This is an apolitical forum for discussions on the Axis nations, as well as the First and Second World Wars in general hosted by Marcus Wendel's Axis History Factbook in cooperation with Michael Miller's Axis Biographical Research and Christoph Awender's WW2 day by day.
generalderpanzertruppen wrote:Now I ask, were these torpedoes really the best? It turns out that few hits were obtained by oxygen torpedoes from Japanese cruisers that could not have been managed by regular compressed-air torpedoes. The damage listed above exceeds the total of that extra damage due the the performance of oxygen torpedoes. It's a net loss.
There's more. On one occasion, some Japanese torpedoes missed their intended targets (Allied cruisers USS Houston and HMAS Perth) and went far into the distance to hit some Japanese transports. There may be such a thing as too much range in an unguided weapon.
Wargames wrote:The "long lance" torpedo was a superior torpedo to the American torpedo.
The argument that IJN ships were at risk from their own torpedoes while under air attack is meaningful only if US ships were not at risk from their own torpedoes while under air attack. Otherwise, a torpedo is a torpedo. Set a ship on fire carrying torpedoes and you can expect them to explode regardless of what country they were built in.
And, so far as placing them aboard CA units, the ships so equipped benefitted from it, particularly in night actions....
The argument of whether a ship should be equipped with torpedoes or not is directly related to expected combat ranges. Clearly, HMS Hood had no use for torpedoes and they proved a liability and not an asset. Since Japanese CA units were without radar, their night combat ranges included Japanese torpedo ranges.
generalderpanzertruppen wrote:Thanks again for all your input, as I re-posted this thread question from another site, as I had no idea of the answers, here is the original post on the Saving Private Ryan IMDb board if you want to see some other answers that have come through since I posted it here ;
Thanks again for your help!
donsor wrote:From my vague memory of chemistry, oxygen it itself is not combustible. Its one of the three elements for combustion (explosion, oxidation to occur) the other would be fuel and temperature. In case of an explosion, I can see it "fanning" the fire but other than that it shouldn't be that dangerous.
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests