basically one u boat loss for any merchant ships sunk.

I'm also thinking this is a blatant exaggeration.

3 hours ago, Y_Nagato said:

Forcing convoy to be escorted by Battleship just in case of a surface raid was in itself a huge loss of material for the allied.

Which the Allies would still have faced had Germany no capital ships and the BBs of the RN found themselves with nothing to do in the Atlantic. Sent to the Pacific, they soon meet fates similar to PRINCE OF WALES and REPULSE. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,105
[PVE]
Members
7,326 posts
23,193 battles
4 hours ago, Navalpride33 said:

In war, Germany was the torpedo kings... If fact, if Germany would've concentrated on the wolf pack sub fleet instead of making big or bigger ships...

German would've been the top 5 must spoken language in the world.

 

3 hours ago, Y_Nagato said:

The bigs ships did have a massive impact in the war. Forcing convoy to be escorted by Battleship just in case of a surface raid was in itself a huge loss of material for the allied.

 

and German uboat success dropped dramatically once their aces were killed and replace with rushed crew. In late war it was basically one u boat loss for any merchant ships sunk.

 

1 hour ago, BrushWolf said:

Surface attacks on convoys were a very real fear for the arctic convoys. The  Atlantic convoys far less so.

What caused the German uboat success rate to plummet was the closing of the air gap and much improved ASW weaponry such as the Hedge Hog which allowed the attack to be made while they still had sonar contact.

I'm wondering how much of the overall German tonnage was from the west of India from the start of the war up until  early March '43.

Apparently the U boats were sinking an average of 1 ship per day for a period ending in March '43...not sure how long prior to that time the daily sinkings started but a German ship supplying very accurate data to the U boats was stationed at the place it was transmitting from in unattackable neutral waters since the start of the war..but not sure if the spy network supplying the data was active that long or how long before March '43 (when the ship was scuttled after an oddly successful attack by "civilians" hired by the Brits).

Source...another thread (started by Blasto yesterday...containing an interesting video on the subject...IOW...Blasto wasn't the source...he just supplied the video)...sure a few of you seen it but not sure if you watched the video or knew the story already.

The major relevant point to it being that daily sinkings were occuring due to this spy network & after the radio was neutralized (due to the ship scuttling) the U boats only sunk 1 cruiser the rest of that month (from the 12th or 13th of March on) & only 3 in April & then vacated the area due to no more leads & too much area to cover.

Going to your point Naval just wondering how much more effective the extra U boats would have been w/out the spy network to inform them of where the targets were.

But as I also said at start of this thread I'm not sure how long & how much percentage of overall U boat confirmed kills (tonnage) is attributed to that area...it may not have been a significant amount overall but it was apparently quite a bit for long enough for it to be noticed & a plan to neutralize it to need to be implemented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,729
[WORX]
Members
12,050 posts
19,514 battles
2 hours ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said:

Going to your point Naval just wondering how much more effective the extra U boats would have been w/out the spy network to inform them of where the targets were

Hypothetical situation, 

Considering the cost of maintaining and training Uboat crews is a lot cheaper.

The cost of making Uboats were cheaper, they would've produced a bigger yield in return quickly (which was what Germany tried to do on the western front, a quick decapitation of the Brits).

It would've been the turning point of the war, from what I understand... The  US President at the time did not wanted to go to war with anyone, not even with Germany.

The convey was a huge help to the Brits and our Brits know this (it was the help the US committed to that was nonaggression or non military based), if the large fleet of Uboats would've been activated before the war started... The UK wouldn't of stand chance at feeding its population at the time. That would've been the German's leverage to force Britain to surrender, without a single German invading Britain. It would've been the Germany version of the battle of Midway IMO, A great win over a once powerful nation.

Very significant if you ask me.

Edited by Navalpride33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,578
[WOLF3]
Members
28,878 posts
25,114 battles

Germany actually had torpedo problems early in the war.

https://uboat.net/history/torpedo_crisis.htm

The difference between the Kriegsmarine and the US Navy was the Germans promptly fixed their issues while the USN's BuOrd tried to deflect the problem as long as it could at the cost of the USN's own submarines.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,105
[PVE]
Members
7,326 posts
23,193 battles
2 hours ago, Navalpride33 said:

it was the help the US committed to that was nonaggression

Lend lease couldn't have been more aggressive to Germany had the invitation to Germany to come get it had a giant middle finger painted on the parchment.

It was a direct & blatant message that says, "we know you don't have the means to take advantage of this so this is a direct & unmitigated announcement to the world who's side we are on...& an even more direct & unmitigated announcement to the world of who's side we are not on".

Battle of Midway was a sinking of key enemy ships...not sure the U boats would have been able to wipe out the whole RN enough to cut all assistance to the island off...the west coast of the island is quite large & would have taken way more U boats to completely cover than Germany would have been able to make...unless if they had concentrated on UK only & stayed allies w/Russia so they didn't need to split their U boats up on both fronts (not sure what time frame you are referring to...before Poland & France "fell" or after?).

Even then the RN would have been able to support the convoys enough to not get completely cut off...at least on the west end of the island...unless Germany pulled a successful PH type attack w/U boats on the RN as an opening attack (in other words not expected) to the war earlier.

Did Germany have the dockyards to build all those subs? Having the money is 1 thing...having a place to build them is another...& covertly while pretending to follow treaties & such (of course Bis & Tirp flushed those treaties down the toilet anyway so some extra subs would be like...eh-la te da...I guess).

(Edit: Guess Sharn Gnies & Graf were all that time too)

Did Germany have any more available dockyards than the ones Bis Tirp & GZ were being built in? Wasn't Scharn & Gnies built before thst time or where they WWII builds also? How many extra subs could they have built in those bays in the time it took to build those ships? 3 per each maybe for a total of 9 (or 15 if Sharn & Gnies were that time) extra subs...4 each for 12 (or 20). Did they have any other big ships under construction at that time that the dock space could have went to sub building?

(So 18-24 extra subs...maybe 30 if 5 subs per each of the big ships...still not a game changer I'm thinking).

Don't think it would have been enough to shut the island completely down...unless I'm missing some key data from somewhere?

Edited by IfYouSeeKhaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,729
[WORX]
Members
12,050 posts
19,514 battles
4 minutes ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said:

Lend lease couldn't have been more aggressive to Germany had the invitation to Germany to come get it had a giant middle finger painted on the parchment.

It was a direct & blatant message that says, "we know you don't have the means to take advantage of this so this is a direct & unmitigated announcement to the world who's side we are on...& an even more direct & unmitigated announcement to the world of who's side we are not on".

Battle of Midway was a sinking of key enemy ships...not sure the U boats would have been able to wipe out the whole RN enough to cut all assistance to the island off...the west coast of the island is quite large & would have taken way more U boats to completely cover than Germany would have been able to make...unless if they had concentrated on UK only & stayed allies w/Russia so they didn't need to split their U boats up on both fronts (not sure what time frame you are referring to...before Poland & France "fell" or after?).

Even then the RN would have been able to support the convoys enough to not get completely cut off...at least on the west end of the island...unless Germany pulled a successful PH type attack w/U boats on the RN as an opening attack (in other words not expected) to the war earlier.

Did Germany have the dockyards to build all those subs? Having the money is 1 thing...having a place to build them is another...& covertly while pretending to follow treaties & such (of course Bis & Tirp flushed those treaties down the toilet anyway so some extra subs would be like...eh-la te da...I guess).

Did Germany have any more available dockyards than the ones Bis Tirp & GZ were being built in? Wasn't Scharn & Gnies built before thst time or where they WWII builds also? How many extra subs could they have built in those bays in the time it took to build those ships? 3 per each maybe for a total of 9 (or 15 if Sharn & Gnies were that time) extra subs...4 each for 12 (or 20). Did they have any other big ships under construction at that time that the dock space could have went to sub building?

Don't think it would have been enough to shut the island completely down...unless I'm missing some key data from somewhere?

On your points, which is reality, vs my hypothetical argument... I mean could've, would've, should've ?

Germany had the means and the capital to make a grand fleet of Uboats.. It was cheaper to make.

Dockyards for subs... A plenty, Uboats were not considered monster ships.

The reason I brought up the battle of Midway, in the same discussion as  Germany making the error of producing big German ships. These were turning points of the war that gave the leverage to the opposition (midway to the US, the decision to not build Uboats to the Allies and Britain)

At the time, Germany were monsters of the ground game... If they only concentrated on sub production.. It outcome would've been different...

The context of the Midway battle I am referring too.. Is time stamped on this video, and the WOWS podcast with Jingles and the EU staff ( its 3 hrs long.. I'll spare you the link to it lol). 

If Germany created the the largest Uboat fleet, they would've been the one's dictating the terms of the war moving forward.. I dont know about you... I rather be on the offensive terms then on the Defensive one :Smile_veryhappy:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,105
[PVE]
Members
7,326 posts
23,193 battles
49 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

On your points, which is reality, vs my hypothetical argument... I mean could've, would've, should've ?

Germany had the means and the capital to make a grand fleet of Uboats.. It was cheaper to make.

Dockyards for subs... A plenty, Uboats were not considered monster ships.

The reason I brought up the battle of Midway, in the same discussion as  Germany making the error of producing big German ships. These were turning points of the war that gave the leverage to the opposition (midway to the US, the decision to not build Uboats to the Allies and Britain)

At the time, Germany were monsters of the ground game... If they only concentrated on sub production.. It outcome would've been different...

The context of the Midway battle I am referring too.. Is time stamped on this video, and the WOWS podcast with Jingles and the EU staff ( its 3 hrs long.. I'll spare you the link to it lol). 

If Germany created the the largest Uboat fleet, they would've been the one's dictating the terms of the war moving forward.. I dont know about you... I rather be on the offensive terms then on the Defensive one :Smile_veryhappy:.

The link provided by Haze in post 13 (about defective German torps) might have had some influence on not stressing U boat production...if it had been a known factor before the war.

Seems if their torps were up to snuff your scenario might have played out much earlier...Ark Royal (possibly/even probably) wouldn't have been around to get that fateful Swordfish rudder hit on the Bismarck if it had taken the 3 torps that prematurely detonated before contact back in September 17th '39...it only took 3 torps to take down the Courageous 2 days later.

In actuality it seems they had enough U boats to seriously impact the RN as it was...just the torps being defective (which still would have been a problem w/a fleet of all subs) caused a lot of RN ships to escape destiny & the issue wasn't truly resolved until '42 & the US was in the war & allied ship production was surpassing the U boats ability to take them out quick enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,729
[WORX]
Members
12,050 posts
19,514 battles
12 minutes ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said:

The link provided by Haze in post 13 (about defective German torps) might have had some influence on not stressing U boat production...if it had been a known factor before the war.

Seems if their torps were up to snuff your scenario might have played out much earlier...Ark Royal (possibly/even probably) wouldn't have been around to get that fateful Swordfish rudder hit on the Bismarck if it had taken the 3 torps that prematurely detonated before contact back in September 17th '39...it only took 3 torps to take down the Courageous 2 days later.

In actuality it seems they had enough U boats to seriously impact the RN as it was...just the torps being defective (which still would have been a problem w/a fleet of all subs) caused a lot of RN ships to escape destiny & the issue wasn't truly resolved until '42 & the US was in the war & allied ship production was surpassing the U boats ability to take them out quick enough.

Even-though as you pointed out, torps had a failure percentage... They where still the most feared ordnance for any mariner in the high seas...

As a mariner of the time, no other weapon of its day struck fear to a man psyche then a torpedo... Especially at night...

Torps even with the failures struck more fear in to the mariners then the German big ships... The Big ships of Germany were more show then a  practical viable threat.

Edited by Navalpride33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,578
[WOLF3]
Members
28,878 posts
25,114 battles

The problem with Germany just going with a bunch of Submarines was it would have been known to all.  Her neighbors, most especially the British would find out, and naval build priorities would shift.

 

They would not have hundreds of U-Boats with nobody knowing about it.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,475
[REVY]
Members
8,167 posts
6,118 battles
On 9/12/2020 at 1:56 PM, Navalpride33 said:

In war, Germany was the torpedo kings... If fact, if Germany would've concentrated on the wolf pack sub fleet instead of making big or bigger ships...

German would've been the top 5 must spoken language in the world.

Submarine Primacy has never won a war in all of history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,729
[WORX]
Members
12,050 posts
19,514 battles
5 minutes ago, Sventex said:

Submarine Primacy has never won a war in all of history.

Neither have CVs. What CVs and sub did do was.. (mentioned at the first 5 min and at book marked time).

 

It was a decisive event that changed the terms of the war in favor of the US/Brits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,475
[REVY]
Members
8,167 posts
6,118 battles
7 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

Neither have CVs. What CVs and sub did do was.. (mentioned at the first 5 min and at book marked time).

Okay.  My point still stands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,729
[WORX]
Members
12,050 posts
19,514 battles
5 minutes ago, Sventex said:

Okay.  My point still stands.

It only stands because I was using a hypothetical.

As per history, German BBs never turned would've turn the terms or the tide of war... 

In my hypothetical Sub argument... German Uboats had the potential to turn the terms of war to Germany's favor.

That was IMO, Germany's huge mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,475
[REVY]
Members
8,167 posts
6,118 battles
1 minute ago, Navalpride33 said:

It only stands because I was using a hypothetical.

As per history, German BBs never turned would've turn the terms or the tide of war... 

In my hypothetical Sub argument... German Uboats had the potential to turn the terms of war to Germany's favor.

That was IMO, Germany's huge mistake.

German U-Boat sustained the highest caulitiry rates out of all their combat branches.  The U-Boats were a losing bet without a surface fleet to protect them.  It would have been impossible to starve out Britain since Britain did not require food imports, all that would have been accomplished would have been the diminishment of the British war machine, at great cost to the German war machine.  U-Boats however, could not prevent German occupied Europe from starving and there was no way to turn the extreme lack of resources the Germans already faced into some kind of advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,729
[WORX]
Members
12,050 posts
19,514 battles
1 minute ago, Sventex said:

German U-Boat sustained the highest caulitiry rates out of all their combat branches.  The U-Boats were a losing bet without a surface fleet to protect them.

Not at the first, German Uboats to this day have the tonnage sinking record in war.  Uboats started taking Casualties when ASW capabilities improved.

What I was saying, if Germany before the war made a fleet of Uboats instead of the big fat BBs. They may have changed the terms of the war like the midway Battle for the Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,475
[REVY]
Members
8,167 posts
6,118 battles
1 minute ago, Navalpride33 said:

Not at the first, German Uboats to this day have the tonnage sinking record in war.  Uboats started taking Casualties when ASW capabilities improved.

What I was saying, if Germany before the war made a fleet of Uboats instead of the big fat BBs. They may have changed the terms of the war like the midway Battle for the Americans.

U-Boats cannot force Britain to surrender, once ASW capabilities improved, Germany's would suffer the weaknesses of crippling overspecialization.  Without the need to counter Battleships, the USN and Royal Navy would only have to focus on the sinking of U-Boats.  The already extreme casualties  the U-Boats suffered would have been magnified.  Very likely doubling down on U-Boats would benefit the Allies, making the naval war far easier to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×