14-in Fiume Mark V Torpedo: Difference between revisions
(replace "[[Whitehead & Co." with "[[Whitehead & Company") |
|||
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[File:ARTS1893Plate10edit.jpg|thumb|640px|'''14-in Fiume Mark V Torpedo'''{{ARTS1893|portion of Plate 10}} ]] | [[File:ARTS1893Plate10edit.jpg|thumb|640px|'''14-in Fiume Mark V Torpedo'''{{ARTS1893|portion of Plate 10}} ]] | ||
The '''14-in Fiume Mark V Torpedo''' was an early torpedo manufactured by the [[Whitehead & | The '''14-in Fiume Mark V Torpedo''' was an early torpedo manufactured by the [[Whitehead & Company]], first tested in 1893. | ||
It was found to be greatly superior to the {{Torp|14-in Fiume Mark IV}}, but inferior to the current R.G.F. Mark IX torpedoes overall in that although it had a 100 pound warhead as opposed to 90 pounds, it was ran slower and was not as quick at recovering from a dive.{{ARTS1893|p. 36}} | It was found to be greatly superior to the {{Torp|14-in Fiume Mark IV}}, but inferior to the current R.G.F. Mark IX torpedoes overall in that although it had a 100 pound warhead as opposed to 90 pounds, it was ran slower and was not as quick at recovering from a dive.{{ARTS1893|p. 36}} | ||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Testing at the Horsea Range was sufficiently promising to warrant a recommendation in July 1893 to purchase two for more extensive testing and comparison to the {{Torp|14-in Mark IX|UK}}.{{ARTS1893|p. 31}} | Testing at the Horsea Range was sufficiently promising to warrant a recommendation in July 1893 to purchase two for more extensive testing and comparison to the {{Torp|14-in Mark IX|UK}}.{{ARTS1893|p. 31}} | ||
However, the follow-up testing at Portland in 1894 proved so unsuccessful that | However, after some refinements were applied by Whitehead, the follow-up testing of the two test articles at Portland in 1894 proved so unsuccessful that Mr. Whitehead deemed them defective and personally withdrew the specimens from trial. It was subsequently decided to have Portland switch over and manufacture the superior Mark IX design, which was to become universal for the Royal Navy for torpedoes of this size.{{ARTS1894|pp. 58, 62-3. (Admiralty Letter, G. 5476/7433, 19 Oct 1894)}} | ||
===Particulars=== | ===Particulars=== |
Latest revision as of 13:04, 7 April 2018
The 14-in Fiume Mark V Torpedo was an early torpedo manufactured by the Whitehead & Company, first tested in 1893.
It was found to be greatly superior to the 14-in Fiume Mark IV torpedo, but inferior to the current R.G.F. Mark IX torpedoes overall in that although it had a 100 pound warhead as opposed to 90 pounds, it was ran slower and was not as quick at recovering from a dive.[2]
Development and History
Testing at the Horsea Range was sufficiently promising to warrant a recommendation in July 1893 to purchase two for more extensive testing and comparison to the 14-in Mark IX torpedo.[3]
However, after some refinements were applied by Whitehead, the follow-up testing of the two test articles at Portland in 1894 proved so unsuccessful that Mr. Whitehead deemed them defective and personally withdrew the specimens from trial. It was subsequently decided to have Portland switch over and manufacture the superior Mark IX design, which was to become universal for the Royal Navy for torpedoes of this size.[4]
Particulars
Whitehead claimed eight chief advantages for this model over prior Fiume examples, including a larger charge, stronger tail and increased speed. The head was more bluff.[5]
The air vessel could sustain 1,350 psi at least. When set for 600 yards range, it showed 29.74 knots to 300 yards and 27.47 knots at 600 yards.[6]
Manufacture and Use
Footnotes
- ↑ Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1893. portion of Plate 10.
- ↑ Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1893. p. 36.
- ↑ Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1893. p. 31.
- ↑ Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1894. pp. 58, 62-3. (Admiralty Letter, G. 5476/7433, 19 Oct 1894).
- ↑ Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1893. p. 31.
- ↑ Annual Report of the Torpedo School, 1893. p. 32.
Bibliography
See Also