Comment by rshnotsecure | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rshnotsecure | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It’s very likely that the torpedoes did not work for the whole war really. It sometimes is scary to think about all the complaints sub commanders put in, only to be dismissed by the Department of the Navy as excuses for bad leadership or tactics. I get that you have to take this line sometimes but still...

That being said it should be noted US Naval strategy has never particularly relied on subs or been that great at it.

This has always fallen to the Eurasian powers such as Germany, Russia, and China/Japan.

Nothing has been downed by a torpedo in actual combat for the last 75 years, so realize that there are so many unknowns today in submarine warfare that you don’t see in say land warfare. That being said it looks like Underwater Unmanned Autonamous Drones is where sub warfare is heading. Supposedly China is way ahead of the pack here much like they are in the drone space (supposedly again) as well. The 2016 capture of a US Navy UUAV really was not good for the USA and marked a shift in the balance of power.

> It’s very likely that the torpedoes did not work for the whole war really.

The patrol reports of each sub detail pretty well what shots were taken and after the fixes in '42 and early '43, the hit percentages rose dramatically... 1944 and 1945 were very good hunting times for US subs in the Pacific. They sank an amazing number of targets in a very short time.

(Former US submariner and very amateur military historian.)

"That being said it should be noted US Naval strategy has never particularly relied on subs or been that great at it."

In WW2, the US used sub warfare to strangle Japan. It's arguable that this blockade was the most effective tactic pound for pound in the entire war.

And the US has relied upon subs to be the most survivable and effective nuclear deterrent in the Triad.

"This has always fallen to the Eurasian powers such as Germany, Russia, and China/Japan."

China? Seriously? Japan? No. And for all the fear we had of Soviet submarines during the Cold War, they definitely weren't great at it. They simply never had the resources for a blue-water fleet.

Basically nothing you've written is factually correct.

HMS Conqueror sank the Argentine cruiser Belgrano with torpedoes

With a torpedo introduced to service in 1927, though. She avoided using her homing torpedoes (the Mark 24 Tigerfish) due to fears that they were unreliable.

"Did not work for the whole war" is far too string. There were specific fixes to the torpedoes and also to the detonators; they were in place by September 1943. This is well documented.

Now: Did they work perfectly for the rest of the war? No. Nothing ever does. They worked a lot better, though.

As others have said, the Belgrano, but also the Cheonan, and the Khukri have all been sunk by torpedos since WWII.

Belgrano?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com