Quote:
Originally Posted by August
We're not talking about paper thin merchant hulls though. I think all the attack angles were pretty much the same weren't they? Same weapon, same conditions, same angle of attack, maybe a larger than average torpedo hole does point to a larger than average torpedo.
|
Battleship hulls are no thicker than merchant hulls, averaging 1/2" thick. The heavy armor belt is too heavy to extend very far underwater, and torpedoes can easily be set to run below them. Take Nevada, for example. The main armor belt was 14" thick at the waterline, but only 8" thick at its lowest point, which was 8 feet below the waterline, on a ship with a 27-foot draft. This means that 19 feet from the bottom of the armor belt to the keel of the ship was unprotected. On the other hand a good part of that was protected by anti-torpedo bulges, which are lightweight steel bulkheads containing a liquid that is more compressible than water, allowing the gas to be pushed away, thus protecting the inner hull.
Yes, a larger hole does indicate a larger torpedo. I was just pointing out the other possibilities. The fact that the sub's torpedoes had been fired is also indicative. As I said before, I'm not arguing that it didn't happen. I'm more than willing to believe it. What I'm arguing with is certain people jumping to conclusions and trying to prove that they're right.