Dud Rates
- Thread starter Garyt
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
davebender
1st Lieutenant
You would need to examine ammunition lots for each weapon. That would be quite a chore.
- Thread starter
- #3
Any composite database on this you are aware of? From what I know, in general AP shells have a higher dud rate than common, which has a higher dud rate than HE, same goes for the various types of bombs. Problem is the shell and fuse making it through the armor intact to still detonate.
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
Early American torpedoes I believe had a high failure rate, but I am not sure what % it would have been.
- Thread starter
- #5
I think US torpedoes were duds 50% of the time or better.
Not that other countries torpedoes were perfect, I think all navies might run in the 25% or better range. And with torpedoes a "dud" could often mean just a premature explosion - not uncommon for contact pistol fuses when traveling into a ships wake. And magnetic pistols were even more problematic.
Not that other countries torpedoes were perfect, I think all navies might run in the 25% or better range. And with torpedoes a "dud" could often mean just a premature explosion - not uncommon for contact pistol fuses when traveling into a ships wake. And magnetic pistols were even more problematic.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Although years after WW2, look at the dud rate encountered by the Argentine AF during the Falklands. Here's a little info...
British Ships sunk and damaged - Falklands War 1982
British Ships sunk and damaged - Falklands War 1982
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I don't think that was really the problem, they just had "bad bombs."
Bad bombs is usually the excuse when it actually just the wrong fuse , or a defective fuse.
For low level bombing you need a fuse that arms quick, but delays detonation after impact, or a way to slow the bomb's fall after release, otherwise the aircraft can be brought down by it's own dropped bomb.
If the Argentinians had those fuses they were either bad, with a high dud rate, or the pilots were exceeding the parameters within which they could be dropped.
For low level bombing you need a fuse that arms quick, but delays detonation after impact, or a way to slow the bomb's fall after release, otherwise the aircraft can be brought down by it's own dropped bomb.
If the Argentinians had those fuses they were either bad, with a high dud rate, or the pilots were exceeding the parameters within which they could be dropped.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
- Thread starter
- #12
There are all kind of fusing options even for GP bombs, some have superquick fuses to go off soon as they touch anything.
Some you want to delay till after ground penetration, so they'll destroy foundations .
Some with long delays, hours and even days, so you'll disrupt firefighting and reconstruction.
And some with long delay, and anti-disturbance fuses, to try and kill bomb disposal people.
Some you want to delay till after ground penetration, so they'll destroy foundations .
Some with long delays, hours and even days, so you'll disrupt firefighting and reconstruction.
And some with long delay, and anti-disturbance fuses, to try and kill bomb disposal people.
It was the wrong fuse.
An Argentine pilot, in a book on the Falklands my cousin has, said the pilots did not realize this until after ships with direct hits were not sunk as the bombs went right through them.
It was a far more detailed description than this but I have not read it for years.
- Thread starter
- #16
Overpenetration was a common event when the penetration of the shells was greater than the armor by a good margin. This could happen to both AP rounds and Common shells, as both were base fused. Nose fused HE was pretty well immune from this.
These were not truly "dud" rounds - they were functioning properly, just the armor was too thin.
Just because of this it would be a lot more effective to use HE rounds it would seem if using Heavy Cruiser or heavier rounds (8" and greater) against ships armored as destroyers or lighter. Escort carriers would fall in here as well.
It would seem this should be standard practice - and I think using AP rounds contributed greatly to the IJN's lack of success at the battle off Samar. A 14 inch or greater shell is going to maybe not sink, but severely damage or cripple a destroyer. Many of the destroyers hit took a few hits and were still operable, mostly as a result of overpenetration.
It would not suprise me if the Japanese thought it was beneath the dignity of a battleship to fire high explosive rounds LOL..... Kidding of course, or maybe sort of kidding.
These were not truly "dud" rounds - they were functioning properly, just the armor was too thin.
Just because of this it would be a lot more effective to use HE rounds it would seem if using Heavy Cruiser or heavier rounds (8" and greater) against ships armored as destroyers or lighter. Escort carriers would fall in here as well.
It would seem this should be standard practice - and I think using AP rounds contributed greatly to the IJN's lack of success at the battle off Samar. A 14 inch or greater shell is going to maybe not sink, but severely damage or cripple a destroyer. Many of the destroyers hit took a few hits and were still operable, mostly as a result of overpenetration.
It would not suprise me if the Japanese thought it was beneath the dignity of a battleship to fire high explosive rounds LOL..... Kidding of course, or maybe sort of kidding.
If I remember correctly it was the former.
I remember at my last duty station in the Army in the early 70s I was in inspection at the ammo dump.
Some lots of arty shells were marked as " not to be used over friendlies" ( not exact wording, maybe ), in other words, too many rounds in that lot of shells had not went their rated range, short rounds they're called, so you didn't want to fire them in a situation were a short round might injure your own troops.
I wonder how close attention the arty guys paid to those classifications in Vietnam when things got hot.
Some lots of arty shells were marked as " not to be used over friendlies" ( not exact wording, maybe ), in other words, too many rounds in that lot of shells had not went their rated range, short rounds they're called, so you didn't want to fire them in a situation were a short round might injure your own troops.
I wonder how close attention the arty guys paid to those classifications in Vietnam when things got hot.
- Thread starter
- #19
I've heard from someone else on another forum that seems that 25% was about normal across the board for naval shells of 5" or more, HE running a bit less, AP running higher. He includes over penetrations as duds however.
The German AP rounds based on a few of the battles seemed to run a bit higher.
The German AP rounds based on a few of the battles seemed to run a bit higher.
German torpedoes at the beginning of the war had a terrible ratio of failure to success. Torpedoes exploded prematurely, inadvertently alerting the enemy vessels to the presense of the U-boat or in the case of Lt Wilhelm Zahn in U 56 on 30 October 1939, fired three torpedoes at the battleship Nelson only to find that two of them actually hit the side of the battleship amidships and didn't go off and the third exploded well short. Donitz wrote that at least 30 percent of all torpedoes were duds.