Naval History Forums

Simply put: which was

The best ship launched torp

The best sub launched torp

The best aerial torp



The worst ship launched torp

The worst sub launched torp

The worst aerial torp



Plz comment down below.

As far as the worst torpedo, anything that hit its target and didn't go boom wasn't of much use, regardless of any other specification. A few things probably fell into that category, including a great number of early war US torpedoes.

As far as the best, you can obviously go to a site like navweaps to compare things like speed, range, and warhead. Best is hard to qualify though, as it depends on what you're looking to do. That is to say, if you're looking to sink merchant ships without giving away your position, a relatively slow battery powered torpedo with a modest warhead could be a very useful tool, though it might not be suitable against other targets. Of course, at the end of the day, even the relatively wimpy early war aerial torpedoes could cause fatal damage to ships that were among the most heavily protected of the era; just ask POW and Bismarck.

The Km had issues with their torpedoes early on as well.

The British appeared to have some trouble with their magnetic pistol as well, at least in the case of trying to torpedo HMS Sheffield. Of course, what makes the American case special was BuOrd's initial response in assuming their sub skippers were incompetents who didn't know how to handle torpedoes.

Steve-M wrote:The British appeared to have some trouble with their magnetic pistol as well, at least in the case of trying to torpedo HMS Sheffield. Of course, what makes the American case special was BuOrd's initial response in assuming their sub skippers were incompetents who didn't know how to handle torpedoes.

Yes, but not only the sub skippers ... the DDs were having the same kind of problems.

So basically, until the US Navy got around adressing the problem, their torps were the worst. They could go off course, go off before they reach the target and those that do hit usually dont explode.

VoidSamukai wrote:So basically, until the US Navy got around adressing the problem, their torps were the worst. They could go off course, go off before they reach the target and those that do hit usually dont explode.

You left off running too deep, which may have been the worst problem.

Okay then, that's one more to how US Early torps suck.

As for the best, in terms of killing ships like cruisers and DDs, would I be wrong to count the Japanese Type 93 as a good canadate for one of the strongest torps?

VoidSamukai wrote:Okay then, that's one more to how US Early torps suck.

As for the best, in terms of killing ships like cruisers and DDs, would I be wrong to count the Japanese Type 93 as a good canadate for one of the strongest torps?

I believe that was the best torpedo in the war. I don't think anything else was even close. You can find others filling a certain niche, but the type 93 and it's submarine equivalent were outstanding weapons.

I absolutely agree with Steve's assessment of the Type 93.

B

The Type 93 was certainly a potent weapon, so much so that the Allies didn't really realize its potential at first. Of course, even the Type 93 had its faults, namely in terms of safety. The crews were extensively trained in safe handling and the tubes were given some protection from splinters; however, at least a few heavy cruisers were seriously damaged or lost as a result of torpedoes cooking off.

It's also notable that for reasons unknown, the Type 93 didn't connect with SoDak at Guadalcanal, in spite of the ship being blind, deaf, and dumb in the words of Admiral Lee. Indeed, there's some irony that the Type 93 never took any big game aside from USS Hornet, which was already dead/abandoned.

Steve-M wrote:The Type 93 was certainly a potent weapon, so much so that the Allies didn't really realize its potential at first. Of course, even the Type 93 had its faults, namely in terms of safety. The crews were extensively trained in safe handling and the tubes were given some protection from splinters; however, at least a few heavy cruisers were seriously damaged or lost as a result of torpedoes cooking off.

It's also notable that for reasons unknown, the Type 93 didn't connect with SoDak at Guadalcanal, in spite of the ship being blind, deaf, and dumb in the words of Admiral Lee. Indeed, there's some irony that the Type 93 never took any big game aside from USS Hornet, which was already dead/abandoned.

The submarine version scored an impressive success. Wasp, O'Brien, and North Carolina were all hit by the same spread of type 95 torpedoes. Wasp was sunk and O'Brien sank later under tow, and North Carolina was out of action for several months.

The reason more US Battleships were not hit is there were none in any off the surface engagements around Guadalcanal except one, and they got the destroyers in that one.

Steve Crandell wrote:The submarine version scored an impressive success. Wasp, O'Brien, and North Carolina were all hit by the same spread of type 95 torpedoes. Wasp was sunk and O'Brien sank later under tow, and North Carolina was out of action for several months.

Indeed, but the Japanese were far from the only ones to achieve huge success with submarines. Once US torpedo issues were sorted out, the submarine fleet was absolute death to the Japanese (Shinano, Taiho, Shokaku, Kongo, and a host of other warships, to say nothing of Japanese merchant shipping). That goes to my earlier point: by far the most important factor in a "great" torpedo was simply hitting the target and going boom. At that point, whether the warhead was ~500kg of Type 97 explosive or ~200+kg of Torpex mattered a lot less versus where exactly the hit was located.

Steve Crandell wrote:The reason more US Battleships were not hit is there were none in any off the surface engagements around Guadalcanal except one, and they got the destroyers in that one.

I thought the Japanese lost a single destroyer in addition to Kirishima that night, out of a force that had 4 cruisers and 8 destroyers at its disposal? In either case, the Japanese would have another big opportunity to do damage (albeit not to battleships) at Samar, but the Type 93 didn't really do much there either except give an escort carrier bragging rights in taking out a Japanese heavy cruiser.

Two-thirds of warship losses suffered by the Allies in the Solomons campaign came at the hands of the Type 93 Long Lance torpedo. One can argue, with truth, that much of this success was due to the intensive pre-war IJN preparation and training for night combat. But much of the success of IJN torpedo attacks was a function of USN commanders placing themselves in exposed tactical positions on the basis of a mistaken belief that Japanese torpedoes possessed performance characteristics similar their own USN types. This aspect was directly attributable to the Type 93's prodigiously superior speed versus range performance characteristics.

B

Byron Angel wrote:Two-thirds of warship losses suffered by the Allies in the Solomons campaign came at the hands of the Type 93 Long Lance torpedo. One can argue, with truth, that much of this success was due to the intensive pre-war IJN preparation and training for night combat. But much of the success of IJN torpedo attacks was a function of USN commanders placing themselves in exposed tactical positions on the basis of a mistaken belief that Japanese torpedoes possessed performance characteristics similar their own USN types. This aspect was directly attributable to the Type 93's prodigiously superior speed versus range performance characteristics.

Very true on all counts. I can't dispute that the Type 93 was a potent weapon, with superb speed, range, and striking power. OTOH, as you note, training and tactics for the kind of fighting seen in the Solomons was integral to Japanese success. When the Americans adapted to that kind of fighting (Vella Gulf, Cape St. George), they also saw success.

Of course, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that two-thirds of Japanese CA's sunk at Samar were also due to the Type 93 (Chokai, Suzuya). That in the end was its problem: the kind of battle for which the Type 93 was designed never actually materialized, but every ship that carried it was more vulnerable as a result. Would I still put it among the best torpedoes deployed during the war? Absolutely. Is it "the best"? That's a bit trickier for me.