About TDS

[Tiornu]

You're welcome. As long as you try to understand torpedoes in terms of armor penetration, you'll flounder.

[marty1]

Why than would anyone bother producing torpedoes with shaped charge warheads? And I am asking this question specifically to Tirno...

[Tiornu]

I have no idea. When did shaped charges first appear on torpedoes?

[Tiornu]

Have you read Nathan's short essay at
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-026.htm ? It's a good introduction.

[ontheslipway]

Any thoughts than on why torpedoes with shaped charges would have been constructed?

No, I don't actually. When were these constructed and are they simple contact torpedoes? Otherwise it does not make sense?

[marty1]

[ontheslipway]

I can image that for a contact torpedo a chaped charge may help, the implosion bubble destroying the hull is most effective at a certain distance from the hull (it's radius or twice, I forgot). I doubt these charges were used for torpoedes with magnetic detonators.

[George Elder]

The USA, Germans, and others focussed of developeing a torpedo that would focus its explosive force into the innards of the target vs creating a general explosion that would vent much of its force upwards against the lesser resistance of the water's surface. There was considerable study of the Monroe effect in all of this, and how this could be used to direct heat energy well into vital areas within a ship. I think we found evidence that the Italians were also studying this effect in Archives 2.

George

[marty1]

Hi George:

I also have a sectional schematic of a German shaped charge torpedo of this period. I presume this is what you may be referring to. I can post the image if there is any interest.

Regarding the detonator on the USN torpedo, the schematic shows what looks like a simple inertial base detonating fuze – in other words this thing looks like it was intended to be contact activated.

What is interesting about this particular warhead is the very limited stand-off associated with the shaped charge. I’d guess stand-off is less than ½ cone diameters, so jet elongation would be relatively limited.

[George Elder]

... and it would indeed be interesting to compare it with the German warhead in terms of probgable jet elongation. Can you post the German diagram?

George

[marty1]

This also looks like its a base detonating inertial fuze. But I dont know for sure. Perhaps the little stand-off probe has an early form of piezo-electric fuze in it. It's tough to tell without a more detailed drawing.

Even with the little nose standoff probe the cones stand-off still isn't much more than 1CD. That's a bit better than the USN shaped charge torpedo, but I still wouldn't expect a large amount of jet elongation with this short of a stand-off either.

By the way -- does anyone know what the 31 KG S3 refers to? Is this an explosive of some sort?

[Tiornu]

this is very interesting. an 11in torpedo--i am not aware of any german delivery system for such a weapon. perhaps it was intended only for trials.
yes, s3 was an explosive of about 45% tnt, 5% hnd, 30% am nitrate and 20% aluminum. so it looks like we have an 80g tetryl booster with 31kg of s3 around 6kg of the tnt/rdx blend.

[marty1]

this is very interesting. an 11in torpedo--i am not aware of any german delivery system for such a weapon. perhaps it was intended only for trials.

It is -- as far as I know -- a test model of some sort. Thus the name on the jpg file.

[George Elder]

Well, that would explain the limited need for an elongated jet and relatively small size.

George

[marty1]

Well, that would explain the limited need for an elongated jet and relatively small size.

George

Why is that?