*NITPICK ALERT* SS-311 was originally known by this name, but it was changed well before commissioning to Archerfish.
<Snip> Mark XIV did not get the feature could be because it would make the torpedo too long to fit the submarine torpedo tube.
That would do it.Well, nvm then. Skate will have to be satisfied with only the distinction of sinking a Yamato.
I'm unaware of Mark XVs ever being used, & AFAIK, they wouldn't have worked anyhow. Using Mark Xs was fairly routine, especially as the S-boats were retired & sold off to the Brits, French, & Poles.partial loadouts of the more plentiful Mk 15’s.
The list of people who deserve Leavenworth just keeps getting longer.You know the Mark XV may have been originally designed without the feature? And when the torpedo launcher was designed, somebody could have said "Whoops!" and "fixed" it. It is easier to modify a surface ship launcher than a submarine torpedo tube which is a complete pressure lock system.
Honestly, once King heard about the torpedoes performance, or lack thereof, the fact he didn't drive up to BuOrds with about a company of Jarheads to arrest all involved should be a miracle.The list of people who deserve Leavenworth just keeps getting longer.
Amen, brother, amen.Honestly, once King heard about the torpedoes performance, or lack thereof, the fact he didn't drive up to BuOrds with about a company of Jarheads to arrest all involved should be a miracle.
I wish i saved the Silent Service manual that showed tonnage sunk by mines, torpedoes from subs, airplanes etc
The list of people who deserve Leavenworth just keeps getting longer.
And one or two in BuAer for not realizing things were extremely wrong...and away from subs, there's the discussion on a lot of people over at Brewster and Wright Aeronautical who would needed to be in cells, and not making decisions
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Japan/IJN/JANAC-Losses/img/JANAC-Losses-pv.jpg I Think that graph was part of the manual
I have been reviewing the Submarine Operations Research Group (SORG) attack data listing and it reaffirmed what I had found in other references. There were numerous occasions, mostly in mid-1942, when USN fleet submarines (mostly Tambor/Gar and Gato class) carried and fired Mk 15 destroyer torpedoes (see my earlier post). I also found confirmed references to fleet boats firing the old Mk 10 torpedo. This use seems to have been mostly limited to the boats assigned to the former Asiatic Fleet.
The use of alternate torpedo types was forced on the submarine force due to the inability of Newport to ramp up production quickly. They could not keep pace with expenditures, and the Mk 10's were used as a stop gap measure because of the large number (I believe it was over 200) Mk 14's that were destroyed at Cavite on the first day of the war.
Trust me, my scenario will correct this part of the debacle as well.
For some dry but interesting reading, surf to this link: http://www.combinedfleet.com/sorg.php
I have not yet seen any breakdown as to the types of torpedoes that were lost at Cavite. All the references that I have seen only state that Mk 14's were lost. But I think it is reasonable to speculate that there were some Mk 10's in there as well, as there were several S-boats attached to the Asiatic Fleet. Most authors probably saw "torpedoes lost" and assumed they were all Mk 14's.
Remember that the use of Mk 10's and Mk 15's by submarines was a stop-gap measure only, allowing them to go out with close to their original loadouts during the shortage of Mk 14's. There were issues with using those weapons in fleet boats, and the crews did not like to compromise in that regard, but were forced to for a time.
The SORG data also revealed something that caught me by surprise. It seems the big old V-boats Narwhal (SS-167) and Nautilus (SS-168) fired Mk 15's nearly exclusively for the first half of the war. I was not previously aware of this and I always assumed that they used Mk 14's as well. It may have been due to their intended original role as "Cruiser Submarines", a role they were designed for in the late 1920's. I will see if I can run this down in my other references.
Any use of Mk15s is news to me. Blair never mentioned it at all, & I'd have thought he would. Looks like he assumed Mk14s only, too...