tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post941448542144966699..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: Torpedo and Mine Damage History - Part 1ComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-48170443720809593142017-12-04T07:11:53.001-08:002017-12-04T07:11:53.001-08:00Well, that supports the overarching theme of these...Well, that supports the overarching theme of these recent posts. Thanks for looking into that.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-59768501034041208682017-12-03T19:19:15.101-08:002017-12-03T19:19:15.101-08:00Spoke to him a couple times over the weekend. Just...Spoke to him a couple times over the weekend. Just of the top of his head: explosion was about ten to fifteen feet away from the hull, and no main longitudinal structures damaged. Proper material conditions were set (doors, hatches, and other fitting closed) which contained the damage to a small part of the ship. He has his written notes stashed away, but that is what he remembers. And that is not him in the photo.<br /><br />MM-13BAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-39612612212672281902017-11-30T07:57:46.195-08:002017-11-30T07:57:46.195-08:00My main question is how far away from the hull did...My main question is how far away from the hull did the explosion occur?<br /><br />My secondary question is were any main longitudinal structural elements damaged and, if so, to what extent?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-75261020410778143942017-11-30T07:47:36.054-08:002017-11-30T07:47:36.054-08:00A friend of mine (pun) was assigned to the Tripoli...A friend of mine (pun) was assigned to the Tripoli as a chief machinist mate to work on the damage repair. That could be him on the left side photo in the article (tall man in khaki uniform with five sailors in dungarees). He wasn't there when the mine exploded, but he was there through the repairs and would have have extensive knowledge of the damage done. I can pass along any questions you may have for him. <br /><br />Thanks for the excellent article; hard to dispute documented historical facts.<br /><br />MM-13BAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-63307331736412659302017-11-29T04:01:41.383-08:002017-11-29T04:01:41.383-08:00"The actual mechanism of damage for stand-off..."The actual mechanism of damage for stand-off undex is complex and not to be discussed on open forum."<br /><br />We've already discussed it at length in the original torpedo myth post. We also noted the change in fuzing from WWII to today. You need to reread and catch up!<br /><br />I'll address armor belts as they relate to torpedo resistance in the next post.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-15284899781998622992017-11-29T03:56:50.927-08:002017-11-29T03:56:50.927-08:00Between what I've described in the posts and y...Between what I've described in the posts and your own observation, you've pretty well answered your own question. Ships that actually break are either small or are showing the effects of multiple hits and cumulative damage. Remember that the premise is that no larger ship has ever suffered the broken back myth from a single torpedo/mine hit. There are ships that have broken after suffering many hits or, as you point out, cumulative damage and flooding but that's not what the premise addresses.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-10661075277562167472017-11-29T02:19:03.768-08:002017-11-29T02:19:03.768-08:00You might want to consider the fusing mechanism in...You might want to consider the fusing mechanism in your analysis. <br /><br />The vast majority of torpedo hits (including Long Lance et al) up to and including WW2 were what are known as contact-fused. In other words the weapon ran shallow enough that it detonated when it contacted the hull and therefore there was no "stand-off". The last combat sinking by torpedo (the Belgrano) also used contact fusing, largely because the reliability of the Mk24 Tigerfish at the time was suspect.<br /><br />However, the vast majority of modern ASuW torpedoes use influence fusing, precisely to induce "stand-off". The actual mechanism of damage for stand-off undex is complex and not to be discussed on open forum. However, it's fair to say that you usually end up with plastic failure induced by resonance of the hull girder from the oscillation of the bubble. <br /><br />One other thing. Don't misconstrue the contribution of the armour belt to longitudinal strength. That's not what it's there for, how it was configured or how it worked.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-75688610436233192112017-11-29T00:17:41.072-08:002017-11-29T00:17:41.072-08:00I've always wondered about the "back-brea...I've always wondered about the "back-breaker" myth. The multiple ships breaking in halve that have been reported, were they the result of the actual explosion, or the very act of sinking? (i.e. like the titanic, where the weight of the flooded compartments caused the breaking.)<br /><br />My apologies in advance if my speculation is misplaced or naïve.Andrew S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-69151673402870880012017-11-28T20:42:38.231-08:002017-11-28T20:42:38.231-08:00The numbers support your proposition of the letha...The numbers support your proposition of the lethalty mythZtev Konradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06553128132098513643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-53661727293918550092017-11-28T15:20:48.987-08:002017-11-28T15:20:48.987-08:00Do you have a point?Do you have a point?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-31377688943866083432017-11-28T14:28:37.090-08:002017-11-28T14:28:37.090-08:00SINKEX ships are usually watertight at the hull sk...SINKEX ships are usually watertight at the hull skin, but then the damage control mechanisms that would normally work to minimise flooding have been bypassed or just left open to facilitate sinking. This can be by just making a couple of small holes in key bulkhead places to ensure that the ship will slowly flood in a controlled way.buxt0010https://www.blogger.com/profile/00041156576526775110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-57394238955042535692017-11-28T14:09:22.680-08:002017-11-28T14:09:22.680-08:00Yes. Brown recounted torpedo hits on US warship...Yes. Brown recounted torpedo hits on US warships.<br />"A BuShips paper summarised the results of torpedo hits: Torpedoed 31 Of which sunk 7 Hit in machinery 11 Immobilised 2"<br />And those were with the massive Japanese torpedoes. Against merchant ships it was a completely different story<br /><br />Ztev Konradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06553128132098513643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-82718580045075580112017-11-28T13:49:10.967-08:002017-11-28T13:49:10.967-08:00The ships used in a SinkEx are carefully prepared ...The ships used in a SinkEx are carefully prepared so as not to present an environmental hazard in its final resting place. This means removing all fuel and other hazardous materials. The type of materials that might result in secondary explosions following a strike by a torpedo or missile. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-8588331798696170312017-11-27T17:34:02.737-08:002017-11-27T17:34:02.737-08:00"a larger area of structural failure while no..."a larger area of structural failure while not dramatic means reconstruction was necessary"<br /><br />Hey, no one said ships could laugh at torpedoes and mines, only that a single torpedo is not instantly fatal as the torpedo crowd used to claim.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-51469962463233164662017-11-27T17:13:53.308-08:002017-11-27T17:13:53.308-08:00Giving more detail about the mining of the Belfast...Giving more detail about the mining of the Belfast<br />"There were nineteen casualties with broken bones-mostly legs-due to the violent whipping caused by the explosion. The direct damage was not unduly severe, centring on the starboard side of the forward boiler room where the outer bottom was badly dished over a length of 20ft, but the effects of whipping were far more serious. Towards the ends of the ship, heavy weights were thrown up with such violence that they hit the deck above. 17 The outer bottom failed in compression, the flat keel being fractured. There was a severe buckle, 14in deep, in the upper deck and there were several fractured plates in the deck. Altogether the ship was bent upwards by some 4ft 6in. This was, in part, due to a failing in structural design which led to problems in Edinburgh and some of the Southamptons. 18 There was a break of forecastle amidships and, nearby, the armour deck and side armour stepped down a deck."<br /><br />Brown, D. K.. Nelson to Vanguard: Warship Design and Development 1923–1945 (Chatham's Distinguished Design) (Kindle Locations 5568-5575). Naval Institute Press. Kindle Edition. <br /><br />As you pointed out the direct local damage wasnt especially severe.<br />Damage to the machinery was even more serious. <br /><br />"The cast iron discharge pipes of all the fuel pumps were shattered, oil was spurting out and it was fortunate that there was no fire. The stools of all the turbines in the forward engine room were destroyed as was at least one in the after space."<br /><br />Brown, D. K.. Nelson to Vanguard: Warship Design and Development 1923–1945 (Chatham's Distinguished Design) (Kindle Locations 5580-5582). Naval Institute Press. Kindle Edition. <br /><br /> But 'bent upwards by 4 ft 6 in doesnt sound good and a larger area of structural failure while not dramatic means reconstruction was necessary including longitudinal bulges which meant her stability was improved enough for later modifications to allow her to be the 'last British all gun cruiser'Ztev Konradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06553128132098513643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-47289504068519178102017-11-27T13:24:56.999-08:002017-11-27T13:24:56.999-08:00That's a great question and I've been unab...That's a great question and I've been unable to get a definitive answer over the years. In fact, I've read accounts that suggest both conditions: readied to sink easily and in a controlled manner and buttoned up to try to resist sinking. I suspect that both are true, depending on the circumstances of the exercise.<br /><br />The SinkEx conditions are either classified or not for public consumption as I've never come across a detailed description of an exercise.<br /><br />Maybe someone out there has taken part in a SinkEx and can shed some light on it?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-758842907222419942017-11-27T12:48:49.260-08:002017-11-27T12:48:49.260-08:00Can anyone speak to how SINKEX ships are usually c...Can anyone speak to how SINKEX ships are usually configured? Are they watertight? I would assume so in order to preserve their capacity as a target.MudMarinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07969168071793858858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-83433640828345852162017-11-27T04:55:53.796-08:002017-11-27T04:55:53.796-08:00Excerpt from Scott C. Truver, Ph.D. for CIMSEC Nex...Excerpt from Scott C. Truver, Ph.D. for CIMSEC Next War Blog article on December 20 2016 - NAVAL MINES AND MINING: INNOVATING IN THE FACE OF BENIGN NEGLECT - <br /><br />"...it usually comes as a surprise to learn that of the 19 U.S. Navy ships that have been seriously damaged or sunk by enemy action since the end of World War II, 15 – nearly 80 percent – were mine victims.<br /><br />This vulnerability to mines has catalyzed the U.S. Navy to spend many hundreds of millions of dollars to counter a global threat that includes more than a million sea mines of more than 300 types in the inventories of more than 50 navies worldwide, not counting underwater IEDs that can be fashioned from virtually any container. More than 30 countries produce and more than 20 countries export mines. World-War I-era contact weapons bristling with “horns” can be as dangerous as highly sophisticated, computer-programmable, multi-influence mines that fire from the magnetic, acoustic, seismic, and pressure signatures of their victims. Ask Captain Paul Rinn, commanding officer of the frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts, how a mine designed in 1908 can ruin your day.<br /><br />Of particular concern are the mining capabilities of potential adversaries:<br /><br />• Russia reportedly has about a quarter-million mines<br />• China, 80,000 to 100,000 mines<br />• North Korea, perhaps 50,000 mines<br />• Iran, 3,000 to 6,000 mines<br />Absalon L16https://www.blogger.com/profile/17772636367169990006noreply@blogger.com