"Advanced" japanese subs found
Frogwatch
end of WW2 off Hawaii being found and the stories of how "advanced"
they were. However, isn't this a bit of hyperbole? Yes, they were
big and could launch planes but nothing new there. In fact, I read an
account once of one of these being brought from Japan to Hawaii and in
it they said the living conditions were atrocious with sailors simply
using the bilge for a toilet. It was in such poor shape they were
ordered not to try to dive it.
So, is all this hype about how advanced they were simply an attempt to
generate stories?
Jack Linthicum
It meant to keep them out of the hands of the Soviet Union, note [5].
They were bigger than any sub and carried two aircraft capable of
bombing or torpedoing the locks of the Panama Canal.
William Hamblen
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>It meant to keep them out of the hands of the Soviet Union, note [5].
>They were bigger than any sub and carried two aircraft capable of
>bombing or torpedoing the locks of the Panama Canal.
>
>http://www.combinedfleet.com/I-401.htm
The WWII Allies agreed to destroy all surrendered Axis submarines
except for the ones that were specifically negotiated as reparations.
They were scuttled, not sold as scrap, partly because the Allied
governments didn't want a collapse in the price of scrap metal. The
U505 survived because it was captured, not surrendered at the end of
the war.
Bud
Andre Lieven
wrote:
However, the other surrendered and sunk off of Hawaii IJN subs
included I-201 and I-203, of a class that was more advanced, in
terms of underwater speeds (Like the German XXIs and the later
postwar US Guppies).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-201_class_submarine
At the time, the USN had nothing comparable.
Andre
David E. Powell
The Soviets eventually got Type XXI technology, so maybe it didn't do
the job as much as some would want. The Russkies might really have
wanted Long Lances though.
Andre Lieven
wrote:
One should recall that nowhere near all IJN torpedoes were of the
24 inch diameter Long Lance type.
The I-201s had 21 inch tubes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-201_class_submarine
Ditto the I-401s:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-401
Thus, Long Lance technology had zilch to do with either class of sub,
and any prospects of the Soviets getting anything from either.
Andre
Jack Linthicum
Question, accented in The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II,
would you ride in a submarine with a torpedo filled with compressed
oxygen?
However, compressed oxygen is more dangerous to handle and it required
lengthy testing and experimentation for operational use to be
possible. Finally, engineers discovered that by starting the engine
with compressed air and gradually switching over to pure oxygen, they
were able to overcome the uncontrollable explosions that had hampered
its development. To conceal the use of oxygen, the oxygen tank was
named Secondary Air Tank. It was first deployed in 1935.
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Type_93_torpedo#encyclopedia
Peter Skelton
While submarines did not use the type 93 (24" long lance)
torpedo, the type 95 submarine torpedo used the same
kerosene-oxygen technology.
Peter Skelton
Jack Linthicum
Just not compressed oxygen
Peter Skelton
That's pure nonsense. Would you care to inform us how one would
construct an oxygen-kerosene torpedo without compressing the
oxygen?
Don't come back without a reference. I used:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTJAP_WWII.htm
which draws from Campbell.
(There was also enriched air (36% O2) torpedo the type 96.)
Peter Skelton
Keith Willshaw
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9b745d91-69f9-454c...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>> >Thus, Long Lance technology had zilch to do with either class of sub,
>> >and any prospects of the Soviets getting anything from either.
>>
>> While submarines did not use the type 93 (24" long lance)
>> torpedo, the type 95 submarine torpedo used the same
>> kerosene-oxygen technology.
>>
>> Peter Skelton
> Just not compressed oxygen
Actually it did, see "Naval Weapons of World War Two" by John Campbell
Keith
Jack Linthicum
However, compressed oxygen is more dangerous to handle and it required
lengthy testing and experimentation for operational use to be
possible. Finally, engineers discovered that by starting the engine
with compressed air and gradually switching over to pure oxygen, they
were able to overcome the uncontrollable explosions that had hampered
its development. To conceal the use of oxygen, the oxygen tank was
named Secondary Air Tank. It was first deployed in 1935.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_93_torpedo
Okay?
David E. Powell
OK. You make good points. I wonder if the Soviets found any Long Lance
tech on the islands they took at the end of the war?
Were the US even then thinking of the Soviets using carrier subs or
missile subs? The USSR got XXI tech so they were going to be getting
pretty decent submarine technology anyway. Plus their own tech they
had up to 1945. The sunken subs were pretty specialized. As the US did
experiments with Loon missiles shortly after the war they may have
worried about the Russians getting subs with big hangars.
Dennis
>>> While submarines did not use the type 93 (24" long lance)
>>> torpedo, the type 95 submarine torpedo used the same
>>> kerosene-oxygen technology.
>>>
>>> Peter Skelton
>
>> Just not compressed oxygen
>
> Actually it did, see "Naval Weapons of World War Two" by John Campbell
Type 95 torpedo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Type 95 torpedo was a torpedo of the Imperial Japanese Navy. Based on
the formidable Type 93 torpedo ("Long Lance"), the Type 95 had a smaller
405-kilogram (890 lb) warhead, less range and a smaller diameter, and
intended to be fired from a standard 533mm (21 inches) torpedo tube of a
submerged submarine. Its range was 9,000 m (9,800 yd) at 49�51 knots
(91�94 km/h; 56�59 mph), or 12,000 m (13,000 yd) at 45�47 knots (83�87
km/h; 52�54 mph),[1] which is about three times the range of the American
Mark 14 with the same speed.
The Type 95 was the fastest torpedo in common use by any navy at the
time. Its warhead size was the largest of any submarine torpedo, and
second only to the Type 93 "Long Lance" used by Japanese surface ships.
It ran on pure oxygen rather than the compressed air used by most torpedo
types at the time. Some have claimed this to be the best torpedo of the
Second World War.[who?]
References
1. ^ Mark Stille, Tony Bryan. Imperial Japanese Navy Submarines 1941-
45. Osprey. p. 7.
External links
* Japanese submarines
* Type 95 torpedo specifications
* A page with many statistics on Japanese WWII torpedoes.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_95_torpedo"
Peter Skelton
Your reference does not support your contention that the long
lance technology was not used in submarines, or that oxygen was
not used in submarine torpedoes.
In fact, it says
"The Type 93's development (in tandem with the submarine model,
Type 95) began in Japan in 1928,. . .
You could have read the reference I gave and saved yourself some
embarassment.
Peter Skelton
Peter Skelton
Except. of course, that he's talking bollocks.
>Were the US even then thinking of the Soviets using carrier subs or
>missile subs? The USSR got XXI tech so they were going to be getting
>pretty decent submarine technology anyway. Plus their own tech they
>had up to 1945. The sunken subs were pretty specialized. As the US did
>experiments with Loon missiles shortly after the war they may have
>worried about the Russians getting subs with big hangars.
Peter Skelton
Jack Linthicum
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:29:52 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
>
>
>
The "Long Lance" itself was a certain weapon, Type 93, given the LL
name by Admiral Morison after WWII. The other torpedo, Type 95, did
not bear the Long Lance nickname, ever.
Jack Linthicum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Whiskey_Twin_Cylinder_submarine.jpg
Peter Skelton
That is not at issue. What is at issue is the technology.
Peter Skelton
Jack Linthicum
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:58:06 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
>
>
>
Did you read the posting where the use of ordinary compressed air is
used to start up the Type 95? Much different from the Type 93.
Peter Skelton
That depends on which type of 95 and 93. And no, they are not
much different technology.
>However, compressed oxygen is more dangerous to handle and it required
>lengthy testing and experimentation for operational use to be
>possible. Finally, engineers discovered that by starting the engine
>with compressed air and gradually switching over to pure oxygen, they
>were able to overcome the uncontrollable explosions that had hampered
>its development. To conceal the use of oxygen, the oxygen tank was
>named Secondary Air Tank. It was first deployed in 1935.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_93_torpedo
I gave you a much better reference than that.
Grasp at firmer straws.
Peter Skelton
Jack Linthicum
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:29:52 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
>
>
>
You are right, I cannot find any statement to explain why the Japanese
ships that used Type 93s threw them overboard when under air attack
and there is no discussion of any accidents aboard Japanese
submarines. Technology is a tricky term, the Type 95 was not a smaller
type 93, despite the statements in the google box. Otherwise why the
difference in use and preservation? I had read that refernce many
times in the past and like all similar "resumes" I found it was
compressing several "facts" into one "fact" that would fit in the box.
I find the words "tandem" and "based on" to not be the same, yet are
used to mean the same thing in various articles on Japanese
torpedos.
Even in the book The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II with a
Japanese co-author says "The Type 95 torpedo was similar to the Type
93, sometimes called "Long Lance", used by cruisers and destroyers,
but there was considerable danger in handling pure oxygen used by this
torpedo in the confined quarters of a submarine."
"similar" not "developed in tandem" or even "based on".
Keith Willshaw
On Nov 22, 8:28 pm, Peter Skelton <skelt...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:29:52 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
> You are right, I cannot find any statement to explain why the Japanese
> ships that used Type 93s threw them overboard when under air attack
> and there is no discussion of any accidents aboard Japanese
> submarines.
By definition there are unlikely to be any witnesses to a submarine
exploding
underwater.
> Technology is a tricky term, the Type 95 was not a smaller
> type 93, despite the statements in the google box.
It was a 21" torpedo as compared to the 24" type 93, that counts
as smaller to me
> Otherwise why the difference in use and preservation?
The fact that it had to fit in a 21" tube explains all
<snip>
> Even in the book The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II with a
> Japanese co-author says "The Type 95 torpedo was similar to the Type
> 93, sometimes called "Long Lance", used by cruisers and destroyers,
> but there was considerable danger in handling pure oxygen used by this
> torpedo in the confined quarters of a submarine."
Confirming that pure oxygen WAS used of course.
> "similar" not "developed in tandem" or even "based on".
Similar as in 21" not 24"
Both torpedoes used air for starting before switching to pure oxygen.
Navweaps puts it succinctly
"Notes: A smaller version of the Type 93 developed for submarines. As per
the Type 93, later versions had a more pointed head, giving a similar two
knot increase in speed, as shown in the table above."
Keith
Jack Linthicum
<ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
I would like to see an account of how the submarine torpedo was armed
and fired. If it takes a period of time to run it up on compressed air
and the firing officer announces he has lost the target is there a
stand down procedure or do they fire anyway?
Dimensions
93 24"D 29 feet long 490 kg warhead 2.8 T weight
95 21"D 23 feet 5 in 405 kg warhead 1.83 T weight
I find great differences between similar and tandem or based on.
I see the pointed head may not be on the torpedo.
Peter Skelton
OFCS Jack, try, developed in the same project, using a common
team, under the same manager.
Until two posts ago, you didn't even have the issue straight. You
don't seem to have any objective past not being wrong. Grasp
firmer straws.
Peter Skelton
Jack Linthicum
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:21:23 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
>
>
>
No evidence of that. No, I was reading the Japanese MSDF Captain's
statement and thought "similar to" was too weak, but is stronger in
that puts forward the concept that the two were not developed in
tandem or that 95 was based on the 93. Launch situations are totally
different, the operational control and aiming of the 93 was a team
effort.
"The Type 93 computer needed a crew of five and weighed 880 kg. It was
1.8 meters long, 0.58 meters high and 0.79 meters tall. It was
located below the bridge under the armored deck.
To calculate the gyro angle and future range the Type 93 computer
automatically reveived the range from the rangefinders (limits
10,000-40,000 meters), the target bearing from the torpedo director
the target course and speed (limits 1-50 knots)"...more manual inputs
down to the actual launch inclduing the inertia of the ship
transmitted to the torpedo on launch.
Japanese cruisers of the Pacific War, By Eric Lacroix, Linton Wells
page 249.
I think you will see that this is not the same system that a submarine
would use.
Peter Skelton
And it has nothing to do with the technology in the torpedo,
which is the issue here.
Peter Skelton
Jack Linthicum
>
> >page 249.
>
> >I think you will see that this is not the same system that a submarine
> >would use.
>
> And it has nothing to do with the technology in the torpedo,
> which is the issue here.
>
> Peter Skelton
That same computer and crew would have to fit inside a Japanese
submarine.
Keith Willshaw
On Nov 23, 2:42 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
>
>>
>> "Notes: A smaller version of the Type 93 developed for submarines. As per
>> the Type 93, later versions had a more pointed head, giving a similar two
>> knot increase in speed, as shown in the table above."
>>
>> Keith
> I would like to see an account of how the submarine torpedo was armed
> and fired. If it takes a period of time to run it up on compressed air
> and the firing officer announces he has lost the target is there a
> stand down procedure or do they fire anyway?
Then do the work, you have been pointed at references.
> Dimensions
> 93 24"D 29 feet long 490 kg warhead 2.8 T weight
> 95 21"D 23 feet 5 in 405 kg warhead 1.83 T weight
> I find great differences between similar and tandem or based on.
That doesn't alter the fact that they were developed by the same team
and use the same engineering techniques.
> I see the pointed head may not be on the torpedo.
Indeed both torpedoes went through several mods in service one
of which included a reshaped head.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
On Nov 23, 4:31 pm, Peter Skelton <skelt...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:21:23 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
> No evidence of that. No, I was reading the Japanese MSDF Captain's
> statement and thought "similar to" was too weak, but is stronger in
> that puts forward the concept that the two were not developed in
> tandem or that 95 was based on the 93. Launch situations are totally
> different, the operational control and aiming of the 93 was a team
> effort.
As is the launching of a submarine torpedo. Do you think the torpedo
man just launches when he thinks the boat is pointing in roughly
the right direction ?
Keith
Jack Linthicum
<ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
I would need to see actual proof of that. One torpedo uses a large, by
Navy standards, launch support team the other seems to be a point and
shoot. Proof is what is needed, not a belief in translated words like
"developed in tandem" or "based on" versus my Japanese Captain's
"similar to".
Keith Willshaw
>>
>> Indeed both torpedoes went through several mods in service one
>> of which included a reshaped head.
>>
>> Keith
> I would need to see actual proof of that. One torpedo uses a large, by
> Navy standards, launch support team the other seems to be a point and
> shoot.
Submarines dont just 'point and shoot'. In WW2 complex analogue computers
calculated firing solutions based on the course and speed of both target
and submarine and the angle on the bow. The firing system was used to set
the gyro angle of the torpedo. The support team consisted of several people
just as on a cruiser or destroyer.
For details of the US system see
http://jtmcdaniel.com/periscope.html
> Proof is what is needed, not a belief in translated words like
> "developed in tandem" or "based on" versus my Japanese Captain's
> "similar to".
Its is becoming clear that no level of proof will ever satisfy you.
Keith
Peter Skelton
Nonsense. Submarines aren't at 30+ knots when firing torpedoes
and they don't need to worry nearly as much about wave motion.
They fire torpedos from the centre line, which elimnates another
thing to compute.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
<59020d0d-dd20-45d2...@o23g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
jackli...@earthlink.net (Jack Linthicum) wrote:
> and there is no discussion of any accidents aboard Japanese
> submarines.
Accidental explosions seem to have been confined to Japanese mini-subs
where there was no means of keeping the first air bottle topped up to
pressure. Later the design was changed to use air from the steering air
vessels for starting. Japanese subs were also issued with the Type 92
electric torpedo. There was also a design that used enriched air. See
"Naval Weapons of WW2". On the other hand no O2 design was ever issued
for aircraft torpedoes.
Ken Young
Keith Willshaw
<ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Z4OdnaYdE92pz5bW...@giganews.com...
Even the Japanese seem to have drawn back from storing pure O2
on aircraft carriers :)
Keith
Jack Linthicum
<ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:84989383-fb70-4d0e...@e31g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >> Indeed both torpedoes went through several mods in service one
> >> of which included a reshaped head.
>
> >> Keith
> > I would need to see actual proof of that. One torpedo uses a large, by
> > Navy standards, launch support team the other seems to be a point and
> > shoot.
>
> Submarines dont just 'point and shoot'. In WW2 complex analogue computers
> calculated firing solutions based on the course and speed of both target
> and submarine and the angle on the bow. The firing system was used to set
> the gyro angle of the torpedo. The support team consisted of several people
> just as on a cruiser or destroyer.
>
>
> > Proof is what is needed, not a belief in translated words like
> > "developed in tandem" or "based on" versus my Japanese Captain's
> > "similar to".
>
> Its is becoming clear that no level of proof will ever satisfy you.
>
> Keith
Mainly because there is no positive knowledge about 1 Who made the
Type 95, 2 Who designed it and 3 What the torpedo launch procedures
were.
Jack Linthicum
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:49:51 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
>
>
>
Proof of the launch procedure, please.
Peter Skelton
That's three pure bs statements in a row Jack. The first two are
covered briefly in Campbell. The idea that nobody who knew the
third and survived the war and talked to the US is as ludicrous
as the idea that no manuals survived.
I'm beginning to understand why so much bad analysis came out of
a certain intelligence agancy.
Peter Skelton
Peter Skelton
I, and others, have given you references. You are simply ignoring
them.
Peter Skelton
Jack Linthicum
Wrong, but I note that Campbell's book as available on google books,
lacks the page that discusses the Type 95. Question where does the sea
water for the reaction come from and when is injected into the type
95? Still sounds like a different system.
I surrender. For the second time.
Jack Linthicum
What? Requiring positive proof is a sign of "bad analysis"?
I chased some Soviet acoustic torpedos around for several months, we
only had a few, and came up with pretty much nothing. Better to show
your work and draw conclusions than to imagine.
Peter Skelton
Ignoring reputable eveidence, and supporting absurd hypothesis is
bad analysis. You're guilty as hell here.
Misreadint the issue and trying to hijack the discussion in
multiple directions is also leads to bad analysis. You've been
doing that too.
>I chased some Soviet acoustic torpedos around for several months, we
>only had a few, and came up with pretty much nothing. Better to show
>your work and draw conclusions than to imagine.
Drawing conclusions aganst all available information is
imagining. You've been indluging freely.
Peter Skelton
Richard Casady
wrote:
>I'm beginning to understand why so much bad analysis came out of
>a certain intelligence agancy.
Caught In Act?
Casady
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:44:56 -0500, Peter Skelton <skelt...@cogeco.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >I'm beginning to understand why so much bad analysis came out of
> >a certain intelligence agancy.
>
> Caught In Act?
>
> Casady
Sometime I'll tell of my triumphs, against the best rocket boys in the
agency. My method is not incorrect, find evidence not conjecture.
Andre Lieven
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:55:23 -0800 (PST), Andre Lieven
>
> <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >On Nov 22, 1:17 am, "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com>
> >wrote:
> >> On Nov 21, 12:52 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
Sure, but I was addressing the erroneous claim that the subs in
question did carry actual, by name, Long Lances.
That's all.
Andre
Andre Lieven
wrote:
>
> OK. You make good points. I wonder if the Soviets found any Long Lance
> tech on the islands they took at the end of the war?
Who knows ? Based on what they actually deployed in the late 40s
and 50s, it is clear that oversize torpedoes didn't enter into Soviet
naval hardware.
> Were the US even then thinking of the Soviets using carrier subs or
> missile subs? The USSR got XXI tech so they were going to be getting
> pretty decent submarine technology anyway. Plus their own tech they
> had up to 1945. The sunken subs were pretty specialized. As the US did
> experiments with Loon missiles shortly after the war they may have
> worried about the Russians getting subs with big hangars.
Given the time lag on such things, it is arguable that, in 1945, that
wasn't
a consideration.
More likely just to have been "here's some esoteric tech, let's not
let them
get any ideas from it...".
Andre
Andre Lieven
wrote:
> On Nov 22, 8:28 pm, Peter Skelton <skelt...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:29:52 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
>
> > <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >On Nov 22, 5:58 pm, Peter Skelton <skelt...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:12:15 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
>
> > >> <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >> >On Nov 22, 4:55 pm, Peter Skelton <skelt...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
> > >> >> torpedo, the type 95 submarine torpedo used the same
> > >> >> kerosene-oxygen technology.
>
> name by Admiral Morison after WWII. The other torpedo, Type 95, did
> not bear the Long Lance nickname, ever.
Indeed, and the shift of the topic from Long Lances, to "Long Lance
technology" is a most dishonest one.
The original query was clear enough, as is the factual answer to it.
Andre
Jack Linthicum
My experience with engineers and others who like to think they think
like engineers is that they reach a "logical conclusion". Since it is
both logical and a conclusion there is no way any outside information
can alter or disturb that conclusion. I had the experience of
"righting" a few wrong "conclusions" in my stay at CIA. And got fired
for it.
Peter Skelton
Thenyou should not have said
"Long Lance technology had zilch to do with either class of sub,"
should you?
Peter Skelton
Peter Skelton
>technology" is a most dishonest one. . . .
Well, it was made by one Andre Lieven. What punishment do you
think would be appropriate?
Peter Skelton
Keith Willshaw
= Wrong, but I note that Campbell's book as available on google books,
= lacks the page that discusses the Type 95. Question where does the sea
= water for the reaction come from and when is injected into the type
= 95? Still sounds like a different system.
=
http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ%
= 20Reports/USNTMJ-200F-0086-0124%20Report%20O-32.pdf
An interesting report that says NOTHING about torpedo design, it describes
the firing systems.
Try the following report that discusses Japanese torpedoes
Here is what it has to say about the type 95 on page 33
21" Type 95 - Working on the principles employed in Type 93, efforts were
made in 1935 to design a submarine oxygen torpedo. These experimental models
were called Type 95 and and the details of the propulsion systen closely
resembled the Type 93.
21" Type 95 Modification 1 - Production commenced in 1938. As in the case of
the Type 93, this model ran on 100% oxygen and used "first air vessel",
buffer chamber and sea water pump for diluent.
The table of contents for these reports may be found at
http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ%20Reports/USNTMJ_toc.htm
Keith
Jack Linthicum
> = 20Reports/USNTMJ-200F-0086-0124%20Report%20O-32.pdf
>
> An interesting report that says NOTHING about torpedo design, it describes
> the firing systems.
>
> Try the following report that discusses Japanese torpedoes
>
>
> Here is what it has to say about the type 95 on page 33
>
> 21" Type 95 - Working on the principles employed in Type 93, efforts were
> made in 1935 to design a submarine oxygen torpedo. These experimental models
> were called Type 95 and and the details of the propulsion systen closely
> resembled the Type 93.
>
> 21" Type 95 Modification 1 - Production commenced in 1938. As in the case of
> the Type 93, this model ran on 100% oxygen and used "first air vessel",
> buffer chamber and sea water pump for diluent.
>
>
> Keith
"Closely resemble"? IIRC the same quibble came from the Japanese
Captain co-author of The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II and
it was denigrated. "Similar to" and "Closely resemble" are not
synonyms for "same".
Peter Skelton
"Closely resemble" is what you get when the same technology is
used in two different torpedoes. That, of course, is the claim
you are opposing.
Nobody's denigrated your reference. Several people have pointed
out that it does not directly support your assertions, and have
given other references which point out that the technology is the
same without really disagreeing with what the captain had to say.
Peter Skelton
Jack Linthicum
Two, you and Willshaw, are "several? Now I know why you can't get it.
Peter Skelton
Three actually. You get 66%, a whole lot better than you've done
here.
Would you care to retract any of the inaccuracies in your
previous post?
Peter Skelton
Keith Willshaw
>> Try the following report that discusses Japanese torpedoes
>>
>> http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/U...
>>
>> Here is what it has to say about the type 95 on page 33
>>
>> 21" Type 95 - Working on the principles employed in Type 93, efforts were
>> made in 1935 to design a submarine oxygen torpedo. These experimental
>> models
>> were called Type 95 and and the details of the propulsion systen closely
>> resembled the Type 93.
>>
>> 21" Type 95 Modification 1 - Production commenced in 1938. As in the case
>> of
>> the Type 93, this model ran on 100% oxygen and used "first air vessel",
>> buffer chamber and sea water pump for diluent.
>>
>> The table of contents for these reports may be found
>> athttp://www.fischer->>tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/U...
>>
>> Keith
> "Closely resemble"? IIRC the same quibble came from the Japanese
> Captain co-author of The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II and
> it was denigrated. "Similar to" and "Closely resemble" are not
> synonyms for "same".
24" torpedoes and 21" torpedoes are by definition NOT the "same"
The report makes it clear that both torpedoes were based on the same
design work, both used the same system of propulsion and starting
and modifications to one were implemented on the other.
As predicted no level of proof is adequate to make you shed your
incorrect views on the subject.
Keith
Jack Linthicum
<ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
Or why do the two best sources emphasize that the two "differ". I
would hope someone who posts regularly to this newsgroup would realize
that there is a vast difference between launching a 3 ton torpedo
froma surface ship with a massive computer and crew as compared with a
1.83 ton torpedo launched from a sumerged submarine. But the as I said
about the mind set, you see it as "logical conclusion" when there is
no evidence that is true.
You know I have bowed out of this thread twice and I keep getting
hammered over my judgment. Now I find yours and Peter's judgement not
based on fact but conjecture.
David E. Powell
Good point. Focus on what each Allied country could control or get
seemed to kick in very quickly.
Keith Willshaw
Perhaps because they ARE different , one is bigger that t'other after all.
They do however use the same technology.
> I would hope someone who posts regularly to this newsgroup would realize
> that there is a vast difference between launching a 3 ton torpedo
> from a surface ship with a massive computer and crew as compared with a
> 1.83 ton torpedo launched from a sumerged submarine.
The difference in launching systems does nothing to alter the fact that
the torpedoes are based on the same technology. Mount a 20mm
cannon on an aircraft and it will use a different fire control system
than the same gun used in a ground installation.
The British 12 pounder 12cwt gun was used in a variety of mounts on land
and sea with many different fire control systems by Britain and
Japan during WW1 and WW2. It was however the same basic gun
in each case.
> But the as I said about the mind set, you see it as "logical conclusion"
> when there is
> no evidence that is true.
No I read what was written by the folks who investigated the device
and talked to the Japanese team who designed it. I believe what they
say not your unsupported asserions.
At this point you are being either wilfully obstinate or are simply
trolling.
Keith
Paul J. Adam
<4c157c2c-fad8-47ba...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, Jack
Linthicum <jackli...@earthlink.net> writes
>Wrong, but I note that Campbell's book as available on google books,
>lacks the page that discusses the Type 95. Question where does the sea
>water for the reaction come from
The sea? The torpedo will be starting up when it's launched and running
on compressed air and kerosene for its first few seconds (the compressed
air valve closed after forty engine revolutions, the oxygen valve was
fully open after sixty): whether sub or ship launched, as it switches
over to oxygen there's either no shortage of seawater around it or else
a really nasty hot run is in the offing...
--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.
Paul J. Adam
Jack Linthicum
<n...@jrwlynchANDNOTTHIS.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <4c157c2c-fad8-47ba-81a9-aaa492edd...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, Jack
> Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> writes
>
> >Wrong, but I note that Campbell's book as available on google books,
> >lacks the page that discusses the Type 95. Question where does the sea
> >water for the reaction come from
>
> The sea? The torpedo will be starting up when it's launched and running
> on compressed air and kerosene for its first few seconds (the compressed
> air valve closed after forty engine revolutions, the oxygen valve was
> fully open after sixty): whether sub or ship launched, as it switches
> over to oxygen there's either no shortage of seawater around it or else
> a really nasty hot run is in the offing...
>
> --
> He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.
>
> Paul J. Adam
But how does the sea water get to the closed oxygen-kerosene system on
a submarine?
Richard Casady
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>But how does the sea water get to the closed oxygen-kerosene system on
>a submarine?
You have to flood a tube before firing it. You have to open the door
to let the fish out,and even if the tube contained air, it would be
replaced with water at that point.
Casady
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 07:09:11 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
>
> >But how does the sea water get to the closed oxygen-kerosene system on
> >a submarine?
>
> You have to flood a tube before firing it. You have to open the door
> to let the fish out,and even if the tube contained air, it would be
> replaced with water at that point.
>
> Casady
The sea water is a component of the engine driving the torpedo. It is
called a dilutant. It is meant to "quiet" the reaction between the
compressed oxygen and kerosene. What I asked was how does it get to
the sealed system? Next I will ask how the oxygen containers are kept
up on a submarine.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
<3949fb6f-ed2b-421d...@k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
jackli...@earthlink.net (Jack Linthicum) wrote:
> But how does the sea water get to the closed oxygen-kerosene system on
> a submarine?
It was normal practice for all navies to flood torpedo tubes before
launch. The type 95 and type 93 had sea water inlets and a circulation
pump. In addition to cooling the internal systems sea water was pumped
straight into the combustion chamber to keep temperatures down. This bit
was similar to the US steam torpedoes but the US used fresh water. The
Japanese use of sea water required large clearances and if the torpedo
was fired for a test run the entire engine system had to be stripped and
cleaned to remove salt deposits before reuse.
Ken Young
Jack Linthicum
> In article
> <3949fb6f-ed2b-421d-9c28-dafd57fce...@k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Source?
Keith Willshaw
> > a submarine?
>
>> It was normal practice for all navies to flood torpedo tubes before
>> launch. The type 95 and type 93 had sea water inlets and a circulation
>> pump. In addition to cooling the internal systems sea water was pumped
>> straight into the combustion chamber to keep temperatures down. This bit
>> was similar to the US steam torpedoes but the US used fresh water. The
>> Japanese use of sea water required large clearances and if the torpedo
>> was fired for a test run the entire engine system had to be stripped and
>> cleaned to remove salt deposits before reuse.
>>
>> Ken Young
> Source?
You have already been given it
http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ%20Reports/USNTMJ-200D-0022-0469
Report 0-01-1.pdf
Page 110
Water Pump
The sea water is pumped to the buffer chamber by a double acting
reciprocating pump
(figure 33) driven by the engine. Details are given in the discussion of the
engine
....
At the start of the run water is supplied to the buffer vessel by the oxygen
pressure
Keith
Peter Skelton
<fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>
>:
>:They fire torpedos from the centre line, which elimnates another
>:thing to compute.
>:
>
>I believe you meant they FIRED torpedoes from the centre line. Modern
>submarines typically do not do that, so your present tense 'fire'
>would be incorrect.
>
How cute, a grammar flame. You must be really desperate for
attention today.
BTW
Your use of "would be" is incorrect.
>:
>:Grasp firmer straws.
>:
>
>Stop grasping at straws.
My post was correct, on-topic and truthful. Which of those
attributes do you define as a straw?
Peter Skelton
dott.Piergiorgio
> I believe you meant they FIRED torpedoes from the centre line. Modern
> submarines typically do not do that, so your present tense 'fire'
> would be incorrect.
Not all current modern boat follows the US practice "sonar dome forward
and angled TT behind"...
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
Peter Skelton
<fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>
>:On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 13:22:20 -0700, Fred J. McCall
>:<fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>:
>:>Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>:>
>:>:
>:>:They fire torpedos from the centre line, which elimnates another
>:>:thing to compute.
>:>:
>:>
>:>I believe you meant they FIRED torpedoes from the centre line. Modern
>:>submarines typically do not do that, so your present tense 'fire'
>:>would be incorrect.
>:>
>:
>:How cute, a grammar flame. You must be really desperate for
>:attention today.
>:
>
>Not a grammar flame; a 'fact' flame. They do *NOT* fire torpedoes
>from the centerline.
>
Bullshit Fred. Read your words.
>:
>:BTW
>:
>:Your use of "would be" is incorrect.
>:
>
>BTW
>
>No it isn't.
>
You used a conditional to express an absolute. That is an error.
>:>:
>:>:Grasp firmer straws.
>:>:
>:>
>:>Stop grasping at straws.
>:
>:My post was correct, on-topic and truthful. Which of those
>:attributes do you define as a straw?
>:
>
>Your temporal confusion coupled with your charm.
In other words, you lied.
Your only intention here was to be unpleasant and demonstrate
your stupidity. Mission accomplished, now bugger off.
Peter Skelton
Richard Casady
<fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>:They fire torpedos from the centre line, which elimnates another
>:>:thing to compute.
>:>:
>:>
>:>I believe you meant they FIRED torpedoes from the centre line. Modern
>:>submarines typically do not do that, so your present tense 'fire'
>:>would be incorrect.
>:>
>:
>:How cute, a grammar flame. You must be really desperate for
>:attention today.
>:
>
>Not a grammar flame; a 'fact' flame. They do *NOT* fire torpedoes
>from the centerline.
In the case of the type 7 U-boat, the rear tube only was on the
centerline. In the case of a Gato, none of them were. Just the other
day I looked into a type 9 forward room. No tubes on the centerline.
I crawled through a type 21 last time I was in Hamburg. No centerline
tubes. The six midgets that were sent to Pearl Harbor had a pair of
centerline tubes.
Casady
Peter Skelton
That's true, but the tubes point straight forward (or aft). The
offset is unimportant for fire control in the WWII context. My
statement was correct for the purposes I gave it.
(Fred is using calling the obsolescent 688 flight i subs modern
so that he can use their unsatisfactory tube arrangement to make
an ass of himself. I don't know whether the SSBN's built at the
time used the same system.)
Peter Skelton
Peter Skelton
Peter
On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 21:01:56 -0700, Fred J. McCall
<fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You're still gibbering and I'm still not interested, Peter.
>
><plonk>
>
>Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>
>:On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 01:44:12 -0700, Fred J. McCall