Talk:Mark 14 torpedo

Withdraw service date?

This weapon has a fascinating wartime history, and its problems in WWII are something worth telling and definitely something worth remembering in modern procurement, design, and maintenance. Can anyone confirm the withdraw from service date that I found? I honestly can't find it again, although I have a reference stating that a phased withdraw began in 1975. Ponches79 01:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, your "out of service" date looks right. I'd have said '79, for some reason. Have you got access to Friedman's Naval Weapons? It's got every USN system in it. I think Alden mentions it, too, in Fleet Submarine. (I'll have a look in Friedman's Design & Development at my local in the next couple & see, while I'm tracking down IJA's disbelief in the numbers of Marines at Guad...) Trekphiler 19:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Mark 14 or XIV?

Only one gripe: page title should be XIV. Trekphiler 19:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice job on the page. Now maybe I can add from Silent Victory without my head exploding over the g*d*m stupid miserable b*st*rds behind the Mk14, including a Sub Force Admiral, no less, senior SOB Ralph Waldo Christie, who was on the design team & had an Australia command in the war & who should have been publically crucified. (And I don't even know an actual submariner!) Trekphiler 19:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Gripe noted, but the die was cast by someone before me. Note that the Mark 18 Torpedo page not only has Arabic rather than Roman numerals, it also has a capital "T". Perhaps it's time for all the torpedoes to be moved to standardized name pages. Binksternet 06:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for expanding the article with so much more detail. Nice work. Hope you don't mind my breaking up some of the more complex sentences containing multiple commas... Binksternet 06:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Blair makes it pretty easy, until you try to distill it into categories, rather than keep it chronological, as he does. No beefs with your fixes, generally; my grammar is a bit rough in first drafts... I did take out some of the detail, trying to keep only what's really relevant to the Mk14. And I only raise the 14/XIV issue (same would apply to 18/XVIII) because it's within the WP Weaps Project; maybe an appeal to that page can get this one moved to "Mark XIV". (Don't ask me how it's done...) Trekphiler 19:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the 14/XIV issue isn't so important. Roscoe and Milford use the Arabic numerals. I don't have any kind of official document originals to see what the gov't called it but I suspect that both nomenclatures were used depending on which Navy department was involved. Binksternet 19:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my bad--I started this article (it seemed like a big gaping hole to me) and my primary source was Roscoe's Pig Boats, and he used "Mk 14" rather than "Mk XIV." Ponches79 05:15, 04 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's an article about torpedo nomenclature. This writer says it's been Arabic numerals since the Bliss-Leavitt Mark 4 around 1910-1912. Binksternet 20:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh. Blair (Beach, too, IIRC) always used Roman. A matter of preference, I guess. Or previous experience. Leave the page alone, then. (I still think Roman is classier...) Trekphiler 00:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Aren't you acute?

I took out the "acute angle" ref because it's not relevant there; if you want to mention Daspit (among others) stumbled on it, feel free. (I wouldn't, 'cause you risk getting a laundry list of those who did/didn't, & having to document them...) Trekphiler 00:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Circulars

I'd rather not have circulars be brought up to turn the three-fold problem into a four-fold one. I don't think it was as widespread as all that... and some other fish had this occasional problem as well. USS Tang (SS-306) was lost to circular but I wonder if it wasn't a Mark 18 electric that did her in. Roscoe doesn't say. At any rate, the circular-run problem wasn't universal; wasn't a design problem. It was more a usage or handling or factory defect problem. Let's demote the mention of circulars to lesser status. Binksternet 02:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It sank at least 2 boats, not counting Tang (which was a Mk18), & scared hell out of half a dozen or more. (I just couldn't find them all in Silent Victory...). It was a design flaw; the Mk15 had collars to prevent it, on a more/less identical design, & surely submarines deserved equal protection. (Notice the Mk18s didn't have them, either...) Trekphiler 00:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd read somewhere, perhaps in Silent Victory or Clear the Bridge, that anti-circling was intentionally not applied to submarine torpedoes. The theory was that the only offensive counter measure of a submarine under depth charge attack would be to launch a torpedo intentionally set for circling. It's been several years since I read this, and I can't source it, but I recall the author was not enthusiastic about the theory.

Never heard that before. It's not in Silent Victory, & I don't recall it in Clear the Bridge (especially since Dick lost his ship to the Mk18 circular...), but I seem to recall he criticized the Mk18s for not having the protection, when DD fish did; maybe he said it, & I don't recall. Have to read it again. (It's been a few yrs...) Wouldn't have been Grider's book or Sherman's book, would it? Haven't read Wake, & it's been even longer since War Fish. It could have been a German source/ref, 'cause the Ger late-war fish did a "spiral" trick, & I vaguely recall it was used against DDs. No? Trekphiler (talk) 14:26 & 14:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The circular run issue isn't limited to torpedoes. I remember observing it with SAMs during the Vietnam war. The problem originates with paired control circuitry for steerable weapons: one circuit says turn right (or up) while the other says turn left (or down). The problem arises when one circuit fails, and is unable to center the control surface after a course correction. The issue could be minimized by pointing the torpedo tube in the direction of the target, rather than requiring an initial course correction to target intercept bearing. By the time of the Vietnam war the typical design solution was to disable the weapon before it completed a full circle.Thewellman (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as B class. --dashiellx (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

New article?

Given the fact that the flaws in this model of torpedo were virutally identical to hose faced by the German G7 series, (including the bureaucracy problem, although the German bureaucracy was more complex), would it be appropriate to combine the reliability problems into one article, such as "Weapon defects of WWII"? (Naturally, any other flawed weapon would belong in that article as well.) LordShonus (talk) 10:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Read the Mark 14 entry then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G7e_torpedo Da ja vue. Naaman Brown (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Torpedo fuel

Fuel was not methanol but ethanol slightly denatured with dye and perhaps other ingredients; it was famously a source of drinking alcohol after being filtered through a loaf of bread. See the wikipedia entry on Torpedo Juice, also <http://videos.mlive.com/citpat/2009/03/part_6_drinking_torpedo_alcoho.html> Dbeierl (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It was ethanol at one point, but by WW2, the crews were warned not to do that, 'cause it was poisonous. Don't ask me where I read it, tho; it's been yrs.... TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 20:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What if it was a blend? Denatured? Binksternet (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm not entirely clear if denatured is poisonous, I couldn't say; I recall it as methanol & poisonous (& a specific mention of it being not the same as earlier, which I took to be ethanol), & I vaguely recall it being in O'Kane's Wahoo. Could've been Grider's War Fish, 'cause I think it was Wahoo in Q. (My local doesn't have either one, so if somebody with access cares to look... It'll take months for mine to get 'em in.) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 14:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

<=There are a number of stories out there in the literature. Some talk about methanol mixed with ethanol to make it undrinkable. Others talk about Croton oil. This book says Croton oil was used in very small amounts to induce severe digestive cramps, bleeding, and to empty the bowels of any drinker. The book talks about a previous version of the fuel, without Croton oil, with sailors going blind from drinking it, which implies that it had at least some methanol mixed in to denature it. One source I can't access says 4% methanol was added to 180-proof ethanol so sailors wouldn't drink it. The sailors ran this mix through a loaf of bread with the ends cut off, in an attempt to filter out the methanol. Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Tone

This article should not be calling anyone derelict. I might be appropriate to state that an author accuses them of dereliction or that they were formally accused of dereliction, cited of course. Having the article state on its own that they are derelict is inappropriate, if not libelous. --J Clear 22:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

How much clearer can the article be that Clay Blair used the term dereliction of duty? The tone is accusatory just as much as the sources are. It's fine. Binksternet (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily the first occurance, but the second and third sound like the conclusion of the wikipedia editor. --J Clear (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If it was up to me, it would be stronger. Reading Blair, I was pretty incandescent, & I think he only kept from it by maintaining scrupulous neutrality. (How he did it, as an ex-sub sailor, I don't know.) English, Christie, Fife, & even Lockwood ignored the complaints of their men, & the documented failures. IMO, there were grounds for courts martial. If ignoring evidence isn't derelict, even if not formally "dereliction of duty", what is? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with the first comment. All the "dereliction of duty" nonsense should indeed be deleted from this article. The very idea that Leahy or Stark should have been court-marshalled for the torpedo problems is absurd. Blair seems to think that all the Navy brass prior to and during WWII should have been keel-hauled for various shortcomings. The article needs to be cleaned up, and toned down. Dukeford (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall anybody mentioning Leahy or Stark. Based on the reaction of BuOrd interwar, & during, its senior officers should have been busted. So should Christie & Fife, for ignoring the complaints, & the evidence. And "revisonist hack"? Blair reports the facts of the failures of the Mark 14 faithfully & without bias. Trying to deny it in the name of "cleaning up the tone" is revisionist. More to the point, Blair's view is a quote on the subject from a published source. If you disagree, offer a reliable published source with a different view instead of complaining. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If we agree that these articles should present a neutral point-of-view, then, yes, the references to dereliction of duty should be removed. That's just Blair's opinion, although I normally agree with him (it's Gannon who is the revisionist hack, IMHO). It doesn't mean he's right. The article does imply that Stark, Blandy, and Leahy should have been disciplined. Ridiculous. We were at war. Mistakes happened. Get over it. If it becomes necessary, I'll clean the article up myself. Dukeford (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"Clean it up"? You mean remove legitmate, sourced content on the inaction of senior officers? How is that NPOV? Blandy, as head of BuOrd, yes, since he expressly refused to act on complaints from Lockwood. "Mistakes were made"? BuOrd went out of its way to blame everybody but them, & (as Blair records) sent "inspectors" who actively sabotaged torpedoes (I don't have the page in front of me, so don't ask), & moreover was responsible for the defective design in the first place. This is far from "mistakes". Senior officers have an obligation to act on the complaints of JOs; Blandy tried to bury them, instead, & I call that derelict. And since Leahy & Stark ranked Blandy, & didn't light a fire under him, or get rid of him, I'd say they were, too. Removing it is sanitizing the record to hide something you dislike. Change it, & I will change it back. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:27 & 22:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I cannot emphasize this enough. What you're saying is NOT a neutral pov. It is your (and Blair's) opinion. I recommend presenting the information in a neutral fashion (without the histrionics), and let the reader decide. I don't intend to get into another edit war. I've been through that (and I won). So have it your way, even if it's incorrect. Dukeford (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

And how is deleting the inaction by senior officers NPOV? You won? Really? This came up before when? BTW, it may be Blair's opinion, but since he published it, citing it doesn't violate NPOV. (It might be contrary to undue weight, but that's not your argument, is it?) And that it's my opinion doesn't control, either; I'm not adding my opinion, so NPOV, again, doesn't apply. OTOH, by ignoring, or "cleaning up", anything suggesting Blandy et al. bore responsibility for fixing the problem does, because that is denying the published evidence on the subject. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:49 & 03:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily advocating deleting the references to any senior officer inaction, and I don't disagree that the torpedo situation was handled poorly. I'm just saying that the references to dereliction of duty should be removed from the main body of the article. Since the official record shows that none of these officers were admonished, it's reasonable to conclude that they were not considered "derelict" in their duty. On the contrary, they were undoubtably considered to be performing their duties AS THEY HAD BEEN TRAINED TO DO THEM. It must be remembered that the Naval Bureau's were considered sacrosanct and inviolate. If they developed an aircraft, ship, or weapons system, then By God you used it and no questions asked. That's the way it was. By modern standards, that institutional attitude would be considered inflexible and negligent. And that's the problem with revisionists. They judge historical events, attitudes, and actions by current standards. Blair's conclusions on who was at fault are probably correct. But to label senior flag officers as "derelict" is just irresponsible and inflammatory journalism. If you feel the need to include Blair's opinion, a more appropriate place for it would be in the reference footnotes. Dukeford (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you can source that, I'd rather it be put in. It explains the conflict between what the operators wanted, what the Bureau did, & what the reader will expect the Bureau should have done. As noted, I consider any officer blatantly ignoring failures derelict regardless what the politics were, & I daresay most readers won't get it, either. And you might have something worth adding elsewhere, something like a page on "Bureau politics" (if I can put it that way), how things ran & how they differ now. I do disagree it's "irresponsible and inflammatory", tho; ill-informed, perhaps... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(arbitrary break 1)

After reviewing "Silent Victory", and comparing this Wiki article and it's references to that book, I'm sorry to say that, IMO, the article is a contradictory mess and a hatchet job. Whoever wrote it and/or edited it apparently has a personal axe to grind, and is letting their emotions get in the way of accuracy. The book's content is repeatedly taken out of context, the referenced notes bear little to no resemblance to reality, and I cannot find ONE SINGLE REFERENCE to "dereliction of duty", although Blair DOES refer to senior flag officers as "lacking in imagination". He also states that "the three commands were derelict in follow-up investigations of the magnetic and contact exploders", but that's a LONG way from "dereliction of duty". Finally, Trek, what you "consider" derelict could scarcely be viewed as definitive. That's just your emotional opinion, and hardly constitutes a neutral POV, IMHO. Dukeford (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You just insist nobody was derelict, don't you? Blair, p.361: "all three commands were derelict in follow-up investigations of the magnetic and contact exploders". Who is pushing POV, here? Sounds like you trying to sanitze the page to hide what BuOrd & SOs refused to do. And you won't even consider anything but removing the criticism, will you? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I've already stated that the torpedo situation was handled poorly, but the fault lies more with organizational inertia, penny-pinching, and parochial interests than dereliction of duty. Blair pretty well lays that out in his book, and I wouldn't disagree. But dereliction of duty is your own interpretation, Trek, NOT Blair's. And THAT constitutes a biased POV. In fact, of all the reading I've done on this subject, I have yet to see one single comment by any author that implies that these men were derelict in their duty. There certainly isn't a comment to that effect in "Silent Victory". Dukeford (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As requested at MilHist talk I'd make a couple of observations. I think that the article is quite unbalanced and seems to be a lot more analytical than would normally be accepted in Wikipedia.

To start with, it's fairly clear that there is an assumption of knowledge about the organisation of US defence at the time, and a number of abbreviations aren't introduced. It also appears that either the author of this article is coming up with a lot of personal opinion, or is quoting Blair verbatim without making it clear that the wording is derived.

With respect to the specific use of dereliction of duty it's probably fair to make reference to the opinion, but that's about as far as it's reasonable to go. We can't build on that opinion, since it is only one. There are other wording uses that I would challenge, inexplicable and blame for... must be laid at....

There are a number of possible explanations for the handling, but until someone publishes an analysis that accurately identifies the most appropriate one then this is not the place to write an essay on it.

ALR (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

ALR (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As I've noted previously, dereliction of duty is merely a personal opinion of an editor(s) of this piece, but it is NOT in any of the referenced works. Dukeford (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the offending "dereliction" verbiage, as well as making a few more edits in the interest of brevity. I also concur with ALR - the article is indeed too "analytical". Dukeford (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"I have removed the offending "dereliction" verbiage"? Really? This makes no mention of "dereliction". And "brevity"? It's removing sourced & cited content in the name of protecting BuOrd's reputation. Also, I'd be interested in the source on English's "recantation", since you fail to mention it. It appears every deletion over supposed "dereliction" is about denying BuOrd took no action, or ever should have. And, I note, every one of the statements for BuOrd inaction is sourced & footnoted, as I thought it was supposed to be. My mistake. Evidently sanitizing the record takes precedence. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear from the edited article that BuOrd and Congress were most culpable. If "sanitizing the record" means removing inflammatory comments (even if sourced), then so be it. We're supposed to be NPOV. Not every "sourced" comment falls under that category. Dukeford (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(arbitrary break 2)

<==The article quotes Clay Blair quite a bit, and I think that is perfectly suitable. Blair is a highly skilled and critical observer, not some hack writer that can be tossed aside. However, the article has attributed slightly more to Blair than he actually wrote. On pages 361–362 of Silent Victory, Blair says that "all three commands were derelict" in completely testing the torpedo under a variety of conditions to determine whether there were multiple failures rather than just one problem. The "three commands" that Blair called derelict are the Atlantic, the Pacific and the South West Pacific submarine fleets. Any chief officer of these commands during December 1941 to July 1943 has been tarred with Blair's "derelict" brush. These guys are Edwards, Wilkes, Withers, English, Lockwood, Christie, Daubin and Fife.

Officers who were in charge of one of these commands or were their superiors were ones that Blair said suffered from "a failure of imagination at the highest levels" (also on page 361.) These guys are King, Edwards, Nimitz, Hart, Wilkes, Withers, English, Lockwood, Christie and Fife.

I do not think we should put "dereliction of duty" into Blair's mouth (or typewriter fingers) since he did not used that phrase at all in his book. We can instead pipe link it like this: "derelict" (with quotes.) Binksternet (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Where I stand? Leaving off mention inaction by Christie, FIfe, English, & Blandy is wrong. It gives an incomplete picture of the situation, & doesn't do justice to the sub sailors; it makes them look like whiners (unfairly, IMO). The "get over it" situation may be what was usual, & if it is, Dukeford's remarks of what was usual & why bear adding, 'cause I'll bet there's quite a few other readers of Blair (& Beach, & O'Kane) who don't know it, either. Rewriting, I tried staying off strong language (my judgement of Withers' refusal was it was absolute, but...; & resetting the gyros approaches sabotage, IMO, but I know that won't fly); could be it's still stronger than it needs to be. I do think Blandy was derelict, given how hard Lockwood had to push to get any action on the Mk14, & given the Mk15 (& later Mk18) suffered many of the same flaws; it may be this was usual at the time, as Dukeford suggests. Does Blair expressly say so? Not in so many words.... Given how strongly Dukeford seems to feel, I've a hunch any mention of "derelict" is liable to cause more trouble. Can we agree to inclusion of inaction by named officers, up to & including Blandy (& Nimitz? Stark? King? all of whom let it go by the boards to some extent or other), explain why (per above), & let the reader decide?

On the "failure of imagination", Bink, you're OT, I'm afraid; my reading of that is in re the strategic dispositions & targeting priorities, & the missions in support of MacArthur, not the Mk14 per se, for which Blair includes (or seems to include) Nimitz. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of dereliction of duty, if it wasn't that, it was damn close. From my memory, I believe that BuOrd, instead of admitting failure, blamed the commanders of the subs for taking bad shots (or something like that). At the least, the dereliction comments have to appear in the article somewhere, even if it is prefaced with "Author Clay Blair believes... " —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

In every case, the article should cite Blair overtly when using the word "derelict". The actions and inactions of BuOrd should not be called derelict, but Roscoe, Blair and others can be quoted to make certain their culpability. Binksternet (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing Nimitz in Blair's blanket accusation of the "three commands". We're splitting hairs, but the inflammatory accusation must have solid grounding in the cite. Binksternet (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

♠Neither was I saying Nimitz named in the "three commands", but in the "failure of imagination"; he makes it more explicit in ref not deploying to Luzon Strait.

♠Ed's right, BuOrd made a point of blaming skippers (& IIRC, Christie & Fife, did, too). There was some basis for it; it ain't easy, no matter what Hollywood would have you believe. Still, when you set up on a sitting duck at 800yd & can't hit anything, it ain't you. And refusal to even countenance net testing....

♠To avoid any further edit warring, I can't but repeat: present the case, let the reader decide. Even if Blair hadn't expressly said "dereliction", when you get to 20 Sept '43, with every change over the resistance of BuOrd... Can we quote it without inciting a war...?

♠On the issue of length (raised with me by Dukeford), I'm not sure there's much can be deleted. It might be moved here, instead (tho that may mean duplication). Thoughts? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no issue with article length or level of detail. I think it is appropriate, and nobody gets worried about articles of this size (20–30k.) You want a big article? Check out the Type 91 torpedo complete with engineering formulae and so on. Binksternet (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(arbitrary break 3)

(outdent)As far as the issue here goes, I’d have thought phrases like “dereliction of duty” would be intemperate, particularly if no-one was actually charged as such. A description of what happened, and what individuals did or didn’t do, and let readers draw their own conclusions, would seem best.
But what I did want to inject here, by way of contrast, is the treatment of essentially the same problem in a different context. The German U-boat Arm had pretty much the same problems with their magnetic exploders, which (according to Blair, again) took getting on for three years to fix. And there was the same frustrations by crews, and the complacency by torpedo experts. Yet the article doesn’t really dwell on it much. Food for thought? Xyl 54 (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If it took the Germans 3yr to fix, I'm unaware of it. IIRC, it was more like 8mo to ID the problem & fix it. (I can't say if the fix was perfect, however; that may've taken longer.) And, contrary to USN/BuOrd, SOs were court martialed. (They got slapped on the wrist, which is about what flag officers usually get, it seems...) Nevertheless, they were disciplined. (IIRC, Blair mentions it, & offers a contrast, suggesting he thought BuOrd's SOs should've been. Maybe I'm reading in, however.)

On length, you'd have to ask Dukeford what his issues were. I'd happily add the reasons the Mk14 went bad. There was, for instance, the use of a pressure sensor designed for a slower (or smaller, don't recall which) fish, which led to faulty readings, which led to bad depth sensing. There was excess weight in the firing mechanism, so it crushed, rather than set off the charge. There was the lack of an anti-circular mechanism, which sank at least one boat (Tullibee) for sure (I recall two more, but can't track them down in Blair, now, dammit), not counting Tang. There was NTS, which couldn't keep up with peacetime demands. And there was the Mk10, which worked beautifully, but nobody ever dreamed of handing over to a private contractor for genuinely mass production.... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I’d have to re-read for the whole story; it was the similarities I remembered more than the differences. The “three years” comment was based on statement by Blair; after describing how things came to a head in May 1940 ( which, you’re right, was after about 8 months) the Germans switched to a contact detonator which improved matters. But he goes on to say “the depth-keeping defect had not, in fact, been fixed. Nor would it be, for another two years” (Hitlers U-boat War Vol 1 p 160). So they still had misses from torpedoes running too deep, well into 1942.

But the big difference I suppose was that Donitz sided with his skippers against the torpedo experts, while (as far as I remember) in the Pacific it was the other way round. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

(PS I've broken the discussion up a bit; the page was slipping. I trust that's OK. Take them out if you don't like them.Xyl 54 (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC))

PTO, it was the reverse, & that's one reason I think Dukeford's info on the culture is of value: why did Dönitz go 1 way while English, Withers, Christie, & Fife (& Red Doyle? Al McCann?) went another? It also appears to me seniority played a role; the nearer they were to the operators, the more likely they were to accept the criticisms as legit & accurate. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Next step for the article

Is this article ready for WP:GAN? Binksternet (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Mark 6 deactivation date?

In one place we say that Lockwood ordered the Mark 6 magnetic exploder deactivated in May 1943, and in another place we say it was July. Which is it? Rees11 (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. The May date overstated the case (& IIRC, it means I boobed :( :( ). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Fife & English

In the Solutions section, the article mentions "Fife" twice, but it's unclear who this is. From this discussion page, I can see Fife was an officer, so perhaps the first reference to "Fife" should be changed to show his rank and full name? Chris uvic (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, the name "English" is used in the Solutions section without any introduction or context. Chris uvic (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I've linked the men, but the text still makes no sense without more context. Can someone who has the sources at hand please fix this? Rees11 (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Done (I hope). Comes from knowing too much about it. Sorry, all. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Mark 23?

Apologies if I just missed it in amongst the litany of Mark 14 problems and eventual solutions, but some mention should be made, in the interest of completeness, of the Mark 23 torpedo, the single-speed derivative of the Mark 14.172.191.102.185 (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Combine exploder article here?

Should Mark VI exploder be merged in here? It doesn't really add anything new that isn't in this article. Alternately, we could cut back on the exploder detail in this article. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sort of on the fence with this question. The exploder was used in other torpedoes, so I can see how it should have its own article rather than identical sections within each torpedo article. I guess we can reduce the detail in this article but I still appreciate telling the reader how troublesome it was in regard to getting the Mark 14 up to snuff. The thing is, the Mark 14 took the brunt of the troubles of the Mark VI exploder; the terrible results with the Mark 14 and the subsequent experiments showed how the Mark VI was faulty. In those terms, the history of the Mark VI and the Mark 14 are intertwined. Binksternet (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I broke it out because it really isn't about the torpedo itself & because I hoped to encourage more info on the exploder, as well as on the concept. I'd strongly oppose trimming the detail if it's going to be merged, because the two are so interrelated in the failings of the Sub Force in the war: you can't understand why things were so bad without knowing the history of both. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If we did merge, I assume this article would have all the detail it now has, plus whatever more is in the exploder article. I am not suggesting we cut anything. Binkster raises a good point, that the exploder was used in other torpedoes too, and I think for that reason it should remain separate. (I'm not advocating anything here, just thinking out loud)

What brought this up is that I just fixed a long-standing error that appeared in both articles, about the cost of the exploder. I almost missed fixing it in the exploder article. I feel like there should be less exploder detail here and more there, to reduce overlap. If we do that, maybe have a section on the exploder with a paragraph or two, and a "Main article:" note under the section heading to make the exploder article more prominent. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

"I feel like there should be less exploder detail here and more there" I tend to agree. Thing is, to understand the problem of the Mk XIV, you do need to understand the Mk VI issues. I tried trimming it without making the connection a "huh?", but if you've got ideas for fixing, do say. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Circular runs

"This sank at least one submarine, Tullibee, for certain."

I'm not keeping count, but Tang was also sunk by a circular run. Was that a Mark 14? Also, I think we should remove the "for certain." If we weren't certain, we wouldn't include this information along with a source. If the source wasn't certain, we should say so. Kendall-K1 (talk) 05:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Tang was a Mark XVIII. And it's "for certain" because there's reason to suspect the circulars sank at least a couple of others whose fates are atm unknown (plus at least one I've found in Blair, but can't track down again... :( ). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I added "and may have sunk others." Does that seem right? Revert if you disagree. O'Kane said in his book he thought Wahoo was sunk by a circular, but he may have been a bit obsessed, and I think most historians disagree. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No, Wahoo is confirmed to IJN ASW. IMO, O'Kane was working from an understandable bias. I'm rv'g, because "may have" is a weasel. What would you say "known to have sunk"'? Or "confirmed to have"? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I would go with "known to have sunk". I find it less awkward than what we have now. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought you were going to remove "for certain." If not, let's just go back to the original wording. I still find it weaselly because it implies other subs were sunk by circulars without actually saying that or providing a citation. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I was going to... Done now. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Blair specifically says that the Mark 14 had three major problems. He does not list circular runs as one of them. Trekphiler, you determined independently of Blair that circulars were the fourth major problem. Can you say again where that conclusion came from? Binksternet (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Blair lists at least Tautog, Steelhead, and Tang as victims of circular runs (only Tang was hit). Maybe more, I'm not very good with Google Books, and Blair doesn't have an index entry for circular. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Steelhead suffered a group of near explosions but Blair says they may have been multiple circulars (!!) or enemy action. Perch saw one of her torpedoes go circular near Formosa on Christmas 1944. Grouper witnessed one her fish going circular. Tullibee probably sank from a circular, according to her captain. Barb witnessed one of hers go circular. Same with Redfish, Harder and Sargo. All these reports are from Blair. I did not research whether the guilty torpedoes were specifically the Mark 14. Binksternet (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I, too, have the impression that circular runs were a significant problem with the Mark 14. My only hesitation about including it here is that I'm not sure the Mark 14 was unusual in this respect or that much effort was put into finding a solution. However, I'm inclined more towards mentioning it than not. --Yaush (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it was, too, tho Blair doesn't specifically identify it as such. (IDK why...) That may be influenced by Beach, tho. It was common enough he mentions it--but your own list, Bink, says to me "numerous" is justified. And certainly it wasn't a rare or isolated occurrence. Also, AFAIK, the circulars were all Mk14 except Tang. I'll do a crosscheck in my copy & see, if anybody wants.

Also, this wasn't unique to the Mk14, but it was limited to the sub torpedoes; the destroyers' Mk 15, essentially the same, had a mechanism to prevent circulars.... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:23 & 04:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with "numerous" because that's drawing a conclusion. If Blair, or some other source, actually uses the word "numerous" that would be fine.

I think if one of our sources says circular runs were a problem, we should say that, regardless of whether the Mark 14 was unusual in this respect or not. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

♠"drawing a conclusion" I have a real problem with that. Are we supposed to be idiots? No, Blair doesn't specifically identify it as a problem, but he reports several occasions. Do we ignore it because he doesn't actually come right out & say, "The Mark XIV had a problem with circulars"? Or do we look at the evidence he offers & report it?

♠IMO, if we don't report it were're being a) derelict & b) stupid. I know policy opposes synthesis, & I get why. I continue to wonder where the line is. If Road & Track says the Porsche 911 has 290hp & Car & Driver says the Ferrari 308 has 275, is it out of bounds to say the 911 has more power? Some people seem to think so (because I've come across this reaction on another page): any comparison not explicitly in the source is out of bounds. I think that's nutty.

♠Even if Blair doesn't expressly say it, IMO, that it was a recurrence is enough for me. Now, I don't recall if O'Kane says it explicitly; he might. If you'd rather say something like, "The Mark 14 suffered recurring [or "persistent"] problems with circulars" based on Blair's recording of the incidents, I'd have no problem with that. I do think there's enough, between him, O'Kane (who criticized the design for no protection against it), & Beach to say it. If that's synthesis, so be it: I'd still say it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The Mark 14 was plagued with problems, and each of those problems deserves some attention here. A problem would be found and fixed, but torpedoes still would not work. It may be appropriate to just summarize the exploder problems here.

Trekphiler is correct that Tang was sunk by an electric torpedo.

O'Kane surmised that Wahoo was the victim of a circular run, but Wahoo was later found near a reported air ASW attack.

Somewhere (probably in his Wahoo book), O'Kane discusses prewar torpedo doctrine and circular runs. O'Kane was in Argonaut at Midway I in December 1941. Previous torpedos had anti-circular run devices on them. Theory was that submarines would fire torpedoes while submerged (even below periscope depth), so circular run was not a big issue. Strategy changed during the war, and night surface attacks were common. O'Kane's discussion (and discussion by other authors) could be used to justify listing circular runs as a problem.

Even war movies have sonar calling out "hot, straight, and normal"; if sonar doesn't say that, it might be time to start evading a circular run.

I also remember reading that the torpedo problem was confounded by commanders, but I no longer remember the details. I think Christie was one problem (bias toward the design he worked on), and English may have been another. English's death may have allowed other problems to be solved.

I also think the running too deep problem has a different explanation than warhead weight. The depth setting was controlled by pressure, but it was statically rather than dynamically set. The pressure port was on the side of the torpedo. Consequently, when the torpedo was moving, there was a Venturi effect that lowered the sensed pressure; the torpedo dove deeper to compensate. Sorry, but I don't recall the source (a late friend lent me the book). Here's a webpage that claims the same hydrostatic sensor for the Mark 13 was used without considering the 33 to 46 kn speed difference (the effect is not exponential but rather a square).

Glrx (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty intriguing. Thanks for the link! Binksternet (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

That page really describes the problem well. There's also a page (I can't find it again... :( ), based on several USNI Proceedings articles IIRC, which summarizes USN torpedo development, & goes into even more detail. That's really excellent, if you can track it down.

FYI, "Hot, straight, & normal" was a pretty standard interwar phrase, not actually something invented by Hollywood. (The dead level running of the torpedoes, tho, was total fiction....) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Remembering a bit more - I think O'Kane may have stated deliberate circular runs were anticipated for submarine tactics. Destroyer drives sub down. Sub locks torpedo rudder and launches; torpedo circles on surface and either hits destroyer or causes destroyer to run away. I think O'Kane was appalled at the idea.... Glrx (talk) 00:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall him saying that...but it's been awhile. It's a pretty nutty idea. Even if you allow subs would be shooting at DDs to begin with, & that wasn't exactly a widely-expected tactic interwar. That being so, I have real doubts anybody planned on circulars... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall O'Kane saying that either. The Germans used torpedos that ran in patterns, against convoys, not destroyers. The US did not. Here is a source: [1] Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The Germans developed a couple of different pattern-runners. They used some early printed circuits. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The Jacobs message

Somewhere along the way, the right page number for the incident got lost... Most of the footnoted claim is in Blair. Beach mentions Jacobs & the pancake diesels, at ironic third hand, in Cold is the Sea, so I added that. The issue of it being on an open circuit is important, so I restored it; IDK the technical details, but it's effectively the difference between a private phone call & a party line call...& you don't do it lightly, because the bosses know you mean to make them look stupid if you do. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we have different definitions of "open radio circuit." To me, that would be an unencrypted message, readable by anyone, not just the US Navy. Contrast this with the message McKnight sent when he ran aground (Blair p. 169), which was a "plain language message." Blair says "broke radio silence" and I think that's what we should say here. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

On page 141 Blair says "He broke radio silence to send Wilkes a message raising serious questions about the reliability of the Mark XIV torpedo." Let's not jump to conclusions about sending a message in the clear or on an open circuit. Binksternet (talk) 13:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

♠An en clair (or plain language) message would be astoundingly rare. An "open circuit", as I understand the meaning, is one with no specific addressee, so it goes to everybody.

♠That said, I may need to dig out Beach again, because that point was made & it may have indeed been there (because Beach compares the message about the diesels to it IIRC); it would be the open circuit that would have pissed Wilkes so much.

♠However, on reflection (& realizing recall may be faulty), I'll remove that bit until I can verify it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

My definition of "open radio circuit" seems to be widely used. See, for example, Plans To Intercept Egyptian Jet Discussed On Open Radio Circuit. Since this was not an open radio circuit, I'd rather not use that phrase unless it's actually in the source. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

♠It's because they're not the same things... The Beach usage is a narrow technical term; the news report a broad (& arguably inaccurate) one. Nor does that news report mention use of encryption, or lack of it; given it's civil & not wartime, that's still wrong.

♠As for Cold is the Sea being fiction, it makes no difference. Beach is mentioning historical events, not making them up. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Court-martial

Where does Blair say that Jacobs could have been court-martialled? I can't find that on pp. 140-1. Or is that in Beach? Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Pulling a stunt like that is insubordinate, & does risk court martial. Confirm it in Beach if you want. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

So that's from Beach? What's the page number? Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Broke radio silence

What's wrong with saying Jacobs "broke radio silence"? Blair uses exactly those words, and I think it's relevant. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The passage says "reported". IMO, that implies "broke silence". So does "risked detection"... (So does "Silent Service", btw.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Westfall photo

File:Captain Theodore Westfall and Captain Carl Bushnell of the Bureau of Ordnance, inspect the Naval Torpedo Station's first Mk 14, 1943.jpg

This "inspection" photo has little point and the caption is misleading. I'd remove it. Looking at the source, Westfall took command in May 1942, and the photo is of the first Mk 14 produced at the new station. Mark 14s were in service before the war started, so it cannot be the first Mk 14. There is no indication that this photo is of a Mark 14-3 or Mark 14-3A or Mark 14-1A. The 1943 date (after August 1942) could be appropriate for the A suffix (improved depth mechanism), but the source does not tell us that. Glrx (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

With so many possible confusions, I'm removing it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The picture has been restored, but I'd still delete it. Rather than the Mark 14, the picture/caption seems to be more about the people in it. Westfall and Bushnell are not important figures in the article. (Bushnell might be interesting if he's related to Bushnell of the Turtle, but that is a stretch for this article.) The new torpedo station is not discussed in the article, and it seems peripheral here unless the new station is tied to the torpedo shortage problem. (The article claimed a peak production of 100 per day, but the production for all of 1944 was 7000, and average of less than 20/day). Glrx (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Is the picture really a Mark 14? The source says it is a Mark 14 (246 inches long), but it seems stubby even with the angle on the bow. Compare the length of the warhead to the air flask section. It could be a Mark 13 (161 inches). 64.9.242.95 (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Torpedo afterbody

File:TorpedoMotor.JPG

Above is a cutaway picture of typical torpedo afterbody. (Image says it's a Mark 13 (air drop), but it's associated with a PT boat (which would be a Mark 15).) In any event, the Mark 13, 14, and 15 shared components. The picture shows the air flask on the left, the transmission/drive shaft, and the pendulum for depth control. Glrx (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK, PTs never used the Mk XV; they used the Mk 8, later the Mk 13 (from drop collars). Either way, if it's an image of the Mk 13, it doesn't belong here; I'm less than sure the drive arrangements of the air-dropped fish were the same. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

OK. Glrx (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Surubaja?

Article states: "The Bureau of Ordnance sent an expert to Surabaja to investigate, who set the gyro backwards on one of Sargo's trial torpedoes;"

But how can the Bureau of Ordnance send an expert to Surabaja when the city was under Japanese occupation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.108.78.10 (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Surabaja didn't fall until early March 1942. Tyrrell Jacobs' USS Sargo (SS-188) left 25 February. Blair ref. Glrx (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark 14 torpedo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/1592/ustorp2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Raid on Tokyo Bay

The section "Magnetic influence exploder and premature explosions" mentions a raid on Tokyo Bay. There's a reference cited, but there's no details (such as how many and which submarines participated) other than the date. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but the line "this daring raid is completely obscure and unknown by most people" makes me even more suspicious. Does anyone have any citations with more details? DonovanHawkins (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@DonovanHawkins: You're definitely not paranoid! I've removed the info. The cited source was the only place on the internet that covered that "raid". Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect conversion from lbs to kg.

The conversion from pounds to kilograms for the overall weight of the torpedo is off. The Mod. 0 torpedo is said to be 3,000 lbs, which the conversion says is 1,400 kilograms. Meanwhile, the Mod. 3 is said to have weighed 3,061 lbs, which is somehow converted to 1,388 kg. It is not possible for an increase of 61 lbs to result in an equivalent decrease of 12 kg. 3000 lbs should convert to about 1361 kg, and 3061 lbs should convert to about 1388 kg. 67.86.132.61 (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)