Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Got one yet Master Wayne?
Looks interesting!
Soviet Navy -5 Class Motor Torpedo Boat, Merit International 63503 (2015)
Soviet Navy -5 Class Motor Torpedo Boat
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Got one yet Master Wayne?
Looks interesting!
Soviet Navy -5 Class Motor Torpedo Boat, Merit International 63503 (2015)
That boat looks like a surfaced sub!
parsifal
Colonel
Not certain, but this class of MTB was WWII, with the torps stern launched. obvious design shortcoming, nevertheless these boats enjoyed some success on the Eastern front.
im pretty sure the illustration has the torps installed back the front.
im pretty sure the illustration has the torps installed back the front.
parsifal
Colonel
Yes I see
turbo
Staff Sergeant
The Italian tank joke comes to mind...
Robert Porter
Senior Master Sergeant
I would imagine given its design and narrow beam that would not be pleasant to be on in any kind of seas. If you are given to motion sickness it would not be pretty!
Shortround6
Major General
That method of launching torpedoes was rather common and used by the British WW I 40 and 55 ft boats and the prewar 60ft boats.
Frame work over the stern are the fold down launch rails.
Some WW I Italian boats also launched over the stern or at least had the option. They also had "dropping gear".
A fair number of these older boats and the Russian boats had stepped hulls and/or rather flat bottoms.
High speed was only possible in fairly calm water. Narrow hulls also helped speed.
Frame work over the stern are the fold down launch rails.
Some WW I Italian boats also launched over the stern or at least had the option. They also had "dropping gear".
A fair number of these older boats and the Russian boats had stepped hulls and/or rather flat bottoms.
High speed was only possible in fairly calm water. Narrow hulls also helped speed.
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
It is a nice looking boat.
parsifal
Colonel
Its not as big a disadvantage as it looks. most torpedo attacks by MTBs are stealth, not speed. Speed produces wake and noise, which are giveaways of your presence. The best method of attack was at night or in poor vis . boat is stationary with engines cut or low revs, launch torpedoes with no warning, preferably wakeless type, then if possible creep to new attack position, or just scarper. Reserve high speed for when you've been detected, and especially if you've been detected and are being shot at.
with those tactics it didn't really matter if you launched forward or backwards. but in the Baltic, or other narrow seas near the SU, against a radar equipped enemy like the germans, opportunities for stealth attacks like those ive described above were fairly rare. its another reason perhaps why the IJN didn't really bother much about MTBs I suspect. The development of a good quality diesel propulsion system like the Germans had was a fairly technical exercise.
with those tactics it didn't really matter if you launched forward or backwards. but in the Baltic, or other narrow seas near the SU, against a radar equipped enemy like the germans, opportunities for stealth attacks like those ive described above were fairly rare. its another reason perhaps why the IJN didn't really bother much about MTBs I suspect. The development of a good quality diesel propulsion system like the Germans had was a fairly technical exercise.
Shortround6
Major General
The torpedoes traveled in the same direction as the boat. The Torpedoes slid into the water behind the boat and took a short period to get up to speed,the boat had to turn aside to clear the torpedoes as the top speeds of the boats and the torpedoes were similar.
AS to the comment about the speed of the boats, yes stealth was the preferred method of approach. However the top speed of the old boats was even more of an "illusion" than the top speed of the WW II boats as the sea conditions that allowed them to reach top speed (without breaking the boat/crew) was even rarer than the sea conditions that the later boats would tolerate.
In WW I and in the inter war years getting torpedoes to operate properly from the small, high speed boats in most/all conditions may have given a few nations problems. Many times the torpedo boats did not get the latest/best torpedoes and had to make do with older models that might not tolerate rough handling (awkward entry into the water) with directional control done by gyroscope rolling the torpedo off the deck and toppling the gyro probably wasn't a good idea ( Using aerial torpedoes may have solved a few problems)
WW I Italian Boats used "dropping gear"
which kept the torpedo in a relatively safe position until it was time to launch.
Hanging torpedoes outboard of the hull invited too much chance of damage if done for very long.
A lot depended on the year (or decade) and how much effort each country was willing/able to put into getting torpedoes to work properly from the small boats.
Most of these boats had fairly short range which is one reason they didn't find favor with the Japanese. They were mostly defensive in nature without tremendous logistical support. The US 80ft Elco boat held 3000 gallons of fuel which was good for about 6.3 hours at 40kts. (474 gallons an hour). Yes going slow would considerably extend the the range but then these boats had little in the way of food/water storage for more than a few days. The British long hull boats and German S boats being a bit of an exception.
The British moaned about no suitable diesel engine during and after the war but money and engineering time was in short supply. The US never came up with a workable Diesel MTB engine either during the war or for several decades after, ( buying British engines in the 60s).
AS to the comment about the speed of the boats, yes stealth was the preferred method of approach. However the top speed of the old boats was even more of an "illusion" than the top speed of the WW II boats as the sea conditions that allowed them to reach top speed (without breaking the boat/crew) was even rarer than the sea conditions that the later boats would tolerate.
In WW I and in the inter war years getting torpedoes to operate properly from the small, high speed boats in most/all conditions may have given a few nations problems. Many times the torpedo boats did not get the latest/best torpedoes and had to make do with older models that might not tolerate rough handling (awkward entry into the water) with directional control done by gyroscope rolling the torpedo off the deck and toppling the gyro probably wasn't a good idea ( Using aerial torpedoes may have solved a few problems)
WW I Italian Boats used "dropping gear"
which kept the torpedo in a relatively safe position until it was time to launch.
Hanging torpedoes outboard of the hull invited too much chance of damage if done for very long.
A lot depended on the year (or decade) and how much effort each country was willing/able to put into getting torpedoes to work properly from the small boats.
Most of these boats had fairly short range which is one reason they didn't find favor with the Japanese. They were mostly defensive in nature without tremendous logistical support. The US 80ft Elco boat held 3000 gallons of fuel which was good for about 6.3 hours at 40kts. (474 gallons an hour). Yes going slow would considerably extend the the range but then these boats had little in the way of food/water storage for more than a few days. The British long hull boats and German S boats being a bit of an exception.
The British moaned about no suitable diesel engine during and after the war but money and engineering time was in short supply. The US never came up with a workable Diesel MTB engine either during the war or for several decades after, ( buying British engines in the 60s).
- Thread starter
- #13
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Wasn't there one called Komsomolets, or something....as well?
parsifal
Colonel
The torpedoes travelled in the same direction as the boat. The Torpedoes slid into the water behind the boat and took a short period to get up to speed, the boat had to turn aside to clear the torpedoes as the top speeds of the boats and the torpedoes were similar.
And therein lies one of the chief problems with stern launching. The Germans conducted a very successful offensive campaign along the East, south and sw coasts of the UK 1940-41 (putting to bed the myth that small craft are primarily defensive in purpose), in which they perfected the tactics and techniques .
Turning and moving invariably creates a wake, just when you don't want that to happen. That is, just after launch, at a time when the target has time to turn away, or otherwise evade the target. The best thing to do was to stay still until after the hit, and then try to slide away using a slow , very slow, turn away and very low speed. Anyone who tried otherwise usually got themselves sunk and no kill, except if they were either very lucky or managed to swamp the defences.
It took time for the British and the Russians to cotton onto the optimum tactics for attack, and at least until the very end of 1942 for the US in the pacific to learn the same lessons.
Many times the torpedo boats did not get the latest/best torpedoes and had to make do with older models that might not tolerate rough handling (awkward entry into the water) with directional control done by gyroscope rolling the torpedo off the deck and toppling the gyro probably wasn't a good idea ( Using aerial torpedoes may have solved a few problems)
For the british, NO money was spent on MTBs in the interwar period until 1937-9, when the first of the small (and unsatisfactory) 60 footers armed with 7.7mm MGs and the standard 21'mkVIII torpedo. There is no evidence that the torpedoes, or the launching systems were second rate or not up to par. Quite the opposite actually. Same for the KM.
They were mostly defensive in nature without tremendous logistical support.
I cant agree with that at all. The Germans were able to use their S boats offensively on both the wet coast and also in the East very successfully . With significant results recorded in both TOs. In the Med, though less successful, the RM also used its light forces around Malta with success almost exclusively in attack. Here the favoured tactics and technology of the RM, using their boats on a mobile basis was the only option they had really, but it worked whilst the Axis retained air superiority. As a generalisation, whilst the Axis air fleets controlled the narrow seas in the Malta Approaches, the Italian MAS Boats were not likely to be swamped by the defences, which were necessarily light in these contested waters..
The British were forced to mainly use their light forces defensively, after they successfully regained control of the channel in 1941, forcing back the LW from its maritime activities along the atlantic coast, and offensively patrolling for defensive reasons well out into the North sea and the Channel. It was primarily airpower that curtailed the KM light forces operating off the East Coast, But a combination of good intel (Enigma?) and better ambush tactics (stealth, a mix of MGBs and MTBs, use of the moonlight properly) and some availability of radar did help to redress the imbalance in the nth sea.
In the pacific, the USN and IJN efforts were admittedly defensive because of the distances, but this was the case on the eastern Front. throughout the war the VMF made repeated attempts to push back the Germans using thir light forces. On the rivers they were fairly successful but off the coasts, the germans repeatedly got the upper hand. It took time for the VMF to learn stealth tactics, and they were limited by their equipment anyway in this regard
And therein lies one of the chief problems with stern launching. The Germans conducted a very successful offensive campaign along the East, south and sw coasts of the UK 1940-41 (putting to bed the myth that small craft are primarily defensive in purpose), in which they perfected the tactics and techniques .
Turning and moving invariably creates a wake, just when you don't want that to happen. That is, just after launch, at a time when the target has time to turn away, or otherwise evade the target. The best thing to do was to stay still until after the hit, and then try to slide away using a slow , very slow, turn away and very low speed. Anyone who tried otherwise usually got themselves sunk and no kill, except if they were either very lucky or managed to swamp the defences.
It took time for the British and the Russians to cotton onto the optimum tactics for attack, and at least until the very end of 1942 for the US in the pacific to learn the same lessons.
Many times the torpedo boats did not get the latest/best torpedoes and had to make do with older models that might not tolerate rough handling (awkward entry into the water) with directional control done by gyroscope rolling the torpedo off the deck and toppling the gyro probably wasn't a good idea ( Using aerial torpedoes may have solved a few problems)
For the british, NO money was spent on MTBs in the interwar period until 1937-9, when the first of the small (and unsatisfactory) 60 footers armed with 7.7mm MGs and the standard 21'mkVIII torpedo. There is no evidence that the torpedoes, or the launching systems were second rate or not up to par. Quite the opposite actually. Same for the KM.
They were mostly defensive in nature without tremendous logistical support.
I cant agree with that at all. The Germans were able to use their S boats offensively on both the wet coast and also in the East very successfully . With significant results recorded in both TOs. In the Med, though less successful, the RM also used its light forces around Malta with success almost exclusively in attack. Here the favoured tactics and technology of the RM, using their boats on a mobile basis was the only option they had really, but it worked whilst the Axis retained air superiority. As a generalisation, whilst the Axis air fleets controlled the narrow seas in the Malta Approaches, the Italian MAS Boats were not likely to be swamped by the defences, which were necessarily light in these contested waters..
The British were forced to mainly use their light forces defensively, after they successfully regained control of the channel in 1941, forcing back the LW from its maritime activities along the atlantic coast, and offensively patrolling for defensive reasons well out into the North sea and the Channel. It was primarily airpower that curtailed the KM light forces operating off the East Coast, But a combination of good intel (Enigma?) and better ambush tactics (stealth, a mix of MGBs and MTBs, use of the moonlight properly) and some availability of radar did help to redress the imbalance in the nth sea.
In the pacific, the USN and IJN efforts were admittedly defensive because of the distances, but this was the case on the eastern Front. throughout the war the VMF made repeated attempts to push back the Germans using thir light forces. On the rivers they were fairly successful but off the coasts, the germans repeatedly got the upper hand. It took time for the VMF to learn stealth tactics, and they were limited by their equipment anyway in this regard
Shortround6
Major General
Well, when trying to condense a number of decades of Motor Torpedo boat use into a few paragraphs a lot of generalities are going to be made that exceptions to can be found.
It took a lot of years and a lot of back and forth to to suit equipment to tactics and tactics back to available equipment and please remember that the Germans, British and Italians all had sizable MTB forces in WW I (sizable in dozens anyway).
Between wars the class/type was allowed to lapse or fall to the bottom of the list of priorities in many Navies. The hulls and engines were short lived making them uneconomical in peace time and they had very limited peace time application.
The vast majority of MTBs in every country but Germany in between the wars or during WW II used engines derived from aircraft engines. Many had no mufflers or silencers which made creeping up on targets (or even holding station while waiting for the enemy to approach) rather problematic ( at least early in the war) . Some MAS boats and some pre-war/early war British boats had small auxiliary engines fitted (with mufflers) for slow speed approaches and maneuvering in harbor on the wing shafts of three engine boats.
The US sometimes fitted mufflers to the center engine (I believe, could be wrong) while the outer engines were un-muffled (center engine had exhaust cutouts for full power). Later British boats had mufflers suitable for slow speed running.
Many of these boats required the main engines to be shut down while waiting in ambush, with attendant drift problems,not to mention starting cold engines with the enemy not only in sight but probably rather angry if a torpedo has hit a ship.
Some of these boats had a rather high minimum speed, WIki says 18kts for the Russian boat/s. With a top speed of over 50kts and a rather limited rpm range for the engine (2000rpm or less at full speed?) even at idle the boats were moving at a fair clip.
Firing torpedoes from tubes wasn't exactly stealth either as most tubes used either a black powder or smokeless powder propelling charge. I believe during WW II work was put into a flashless propelling charge. The very light boats would have had trouble carrying the weight of torpedo tubes which are much more than a protective covering for the torpedo but actually sort of a very low velocity gun firing a 1600-2600lb projectile.
The Russian boats seem to be an evolution of the British 55ft WW I boats. While ALL of these boats were small compared to even a Flower class corvette there was a tremendous difference between the boats themselves. A series 10 Russian boat was 16.62 metric tons. a British WW I 55 footer was about 11 tons. the Pre-war 60 footer was about 18 tons on trials and about 20-22 tons in service. the later 70ft an up boats could go from 36 tons to 46 tons depending model and armament fit. German S boats could go 100-120 tons and the Fairmile D could also go around 120 tons with late war armament.
Obviously the capabilities of a 120 ton boat are in a whole different catagory to a 11-16 ton boat.
AS far as offense and defense goes. In the Late 30s the first flotilla of the 60ft boats was sent on their own keels to Malta, however they stopped at Brest, Corunna and Lisbon on the way to Gibraltar. Without the Germans taking over the low countries and France the need, on both sides, for coastal forces would have been much reduced as the transit times to and from the reduced operational areas would put a sever damper on things (240-250 miles from Great Yarmouth to the mouth of the EMS river. Border of Holland and Germany)
A Flotilla of Packard powered boats could use as much fuel as a squadron of 4 engine bombers in a night so logistic support was needed for any real amount of offensive operations on a continuing basis.
Again, a lot of generalities but what was the ideal situation/tactical solution was often very different from what the equipment would actually allow.
It took a lot of years and a lot of back and forth to to suit equipment to tactics and tactics back to available equipment and please remember that the Germans, British and Italians all had sizable MTB forces in WW I (sizable in dozens anyway).
Between wars the class/type was allowed to lapse or fall to the bottom of the list of priorities in many Navies. The hulls and engines were short lived making them uneconomical in peace time and they had very limited peace time application.
The vast majority of MTBs in every country but Germany in between the wars or during WW II used engines derived from aircraft engines. Many had no mufflers or silencers which made creeping up on targets (or even holding station while waiting for the enemy to approach) rather problematic ( at least early in the war) . Some MAS boats and some pre-war/early war British boats had small auxiliary engines fitted (with mufflers) for slow speed approaches and maneuvering in harbor on the wing shafts of three engine boats.
The US sometimes fitted mufflers to the center engine (I believe, could be wrong) while the outer engines were un-muffled (center engine had exhaust cutouts for full power). Later British boats had mufflers suitable for slow speed running.
Many of these boats required the main engines to be shut down while waiting in ambush, with attendant drift problems,not to mention starting cold engines with the enemy not only in sight but probably rather angry if a torpedo has hit a ship.
Some of these boats had a rather high minimum speed, WIki says 18kts for the Russian boat/s. With a top speed of over 50kts and a rather limited rpm range for the engine (2000rpm or less at full speed?) even at idle the boats were moving at a fair clip.
Firing torpedoes from tubes wasn't exactly stealth either as most tubes used either a black powder or smokeless powder propelling charge. I believe during WW II work was put into a flashless propelling charge. The very light boats would have had trouble carrying the weight of torpedo tubes which are much more than a protective covering for the torpedo but actually sort of a very low velocity gun firing a 1600-2600lb projectile.
The Russian boats seem to be an evolution of the British 55ft WW I boats. While ALL of these boats were small compared to even a Flower class corvette there was a tremendous difference between the boats themselves. A series 10 Russian boat was 16.62 metric tons. a British WW I 55 footer was about 11 tons. the Pre-war 60 footer was about 18 tons on trials and about 20-22 tons in service. the later 70ft an up boats could go from 36 tons to 46 tons depending model and armament fit. German S boats could go 100-120 tons and the Fairmile D could also go around 120 tons with late war armament.
Obviously the capabilities of a 120 ton boat are in a whole different catagory to a 11-16 ton boat.
AS far as offense and defense goes. In the Late 30s the first flotilla of the 60ft boats was sent on their own keels to Malta, however they stopped at Brest, Corunna and Lisbon on the way to Gibraltar. Without the Germans taking over the low countries and France the need, on both sides, for coastal forces would have been much reduced as the transit times to and from the reduced operational areas would put a sever damper on things (240-250 miles from Great Yarmouth to the mouth of the EMS river. Border of Holland and Germany)
A Flotilla of Packard powered boats could use as much fuel as a squadron of 4 engine bombers in a night so logistic support was needed for any real amount of offensive operations on a continuing basis.
Again, a lot of generalities but what was the ideal situation/tactical solution was often very different from what the equipment would actually allow.
