[size=3]Underwater Protection Systems[/size]
Since its invention in the 1700s, the torpedo has become a useful and extremely powerful weapon. It can greatly increase the offensive firepower of a vessel.
Capital Ships sunk by torpedo/mine in the Great War;
|
Source code
|
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
|
HMS Audacious – Mine
HMS Britannia – Torpedo
HMS Cornwallis – Torpedo
HMS Formidable – Torpedo
HMS Goliath – Torpedo
HMS Irresistable – Torpedo
HMS King Edward VII – Mine
HMS Majestic – Torpedo
HMS Ocean – Torpedo
HMS Russell – Mine
HMS Triumph – Torpedo
RM Regia Margherita – Mine
MN Bouvet – Mine
MN Gaulois – Torpedo
MN Suffren – Torpedo
MN Danton – Torpedo
SMS Pommern – Torpedo
Petropavlovsk – Torpedo
Wien – Torpedo
Viribus Unitis – Mine
Szent Istvan - Torpedo
|
Most of the capital ships sunk were of pre-dreadnought design and did not feature underwater defense systems. However, the loss of 21 capital ships proves that defense against underwater attack is paramount. By comparison, the number of capital ships lost to gunfire is 4. The RMI must work to improve the underwater defense systems(UDS) for future capital ships.
The most important factor in determining the effectiveness of the UDS is the breadth of the system. This, by necessity, indicates that a beamy hull must be used. Keeping with current models, the B2 hullform looks to be used for future vessels. PedS used the B1 hullform, but since then it has been found that the B2 is a better compromise. Whilst Italy is limited to 40,000tons displacement, a beam of c. 32-33m is the maximum possible using the B2 hullform. A system breath of up to 7m is possible.
Currently two systems are being investigated, the Pugliese system, and the Fíume system. The Pugliese system uses a large cylinder to expend the energy of the torpedo warhead. The cylinder crumples under the impact. The system will be hard to repair and still lets water into the hull. The Fíume system works on a number of cuboid boxes, 1 void, 1 liquid carrying fuel oil and 1 void then the splinter bulkhead. In testing, both systems have been able to withstand up to a 500kg charge. Currently, our largest torpedo has a 750kg warhead. It is impossible to further protect against torpedoes on a displacement of 40,000tons. Even in the event of a successfully contained hit, a large quantity of water will still flood the ship. Eventually, with many torpedo hits, the ship will succumb to flooding.
Neither of these two systems do anything to protect the ends of the ship against torpedo hits. The breadth of the system means that it is only possible to mount it in the middle 60% of the vessel. Which means that a torpedo is nearly as likely to hit the underprotected ends and cause massive flooding. The tunnel-system installed on the Aquila-class Portaaerei gives more than adequate protection to the otherwise extremely vulnerable propellors and rudders. The disadvantages of the system are some vibration at high speeds and the ability to only use a 2-shaft propulsion unit. Experiments are ongoing to try and give a similar level of protection to a 4-shaft unit. For battleships, this system is sadly unworkable, as the barbette for the aft turret interferes with the centrally located shafts. Any capital ship will remain extremely vulnerable to torpedo hits in unprotected areas.
I propose that Italy forgo the construction of additional battleships either until we are in a position as to build ships larger than 40,000tons, or to forgo the construction of battleships entirely.
Where will new battleships be used? The Eastern Med. Indian Ocean, Red Sea and the Atlantic. Of these, the possibilty of torpedo attack in the Atlantic and Indian Ocean is small and would probably come from submarines. It is reasonable to expect 1-2 hits as a maximum, which a new battleship should be able to withstand. However, in the main areas of operations, the EM and Red Sea, torpedo attack from both submarine and surface vessels is much more likely. It is likely that, in a prolonged action, multiple strikes will be observed, with each strike bringing the next easier. In addition, the inability to protect propellors and rudders against torpedo strikes would give battleships an extreme vulnerability faced with small torpedo craft. The RMI had great success with MAS in the Great War. It is known that other navies have a similar capability. The situation is that in the most likely theatre of operations, the battleship is at a great disadvantage. For this reason, more than anything else, I propose to forgo capital ship construction. The June conference into fleet rebuilding declared that battleship construction should be given up on economic grounds, further strengthening the argument against battleships.
The RMI still needs to be able to project power. The other conclusions reached in the June Conference were for the construction of new aircraft carriers and ACRs. The aircraft carrier is able to be protected better against torpedoes than the battleship due to the lack of barbettes which interfere with the depth of the system. It is also possible to protect the vulnerable ends, as seen with Aquila.
The ACR is to be the exponent of torpedo warfare for the RMI. A heavy torpedo battery of 600mm torpedoes is being included on all designs. Our current weapon, the M1923 is a wet-heater powered torpedo with a range of 3500m@35knts. This will become insufficient in the future and a weapon with a range of up to 20.000m is to be desired. The positive side is that the M1923 carries an exceptionally large 750kg warhead. Experiments at Fíume indicate that it might be possible to increase the speed of our torpedoes by 2knts with a more hydrodynamic shape. For extra range, the wet-heater system may prove impossible. Links with the RN tell of their new 24.5” torpedo with a range of 20.000yds@30knts. This is made possible from the use of oxygen-enriched air. I suggest that experiments with various oxidizing agents be carried out to obtain similar or better performance.
A recent study calculated that a modern capital ship will take c. 6-7 500mm torpedo hits to sink. If we take the lower figure as at which a capital ship will be rendered combat ineffective we can extrapolate the following: 500mm torpedo has a warhead of about 200kg. M1923 has a warhead of 750kg, so a ship can only take 1/3 of the hits by a M1923. (This is only a approximation, as the amount of water let into a ship does not only depend on warhead size) This means that a capital ship can take 2-3 M1923 hits before being rendered combat ineffective. The accuracy of torpedo hits in the Great War was about 6%. Now with superior ranging, it might be possible to obtain 10% hits. As such, it would be necessary to expend 20-30 torpedoes to sink 1 capital ship. Current destroyers carry 6 each, and cruisers 6 a side. A SAG of 2xCruisers and 3xDestroyers could expend the 30 torpedoes necessary to sink a capital ship. I propose that the RMI should train to become expert with torpedo warfare to maximise this offensive cabability.
[size=3]Conte de Rosso[/size]
Quoted
This sounds like the Japanese position between wars. Lead to the "Long Lance".
Saturday, June 1st 2024, 1:50am
Go to the top of the page
