Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MigBuster

Now thats a torpedo!

Recommended Posts


It'll be a load of conventional explosive, probably Torpex. As I remember it's caused by creating a big bubble beneath the ship, then for reasons I don't really understand it contracts onto the hull and then re-expands, the absence of water beneath the centre of the hull causes it to buckle and snap in two.

Sub launched torpedoes are normally 21" in diameter so you can get a lot of explosive in there, as opposed to air dropped ones which are generally a lot smaller and use shaped charges to make holes in stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crikey.

 

Had that have been for real I think we'd have seen a complete crew loss on the ship. It went down so fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn...another Spruance goes down...hope it wasnt the David Ray... :sad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

most german torpedos in ww2 had about 650 lbs of explosive. id assume this one has a hell of a lot more. it about broke the ship in two. and it was a perfectly aimed shot, right at the middle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mk48 should still use a 650lb warhead.

It is the precise location of the detonation that makes it so effective:

Create a pocket of no water (vacuum? or gas?) under the hull and allow the weight of the ship to break itself in two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Streakeagle is correct. The Germans developed the technique in WWII. They discovered more damage can be caused by detonating a torpedo just under a ships keel, thereby breaking its (reinforced spine structure) and most likely causing a cascading structural failure of the weaker remaining structures. It proved to be a very effective tactic reducing the number of shots required to make the kill, as well as reducing the vulnerability of the attacker considering the vastly increasing danger to German U-Boat crews from 1943 to the end of the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The damage is actually due to the very low compressibility factor of water. It transfers nearly all of the explosive force of the warhead to the ship's hull, breaking the keel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And let's not forget that armour plating doesn't go all whe way down to the keel - it ends some meters below the waterline. The belly is less protected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yup.

 

MK-48 with a 650lb torpex warhead, detonated beneath the keel of the unarmored Spruance to create a bubble which breaks the back of the ship.

 

The video skipped so it looks like the ship went down much faster than it probably did.

 

I did hear that it was the old David Ray, don't know for sure.

 

:salute:

 

they did the same thing to one of my old ships too.....

 

:shok:

Edited by Typhoid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think armour plating of the keel would make much of a difference, actually some plans I have of a WW2 carrier indicate it had plating down to the keel so it was certainly an option then, the problem is it's not in the correct plane to resist the buckling of the keel. There are videos (probably on the net somewhere) demonstrating the effect of underwater explosions and the way they move around.

The USSR did develop nuclear torpedoes to create a big enough explosion to break the back of a Nimitz class carrier, however for anything smaller than that you'd probably only need two conventional heavyweight.

At Dartmouth they taught us something along the lines of 'Missiles will hurt you, torpedoes will kill you'.

Edited by SkippyBing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think armour plating of the keel would make much of a difference, actually some plans I have of a WW2 carrier indicate it had plating down to the keel so it was certainly an option then, the problem is it's not in the correct plane to resist the buckling of the keel. There are videos (probably on the net somewhere) demonstrating the effect of underwater explosions and the way they move around.

The USSR did develop nuclear torpedoes to create a big enough explosion to break the back of a Nimitz class carrier, however for anything smaller than that you'd probably only need two conventional heavyweight.

At Dartmouth they taught us something along the lines of 'Missiles will hurt you, torpedoes will kill you'.

 

yup. for antiship work at the Task Force or Fleet level we would use airplanes to hit the guys and "mission kill" an enemy surface combattant, but the SSN was the preferred platform if we could get him into the area. The saying is "you don't sink ships by letting air into the top, you sink ships by letting water in the bottom" with MK-48's.

 

:yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The damage is actually due to the very low compressibility factor of water. It transfers nearly all of the explosive force of the warhead to the ship's hull, breaking the keel.

 

Yes, the same method employed by Barnes Wallace when designing the bouncing bomb. When it rolled down the dam front a hydrostatic charge exploded the torpex at a predetermined depth. The shockwave was enhanced considerably due to the above.

 

Kaboom. :shok: Mother nature helps out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The USSR did develop nuclear torpedoes to create a big enough explosion to break the back of a Nimitz class carrier

There were also plans for torpedo nuke capable of leveling a shore city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There were also plans for torpedo nuke capable of leveling a shore city.

 

really?

 

I knew they had nuclear cruise missiles for that purpose, but torpedoes?

 

seems odd. (I don't know they didn't, just seems odd)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i could say s**t, but.... i wasnt a "2 stage torpedo"?

one under water, than when it aproximated from the target it jump off out of the water?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i could say s**t, but.... i wasnt a "2 stage torpedo"?

one under water, than when it aproximated from the target it jump off out of the water?

 

oh, that. Other way around.

 

I think you might be referring to the SSN-14 which was a rocket assisted torpedo. It left as a rocket and when near the target (submerged sub) it dropped a torpedo which could, but not always, be nuclear.

 

they also had one (I forget the designation) that was launched through a torpedo tube from a submerged sub.

 

We called ours Subroc

Edited by Typhoid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I knew they had nuclear cruise missiles for that purpose, but torpedoes?

It is possible to stuff that much punch in a torpedo but they say the navy rejected the idea as being dishonorable. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US Mk 45 torpedo (anti-submarine) had a warhead with an 11kt. yield. Close to that of the 13-16kt. yield of the Hiroshima bomb. The nuclear torpedo was later abandoned when the Mk. 48 proved to be fast and accurate enough to do the job with conventional explosives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It left as a rocket and when near the target (submerged sub) it dropped a torpedo

 

We had a similar thing called Ikara (think it was Australian in origin), actually saw one in the FAA Museum reserve collection took myself and a mate about a minute to figure out what it was, the torpedo shaped bottom half was the eventual giveaway! I'm guessing we ditched it as the system took up a lot of room on the ship and if you've got a helicopter anyway you might as well use that, works for me I don't want to be on the ship if there's a sub that close anyway!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ASROC and Nuke Torpedos.....Anybody remember the movie The Bedford Incident with Richard Widmark and Sidney Portier?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ASROC and Nuke Torpedos.....Anybody remember the movie The Bedford Incident with Richard Widmark and Sidney Portier?

 

Yup sure do! I remember watching that one when I was a little

kiddo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..