Bookshelf | Reports | Community | KDP Select

Home » Amazon KDP Support » Voice of the Author / Publisher » Voice of the Author / Publisher

Thread: Navy torpedoes


This question is answered. Helpful answers available: 0. Correct answers available: 1.

Reply to this Thread Reply to this Thread Search Forum Search Forum Back to Thread List Back to Thread List

Permlink Replies: 45 - Pages: 4 [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 | Next ] - Last Post: Dec 7, 2017 7:54 AM Last Post By: Moshe Ben-Or Threads: [ Previous | Next ]
Cecelia Matsui

Posts: 31
Registered: 07/02/17
Re: Navy torpedoes
Posted: Dec 2, 2017 4:56 PM   in response to: Jonathan B in response to: Jonathan B
 
Click to report abuse...   Click to reply to this thread Reply
Thank you very much for your help and information. I think I'm satisfied with the precautions my divers take, and with calling the torpedo Triggerfish-One. For fiction, it sounds good.

I'm glad I asked here. All of you have given me excellent ideas.
Moshe Ben-Or

Posts: 585
Registered: 12/28/15
Re: Navy torpedoes
Posted: Dec 2, 2017 5:25 PM   in response to: Cecelia Matsui in response to: Cecelia Matsui
 
Click to report abuse...   Click to reply to this thread Reply
Naming torpedoes after fish and such is not an American habit. American torpedoes are all named Mark - ###. Moreover, the markings you describe fit a real torpedo series -- the Mark 37 torpedoes were in service in the 1950s through the 1970s. These were acoustic torpedoes with active sonar homing and electric propulsion. The standard series used a contact exploder. The NT37 series of Mark 37 torpedoes were designed for increased depth and speed. The real-world series ran NT37C -- NT37F.

Your divers will know exactly what to call this thing -- a Mark 37 torpedo. Most likely nickname for this specific item, given the circumstances and the nature of military men, would be "motherf*er".
Notjohn

Posts: 23,720
Registered: 02/27/13
Re: Navy torpedoes
Posted: Dec 3, 2017 2:57 AM   in response to: Ned Kelly in response to: Ned Kelly
 
Click to report abuse...   Click to reply to this thread Reply
With torpedoes there was much development before during and after WW2

Among other things, the USN had to figure out a way to stop its torpedoes from running in a circle and sinking the boat that launched it, as happened to the Tang.

(Don't trust KDP to publish a print edition. Don't trust CreateSpace to publish an ebook. Each does one thing well and the other thing poorly.)

Good luck! -- NJ

Notjohn's Guide to E-Book & Print Formatting

The blog:
http://notjohnkdp.blogspot.com
Ned Kelly

Posts: 1,142
Registered: 09/05/15
Re: Navy torpedoes
Posted: Dec 3, 2017 5:49 PM   in response to: Cecelia Matsui in response to: Cecelia Matsui
 
Click to report abuse...   Click to reply to this thread Reply
And speaking of things submariner...this is from an "old boys' network...just in. Probably pop up on the web soon.

It's kind of spooky..

ANALYSIS OF ACOUSTIC DETECTION OF THE LOSS OF THE ARGENTINE SUBMARINE SAN JUAN

The author of this assessment was the lead acoustic analyst at the US Office of Naval Intelligence for 42 years, analyzed acoustic detectors of the loss of the USS THRESHER (SSN 593) on 10 April 1963 and testified before that Court of Inquiry. The author expresses his appreciation to those who supported this assessment with research and calculations.

An analytical review of all information released by the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization on the acoustic signal associated with the loss of the Argentina Submarine ARA SAN JUAN confirms the following:
That acoustic signal originated near 46-10S, 59-42W at 1358Z (GMT) on 15 November 2017. It was produced by the collapse (implosion) of the ARA SAN JUAN pressure-hull at a depth of 1275-feet. Sea pressure at the collapse depth was 570 PSI. The frequency of the collapse event signal (bubble-pulse) was about 4.4 Hz.

The energy released by the collapse was equal to the explosion of 12,500 pounds of TNT at the depth of 1275-feet. That energy was produced by the nearly instantaneous conversion of potential energy (sea-pressure) to kinetic energy, the motion of the intruding water-ram which entered the SAN JUAN pressure-hull at a speed of about 1800 mph.
The entire pressure-hull was completely destroyed (fragmented/compacted) in about 40 milliseconds (0.040s or 1/25th of a second), the duration of the compression phase of the collapse event which is half the minimum time required for cognitive recognition of an event.
Although the crew may have known collapse was imminent, they never knew it was occurring. They did not drown or experience pain. Death was instantaneous.

The SAN JUAN wreckage sank vertically at an estimated speed between 10 and 13 knots. Bottom impact would not have produced an acoustic event detectable at long range.
The open question is: why was no corrective action - such as blowing ballast - taken by the SAN JUAN crew before the submarine sank to collapse depth? According to Argentine Navy spokesman Gabriel Galeazzi, the Commanding Officer of the SAN JUAN reported a "failure" in the submarine's "battery system," The time of that report was 0730 on 15 November, assumed to have been GMT. Subsequently, the problem was reported to have been "fixed." The SAN JUAN intended to submerged and continued its transit north. The SAN JUAN pressure-hull collapsed at 1358 GMT on 15 November.

In the case of the loss of the US nuclear submarine SCORPION (SSN 589), hydrogen out-gassed by the main battery exploded at 18:20:44 GMT on 22 May 1968 incapacitating/killing the crew with an atmospheric over-pressure in the battery well estimated to have been 7-10 times the fatal value. The pressure-hull was not breached. This assessment was based on analysis of acoustic detections of the event and damage observed in pieces of the fragmented battery recovered from the wreckage at a depth of 11,100 feet by the US submersible TRIESTE, e.g., microscopic, spectrographic and x-ray diffraction analyses. (There was no flooding of the pressure-hull before the battery exploded.)
SCORPION lost power and sank slowly over nearly 22 minutes to collapse at a depth of 1530-feet at 18:42:34 GMT on 22 May 1968.

There is the possibility that a similar sequence of events occurred aboard the SAN JUAN. If the wreck is located and efforts are made to recover components, emphasis should be placed on the battery system.

Moshe Ben-Or

Posts: 585
Registered: 12/28/15
Re: Navy torpedoes
Posted: Dec 4, 2017 8:30 AM   in response to: Ned Kelly in response to: Ned Kelly
 
Click to report abuse...   Click to reply to this thread Reply
It's a reasonable assessment. Clearly, if the vessel went to collapse depth without action from the crew, then something must have disabled the crew. How a malfunctioning snorkel leads to reported battery issues leads to catastrophic event is a question for systems engineers involved with the investigation. Oxygen depletion due to battery fire is a reasonable guess. However, until the wreckage is recovered, we will not know for certain. The truth is, we might not know even then.

The whole issue does illustrate the nature of operations in a deeply hostile environment, where the lives of all depend on potentially fragile technology, and one mistake by a single man can doom the whole ship. Those who imagine the High Frontier as some kind of freewheeling libertarian Wild West need to pay close attention to the reality of the closest real-world analogs we possess -- arctic stations, desert tribes and military submarines. There will be no democracy in space. Tribes, yes. Corporations, yes. Dictatorship in all its forms, from garden-variety Big Men and military strongmen to totalitarian despots who would make Stalin and Mao Tse Tung look like downright softhearted humanitarians, absolutely. But a system where an assembled bunch of dolts blather about while the air leaks away? Nope. Not gonna happen.
Brad the wronger

Posts: 333
Registered: 07/13/17
Re: Navy torpedoes
Posted: Dec 4, 2017 9:51 AM   in response to: Moshe Ben-Or in response to: Moshe Ben-Or
 
Click to report abuse...   Click to reply to this thread Reply
It seems to me that mankind/humanity/people, whatever we're called these days, can push the Final Frontier only so much before we need to expect to fail. There is only so much theory we can force onto a problem, before being limiting by our capacity to make those theories work. We can understand the science (maybe not always too well) but we can't force it to do something it's not supposed to do. If we want to go beyond the final frontier, we'll have to do it with people disinterested in coming back.
Moshe Ben-Or

Posts: 585
Registered: 12/28/15
Re: Navy torpedoes
Posted: Dec 4, 2017 10:45 AM   in response to: Brad the wronger in response to: Brad the wronger
 
Click to report abuse...   Click to reply to this thread Reply
If we want to go beyond the final frontier, we'll have to do it with people disinterested in coming back.

Certainly. That is how frontiers have always been settled. The conquistadors didn't take ship for the New World because life was great for them in Spain. They took ship for the New World because they were starving and unemployed, and the only trade they knew was war. Those who didn't get their hearts ripped out in Inca sacrifices, die of disease or perish from wounds, founded a new society, with themselves at the top. Their nature shaped their social structures. Their social structures shaped their descendants. And thus we get from Cortes and Pizarro to Peron and Pinochet. One unbroken chain.

The Pilgrims came to the New World because they wanted to preserve their cultural and religious identity in a hostile world. The Jamestown settlers came because they had no way to make a living back home. The ideas they brought with them and the social choices they made ensured that Washington did not become a caudillo, and the history of North America ended up nothing like the history of Latin America.

Others came for a myriad reasons, but they all had one thing in common -- no way back and nothing to lose. Many died. Whole expeditions failed, settlements were wiped out by disease, war, etc. 80% of the first wave into Jamestown were dead of starvation and disease by the arrival of the second wave.

The history of Arctic exploration is even more replete with tragedy. From Bering to Scott, countless men froze and starved amid the ice. Nobody settled, but only because the technology did not exist.

The story of human colonization of the Solar System will be even more brutal, even more replete with tragedy and horror. At least the Jamestown settlers were guaranteed an unlimited supply of drinkable water and breathable air.

The history of Mankind going to the stars will resemble Star Trek not at all. The societies and new religions that arise during this process will be products of the environment that spawned them. Those who ignore this reality write techno fantasy, not science fiction.
Brad the wronger

Posts: 333
Registered: 07/13/17
Re: Navy torpedoes
Posted: Dec 4, 2017 12:17 PM   in response to: Moshe Ben-Or in response to: Moshe Ben-Or
 
Click to report abuse...   Click to reply to this thread Reply
Well, my ancestors weren't at Jamestown or Pilgrims, but they did come to the New World as early as 1720. They came because they didn't want to be peon German farmers. Instead, they were indentured servants to the Brits. That was a good career move. The second generation of them served under General Washington at the Battle of Brandywine Creek. Another served on Commodore Perry's ship in the Battle of Lake Erie, apparently having his guts blown out by a British cannon ball. (Dang Brits.) That was back when men were men and they spilled their blood and guts all over the deck of a decrepit sinking ship.

Well, I have to fix the screen door. I hope I don't get a splinter in my finger.
cebpubs

Posts: 673
Registered: 03/08/09
Re: Navy torpedoes
Posted: Dec 4, 2017 10:08 PM   in response to: Moshe Ben-Or in response to: Moshe Ben-Or
 
Click to report abuse...   Click to reply to this thread Reply
Presuming the batteries employed standard lead-acid cells, sea water coming down a snorkel could cause major problems if it got into the batteries. The battery wells should be isolated, but a faulty snorkel intake valve might let in enough to flood them. Sulfuric acid and salt water generate chlorine gas, which has been known to kill submarine crews if the boat couldn't get to the surface quickly enough. Crew who escaped from the forward torpedo room of U-859 reported crew members on the other side of the watertight door dying that way after the boat was torpedoed and sunk in the Malacca Strait in September 1944, with 20 survivors escaping from the two torpedo rooms.
Moshe Ben-Or

Posts: 585
Registered: 12/28/15
Re: Navy torpedoes
Posted: Dec 5, 2017 10:03 AM   in response to: cebpubs in response to: cebpubs
 
Click to report abuse...   Click to reply to this thread Reply
Presuming the batteries employed standard lead-acid cells, sea water coming down a snorkel could cause major problems if it got into the batteries. The battery wells should be isolated, but a faulty snorkel intake valve might let in enough to flood them. Sulfuric acid and salt water generate chlorine gas, which has been known to kill submarine crews if the boat couldn't get to the surface quickly enough. Crew who escaped from the forward torpedo room of U-859 reported crew members on the other side of the watertight door dying that way after the boat was torpedoed and sunk in the Malacca Strait in September 1944, with 20 survivors escaping from the two torpedo rooms.

Yes, that kind of thing is plausible. The devil is in the details. There are multiple safety systems that must fail before salt water comes into contact with the battery acid. Once it does, things go south very fast. How it came to be, or whether there might have been some other explanation for the disabled crew, will be the focus of the investigators.
Moshe Ben-Or

Posts: 585
Registered: 12/28/15
Re: Navy torpedoes
Posted: Dec 5, 2017 10:06 AM   in response to: Brad the wronger in response to: Brad the wronger
 
Click to report abuse...   Click to reply to this thread Reply
That was back when men were men and they spilled their blood and guts all over the deck of a decrepit sinking ship.

Today they spill their blood and guts all over the humvee floor, instead. The props change. The essence of the thing is eternal.
Brad the wronger

Posts: 333
Registered: 07/13/17
Re: Navy torpedoes
Posted: Dec 5, 2017 10:51 AM   in response to: Moshe Ben-Or in response to: Moshe Ben-Or
 
Click to report abuse...   Click to reply to this thread Reply
Decks of helicopters, litters, floors of ORs. Walls, sidewalks, streets, balconies, sand. It never really seems to go away, does it?
Moshe Ben-Or

Posts: 585
Registered: 12/28/15
Re: Navy torpedoes
Posted: Dec 5, 2017 11:59 AM   in response to: Brad the wronger in response to: Brad the wronger
 
Click to report abuse...   Click to reply to this thread Reply
Decks of helicopters, litters, floors of ORs. Walls, sidewalks, streets, balconies, sand. It never really seems to go away, does it?

How could it? The Killer Ape remains the Killer Ape, and will always so remain. War is eternal. Peace is a delusion. Take away that which makes war inevitable, and the species goes extinct. The same, obviously, will apply to any aliens smart enough to claw their way out of the muck and up into space.

Star Trek got the Klignons, the Romulans , the Cardassians, the Dominion and the Borg right in essence. It's the Federation that's a product of wistful delusions. The first time we meet aliens is the first time we will have war with aliens. We are savages to each other, and we at least belong to the same species. You feel compassion for a human, for a fellow mammal, even for a bird. Once we get to a reptile, you feel a lot less. And once we get to an insect....

Aliens will be more alien to us than any insect. And so we will be to them. When Orson Scott Card has Ender Wiggin break out into a massive guilt trip over dead buggers, he does not portray reality. He merely demonstrates his own religious biases.
C. Gold

Posts: 1,043
Registered: 02/17/15
Re: Navy torpedoes
Posted: Dec 5, 2017 12:18 PM   in response to: Moshe Ben-Or in response to: Moshe Ben-Or
 
Click to report abuse...   Click to reply to this thread Reply
It depends on whether we find them aesthetically pleasing or not.
Moshe Ben-Or

Posts: 585
Registered: 12/28/15
Re: Navy torpedoes
Posted: Dec 5, 2017 3:24 PM   in response to: C. Gold in response to: C. Gold
 
Click to report abuse...   Click to reply to this thread Reply
It depends on whether we find them aesthetically pleasing or not.

That will only affect the manner in which we display the hunting trophies on our walls, and the manner in which we portray them in our art. I can certainly imagine human settlers first driving an aesthetically pleasing intelligent species to extinction, then glorifying them in art as noble savages and children of nature untrammeled by selfishness, aggression and greed. Plenty of historical precedent, there.

Homo sapiens exterminated all hominid competitors on its way to the top. Homo sapiens has driven countless species to extinction, from woolly mammoths to passenger pigeons. The history of human-human civilizational encounters is a history of mass slaughter and genocide. Never in the history of the species have humans ever lived at peace with anyone or anything.

The props change. Humanity doesn't. We are the Killer Ape. Why would it be in any way reasonable to expect that we will tolerate the existence of a non-human competitor all of a sudden, just because we now have, say, warp drives? If we are stupid enough to do so, we deserve to be exterminated by said competitor.

He will be an apex predator, just like us. He will certainly not be stupid enough to tolerate us. There exists no evolutionary path whereby some enlightened, serene bunch of pacifist herbivores rise to the top of the food chain and come to dominate their world. Meat equals calories. Calories mean big brains. Meat runs away. Thus meat makes brains work, driving the evolution of better brains. Thus the creature at the top will always be a killer; the smartest, toughest, meanest, most brutal killer on its planet. When we encounter each other, we will immediately go to war over turf and resources. And we will fight to extinction -- ours, or theirs.
Legend
Helpful Answer
Correct Answer

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in all forums