I might’ve said this on a previous video, but I like your “unscripted, but well prepared” presentation style. It comes across as more natural and relaxed than rigidly reading a script.
Exactly. Unscripted but well prepared is the hallmark of a real expert. While possibly not as smooth as the rehearsed delivery of a redacted text, it gives the listener more insight in the knowledge acquired by the presenter. Definitely the way to go.
The 6.75 inch torpedo, as far as I know, is not being considered for integration aboard submarines. Rather it was to be carried on carriers as an anti torpedo torpedo. It is very fast and can turn quickly but has limited range. As of a few years ago there were two propulsion variants planned; a lithium battery and a lithium/seawater boiler.
@@petlahk4119 I could see a future revolver style magazine where you load half a dozen into a clip, only reloading when the clip is exhausted to minimize opening of inner and outer doors and to speed reload.
Sounds similar to Paсket-NK (324 mm). What's interesting in this name? "-NK" ("-НК" in russian) is abbreviation for "surface combatant" ("надводный корабль"). As a result I have opinion that russians have modification for submarines (i have never heard any official info about Paсket for submarines). We have similar situation with Kalibr (Club) family of missiles. There are Kalibr-NK (Club-N) for surface combatants and Kalibr-PL (Club-S) for submarines.
@@watcherzero5256 something like that was sort of proposed for swedish submarines long time ago but they decided it was too expensive. also it would be on the outside of pressure hull and it would rotate all around it
Something you may want to clarify is this only applies to submarine launched torpedoes. Surface launched and air dropped torpedoes come in radically different sizes. For example, a Mk 46 torpedo is much smaller than a 48.
I'm a submariner veteran (99-03) if I recall correctly the Mk 46 was either 16 or 18 inch diameter. The Mk 48 ADCAP is 21 inch diameter. Do the surface combat vessels still use the MK50. I've never found clear or accurate size dimensions for that particular torpedo.
Maybe I've missed something but I imagine another advantage of doubling up your torpedoes is you could place them on different course for the same target meaning that there are two angles of attack meaning the ship cannot avoid both
Yes, that too. For example, shooting them around an island in the Swedish archipelago. I think that I wrote an article on it for Forbes a few years ago.
or you can fire shit load of torpedoes at whole fleets. i wonder why didnt soviets adopt this against carrier fleets it cant be more suicidal than rocket torpedo
@@jebise1126 I think because they had one target in a carrier fleet as without their carrier they are pretty much useless. So I imagine for them focusing a couple of big bois' on the one carrier, in that way they would garentuee the effect they were looking for. Even if it is less boats than they could achieve with many torpedoes, it garentuees getting the carrier.
@@Alex-cw3rz for carriers you need the big torpedos, these small ones don't have enough payload. So a sub would load up all six (or how ever many tubes it has) and launch a full volley, then reload and shoot again as they escape.
"The French didn't get the memo" is a phrase that could be used for so many of their naval and aircraft designs from the first half of the 20th century...
That point reminded me of Drachinifel pointing out how they would have all kinds of gun calibers due to local politicians lobbying for their respective manufactories.
The French NEVER get the Memo...if they did they would ignore it ... but they just never read them !! That wot makes them French - often admired - never copyed.
Probably worth adding that whats contributed to a light weight torpedo still being a viable equipment option today is that they continued to be developed in parallel to submarine launched as air dropped weapons where pretty much every country in the world standardized on 12.8 inch apart from Russia which standardized on 14 inch.
also sweden with their 400mm (15.75 inch) ASW lightweight torpedo (13:00) speaking of air-dropped ASW lightweight torpedo whose size are not constricted by tube caliber, the USSR had more than a handful of calibers, ranging from 330mm (13 inch) & 350mm (13.8 inch), to 400mm (15.75 inch) & 450mm (17.7 inch)
I was going to venture a guess that it was around about the limit that a crew of torpedomen could man-handle into position. That is really more weight-dependent than anything but you can imagine they'd increase in size & weight until a practical limit was reached. Beyond that you'd need additional machinery or automated reloading systems (which the Soviets seemed fond of).
well there big enough to do the job bigger would reduce the number the sab can carry and thus the number of shots a sub can get off at the enemy's fleet
I remember information floating around on the Seawolf class that those extra-large tubes were not so much to enable *larger* torpedoes, but to enable "swim-out" torpedoes, i.e. 533mm-Torpedoes that would leave the tube under their own power instead of being shot out (which is loud, which is bad).
Wouldn't it be easier to have dedicated swim-out torpedoes (slightly narrower?) that use the regular tubes? Or is the idea that any Mk48 can be simply be instructed to swim out?
@@mrkeogh Many components are (obviously) standardized to 533mm, so it is easier to scale up the tubes and use standard torpedo parts where possible than vice versa. Smaller torpedoes means less fuel / range, less space for sensorics, less warhead.
As an avid fan of all things submarine-related, I've been enjoying your excellent videos for a couple of months now. I've wanted to suggest a topic and this video is perhaps a good place to do that. When watching movies in which one sub is having an underwater dogfight with another, it's clear that the commander has a perfect picture of the relative positions of his ship and the enemy ship in his mind and gives instructions to the crew for headings and other changes. I've never been able to match the commander's skill in envisioning what's going on - it would be very interesting to see a video that takes us through such a dogfight.
That was very interesting, thank you. When you mention relatively low-value targets for small torpedoes, might that include underwater drones? I have a feeling that future manned combat systems of all kinds will increasingly be accompanied by drones, sometimes in swarms, which means that weapons designed to take them out will also be needed.
This must be rare then: "Israel's Dolphin II class-the Tannin, Rahav and a third unnamed submarine-contain 10 torpedo tubes capable of launching fiber optic cable-guided DM-2A4 torpedoes. Four of these tubes are larger 26-inch tubes-the size is rare for a Western-built submarine-capable of launching small commando teams or firing larger cruise missiles. The remaining six tubes measure at 21 inches."
I do not believe that the Dolphin-IIs larger tubes are for a larger torpedo. Instead cruise missiles. Here is a cutaway I drew, although also with a provisional take on the VLS www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/01/israels-submarine-secret-new-dolphin-class-boat-could-have-vls/
I was an intern at NSWC Indian Head in Maryland USA, and I was told one day while I was there that they're one of the last energetics facilities that makes Otto fuel for torpedos used by the US Navy. I don't know if that is true or not but I thought it was interesting.
The posideon is only a torpedo in the sense that it can be launched from an internal tube. As far as I'm concerned, it's an underwater UAV (UUV if you will). So it's a bit like calling an aerial loiter munition a bomb or a rocket in my book. *Technically* true, but not really.
I doubt it's planned to be launched from an internal tube. I actually doubt that it exists or even is being developed. Russia has a long list of claimed "wunder waffen" lately that are nothing more than Puntin's wet dreams and domestically aimed propaganda. It's not that it would be very hard to make such a weapon but it simply makes no sense.
@@skunkjobb - I think anyone portraying countries who are political rivals to the USA as backwards and stupid while portraying the USA and it's armed forces as "highly advanced" and intelligent has either fallen hard for propaganda, or isn't the brightest. The weapon actually makes a lot of sense. Having a really hard to find underwater nuke actually gives Russia the defensive edge they need right now. They're all about "ok, what do we absolutely, bare minimum, need? We need rifles that function well in the cold without lubrication? we need submarines that can out-hunt the Americans? We need a cost-effective deterrent to make up for our struggles with paying for the maintenence of conventional fleets and arms? Ok, let's adopt the AK-47, have highly advanced and more numerous fast-attack submarines, and build a nuclear torpedo." Russia is just another country doing country things. They got shit they need to defend and people they need to feed.
@@skunkjobb >domestically aimed propaganda You might have solipsistically forgotten that most people anywhere don't actually care for military matters and see expensive weapons as a waste of their money. You're low on self awareness buddy.
tl;dr - 533mm was big enough to have "enough" range and warhead size, larger sizes would mean fewer weapons on board, larger doors, more air required to launch, etc. Q: "But why did different countries choose this exact same size? Why were there not small variations?" CS Answer: "Because they did." >_
Fascinating video. Thank you. It's incredible how many perpetual chicken and egg problems crop up in sufficiently complex systems. Can you tell me if modern surface warships use larger-diameter torpedoes? Do helicopters and other aircraft use smaller ones? Will you consider doing a video on rocket-propelled and supercavitating torpedoes?
Modern surface warships tend to use small diameter "lightweight" torpedoes like the Mu-90, Mk 46 and Sting Ray. These are either launched from pneumatic tubes straight over the side, or mounted on a rocket like ASROC or Ikara. There are some exceptions, like the Algerian Koni-class frigate and a few others, which have 533mm torpedo tubes for ASW. Helicopters and maritime patrol aircraft launch lightweight torpedoes as well, which makes sense when you consider that most 533mm torpedoes weigh in at around 2000kg / 4500 lb.
wow, that was way more interesting than I expected. I expected the first bit about circular reasoning, and I knew about Russia's huge torpedo idea, but the VLT idea was new to me and I think it's the future too.
You could always launch a swarm of them if needed. It's a shame that a wireless datalink wouldn't work well underwater. You could use a swarm as a synthetic active array and get very precise targeting that would make up for the small individual warhead size 😉
Thank you for this video, I just realized I've been misinformed my whole life. I was taught that the torpedo was invented by Phil Macedo, That's why everybody called him by his nickname, "Torpedo Phil". I have misinformed thousands of people about the true inventor of this weapon, please excuse me while I track down each and every one of them to correct my mistake.
In the dreadnought period and even the interwar, it was common for nations with less-well-developed naval infrastructure to order capital ships of all sorts from (mostly) British shipyards. This in turn naturally led to even IJN vessels using inch standard for their larger gun barrels. If submarines used 21" because "everyone else is doing it", was there some similar situation where boats would be bought abroad instead of built locally? Or some other reason that navies felt the need to be size-compatible with everyone else's torpedoes?
As a former US Navy torpedoman, I remember a 19” torpedo. It was 19” so it could “swim out” instead of being pushed out by air pulse. The “swim out” torpedo thus was quite a bit quieter than the 21” torpedo.
Are you thinking of mines? I know when I was in those were the only swimout weapons we could potentially carry. I never got the "pleasure" of using them but I heard from a lot of other guys they were finicky as hell, especially around RF.
My thought so, even smaller torpedoes can give flexibility, however how do you think they be cheaper ? Still have the expensive electronics etc the only thing bigger is fuel, and warhead, however that is the cheapest component.
A note on 650mm torpedoes. The Israeli Dolphin class submarine also feature 650mm tubes (x4), which are believed to be used for nuclear armed cruise missiles. Very interesting video. I didn't realise you had a RU-vid channel. Subbed and will likely be spending much of the day listening to you.
Or for non-nuclear long-range cruise missiles. The sub-launched Popeye has both conventional and (most likely) a large kiloton-level nuclear variant. My information isn’t unique but I have been told by a fairly recently retired IAF friend that Israel, which had originally relied on the Air Force as its second-strike nuclear deterrent, began to lose confidence in the reliability of air-dropped nukes after the Yom Kippur War. At the time they were (entirely? mostly?) reliant on air-dropped dumb bombs for their second-strike capability at the time. After suffering considerable losses in the air during the October War they started looking to diversify. My source was a little cagey when I asked them what Israel’s interim nuclear solution was. He didn’t exactly say no when I asked him if Israel fielded air or ground launched nuclear-capable missiles between the Yom Kippur War & the ‘00s when Israel took delivery of its first Type 209-based Dolphin class submarines. He didn’t really say yes, either, though. Based on what he said & didn’t say I inferred Israel’s nuke delivery options were fairly marginal before it acquired the Dolphin I and (more recently) Dolphin II class AIP submarines. No earth-shattering news scoops here, but it was an interesting conversation.
Yes, but the larger ones are understood to be for missiles. See my cutaway at www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/01/israels-submarine-secret-new-dolphin-class-boat-could-have-vls/
I would argue that there is an "optimal range" around 533mm. Basically you have two effects working in opposite directions. The first is that range, payload and capability increase with diameter, which explains the early size creep. The other effect is that increasing diameter decreases fluid dynamic properties, handling capabilities and ammo capacity. Two such opposing effects naturally create an optimal solution. Where that optimum falls is dependent on the weights given the various attributes in the optimization problem, hence a somewhat loose "optimal range", into which the 533mm falls. On the other hand, there is little incentive to find out whether 540mm or 525mm would perform better, because the gradient is very shallow (minimal gains by changing a little), while the costs of changing are very high.
This is really useful, thanks. I'd been looking into the torpedos used on USN PT boats in WW2 and thought, how smart to just use the same torpedos as the subs of the time, for logistics reasons etc. Ha. Turns out that was all there was!
Torpedo got named after factory named Torpedo from city of Rijeka, Croatia. Company Torpedo was in bussiness as in early 2000's, tho they were mostly in marine diesel engine production. There are several nautical historians in Croatia, that knows every detail on that topic. You can find them on internet. There are also several nautical-marine museums in Croatia, that hold tons of history.
This is completely wrong. The standard torpedo size is codified in international law. This is essential since if one side runs out or forgets theirs, the opposing side can lend them some. Otherwise, they could not fight and the balance of power would be upset.
Also, during the very early history, 1869-1911, torpedoes were gradually enlarged because the average girth of sailors was increasing. Torpedo pilots could no longer fit overwise. Some of the very earliest torpedoes were piloted by boys.
@@piotrgrzelak2613 It was a joke. I'm tempted to carry the joke further, but I'm afraid I'll be misunderstood. My intention was to entertain, not to deceive.
Can anyone tell me the clearance for torpedo tubes. All sources say 21" torpedo uses a 21" tube but that makes no sense because it would be too tight. And is the torpedo smaller or the tube larger and by how much.?
Thank you for your video sir, After the first minute and your intro to the 'shout outs'......the picture you used of the sinking destroyer (side number 53), was one I served on in the late 1990s. HMAS TORRENS of the RAN. Was a pleasure to work on those British designed ships.
Your information regarding torpedo size is inaccurate. They were not always 21" in diameter. During WW2, the Mark 27 torpedo (cutie) was only 19" in diameter and had to be specially fitted with external hardware. The Mark 27 was an electrically driven acoustic homing torpedo. The drawback was it lacked a sufficiently powerful warhead to be used against most surface ships. When launched it homed in on the sound of enemy vessel screws.
One question I've often had is why we still have torpedo tubes at all? Why not have the torpedoes outside the pressure hull, launched directly from a standalone container? Would remove holes in the pressure hull, remove the reload process, simplify rearing in port, reduce the noise when firing / reloading. VLS cells on ships are similar - missile in a container is lowered into the VLS cell and plugged in, earlier launcher rails with separate magazines phased out in favour of VLS. So why no 'HLS' for torpedoes... What's the compelling advantage of the tubes?
The main factor is to allow the crew to perform maintenance on the torpedoes while underway. In the future, with possible 'zero maintenance' weapons, we might see an increase in external carriage like you imagine
Some people rant how a terribly bad idea that Poseidon WMD is, but it is really not that different to using an ICBM or firebombing against cities, with regards to its inhumane utility.
Its most likely because i) every opening in the hull is a potential weakness, ii) thus torpedoes have to enter the sub through the same hatches as the crew, iii) these hatches have to be as small as practicable, to allow a mans shoulders to pass through requires about 21" .QED.
A decent line of logic except for a few things to consider a) often the torpedo loading hatch is not a crew access hatch. And it could be larger if they wanted. b) another way to load torpedoes is through the tubes themselves. Ideally the tubes are above the water, but Iran for example loads some boats by floating the torpedoes into the tube with the help of divers. Obviously the breach end of the tube is closed until the muzzle end is closed and the tube drained. c) Crew hatches can be larger than 21" So overall I don't think the crew hatches was a driver even though it's a tempting idea at first glance
The 660mm tubes of the Seawolf class were described as "quite swim out" by Norman Palmer in his "Ships and Aircraft of the U.S Fleet." Given that the Seawolfs are all about stealth, makes sense because the 21in torpedoes are supposedly pressure rammed out of the tubes; generating a huge amount of noise. By swimming out of the tube, an ADCAP would in essence eliminate the warning that a targeted submarine or ship had been fired upon. This is huge because the Seawolfs were built as giant undersea ssbn hunters; which operated with multiple submerged escorts at the time; all of them double hulled. Why the Virginia's went back the the 21in tubes is probably because that class was made with a priority on shallow water and special operations.
@@DJW1959Aus Quiet swim out works at slow speed only - look at the German Type 205 and Type 206. If speed rises the torpedo has to overcome the pressure from the front and this leds to higher revolution of the torpedo propeller and to some noise. I think it is quiet up to 3-4 kts launch speed.
@@christophkluxen5559 Submarines are only stealthy and hard to find while at slow speeds anyway, so it's no additional limitation to have to go slow while launching the torpedo silently.
Regarding the first image in this video: I know that _dry docking_ ships {having them completely out of water during construction, or for maintenance} has been a thing for centuries, if not millennia. That said, seeing a large ocean going vessel like this -- ESPECIALLY a NUCLEAR SUBMARINE -- completely out of the water and INSIDE an EVEN BIGGER BUILDING, has ALWAYS held a bit of a _'WOW FACTOR'_ for me.
The new Russian Poseidon torpedo is claimed to have a 10 000 mile range with a 100 megaton warhead and can accelerate to 100mph in the final attack phase of a coastal city. The Tsar bomb was only 50 megatons which is the largest nuclear bomb tested.
Just an interesting tid bit the inspiration for the 24 inch Type 93's, was from the British 24.5 inch Torpedo's on the Nelson Class Battleship and HMS Rodney of that class, is the only battleship to hit another battleship with a torpedo (that being Bismarck). It wasn't just the size, it was the use of oxygen-enriched air as a propellant, that made the Type 93 so deadly.
The Japanese lied to their crews about the oxidisers for the Type 93 & 95. The torpedoes were internally marked with start air and running air. Start air WAS compressed air, “running air” was pure oxygen. Starting an engine on pure oxygen is not a good idea so they were started on air and then switched to oxygen once up to speed.
And the Japanese went with Oxygen because they were convinved that was what the RN was doing, which turned out ultimately to be incorrect (the RN considered it but felt the risks were too high).
Very early on in the design process for the 1920s O class overseas patrol submarines, 4 of those 24.5 inch torpedo tubes were considered, in lieu of the 6x 21 inch torpedo tubes eventually fitted.
I have a friend from my childhood that joined the Navy at 18. I first saw his submariner pin after he was in 10 years or so. He wouldn't say anything about it except that he was a submariner. He retired years ago as a chief petty officer and he STILL won't tell me anything about what he did in the Navy except that there's so much he can't talk about that he just talks about none of it.
12:51 such a cute submarine and really interesting where they put those torpedo tubes. with better batteries would it be possible to see even more midget submarines? even from navies that dont really use them now?
Love the video. Smaller torpedoes (mostly like Swedish 400 mm) make sense if you mostly attack thin hulled merchant vessels or anything up to small-size frigate. Because the damage might not be that extensive as with 533, but still enough to sink or disable a ship. And of course you can pack 2 of those in one tube. Non-military ships will be at least severely damaged and smaller military ones will be open to the see with maximum amount compartments filled allowing them to still float, but not really fight.
Also take into account the Swedish will mostly be engaging in littoral waters and you want a torpedo that is compact and runs shallow to hit enemy ships sheltering in coves and rivers.
@@tommihommi1 submarines are a bit of a funny situation though, since they have MUCH stronger hulls that can somewhat resist explosions. Thin skinned surface vessels on the other hand have hulls that can't stop .50cal AP and will have a massive hole blown through them. However, because one is on the water and the other is in the water the amount of damage to components or size of hull breach needed to cripple or sink a vessel is much different. The 400mm swedish torpedos are likely more than capable of putting a big enough hole in a ship to mission kill it or leave it dead in the water, which is enough
@@alexdunphy3716 anti sub torpedos carry warheads made specifically for the job. No normal sub is going to survive a hit, especially not of a wake homing torp.
It'd be interesting to figure out the rationale for the Surcouf (where the torpedo turntables intended for self-defense, compensating for the large size and reduced maneuverability?). The whole history of lateral firing torpedoes and physically aimed torpedoes is interesting (I'd love a video on Drzewiecki drop collars which would seem to be the ancestors in some ways of the steerable torpedo tube - which existed on some other interwar submarines if I recall correctly)?
The name of the first factory of torpedoes? Whitehead. The name of the second torpedo's factory? Torpedo. Always at Rijeka. Here we have the Naval History Museum, exposing different types of torpedoes. Good video sir. Thanks
hrm.... If you do some napkin math, you could potentially stick a total of 5 171mm torpedos in a '+' shape in a housing in a 533mm torpedo tube and fire 5 of them at once that way.
What about the human factor as a lower limit on torpedo tubes? Average male shoulder width is around 400mm, so give them another 100mm (4") for kit and some room to wiggle. Dive the tube! Also I assume there are benefits to all navies sharing the same torpedo sizes in terms of arms deals and logistics for allied forces?
The name of the Croatian that invented the first torpedo is Ivan Lupis. Robert Whitehead then started the factory in city of Rijeka (also in Croatia), where they improved upon Lupis' design and started mass-producing torpedoes.
@@HISuttonCovertShores it is possible indeed. None of us were alive back then and winners write history books! His full name was Ivan Blaž Lupis Vukić so there you go.
You sound like you're from down south, so can you tell me the difference between a Torpedo and a Cornish Pasty? Something to do with the amount of folds? Only joking, love your work. I see you quoted by some very mainstream outlets!
It blood expense change the troped o port each time you change the size if the torpedo. The Australians use them in the ikra missile systems, dropped them from Helios plane and tube fire from their ddg.
Would have liked to know at what time different nations adopted the standard size and under what political circumstances. It makes sense for allies, but who would have expected americans and russians to have the same standard during the cold war?
Hi, this does answer that. 533mm became the 'standard' in 1920s. It was never official though, just a default standard size. The first ones were earlier but from the end of WW1 onwards it was normal in almost every country (the exceptions are always interesting, but they prove the rule) Also, from 1800s until the creation of the USSR in 1917 Russia purchased torpedoes from the same manufacturers as western navies. There were local designs too in many countries, but ones like Whitehead dominated in Russia as much as anywhere else
@@HISuttonCovertShores The second part was the one I thought about. Interesting, that there were "global" manufacturers at that time even for military equipment. I have no idea about the political interactions before WW1. Thanks.
In some films the torpedo tube is used as an escape tube for the crew (as it has a sluice function). If that is real, that could be the reason for the 533 mm as it allows most man to crawl through.
I love these video's. You said in an earlier video that the I-200 class sub from the japanese was like the german type XXI type, wouldn't it ne tye I-400 class? I would love to know more about japans ww2 subs because not alot has been known or told about those marvels of engeneering
@@HISuttonCovertShores yes that one, you told us very briefly about it, and i tried looking it up but all i got was the sunken wreck 80km from an Australian port and mostly I-400 class documentation
