Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!lll-winken!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: nik@swindon.ingr.com (Nik Simpson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Torpedoing Battleships
Message-ID: <1991May29.010924.6360@amd.com>
Date: 24 May 91 08:54:52 GMT
References: <1991May23.054849.13718@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: Intergraph UK Ltd. (swindon)
Lines: 24
Approved: military@amd.com


From: nik@swindon.ingr.com (Nik Simpson)


buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland) writes:
>In the debate over whether or not Rodney torpedoed Bismarck, I
>note the side issue emerging of whether surface-ship-launched
>torpedos did any damage to Bismarck.  Are modern torpedos
>available in a specialized type for this kind of armor-piercing
>role, in the same way that tanks carry rounds specifically

The workings of a torpedo are very different to an armour piercing
shell,  shells strike armour at very high velocity and are designed to
pierce partially by kinetic enery,  torpedoes strike at much lower
speeds and work by the power of the explosion.  Torpedoes are not
intended to pierce armour in the way that a shell is.  Torpedoes are
most effective when they don't strike the armour at all in fact
magnetic fused torpedoes do not strike the ship at all the make use of
the fact the water is incompressible and hence the shock wave from the
explosion is devastating,  they are intended under the keel of the ship.

-- 
Nik Simpson	Mail : nik@swindon.ingr.com
Systems Consultant (UNIX).   Intergraph UK Ltd.