Who had the best torpedoes of WW2?

[@Drachinifel]

Pinned post for Q&A :)

[@bkjeong4302]

If you could create the “composite WWII torpedo” to create the best torpedo with the available technology from 1939 to 1945, which design features from which torpedoes would you choose?

[@thisisabcoates]

Who had the better torpedos in the Russo-Japanese War? Given that, how excessive were Kamchatka's fears of torpedo boats?

[@dogloversrule8476]

1. why did the Japanese use naval bombardment against Henderson Field if it wasn’t part of their doctrine & once they did do it, why didn’t they incorporate it into their doctrine? 2. What is the difference between torpex & cordite? Why was torpex used for torpedos while cordite was used in artillery shells? 3. What was the difference between light & heavy cruisers in different navies in WW2? I’ve tried to find a good answer on line but haven’t found any.

[@djbiscuit1818]

Copying another commenters question they didn't put here: "why did some nations used dual sizes of torpedoes on submarines? Examples are the french Redoutable class and minerve. They have 550mm torpedoes....but also some 400mm torpedo tubes (redoubtable internal, minerve external). What is the possible benefit and reason france did that? I believe italy also had some subs that did that."

[@captainvladmir7535]

What was the longest range Long Lance torpedoes were successfully (hit a target and detonated) fired from in combat during WWII?

[@J_Halcyon]

The US Mark 14 torpedo was an excellent design. Signed, Yamamoto Isoroku

[@thomasmolloy5447]

The Elbonian Navy's recent purchace of US mark 14 torpedoes manufacturerd in 1941 is absolutely certain to see them to glory!

[@wintersal449]

Oh boy, i sure hope the Mark 14 does well in this competition

[@Alsadius]

The funny thing is, by the end of the war it was actually not bad at all. Shame about that whole "1942" thing, though...

[@michaelmoorrees3585]

It will probably do well, in 1942, when it comes in volume of correspondence, complaining about its "lack of performance".

[@therealuncleowen2588]

The Ordinance Bureau says it works perfectly so I'm sure it'll win

[@jonvonboatman7062]

This is definitely what the Bureau of Ordinance would say covering their eyes and ears 😂

[@Vagabond820]

The torpedo was good; the firing mechanism not so much to start.

[@captainvladmir7535]

I'd personally love a "weird torpedoes" video.

[@GOPGonzo]

MK 27 Cutie. Sub caliber submarine torpedo. Brutally slow, criminally short ranged, tiny warhead. But, it had an effective acoustic homing guidance system in 1943. Won't kill a BB, but would blow the screws of the DD coming to depth charge you.

[@dogloversrule8476]

0:35 General Kenobi, you are a bold one

[@wierdalien1]

Most uncivilised

[@dogloversrule8476]

@ “Let her go, Anakin” …

[@mek1429]

you didn't even do the quote correctly it's "bold one" not "brave one"

[@dogloversrule8476]

@ good catch, thank you

[@nathanielmeade5731]

I knew someone was gonna do it

[@ramal5708]

Since everyone is expecting the US to be in the last place, I want to give a huge shout-out to the Mk24 and Mk27 homing torpedoes, they were both acoustic homing torpedo, in the case of the air dropped Mk24 it managed to sank at least 25 axis submarines and for the sub launched"Cutie" Mk27, it served mostly as a defensive weapon against pursuing enemy surface ships. Granted both torpedoes had suboptimal speed like 12-20kts, it's typical for an acoustic homing torpedo for their time.

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

Yes. The Americans and Germans both had Acoustic Homing Torpedoes. The Germans used theirs from Subs while the _"Fido"_ American was air dropped and used against subs. The Americans were so concerned with anyone realizing that they had a homing torpedo that the labeled the Mark 24 as a "Mine" ... and waited a damn long time before it was revealed to have existed. I didn't know if anyone else had any but a quick search reveals quite a few en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Acoustic+Homing+Torpedoes&sourceid=Mozilla-search&ns0=1 Perhaps a video on Homing Torpedoes and the countermeasures used against them? I believe that some of the more modern Homing Torpedoes were in fact Wire Guided while others could try - fail and then retry. Curiously - the British used a conventional torpedo on the _Belgrano_ but one was enough. I don't think they wanted to sink it - but - it's Water Tight Integrity wasn't all that great - and - the damage it caused took out the pumps (iirc). Fortunately - the ship had very sophisticated Life Boats and most of the crew survived. Argentina's Subs didn't have a lot of luck against the British Surface ships and the British didn't have a lot of luck finding them. Given the lack of opportunities this is the only actual shooting conflict I'm aware of involving subs since WWII. .

[@tommihommi1]

​@@BobSmith-dk8nw actual modern torpedoes usually are glass fiber controlled, have active and passive sonar capabilities, and can switch to fire and forget mode if desired.

[@ralphlindberg1299]

.. and the US Mark28, German T5, etc

[@Kwaj]

To add to your point, Mk-27 'Cutie' torpedoes, like any new weapon after initial teething problems, would go on to have a very commendable 33% success rate when it came to hitting their targets. When used against cargo vessels or escorts like destroyers, US submarines had to fire the Cutie at a certain depth before diving further below. Once the weapon impacted the enemy ship via acoustic homing, this either damaged the enemy's propellers or sank it outright. The Mk-27 'Cutie' sank a total of 24 ships with 9 others damaged. A very good development in US torpedo history.

[@AndrewGraziani-k7d]

7:00 I don't know what Drach's going to decide, but in the case of the MK 14, I would like to see two different entries one early one late.

[@UthurRytan]

FYI late war Italian torpedoes also carried warheads other than TNT, they could be carrying S1/S2 explosive warhead, or an unnamed mix that had 60% TNT, 20% RDX and 20% Aluminuum powder, so they should be a bit above in the air dropped torpedoes category, close to the UK MkXV. Also you should have considered other variables, such as the max speed and height for an air dropped torpedo. Italian ones right from the start of the war could be dropped at 300 kts and from 100 m, whereas any other torpedo could at most be dropped at a speed of 200 kts at 50 m (British and Japanese ones, American ones were even lower at 150 kts at 15 m)

[@_lo8241]

The FIDO torpedo is an absolutely crazy invention I had no idea existed until recently, I think it deserves more exposure for how advanced yet simple it was

[@kimj2570]

There is in Tube long voice clip of Grumman Avenger hunting U-boat with sonobuoys, dropping Fido and sinking the U-boat. From mid 1944. That was real space magic at the time. Much more than German wunderwaffe.

[@lexington476]

Just starting the video. I'm going to call it now that at some point Drac is going to channel his inner Khan and yell "aft Torpedoes fire!".

[@damedusa5107]

No old chap, he would say “aft torpedos shoot”

[@timschoenberger242]

Probably the only thing you didn't compare with the aerial torpedoes with altitude and speed of insertion into the water. The difference between the two US model 13 was considerable in these areas. This goes to your "delivery system" comparison.

[@craigplatel813]

Except I would say it's not an issue of delivery system. As far as I know except for a rare case or two the aircraft all had better performance than the ability of the torpedo to be launched. For example the avenger could still fly faster and higher than the US late war torpedos could be dropped.

[@AnthonyEvelyn]

Japanese Long Lance torps were no joke! They were reliable and packed a wallop.

[@icewaterslim7260]

11 nautical mile hit is still the record . . . On USS Strong while exiting a channel in the Solomans the night before the Battle of Kula Gulf as launched by IJN Destroyer "Niizuki". One of a 14 torpedo spread.

[@theoldfart6404]

Hi Drach, given that the WW2 navies had differing strategic goals; the Japanese focus being on destroying capital ships whilst the Germans were primarily seeking to destroy merchant shipping, the missing 'rating' category seems to be 'target type'. Sure, if you're looking to overcome BB TDS then you need a very big warhead. However; if you primary targets are merchant ships - and their escorts - heavy warheads are excess baggage. Torpedo speed is also less relevant. One last thought - direct impact torpedoes vs magnetic. A direct impact on a TDS relies on explosive weight to damage the target. A magnetic detonator torpedo relies on the water blast effect to 'break the back' of the target - an attack which a TDS may, or may not, mitigate.

[@khaelamensha3624]

The poking device for performances, for technological level, the last German ones were amazing for the time. Obviously I comment before watching the video 😂 One point I really loved in Drach videos is how he takes the needed time to explain how he rates things ❤️👍

[@Nikolai2s]

14:14 I love how the Whitehead torpedo has a Chamber of Secrets (Chambre á Secret). Although with the way patent rights used to be guarded and enforced, I could almost see Robert Whitehead including a large venomous snake inside each and every torpedo's hydrostatic controller section. 😂

[@andyf4292]

so they didnt leave wakes so much as ...slitherine tracks..... also explains the sidewinder missile

[@xeutoniumnyborg1192]

Had the Whitehead torpedo achieved performance approaching one of the better Japanese torpedoes, it could have been given the nickname "The Basilisk."

[@VintageCarHistory]

The best torpedo was definitely from Barbados. A jigger each of rum, cognac, creme de menthe and vodka. Serve on the rocks.

[@dogloversrule8476]

@@VintageCarHistory nice one

[@Sherwoody]

They go well with coconut breaded torpedo shrimp.

[@andyf4292]

why did that give me a 'Danger 5' vibe?

[@gwtpictgwtpict4214]

And then you have a nice lie down.

[@dalenichols7414]

Oh Man now I'm thirsty

[@michaelmoorrees3585]

In high school (back in the 1970s) we had a post WW2 torpedo (less the boom stuff) in shop class. It was jam packed full of tube electronics which occupied the space of a mini-fridge ! That's "valve" electronics for Drach.

[@bkjeong4302]

For surface-launched torpedoes the Long Lance is going to be hard to beat, even without Torpex (which applies to most non-American torpedoes) and the inherent flaws of being pointlessly long-ranged. For air-dropped torpedoes the Americans have that one cornered with the Mk. 13. Edit; looks like I was mostly right on both of these, though the Type 93 was in a separate category than what I expected

[@ph89787]

You mean the Mk 13?

[@bkjeong4302]

@@ph89787yeah got the two confused for a second.

[@UthurRytan]

On paper one of the best, but in practice had a lot of deep running issues that were never fixed until mid 1943 (were showing up as late as the Battle of Komondorski Island, also a similar problem with the Japanese submarine torpedoes) and over sensitive detonator issues that weren't fixed until December 1942. So a lot of missed kills, as opposed to the British or Italian torpedoes which had no problems early in the war

[@alganhar1]

How is the long range pointless? Torpedoes are not just about killing ships you know. Oh its certainly the main part of their purpose, but its not their entire purpose. Area denial, or limiting an enemies ability to manoeuvre are both important secondary effects of torpedoes. If you look into the accounts of some WWII actions, especially destroyer actions, there are cases of torpedoes being used in exactly that way. Torpedoes being used to limit the ability of the enemy to freely manoeuvre is not some kind of edge case, but something that was understood and utilised. Destroyers dumping torpedoes into the water to deter straight line pursuit for example. Then you have the worry of the possibility of torpedoes affecting an opponents ability to manoeuvre their ships freely. This was something on Jellicoe's mind at Jutland for example. There is at least one point where he made what some might consider the wrong decision because of the worry of sailing his fleet into the path of German torpedoes, a worry that was not unfounded given German Naval doctrine at the time. A weapon like a ship launched torpedo is not *just* about killing other ships, sure its their primary role, but they do have other uses that while perhaps used somewhat less often than their primary purpose are still valuable. In the case of the Long Lance the real issue was that even as late as late 1944 the USN was simply not aware of how long range the weapon actually WAS. As a result it did not hinder their ability to manoeuvre as much as it might have done if they had been aware of the true range of the weapon. On occasion that bit the USN in the rear.... So I do not consider the long range of the Long Lance pointless in the slightest. I consider it a very real benefit of the weapon, even if that long range was not always utilised it was ALWAYS an option.... So its a far from 'pointless' characteristic of the weapon.

[@bkjeong4302]

@@alganhar1 The issue is that the Japanese very much intended the Long Lance to actually kill enemy ships, especially during the night engagement that was supposed to form the second stage of their Kantai Kessen doctrine (the first would be the carrier battle and the third being the battleline action), and do so at ranges that would prevent enemy counterattacks; the issue being that at those ranges NO unguided torpedo would be able to reliably hit anything (though most other torpedoes literally wouldn’t be able to travel that far to start with). There’s also the fact that the Type 93’s legendary stealth (due to its pure oxygen propellant leaving no bubble trail), while a good side benefit for actually attacking and damaging enemy ships, was actively detrimental in its use as a deterrent because the enemy wasn’t going to maneuver out of the way of a torpedo they didn’t know was there. The reason the Japanese didn’t see this as a problem was because they didn’t intend the Type 93 to be an area-denial weapon in the first place.

[@timkohler]

Definitely interested in a video on the weird specialist torps!

[@louiswilkins9624]

Let's do the weird torpedoes too , sounds interesting

[@davidg3944]

It was me, my torpedoes were the best of any Navy in the world. But as I'm a peaceable man, I refused to sell them to any of the warring parties. Instead, I gave the design to Andorra, with the promise they'd only use them for self defense. And as they're landlocked...

[@dogloversrule8476]

😂😂

[@jbz4788]

Could you imagine how terrifying a torpedo that could travel through the ground would be?

[@davidg3944]

@ Hmmm... [scribbles notes furiously]

[@dogloversrule8476]

@ wouldn’t that be a bunker buster?

[@davidg3944]

@ Combine a tunnel-borer and a Grand Slam and we've got something.

[@Weirdanimator]

That the MKVIII was in service for so long is insane to me, originally designed in the 20s and still in use until the 90s at least. Did any other torpedoes have as long a service life? (Mod4's sank the Belgrano during the Falklands War)

[@KI4HOK]

The US Mk14 had just as long a service life (as the Mk16). The Mk 16 was active into the 80s.

[@w8stral]

Without watching: USA : Last place, Japan: 1st

[@Wildschwein_Jaeger]

Yup

[@crockastpodcast1560]

You beat me to it

[@olivere5497]

USA.❤

[@miamijules2149]

Lolol Actually you’re absolutely incorrect. The U.S. has ridiculously awful torpedos for most of the war until the Bureau of Ordinance realized that they too, like ordinary mortals, screw up. Conversely, the Type 93 Long Lance was faster, more stealthy, longer ranged and had huge warhead compared to most.

[@nihalareu]

Yeaaah, not much debate here 😂

[@davidk7324]

Thank you SIr. US torpedo classification reminds me of the challenge of M4 tank classification when ranking "best/worst." Depends on the sub model, date of manufacture, and field expediencies.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

Those ranges are fairly reasonable for a submerged launched torpedo. A periscope at 10 foot above a flat surface will see just short of 4 miles (distance to the horizon). This reduces to about 1.5 miles if the periscope is only 1.5 foot above the surface.

[@re1644]

☝thank you. That gives a much needed perspective, at least in my opinion.

[@JoshuaTootell]

They needed flat earther torpedos.

[@jimtalbott9535]

24:30 - the US torpedos need a “predictability” rating, as opposed to “reliability”.

[@jacobdill4499]

I know it is horribly outdated but I am curious how the Whitehead Torpedo used by the Oscarborg Fortress to sink the Blucher would stack up.

[@tcpratt1660]

Blucher: 10/10 - would sink again. Drach: insufficient data for WWII - and no, I'm not going to ask my Patreons if they want a WWI torpedo comparison video...

[@piedpiper1172]

Well, it didn’t sink the fortress that fired it, so probably above the 1942 Mk IVX.

[@andrewallen9993]

Very much better than the early US torpedoes. The proof of my statement is that they actually hit and sank the Blucher.

[@thomasbaagaard]

@@andrewallen9993 It is one of the cases where range really do not matter. If one had to design a torpedo for that specific use if would need very limited range, limited speed. but a sufficient amount of Boom.... but most important of all: You need to be able to put it in storage for decades.. and then take it out and use it. And it MUST work.

[@andrewallen9993]

@thomasbaagaard Like a Whitehead not the US BO torpedoes. That didn't work straight from the factory.

[@729060]

I guess it shouldn't be too surprising that Japan is on the podium in nearly every category due to how obsessed they were with being able to force a capital ship parity within the first 6mo-1yr of a war.

[@anselmdanker9519]

Thank you for covering the torpedoes 😊

[@hmsverdun]

General question for the channel-at what point did TNT become the standard used for explosives weight and why. I know Its not fully naval but i think it is important for references particularly when talking about torpedo's, shell fillings etc.

[@5RndsFFE]

I’m still looking for sources, but I’m going to assume around July 16 1945. In short it was the simplest way to measure the energy output from an explosion in a common metric. 1 gram of TNT = 4184 joules.

[@dogloversrule8476]

Good question

[@FltCaptAlan]

Drach, if your Patreon Drydocks are any indication, we would sit here all week and watch your complete explanation for each torpedo in each category

[@patw1687]

Great video Drach. This helps to explain how the US Navy was able to sink Musashi and Yamoto with "tiny" air-launched torpedoes.

[@the_Carthaginian1]

With regards to range perhaps not mattering so much... as a hunter and a sportshooter, there is a saying: "You miss 100% of the shots you do not take." While it may not seem extremely important, there are instances where an extra thousand or two thousand yards can be the difference in being able to engage a target at all, or having to watch helplessly as that valuable enemy asset slips by.

[@fortythird]

According to the US Navy Bureau of Ordnance: USA, Mk XIV torpedo.

[@joolyun]

The perfect torpedo. Nothing, NOTHING is wrong with it.

[@mikhailiagacesa3406]

"NOTHING!!!" - Buord(God)

[@billynomates920]

20:30 when you're done with all that fancy calculus at school, this looks much more like the monday mid-morning sort of engineering you'll actually be paid to be doing. like the architect who spent his school days designing skyscrapers, gets to work and opens a spreadsheet to go through the list of door furniture, corridor six, east wing, level two of some huge hospital modernisation programme to check off against the drawings and firm up pricing.

[@5peciesunkn0wn]

Definitely want that 'experimental/specialist torpedoes" video!

[@Kazman07]

I'm a simple man. I see a Drach video, I watch it twice.

[@flinthawkins13]

Honestly I'd love to see a video on the more weird, experimental, or technological dead end torpedoes throughout all of history like the Italian merchant one you mentioned in the beginning. I love when you talk about those more obscure or anomalous things in naval history. Though yeah I understand researching info on that stuff is probably also a lot harder

[@Ralph-yn3gr]

I think this really goes to show just how much damage the Bureau of Ordinance did to the US war effort. American torpedoes don't really set the world on fire, but they're all credible on paper. If they had worked properly they could have done significant damage. And holy moly the Japanese submarine torpedoes are nuts. No wonder USS _Wasp_ instantly blew up. Also I do think you should have included the maximum drop speed and altitude of the aerial torpedoes. The Japanese torpedoes had really good ones throughout and I'd argue that that was a significant factor in their effectiveness. It made their aircraft harder targets for AA guns and reduced the time fighters had to intercept them.

[@jetdriver]

Great video Drach. I think you have a sound methodology and I do agree that including a reliability factor would be rather difficult. Especially in the US case given how various workarounds and field mods did help improve the US torpedoes before the later variants which did solve the issues. One problem with the MK18 that perhaps should have been scored (and this may or may not apply to other sub and surface launched torpedoes) is the lack of circular run protection which cost the US Tang and perhaps other boats as well. I think when ranking aerial torpedoes range is somewhat irrelevant unless it’s constraining your preferred drop method. For example if the US late war (and I’m making this number up because I don’t know the answer) sought to drop at not greater than 2000yds then a torpedo range in excess of say 2500 yds is just wasted. What is far more valuable is torpedo speed (which you rank) which both prevents an enemy from just outrunning it and also improves the chance of a hit because run time from a given range is lower. But also the drop envelope (which you don’t rank) which can make the aircraft dropping it MUCH more likely to be shot down in the first place. The prime example of this being the early war US Mk13 with its very low limits on speed and altitude for a drop. Finally it may be worth considering just how much depth of water these torpedoes required. This is a bit iffy as nations that needed the ability to drop in shallow waters seem to have developed kits for this which may mean that those that didn’t just didn’t have a need. But it is another factor.

[@gwtpictgwtpict4214]

Going to have to disagree with you on range being somewhat irrelevant, at least if you want to get your air wing back. To take your 2000 yds example, fine if your target is just carrying 20mm Oerlikons as their effective range is roughly 1600 yds*. Unfortunately your opponents start mounting 40mm Bofors with an effective range of around 4000 yds. Oh dear, now you're losing aircraft. Range matters.

[@CalgarGTX]

TNT equivalent payload should always be the measuring standard, because it also means you can have less weight for the same charge effectiveness and therefore more fuel for range, out of the same dimensions. Or any other tradeoff you can think of. This is a mistake I see often when discussing artillery shells or tank shells and so on. People will often say 'this one had 28g of HE, this one had 43g of HE, therefore xyz' and completely forget to look at what the type of explosive the charge actually is. The plane launched ones should def be judged way more on speed and altitude of release possible, which is going to be your first big problem even getting them in the water and working, while getting shot to pieces by AA meanwhile. A fair share of the brit air launched ones were pretty terrible in that department, and even in gamified simulator games are borderline impossible to use or hit anything with because also either extremely slow ranged or slow. Which makes it even more of a miracle that the whole Bismarck situation ever happened.

[@I.AM.ON.MY.WAY.]

Just in time for my work shift, excellent as usual

[@OliviaMitchell-l7p]

Thank you for such great content! You really put your heart into every video. I can see that you are trying for your audience.🥰♥️🍁

[@F4Wildcat]

Since the topic is torpedoes= why did some nations used dual sizes of torpedoes on submarines? Examples are the french Redoutable class and minerve. They have 550mm torpedoes....but also some 400mm torpedo tubes (redoubtable internal, minerve external). What is the possible benefit and reason france did that? I believe italy also had some subs that did that.

[@grahamstrouse1165]

Because that’s the most French thing the French could come up with…

[@Drachinifel]

The theory went that smaller torpedoes either could have launchers fitted in areas larger tubes couldn't fit, and/or could be used on weaker targets like merchantmen while carrying more weapons and each one costing less. The Italian's for example launched an entire class of sub intended specifically for commerce raiding and they went with more smaller torpedoes and tubes as opposed to the conventional wisdom of fewer and heavier (21") weapons.

[@Sherwoody]

Given a certain French fixation on some of their ship designs, they might have felt that there were giving themselves more “windows” of opportunity.

[@F4Wildcat]

@ Okay! thanks Drachi!

[@StephenRWilliams]

As you noted, most torpedoes had more than enough charge to sink lightly defended merchant ships. By comparing charge weights this really just answers the question "Who had the best torpedoes for sinking capital ships in WW2?" Torpedoes were a secondary weapons against warships in most contexts, while they were the best weapon against merchants, so this isn't the most useful question. We should be comparing things like cost, complexity of manufacture and reliability even if those comparisons are challenging and subjective.

[@awathompson]

Modifiers: Nothing said about the size of the torpedo in length. This can affect capacity of loadout. On a ship-based torp this means very little, but air dropped the aircraft has to carry it. A 4000 lbs. torp is going to affect the aircrafts performance more than a 3000 lbs torp and the 4000 torp may not fit into a TBM weapons bay.

[@louisavondart9178]

Dutch torpedos were great in the early part of WW2. I wonder if they will get a mention.... Nope. Which is a pity as most of them did actually go Boom.

[@jon-paulfilkins7820]

The last time I was this early, Basil Zaharoff was still a 'fireman' in Istanbull!

[@onehopeofthedoomed]

One thing I would have liked to see noted, even if it wasnt weighted was intended target (military vs merchant), to provide context for the weapon as some were deliberately made smaller because huge warheads werent needed for merchant vessels.

[@johnmorris4003]

Thank you.

[@ViceadmiralNelson]

I know it might be difficult, but I would add additional points for the addition of steering / homing systems, but only for those torpedos which were actively used in quantifiable numbers. There could be something like Bonus Point: Had x / y amount of steering/searching / homing options, (Point per option. Same goes for the detonator: Get a point per Detonator Option, lose two points if one does not actually work (in a certain version).

[@plasmaburndeath]

Starfleet did, but those were historian based time warps for observation, so doubt the Constitution Class starships in orbit at the time, that their Photon torpedo's count.

[@hernerweisenberg7052]

36:52 why is that italian Si270 I torps slow speed range so low? Is there a zero missing?

[@michaelpiatkowskijr1045]

One thing about the aircraft. What good is the Japanese plane drop torpedo if the plane doesn't make it to drop? Where drop speed really helps is with AA fire. The faster they go, the less likely of being shot down.

[@irritated888]

It changes wildly on your definition of best. The mark 14 was the best at being terrible.

[@davidbrennan660]

Drach as dumped a full spread of Torps into the water, best turn away and open the distance or face them down Jutland style….. so do you feel lucky viewer?

[@Destroyer_V0]

Mark xiv? Fuck ye we ball.

[@Jayne22]

Yes please, weird torpedos. Please, pretty please.

[@assessor1276]

Great topic and a great video! But I still like the old theme music better….

[@bhinkle530]

Perhaps a decent way to categorize effectiveness would be to compare tonnage sunk to torpedoes launched. And maybe further break that down into merchantmen sunk and warships sunk.

[@ronaldblunck5597]

Very Interesting

[@ZevGross]

Very interesting. WRT the Italian Si270I there seems to be a typo - slow speed range is less than fast speed range?

[@benwillis7209]

It would be interesting to compare torpedo efficacy. A simple measure would be torpedoes fired vs tonnage sunk. More complex would be percentage torpedoes that hit the target, then torpedoes that hit vs detonated, and then detonated and sunk. Unfortunately the information to calculate this is not available or only anecdotal, which is sad because, to me, the most important measure of a torpedo (or any weapon) is: did it do its job?

[@corentinrobin3513]

Can someone post the link to the video Drach was talking about, "who had the best guns of WW2"? I've seen the AA one, but can't find or remember seeing the one about main guns

[@lucascousins6934]

It's called "battleship guns of WW2, a series of tubes"

[@Damnusername58]

Wait, the Si270's slow range is somehow less than its fast range? Is that a typo or is there some weird breaking interactions going on there?

[@m1t2a1]

Insert Bob Newhart - Defusing a Bomb sketch here. 46:43

[@michaelporzio7384]

Do mines next!

[@66WDB]

Quick question- which model was used in the I-19 magic bullet strike that sank Wasp, O’Brien, and damaged North Carolina? Great stuff as usual Drach!

[@matsw8283]

Damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead!

[@HeaanLasai]

Though don't the electrics had the advantage of having less of a bubble trail? At least with later torpedoes, with passive sonar being used, the electrics gave little time for a target notice it's being shot at. By the time they'd decided to do anything about the fact they're getting shot at, the torpedo would already be close enough to have a vote in the course of action. That vote typically being 'oh no, you don't'.

[@J069FIX]

37:36 I'm assuming the Italian Si270i's slow speed mode's range is actually 13110 yards and not a measly 1311 yards? Otherwise that metal fishy is absolutely garbage at the slow speed category, and should be the absolute worst surface torpedo. Edit: at around 39:04, the Soviet 53-36 is labeled Failure 😂

[@jonqualey2204]

Very interesting video. Air launched torpedoes - I assume these are straight running torpedoes and that the aircraft pilot lines up on the target visually. Were there any sort of computer on the aircraft used to calculate a lead angle? Or were the torpedoes released at point blank (relatively speaking) range to where a straight visual line up was sufficient?

[@carlcarlton764]

Can I get a links to the other comparisons?

[@alexmoskowitz811]

Do you see torpedo facts?

[@RockinRobbins13]

This is a wonderful study of factors that are not necessarily related to effective weaponry. Let's pick another category entirely, World War II submarines. The German Type VII is often represented as superior to the American Fleet Boats because of its superior diving ability. And that's fine. The submarine is in an action, is detected by a destroyer and decides to deploy its super power of deep diving capability. The destroyer drives the U-Boat to 225 meters deep. Does the U-Boat win? No. A U-Boat at 225 meters is out of the fight and completely harmless. Even worse, the hours it will take to surface means that the convoy it is "attacking" is over the horizon and gone. The American submarine could only dive between 80 and 110 meters deep. That means commanders weren't encouraged to hide, but were incentivized to fight the boat. Yes, the combination of Japanese defensive ineptitude played into the results, but one requirement for winning the fight is not to leave the fight as the U-Boat did. Another trap for submarines is long range torpedoes. The Japanese Long Lance torpedo had that beastly long range. But just like a deep diving submarine, long range on the torpedo encourages use from ranges where hitting your target is pretty illusory. The error envelope for that Long Lance at 6,000 yards was many times the length of any possible target it was fired at! So its very capability encouraged submarines to shoot from a position of higher safety, but no effectiveness at all. Two things affect the accuracy of submarine torpedo fire: the range and the speed of the torpedo. Torpedoes have an error envelope, an angle of possible travel. As the range increases, that angle results in increasingly long error envelope. If you are shooting a single target, as submarines mostly did, the shorter the range, the more likely you were to hit your target. The second characteristic that affects submarine fired torpedo accuracy is speed of the torpedo. The longer the time between firing and impact, the more time the target has to avoid, or just accidentally change course and speed enough to avoid. Firing from 2000 yards gives time you can measure on a calendar for bad things to happen that result in a miss. In your scoring, if torpedoes didn't have a low speed setting they were severely penalized. In war, the low speed setting is completely useless if you are shooting from a submarine. Long range just encourages you to use that torpedo from a completely ineffective range. If you want hits you shoot from as far inside 1000 yards as you can get with the fastest torpedo setting you have. Now if you're going to shoot from a surface ship the situation is completely different. Usually it is one group of ships shooting at another. Surface ships can fill the water with a swarm of torpedoes and the accuracy of any single torpedo just about cancels out of the equation. You are just playing a numbers game. In this case accuracy isn't that important. Range and speed are all that matters, explosive weight being the same. You are filling the water around your enemy with a certain density of booms and hoping for some hits. Your scoring system is applicable here, but not for submarines. American subs shot short range shots because they had to, not because they did the math and decided that was the best way to go. The torpedoes forced them to. The boats wouldn't dive far, so they were forced to stay close to the surface and in the fight to save their own miserable skins. It wasn't because they were braver than Germans or Japanese. It was because the characteristics of their boats and torpedoes forced them to fight in the most deadly manner.

[@VersusARCH]

Depends on the year.

[@eshafto]

But how do they rank by handleability, care, hardiness, availability, and upfront cost?

[@bkjeong4302]

And now I'm imagining a crossover between Drach and Clint. That would make no sense, but it would be awesome.

[@piedpiper1172]

We need a Drach & Perun crossover to explore the full spectrum of WW2 torpedo acquisitions in the only appropriate format for such information: a PowerPoint

[@adiconsdaple2285]

I will go with the G7a and the G7e. Mostly i like the T5 Zaunkönig.

[@slycat6586]

Q&A a fantastic episode. could you elaborate a bit. so we got to know what kind of trompedo-type hit the Bismarck and the other ships during the 2nd world war. plz

[@MrRugbylane]

On a launch v success ratio the most successful torpedoes of WW2 were Austro-Hungarian. For every two torpedoes used one modern heavy cruiser was sunk.

[@bificommander7472]

I guess we can do cruiser gun comparison next.

[@animal16365]

One thing I would be interested in about the torpedoes you mentioned (at least the top torpedoes). What are there success to failure rates. We know the Mk 14 was a failure in the early years but became a success after getting the needed fixes. But how would the other torpedoes compare?? Were they just as reliable or did they have there own problems throughout there careers?

[@bkjeong4302]

@@animal16365 Most torpedoes (even the Long Lance) had initial teething troubles, but nowhere near to the extent of the Mark 14 (in part because these torpedoes were actually tested and most of their issues were largely addressed before the war or early into the war).

[@DavisJ-ln6fw]

@@bkjeong4302 Really goes to show you the benefits of actually testing a weapon before sending your experienced submariners and expensive submarines out with it.

[@tommihommi1]

in the end there's 3 main ratings: how easy is it to get into a position to fire the torpedo at a target probability of kill probability it'll kill you instead

[@alfonsobarrado2902]

The weird torpedoes of ww2 vid would be nice

[@Mechanized85]

I wonder where those Mark 16, and 17 Even some other longer-range torpedo?

[@brentforward910]

Where did Fido land in this comparison?

[@zedaprime]

Is there much variation with mines? To put it another way when did they become a solved problem and work at expected?

[@gbcb8853]

Oh the irony! A surface launched torpedo in a sub category

[@JohnnyFastbuck]

I personally like the old Whitehead torpedoes that the Norwegians used to sink the Blucher. 40 years old and they still worked.

[@BillySugger1965]

Before watching, the Japanese by a country mile. Now let’s see why I’m wrong and Drach is right… Edit: I was not wrong but there is a LOT to consider. Interesting video Drach.

[@ico9750]

I suggest acoustic guided torpedoes get a modifier

[@ElJay-i4d]

Was torpedo aiming good enough to take practical advantage of very long ranges?

[@userofthetube2701]

How relevant was maximum range anyway? I get the sense that any shot beyond maybe 4000 m with a straight running torpedo might be considered as 'optimistic' unless you shoot a lot of them.

[@donmeyering5367]

1:24 "Sub" categories when talking about torpedoes..... You just can't help yourself... 😉

[@Slaktrax]

Drach. Can we have one of your great explanations about the development of propellers, pls. 🙂

[@89Keith]

I may be wron but is this what you're wanting? kzbin.info/www/bejne/b16wfH-pnpKtgc0si=2e7U5QkfjbwVYvhL

[@Slaktrax]

@@89Keith Almost yes, thank you for your help. 🙂 I wanted to learn about the design of the actual blade and how the shape was developed since the early 20th century.

[@skillednoob4246]

cruiser guns next?

[@CharlesStearman]

I assume there is a mistake in the slow speed range shown for the Italian Si270 I? It looks as though there is a digit missing.

[@Drachinifel]

Yes, apologies!

[@Mattiniord]

Well, not that unexpected of an outcome. And the japanese made sure to give some practical demonstrations of it.

[@tlgx884]

Usual France W with our old torpedoes still performing that good

[@awathompson]

Observation: Your scale does make sense, but you make no comment about weight. The US Mark 18 is the lightest weight in the electric torpedoes this may have been the design choice. If it weighed 500 lbs. more in batteries the range would have been much greater.

[@ChristopherCarpenter-i5x]

I think your video does an excellent job of pointing out it's not the size of your torpedo, it's how you use it😂.

[@re1644]

you mean, is the penetration force satisfying enough?😆