Torpedos

[Darman]

The US Navy had its own Production facility for Torpedoes If I remember Production was extremely limited in Peace Time to probably a few Dozen to as many as a 100 a month.  And then every single torpedo requires constant maintenance by a trained technician.  Without maintenance you end up with the performance problems of the Early WWII US Torpedoes.

United States Naval Undersea Warfare Center is about 10 miles from me.  They have been in Narragansett Bay since the USN started working with torpedoes. 

What if we interpreted DF's statement

I could support this suggestion but only for a bonus BP factory, call it a grandfathered torpedo factory.

as a choice to invest in a torpedo factory that will churn out modern torpedoes at a set rate instead of BP? 

[ctwaterman]

Oh... another layer of complexity..... are you trying to give the Anti-Bean counter crowd an heart attack  ;D

Next you will be advocating that we track resources and.... 
[The rest of this thought has been censored please move along nothing to see]

[snip]

So Torpedoes make a good discussion point but then we have to decide just exactly what we are going to track from Logistics point of view.   We track Artillary Ammo, and Mines, but right now we dont track Naval Munitions other then Mines ??

Well ammo can be stockpiled for corps. I assume that this is not only artillery, but rifle and MG ammo as well. We do have a way of representing this (As I am about to get royally screwed by...) so it seems fine to me. Mines are already represented with Blooded's system for torps being similar as they are complex bits of hardware like mines. As for gun ammo, tracking that becomes a nightmare if we chose to do so for each gun type with all the different calibers a navy would have in service, any system should avoid that option. As all gun ammo is mostly mass-producible, would it not be possible to adapt the Army stockpile rules to navy use? Say a sustained stock for 6 months of use with more purchasable in units of tons for X amount of money and Y amount of BP?

As to the variable effectiveness argument

another layer of complexity

One that, while interesting to explore, I don't think has a place here. Implementing it would be very hard and keeping track of it would make for, IMHO more numbercrunching.

[Desertfox]

How was that possible? Where did they get their copper and tin for air flask manufacture, which neither actually has?

There's these things called ships...

There is no such thing as a mass produced torpedo when the parts have to meet 1/10000th inch tolerances in that era. (Mark 14 US 1930 still failed to meet that quality.)

Nothing has 1/100000th inch tolerance... You tell a machinist to make said tolerance, he WILL shoot you, even CNC machines can't do it.

One just can't wave a hand and say presto I have torpedoes. I sure can't. If I do get oxygen torpedoes, I have to treat them as a very scarce resource because those fish require bottled oxygen gas. I have to use stainless steels and brass fittings. I have to handbuild all the valves and piping and I have to have trained crews that can check those torpedoes for corrosion and leaks constantly as well as manufacture defects, as well as guard against fire spark and flame, because even kerosene in the presence of pure oxygen is deadly. The use of alcohol a preferred fuel is far worse with that pure oxidizer.

That's why you spend money on tech research, and NS has spent a hell of a lot of money on torpedoes, oh and I have more experience with them than everyone else put together.

What if we interpreted DF's statement

Quote from: Desertfox on Yesterday at 18:21:20
I could support this suggestion but only for a bonus BP factory, call it a grandfathered torpedo factory.
as a choice to invest in a torpedo factory that will churn out modern torpedoes at a set rate instead of BP? 

What I'm saying is that if torpedoes are going to cost money, I should get a free factory, cause I have already built a huge amount of them... NS probably already has a factory dedicated to building only torpedoes.

So Torpedoes make a good discussion point but then we have to decide just exactly what we are going to track from Logistics point of view.   We track Artillary Ammo, and Mines, but right now we dont track Naval Munitions other then Mines ??

As I see it, that's where upkeep falls in. Which is why I see ammo stock[piles as superfluous.

[ctwaterman]

What if we interpreted DF's statement

Quote from: Desertfox on Yesterday at 18:21:20
I could support this suggestion but only for a bonus BP factory, call it a grandfathered torpedo factory.
as a choice to invest in a torpedo factory that will churn out modern torpedoes at a set rate instead of BP? 
What I'm saying is that if torpedoes are going to cost money, I should get a free factory, cause I have already built a huge amount of them... NS probably already has a factory dedicated to building only torpedoes.

No... No... and No....  Everyone has dedicated factories to building them as people stated the US Navy had its own facility to building them.

What we are discussing  is something I mentioned to you in a PM recently.   An example is how did your Fleet of 100+ Destroyers most with 4+ Torpedo Tubes reload all their  tubes after the first battle in the Rift Sea ??????   Its about Logistics Logistics Logistics... the most important part of any war.

Just because you wrote stories about Torpedo Boats and Asymetrical Warfare doesnt give you something for FREE.  As another Example Italia had 120 40 Ton MAS boats each with 2 Torp Tubes in the Southern Rift... but after 1 possibly 2 Combat Actions in the same month they would in all likelihood be completely out of torpedos in the Southern Rift Area.  Another 240 Torps might be ready on the Docks of Taranto at the Imperial Torpedo Factory but thats 4000 NM away.  Think about it this way 240 Torpedoes are 240 Tons of Metal so there is .24 BP worth of munitions if we wanted to do it that way.

Charles

[damocles]

Ok,

This is a good descussion.   I agree that Torpedoes have always been Hand Machined Tooled weapons.   And reliability issues that such items had in this time period need to be addressed.  If you launched 100 WW1 Torps you might find as many as 25 of them simply failed to run or failed to run properly.  In addition of those that hit you would end up with a significant number of Duds or Low Order Detonations.

It was closer to half CT.

In addition they are a clear Logistical Log Jam... they are not machine massed produced like Artillary Shells.   And Despite Desertfoxs claims A-Symetrical War is not nor has it ever been Cheap.   Producing a Large Number of PT or MTB Boats does not a real defense make.  And while the production of the boats themselves is cheap maintaining the supply of Torpedoes to them is expensive.

Even PT boats were scarcer than is supposed. The US produced more frieghters than PT boats. Reason? PT boats required aircraft engines.  

The US Navy had its own Production facility for Torpedoes If I remember Production was extremely limited in Peace Time to probably a few Dozen to as many as a 100 a month.  And then every single torpedo requires constant maintenance by a trained technician.  Without maintenance you end up with the performance problems of the Early WWII US Torpedoes.

Working from memory the US produced a grand total of 69,000 torpedoes in WW II of which only 29,000 were fired with a PK of 10%. The US built almost a dozen torpedo factories and was not able to meet the shooting needs of its forces. Note that? The US built 100000 tanks and 500,000 aircraft from just as many factories!  It means that one out of every two torpedoes weapons built was rejected as unfit for service. Add to that the miserable 25% to 30% fail to run rates.      

So Torpedoes make a good discussion point but then we have to decide just exactly what we are going to track from Logistics point of view.   We track Artillary Ammo, and Mines, but right now we dont track Naval Munitions other then Mines ??

The mines rules is a good beginning point.

The US Navy had its own Production facility for Torpedoes If I remember Production was extremely limited in Peace Time to probably a few Dozen to as many as a 100 a month.  And then every single torpedo requires constant maintenance by a trained technician.  Without maintenance you end up with the performance problems of the Early WWII US Torpedoes.

United States Naval Undersea Warfare Center is about 10 miles from me.  They have been in Narragansett Bay since the USN started working with torpedoes.  

What if we interpreted DF's statement

I could support this suggestion but only for a bonus BP factory, call it a grandfathered torpedo factory.

as a choice to invest in a torpedo factory that will churn out modern torpedoes at a set rate instead of BP?  

With all due respect, the NUTS facility is an op-eval and prototype facility these days. I am nor exactly current not again from memory, Westinghouse, GE, HUSL, (it still exists) some refrigerator company, and Gould make US torpedoes. In fact Australia just opened a factory that makes US torpedoes for the US.

The US government learned its lessons, it still has hundreds no thousands of WW II torpedoes to make up for its lack of current modern fish in inventory and production. Those cheap Mark 14s, 16s, 23s, and so forth on up to the NT-37s are rebuilt like old anti-tank missiles to the new current standard  for that model to keep the weapon zeroed and war-ready. A Mark 14 is good enough to kill a freighter. Save the 48 for the Songs and Akulas.        

How was that possible? Where did they get their copper and tin for air flask manufacture, which neither actually has?

There's these things called ships...

Not in 1880 it took 20 years to design the first reliable Whitehead  weapon. The torpedo factories in 1890? Two in Italy, one in Austria, One in Britain, One in Germany. That was it on the planet Earth. The US didn't even have a 'factory' until 1895. The Howell was made in a cannon foundry. The Americans didn't know how to make 1200 psi+ air flasks. Didn't until the Bliss Leaviitts around 1900.    

There is no such thing as a mass produced torpedo when the parts have to meet 1/10000th inch tolerances in that era. (Mark 14 US 1930 still failed to meet that quality.)

Nothing has 1/100000th inch tolerance... You tell a machinist to make said tolerance, he WILL shoot you, even CNC machines can't do it.
1/10,000th of an inch. (Typo?) Packard and Oldsmobile did in 1928 in auto engines, something that won them an engineering award from the Royal Society and which embarrassed RR who could not do it. The Germans (Daimler Benz) did  it in the DB 600s in 1940 in centimeters.,

http://users.ntua.gr/rogdemma/MILLIMETER-SCALE,%20MEMS%20GAS%20TURBINE%20ENGINES.pdf

MODERN EXAMPLE.

ABSTRACT
The confluence of market demand for greatly improved
compact power sources for portable electronics with the rapidly
expanding capability of micromachining technology has made
feasible the development of gas turbines in the millimeter-size
range. With airfoil spans measured in 100's of microns rather
than meters, these "microengines" have about 1 millionth the
air flow of large gas turbines and thus should produce about 1
millionth the power, 10-100 W. Based on semiconductor industry-
derived processing of materials such as silicon and silicon
carbide to submicron accuracy, such devices are known as
micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS). Current millimeter-
scale designs use centrifugal turbomachinery with pressure
ratios in the range of 2:1 to 4:1 and turbine inlet temperatures of
1200-1600 K. The projected performance of these engines are
on a par with gas turbines of the 1940'

As for 100,000 of an inch today? Visit an atomic clock or open up your computer.  

One just can't wave a hand and say presto I have torpedoes. I sure can't. If I do get oxygen torpedoes, I have to treat them as a very scarce resource because those fish require bottled oxygen gas. I have to use stainless steels and brass fittings. I have to handbuild all the valves and piping and I have to have trained crews that can check those torpedoes for corrosion and leaks constantly as well as manufacture defects, as well as guard against fire spark and flame, because even kerosene in the presence of pure oxygen is deadly. The use of alcohol a preferred fuel is far worse with that pure oxidizer.

That's why you spend money on tech research, and NS has spent a hell of a lot of money on torpedoes, oh and I have more experience with them than everyone else put together.

Not anymore. ;D I have as much if not more experience in MTB and submarine warfare

What if we interpreted DF's statement

Quote from: Desertfox on Yesterday at 18:21:20
I could support this suggestion but only for a bonus BP factory, call it a grandfathered torpedo factory.
as a choice to invest in a torpedo factory that will churn out modern torpedoes at a set rate instead of BP?  

What I'm saying is that if torpedoes are going to cost money, I should get a free factory, cause I have already built a huge amount of them... NS probably already has a factory dedicated to building only torpedoes.

Nope. This the airplane rules all over again. The moderators decide.    

So Torpedoes make a good discussion point but then we have to decide just exactly what we are going to track from Logistics point of view.   We track Artillary Ammo, and Mines, but right now we dont track Naval Munitions other then Mines ??

As I see it, that's where upkeep falls in. Which is why I see ammo stock[piles as superfluous.

Upkeep is not what maintenance means here. See own remarks about rebuilds?

[Desertfox]

As for 100,000 of an inch today? Visit an atomic clock or open up your computer.

Last I checked neither are machined...

[damocles]

As for 100,000 of an inch today? Visit an atomic clock or open up your computer.

Last I checked neither are machined...

Micro-turbines and atomic clocks and floppy drives actually are, DF.

;D

[maddox]

Actualy, microchips are machined. The cutting tool is a deep ultraviolet laser. Just like steel can be machined with a visible light kilowatt laserbeam.

But I ,as machinist, can say, I have worked upon 0.005mm with conventional tools.  For tests, in ideal circumstances.
Imagine you have to keep tool, workpiece and messurment gauges at a level temperature.  
I had to trow away 6 pieces before I got the feel for the convensional machines I was using. 3 Precision lathed axles , then hardened-what induced sleight warping-, then grinding, honing and lapping them to a high gloss and extreem accuraty... it was an endeavor of manweeks.  

And as far as I know, 1/100 000 of an inch is  sleigthly less than that. It is possible, and stupid el cheapo chinese ballbearings proof that every day.  But for you and me with individualy affordable tools.  Forget it.

Ever seen a ball bearing factory?  I did.  The machine that makes the balls is using the same movement as any mum making minced meatballs for the soup. But then with alloyed steel balls, heat treated to a hardness and toughness...

The first steam engines had a tolerance of  1/8 inch. The waxed leather piston rings had to deal with that.

Today, the  tolerance is calculated to the maximal expansion before the heat destroys the engine in other than expansion induced ways.

No,IRL for 1920, mass producing  1920 "just proven but experimental torpedo's" ain't an option.
The mass produced weapons of 1920 are the ones  experimental in 191X, first used in larger numbers in 191X because the first machines to produce those came into use and after that it becomes easier and cheaper to make more of those in shorter time.

I know, the Nverse has flaws, and this is one. After researching something it just takes $X and Y BP to mass introduce.
But if we would revise this now, we have to turn over the excisting fabric, and do we keep the Nverse then? 

[damocles]

Actualy, microchips are machined. The cutting tool is a deep ultraviolet laser. Just like steel can be machined with a visible light kilowatt laserbeam.

Forgot that

But I ,as machinist, can say, I have worked upon 0.005mm with conventional tools.  For tests, in ideal circumstances.
Imagine you have to keep tool, workpiece and messurment gauges at a level temperature.

Ugh. Use a a micron scale cutter with turret mounted milling heads and try to mill a piece of steel using a microscope to see the gauge sets.

I had to trow away 6 pieces before I got the feel for the convensional machines I was using. 3 Precision lathed axles , then hardened-what induced sleight warping-, then grinding, honing and lapping them to a high gloss and extreem accuraty... it was an endeavor of manweeks.  

How did you balance your cuts?

And as far as I know, 1/100 000 of an inch is  sleigthly less than that. It is possible, and stupid el cheapo chinese ballbearings proof that every day.  But for you and me with individualy affordable tools.  Forget it.

Actually if the Chinese were anywhere near as good as the French (or the US) when it came to ball bearings, their pilots wouldn't be smeared all over the countryside as their WS-10s, 11s and, 12s exploded and dropped their crappy aircraft out of the sky. The old sawdust in the artillery shell trick plagues them today as Norinco and Chengdu turns out substandard quality items in China as well as on the world stage. I don't put much stock in their tech.          

Ever seen a ball bearing factory?  I did.  The machine that makes the balls is using the same movement as any mum making minced meatballs for the soup. But then with alloyed steel balls, heat treated to a hardness and toughness...

I have seen one in Indianapolis. Impressive. Harder has to mill hard. The working faces need constant replacement.  

The first steam engines had a tolerance of  1/8 inch. The waxed leather piston rings had to deal with that.

That was the chief defect of US Civil War engine designs(that and the pistons tended to crack-lousy steels).

Today, the  tolerance is calculated to the maximal expansion before the heat destroys the engine in other than expansion induced ways.

And that is somewhat more than 1/10,000 of an inch.

No,IRL for 1920, mass producing  1920 "just proven but experimental torpedo's" ain't an option.

Thanks for that. The Mark 10 torpedo a Bliss Leavitt type wet-heater (the world's first wet heater design), was prototyped in 1907, I think. It did not really enter limited service until 1915. Eight years.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_7/newport.htm

The mass produced weapons of 1920 are the ones  experimental in 191X, first used in larger numbers in 191X because the first machines to produce those came into use and after that it becomes easier and cheaper to make more of those in shorter time.

See examples above. Add this, the US in WW II started about a dozen different types of torpedoes including two electrics, three hydrogen peroxide (NAVOL fuel) at least two acoustics, a crash program to fix its three wetheaters, and tried to reverse engineer at least two captured German types (electric peopulsion and pattern runner, both were disasters)  

It took three years to fix the Mark XIV, It took two years to fix the Mark XIII (actually a good weapon so long as you didn't try to drop it from aircraft, the silly thing actually worked from the start as a conventional PT boat torpedo amazingly well. It would have been a deadly submarine launched weapon if it could have fit a 53 cm torpedo tube. (It was a 57 cm torpedo)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_13_torpedo

Notice that it was a BLISS LEAVITT and not a Navy Torpedo Factory product?

Anyway, the result of almost a billion dollars and ten years work was this remarkable weapon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_37_torpedo

That was the type weapon the US wanted in 1943 and could have had if it started in 1933 with Ralph Christie's preliminary work if he hadn't screwed everything up.  
     

I know, the Nverse has flaws, and this is one. After researching something it just takes $X and Y BP to mass introduce.

But if we would revise this now, we have to turn over the excisting fabric, and do we keep the Nverse then?  

We do the best we can. That is why the 1920s rules changes are a good break point.

[P3D]

I was also thinking about similar stuff, inspired by the different APC shells of WWI. Have a chance that your shells are not designed correctly (UK, US), works OK (Germany) or you "got it right" (Russia). Only the moderators would know the exact status, and it would have some chance to be corrected if the next tech is developed.

The only major drawback is that Nverse players would only have to write two news stories about comparing notes with their allies (to be sure, throw some money at it to justify it to moderators) and everyone who counts is at the same level by next report.

[ctwaterman]

Its all about Testing Testing Testing....

At the Start of World War II the US, Germany, and GB all deployed Torpedoes with major defects the most major of which was the Magnetic Detonator.   In the US case the US Torpedo was developed the Magnetic Detonator was developed and the detonator was labled Top Secret and the maintenance manual was locked away in a safe.   The Torpedoes since they are so very expensive and hard to build were not addequately tested until the war actually started.

Germany and GB suffered through 1940 with many of the same problems the plagues US Submarines in 1942 into 1943 they just had less problems at the Admiral Level in moving forward with fixing the problem.   I forget how many Torpedoes U-47 Fired at Royal Oak but they had to reload all the forward tubes and try again before getting any hits.....?????

Basically Torpedoes that failed to run, ran too deep or too shallow, or the dreaded circulair run were common.  Reliance on the magnetic detonator were quickly discarded in favor of contact hits.

Charles

[P3D]

And which Nverse nation would have inadequate testing before accepting a new weapon?

But one can run a lot of tests and arrive at wrong conclusion, if the initial test criteria are faulty - as the RN had learned after Jutland, and the US Army with the 76mm tank gun.

Its all about Testing Testing Testing....

At the Start of World War II the US, Germany, and GB all deployed Torpedoes with major defects the most major of which was the Magnetic Detonator.   In the US case the US Torpedo was developed the Magnetic Detonator was developed and the detonator was labled Top Secret and the maintenance manual was locked away in a safe.   The Torpedoes since they are so very expensive and hard to build were not addequately tested until the war actually started.

Germany and GB suffered through 1940 with many of the same problems the plagues US Submarines in 1942 into 1943 they just had less problems at the Admiral Level in moving forward with fixing the problem.   I forget how many Torpedoes U-47 Fired at Royal Oak but they had to reload all the forward tubes and try again before getting any hits.....?????

Basically Torpedoes that failed to run, ran too deep or too shallow, or the dreaded circulair run were common.  Reliance on the magnetic detonator were quickly discarded in favor of contact hits.

Charles

[damocles]

I was also thinking about similar stuff, inspired by the different APC shells of WWI. Have a chance that your shells are not designed correctly (UK, US), works OK (Germany) or you "got it right" (Russia). Only the moderators would know the exact status, and it would have some chance to be corrected if the next tech is developed.

The only major drawback is that Nverse players would only have to write two news stories about comparing notes with their allies (to be sure, throw some money at it to justify it to moderators) and everyone who counts is at the same level by next report.

That is interesting. I can see why the Russians thought they got it right *(They didn't until post-WW I defeat when they actually had scientists test the shells the czarist scientists designed based on Japanese unexploded Tsushima samples.  

I like the suggestions very much. Just as a note, the British redid their shells after Dogger Bank. If Jutland had been six months later? Might have been bad for Scheer.

US shells were cursed with defective fuses, the dispersion was fairly bad in multi-barrel salvos (turret guns were sleeved too close together).  The ballistics and penetration of plate of individual shells were fairly good, certainly better than the British or the Germans ever achieved in equivalent calibers. They just didn't explode.

Its all about Testing Testing Testing....

Keep it simple, Sam.

At the Start of World War II the US, Germany, and GB all deployed Torpedoes with major defects the most major of which was the Magnetic Detonator. In the US case the US Torpedo was developed the Magnetic Detonator was developed and the detonator was labeled Top Secret and the maintenance manual was locked away in a safe.   The Torpedoes since they are so very expensive and hard to build were not adequately tested until the war actually started.

Bit of history... and a technical clarification.

The Mark VI exploder was not a magnetic detonator. It was a pendulum lever inertia hammer style detonator with a solenoid boosted and electrically actuated hammer that fired a shotgun powder charge that drove a firing pin that was supposed to strike the primer charge and detonate the warhead. The magnetic feature was the electrical circuit built into a thoroughly pedestrian Mark V contact pistol.    

Germany and Britain ran into their torpedo problems in 1839 and went through 1942 before they 'solved' their simple detonator problems by designing entirely new detonators. In the end, neither the Germans nor the British took any less time, nor were their admirals any better than the Americans. In fact in the case of the Royal Navy on the torpedo problem, they were just as incompetent or worse than the Americans as they never solved their original detonator and still had depth control problems as late as the Falklands War in their so-called fixed WW II torpedoes.
========================================
Now then, the US could not design a new detonator. Issues with torpedo geometry, volume, and time were just too critical for a two year fumble-jerk. Robert English, the first obstructionist, died in a plane crash and Ralph Christie was end-run at last and the torpedoes were tested in May 1943. It wasn't until August when Bu-ord was ordered to test that the torpedoes received remedial work.

What was that work? New spring was installed, and an aluminum firing pin replaced the steel one in the striker assembly and then they disconnected the solenoid booster circuit. it was done at Pearl Harbor machine shops 'in the field' when Charles Lockwood ordered field tests on the Mark XIV and 'Swede' Momsen figured it out.

The depth control problem was far more subtle and was flow pressure related. Pressure rises as you move faster (Mark XIV was 8 knots faster than the Mark X, Both torpedoes used the same depth control setting device-an identical hydrostatic valve), meaning the Mark XIV torpedo will run deeper than calibrated, as the calibration was for the Mark X (even calibration that was screwed up.)  Nobody on Earth solved it in the flow tank. It took dozens of open ocean shots and a lot of guessing to recalibrate the existing hydrostatic valve to the correct depth and a brilliant guess to move the valve to the rear of the Mark XIV torpedo to get the properly calibrated settings. The valve was moved aft (pressure drops as we move aft on a moving torpedo body) so it could still be used as designed.

Note that the solutions took existing designed components and within four months produced a reliable working (as in design function) fish. After that the design was not the problems, it was poor quality of manufacture in the fish.

That had to be solved in the factories, and it never was solved in the government ones.

Now post-war, when there was time to tinker with the influence feature of the Mark VI exploder, the USN discovered to its absolute horror that the influence feature as designed in function was perfect. The thing the USN had not done was map the Earth magnetically east to west as well as north to south. They had  mapped one north to south latitude (USS Indianapolis an ill fated cruiser that failed its very first and as it turned out most critical mission) along one latitude  to detect variations in the Earth's magnetic field lines. One mapped latitude does not a planetary magnetic field map make. That was Ralph Christie's fault. He suspected it at the time, but did not pursue what the data actually showed him, curse him.  

What does that mean? The Earth's magnetic field was mapped post war just as soon as the USN discovered  why the Mark VI exploder influence feature pre-matured or delayed late. That mapping, if it had been done before the war would have resulted in the addition of a set dial (a resistance gate) that would have adjusted the solenoid circuit in direct proportion to the strength of the Earth's local magnetic field. Neither the British nor the Germans could do this in their WW I German magnetic mine fuse derived designs. Those were separate mechanical linkage circuits, not pure electrical circuits designed into a contact pistol.

That little set dial in 1936 would have just required one letter from a Lieutenant Commander Ralph Christie to get it installed. He, the man who designed the wonderful device  recommended to Bu-ord not to install the device to save some money. ($50,000)

Now then... He was a rear admiral in 1942, and as soon as he learned of the Mark XIV pre-matures and prolonged delay initiates he knew what he had screwed up in the design work in the exploder, as a Lieutenant Commander.  

It takes a brave man to face a machine gun. It takes a braver man to face a court martial for a testing mistake that once he points to it will be so damned obvious that his reputation and his very fitness to lead will be destroyed.

English just did not know any better. He was just a destroyer driver who stumbled into submarines and he was stubborn. He was a convenient obstruction until he died, then Christie was out there all by himself.

Christie, who was a scientist and an engineer, and who ran the test programs, knew he was in deep trouble.

The bastards in charge at the Newport torpedo works also knew about the magnetic influence feature testing screw-up (the failure to map for variation in field strength) in the exploder, as soon as he did.                  
       
They suspected that they had also thoroughly screwed up the contact pistol manufacture, but were clueless about the depth setter problem. They became very defensive because those were malfeasance charges some of those civilians (including government union workers) now faced. Jail was a grim certainty if they admitted their knowledge. Sabotage, if it could be proved, carried the death penalty. Some of their wartime cover-ups could be so construed as sabotage.
                 

Germany and GB suffered through 1940 with many of the same problems the plagues US Submarines in 1942 into 1943 they just had less problems at the Admiral Level in moving forward with fixing the problem.   I forget how many Torpedoes U-47 Fired at Royal Oak but they had to reload all the forward tubes and try again before getting any hits.....?????

Not really. The Americans had to get rid of two admirals and fix quality control (never did fix quality control). Doenitz had to court martial five of his bozos and then had to wait for his engineers to design whole new torpedo front ends. 1942 is still 1942. Three years it took.  

Basically Torpedoes that failed to run, ran too deep or too shallow, or the dreaded circular run were common.  Reliance on the magnetic detonator were quickly discarded in favor of contact hits.

Charles

Ah... but you see, one little mistake robbed the Americans of an actually working magnetic influence feature in her torpedoes. It was a sin of omission that if found in 1940 in emergency testing as soon as the Americans became aware of the British duds, could have given them such an effective exploder. (You would have seen frantic magnetic field mapping in the Pacific in the run up to Pearl Harbor).

Now could a torpedo that passed under a Japanese ship 3 meters deeper than expected still snap a keel? No. The delay initiate would have to show up in testing. However, with a resistance set dial you just change the book settings for depth control and current resistance to adjust the calibrations.

Then the Japanese keels will snap. Firing pin will still jam if its a 90 degree contact strike, but what do you care?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beU3sExN1BA          

It, the Mark VI worked as designed.

And which Nverse nation would have inadequate testing before accepting a new weapon?

But one can run a lot of tests and arrive at wrong conclusion, if the initial test criteria are faulty - as the RN had learned after Jutland, and the US Army with the 76mm tank gun.

See what I wrote about the USS Indianapolis.

As for the 76mm gun, it worked too. It was the 75 that you mean and in a curious way that is also very misunderstood when it is called a failure.

The US expected its tanks to kill infantry and exposed antitank gun crews, not fight tanks. That was what the tank destroyer was to do in the US scheme of things. according to the whims of Leslie J. McNair.

Now the first tank destroyers (M-10s) carried the US 3 inch L50 naval gun. That gun had a huge breech to hold the large shell and bag charge it carried.

That gun could kill a Panther at 1000 meters. From the front.  

Good enough if it was in a tank. Trouble was that it did not carry a good HE shell until one was designed in 1944 just after the Normandy invasion.

Now, why wasn't a proper HE shell and a proper tank (the gun required a huge closed turret so a 40+ tonne tank to carry it.)  ready?

The tank was,

Top Down View of the M6.

Statistics for the M6:

6 Man Crew
322" Long with Gun Forward
123" Wide over Track armor
118" High to turret roof
63 tons combat weight
22 MPH Top Speed
3 inch M7 L53 Main Gun (75 rounds)
37mm M6 Coaxial (202 Rounds)
2 x .50 MGs in a mount in hull front (6900 rounds)
1 x .30 BMG (5500 rounds of .30 cal total)
1 x .30 cal AAMG
Stablizer: Elevation Only

HULL
Upper Front: 96mm effective
Lower Front: 102 to 70mm @ 0 to 60 degrees
Upper Sides: 47mm effective
Lower Sides: 70mm effective
Rear: 43mm effective
Top: 25mm effective
Floor: 25mm effective

TURRET
Gun Shield: 102mm effective
Front: 84mm effective
Sides: 83mm effective
Rear: 83mm effective
Top: 25mm effective

That was an anti-tank gun in a tank like the 77mmL70 in a 45 tonne Panther. That was what the Germans expected the US to throw against them.

Why did it not happen?

Remember Ralph Christie and his one critical mistake?

This man made a lot of mistakes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_J._McNair

He was incompetent. That is actually charitable. He was the American Grigory Kulik.

But the M-6 tank was actually too underpowered to be an offensive tank.    

The Americans' combat generals (George Patton) wanted dual purpose guns in their fast medium tanks. This was actually wise, as an offensive tank has to be able to fight anything: tanks, artillery, infantry, etc..

The definition of the gun that could do that is gun-howitzer-something that could work as an anti-tank weapon and as an anti-infantry weapon. That was actually the French 75mm derived gun in the 1940-1944 Sherman, and that worked quite well against every German tank until the Panthers and Tigers.

Now if the geniuses who worked out the US antitank doctrine had figured that out, competently based on North Africa and Russia, they would have fielded this:

 

The M27

With their 76mm guns, torsion bar suspension and low silhouettes, the T20E3 and T23E3 were roughly comparable to the Russian T34, and the German Panzer IV so, on the basis that the M4 was becoming obsolete, the Ordnance Department requested the T23E3 and the T20E3 be standardised as the M27 and M27B1 in July 1943. However, the request was rejected and neither design was ever mass produced.

The reason for this lay partly in the decision of the Army Ground Forces command (AGF) not to act upon the growing obsolescence of the M4 design. The Sherman had performed admirably in North Africa and Italy so there was no sense of urgency to replace it. German Tigers had already been encountered by this time, but only in small number and the AGF did not expect to see them fielded in quantity.

Additionally, the AGF declined to adopt the M27 as they did not wish to interrupt M4 production, although by 1943 the manufacture of M4's had reached such a mammoth scale it seems unlikely that a staged switch over to M27 production would have significantly reduced tank output. Perhaps also of significance the M27 would have mounted the 76 mm gun, the introduction of which to the tank force was opposed by the AGF. The Ordnance Department would later suffer almost equal difficulty convincing the AGF to accept the upgunned versions of the Sherman with the net result that not a single 76 mm armed Sherman was in service in time for D-Day, even though they could have been available months earlier. The AGF's reason for rejecting the 76 mm gun was that it would encourage tank crews to stalk enemy tanks, an idea in conflict with then current US armour doctrine, and had a much less effective high explosive shell than the 75mm M3 Gun. The 76mm and 90mm guns were both accepted much more readily into the Tank Destroyer service, however US tanks would not always be able to avoid direct confrontations with German tanks and the shortcomings of the 75mm M3 gun against armour would handicap American tanks for much of the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T20_Medium_Tank

The idiot, McNair, also held up the 90 mm armed M-36.
   
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M36_tank_destroyer

The 90 mm AAA gun-howitzer was too large for a standard Sherman tank. In other words the only way to mount that dual purpose gun on a Sherman chassis was in an open gun tub mount.

But why not size up to the relevant gun-howitzer if you know you need the 3.5 inchL50?

Simple. The US did not have a working 900 HP tank engine (neither did the Germans, but they built the Panthers with the fake 700 HP [actual 500 HP] engines  they had anyway.)  

Nor was the US RR and shipping supposedly capable of handling 50 tonne tanks.

But the 3 inch L53 armed M-27 was there and it was capable.

So McNair refused to deploy tanks that used naval rifles as US Army tank destroyers and thus reveal how stupid the doctrine he helped to invent was.

See, he was an artilleryman... and that was armored horse cavalry.
   

[Laertes]

Posting just to say: I am in awe of the erudition in this thread.