Also remember U-864, which was actually torpedoed while submerged en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-864#:~:text=German%20submarine%20U%2D864%20was,73%20men%20on%20board%20died.
Regarding U-864. That torpedo attack was a special case. Firing at a sound contact was usually a waste of a torpedo and therefore was usually avoided. Prior to Pearl Harbor, there were several "Fleet Problem" exercises, war games that pitted one group of USN forces against another in simulated combat. (e.g. Battleships actually fired non-explosive non-penetrating shells at each other). The rules were unrealistically weighted against the submarines such that if a periscope was spotted in daylight the sub was counted as lost and the captain probably got fired as a result. This led to a 1942 submarine force commanded by very cautious skippers with unrealistic confidence in sound-directed approach and firing solutions. Some of them learned from failed attacks and others did not. As it happened, it was mainly the second-generation skippers, the 1942 executive officers, who did the damage to the Empire rather than the captains who learned their trade during those naval war games. In the case of HMS Venturer, the RN sub got a good bearing on the German by spotting her snorkel head and a reasonable range estimate by hydrophone data on the U-boat's diesels. Venturer launched a spread of four fish set for different depths and a fan of different bearings, in other words, a potshot. U-864 might have escaped if she had not zigzagged directly into the path of one of those four British torpedoes.
@@KI4HOK We thank him for his efforts, but unfortunately, King Justin I doesn't sail. He flies, as that uses more fuel, to offset the lesser amounts we can afford due to his carbon taxes.
Even after 53 years have passed, after my Navy service ended, I still have the urge to stand at attention, when I hear "Anchors Away", and smile just a little. ;-)
I'm a civilian, and I get that feeling from all the service branches' songs. My favorite is "The Army Goes Rolling Along," since the Army is where my dad served, but Grandpap was on an LST in WW2, so "Anchors Aweigh" is right behind it. I haven't heard the Space Force song yet, though. Much respect to all who have served and are serving! ❤🇺🇲
I'm shocked, _SHOCKED_ , I say, that the Mark 14 torpedoes had problems! Why, we were all assured by BuOrd that they worked exactly as specified, and any perceived problems were the result of user error.
@Drachinifel tells how one sub fired a dozen Mark 14s at a vessel only to have them all bounce off. They saved the last one and took to Pearl for evaluation.
Paul, The TDC absolutely deserves a video of its own. It was such an amazing piece of technology for its time, and making it reliable enough to operate on a sub was a major accomplishment of itself.
One of the most effective pieces of electro-mechanical devices ever devised for warfare. I really think it only falls to the later anti-air fire control computers in general comparison of capability against target parameters and tracking. I'd still vote for the TDC over the Iowa-class's main fire-control computers.
Well, to be completely fair, the Iowa main battery fire control computer does allow for input of 21 different parameters. I think the TDC is about a dozen.
They did indeed make a superb firing system for the fish--it's a shame the torpedoes being fired were so awful for so long. The bigwigs at the Bureau of Ordinance should have been charged with criminal negligence for first sending untested equipment into battle and then failing to listen to the actual men in the field telling them about the torpedoes' failures.
If I remember my history correctly, some of the torpedoes were supposed to detonate under the ship, breaking the keel. It didn't work well, but it would explain having the 50 foot depth setting.
The Mark 14 had the ability to fail more than half the time at the start of the war. Some boats got nothing but duds, then the Navy tried to blame the commanders and their crews.
The level of planning and manufacture of WWII weapons of war will never cease to amaze me. Electronic function with at least one, sometimes two, mechanical contingency backups was very standard in US war-time design. It's not just what they did that amazes me, but how they managed to cram them into spaces that could still be long-term functional. If something just went completely wrong with the TDC and it wasn't reparable by the geniuses in the electronic gang, you could still finish the patrol with the IS-Was and Banjo and manually firing the torpedoes with only slight reduction in efficiency. Other systems were just as resilient and backed up. It wouldn't be pleasant and would be a lot of hard work, but that was the Navy, in war, and the enemy was still out there needing their date with the bottom.
What strikes me is that in every sub movie they never show the poor guy behind the bulkhead. All we ever see are the loaders and the grizzled old Chief slamming the fire button.
Thanks to this site, I started playing Silent Hunter IV, and have learned how to hit a target by setting various range and angles on the rudimentary controls. Problem is, the Game is 'Historically accurate' in that my early-war career is sunk before I fire - all my Fish are indeed running 15 or more feet below setting. Greetings and Respect from the Great White North, eh!
He didn't mention or show how the torpedo was indexed in the tube. There must be a way to make sure everything is aligned so the spindles go into the holes in the torpedo. Anyone have an answer?
I used to play Silent hunter 1. While a game, it was very good, namely because of the documentation. I remember that US submarines had a very basic hit probality computer (or calculator...). That thing was advanced tech in WW2 era.
They were known to sink tug oats and torpedo recovery boats acting as practice targets. The boat would station just outside fast speed range. Torpedo room would shoot in slow speed and that really long pointy thing with no torpex would punch a big home.
11:04 About that 50-foot depth setting. Originally the Mark XIV torpedo had a magnetic influence exploder. In theory, the Mark XIV could run under an enemy ship, explode just beneath the keel, and because water is typically incompressible, shatter the enemy's keel, and thereby cause the vessel to break in half -- theoretically a much more devastating attack than punching a hole in the enemy's hull. I believe this was successfully tested once or twice in the waters off Cape Cod in the mid-1930s. However, due to the tight naval budget and a low opinion of submarines among the members of the ruling "gun club" admirals, insufficient funds were allocated for the sort of testing that should have been done. As things worked out the Earth's magnetic field varies across the globe -- stronger here, weaker there -- such that the magnetic influence exploder usually malfunctioned in the Western Pacific. There are many accounts of American torpedoes exploding halfway to the target thanks to that characteristic of our planet. The reason for the extreme depth setting available was to allow the Mark XIV fish to run under the keel of even the largest or most heavily laden ships,
@@paulfarace9595 I wish I had read the comments before I wrote mine. Several others made essentially the same point days before mine. I did add a few details not mentioned elsewhere, however.
I’ve been on that boat many times as a Legion rider for Post 91 and just going with family. I live in North Carolina now but I’d sure do miss Cleveland and going to the cod.
Thanks Paul and Evan, and members of USS Cod staff. Now if I watch another movie about WWII American subs, as least I can have a good idea of what really happened, other than the CO giving the order to fire, and someone pushing the plunger. As always, thanks for another informative and entertaining video. Greetings from Texas.
"I've got two fish in the water running hot and true." Some gato or baleo class sub captain while talking to an admiral in charge of a nuclear submarine.
IIRC Ryan has stated the max draft on an Iowa was 38 ft. I think some of the Japanese battleships were heavier so may have had a deeper draft. Didn't the later torpedoes have magnetic detonators? Those work best when exploding under the Keel don't they? That would explain the 50 foot running depth setting.
My cousin and l took a road trip to Cleveland to check out a slot car convention. Why? Don't know. Got to tour your boat and thoroughly enjoyed it. Still using my coffee mug. There was some kind of service being held topside on the bow. Good times, he was 58 and l was 61 then. Kids, right? What are you going to do?
I was an Airedale but have always been fascinated by submarines. This has been a great educational and entertaining video. Thank you for sharing. Have a great day and stay safe.🙂🙂
Good thing i don't live closer to down town. I always have want to launch the cod and take it for a spin around lake Erie . looks ready to sail on short notice.
Thank you very much, you have 1) slightly demystified the process, and 2) have shown the commonality of those systems with that of US surface warships with Arma Corp components. BZ
Don't know if the sub ever got them, or if they even existed during the in-service years, but a maximum 50 foot depth would be good for keel breaker type torpedoes.
On the subject of torpedo struggles, Cod entered the fleet in mid-43, and I thought by late '43 they were beginning to work out the issues with the Mark 14 exploder and such to get more reliably working torpedos. Something interesting to cover if you ever did a video about it might be how the torpedo failure onion impacted Cod in particular, as an example of the mid-war fleet boat entry into service? Does its war record reflect only some of the issues which remained problems effecting it, or were they mostly fixed before it entered service, or did it make patrol after patrol with bad torpedos like the start-of-war boats?
@@paulfarace9595 I think that could make a cool video that's not just a high-level re-hash, but "how the issues effected a single specific boat's war".
I was just wondering the same thing. Do people find unexploded torpedoes on the ocean floor nowadays if they dive somewhere relatively shallow but deep enough that a sub could still operate?
We have done that recently. It's no fun replacing the spindle. Shooting at the USCG cutter that wouldn't move for your tow to drydock? I have a great video clip of me training the deck gun on it with my camera down the barrel.
At least some of the starboard nest Tube One spindles are offset to the port side of the tube. Are those offset spindles also on the port side of the port nest making their operation from between the tube nests not possible unless there was a different mechanism for each nest??
We're going to go over that when we talk about loading fish. Suffice to say there is a groove in the top of the tube and guide studs on the fish that slide into the channel.
Very few ships have ever been made with a draft of 50 feet or more. There was only one super tanker that had a 58' draft that would have existed before the 1970s. Just the designers leaving their options open I guess!
So it's the time interval between launches that creates the spread , there being just the single gyro angle setting . Well, i ever knew , now I do , appreciate the whistle stop tour of the main armament . Did Hedy Lamaar have something to do with correcting the mk XIV ? It having such a dismal record in its early deployments .
Well there are maybe ONE or two people who might be capable of doing justice to that topic. I know one... a future session perhaps. Suffice to say the US TDC was far more advanced than anything else in the world.
Good stuff 💯 👌. seeing that nest of rope at 17.40 , made me think…wtf is it doing? lol. And what knots were used on subs..where and when.. and were there standard amounts of rope kept on board ? I would have replaced that seat ..after I had passed it 😄. Only taking the mick, ! ;)
Was the low speed used to keep the sub way out from harms way while shooting at a stationary target, while at a dock or anchor? Thanks for the adjustment video. Now we know how.
Great video- thx a lot. Very interesting- just let me with one question. The only thing you didn`t show is what exactly happens when the firing command is executed in the tube? Is there another "firing pin" or something engaged?
@@paulfarace9595Absolutely. During the first eighteen months of the war, it rarely mattered which way the torpedo was directed, it either went its own way or hit the target and failed to detonate.
50 Foot depth could be for engaging a sub at periscope depth if they ever went sub vs. sub. I'm not sure they did that in these subs though. What is the average time it takes to fire a fish under perfect conditions, from seeing target to firing fish?
Nonetheless, with the day coming when the discussion will range from the Mark 14 to 18, what were the reasons for the runaways or worse yet those that came back?
Giro angle could be transmitted to the torpedo whilst it was in the tube GARTU giro angle re transmission unit 50 ft depth setting was possibly for attacking submarines at periscope depth
46 kts = 52.9 mph. The difference between 52.9 and 55 mph is the difference between a hit or a miss. Servos and synchros. The TDC will compute and set angles for different spread patterns be they angular or time spacing for each fish. So if they made the aft tubes 3' longer for possible use for a "universal torpedo" how come the fwd tubes aren't also? What is a GSIR man, I've never heard that name before?
Thanks, great video. My understanding was that it wasn’t so much the Mk. 14 torpedo which was to blame for duds as it was the Mk. 6 exploder which was a shape charge responsible for getting the 500 to 600+ pounds of TNT in the head to detonate. Two things: the magnetic detector of the exploder could be tricked by the Earth’s magnetic field. The solution was to disable the magnetic detector and rely on contact detonation. The other thing was that the firing pin was too massive and would jam on a straight on hit. The solution was to make the firing pin lighter, just heavy enough to ensure touching off the primer when it hit the detonator cup. I don’t know how the tendency to run too deep was solved, if it was anything more technical than just setting ten feet above the desired depth. If you scrape around, there is quite a bit of stuff on Google documenting the history of positives and pitfalls of the Mk. 14 fish and the Mk. 6 exploder.
@@anttiroppola4414 Thanks. I’ll check out his videos on the Mk. 14. He did a presentation with Ryan on board New Jersey about a year ago and he’s very knowledgeable and articulate.
A submarines interior lighting will shine through the periscope which can be seen by an enemy ship. During daytime the lightning will be normal but at night the red lights will be used as red light is hard to see. Also if a sailor is using the periscope at night and the interior lighting is bright, then when he/she stops looking through the periscope, they will be blinded until their eyes adjust.
No... you didn't fire on submerged submarines ... it was a throwback to the practice of using magnetic detonators that required the torpedo to pass deep under the ship.
Only one successful submerged submarine v submarine engagement ever took place during WW2. A Royal Navy sub sunk a German U boat. I think it’s the only time in warfare that this ever happened
Programing those bottom two tubes must have been a little bit of a neck breaker. Are the controls at a different orientation than the ones above so the crew could see them better shy of laying flat on the deck. Also, were the bottom tubes used as often as the top two or were they used less because of their more out of the way position? (If they're even as out of the way as they appear since I've never actually seen them)
Tubes 5 and 6 are reloaded only once on a patrol and yes the controls are in the same location on those tubes so someone's bending down four times on a patrol. 😮😅
I'm guessing that you flood the tube initially and the mass of the water offsets the weight of the missing torpedo. later when they reload the tube they pump out the water and shift ballast as torpedoes are moved about.
Very interesting! I guess it's almost impossible to access the actual torpedo muzzle doors and shutters, but it would be very interested to know how they provide a watertight seal... seems like it would be hard to design something like that.🤔 I'm assuming they're operated hydraulically.
What are the 4 brass cylinders above the gyro indicator on the pressure bulkhead where all the grease zurks are? 50 foot depth setting a submarine at periscope depth. you mentioned my other idea for fifty feet.
You never would fire on a submerged sub... only surfaced, where they were most of the time. Not until 1950 and the introduction of the Mark 27, Mod 4 could a sub fire a homing fish at a submerged sub.
@@paulfarace9595 Why not? You see a sub submerge until only its periscope is visible. You can tell from the periscope's wake which way the sub is heading and where its hull is. Why not shoot a torpedo at it?
The 50-foot depth setting was to allow the problematic magnetic torpedo detonators to pass below the keel of large ships.
Also remember U-864, which was actually torpedoed while submerged
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-864#:~:text=German%20submarine%20U%2D864%20was,73%20men%20on%20board%20died.
50 foot diving enemy sub, worth 1 fish try anyway
Regarding U-864. That torpedo attack was a special case. Firing at a sound contact was usually a waste of a torpedo and therefore was usually avoided. Prior to Pearl Harbor, there were several "Fleet Problem" exercises, war games that pitted one group of USN forces against another in simulated combat. (e.g. Battleships actually fired non-explosive non-penetrating shells at each other). The rules were unrealistically weighted against the submarines such that if a periscope was spotted in daylight the sub was counted as lost and the captain probably got fired as a result. This led to a 1942 submarine force commanded by very cautious skippers with unrealistic confidence in sound-directed approach and firing solutions. Some of them learned from failed attacks and others did not. As it happened, it was mainly the second-generation skippers, the 1942 executive officers, who did the damage to the Empire rather than the captains who learned their trade during those naval war games.
In the case of HMS Venturer, the RN sub got a good bearing on the German by spotting her snorkel head and a reasonable range estimate by hydrophone data on the U-boat's diesels. Venturer launched a spread of four fish set for different depths and a fan of different bearings, in other words, a potshot. U-864 might have escaped if she had not zigzagged directly into the path of one of those four British torpedoes.
How similar is the torpedo programmer to the ones in later torpedo capable planes like the A-26 Invader?
Not much is similar...@damndirtyrandy7721
“We’ve done that here on the boat recently. It’s not fun to replace a spindle.” Wait, is Paul torpedoing passing Canadian ships again?
Shhhhhhhhhhh....
It's a secret 🙊
He was looking for Justin Castro’s yacht, just trying to help our northern neighbors out!
@@KI4HOK We thank him for his efforts, but unfortunately, King Justin I doesn't sail. He flies, as that uses more fuel, to offset the lesser amounts we can afford due to his carbon taxes.
Reminds me of Bob Newhart's USS Codfish: "This still represents the biggest PEACETIME tonnage sunk."
@@larryclemens1850 thanks going to listen
Even after 53 years have passed, after my Navy service ended, I still have the urge to stand at attention, when I hear "Anchors Away", and smile just a little. ;-)
I do too.... and I'm a civilian!
I'm old army and air-force. I feel the same. What's the name of that song again "Airplanes Away?"
Actually it's "Wild Blue Yonder" and I think it's actually "Anchors Aweigh" not away@@yepiratesworkshop7997
I'm a civilian, and I get that feeling from all the service branches' songs. My favorite is "The Army Goes Rolling Along," since the Army is where my dad served, but Grandpap was on an LST in WW2, so "Anchors Aweigh" is right behind it. I haven't heard the Space Force song yet, though. Much respect to all who have served and are serving! ❤🇺🇲
I'm shocked, _SHOCKED_ , I say, that the Mark 14 torpedoes had problems! Why, we were all assured by BuOrd that they worked exactly as specified, and any perceived problems were the result of user error.
@Drachinifel tells how one sub fired a dozen Mark 14s at a vessel only to have them all bounce off. They saved the last one and took to Pearl for evaluation.
😂😂😂
And a court martial could follow if the captain ordered a toroedo mate to open one up for troubleshooting or modification to make them work.
Upon hearing of problems the bureau of ordinance immediately investigated and found no faults because all the paperwork was fill it out correctly
Thank you ! Amazon will deliver my kit tomorrow. It's for my 20 ' Bayliner
This was interesting, my father was a fire control technician on the tender Orion (AS-55) during the Korean War. He worked on the Mark 101 TDC.
Mister Paul, thank you sooooo much for this series on the Cod, and your efforts to restore this beautiful piece of history.❤❤❤
Paul,
The TDC absolutely deserves a video of its own. It was such an amazing piece of technology for its time, and making it reliable enough to operate on a sub was a major accomplishment of itself.
One of the most effective pieces of electro-mechanical devices ever devised for warfare. I really think it only falls to the later anti-air fire control computers in general comparison of capability against target parameters and tracking. I'd still vote for the TDC over the Iowa-class's main fire-control computers.
Well, to be completely fair, the Iowa main battery fire control computer does allow for input of 21 different parameters. I think the TDC is about a dozen.
They did indeed make a superb firing system for the fish--it's a shame the torpedoes being fired were so awful for so long. The bigwigs at the Bureau of Ordinance should have been charged with criminal negligence for first sending untested equipment into battle and then failing to listen to the actual men in the field telling them about the torpedoes' failures.
@@davidlanfranchi8955Yes, but is it as lovable?
YES !!--those T.D.C.-where an absolute genius of a design !--i would love to know more about them !
If I remember my history correctly, some of the torpedoes were supposed to detonate under the ship, breaking the keel. It didn't work well, but it would explain having the 50 foot depth setting.
Yes. You're right!
The finally got the magnetic detonator to work in mid 1945. By that time there were few Japanese ships left
The Mark 14 had the ability to fail more than half the time at the start of the war. Some boats got nothing but duds, then the Navy tried to blame the commanders and their crews.
Yes indeed
The level of planning and manufacture of WWII weapons of war will never cease to amaze me. Electronic function with at least one, sometimes two, mechanical contingency backups was very standard in US war-time design. It's not just what they did that amazes me, but how they managed to cram them into spaces that could still be long-term functional. If something just went completely wrong with the TDC and it wasn't reparable by the geniuses in the electronic gang, you could still finish the patrol with the IS-Was and Banjo and manually firing the torpedoes with only slight reduction in efficiency. Other systems were just as resilient and backed up. It wouldn't be pleasant and would be a lot of hard work, but that was the Navy, in war, and the enemy was still out there needing their date with the bottom.
You know your stuff, shipmate!
What strikes me is that in every sub movie they never show the poor guy behind the bulkhead. All we ever see are the loaders and the grizzled old Chief slamming the fire button.
And our handsome hero on the periscope. Haha.
We (USS Trout SS-566 FIRE CONTROL) had the mark 11 switch boxes that transmitted data to the Mk14. We had no spindles.
Thanks to this site, I started playing Silent Hunter IV, and have learned how to hit a target by setting various range and angles on the rudimentary controls. Problem is, the Game is 'Historically accurate' in that my early-war career is sunk before I fire - all my Fish are indeed running 15 or more feet below setting. Greetings and Respect from the Great White North, eh!
Love the game, but 'cheat' with perfect torps and skilled assistants. Mainly I just like hearing myself call out commands.
I wondered for decades how the settings were put into the fish.
Me, too. It's WONDERFUL to finally see how it was done. Mystery solved.
He didn't mention or show how the torpedo was indexed in the tube. There must be a way to make sure everything is aligned so the spindles go into the holes in the torpedo. Anyone have an answer?
I believe a lot of the early war successes used the mark 10, no magnetic pistol , contact detonator worked, and only ran a little deeper that set.
Thank you very much for sharing your valuable information with us. I have always wondered how it was done, most appreciated 😊
Finally, I understand what is meant when someone in the conning tower yells, "Fired electrically!"
Thanks!
man, those analog dial is really beautiful.
I bet submarine movies would have been more interesting with these steps. Love the pushing of pins in and out of the torp and the backup firing.
I used to play Silent hunter 1. While a game, it was very good, namely because of the documentation. I remember that US submarines had a very basic hit probality computer (or calculator...). That thing was advanced tech in WW2 era.
Paul and crew, thank you so much for these “deep dives” into submarine tech. They are appreciated!
My dads first boat was the Redfin, in the '60's. He got me hooked on the boats with " Run silent, Run Deep, and Dust on the sea.
They were known to sink tug oats and torpedo recovery boats acting as practice targets. The boat would station just outside fast speed range. Torpedo room would shoot in slow speed and that really long pointy thing with no torpex would punch a big home.
The fire button always shown on silent service..............took me a long time to learn where that button is !!!
11:04 About that 50-foot depth setting. Originally the Mark XIV torpedo had a magnetic influence exploder. In theory, the Mark XIV could run under an enemy ship, explode just beneath the keel, and because water is typically incompressible, shatter the enemy's keel, and thereby cause the vessel to break in half -- theoretically a much more devastating attack than punching a hole in the enemy's hull. I believe this was successfully tested once or twice in the waters off Cape Cod in the mid-1930s. However, due to the tight naval budget and a low opinion of submarines among the members of the ruling "gun club" admirals, insufficient funds were allocated for the sort of testing that should have been done. As things worked out the Earth's magnetic field varies across the globe -- stronger here, weaker there -- such that the magnetic influence exploder usually malfunctioned in the Western Pacific. There are many accounts of American torpedoes exploding halfway to the target thanks to that characteristic of our planet.
The reason for the extreme depth setting available was to allow the Mark XIV fish to run under the keel of even the largest or most heavily laden ships,
Yes!
@@paulfarace9595 I wish I had read the comments before I wrote mine. Several others made essentially the same point days before mine. I did add a few details not mentioned elsewhere, however.
Excellent! I had heard of the tubes having something to do with torpedo programming but now to see it work is awesome.
I’ve been on that boat many times as a Legion rider for Post 91 and just going with family. I live in North Carolina now but I’d sure do miss Cleveland and going to the cod.
Thanks Paul and Evan, and members of USS Cod staff. Now if I watch another movie about WWII American subs, as least I can have a good idea of what really happened, other than the CO giving the order to fire, and someone pushing the plunger. As always, thanks for another informative and entertaining video. Greetings from Texas.
😮thanks for your kind words. Exciting news out of Galveston these days! 🎉
Yessir, it is great to see USS Texas back in the water.@@paulfarace9595
"I've got two fish in the water running hot and true." Some gato or baleo class sub captain while talking to an admiral in charge of a nuclear submarine.
It was baleó class😊
The USS Stingray (Pampanito) is a BALAO boat... and CAPT. Thomas Dodge was speaking to the USS Dallas! 😂
Yeah, but what's the story with the tatoo?
I definitely identify with the Stepanik 😂
@@oscar_charliewelcome aboard 😂
IIRC Ryan has stated the max draft on an Iowa was 38 ft. I think some of the Japanese battleships were heavier so may have had a deeper draft. Didn't the later torpedoes have magnetic detonators? Those work best when exploding under the Keel don't they? That would explain the 50 foot running depth setting.
50 feet may have been for magnetic detonators designed to explode below the hull, and break the keel.
Yes!
It also occurred to me that 50 feet would also be about right to hit an enemy sub at periscope depth, though that may just be serendipity.
Possibly for training? Set the fish for 50ft so it would pass under the target ship.
The "In" and "Out" labels on the spindle levers is horrible UI, and I have to wonder how many times those got snapped in active use.
My cousin and l took a road trip to Cleveland to check out a slot car convention. Why? Don't know. Got to tour your boat and thoroughly enjoyed it. Still using my coffee mug. There was some kind of service being held topside on the bow. Good times, he was 58 and l was 61 then. Kids, right? What are you going to do?
Great recall Paul. Amazing how these boats conducted business in wartime conditions.
This is interesting stuff. I’m glad I came across this channel. You need more views!
Thank You Paul, I always wondered how this was done.....cheers, Paul down in Orlando, former Cleveland resident....
I was an Airedale but have always been fascinated by submarines. This has been a great educational and entertaining video. Thank you for sharing. Have a great day and stay safe.🙂🙂
Thanks to everyone involved.👍👍🇺🇸🇺🇸
Good thing i don't live closer to down town. I always have want to launch the cod and take it for a spin around lake Erie . looks ready to sail on short notice.
Appreciate the video. Kudos to you and your team. Perhaps you could do a video on the loading of torpedoes in such a tight space......one day 😃
One day! 😅
@@paulfarace9595 Thanks so much! I have marked it on my calendar so I don't forget.
Thank you very much, you have 1) slightly demystified the process, and 2) have shown the commonality of those systems with that of US surface warships with Arma Corp components. BZ
Cod was in service well after WW2. What was the most advanced Torpedo she could have fired?
Mark 14, mod 3, Mark 18, Mark 27 Mid 0.
Good Video - Keep them coming, lots I've forgotten about - DBF
Don't know if the sub ever got them, or if they even existed during the in-service years, but a maximum 50 foot depth would be good for keel breaker type torpedoes.
Greetings: Good presentation. Thx 4 the share.
Thanks for sharing, Paul.
On the subject of torpedo struggles, Cod entered the fleet in mid-43, and I thought by late '43 they were beginning to work out the issues with the Mark 14 exploder and such to get more reliably working torpedos. Something interesting to cover if you ever did a video about it might be how the torpedo failure onion impacted Cod in particular, as an example of the mid-war fleet boat entry into service? Does its war record reflect only some of the issues which remained problems effecting it, or were they mostly fixed before it entered service, or did it make patrol after patrol with bad torpedos like the start-of-war boats?
Cod encountered torpedo problems on many of her patrols.
@@paulfarace9595 I think that could make a cool video that's not just a high-level re-hash, but "how the issues effected a single specific boat's war".
Very interesting.
Yes, do a video on the TDC.
What becomes of spent torpedoes? Torpedoes that have missed their target and propulsion is expended.
I was just wondering the same thing. Do people find unexploded torpedoes on the ocean floor nowadays if they dive somewhere relatively shallow but deep enough that a sub could still operate?
Torpedoes sink at the end of run.
They become artifacts for archaeologists of the distant future.
If torpedoes are set for 15 feet of depth....miss a target....and no longer have propulsion...What what keeps them from staying suspended at 15' ?
@@kevindorland738 Like a shark, a torpedo depends on hydrodynamic forces to maintain depth. If either stops, it sinks
Thanks, passing this on to the Red Chinese
They're already watching...😢
We have done that recently. It's no fun replacing the spindle.
Shooting at the USCG cutter that wouldn't move for your tow to drydock?
I have a great video clip of me training the deck gun on it with my camera down the barrel.
Good thing the Mk14 you fired was a dud 😮
At least some of the starboard nest Tube One spindles are offset to the port side of the tube. Are those offset spindles also on the port side of the port nest making their operation from between the tube nests not possible unless there was a different mechanism for each nest??
Great informative videos. Please keep them coming my friend.
Nice video young man.
GREAT episode
1940s tech that could still be used as a backup today.
Except the boats noisey😂
How are the torpedoes indexed so they can properly engage with the spindles?
We're going to go over that when we talk about loading fish. Suffice to say there is a groove in the top of the tube and guide studs on the fish that slide into the channel.
Excellent video!
Very few ships have ever been made with a draft of 50 feet or more. There was only one super tanker that had a 58' draft that would have existed before the 1970s. Just the designers leaving their options open I guess!
So it's the time interval between launches that creates the spread , there being just the single gyro angle setting . Well, i ever knew , now I do , appreciate the whistle stop tour of the main armament .
Did Hedy Lamaar have something to do with correcting the mk XIV ? It having such a dismal record in its early deployments .
No... there is a spread setting in the TDC!
Thanks for the info, love all of the details you provide on this channel.
Tube 3 & 4 fired electrically.
Once worked down the road where the MK-48's were made.
A tech comparison of US, German, and Japanese TDC would be interesting.
Well there are maybe ONE or two people who might be capable of doing justice to that topic. I know one... a future session perhaps. Suffice to say the US TDC was far more advanced than anything else in the world.
@@paulfarace9595 In _Das Boot_, it looks like a crew member is warming up a tube machine for that purpose.
"...if you need to know something about the TDC right now go to Greg Williams great piece on the a torpedo data computer at the USS Becuna."
Link?
Looks like ua-cam.com/video/2JjXiWJ2IrI/v-deo.html
Good stuff 💯 👌. seeing that nest of rope at 17.40 , made me think…wtf is it doing? lol. And what knots were used on subs..where and when.. and were there standard amounts of rope kept on board ? I would have replaced that seat ..after I had passed it 😄. Only taking the mick, ! ;)
Great video Paul. Do you have any idea how many fish the Cod fired in anger during her history?
It's on our web page, thanks to WWII-era Cod crewman Red Stevens. We fired 122 fish for 39 hits
@@paulfarace9595 thank you.
Love your videos ! This was a really great one .
Was the low speed used to keep the sub way out from harms way while shooting at a stationary target, while at a dock or anchor? Thanks for the adjustment video. Now we know how.
Thanks for the great video!
Great content, thanks for the video!
That's really interesting, I'd always wondered how this was accomplished.
Great video- thx a lot.
Very interesting- just let me with one question.
The only thing you didn`t show is what exactly happens when the firing command is executed in the tube?
Is there another "firing pin" or something engaged?
Look for our previous program "How to start a torpedo!"
They might as well have replaced the TDC with a roulette wheel. The chances would have been better.
The TDC was excellent... the torpedo was the issue
@@paulfarace9595Absolutely. During the first eighteen months of the war, it rarely mattered which way the torpedo was directed, it either went its own way or hit the target and failed to detonate.
50 Foot depth could be for engaging a sub at periscope depth if they ever went sub vs. sub. I'm not sure they did that in these subs though. What is the average time it takes to fire a fish under perfect conditions, from seeing target to firing fish?
I'm assuming that the torpedoes were fired, one from the starboard, then one from the port. Not both from the same side.
Nonetheless, with the day coming when the discussion will range from the Mark 14 to 18, what were the reasons for the runaways or worse yet those that came back?
To be discussed in those future programs!
Giro angle could be transmitted to the torpedo whilst it was in the tube GARTU giro angle re transmission unit
50 ft depth setting was possibly for attacking submarines at periscope depth
No... not for subs
Detailed explanation of the air systems. Schematics/P&IDs would be great.
That's not our format... that was done for qualification classes 😂
very interesting
46 kts = 52.9 mph. The difference between 52.9 and 55 mph is the difference between a hit or a miss. Servos and synchros. The TDC will compute and set angles for different spread patterns be they angular or time spacing for each fish. So if they made the aft tubes 3' longer for possible use for a "universal torpedo" how come the fwd tubes aren't also? What is a GSIR man, I've never heard that name before?
i used totalk to them all the time, but they never answered🤣😁
Thanks, great video. My understanding was that it wasn’t so much the Mk. 14 torpedo which was to blame for duds as it was the Mk. 6 exploder which was a shape charge responsible for getting the 500 to 600+ pounds of TNT in the head to detonate. Two things: the magnetic detector of the exploder could be tricked by the Earth’s magnetic field. The solution was to disable the magnetic detector and rely on contact detonation. The other thing was that the firing pin was too massive and would jam on a straight on hit. The solution was to make the firing pin lighter, just heavy enough to ensure touching off the primer when it hit the detonator cup.
I don’t know how the tendency to run too deep was solved, if it was anything more technical than just setting ten feet above the desired depth.
If you scrape around, there is quite a bit of stuff on Google documenting the history of positives and pitfalls of the Mk. 14 fish and the Mk. 6 exploder.
Drachinifel has a great series including the mk 14
@@anttiroppola4414 Thanks. I’ll check out his videos on the Mk. 14. He did a presentation with Ryan on board New Jersey about a year ago and he’s very knowledgeable and articulate.
Amazing! 👍
Could you do an episode on the lighting? Why is the conning tower illuminated in red?
A submarines interior lighting will shine through the periscope which can be seen by an enemy ship. During daytime the lightning will be normal but at night the red lights will be used as red light is hard to see. Also if a sailor is using the periscope at night and the interior lighting is bright, then when he/she stops looking through the periscope, they will be blinded until their eyes adjust.
Great video TY
Was the fire control station manned by a Torpedo Mate, or another enlisted rate?
Which FCS?
If you set if for 20 feet, it might go under even a battleship or carrier.
Yes it was one of the problems...😮
50' run depth, shooting at another sub.
Really Cool!
How was alignment of the torpedo to the mechanical adjustment spindles?
It goes down to 50 feet because you may be firing on another submarine. It was rare but you did have sub to sub engagements.
No... you didn't fire on submerged submarines ... it was a throwback to the practice of using magnetic detonators that required the torpedo to pass deep under the ship.
Only one successful submerged submarine v submarine engagement ever took place during WW2. A Royal Navy sub sunk a German U boat. I think it’s the only time in warfare that this ever happened
Programing those bottom two tubes must have been a little bit of a neck breaker. Are the controls at a different orientation than the ones above so the crew could see them better shy of laying flat on the deck.
Also, were the bottom tubes used as often as the top two or were they used less because of their more out of the way position? (If they're even as out of the way as they appear since I've never actually seen them)
Tubes 5 and 6 are reloaded only once on a patrol and yes the controls are in the same location on those tubes so someone's bending down four times on a patrol. 😮😅
Four times isn't too bad. Thank you for the answer!@@paulfarace9595
Could the rear tubes be fired at targets ahead of the sub?
Yes
Later in the war the gyro system could turn the fish more than 110 deg ... so yes.
How did the sub compensate for the weight change when one or more torpedoes were shot?
The Japanese mini subs had that problem and in aerial photos take by their pilots a rooster tail can be seen in Pearl Harbor
I'm guessing that you flood the tube initially and the mass of the water offsets the weight of the missing torpedo. later when they reload the tube they pump out the water and shift ballast as torpedoes are moved about.
Very interesting! I guess it's almost impossible to access the actual torpedo muzzle doors and shutters, but it would be very interested to know how they provide a watertight seal... seems like it would be hard to design something like that.🤔
I'm assuming they're operated hydraulically.
Gatos are manually operated... later subs were hydraulic. The muzzle gaskets are fat rubber rings. Obviously a future topic!😅
Ohhh sounds interesting! Thank you! 😃
What are the 4 brass cylinders above the gyro indicator on the pressure bulkhead where all the grease zurks are?
50 foot depth setting a submarine at periscope depth. you mentioned my other idea for fifty feet.
Do you mean the flashlights or the drive shafts for the .muzzle doors.
@@paulfarace9595 Aha, Flashlights now that I know what they are they look like flashlights.
I guess an for enemy sub not on the surface would use that 50 foot depth setting.
Same thought. See a periscope? 50 feet sounds just about right.
You never would fire on a submerged sub... only surfaced, where they were most of the time. Not until 1950 and the introduction of the Mark 27, Mod 4 could a sub fire a homing fish at a submerged sub.
It was for the magnetic detonators that required the fish to pass below the ship. That didn't work out well in WWII...😢
@@paulfarace9595 Why not? You see a sub submerge until only its periscope is visible. You can tell from the periscope's wake which way the sub is heading and where its hull is. Why not shoot a torpedo at it?
What were the targets for the long range shots?
When you can't close on the target and you want to ty a little Kentucky windage