Talk:Torpedo

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/ says the following "All information on this site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested" so should be OK. Robneild 09:22, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Pounds per Square Inch?

In the History section, in the 6th paragraph down, it says:

"The air was compressed to around 1,300 lb/in² (9 MPa)"

Isn't compressed air measured in pounds per cubic inch rather than square inch? If I'm wrong, lemme know, otherwise, just replace the exponent 2 with an exponent 3. Phil 09:52, 23 May 2005 (CDT)

pounds per square inch is pressure, pounders per cubic inch would be a (strange) density measurement. I'd dump the MPa and stick with Bar or Atmospheres for better understanding, only engineers and scientists think in Pascals.

picture

Shouldn't the first image on this page be a picture of a torpedo, not an explosion resulting from one? Night Gyr 06:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is not a single Picture of a Torpedo at all!--WerWil (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

conflict of info

This article conflicts in some places , (use of self propelled torpedo) with torpedo boat.

Can you elaborate? I don't understand what you mean. --Joy [shallot]

PS what happened to the etymology ? GraemeLeggett 11:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That was due to vandalism, I've reverted it now. --Joy [shallot] 16:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Near miss really a near miss?

The picture of torpedo near miss looks much more like a torpedo launch from a torpedo boat to me. The stern visible is clearly a torpedo boat, which wouldn't be a target anyway, and wouldn't play chicken with torpedoes. I suspect the picture is taken from a torpedo boat just after it has launched one of it's own torpedoes, and the picture description was either changed to make it "sexier", or someone who saw the picture with no description mistook a launch for a dodge. Should the description be changed?

Additionally, torpedoes in WWI already had depth controls, and wouldn't travel on the surface, which also wouls suggest this torpedo has only just been launched and hasn't dived to it's run depth yet.--GNiko 22:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Calibers

The calibers (diameters) of early Whitheads should be included; every source on early torpedo development I've ever seen does... Trekphiler 17:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Specifications

The article says:

"The air was compressed to around 1,300 lb/in² (approx 90 atmospheres) and drove two propellers through a three cylinder Brotherhood engine. Considerable effort was taken in trying to ensure that the torpedo self-regulated its course and depth."

Why do I care it was 90 atmospheres? What was the fuel? (I'd guess ethanol.) And what was the "considerable effort"? Depth sensor? Gyro? A variety of elevator? (Actually, all would be used eventually.) More detail is in order.

In addition, I've corrected the use of "magnetic trigger" or "detonator"; the term is exploder. Trekphiler 17:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The pressure of the compressed air drove the brotherhood engine. It was a compressed air engine it did not burn a fuel it simply ran on the pressure that is why the pressure is of interest. See [[1]] 208.91.11.214 (talk) 03:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Design issues

The article said:

"The strategic thinking of the US Navy was that enemy capital ships (warships) would be the primary targets of US submarines, in a classic fleet action on the high seas. The idea of targeting enemy merchant shipping was considered inappropriate, more akin to piracy. Due to the heavy armor of enemy warships, there was concern that the torpedoes of that time would be ineffective. The potential solution to this was magnetic triggers which would cause the torpedoes to detonate in the water beneath a ship, instead of striking the side of a ship on its armor. In principle, this was the correct approach, as modern torpedoes function in this manner. An explosion below a ship causes the formation of a gas bubble, and the ship then splits in two as the lightly armored bottom of the ship is not supported over the bubble and falls into it. For this approach to function, the torpedo has to be set deep enough to run below the ship, and the magnetic trigger has to activate at the correct time.

This was tested many times before the war with success, but in practice it was a failure. Merchant shipping did not have the metal mass needed to activate the magnetic trigger, variations in the earth's magnetic field caused problems, and the depth controllers on torpedoes were faulty, resulting in the torpedo running too deep to pick up the magnetic field of the ship above. Live warheads were heavier than test warheads, causing problems with the depth setting. Sometimes the magnetic trigger was too sensitive, resulting in the torpedo exploding before it reached the target. The result was a long dispute between the front-line submariners who complained of the problems, and the US Navy Bureau of Ordinance which insisted their tests showed that the torpedoes worked and the failures were due to poor aiming by the submarine commanders. Some commanders ignored orders, and disabled the magnetic triggers once they were out on patrol.

Finally the US Navy realized there was a problem, and ordered the torpedoes to use contact fuses only. This also caused problems, as the contact fuzes of US Navy torpedoes would not detonate with straight-on, but only at an angle, while those of the German navy had directly the opposite problem. The Royal Navy had problems as well. Only after some imaginative field testing in Hawaii revealed the problem with the contact triggers was the problem solved, after two years of lost opportunities."

I've rewritten it, as well as the vague note on German depth-keeping gear, which is related. Trekphiler 17:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The RN withdrew all magnetic "Duplex" exploders after the mistaken attack on the Sheffield during the hunt for the Bismarck in 1941. The torpedoes all detonated prematurely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.184 (talk) 09:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW, they were termed "Duplex" because they worked both by contact, and by magnetic proximity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Launch methods

I've rewritten this:

"Torpedoes are most commonly launched in one of four ways:

• From the deck-mounted torpedo launcher of a vessel on the surface.
• From a torpedo tube mounted either below the waterline of a vessel on the surface, or on a submarine."

Deck-mounted launchers are torpedo tubes, unless it means the shackles or drop collars used by USN PT boats (which isn't clear), or the drop collars used by (some) early submarines, which were named for their Polish inventor (& which should thus have been named). Moreover, not all torpedo tubes were below the w/l or on deck... Trekphiler 19:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

What about the launch methods employed by the CAPTOR mine?

ASROC, Ikara, naval fortresses etc GraemeLeggett 08:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Clarity?

I've reread my previous edit on merchatmen & rules of war, & realized, the rules only applied to unarmed merchies. W/o getting into the intricacies of the Hague Con & the London Treaty, anybody want to take on explaining? Or do we need a page, or link, or something, to elucidate? I only know, I can't do it as succinctly as the article calls for... Trekphiler 12:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Hydrogen Peroxide

Under the propulsion section of this article I don’t see any mention of hydrogen peroxide being used as a propellant. I know it was used for a while and it is even mentioned on the page for hydrogen peroxide. However, I feel I don’t know enough information about it’s use to make a change to the article.

Russian_submarine_Kursk_explosion Peroxide was the assumed cause of this, platinum catalyst splits it into steam and oxygen gas to drive turbines

Hot run?

What exactly is a "hot run" on a torpedo? Should this info be included somewhere in the article?

It absolutely should be, so if anybody's got a copy of (or access to) Holmes' Undersea Victory, or perhaps Grider's War Fish or O'Kane's Wahoo, there's a good, citable explanation in one of them. From memory, it's an accidental start of a torpedo engine in a (usually dry) tube, which causes massive engine overheating & hi risk of explosion when the heat sets off the warhead; it's also known to happen in flooded tubes, which are being prepared for firing. (I may be biasing this; my recollection is, most hot runs are in dry tubes, but I haven't any stats to support it, assuming any exist.) Edward J. Richardson, Captain, USN, rtd. 23:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The torpedo engine/motor is designed to work against the water resistance placed upon it by the propellers, so if a torpedo engine/motor is started in air (such as before a tube is flooded) it over-revs greatly.

In an HTP torpedo the engine is geared to the fuel turbo-pumps which then get greatly over-sped causing great pressure within the fuel lines, which usually then burst. This results in HTP being sprayed all over the insides of the torpedo and will then usually cause an HTP explosion bursting the torpedo hull, which in turn, sets off the warhead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.184 (talk) 10:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Clarification of Effect of Detonation Beneath the Target (as opposed to Impacting the Target)

Just a quick poll for consensus regarding the section:

The potential solution to this was a magnetic exploder which would cause the torpedoes to detonate beneath a ship, breaking its back. This had been demonstrated by magnetic influence mines in World War One. (In principle, this was correct; modern torpedoes function in this manner. An explosion below a ship causes the formation of a gas bubble, and the unsupported hull splits and falls into it.)

From my understanding of explosives and physics, the section "..causes the formation of a gas bubble, and the unsupported hull splits and falls into it." doesn't quite sound right. My understanding is that, when the charge detonates below the target vessel, there is the initial shockwave (Brisance) which could possibly cause structural damage to the target. This is then followed by what is sometimes referred to as the "heave" (can't find references for that), which is the expansion of the gaseous byproducts of the explosion and the heated/expanded surrounding material (gas or liquid). And, from the images I have seen of torpedo tests, it is the upward force of the heave (which is focused due to the density of the water and the gases, causing it to blow almost directly upwards) which seems to have, at least the most obvious effect on the target vessel.

From my reading of the above quoted passage, the author is suggesting that the explosive causes a void below the vessel which it falls into causing it to split up. I think that the opposite, if anything is true. That the explosion beneath the target forces the section above the explosion upwards quite violently and, due to the structure of the vessel, and the localisation of that force, it's "back" is then broken (normally causing the catastrophic failure of the ship and it's sinking, often in two parts).

Any views, suggestions, experts to correct me?

--Lucanos 06:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

According to my understanding of the way torpedoes function, you're exactly correct. Because water is non-compressible, the explosion most certainly does not create gas bubble underneath that the ship falls into. Rather, the water focuses the entire explosion in the most compressible direction, the tin can directly above.

Before under-keel explosions could be reliably guaranteed, and torpedoes were expected to explode near or in contact with the side of a ship, the explosion could vent both upward and sideways into the ship, but not downward or to other sides. This is why the explosion of a torpedo or near-miss bomb is so devastating compared to a nearby above-water explosion, even though it is less destructive than an under-keel explosion. TomTheHand 17:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't find the "official" site of the HMAS Torrent sinking anymore, but this page: http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s1448475.htm offers essentially the same physics explanation as that one did. Essentially, the ship _does_ "fall" into a bubble created by the explosion (or more accurately, the shrinking bubble sucks the ship in), causing the keel to bend in both directions. --GNiko 12:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Your reference seems to say that there are 5 stages, shockwave = first stage, compressed gas wave = second stage, falling into collapsing bubble = third stage, upward lifting high speed wall of water = fourth stage, a final "ram" of a wall of water and gas doing final destruction = fifth stage. Nice link! Carlw4514 14:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Whitehead

It is a little bit nationalized-history to say: The first real torpedo was developed in the mid 1800's in Europe by Mr Robert Whitehead, who created the "Whitehead Torpedo", ... by not telling anything about Ivan Lupis-Vukić, the man with whitch Whitehead worked together. Whitehead himself always insist on the priority of Ivan Lupis-Vukić and his basic ideas.--WerWil 21:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Mark?

Why are torpedoes classified as "Mark" or "MK" (such as Mark-46, Mark-48, Mark-60)? How did this nomenclature arise? Does it refer to circumference or something? Thanks, Maikel 13:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's like a version number. See Mark (designation), though that article isn't that great. That doesn't mean that the Mark 48 is "two versions better" than the Mark 46, but rather that it was designed later. Not all marks actually enter service; no "Mark 47" entered service. The "Mark 47" may have been a paper study, may have had a prototype built and rejected, or may have been skipped for one reason or another. TomTheHand 15:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder who issues these marks. It seems to be a US-American classification, there is also a Mark 77 bomb. Maikel 16:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Various nations used Mark numbers for torpedoes - see: List of torpedoes Ian Dunster (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

bad writing

This section in etymology really is high school quality and well under what we expect of a encyclopaedia: "During the American Civil War a "torpedo" was usually a "contact mine" above water using a "demijohn" or a similar container that would float, and below water tethered to the bottom using a line and a weight holding the contact mine just below the surface to sink a ship. Former USN Commander Matthew Fontaine Maury, a Virginian who ended up as a Commander in the Confederacy when Virginia (after Fort Sumter) and three other states joined the Confederacy due to Lincoln's call for 75,000 troops to march on the South was the first to use torpedoes. Maury worked with underwater electrical "torpedoes" having worked with electricity under the sea in the laying of the Atlantic Cable aiding Cyrus West Field (August 1858 1st success from USA to Europe)."

The divergence into the political background of Maury's choice of uniform is just silly. Embedding it in a historical footnote merely compounds a poor choice. Malangthon 18:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

proposed rewrite

Here is a possible rewrite for the section above using only the information in this article:

Torpedos were used in the American Civil War. There the term "torpedo" denoted a floating "contact mine" floating at or near the water surface using an air-filled "demijohn" or a similar container. They might either float freely on the surface or were tethered to the bottom using a line and a weight holding the contact mine just below the surface. The torpedo would detonate when a ship struck it. To that extent they were not unlike land mines in that they were passive and were not propelled toward a target.

Former USN Commander Matthew Fontaine Maury, who served as a Commander in the Confederacy, was probably the first to use torpedoes in the USA. Maury developed an underwater electrical "torpedoe". Maury’s technical background was extensive for his time. Working on electrical components and design, he had been instrumental in the laying of the Atlantic Cable while aiding Cyrus West Field (August 1858 1st success from USA to Europe). Malangthon 19:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

organisational problems

The overall organisation of this article is pretty rough. The etymology section overruns the history section and much of the information is either redundant or should be placed in the history section. Maury should be in the History section

The abbreviated treatment mention of Robert Whitehead is laughable whilst the US Civil War is the primary focus. This is a very asymmetrical article and the gaps are serious.

The time line is also erratic. The Arab’s use (all too brief a mention here) follows that in the US Civil War. The article should be divided into eras with subheadings for designs and concepts. As it is, it does not provide a readily coherent historical overview. Malangthon 19:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur. I'm inclined to breaking out all the non-SP material into separate articles w links out/back, but I'm not feeling as ambitious as I'd have to be to take on such a big project. Any takers? Trekphiler 07:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Damn the torpedoes?

I rewrote this

"A derivative of the compressed-air torpedo was the steam driven torpedo. It had to be fuelled with superheated steam from the boilers of the attacking vessel prior to launch. This was a disadvantage since it couldn't be stored ready to use."

to this

"A derivative of the compressed-air torpedo was the steam torpedo. Developed by Vickers Ltd, it mixed alcohol (first ethanol, later methanol) with compressed air in the combustion chamber, producing "steam". This increased speed, but produced a visible wake."

and this

"Whitehead purchased rights to the gyroscope in 1890 to improve self-regulation of his designs. Whitehead's torpedoes came to be called the Devil's device."

to this

"Whitehead faced competition from the American Lieutenant Commander John A. Howell, whose own design, driven by flywheel, was simpler and cheaper. Whitehead purchased rights to the gyroscope in 1890 (ironiclly from Howell) to improve control of his designs, which came to be called the "Devil's device"."

I also deleted this

"Maury’s technical background was extensive for his time. Working on electrical components and design, he had been instrumental in laying the first transatlantic telegraph cable, completed in August 1858."

While interesting (and obviosly contributed by Malangthon), it's not on point. Trekphiler 07:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

rewrote

References

diameter german Torpedoes

The german Torpedoes had no 21 inch diameter. The construktion and fabrication was made in metrical size. They were made with 533 mm caliber (not 533,4 mm wich are 21 inch). Of course this is an adaption of the english torpedo standart, but saying it was a 21 inch torpedo is not correct.--WerWil 17:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

arabs and their torpedoes

I believe it is an exageration to suppose this got much beyond the drawing board. The footnote refers to a webpage. I don't dispute they may have been the first to have the idea.

Carlw4514 18:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

adding more

this subject can definitely be expanded. I hope to add information about Confederate and WWII torpedoes. I'm a newbie and will have to figure out how much should go to a new article as opposed to here

Carlw4514 11:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The Turtle's Attack on the Eagle

Contrary too popular belief, the HMS Eagle had not been fitted with a copper bottom by the time of the American revolution. The failure to penetrate the Eagle's hull is due to David Bushnell's failure to observe the third law of thermodynamics, that is each action has an equal and opposite reaction. Simply put every time, the Turtle attempted to drill into the hull of the Eagle, she pushed herself away with the same amount of force she used to push against the Eagle's hull. Danwild6 06:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Guidance

We need a section on guidance. From memory:

• The Brennan Torpedo could be steered onto to its targets visually from a distance via its wires.
• In WW II the US experimented with frequency hopping radio controlled torpedoes using matching pairs of punched card rolls based on that of Player pianoes.
• Post war there was both passive and active acoustic homing torpedoes both with and without wire guidance, and this is the most common modern type of guidance.
• The Soviets made wake homing torpedos which homed in on the wake of target vessels.KTo288 00:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I got no takers on guidance so I'm being bold and had a go at it myself.KTo288 16:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

in the guidance section the unguidet but mechanically programmed torpedoes like the german FAT and LUT are missing.--WerWil (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The Guidance section is still quite poor. It does say that the majority of modern torpedoes are wire-guided using wire or fibre but no details of how this works. A very fine wire or fibre is spooled out from the torpedo and possibly the sub as well. These torpedoes have range of tens of kilometers. This means there has to be dense spools of very fine wire and problems if the ship or torpedo make sharp direction changes and snap the wire. It's a fascinating area of the technology and is given no detail. I understand the wire is fed from the sub via a tube to keep it clear of the props but how is it attached to the torpedo when the tube door is closed and can the sub not maoeuvre when the wire is spooling? Andrew ranfurly (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

submarines

Were/are subs fitted with other weaponry exept torpedos since using them seems to have been a game of chance most times? deck guns?

 --Echosmoke 01:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Guns (the top ace of all time used nothing else), mines, Marines (landing raiders), midget submarines (does that count?), frogmen. Did I miss anything? Trekphiler 04:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Miss anything? How about last-ditch ramming attacks? Binksternet 06:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, only Rich Richardson ever used it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trekphiler (talk • contribs) 15:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Torpedoes are expensive and in limited supply onboard a submarine and as the most likely target for any submarine was unarmed merchant shipping it was thought more economical to add a deck gun so that these ships could be attacked on the surface at little risk to the submarine, the gun's ammunition being relatively easily stored in large-ish quantity. Torpedoes were reserved if possible for attacking warships. By the end of WW II the danger to submarines from effective ASW was so great that underwater performance took priority and as deck guns added drag as well as created noise, they were dispensed-with.

So in short, many targets that a submarine might come across on patrol weren't worth the expenditure of a torpedo, especially if you use all your torpedoes on relatively small targets, then come across something big that you then cannot attack.

BTW, HMS Tally-Ho rammed a Japanese submarine chaser, although that wasn't deliberate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.99 (talk) 11:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Initbah sinking

The article says that the Initbah was sunk on the 16 Jan 1877 but elsewhere a date of 26/7 Jan 1878 is given and the Shah firing is said to be the first. Which is correct? Adresia (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Rear Admiral de Horsey ordered the HMS Shah commanded by Frederick Bedford, against the Nicolás de Piérola led Huáscar in the Battle of Pacocha on 29 May 1877. In that battle two Whitehead torpedoes were fired from the Shah at the Huáscar but each missed its mark and the Huáscar got away. The Huáscar is preserved as a museum ship in Talcahuano harbour to this day. Although it took place before the sinking of the Intibah the torpedoes fired by the Shah at Huáscar were fired in anger. 67.86.75.96 (talk) 04:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

References

Stern tubes

These things are obsolete (for any more than noisemakers) What's the latest design anyone can cite where significant stern tubes are used? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I can only find references to WWII era boats. Nothing later. Can anyone else corroborate? - JaKaL! (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't say if SU used them later (I think so), but they stopped being used in U.S. boats around the time Skipjack went to midships tubes, so probably the Skates. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 01:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there any difference between...

The "Steam torpedo" and "Heated torpedoes"? I can't see any. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit unclear on the technicalities, but the Brit fish used piston engines & U.S. fish used turbines. Also, as I understand it, there's a difference in whether the combustion chamber is cooled/not. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 01:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, as I understand it a steam torped uses steam as the working fluid in the engine, whereas a heater is a development of the original compressed air powered systems. They first tried externally heating the workings of the engine to stop them freezing up, and to increase the range, and then realised they'd get better performance by actually going to an internal combustion engine, which is where we are nowadays more or less. I'll try and find a concise reference to all that. Greg Locock (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it a "(dry) heater" tunes up the energy of compressed air by burning something whith it. The steamtorpedo is synonym to the "wet heater" which injects water into the heatet gas, cooling the engin and using the resulting steam for additional propulsion.--WerWil (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Having reread the article I think it is pretty good as is. Where is the confusion? Greg Locock (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) There used to be two different sections, someone has merged them. That's why I asked, I was considering doing that, but they beat me to the punch. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

A 'dry heater' uses heated air, the 'wet heater' uses air/water almost hot enough to be steam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

torpedo juice

the use of ethyl alcohol is indicated in the wiki article on torpedo juice. this article does not mention the alcohol (ethyl or methyl) and the propulsion units that use it.69.122.62.231 (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Spar torpedo

First of all, go to http://www.navymuseum.mil.nz/collections/photos/rnznship/spar-torpedo-boat.htm

From that we have graphic evidence that our mention of spar torpedo is grossly inaccurate (length of spar) and by omission does not record more modern (then) boats than that shown in the article's image. Can we add something and make a link to the website I have given? or is that another wikipedia no no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.171.61 (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable source - Muslimheritage.com material

Content from Muslimheritage.com / FSTC is an unreliable source, as discussed on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_18#History_of_Science. None of its publications are peer-reviewed, and its authors often exhibit a strong bias and incomplete or flawed citation practices. The site has been used as a source in numerous science and history of science articles to make extraordinary claims about Islamic invention and discovery. I am working to remove these extraordinary claims where they stem directly and solely from a Muslimheritage.com reference. Many of these claims were added by a user who has a history of using flawed sources for extraordinary claims, as discussed on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85. That page details numerous examples where claims from these sources contradict more reliable sources, on a scale which casts the entirety of the material originating from the site into doubt. If you would like to discuss this or any related removal with me, please leave a note on my talk page. Dialectric (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Guidance

How about the german FAT and LUT torpedoes?--WerWil (talk) 10:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

More than 5 years later this kind of Guidance is still missing here.--WerWil (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

So edit the article yourself. Other users will re edit for language if necessary. Greglocock (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Dan Quayle, potatos, tomatos, and torpedoes

Potato, potata - Tomato, tomata - Dan Quayle famously spelled potato potatoe. But why is more than one potato, tomato, or torpedo spelled potatoes, tomatoes, and torpedoes? (My spell checker just alerted me that I have the mind of a quail. PPdd (talk) 05:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That, I'm sure, has something to do with your using English, which is notoriously peculiar with spelling. Take it up with these guys. Or these guys. ;p Call me "W" ^{C minor} 08:02, 18 February 2011

Because otherwise the words might be mistakenly pronounced potaTOSS, tomaTOSS, torpeDOSS. Same with mosquiTOSS, tornaDOSS, etc. The 'oes' means the word rhymes with toes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Boxer Rebellion "Spar" torpedoes?

Reference moving that "Boxer Rebellion Spar" sentence to a non-automotive torpedo section; it was mentioned that it was to be moved to a mine section. Just for your information, believe it was in David Lyon's "The First Destroyers" (1996 publication) and/or Richard Simpson's "Building the Mosquito Boat Fleet, the US Navy's First Torpedo Boats." (2001 publication) that those "spar" torpedoes were considered torpedoes...I realize that torps and mines were considered the same in the US Civil War (ref "Da-m the torpedoes full speed ahead" by Admiral Farragut). Transitional weaponry cause confusion because men don't know what to call them so they use OLD names which confuses historians decades later. Bottom line; no matter where it goes, its best to just keep the spar torpedo out of the automotive department.

As Farragut illustrates, pretty much everything from a coal torpedo upwards was described as a "torpedo" in period. However this use is now anachronistic for mines, whether free-floating, tethered, command detonated or air-dropped. To describe these as torpedoes in an ordinal manner (i.e. listing them in the torpedo article rather than mines) would be far more confusing. Much better to list them under naval mines and note their previous name.

However spar torpedoes have always been torpedoes and remain so today, never mines. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Since I do know the difference between spar torpedoes, locomotive torpedoes, & mines, ;p let me explain my reasoning. One, by 1900, "torpedo" meant "locomotive torpedo"; "mine" had replaced refs to "floating stationary torpedoes". Two, spar torpedoes aren't locomotive, & are already mentioned above. Three, it's not clear to me the Chinese "torpedoes" were spar torpedoes. Four, the fn itself calls them mines. Five, the very same information, exactly, is already at naval mine...where they are (correctly IMO) called "mines". (I should perhaps have explained. I overlooked it...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

So the question is, were they really spar torpedoes or mines? Can this be substantiated, because we can't make progress without it. Note also that WP is still no WP:RS for propagating "facts" from one article to another. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The cited source mentions torpedoes at the battle & it's written in 2002, so I'd presume the author intended "self-propelled", but without knowing if she has a milhist bg, there's no way to tell if she even knew the difference. This site, used by naval mine, calls them mines, & appears to be describing the same attack (same leader, same place). Going through the page history, I found ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ added it to naval mine, so I've messaged to ask if he knows. I suspect somebody found it there & copied it... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the material, as it only appeared in nianhua related references and not other sources. I have already removed it from several other articles which i added it too including the boxer rebellion article.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

actually, i looked at the original source again, it appears that the Chinese navy possesed electric mines, but the use of the actualy torpedos during the war was just depicted in nianhua, and it said that the mines were only deployed and not used. Ill bring it up here in a few minutes.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It said that the chinese laid electric mines near rivers during the war, but they were not actually used/exploded etc. I have no idea what those electric mines might actually be.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

electric mines electric mines and torpedos

The source said China possesed the weapons, but did not use them, and it was only depicted in the nianhua illustrations as actually being used. i have no idea what they are, they might be some ordinary bomb or something referred to with a euphemism.

Several other sources say China deployed electric mines hereΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Boxer Rebellion torpedoes were in fact electrical mines

Several American military reports here say that Chinese forces used "electric Mines" (presumably set off by an electric switch), during the Boxer Rebellion. It appears that they were not torpedos, ill go look up more sources.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No joy for me, either. That book's in the local university library, tho. I can go over & have a look, if it's in, in the next few days. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

strike that, several sources say that China had electric torpedos before the boxer rebellion

In 1876, Li had added an electric torpedo works to tientsin arsenal "Electric torpedoes have been laid in some places"ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I come back to my initial concern over sources not knowing the difference between "torpedo" & "mine", I'm afraid, &/or original documents saying "torpedo" & meaning "mine". It sounds like these are command-detonated mines, not actually what we'd call "electric torpedoes" at all. And the page itself mentions the G7e, which I would have also said is the first truly "electric" torpedo, in the sense commonly understood today. Looks like you may have more looking to do. :( TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

it appears this page of the book describes one of the mines from this period. I can't see it as the preview is not available to me (google books only shows a certain number of pages to certain people) but perhaps you can tell us what it describes.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Punched card rolls

See this image of linked punch cards used to control a loom.The system used in torpedos was presumably more compact. -- Donald Albury 09:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Player pianos use rolls of paper, not linked cards. But it doesn't matter, because according to the ref, they were never taken seriously for torpedoes."The Navy, however, refused to take the Secret Communication System seriously. Technologists questioned whether the paper rolls would hold without breaking, whether the rotary motor that synchronized the rolls would be accurate enough, and whether the paper rolls could be made small enough to fit inside a torpedo. " Greglocock (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Makes me wonder why they didn't use printed circuits, like FAT did. :/ TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Brass torpedoes

Apparently they used to make them out of brass. [2] How steampunk. -- Beland (talk) 03:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC) This was the Howell torpedo (described in the LA Times of May 17, 2013) [3]Ripov (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Possible source: "Torpedo: Inventing the Military-Industrial Complex in the United States and Great Britain"

• Epstein, Katherine C. (26 January 2014). "The invention of the military-industrial complex". Salon.
• Epstein, Katherine C. (2013). Torpedo: Inventing the Military-Industrial Complex in the United States and Great Britain. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0674725263.

Hope this is useful RDBrown (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Scope?Torpedo or torpedo?

Per recent to and fro [4]

Is this article covering "naval torpedoes", where use of that term is indicated by sources, or limiting itself to the modern idea of the "locomotive torpedo"? Specifically, are the early electrically fired static torpedoes, used with some note in the US Civil War and the Boxer Rebellion, to be included? If so, are they to be a side note leading to naval mine, or covered as part of the main timeline of torpedo development? Andy Dingley (talk) 08:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Australian Louis Brennan invented the underwater torpedo in 1874. ( Looks like wikipedia still publishing lies & propaganda )

1874: underwater torpedo

Melbourne watchmaker and mechanical engineer Louis Brennan invented the underwater torpedo at just 22 years of age. The torpedo had two propellers, driven by two counter-rotating screws that were, in turn, driven by the unwinding motion of two fine wires. The torpedo was also steered by these wires, which connected back to a steam engine for onshore or shipboard operation.

Brennan was born in Castlebar, Ireland, and moved to Melbourne, Australia in 1861 with parents. He started his career as a watchmaker and a few years later was articled to Alexander Kennedy Smith, a renowned civil and mechanical engineer of the period. He served as a sergeant in the Victorian Engineers under the command of Captain J. J. Clark. Brennan invented the idea of a steerable torpedo in 1874, from observing that if a thread is pulled on a reel at an angle with suitable leverage, the reel will move away from the thread side. Brennan spent some years working out his invention, and received a grant of £700 from the Victorian government towards his expenses. He patented the Brennan Torpedo in 1877. The idea was trialled at Camden Fort near Crosshaven, Cork, Ireland.[1]

Brennan went to England in 1880 and brought his invention before the War Office. Sir Andrew Clarke alerted the authorities to the possibilities of the torpedo if used in the defence of harbours and channels, and the patent was eventually bought for a sum believed to be more than £100,000. In 1887 Brennan was appointed superintendent of the Brennan torpedo factory, and was consulting engineer 1896–1907.

He did much work on a monorail locomotive which was kept upright by a gyrostat. In 1903 he patented a gyroscopically-balanced monorail system that he designed for military use; he successfully demonstrated the system on 10 November 1909, at Gillingham, England.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Louis_Brennan

Please add the following links to the main page.

Cheers.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ... Brennan torpedo

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Brennan_torpedo

The Brennan torpedo was a torpedo patented by Irish-born Australian inventor Louis Brennan in 1877. It was propelled by two contra-rotating propellors that were spun by rapidly pulling out wires from drums wound inside the torpedo. Differential speed on the wires connected to the shore station allowed the torpedo to be guided to its target, up to 2,000 yards (1,800 m) away, at speeds of up to 27 knots (31 mph).

The Brennan torpedo is often claimed as the world's first guided missile, but guided torpedoes invented by John Ericsson, John Louis Lay, and Victor von Scheliha all predate it; however, Brennan's torpedo was much simpler in its concept and worked over an acceptable range at a satisfactory speed so it might be more accurate to call it "the world's first practical guided missile".[3]

Louis Brennan – inventor of the guided missile. https://www.irelandcalling.ie/louis-brennan

1874 The underwater torpedo - Invented by Louis Brennan, the torpedo had two propellers, rotated by wires, which were attached to winding engines on the shore station. By varying the speed at which the two wires were extracted, the torpedo could be steered to the left or right by an operator on the shore.

& Also FYI ..... Along with the torpedo .... Australia invented powered flight .... & in World war one while Australia was out there fighting the Germans & the ottoman empire to save Europe, Africa & the world ... the USA was fighting mexico over corn & allieing the USA with the Nazi Germans & Muslim ottoman empire / Islamic caliphate.

& it was while Australia was fighting in Europe & the Middle east that the world saw the first use off the torpedo & its use by the Australian air-force. Worlds first use of a torpedo & worlds first use of a torpedo being launched from an aircraft.

http://www.convictcreations.com/culture/inventions.htm

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Ottoman_Empire

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Military_history_of_Australia_during_World_War_I

https://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/ww1/

http://www.awmlondon.gov.au/

I think there is more than enough information to show that Louis Brennan invented the underwater torpedo & self propelled missile. & also to show that Australia & the Australian air-force was the first in the world to use the torpedo & to use the torpedo in conjunction with an aircraft ( after Australia was the first to use powered flight in the world ) ...

I would like to think this article will be edited to reflect the true history & the real inventor of the torpedo & self propelled rocket ..... But i wont hold my breath.

Could a moderator please edit this page to state the truth about who invented the torpedo. the real inventor being Australian Louis Brennan.

http://www.cnet.com/au/pictures/best-aussie-inventions-of-all-time/2/

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.107.97 (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

All very AAMUSING BUT THE WHITEHEADE HAD BEEN DELPOYED 10 YEARS EARLIER, WHILE bRENNAN WAS A SCHOOLCHILD. Greglocock (talk) 04:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

... and he wasn't an 'Australian' as Australia didn't get separate citizenship until 1948. He was British. But then, so was Whitehead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.99 (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

André Rebouças

André Rebouças is credited with having invented a torpedo during the Paraguayan War in multiple sources.

C. R. Gibbs (1995). "Black inventors: from Africa to America : two million years of invention and innovation". Three Dimensional Pub. p. 89.

Carl W. Hall (2008). "A Biographical Dictionary of People in Engineering: From the Earliest Records Until 2000". Purdue University Press. p. 181. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miffedmess (talk • contribs) 20:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

CAT's out of the bag?

https://news.usni.org/2013/06/20/navy-develops-torpedo-killing-torpedo

List the CAT now or wait until fielded? Hcobb (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

That story is 3 years old, which is a lot in cat years. Got anything more current on its status? It might well have been cancelled by now. - BilCat (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

It's only installed on five ships so it's not that widespread?

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-navys-master-plan-save-aircraft-carriers-lethal-17870

Hcobb (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Where were you planning on listing it? Do we have an article on it yet? - BilCat (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

That's the first thing I searched for. If an existing framework had existed I would have just added to that. It's when my preconceptions of surely this has been noted somewhere clash with my inability to find it that I ask so I can find out my dumb mistake before I add my confusion to the pile. Hcobb (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Donitz is not a neutral source on his own conduct

The text "(In the event, most merchantmen were armed and acted as de facto naval auxiliaries, required to report the position of enemy submarines, rendering the distinction irrelevant)" is backed up by a reference to the autobiography of Karl Donitz. Donitz is obviously not a neutral source for a justification of his own conduct. I also question why a justification of the conduct of Karl Donitz belongs in this article.

Johnfwhitesell (talk) 03:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Donitz is not a lawyer. the text refers to "laws of war" that supposedly applied --lacks a source----please cite the law book. Rjensen (talk) 05:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Shockwave

Trekphiler, before I take this to WP:ANEW, would you care to explain why you have 4RR removed [5] [6] [7] [8] sourced and itself pretty uncontentiously obvious content on the significance of the explosion shockwave being faster than the speed of sound? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Y'know, if you'd done this the first time instead of giving me a high-handed attitude, I wouldn't have rv'd... And you now have the opportunity to explain why the local speed of sound is of any significance, which you still refuse to offer, I notice, too busy trying to make out I'm stupid. I'll agree the shockwave is key, which you also neglected to mention to begin with, too busy with the local speed of sound. So perhaps you'd care to enlighten the luddites who might be reading the page & lack your intimate insider knowledge of the subject. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's focus on technology rather than human behavior.

The shockwave of an underwater explosion certainly moves faster than the speed of sound, at the beginning of the explosion. However, the challenged text is misleading in that the wall of the high pressure gas bubble is not the part that moves faster than sound. The thing that moves faster is the shockwave traveling through water, traveling far past the limits of the gas bubble. Shockwaves move at about 5000 to 8000 meters per second, while the speed of sound in seawater is about 1500 meters per second. This is a true fact, but the speed of sound is irrelevant to the damage done by the explosion – it's just a minor observation made along the way to the important work of understanding what the shockwave is doing. Binksternet (talk) 03:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

If it is moving slower than the speed of sound in the transmitting medium then it isn't a shockwave. The whole point is that a shockwave behaves in a different way to a subsonic wave. So if it is subsonic (loosely speaking), it isn't a shockwave. In more complex cases you will see shock wave like behavior (ie incompressible flow) down a slow as 0.3M, because the local flow speed approaches the local speed of sound Greglocock (talk) 03:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

"if it is subsonic...it isn't a shockwave" And since we've established it is a shockwave, the exact speed it's travelling is moot. This page is not Physics of underwater explosions. Bink is right: It's the effect of the shockwave, not its speed, that is germane. Unlike the compressibility issues with the P-38, the speed achieved (or not) by the shockwave is totally irrelevant to the effect. Save the technicalities for a page where it matters. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Torpedo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120222222226/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-4/joseph.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-4/joseph.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050908111923/http://www.keyportmuseum.cnrnw.navy.mil/torpedotech.htm to https://www.keyportmuseum.cnrnw.navy.mil/torpedotech.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050226023752/http://www.keyportmuseum.cnrnw.navy.mil/torpedoes.htm to https://www.keyportmuseum.cnrnw.navy.mil/torpedoes.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130527115531/http://www.scientificamericanpast.com/Scientific%20American%201890%20to%201899/1/lg/sci7261890.htm to http://www.scientificamericanpast.com/Scientific%20American%201890%20to%201899/1/lg/sci7261890.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hedey Lamar radio frequency hopping. Intended for torpedo use, but not used.

Should we really include a section about a technology which was originally intended for radio control of torpedoes, but doesn't seem to have actually been used with them? (Hohum ^@) 21:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• If we do, at least do it by deciding not to. Not just blanking the section on the grounds that the two sources which clearly describe its use for torpedoes weren't there.

Should it be here? Well it was developed for torpedoes, and it was used for torpedoes – although those torpedoes weren't then used in service. But non-jammability for missile control is certainly significant. See Kehl-Strasbourg radio control link, for the Hs 293 missile, where the Germans almost used it, by having a multi-frequency transmitter-receiver pair but not changing the frequencies during the flight.

Also it belongs here far more than it does at cellphone, wi-fi and all those places it keeps turning up in. Because one thing it wasn't was spread-spectrum, although it's forever being reported as if it were. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

It was my mistake not not clicking through to the correct source previously. This is a separate issue.

I'm not sure it was even used in prototype torpedoes, rather just patented, proposed and never taken up - that doesn't seem to be enough for inclusion here. What actually has used frequency hopping? (Hohum ^@) 02:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Torpedo Faults

Didn't any of you other users think it was strange that the German and American torpedoes suffered from the same faults during World War ll? Apparently German spies stole American torpedo plans without realizing they were flawed.Tnarrud (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

New reference book - Public domain - INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF HARVEY’S SEA TORPEDO - 1881 London

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/67838/67838-h/67838-h.htm

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF HARVEY’S SEA TORPEDO 1881 London

Describes management and operation of two towed torpedoes behind a fighting ship. The torpedoes would fan out in a V behind the towing ship and be maneuvered to strike the enemy ship.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:B174:67FB:C58F:F746 (talk) 12:06 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Please sign comments on talk pages by adding four tildes ("~~~~") at the end of the comment. That source is WP:PRIMARY, and may be used only with care. It also appears to be about an obscure device, and as such, may have litle to no use in this article. There are mentions of the 'Harvey torpedo' in Naval mine, Ironclad warship, and Minesweeping, which indicate that they were towed naval mines (an older meaning of "torpedo"), and saw only limited and brief use. I don't think they need to be covered in this article. - Donald Albury 18:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

See also Paravane_(weapon) Greglocock (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Fulton's torpedoes

I just made an edit to the page, changing the section that said Robert Fulton was unable to sell his invention in Europe. In fact the British Government took the weapon seriously and used it in three attacks on French ships at harbour, and Fulton signed a contract offering him a large bounty on French vessels destroyed. My source is Davey (2016) which has a detailed account of this experimentation. The Boulougne attacks were widely reported at the time, although the results were not spectacular. Coljac (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Torpedos vs. underwater drones?

This article on torpedos does not mention "underwater drones", a term being used in 2023 to describe weapons being developed by Ukraine. An explanation of the similarities and differences would be welcome. Eric Martz (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Looking at Unmanned underwater vehicle, there seems to some, but not a lot, of overlap. Autonomous underwater vehicle, which is in the See also section, seems to overlap torpedo much more. I'll go ahead and add Unmanned underwater vehicle the the See also section. Donald Albury 01:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The line between "guided torpedo" and "underwater explosive drone" does seem a bit blurry... It would probably make sense to classify any drone that explodes along with its target as more of a torpedo. The bulk of that article on Autonomous underwater drones seems to deal with drones that manage to come back from their mission - or re-usable underwater unmanned craft. "Suicide drones" underwater, by contrast, seem more like rudimentary torpedoes. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)