Torpedoes vs Monitors
- Thread starter The Kiat
- Start date
The submarine firing the torpedo would set the running depth before firing so they would set it to a depth that would hit the monitor if that's what they were aiming at.
David S Poepoe
Banned
I think you are talking about monitors such as the USS Arkansas, which mounted a single 12in gun twin turret. I would think that a submarine captain, once identifying her, would set his torpedoes to run shallow.
I would consider these ships, especially because of the low freeboard, to be very vulnerable to torpedo strikes. Internal compartmentation would be comparable to other ships of the time - which would be poor in general.
A large monitor, like any wide body bulged ship, can take a direct impact on the side relatively quite well, meaning it has a good change to survive. An under the hull detonnation is fatal in most cases. Typical examples are not so much seen on Monitors, as these tended not to operate in highly contested waters normally, but it is shown on frontline warships like cruisers and battleships.
The large 14" and 12" monitors built hastliy in 1914 had for the time probably the best anti torpedo defence of any ships then afloat. Their bulges combine air and water filled spaces. Only their overall lack of subdivison and structural strength would be suspect.
As mentioned, hits on the sides rarely are sufficient to cause fatal damage especially on bulged ships with propper anti torpedo defence systems (which bulges basically are). Only hits from below, or dettonations under the hull, like magnetic, acoustic, or influence triggered warheads can cause fatal damage to all ships, including big monitors and the biggest battleships. Given the technical status of torpedoes in the Great War, these sort of damages are not much likely, though in WW2 it was possible to inflict such sorts of fatal damage, to knock out a ship entirely (though not necessarily sinking it). (HMS Belfast and USS Houston CL-81 are good examples of such sorts of under the hull hits.)
WTF?
..........................WTF?
Was this anecdote: judge boa for rape monkeys, the judge says, "chop off his head." Audience: "What cruelty, let's chop off his tail." Monkey: "Yes, yes, to the ears!"
And a monitor: getting torpedo hit, he immediately sits down into the water below deck.
..........................WTF?I was thinking more about a big monitor on a lake. In one of my works I plan to rewrite cruisers and such as just big two turret monitors. I'll keep the battleships since those would be as much for prestige and naval warfare. Of course that being said, and sub skipper would probably aim for the battleships, so I guess that kind of made my original question moot.
I was thinking more about a big monitor on a lake. In one of my works I plan to rewrite cruisers and such as just big two turret monitors. I'll keep the battleships since those would be as much for prestige and naval warfare. Of course that being said, and sub skipper would probably aim for the battleships, so I guess that kind of made my original question moot.
Out of curiosity how big a lake are you thinking of?
More precisely, a true Dreadnought type battleship is build normally to operate at the high seas, not an inshore lake. Its high hull; normally reflects seakeepingness, rather than anything else. A lake bound equivalent might well resemble something more like a big gunned Monitor like low freeboarded vessel, as seaconditions are much less an issue. Point is: the lower the hull is above the waterline, the less a target it is for any opposing gunner.
Suggestion for the sort of scenario being written: design some purposely engineered vessels optimized for lake like operation, meaning speed is not important and gunnery is a major issue. This might well result in ships being more like large rafts in shape, with low freeboard and shallow draft on a very wide beam. Superatructure is minimal, just the essentials only, to minimize the profile, resulting in a smaller target for opposing gunnery. (Possibly just a sinlge mast with firecontrol, no specific bridge, or so and possibly just a smokestack, that would be all, besides the armament.) Cruisers make no sence entirely on a lake, as a "Cruiser" means a ship intended to cruise the high seas. Inshore like vessels are at best described as gunboats and monitors. (even the larger ones.) A gunboat and a monitor are simmilar in concept though, with the difference in a gunboat being unprotected, with the exception of occasionally having an armored deck and a monitor being armored.
Suggestion for the sort of scenario being written: design some purposely engineered vessels optimized for lake like operation, meaning speed is not important and gunnery is a major issue. This might well result in ships being more like large rafts in shape, with low freeboard and shallow draft on a very wide beam. Superatructure is minimal, just the essentials only, to minimize the profile, resulting in a smaller target for opposing gunnery. (Possibly just a sinlge mast with firecontrol, no specific bridge, or so and possibly just a smokestack, that would be all, besides the armament.) Cruisers make no sence entirely on a lake, as a "Cruiser" means a ship intended to cruise the high seas. Inshore like vessels are at best described as gunboats and monitors. (even the larger ones.) A gunboat and a monitor are simmilar in concept though, with the difference in a gunboat being unprotected, with the exception of occasionally having an armored deck and a monitor being armored.
Intresting warships you could use as examples are the Brazilian River Gunboats that were commisioned into the Royal Navy in WW1 as the Humber class. For something a little larger how about the two Norwegian coast defence ships which were also taken up by the RN and renaimed Glatton and Gorgan. The Brazillian boats shiped twin 6" turrets and the Norwegian design had two 9.2" guns in single mounts plus 4 single 6" turrets.
sharlin
Banned
Such an approach?
What the devil is that thing? A riverine monitor I assume but from where?