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

21–30 of 92 posts

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

#21

Post by zentiggr »

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…

> It’s very likely that the torpedoes did not work for the whole war really.

The patrol reports of each sub detail pretty well what shots were taken and after the fixes in '42 and early '43, the hit percentages rose dramatically... 1944 and 1945 were very good hunting times for US subs in the Pacific. They sank an amazing number of targets in a very short time.

(Former US submariner and very amateur military historian.)

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

#22

Post by AnimalMuppet »

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…

"Did not work for the whole war" is far too string. There were specific fixes to the torpedoes and also to the detonators; they were in place by September 1943. This is well documented.

Now: Did they work perfectly for the rest of the war? No. Nothing ever does. They worked a lot better, though.

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

#23

Post by Spooky23 »

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 Japanese wouldn’t be able to sustain a US invasion, but they would have conquered Australia and would probably have forced the US out of the Pacific war.

That was the gamble. Success in 1942 meant Japanese domination of the entire Pacific, including areas of the Soviet Union.

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

#24

Post by DuskStar »

matthewmorgan wrote: post #18
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

With a torpedo introduced to service in 1927, though. She avoided using her homing torpedoes (the Mark 24 Tigerfish) due to fears that they were unreliable.

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

#25

Post by Evil_Saint »

WrtCdEvrydy wrote: post #19
DuskStar wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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....

They bombed Pearl Harbor knowing that no carriers were docked there at the time. American carriers were not the main objective of the attack. You have to realize carriers were relatively new and not a known commodity like they are today.

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

#26

Post by DuskStar »

Evil_Saint wrote: post #25
WrtCdEvrydy wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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....

They bombed Pearl Harbor knowing that no carriers were docked there at the time. American carriers were not the main objective of the attack. You have to realize carriers were relatively new and not a known commodity like they are today.

And at the same time, carriers were counted as powerful enough to make the opening moves of the war.

I don't think Japan was happy to discover that they'd missed all of the US's carriers. I think I've read that Yamato was furious, in fact.

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

#27

Post by ryanmercer »

MrZander wrote: post #13
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.

The length was a bit hard to accept. Later I started looking into torpedoes and there are some real monsters that have existed, the Japanese Type 93 used in WWII is almost 30 feet long https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_93_torpedo .

The more modern Russian Type 65 is roughly the same size as the Type 93 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_65_torpedo

Russia also has that 'Poseidon' unmanned mini sub that's basically the nuclear powered sub version of a UAV that's something like 65 feet long and is believed to be able to be launched from another sub like a torpedo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_...

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

#28

Post by NeedMoreTea »

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…

Strategically crucial in a Pacific that had seen most everything the Japan side of Midway fall. If Midway had fallen, New Guinea, Coral Sea and Fiji were next in line, putting Australia and New Zealand at risk. What you call minimal gain would, had Yamamoto's plan come off, have put over 60% of the Pacific under Imperial Japanese control.

US would have been fighting their way across the Pacific, island to island at a range that no longer permitted bombing the mainland of Japan. Which, as seen at the end of the war, was subject to colossal losses.

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

#29

Post by DuskStar »

Spooky23 wrote: post #23
DuskStar wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Japanese wouldn’t be able to sustain a US invasion, but they would have conquered Australia and would probably have forced the US out of the Pacific war. That was the gamble. Success in 1942 meant Japanese domination of the entire Pacific, including areas of the Soviet Union.

Ironically, if Japan had committed all 6 fleet carriers to the South Pacific in early 1942, they might have been able to conquer Australia. Instead they split them - two to the South Pacific, to be damaged in the Battle of the Coral Sea, and then the four remaining operational carriers to Midway. Had all 6 shown up at Midway... Things probably would have gone differently.

The things that show up in hindsight, of course.

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

#30

Post by DuskStar »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #28
DuskStar wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Strategically crucial in a Pacific that had seen most everything the Japan side of Midway fall. If Midway had fallen, New Guinea, Coral Sea and Fiji were next in line, putting Australia and New Zealand at risk. What you call minimal gain would, had Yamamoto's plan come off, have put over 60% of the Pacific under Imperial Japanese control. US would have been fighting their way across the Pacific, island to island at a…

You're assuming that Japan could have kept Midway resupplied, let alone defended it. From what I understand, that's very questionable.

Midway wasn't keeping Japan contained in the South Pacific - the two were as militarily separated as Midway and the Aleutians. Japan probably could have taken the South Pacific in early 1942, in fact - but instead divided her fleet carriers up piecemeal, available to be defeated in detail.

Post reply on HN