U.S Torpedoes in early WWII

[ChristopherPerrien]

Does anyone here know who manufactured the faulty Mk18 torpedo use by the US navy up until 1944.

I would like to know the names of the producers of the engine, dept keeping aparatus, the magnetic and contact firing pistols, And the gyrostabilizer.

Also if anyone knows anything about the persons on the ordinance boards who accepted these "weapons" I would like to know that too,---------------- so we can go dig them up and maybe shoot them for treason

[Jack Nisley]

Christopher,

Mk 18 was electric torpedo developed from German G7e by Westinghouse in 1943-44. Cheaper, wakeless, but slower than steam torpedoes.

I think you are interested in Mk 14 torpedo developed in 1930s by Naval Torpedo Factory Newport RI. Thats the one that had problems with depth control, magnetic exploder, and contact exploder. Clay Blair's "Silent Victory" has a good discussion of this issue. Also go to http://www.warships1.com, go to Weapons of the World, US Torpedoes and see the offsite link.

Jack Nisley

[ChristopherPerrien]

Thanks for the info,

Being a veteran I get real mad when I read about how our bad torpedoes
killed so many brave submariners and also lengthed the War a good six months, causing god know how many casualties at Iwo, Okinawa, etc.

I suppose war time propoganda buried this sad esisode of government contracting and after the war no cared.

[Tim Smith]

Take comfort - the US was not alone - the Germans had the same problem in 1939-41. Their early torpedoes were terrible.

Several British capital ships, battleships and aircraft carriers, owed their survival to dud German torpedoes.

Being a veteran I get real mad when I read about how our bad torpedoes
killed so many brave submariners and also lengthed the War a good six months, causing god know how many casualties at Iwo, Okinawa, etc.

I suppose war time propoganda buried this sad esisode of government contracting and after the war no cared.

[ChristopherPerrien]

True, but in the case of US Mk14's in seems a little more serious.

That is a good article at warships.com.

I still have some more doubts about why such faulty torpedoe components could have got in service. Incompetence and arrogance can explain most of it but it still seems that fraud/bribery/greed could have something to do with it. Call me a conspiracy nut.

The thing that makes the US torpedoes seem so bad is that several of these torpedoes sunk the firing sub because of gyro malfunctions.
Danny O'kane (MOH, XO USS Wahoo) theorizes that is how the USS Wahoo was damaged and subsequently sunk. It happened too many times to too many subs.

I think I got "Silent Victory" in my Library. You ought to read "Wahoo" Ballintine press, I think O'Kane wrote it.

[Takao]

Some more good books are "United States Submarine Operations in World War II" by Theodore Roscoe & "Clear the Bridge" by Richard H. O'Kane.

2 US Subs were confirmed sunk by their own torpedoes(one was the USS Tang, O'Kane's boat and the other USS Tullibee.)

Overall the largest problem with the Mark 14 torpedo was it's Mark 6 exploder. It usually failed upon contact or prematured when used as a magnetic influnce exploder. Another problem was the torpedo's tendancy to run much deeper then it's depth setting.

ChristopherPerrien's question as to how these defects got through it easy to awnser. The torpedos were expensive at the time ($10,000 is often quoted as a figure). Hence because of their great expense very few were actually used in firing trials that would result in the loss of the torpedo. While this is fiscally sound(especially in a Depression Era navy) it does not allow for a weapon to be properly analyised.

O'Kane's hypothesis is one that neither can be proved or disproved and is only supposition. While the Wahoo was carrying the Mark 18-1 torpedoes known for their circular runs, Japanese reports show that a submarine was attacked by an airplane on 11 October, 1943

As has been prviously mentioned, this problem was not unique to the USN. Germany and Japan both had problems with their exploders. The famous Japanese "Long Lance" torpedo also had a problem with premature detonation.

[HMan]

Yes, I can see why before the US entered WWII, horrible torpedoes could stay in service.
But they continued in service for almost 2 years - when massive odles of money was available.

Why did they take so long to fix?

[Takao]

To start, without incontrovertible proof, the early "misses" was blamed on poor performance by the submarine's captain & crew. Now, money is only good if the problems have been identified, which, because of the many problems, took time.

First, was the depth setting mechanism of the Mk 14 torpedo. In May, 1942, it was found that the Mk 14 torpedo was running 10 to 11 feet deeper than set, BuOrd confirmed this by August, 1942. Once, the depth setting problem was addressed, the Mk 6 magnetic influence detonator was found to be very unreliable, so the admiral in charge of the Pacific Fleet's submarines, Admiral Charles Lockwood, ordered it deactivated. Meanwhile, Rear Admiral Ralph Christie, who was personally involved in the development of the Mk 6 and then in charge of SoWestPac's submarine fleet, felt that his "baby" could not be the problem, so he ordered his crews to keep using the magnetic detonator. With the magnetic influence detonator disabled, the final major problem with the Mk 14 was identified, the contact detonator. This problem was not positively identified until July, 1943, when the USS Tinosa fired 15 torpedoes, at the converted whaling ship Tonan Maru #3, for 13 hits...11 of which were duds. Adm. Lockwood took this evidence and conducted his own firing tests against cliffs in Hawaii. These tests revealed that when the torpedo hit at within 45 degrees to 135 degrees, the firing pin would jam in the guide pins. The quick fix, was to use a very light firing pin, which was implemented immediately, and the permanent solution of using an electrical detonator, which was quickly implemented in production.

[Carl Schwamberger]

The inability to 'see' the problem is common as dirt in any organization. Its why the necessity to hire outside consultants to identify the problems in house management keep tripping over.

[HMan]

How much blame for the torpedo fiasco should be put on
Nimitz, King, or others?

[OpanaPointer]

How much blame for the torpedo fiasco should be put on
Nimitz, King, or others?

We could "blame" a llot of people, but my money goes on the officers who refused to bellieve itt was anything but "operator error".

[reedwh52]

To the original question: the USN Mk 13 (aircraft), 14 (Submarine) and 15 (Destroyer) torpedoes were all manufactured by the Naval Torpedo Factory, Newport, RI, a Navy facility. This is also where the Mk 6 exploder was developed.

It should probably be noted that:
1) before WW2, the USN had limited experience in actual use of torpedoes-some 11 operational torpedoes were launched (of all types) in WW1
2) Both the German Navy and the Royal Navy had some or all of the problems during WW2.
3) The torpedo factory produced all USN torpedoes for all three uses. In 1932, during the development of the Mk 14, total production for the year was expected to be 45 torpedoes of all types at an average cost of $10,000 ("Navy department appropriation bill for 1932, page 368) Cost concerns and security concerns with the Mk 6 purportedly limited actual testing of the Mk 14/Mk 6 to one (1) event.

A fairly detailed discussion of the issue is contained in "US NAVY TORPEDOES, by Frederick J Milford, Part Two: The great torpedo scandal, 1941-43"at http://www.geocities.ws/pentagon/1592/ustorp2.htm. It was reproduced there with permission from the October 1996 issue of THE SUBMARINE REVIEW, a quarterly publication of the Naval Submarine League, P.O. Box 1146, Annandale, VA 2200.