Dud Rates

Discussion in 'Weapons Systems Tech.' started by Garyt, May 12, 2014.

  1. Garyt

    Garyt Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2014
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    18
    A bit off topic, but does anyone know the dud rates of Naval cannon shells, torpedoes, and bombs?
     
  2. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    You would need to examine ammunition lots for each weapon. That would be quite a chore.
     
  3. Garyt

    Garyt Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2014
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    18
    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.
     
  4. vikingBerserker

    vikingBerserker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    24,093
    Likes Received:
    657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Korporate Kontrolleur
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Early American torpedoes I believe had a high failure rate, but I am not sure what % it would have been.
     
  5. Garyt

    Garyt Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2014
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    18
    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.
     
  6. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,209
    Likes Received:
    791
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
  7. tyrodtom

    tyrodtom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    2,485
    Likes Received:
    110
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    auto body repair
    Location:
    pound va
    Apparently the Argentinians were dropping their bombs so close to the targets, the bombs weren't in the air long enough to arm.
     
  8. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,209
    Likes Received:
    791
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    I don't think that was really the problem, they just had "bad bombs."
     
  9. tyrodtom

    tyrodtom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    2,485
    Likes Received:
    110
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    auto body repair
    Location:
    pound va
    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.
     
  10. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,209
    Likes Received:
    791
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    OK
    I would think the AAF knew that
    Agree
     
  11. pbehn

    pbehn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,239
    Likes Received:
    413
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I think on allied raids into Germany up to 10% didnt explode, they certainly still keep finding them here.
     
  12. Garyt

    Garyt Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2014
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    18
    And that is with a very simple HE fuse without a delay like armor piercing weapons have.
     
  13. tyrodtom

    tyrodtom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    2,485
    Likes Received:
    110
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    auto body repair
    Location:
    pound va
    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.
     
  14. BobR

    BobR Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    89
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    8
    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.
     
  15. tyrodtom

    tyrodtom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    2,485
    Likes Received:
    110
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    auto body repair
    Location:
    pound va
    Were they going thru the ships without exploding because they hadn't traveled far enough to arm ?

    Or was the fuse delay too long after impact ?

    If the bombs didn't go off at all, it's likely the first cause.
     
  16. Garyt

    Garyt Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2014
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    18
    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.
     
  17. BobR

    BobR Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    89
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    8
    If I remember correctly it was the former.
     
  18. tyrodtom

    tyrodtom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    2,485
    Likes Received:
    110
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    auto body repair
    Location:
    pound va
    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.
     
  19. Garyt

    Garyt Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2014
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    18
    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.
     
  20. nuuumannn

    nuuumannn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    Messages:
    3,743
    Likes Received:
    439
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Engineer
    Location:
    Nelson
    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.
     
Loading...

Share This Page