
U.S. Torpedo Troubles During World War II (1998) - mmhsieh
https://www.historynet.com/us-torpedo-troubles-during-world-war-ii.htm
======
jandrese
> Because of this logistics fiasco, veteran submariner and historian Paul
> Schratz said he ‘was only one of many frustrated submariners who thought it
> a violation of New Mexico scenery to test the A-bomb at Alamagordo when the
> naval torpedo station was available.’

LOL.

Another interesting fact about the US torpedoes is that they were slow by WWII
standards, especially compared to the Japanese torpedoes. This is normally a
fairly bad flaw because it gives the enemy ship more time to dodge the
torpedo, however in the Battle off Samar it turned out to be an advantage as
they allowed the torpedoes fired by a tiny destroyer managed to scare the
mighty battleship Yamato away from the battle for quite a long time because
the torpedoes took so long to arrive that the Yamato was well out of position
once they finally missed.

~~~
m4rtink
It's important to note that the torpedoes Japanese generally used we powered
by compressed pure oxygen, making them faster & giving them more range.

But it also turned them into even bigger explosion hazard than normal
torpedoes when the ship caring them is hit. As a result many Japanese ships
are documented going down after what would normally be minor hits due to their
oxygen torpedoes exploding and causing massive damage.

~~~
dralley
Why pure oxygen?

~~~
m4rtink
More energy stored in the same volume air tank. With normal air used by
conventional torpedoes, you get just 20% oxygen and 80% nitrogen, which is not
useful for combustion.

I think I might need to clarify - we are talking about a torpedo that is
driven by combustion engine. It carries some sort of fuel and because it is
under water, it needs to provide it's own oxidizer, which is where the high
pressure pure oxygen comes in.

Also, unlike when using normal air, it should be possible for the combustion
engine to be more powerful while being smaller, due to the more energetic
reaction. Also the exhaust gasses don't contain nitrogen, which is apparently
visible as a noticeable bubble trail, which might result in your target
noticing the torpedo and dogging.

For more detail, see the Wikipedia article:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_93_torpedo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_93_torpedo)

------
segfaultbuserr
When I was a child, I played a DOS game called Silent Hunter I. Basically,
it's a submarine warfare game which you play as a U.S. Navy submarine in World
War II, cursing the Pacific Ocean and attacks Japanese warships. When playing
the game, I was extremely frustrated about the Mark XIV torpedo onboard -
After going through the painstaking process of calculating the projectile,
hitting the fire button, I would watch the stopwatch and hoping for the best
that the target won't change its course... finally it was the time... nothing!
For every five fires or so, there would be one or two torpedoes that never
explode - when you need it the most. I was not playing the "hard" mode, it
happens even in a "moderate" difficulty setting.

I thought the game developers were making it unreasonable. And a few years
later, I learned from a history book about the early unreliability of the
torpedoes, and realized the torpedoes in the game were an accurate and
realistic depiction of its historical performance. Kudos to the game
developers.

Another tool in the game I felt strange was the "Torpedo Data Computer", which
is something that you can simply enter the bearing, speed, etc., of your
target via its tuning dials, and the machine automatically calculates the
firing position for you. I thought it was just the hand-waving of the game
developers to make the game more playable while making it unrealistic - why
would a computer even exist in the 1940s? I believed it was all pencil-and-
paper.

Later I learned it was real as well - totally mind-blowing. When I was a kid,
I had no idea about the sophisticated historical mechanical fire control
computers in the 1930s-1940s. There is a Hacker News submission of the
documentation of the computer. [0]

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12785113](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12785113)

~~~
leoc
Here are a few fun videos related to this.

A 1943 USAF documentary about ground-based anti-aircraft fire:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8zPNMqVi2E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8zPNMqVi2E)

A short YouTube documentary about the failure of the German super-battleship
Bismarck's anti-aircraft gunnery:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTO3JagV8gE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTO3JagV8gE)

In fact the Germans had been working quite seriously on guided surface-to-air
missiles during WWII:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx_lsh0BJGs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx_lsh0BJGs)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7Q92V5hK-c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7Q92V5hK-c)

------
stcredzero
_WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 — The Department of Energy said tonight that approximately
three‐quarters of the A‐1 model Polaris nuclear warheads deployed on
submarines in the mid‐1960 's were probably “duds” because of mechanical
defects._

[https://www.nytimes.com/1978/12/02/archives/early-polaris-
mi...](https://www.nytimes.com/1978/12/02/archives/early-polaris-missile-had-
defects-scientists-at-government-labs.html)

To be fair, the Japanese had really good torpedos at the start of WWII, but
there were other things which were just as unproven and wonky. For one, the
proposed tactic of letting battleship shells fall short, to target enemy ships
underwater, was pretty much useless.

(Come to think of it, the initial performance of Sidewinder missiles in
Vietnam was another example of this sort of military equipment failure.)

~~~
Smoosh
Another example is when the M16 rifle was first introduced in the Vietnam War,
it was unreliable due to fouling.

~~~
toomanybeersies
One of the major issues with early versions of the M16 was that they used a
different propellant for the ammunition than what it was designed with. This
propellant caused increased fouling.

They were also initially issued without cleaning kits, because they were
apparently "self cleaning", which is patent bullshit.

~~~
nyolfen
iirc the barrel linings also were not chromed for the first few years, which
caused corrosion (half-remembered from chivers' _the gun_ )

------
ryanmercer
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/ThingsCutInHalfPorn/comments/1jxk7k...](https://www.reddit.com/r/ThingsCutInHalfPorn/comments/1jxk7k/u505_torpedo_at_the_museum_of_science_and/)

Specifically in that thread these photos
[https://imgur.com/a/zNry7](https://imgur.com/a/zNry7)

Sadly my photos from last year aren't any better, the cavern that U-505 is in
has terrible lighting for photography.

I was quite surprised by the amount of gears, tubes, segments, weights, etc
inside one. Even the amount of batteries initially caught me off guard because
I'm used to thinking in modern lithium batteries and not lead acid.

I _think_ that is a G7e torpedo above.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G7e_torpedo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G7e_torpedo)

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

~~~
ryanmercer
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](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](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_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_System)

~~~
rmattes
If you're into this stuff and ever in the Seattle area I recommend visiting
the Naval Undersea Museum in Keyport. They have a good collection of torpedoes
on display, including a Japanese Kaiten manned torpedo.

[http://www.navalunderseamuseum.org](http://www.navalunderseamuseum.org)

------
coachtrotz
The WWII in Color series on Netflix has a Midway episode in which they
indicate a 90% failure rate of the torpedoes to explode. The article says 70
percent rate but either way its pretty unreliable.

------
rocketpastsix
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.

~~~
DuskStar
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.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
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.

~~~
caycep
Granted, Yamamoto himself had no illusions re: a protracted struggle between
Japanese industry, vs. American industry of the '30's/'40's era.

Assuming no loss of political will, I suspect even in a worse case scenario
where the US lost all its 3 carriers, it would still have eventually produced
enough to win the war. Just maybe it would have taken several years longer...

~~~
jcranmer
In 1943, the US was commissioning an Essex-class carrier more or less every
month, so the extra time would have been closer to "several months longer"
instead.

~~~
DuskStar
Yeah - the US commissioned 17 fleet carriers, 9 light carriers and a whopping
_76_ escort carriers over the course of the war. Japan? 7, 1 and 4.

------
zepearl
> _Maneuvering as close to a 90-degree track as possible, the submarine fired
> three torpedoes against the rock cliffs. The first two exploded, but the
> third threw up the familiar geyser of compressed air and water. Divers
> carefully retrieved the activated yet unexploded torpedo. The valuable dud
> was then hauled back to Pearl Harbor for examination._

Damn, for me any person who deals with any kind of unexploded ordnance is (as
well) a hero.

------
brazzy
Previous HN discussion about a different article (focusing on politics and
very superficial concerning the actual problems) about the same subject:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20665422](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20665422)

------
gadders
If you're fans of alternative history fiction, the Destroyermen [1] series
touches on the torpedo issues as well.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyermen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyermen)

------
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.

~~~
matthewmorgan
HMS Conqueror sank the Argentine cruiser Belgrano with torpedoes

~~~
DuskStar
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.

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

~~~
quotemstr
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.

~~~
mmhsieh
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.

~~~
quotemstr
I'm not sure about that. What if you're convinced that _your_ brilliant
scientists have created working warheads while you think the enemy's dolts
haven't been able to keep their arsenal working? What if your enemy thinks the
same thing in reverse? I think there's always a temptation to overestimate
one's own capability and underestimate the sophistication of others.

------
3fe9a03ccd14ca5
> _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”

~~~
VBprogrammer
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.

~~~
WrtCdEvrydy
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)

~~~
penagwin
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.

~~~
cryptonector
But you also have to test the whole system.

~~~
penagwin
For sure. There's dozens of types of tests (although many don't apply to
certain use cases). In a healthy system you should be using a lot of them. And
they don't stop at deployment, you need to be tracking exceptions (after all,
production is the final, and best test environment).

This article has some nice diagrams of the different kinds of tests
[https://medium.com/@copyconstruct/testing-in-production-
the-...](https://medium.com/@copyconstruct/testing-in-production-the-safe-
way-18ca102d0ef1)

