As was stated above I beleive in a sence the water protects the hull from some of the initial damage but an explosing a short distance from the hull also pushes more water out from under neath it creating a temporary cavity which will cause ships to break up as they can't support their own weight out of water.RF wrote:Is not the force of the explosion greatly magnified by the impact being directly on the surface of the target and not displaced from it and protected by a cushion of water?
Torpedo effectiveness
Water transmits shock waves better than air does. I was on a submarine that was too close to a test blast over a km away and it shook us up quite a bit.
The advantage of an explosive going off under a target rather than on it's side is that in a side explosion some of the blast is transmitted upwards and escapes into the air. If the blast occurs under the ship, more of it's force is transmitted to the ship.
You do also have the "bubble" effect which in addition to the underhull blast tends to break the keel.
Finally, a warship's bottom isn't protected as well as it's side.
The advantage of an explosive going off under a target rather than on it's side is that in a side explosion some of the blast is transmitted upwards and escapes into the air. If the blast occurs under the ship, more of it's force is transmitted to the ship.
You do also have the "bubble" effect which in addition to the underhull blast tends to break the keel.
Finally, a warship's bottom isn't protected as well as it's side.
There's a good simple explanation here:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/doc ... w_wpns.htm
of what happens to a ship after an explosion under the hull, and you can see the effects described very clearly in the videos of targets.
An explosion in contact would not raise a ship out of the water at all; the water pressure would ensure that the explosion vented into the air space immediately behind the hull. Obviously, that might be quite damaging as well, but it's the sort of damage warships are designed to absorb so it would have a fair prospect of survival if properly designed and operated. On balance I think you'd also find that securing a direct hit on the underneath of a target from a safe distance would be vastly more challenging than securing an explosion "somewhere" underneath from a safe distance.
Mike
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/doc ... w_wpns.htm
of what happens to a ship after an explosion under the hull, and you can see the effects described very clearly in the videos of targets.
An explosion in contact would not raise a ship out of the water at all; the water pressure would ensure that the explosion vented into the air space immediately behind the hull. Obviously, that might be quite damaging as well, but it's the sort of damage warships are designed to absorb so it would have a fair prospect of survival if properly designed and operated. On balance I think you'd also find that securing a direct hit on the underneath of a target from a safe distance would be vastly more challenging than securing an explosion "somewhere" underneath from a safe distance.
Mike
As I say I was thinking of an explosion right on the hull rather than just underneath and the document link in the above post seems to bear out my thinking - the explosion could snap the keel.
Also as mike1880 says it is also a matter of placing the charge on the keel - it would be almost impossible for a sub of WW2 technology (apart from midget subs operating in a enemy harbour).
Also as mike1880 says it is also a matter of placing the charge on the keel - it would be almost impossible for a sub of WW2 technology (apart from midget subs operating in a enemy harbour).
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.