Submarine FACTS: Why Are Torpedoes Always The Same Size?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 июн 2024
- Unscripted and unedited, just a guy sharing info about submarines. The submarines being built today are nothing like the ones from 100 years ago. Yet one critical element has remained the same since the 1920s. The torpedo tubes are all the same size. 533 millimeters (21 inches) in diameter. You see this in the specs of U.S. Navy, Russian Navy, French, Chinese, British, and even North Korean Subs. Here is why, and some history and exceptions.
Guide to submarine launched heavyweight torpedoes on Covert Shores: www.hisutton.com/Guide-to-heav... 
Развлечения
I might’ve said this on a previous video, but I like your “unscripted, but well prepared” presentation style. It comes across as more natural and relaxed than rigidly reading a script.
It's like being taught by a real professor.
Exactly. Unscripted but well prepared is the hallmark of a real expert. While possibly not as smooth as the rehearsed delivery of a redacted text, it gives the listener more insight in the knowledge acquired by the presenter.
Definitely the way to go.
Love to know where your information comes from, especially the Russian stuff.
@@daszieher unscripted is how i train new employees.
I concur.
Something you may want to clarify is this only applies to submarine launched torpedoes. Surface launched and air dropped torpedoes come in radically different sizes. For example, a Mk 46 torpedo is much smaller than a 48.
I'm a submariner veteran (99-03) if I recall correctly the Mk 46 was either 16 or 18 inch diameter. The Mk 48 ADCAP is 21 inch diameter. Do the surface combat vessels still use the MK50. I've never found clear or accurate size dimensions for that particular torpedo.
N.
Ñ
🛩️
⬇️
Probably worth adding that whats contributed to a light weight torpedo still being a viable equipment option today is that they continued to be developed in parallel to submarine launched as air dropped weapons where pretty much every country in the world standardized on 12.8 inch apart from Russia which standardized on 14 inch.
Not just aircraft, but almost all surface vessels seem to carry that size of torpedo as an anti-submarine weapon.
The 6.75 inch torpedo, as far as I know, is not being considered for integration aboard submarines. Rather it was to be carried on carriers as an anti torpedo torpedo. It is very fast and can turn quickly but has limited range. As of a few years ago there were two propulsion variants planned; a lithium battery and a lithium/seawater boiler.
It's still interesting to think that you might be able to stack them in a '+' shape inside of a 533mm torpedo tube though.
@@petlahk4119 I could see a future revolver style magazine where you load half a dozen into a clip, only reloading when the clip is exhausted to minimize opening of inner and outer doors and to speed reload.
Sounds similar to Paсket-NK (324 mm). What's interesting in this name? "-NK" ("-НК" in russian) is abbreviation for "surface combatant" ("надводный корабль"). As a result I have opinion that russians have modification for submarines (i have never heard any official info about Paсket for submarines).
We have similar situation with Kalibr (Club) family of missiles. There are Kalibr-NK (Club-N) for surface combatants and Kalibr-PL (Club-S) for submarines.
@@watcherzero5256 something like that was sort of proposed for swedish submarines long time ago but they decided it was too expensive. also it would be on the outside of pressure hull and it would rotate all around it
@@watcherzero5256 Nice thought.
I think they have a similar system on the B-1 bomber for bomb drops.
Maybe I've missed something but I imagine another advantage of doubling up your torpedoes is you could place them on different course for the same target meaning that there are two angles of attack meaning the ship cannot avoid both
Yes, that too. For example, shooting them around an island in the Swedish archipelago. I think that I wrote an article on it for Forbes a few years ago.
or you can fire shit load of torpedoes at whole fleets. i wonder why didnt soviets adopt this against carrier fleets it cant be more suicidal than rocket torpedo
@@jebise1126 I think because they had one target in a carrier fleet as without their carrier they are pretty much useless. So I imagine for them focusing a couple of big bois' on the one carrier, in that way they would garentuee the effect they were looking for. Even if it is less boats than they could achieve with many torpedoes, it garentuees getting the carrier.
@@Alex-cw3rz Besides, carriers, especially the american ones, are pretty big. You kinda need a good payload for them
@@Alex-cw3rz for carriers you need the big torpedos, these small ones don't have enough payload. So a sub would load up all six (or how ever many tubes it has) and launch a full volley, then reload and shoot again as they escape.
"The French didn't get the memo" is a phrase that could be used for so many of their naval and aircraft designs from the first half of the 20th century...
That point reminded me of Drachinifel pointing out how they would have all kinds of gun calibers due to local politicians lobbying for their respective manufactories.
And firearms
The French NEVER get the Memo...if they did they would ignore it ... but they just never read them !! That wot makes them French - often admired - never copyed.
"No one copies the French and the French copy no one."
For anyone interested in more of that I would recommend the video "When Hotels Go To War" !
I remember information floating around on the Seawolf class that those extra-large tubes were not so much to enable *larger* torpedoes, but to enable "swim-out" torpedoes, i.e. 533mm-Torpedoes that would leave the tube under their own power instead of being shot out (which is loud, which is bad).
Wouldn't it be easier to have dedicated swim-out torpedoes (slightly narrower?) that use the regular tubes? Or is the idea that any Mk48 can be simply be instructed to swim out?
@@mrkeogh Many components are (obviously) standardized to 533mm, so it is easier to scale up the tubes and use standard torpedo parts where possible than vice versa.
Smaller torpedoes means less fuel / range, less space for sensorics, less warhead.
Your drew that picture of the Surcouff in MS Paint!!! That's astounding!
Excellent as always. I really enjoy your presentations and how well you explain the subject.
I was going to venture a guess that it was around about the limit that a crew of torpedomen could man-handle into position. That is really more weight-dependent than anything but you can imagine they'd increase in size & weight until a practical limit was reached. Beyond that you'd need additional machinery or automated reloading systems (which the Soviets seemed fond of).
well there big enough to do the job bigger would reduce the number the sab can carry and thus the number of shots a sub can get off at the enemy's fleet
As always, your product is informative and interesting. Thanks and keep up the excellent work.
This video is so densely packed with information , it barely fits into a 533mm torpedo tube. Thank you for sharing.
Standardization and logistics between allies.
And your videos are always awesome.
As an avid fan of all things submarine-related, I've been enjoying your excellent videos for a couple of months now. I've wanted to suggest a topic and this video is perhaps a good place to do that. When watching movies in which one sub is having an underwater dogfight with another, it's clear that the commander has a perfect picture of the relative positions of his ship and the enemy ship in his mind and gives instructions to the crew for headings and other changes. I've never been able to match the commander's skill in envisioning what's going on - it would be very interesting to see a video that takes us through such a dogfight.
YAGV - yet another great video. As usual, very informative. I love your chats.
Glad you enjoyed it
Sounded very smooth and natural. Enjoyed it VERY much!
Thank you great video. I had wondered why I always see the 533mm torpedoes. Thanks again for the video
Greetings from Sweden!
You,Sir, just got yourself a new subscriber.
Keep up the great work with this channel!
Sir, I would die for a timelapse of how you are doing your terrifically sophisticated drawings in MS Paint, of all things.
Prepare for death!
ruclips.net/video/PdKkR_lbLN0/видео.html
Interesting and informative. Thank you Mr Sutton. 👍
Great video as always! Thank you!
Absolutely loving your videos, could you do a video on sonar (if possible) the beginning and development of arrays
Love your channel. Always come away informed. Would love to see a video on submarine counter measures although it would be hard to do because of classified nature!!
Thank you for your video sir,
After the first minute and your intro to the 'shout outs'......the picture you used of the sinking destroyer (side number 53), was one I served on in the late 1990s. HMAS TORRENS of the RAN. Was a pleasure to work on those British designed ships.
Yes, in some respects sad to see her end, but a sinkex is a much better way to go than the scrap yard.
Thanks for this video. I had actually been wondering about this very question recently.
As a former US Navy torpedoman, I remember a 19” torpedo. It was 19” so it could “swim out” instead of being pushed out by air pulse. The “swim out” torpedo thus was quite a bit quieter than the 21” torpedo.
Thanks for the info.
I also have in mind of two different sizes. Also of one sub with two different size of launch tubes.
It might be quieter on launch, but flooding the tubes still makes lots of noise, doesn't it?
@@nicklockard flooding tubes and opening bow caps and shutters will give the game away
Are you thinking of mines? I know when I was in those were the only swimout weapons we could potentially carry. I never got the "pleasure" of using them but I heard from a lot of other guys they were finicky as hell, especially around RF.
@@1337penguinman Nope. I only saw them in Torpedo Man class. Never saw one on the old boat, USS Bugara.
Great work Ian.
I was an intern at NSWC Indian Head in Maryland USA, and I was told one day while I was there that they're one of the last energetics facilities that makes Otto fuel for torpedos used by the US Navy. I don't know if that is true or not but I thought it was interesting.
I have actually wondered this multiple times before, but never thought about it long enough to attempt to investigate it further and seek an answer.
Outlines help to keep you on topic as well as deduce information in a organized yet open format.
Torpedo got named after factory named Torpedo from city of Rijeka, Croatia. Company Torpedo was in bussiness as in early 2000's, tho they were mostly in marine diesel engine production. There are several nautical historians in Croatia, that knows every detail on that topic. You can find them on internet. There are also several nautical-marine museums in Croatia, that hold tons of history.
Really interesting topic, thank you!
Excellent content sir...👍
A new video! Christmas came 11 months early!
That was very interesting, thank you. When you mention relatively low-value targets for small torpedoes, might that include underwater drones? I have a feeling that future manned combat systems of all kinds will increasingly be accompanied by drones, sometimes in swarms, which means that weapons designed to take them out will also be needed.
Very educational. Thank you! If this was unscripted, you could've fooled me. Well done you!
Outstanding, as always.
Great video! Well done and very informative! Thank you! Now I have to watch your other videos! :-)
It's not a Sutton video until he mentions the Surcouf :D
Would really appreciate it if you did a lecture on history and evolution of torpedo propulsion
Awesome surprise right before bedtime.
🤝
Super informative thanks 🙏
This must be rare then: "Israel's Dolphin II class-the Tannin, Rahav and a third unnamed submarine-contain 10 torpedo tubes capable of launching fiber optic cable-guided DM-2A4 torpedoes. Four of these tubes are larger 26-inch tubes-the size is rare for a Western-built submarine-capable of launching small commando teams or firing larger cruise missiles. The remaining six tubes measure at 21 inches."
I do not believe that the Dolphin-IIs larger tubes are for a larger torpedo. Instead cruise missiles.
Here is a cutaway I drew, although also with a provisional take on the VLS www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/01/israels-submarine-secret-new-dolphin-class-boat-could-have-vls/
Yep, those are VLS tubes.
Well done as always… and spot on.
Good presentation Mr. S. I also think that the very small torps are going to augment the wizzer counter measure load because the wizzers are not as effect as a defence as they used to be. Regards
I had no idea about the sizes of torpedoes, but it makes perfect sense!
At 1:18 is the former HMAS Torrens, after being hit in a sinkex off the coast of Western Australia, way back in the 1990s I think. A Mk48 launched from a Collins class submarine made that mess! The footage also appears in the movie Pearl Harbor(I prefer Harbour… 🤣) One of my deployments was in company with Torrens(89-90 Christmas deployment) and I’ve been aboard a few times and knew a few of the ship’s company.
Fantastic content, thank you!
wow, that was way more interesting than I expected. I expected the first bit about circular reasoning, and I knew about Russia's huge torpedo idea, but the VLT idea was new to me and I think it's the future too.
Thanks!
You could always launch a swarm of them if needed. It's a shame that a wireless datalink wouldn't work well underwater. You could use a swarm as a synthetic active array and get very precise targeting that would make up for the small individual warhead size 😉
@@mrkeogh depends upon how you envision such a targeting swarm to work.
Damn! I actually learned a lot from this video. Thanks for posting.👍
It’s always an appropriate time to feature the Surcouf. Can’t wait to see a collaboration with Drachinifel.
My goodness , unscripted . By someone who really knows their subject . Excellent and the art work is outstanding ! I would dearly love to have some of those !
Another great video!
I appreciate you making the effort to include both Imperial and metric measurements in these videos. My ability to rapidly visualize metric breaks down a good deal between about 5cm and several meters (and then again over a kilometer or two). Thank you!
I served on the Torrens for over 3 years. It's stunning to see the impact of a modern torpedo.
Hi Peter, I was on the Torrens for 2 years ‘75-‘77
Nice job - as usual!
Thanks
Fascinating video. Thank you. It's incredible how many perpetual chicken and egg problems crop up in sufficiently complex systems.
Can you tell me if modern surface warships use larger-diameter torpedoes? Do helicopters and other aircraft use smaller ones?
Will you consider doing a video on rocket-propelled and supercavitating torpedoes?
Modern surface warships tend to use small diameter "lightweight" torpedoes like the Mu-90, Mk 46 and Sting Ray. These are either launched from pneumatic tubes straight over the side, or mounted on a rocket like ASROC or Ikara. There are some exceptions, like the Algerian Koni-class frigate and a few others, which have 533mm torpedo tubes for ASW.
Helicopters and maritime patrol aircraft launch lightweight torpedoes as well, which makes sense when you consider that most 533mm torpedoes weigh in at around 2000kg / 4500 lb.
The name of the Croatian that invented the first torpedo is Ivan Lupis. Robert Whitehead then started the factory in city of Rijeka (also in Croatia), where they improved upon Lupis' design and started mass-producing torpedoes.
Yes, thank you! As I remember it, Lupis may have not been the original inventor. But he was a major part of it.
@@HISuttonCovertShores it is possible indeed. None of us were alive back then and winners write history books! His full name was Ivan Blaž Lupis Vukić so there you go.
Will we get a follow up with counter measures? Would be most interesting.
(And here's probably another reason for dual firing torpedoes)
Fascinating. I guess I never really thought about that.
great job lots of info I did not know that the Japanese subs couldn't carry the 610mm torp.
It'd be interesting to figure out the rationale for the Surcouf (where the torpedo turntables intended for self-defense, compensating for the large size and reduced maneuverability?). The whole history of lateral firing torpedoes and physically aimed torpedoes is interesting (I'd love a video on Drzewiecki drop collars which would seem to be the ancestors in some ways of the steerable torpedo tube - which existed on some other interwar submarines if I recall correctly)?
A note on 650mm torpedoes. The Israeli Dolphin class submarine also feature 650mm tubes (x4), which are believed to be used for nuclear armed cruise missiles.
Very interesting video. I didn't realise you had a RUclips channel. Subbed and will likely be spending much of the day listening to you.
Or for non-nuclear long-range cruise missiles. The sub-launched Popeye has both conventional and (most likely) a large kiloton-level nuclear variant. My information isn’t unique but I have been told by a fairly recently retired IAF friend that Israel, which had originally relied on the Air Force as its second-strike nuclear deterrent, began to lose confidence in the reliability of air-dropped nukes after the Yom Kippur War. At the time they were (entirely? mostly?) reliant on air-dropped dumb bombs for their second-strike capability at the time. After suffering considerable losses in the air during the October War they started looking to diversify. My source was a little cagey when I asked them what Israel’s interim nuclear solution was. He didn’t exactly say no when I asked him if Israel fielded air or ground launched nuclear-capable missiles between the Yom Kippur War & the ‘00s when Israel took delivery of its first Type 209-based Dolphin class submarines. He didn’t really say yes, either, though. Based on what he said & didn’t say I inferred Israel’s nuke delivery options were fairly marginal before it acquired the Dolphin I and (more recently) Dolphin II class AIP submarines. No earth-shattering news scoops here, but it was an interesting conversation.
I'd like to hear more about torpedo propulsion systems.
This is really useful, thanks. I'd been looking into the torpedos used on USN PT boats in WW2 and thought, how smart to just use the same torpedos as the subs of the time, for logistics reasons etc. Ha. Turns out that was all there was!
I remember in the movie "They were expendable" the PT Boats got torpedoes from a classmate submarine skipper. Same size.
"Unscripted and unedited", still better than 97% of RUclips vids.
2023-04-12 ... Another great video ... appreciated the remarks about the IJN "Long Lance" variants ...
French naval architects rarely get any memos, but that's what makes them so interesting.
Theres a derth of information on torpedoes in general compared to any other weapon, given the role they've played in warfare, Id love to see more information on their design, how they're powered, Ive heard some had internal combustion engines otto cycle engines, and compressed air engines, it would be awesome if you could post more content.
Can't wait for the torpedo propulsion system overview video
Amazing video, as per!
12:51 such a cute submarine and really interesting where they put those torpedo tubes. with better batteries would it be possible to see even more midget submarines? even from navies that dont really use them now?
Perhaps you could do a small video on torpedo guidance and non-guidance sometime? I seem to recall old war movies when they'd mention a 'deflection' (I think) put into the torpedo so that it would turn a set number of degrees after launch, maybe? An explanation of what's going on there might be interesting. You mention wire-guidance here, and I know that some torpedoes use active homing. Bundling it all up into a video on the subject would be a useful reference.
I'm gonna hazard a guess before watching that the reason is something like "You have to build the torpedo tubes that size otherwise the torpedoes don't fit in them." And then "You have to build the torpedoes that size or they don't fit in the torpedo tubes."
I would argue that there is an "optimal range" around 533mm. Basically you have two effects working in opposite directions. The first is that range, payload and capability increase with diameter, which explains the early size creep. The other effect is that increasing diameter decreases fluid dynamic properties, handling capabilities and ammo capacity. Two such opposing effects naturally create an optimal solution. Where that optimum falls is dependent on the weights given the various attributes in the optimization problem, hence a somewhat loose "optimal range", into which the 533mm falls. On the other hand, there is little incentive to find out whether 540mm or 525mm would perform better, because the gradient is very shallow (minimal gains by changing a little), while the costs of changing are very high.
That was very interesting!
Excelent review
Mr. Sutton, can you do a video about sonars, hydroacoustics, how submarines navigate and "see" underwater.?
Aaron '@subbrief' has lots RUclips sonar stuff, maybe under 'jive turkey' name
@@JohnMullee I just found his channel, thanks
You just wouldn't believe the security measures that surround torpedo research and development.
Great video thx a lot :)
What would be interesting for me is the aiming, guiding....is posible without periscope?
Yes, absolutely, using sonar and/or other inputs
Hello, just want to say Congratulations on getting a mention on MSNBC the other day. Was very impressed to see you mentioned.
? what about?
Carriers in desert?
@@HISuttonCovertShores about Russia doing live fire exercises in irish economic zone. ruclips.net/video/GBUKJ2V3W0E/видео.html
Thank you, I would appreciate you considering the various efforts to make torpedos that were exploded by the influence of ship hulls, such as the infamous US Mark 14.
Just an interesting tid bit the inspiration for the 24 inch Type 93's, was from the British 24.5 inch Torpedo's on the Nelson Class Battleship and HMS Rodney of that class, is the only battleship to hit another battleship with a torpedo (that being Bismarck). It wasn't just the size, it was the use of oxygen-enriched air as a propellant, that made the Type 93 so deadly.
Thought they were the pure O2.
Yeah, they were deadly alright, to both sides.
The Japanese lied to their crews about the oxidisers for the Type 93 & 95. The torpedoes were internally marked with start air and running air. Start air WAS compressed air, “running air” was pure oxygen. Starting an engine on pure oxygen is not a good idea so they were started on air and then switched to oxygen once up to speed.
And the Japanese went with Oxygen because they were convinved that was what the RN was doing, which turned out ultimately to be incorrect (the RN considered it but felt the risks were too high).
Very early on in the design process for the 1920s O class overseas patrol submarines, 4 of those 24.5 inch torpedo tubes were considered, in lieu of the 6x 21 inch torpedo tubes eventually fitted.
This channel is so cool
Thank you
Also - regarding size there are some minor notes - torpedo length is also a factor (e.g. short vs. long whitehead torpedoes) and some capital ships also carried outsized torpedoes (although not submarines).
A excellent video
very good job
Id love to see a video breaking down the status-6 roaming torpedo
You did a GOOD job.
I haven't listened to this video yet but more more more! :)
very good job sir drach would be proud
Quite interesting, but I wonder, could you do a follow-up on the design trend for the elimination of the torpedo-room by the use of pre-loaded torpedoes. Advantages/disadvantages??
Russkies I hear have auto torpedo loading/launching, as well as thier battle tanks gun loaders. I guess it saves space and time, less crew. If reliability can be maintained (keep it simple)
Love the video. Smaller torpedoes (mostly like Swedish 400 mm) make sense if you mostly attack thin hulled merchant vessels or anything up to small-size frigate. Because the damage might not be that extensive as with 533, but still enough to sink or disable a ship. And of course you can pack 2 of those in one tube. Non-military ships will be at least severely damaged and smaller military ones will be open to the see with maximum amount compartments filled allowing them to still float, but not really fight.
also against other submarines
Also take into account the Swedish will mostly be engaging in littoral waters and you want a torpedo that is compact and runs shallow to hit enemy ships sheltering in coves and rivers.
@@tommihommi1 submarines are a bit of a funny situation though, since they have MUCH stronger hulls that can somewhat resist explosions. Thin skinned surface vessels on the other hand have hulls that can't stop .50cal AP and will have a massive hole blown through them. However, because one is on the water and the other is in the water the amount of damage to components or size of hull breach needed to cripple or sink a vessel is much different. The 400mm swedish torpedos are likely more than capable of putting a big enough hole in a ship to mission kill it or leave it dead in the water, which is enough
Especially if in return you get to carry and fire twice the amount of torpedos at once
@@alexdunphy3716 anti sub torpedos carry warheads made specifically for the job. No normal sub is going to survive a hit, especially not of a wake homing torp.
You know what might make a good video is an in depth look at depth charges. Just a thought.
Thanks for an interesting historical overview of torpedoes and some subs. However, you don't feel that you gave a complete answer to the title of the video. Sure you went in to some detail about what some larger diameter size torpedoes were thought to be designed and constructed for. But you never went into depth about that. So maybe a follow up with quite a bit more technical details and comparisons of different types of torpedoes, both being used as of today and in the past, and why those specifics were seen as sufficient. I.e. I guess they meet the requirements of how submarines operate and attack. However most of us don't know much about that, so an in depth on that part would be greatly appreciated!
Tanks again for the well put together video!
Have a nice day!
A question for you Sir. At 5:00 you show a slide which says that the RN's mark 8 torpedo was introduced in 1912, 17.7" etc. I remember that HMS Conqueror sank the General Belgrano with mark 8s. The mark 8s they used were 21" diameter, put into service in 1927 and carried 800lbs of torpex. Given the UK's propensity to use the term "mark" on their weapons (I'm a Lee Enfield fan) does this slide show a different torpedo? I can't find a reference to the one you are talking about.
Ah, good question. I nearly touched on the Mark numbers but thought it would only confuse people. However, since you ask...
The RN had separate Mark series for 18 inch (I suspect actually 17.7 inch) and 21 inch weapons. So the Mk.VIII in 18" is a different weapon than the Mk.VIII in 21".
I wondered that too. I worked for GEC Marconi in the 70's/80's and was well aware that 7511 aka Tigerfish mod-0 wouldn't have been trusted on Belgrano as it would have either sunk the Conqs or not not have the guts to sink the old US cruiser.
The mention of Lightweight Torpedoes remind me that a smaller torpedo, the anti-torpedo-torpedo is still being developed. When in service/testing, would these defensive systems be used in stacked fire in the weapons tube?
The system is still in testing but the idea of saturating incoming torpedos would provide a hard kill defence system that is cheap and quick firing. This might be just some theorizing but this type of tactic feels more real after listening.
In the 1960's the sub I was on carried both a 21" torpedo and a 18" torpedo. Both were launched from the same 21" tubes.
Mk 37s 19" weapons?
@@HISuttonCovertShores Well it has been close to 60 years now so I can be wrong. I wasn't a torpedoman though I saw we had about 1/2 a room of these green beauties all the time. The others were 14's.
Thanks for the video. Your microphone picks up a lot of breath noises, it might be easier for some viewers such as non-native English speakers to understand if you changed the audio setup.
This kind-of makes me want a video on the Cagni class (and creates a desire for me to try to do at least pen-and-paper simulations of its utility as a merchant raider - and even its possible use of a larger salvo as a last-ditch self-defense against relatively light escorts). Certainly the low probability of a hit at range in the interwar period favoured firing at close range and firing larger spreads... I can't help but wonder if, in many situations, the main downside of the smaller torpedo would have been its smaller warhead. I also can't help but wonder if a lot of merchants and smaller escorts could have been sufficiently injured to make a follow-up attack possible (thus removing the need for a kill with a single hit). Which raises the question - is the 533mm partly a result of the desire to hunt larger warships effectively?
That was really friggin' interesting! I hadn't realized they were all the same size no matter the nation. Cool!
In the dreadnought period and even the interwar, it was common for nations with less-well-developed naval infrastructure to order capital ships of all sorts from (mostly) British shipyards. This in turn naturally led to even IJN vessels using inch standard for their larger gun barrels. If submarines used 21" because "everyone else is doing it", was there some similar situation where boats would be bought abroad instead of built locally? Or some other reason that navies felt the need to be size-compatible with everyone else's torpedoes?
It's the 4th of July here, love the subject and the delivery, an educated English voice. As said, it's the 4th of July, the booze has flowed, and it occurred to me, that the same 'talk' would have sounded a bit 'odd' in a United States Georgia of Alabama accent.