Talk:Type 93 torpedo

Reloading

The torpedo reloads turned out not to be very practical in the heat of battle as this article suggests. As far as I can determine the IJN only successfully reloaded (and used those reloads during the same engagment) twice during the entire Second World War - this out of hundreds of torpedo attacks made.

• They don't have to reload during the heat of battle. They can wait until night falls or the battle ends to reload. In fact, the Japanese doctrine seemed to focus on night battles, which makes reloading torpedoes much more useful.

The Type 93's were very heavy weapons and it did take some time for reloads to be accomplished. Therefore, there weren't very many battles in which reloads were accomplished before the battle was over. I'll try to list here later which battles in which reloads were done, but, it's going to take me some time to research it. Cla68 03:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Specifications?

It would be very nice to have specs for this weapon, such as length, weight, and speed. What kind of fusing did it use? Did it use single or counter-rotating screws?

Japanese ships sunk by Type 93 explosions

The article mentions that several Japanese cruisers and destroyers were sunk or heavily damaged when their Type 93s exploded or burned after being ignited during battle. Perhaps we can list the ships here that this happened to and eventually add it to the article:

• Mikuma (sunk; Battle of Midway)
• Furutaka (sunk; Battle of Cape Esperance)
• Suzuya (sunk; Battle off Samar)
• Aoba (heavily damaged during air attack at Kavieng)
• Mogami (heavily damaged at Battle of Surigao Strait
• Yamagumo (sunk; Battle of Surigao Strait)
• Chokai (sunk; Battle off Samar)

add more here CLA 08:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Source for the information on the cruisers is: Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War, (1997) by Eric Lacroix and Linton Wells II, Naval Institute Press, p. 64. Cla68 (talk) 12:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody clarify why they tended to explode? IIRC, the pure oxygen fuel was highly volatile, as well as suceptible to reacting to chemicals in common use shipboard, & to some metals (reasons USN resisted "oxygen" fish); also, IIRC, "oxygen" is actually hydrogen peroxide... I'd add it, if I was more certain, & had any clue about a source.... Trekphiler 15:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Why they tended to explode: The Type 93 used a very high-pressure O2 tank or flask which was also very thin-walled to save weight. If the O2 tank were as robust as typical commercial O2 tank used in hospitals (these are built to withstand fire and tremendous shock to prevent explosion) then the weapon would have been so heavy that much of the advantge of the design (ie, long range/high speed options) would have been lost. Thin-walls and high pressure equals a high probability of catastrophic (ie, explosive) rupture. Japan accepted the risk to acquire what they hoped would be a war-winning weapon. Night fighting in the Solomons proved that the Type 93 was indeed formidable, but US radar and improved tactics made the opportunities to use the Long Lance more and more scarce. However, the action in Surigao Strait showed that the much safer Mark XV torpedo could be just as deadly to capital ships if used properly.ENScroggs (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The Japanese and several other navies experimented with H2O2 as a torpedo and/or submarine fuel, but found it was too dangerous. The Type 93 used compressed gaseous O2 as an oxyidizer in a fairly conventional internal combustion engine, no hyrogen peroxide was used in the Type 93.ENScroggs (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Your two posts above provide extremely valuable information about the torpedo. Do you have a source for the information? If so, we can go ahead and add it to the article. Cla68 (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Oxygen is not a fuel, surprisingly enough it is a very efficient oxidizer.212.188.109.61 (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The info box gives the propellant as "oxygen enriched air". This is clearly wrong, as 1) the gas in question was pure oxygen, not "enriched air"; 2) the "wet heater" engine of the Type 93 did not work on pure compressed gas like the original Whitehead torpedoes but by burning a flammable liquid with the oxygen as oxidizer, thus producing a larger amount of effective expanding gas in the engine. What that flammable liquid (the actual "fuel") was in the case of the Type 93 is not clear from the article.--Death Bredon (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Point blank?

I deleted

"but did not have as great an effect on the war as it might have had, owing to the Japanese tactic of using submarines to engage warships rather than merchantmen"

because, while true, it's not relevant to the torpedo (not even the Type 95, I'd say). Trekphiler 15:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Impact on postwar torpedo development

What about impact of Type 93 on other navies after WWII? Soviet and US development, especially the 65-76 that killed the Kursk 212.188.109.61 (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

---

The Kursk submarine disaster is blamed on a faulty weld in a Type 65 torpedo. These torpedoes are said to be using HTP, not pure oxygen nor oxygen-enriched air. Completely different technology.

If you want HTP technology, look at Nazi Germany. They used T-Stoff a lot, generating steam for launch catapults, turbopumps, rocketry, submarine under-water sprint (did not get to the front), Starthilfe (RATO), boosting the Henschel Hs 293 glide bomb ... and they did use it in torpedoes, under the name "Ingolin", after Ingo, the son of Hellmuth Walter, the engineer heading his company pioneering and responsible most of the HTP technology.

Among the Ingolin/T-Stoff driven torpedoes, see the List of World War II torpedoes of Germany, not fielded unless explicitly mentioned:

1. Using a turbine:

• the Klippfisch, experimental
• the TVII aka Steinbutt
• the TVIII aka Steinbarsch (to be fielded April '45)
• the TIX aka Goldbutt (for midget subs)
• the TXIII aka K-Butt (for the Seehund midget sub, to be fielded April '45)
• the Schildbutt, experimental
• the Zaunbutt, a Steinbutt with the Zaunkönig passive homing seeker technology, stopped after all plans and models were destroyed in a single air raid.
• the Wal or Steinwal, experimental, development nearly ready by end of war
• the Goldfisch for special submarines (which never materialized, hence the program was stopped)

2. Using a rocket exhaust:

• the Hecht, experimental
• the Mondfisch, experimental

3. air launched torpedoes, turbine:

• the LT II B1 /B3 / C
• the LT 1000a / 1000b
• the LT 1500 (turbine variant) too heavy, too short ranged

4. air launched, rocket engine:

• the LT 1200A / 1200B, too heavy, too short ranged
• the LT 1500 (rocket engine variant), also likely too heavy, too short ranged

That all said, I think there's practically nothing that the Type 93 offered as knowledge or influence except you do not want any torpedoes with pure oxygen or HTP hit by shells, and that that was never much of a concern for the Kursk, being under water practically the whole time ...

'Surviving Examples'

Added a 'Surviving Examples' section. Please add to it more museum examples you can confirm exist.Catsmeat (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Navy zealer

In the "American, Australian, & New Zealand", I have a question: shouldn't it be "Zealander"? Since the previous 2 use the (adjectival?) form, IMO, it shouldn't just be "NZ"... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

United States Navy Tactics

An editor has removed the following text from this article on the grounds that United States naval tactics are inappropriate for an article on a Japanese weapon. I rather felt this information illustrated how well the Japanese weapon was designed for a specific mission against an identified antagonist:

Anticipating the possibility of war with Japan, the United States planned to move their battleships across the Pacific with the fleet train. Cruisers and destroyers would be responsible for defending this large formation at night. Fleet exercises held during the 1930s revealed the confusing nature of close range engagements during hours of darkness. "Attacking" destroyers closed to within 500 meters (one third mile) of USS Saratoga before being detected during Fleet Problem XIII in 1932. Fleet Problem XV in 1934 placed the destroyer screen 7 miles (11 km) outside of the battleship formation, but the battleships were unable to differentiate "friend" from "foe" at that distance. Screening destroyers were subsequently stationed at the effective searchlight illumination range of 3 miles (5 km) from the battleships. Recognition improved at that distance, but torpedo hit probability increased as evasive maneuvering of the large, compact fleet was restricted within the closer screen.

United States Navy War Instructions (FTP 143) published in 1934 remained in effect through the initial 1942 engagements in the Solomon Islands. The instructions emphasized defense to avoid the attrition objective of Japanese planning:

• Cruisers were advised to avoid night action unless conditions were favorable.
• Destroyers were to attack at once with guns and illumination, but reserve torpedoes for use against capital ships.

Searchlight illumination range effectively covered launch positions of United States torpedoes, but not the Japanese Type 93 Torpedo. Japanese ships could remain outside of illumination range, launching torpedoes at American ships revealing their position with gunfire and searchlights.

I would value the opinion of other interested parties in assessing suitability for inclusion.Thewellman (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As noted, this is all USN info, with no direct bearing on the Type 93. Information on the tactical use of the Type 93 by IJN deserves inclusion, not this, any more than IJN response to the Mk 15 belongs there. To add, I'd say similar commentary on IJN tactics would be not only okay but desirable. IIRC, Peattie & Evans had some mention in Kaigun (including a doctrinal ref, explaining why CCs had TT), plus a diagram of IJN's projected "torpedo cruiser"? IIRC, she had 5x5 TT. 80 TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:30 & 09:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Risk

Samuel Eliot Morison's vol. 3 states that the Long Lances effectiveness out weighed it's risks. Since the above list of sunk IJN warships are the result of those "risks"; it would be appropiate to also list the "effectiveness" of the type 93...how many allied warships were sunk by the Long Lance type 93 torpedo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.160.36 (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

An excellent question. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

history and development section

I don't think it would be proper to use the word bioluminesence since there is no living organism creating the light. I'm not sure what the correct term would be. Perhaps just drop the bio- prefix? I believe it has something to do with the cavitation and light refraction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavitation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.20.67.4 (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you quite certain the effect isn't caused by Dinoflagellates? I recall frequently observing luminescence on the ship's bow wave at night in the absence of cavitation.Thewellman (talk) 07:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Certain, no, but confident. I've always understood it to be the product of the disturbance the wake creates in the ocean surface, not by any creature. I am, however, no expert in bioluminescence... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I would have guessed dinoflagellates as well. I note that there is no cite for the claim that all torpedoes produce a luminescent wake at night, so we can't check the original source for clarification. Perhaps I should tag this claim? --Yaush (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Air bubbles in the water make for a more visible wake but not for a luminescent one. Air bubbles would need to be highlighted by light from the moon, or some other source of light at night. Bioluminescence is probably the reason for wakes visible during moonless nights. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I deleted this sentence. The claim is not specific to the Type 93 so there's no need to keep it here, no need to try and support it with a reference. Binksternet (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Quotes within the section "Specification"

There are many parts of that section that seem to be quotes from particular Japanese personnel. The material is not in quotes nor in block quote. I edited a few parts of the writing as the writing seemed a bit clunky. If those lines are quotes they should be in quotes and the original wording restored. I however do not have access to the original material and can't tell if they are quotes from the sources.

In addition, there is a general lack of citations provided in the article.Zedshort (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

What is going on with this, I can't see the edit made that provided the source that is displaying? Zedshort (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

On the subject of possibly inaccurate information, it should be noted that the info-box gives the maximum range speed as 34-36 knots whereas the article text mentions a speed of 38 knots to achieve maximum range Friecode (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

History and Development section; Splinters Typo ?

A typo appears to exist in the History and Development section, 4th paragraph.

The sentence;

"The Type 93 was launched from 61 cm (24 in) torpedo tubes mounted on the decks of IJN destroyers and cruisers; some Japanese destroyers, unlike ships of other navies, mounted their banks of torpedo tubes in turrets offering protection against splinters, and had tube loaders."

Request remove "offering protection against splinters" Request creating two sentences from original sentence.

New text; "The Type 93 was launched from 61 cm (24 in) torpedo tubes mounted on the decks of IJN destroyers and cruisers. Some Japanese destroyers, unlike ships of other navies, mounted their banks of torpedo tubes in turrets and had tube loaders."

Unless there is a explanation why World War II IJN ship crews needed protection against splinters and how torpedo tube turrets would protect against splinters, I believe this is a typo.

The sentence seems to be a run on sentence as well.

The error seems to have been added 22:13 12 Jan 2010

It's not a typo. Splinter protection is sensible, given it's likely if a tincan is being fired on by a heavy. I'm not clear why you think it doesn't make sense. The qualifier "splinter protection" is necessary to distinguish the tube turrets from ones with armor (such as battleship turrets). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Section "Specification"

Near the beginning, the section says: "However, the IJN announced officially [...]"

Does that mean the values given before are fake? Was the announcement an attempt to fool their enemies? I also wonder in what form specifications of important military hardware are announced. Is there a publication for things like this? 91.10.47.112 (talk) 03:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio

Someone had the great idea to quote a large segment from a 1988 book, a clear copyright violation. --84.189.95.128 (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for removing that. Binksternet (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Detonator types?

Did the Type 93 have a magnetic detonator or just the contact option? In other navies, the magnetic option caused problems. I wonder how the IJN solved that problem. Will (Talk - contribs) 11:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

weight

It looks like there were 2,700 kg, or 2.7 metric ton and 2800kg versions. in pounds that's ~5,900lb or ~6,100#, the pound value in the article is wrong I think and it's ambiguous as to what kind of ton it is, though I suppose modern Japan uses the metric system, it seems like historically their use of measurement systems has been complicated. I think it's better to be explicit. Fanccr (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)