Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Torpedo Troubles During World War II (1998)

historynet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 92 posts

Re: U.S. Torpedo Troubles During World War II (1998)

#11

Post by mmhsieh »

quotemstr wrote: post #10
president wrote: post #9

There have been similar concerns about the US nuclear arsenal which are decades old and aging.

Which is why the nuclear test ban is, IMHO, a bad idea. A nuclear deterrent must be credible to be effective. If an adversary comes to believe that, say, 80% of our warheads are duds and most of theirs work, the logic of retaliation may come to favor a first strike.

The logic behind test bans (in conjunction with numerical caps on warheads) is to create uncertainty in the reliability of one's own arsenal to discourage either side from contemplating a first-strike.

Re: U.S. Torpedo Troubles During World War II (1998)

#12

Post by rshnotsecure »

It’s very likely that the torpedoes did not work for the whole war really. It sometimes is scary to think about all the complaints sub commanders put in, only to be dismissed by the Department of the Navy as excuses for bad leadership or tactics. I get that you have to take this line sometimes but still...

That being said it should be noted US Naval strategy has never particularly relied on subs or been that great at it.

This has always fallen to the Eurasian powers such as Germany, Russia, and China/Japan.

Nothing has been downed by a torpedo in actual combat for the last 75 years, so realize that there are so many unknowns today in submarine warfare that you don’t see in say land warfare. That being said it looks like Underwater Unmanned Autonamous Drones is where sub warfare is heading. Supposedly China is way ahead of the pack here much like they are in the drone space (supposedly again) as well. The 2016 capture of a US Navy UUAV really was not good for the USA and marked a shift in the balance of power.

Re: U.S. Torpedo Troubles During World War II (1998)

#13

Post by MrZander »

ryanmercer wrote: post #7

It doesn't surprise me. I've seen WWII-era torpedoes and their innards at the Science of Museum and Industry in Chicago in the U-505 exhibit (seriously, if you're ever in Chicago to to the museum and pay the extra fee to go aboard U-505. Totally worth it) and there is a lot going on in one of those. Here's a low-ish quality photo of the innars of a torpedo in the exhibit (not mine) https://www.reddit.com/r/ThingsCutI…

Wow, that is incredible. I had no idea they were that complex, or even that big.

Re: U.S. Torpedo Troubles During World War II (1998)

#14

Post by WrtCdEvrydy »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #8
3fe9a03ccd14ca5 wrote: post #3

> Two completely different devices, each responsible for checking the other, deviated identically for vastly different reasons. Happens frequently. “The tests are broken but I’m positive the software is correct so I’m going to fix the tests”

That's one reason I hate complexity in tests. Your tests have to be dumb enough that you are 99% sure the code under test is at fault.

By definition, tests have to be more complex than the underlying code. The test have to setup the conditions, execute the action and validate it. Don't confuse complexity with shitty unreliable tests (timing-based tests)

Re: U.S. Torpedo Troubles During World War II (1998)

#15

Post by DuskStar »

rocketpastsix wrote: post #2

They talk about it in the movie "Midway" (2019). It's definitely one of those things a lot of people thought was embellished to make the incoming battle of Midway look more drastic. However it was absolutely true. Without the dive bombers and code breaking they were able to do in the lead up Midway would have been a disaster for the Americans.

Ehhh. There's a lot of people that seem to think that Midway would have been a disaster for the US if they lost, but there's not much reason behind this. The only thing the US was really risking that had a significant strategic impact were the carriers - if the island of Midway fell it would have been essentially unsupportable by Japanese forces (being far past Japan's supply lines, when Japan was already facing logistical issues, and within B-17 range of bases in Hawaii) and even the carriers weren't absolutely critical must-not-lose assets for the US like they were for Japan. (The US commissioned 8 carriers in the year following Midway - four Essex class fleet carriers and four Independence class light carriers) Incidentally, this is part of why Midway was such a huge strategic blunder for the Japanese forces - it risked 2/3rds of their carriers for minimal gain.

If Midway fell, it would have extended the war another few months. But I'm not sure that that really qualifies as a disaster.

Re: U.S. Torpedo Troubles During World War II (1998)

#16

Post by penagwin »

WrtCdEvrydy wrote: post #14
VBprogrammer wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's one reason I hate complexity in tests. Your tests have to be dumb enough that you are 99% sure the code under test is at fault.

By definition, tests have to be more complex than the underlying code. The test have to setup the conditions, execute the action and validate it. Don't confuse complexity with shitty unreliable tests (timing-based tests)

Depends on the type of test. What you guys are talking about are unit tests, and are designed to test individual methods/functions. You write a separate test for each one.

There's other types of testing, integration tests sound like what you are both complaining about. Integration tests test the interaction between components of a system, and are thus far more complex and likely to break as you're developing (which is a huge pain).

However integration tests have their place - just because the function works doesn't mean it's being called from the web client correctly.

Re: U.S. Torpedo Troubles During World War II (1998)

#17

Post by wayanon »

rshnotsecure wrote: post #12

It’s very likely that the torpedoes did not work for the whole war really. It sometimes is scary to think about all the complaints sub commanders put in, only to be dismissed by the Department of the Navy as excuses for bad leadership or tactics. I get that you have to take this line sometimes but still... That being said it should be noted US Naval strategy has never particularly relied on subs or been that great at…

Belgrano?

Re: U.S. Torpedo Troubles During World War II (1998)

#18

Post by matthewmorgan »

rshnotsecure wrote: post #12

It’s very likely that the torpedoes did not work for the whole war really. It sometimes is scary to think about all the complaints sub commanders put in, only to be dismissed by the Department of the Navy as excuses for bad leadership or tactics. I get that you have to take this line sometimes but still... That being said it should be noted US Naval strategy has never particularly relied on subs or been that great at…

HMS Conqueror sank the Argentine cruiser Belgrano with torpedoes

Re: U.S. Torpedo Troubles During World War II (1998)

#19

Post by WrtCdEvrydy »

DuskStar wrote: post #15
rocketpastsix wrote: post #2

They talk about it in the movie "Midway" (2019). It's definitely one of those things a lot of people thought was embellished to make the incoming battle of Midway look more drastic. However it was absolutely true. Without the dive bombers and code breaking they were able to do in the lead up Midway would have been a disaster for the Americans.

Ehhh. There's a lot of people that seem to think that Midway would have been a disaster for the US if they lost, but there's not much reason behind this. The only thing the US was really risking that had a significant strategic impact were the carriers - if the island of Midway fell it would have been essentially unsupportable by Japanese forces (being far past Japan's supply lines, when Japan was already facing logi…

> The only thing the US was really risking that had a significant strategic impact were the carriers

Yeah, that thing Japan bombed Pearl Harbor over....

Re: U.S. Torpedo Troubles During World War II (1998)

#20

Post by ceejayoz »

DuskStar wrote: post #15
rocketpastsix wrote: post #2

They talk about it in the movie "Midway" (2019). It's definitely one of those things a lot of people thought was embellished to make the incoming battle of Midway look more drastic. However it was absolutely true. Without the dive bombers and code breaking they were able to do in the lead up Midway would have been a disaster for the Americans.

Ehhh. There's a lot of people that seem to think that Midway would have been a disaster for the US if they lost, but there's not much reason behind this. The only thing the US was really risking that had a significant strategic impact were the carriers - if the island of Midway fell it would have been essentially unsupportable by Japanese forces (being far past Japan's supply lines, when Japan was already facing logi…

6-12 months of Japanese free reign in the Pacific might've led to conditions in which the US would've pursued a negotiated peace, though.
Post reply on HN