Comments by "Frank DeMaris" (@kemarisite) on "The Mark 14 Torpedo - Failure is Like Onions" video.

  1. Well, THAT sounds like a significant emotional event.
    156
  2.  @sawyerawr5783  "my father was the most even-tempered man in the world. He was always angry."
    109
  3.  @Mike-im5bo  he received a gag gift of a blowtorch labeled as a shaving kit.
    68
  4.  @michaelkroger899  Japanese cruiser Kako would agree, but a WW1 sub with WW1 Mark 10 torpedoes disemboweled her just short of Rabaul after Savo Island.
    6
  5. It occurs to me to mention that the Mark 15 torpedo (for destroyers) had all the same problems, while the Mark 13 (for aircraft) had all the same problems plus the issue of trying to survive as the launching aircraft. The complaints of destroyer captains are much easier to write off (hard to hear the impact of torpedoes on the hull over the crash of your own guns), while the complaints of the aircrews are difficult to articulate after being shot down in the middle of the Pacific. Submarines are the best suited to carefully bushwack a target and observe that the torpedo ran normal (but deep) or hit the target and failed to explode. As the issues with the Mark 15 were corrected, the Mark 13 and 15 got better and better too, along with other fixes for the "air dropping" portion of the Mark 13 mission profile.
    5
  6.  @Dynasty0612  last question, revenge for Hood. The Bismark was a middling battleship design from a nation that had lost a generation of warship design evolution because of Versailles. Bismark displaced 41,000 tons at standard load and was only comparable to ships displacing 35,000 tons or less built in the same time frame. When we say Bismark was not a good design, we mean that more experienced designers would have gotten a lot more performance out of those additional 6,000 tons, so that tonnage is essentially wasted.
    4
  7.  @zumkzwxwq  I know of a number of cases where dud shells were found on the main deck and just rolled off into the sea. If it hit the ship and didnt explode, then it seems unlikely to explode just because someone loves it a little, but if it does eventually go off you dont want it on the ship.
    3
  8. Note that USS Nautilus had a significant impact on the progress of the Battle of Midway. Nautilus attempted to torpedo Kirishima but was attacked and pursued by the destroyer Arashi. In her rush to rejoin the carriers, Arashi inadvertently led Wade McCluskey's VB-6 to the Japanese carriers. If the subs hadn't been there, the miracle at Modway might have turned out quite differently.
    2
  9.    I believe the spike on the end and the working action resembled a bird (a crow, say) pecking at something.
    2
  10.  @ColonelHoganStalag13  except that they didnt use a kaiten, Indiannapolis was su k using normal torpedoes. They way the courses converged, zigzagging would have made no difference. Zigzagging is done to complicate the submarine's submerged approach to the target, with course changes every 15-20 minutes to prevent a submerged submarine from getting into position for a shot.
    2
  11.  @Rob.DB.  sorry, no Truman Board (which put the Curtis Aircraft Company out of business) for BuOrd.
    2
  12.  @LostBeaver  probably not, because the shell feed system is a limiting factor. For example, the Colarado-class battleships could not use the 'super heavy' 16" Mark 8 projectile used on the fast battleships because it was too long (and heavy) for their shell handling equipment.
    2
  13.  @Fulmir-  it would be an overstatement to claim it was a bigger threat to their own ships than the enemy. The pure oxygen made them essentially wakeless and gave them incredible range (20,000 yards vs 6,000) at slightly higher speed than competing weapons (48-50 knots vs 45) with a much larger warhead (1,080 lb vs about 500). There were a few cases, although one of the most famous (at Samar) turns out not to have been the case.
    2
  14.  @ryanaegis3544  the torpedo factory designed and produced the 22.4" Mark 13 (for aircraft), 21" Mark 14 (for submarines), and 21" Mark 15 (for surface ships). All suffered the same issues of depth keeping and contact exploders, but the Mark 13 also suffered the issues of trying to survive as the launching aircraft while getting a good torpedo run. The Mark 13 would require more work and some additional fixes, the "pickle barrel" and drag ring to absorb the shock of hitting the water. However, the TBD and Mark 13 did score 7 hits from 22 aircraft in sinking Shoho at Coral Sea, so there was one good performance in it.
    2
  15. Although the Curtis SB2C Helldiver was designed as a scout and torpedo bomber, it was also rated to carry a Mark 13 torpedo. Was this actually done operationally, maybe to augment the torpedo attack (Essexs appear to have commonly carried about 18 TBF/TBM Avengers and 25 SB2Cs, in addition to fighters, in late 1944) or was it more a matter of certifying lhe aircraft to carry and use any weapon in the inventory regardless of actual use?
    2
  16.  @MooreFishing-ky3wq  yes, Navweaps says the Mark 18 electric torpedo is the Westinghouse version of the captured German G7e.
    2
  17. Both the Germans and the US had electric torpedoes, which were popular because they left no wake.
    2
  18. Nope. Although apparently Admiral Blandy was at Iwo Jima and kept getting his ship "closer" until Admiral Turner ordered him to get his ass out of the line of fire.
    1
  19. Lagoon was probably too shallow for the torpedo drop.
    1
  20. No private company involved, this was US Navy officers all the way down.
    1
  21. The M2 Bradley isnt a tank, and Pentagon Wars is a work of fiction.
    1
  22.  @jrd33  exactly, the M2 HMG was fine for everything the US was facing in WW2. None of the Axis had heavy bombers or aircraft built heavily enough to require cannon to put down. The Brits, with rifle-caliber MGs and a terrible HMG, needed to step up to cannon.
    1
  23. Because the British Mark VIII is over a foot longer than the US Mark 14 and presumably wouldn't fit in the tube.
    1
  24.  @seagie382  it's commonly shortened to BuOrd, pronounced "Bew-Ord".
    1
  25.  @MaximMachineGun  the Alaskas have guns the Scharnhorsts armor is designed to resist, and armor that is only designed to protect them from heavy cruiser 8" guns. The Scharnhorst's shells will penetrate the Alaska's belt at 20,000 yards, while the Alaska has to hope to hit the deck armor at the same range. Alaskas have to keep the range open and try to score long-range deck hits, which the Alaska is admittedly on a fair position to do.
    1
  26. What civilian? As others have pointed out, this was a whaler converted to a tanker and a military auxiliary, therefore a legitimate target.
    1
  27.  @silverfox575  that's not current politics, it's just ignorance.
    1
  28.  @csours  Pentagon Wars is a work of fiction, a deliberate overstatement by the author.
    1
  29. Nothing wrong with the M4's vertical stabilization. There were a lot of units that were never trained to maintain it properly, as The Chieftain has shown.
    1