|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 18, 2020 8:45:40 GMT -6
Here is a 1920 British Torpedo Battle Cruiser Personally, if I were to put torpedo tubes on a high-speed ship, I would put them on deck, as submerged tubes cannot fire at speeds ~20+ knots, if I recall correctly. You are correct, but then the weight on deck would affect the center of gravity and this would change the metacentric height and make the ship unstable unless the freeboard was raised and possibly the beam was widened. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 18, 2020 8:46:35 GMT -6
Here is a quote on the Japanese light cruisers. It does not mention a change to transports.
On August 25, 1941, Oi and Kitakami were ordered to Sasebo for urgent conversion into “torpedo-cruisers”. These ships were to play an important role in the Japanese plan to crush the American battle fleet during a decisive battle. Originally Oi, Kitakami, and Kiso were all to be converted into torpedo cruisers to form a special squadron that had the firepower to deliver a massive torpedo attack. By 1938 it was clear that there were insufficient Type 92 quadruple mounts, so Kiso was not modified. The actual conversion was not carried out until definite war preparations were begun so that the Americans would not gain knowledge of the creation of the torpedo cruisers. The conversion was to be very extensive, with all existing armament removed and replaced by four twin Type 89 high-angle mounts, four twin Type 96 twin 25mm mounts, and 11 quadruple torpedo mounts. When the ships arrived in the yards in August 1941, there were insufficient Type 89 mounts and torpedo tubes. The conversion was modified to retain the four forward 5.5-inch guns and remove the aft three. Only ten quadruple torpedo mounts were fitted per ship; five on each side with a total of 40 torpedoes. No reloads were carried, but provisions were made to transfer torpedoes between mounts if necessary. Two twin 25mm guns were placed abreast of the first stack. The torpedo fire-control station in the foremast was modified to allow torpedo combat at ranges greater than 32,700 yards. Both ships received a 20-foot rangefinder above the compass bridge. The displacement increased to 5,860 tons standard displacement and speed dropped to 31.67 knots in a December 1941 speed trial on Kitakami.
Stille, Mark. Imperial Japanese Navy Light Cruisers 1941-45 (New Vanguard) (Kindle Locations 477-488). Osprey Publishing. Kindle Edition.
|
|
|
|
Post by durhamdave on Mar 18, 2020 8:53:25 GMT -6
Speeds above 24 I think for submerged tubes.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 18, 2020 9:17:59 GMT -6
Speeds above 24 I think for submerged tubes. 24 knots is what the British discovered but in a real naval battle, I don't think it makes any real difference. If you want to get the enemy surface fleet to move then you will do what ever is necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 18, 2020 9:42:46 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Mar 18, 2020 12:13:23 GMT -6
Here's a little operational tidbit that sheds some light on why battleships carried torpedoes.
One of reasons battleships were equipped with torpedoes at all was because of the possibility of "browning" attacks*. Ships in an early 20th century battleline typically steamed about 400 yards apart. Each battleship was itself about 400 feet long at the time, so battleships in a battleline would occupy about 1/3 of the space in that line. At the time rapidly increasing torpedo ranges were pushing close to the expected gunfire engagement ranges (even had gunfire ranges been greater, engagement ranges were often limited in the North Sea, which has an average visibility range of about 10,000 yards). It was estimated that a mass torpedo browning attack executed by the enemy battleline when it was within torpedo range could achieve torpedo hits on 35% of the friendly battleline. This reality drove the ranges up for main guns, anti-torpedo boat weapons and for torpedoes themselves.
*This type of attack was referred to as a "browning" attack because it was similar to firing into a group of enemy soldiers without aiming at any particular individual individual, referred to as "firing into the brown".
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 18, 2020 12:58:56 GMT -6
Here's a little operational tidbit that sheds some light on why battleships carried torpedoes. One of reasons battleships were equipped with torpedoes at all was because of the possibility of "browning" attacks*. Ships in an early 20th century battleline typically steamed about 400 yards apart. Each battleship was itself about 400 feet long at the time, so battleships in a battleline would occupy about 1/3 of the space in that line. At the time rapidly increasing torpedo ranges were pushing close to the expected gunfire engagement ranges (even had gunfire ranges been greater, engagement ranges were often limited in the North Sea, which has an average visibility range of about 10,000 yards). It was estimated that a mass torpedo browning attack executed by the enemy battleline when it was within torpedo range could achieve torpedo hits on 35% of the friendly battleline. This reality drove the ranges up for main guns, anti-torpedo boat weapons and for torpedoes themselves. *This type of attack was referred to as a "browning" attack because it was similar to firing into a group of enemy soldiers without aiming at any particular individual individual, referred to as "firing into the brown". I read that and I thought it was interesting. Thanks for putting up here, its valuable information as to how technology was used. |
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Mar 18, 2020 13:59:35 GMT -6
Here's a little operational tidbit that sheds some light on why battleships carried torpedoes. One of reasons battleships were equipped with torpedoes at all was because of the possibility of "browning" attacks*. Ships in an early 20th century battleline typically steamed about 400 yards apart. Each battleship was itself about 400 feet long at the time, so battleships in a battleline would occupy about 1/3 of the space in that line. At the time rapidly increasing torpedo ranges were pushing close to the expected gunfire engagement ranges (even had gunfire ranges been greater, engagement ranges were often limited in the North Sea, which has an average visibility range of about 10,000 yards). It was estimated that a mass torpedo browning attack executed by the enemy battleline when it was within torpedo range could achieve torpedo hits on 35% of the friendly battleline. This reality drove the ranges up for main guns, anti-torpedo boat weapons and for torpedoes themselves. *This type of attack was referred to as a "browning" attack because it was similar to firing into a group of enemy soldiers without aiming at any particular individual individual, referred to as "firing into the brown". 400ft with a 400yd separation is 1/4 of the battle line, not 1/3 (sorry for being pedantic) Very interesting though |
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Mar 18, 2020 14:16:54 GMT -6
Here's a little operational tidbit that sheds some light on why battleships carried torpedoes. One of reasons battleships were equipped with torpedoes at all was because of the possibility of "browning" attacks*. Ships in an early 20th century battleline typically steamed about 400 yards apart. Each battleship was itself about 400 feet long at the time, so battleships in a battleline would occupy about 1/3 of the space in that line. At the time rapidly increasing torpedo ranges were pushing close to the expected gunfire engagement ranges (even had gunfire ranges been greater, engagement ranges were often limited in the North Sea, which has an average visibility range of about 10,000 yards). It was estimated that a mass torpedo browning attack executed by the enemy battleline when it was within torpedo range could achieve torpedo hits on 35% of the friendly battleline. This reality drove the ranges up for main guns, anti-torpedo boat weapons and for torpedoes themselves. *This type of attack was referred to as a "browning" attack because it was similar to firing into a group of enemy soldiers without aiming at any particular individual individual, referred to as "firing into the brown". 400ft with a 400yd separation is 1/4 of the battle line, not 1/3 (sorry for being pedantic) Very interesting though I'm an artist - just a bit math challenged over here. (However, the original source also mentioned that percentage. I guess Friedman was math challenged as well. :-) |
|
|
|
Post by avimimus on Mar 20, 2020 19:04:47 GMT -6
I got interested in this subject and did some research a while back (with help from others). For a brief period after Tsushima and before the First World War such designs were considered by at, a minimum, Germany, Italy, Austria-Hungary, Russia, and Great Britian. I suspect the low rate of fire of main guns, combined with the dangers posed by the new QF guns suggested the possibility that a heavily armoured torpedo ship firing at point blank range might have a future. The designs included: - Kaiser Willhelm's 'Homunculus' - A Russian design from 1913 with 84x450mm torpedoes (submerged tubes arranged for two broadsides) - A design with 30 torpedoes (two submereged rear-firing tubes, the rest arranged in submerged broadsides). These designs were impressive, however the actual weight of the running torpedoes in the 84 tube design would have been around 50-60 tons - which is easily outmatched by that later Kuma class cruisers (108 tons). This is due to the much smaller size of these torpedoes (assuming dimensions of typical whiteheads). Even the Shimikaze could release a larger broadside as it could turn all of its tubes to release a single broadsie of 40.5 tons (compared to that of the 42 torpedoes at a total of 25-30 tons). Of course the Type 93 was also much longer ranged, more reliable, more accurate, and carried a proportionally more devastating warhead. So Japan would still carry the title in terms of overall effect if not in terms of absolute numbers. The only exception appears to be a hypothetical Italian design which, while only having about 17.78 tons per broadside (assuiming Whitehead Mk.Is), with the reloads, the actual weight of torpedoes is about 152.4 tons... greater than any of the theoretical or built projects discussed earlier! The only post-WWI examples I know (other than the Kumas) is a German Battlecruiser design in the "Q" series of 1939 was considered with 12 torpedo tubes (submerged and firing forward and to the side if I recall correctly)... "Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II" by Garzke & Dulin (1985). Pictures here (may require signing up to the forum): www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/kaiser-wilhelm-iis-homunculus-and-torpedo-battleships-generally.31652/ |
|
|
|
Post by avimimus on Mar 20, 2020 19:06:37 GMT -6
Note: Such technologies were not widely employed... I believe the largest submerged tube broadside ever deployed was three submerged tubes to each side? Also, if such designs were made possible by the developers I suspect that they would add an exponentially higher likelihood of shells hitting the 'submerged torpedo flats' and leading to flooding... so probably not overpowered (and more of a liability than anything else). It'd be fascinating to experiment with though.
|
|
|
|
Post by director on Mar 21, 2020 16:15:45 GMT -6
German designs came to feature torpedoes as a cost-effective way to sink merchant ships. This is why Tirpitz was refitted with 8 torpedoes (two quad mounts at the stern).
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Mar 21, 2020 19:21:08 GMT -6
400ft with a 400yd separation is 1/4 of the battle line, not 1/3 (sorry for being pedantic) If the separation is measured center-to-center rather than stern-to-bow, then 400ft ships with 400yd separation gives you a battle line which is one-third ship and two-thirds empty space. |
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Mar 21, 2020 20:35:37 GMT -6
400ft with a 400yd separation is 1/4 of the battle line, not 1/3 (sorry for being pedantic) If the separation is measured center-to-center rather than stern-to-bow, then 400ft ships with 400yd separation gives you a battle line which is one-third ship and two-thirds empty space. Ahh that makes sense |
|
