On Sep 18, 5:15*pm, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
In message
,
David E. Powell writes

Such as lightweight torpedoes on destroyers and frigates, where the
ship would already be in rane for a Submarine with heavyweight
torpedoes?

Detection ranges can be unpredictable; the submarine may be trying to
sneak past the escort to get a shot at the HVU it's protecting; and, if
the escort's attacked or it detects a submarine torpedo firing, an
immediate countershot may discompose the submarine, which will reduce
the effectiveness of a wire-guided torpedo (a lively torpedo
countermeasure manoeuvre is likely to break the guidance wire, so when
the torpedo goes for the "ooh, shiny!" acoustic decoy it can't be nudged
back onto the real target).

True. I should have considered modern carrier groups or convoys could
spread out over quite a bit of distance. If the sub fires at a
destroyer or frigate, they maybe targeting themselves and losing the
chance at the main target.

Again, the DD/FF is an obstacle in the submarine's path, rather than a
primary target: since it's likely to be carrying lightweight torpedoes
in its air weapons store, why not give it the option to launch them? (On
a Type 23 they're fired straight from the magazine: the torpedo room has
two tubes either beam plus a door to the hangar)

That's a good argument too. It reminds me of a book I read about the
PQ 17 convoy of WW2, where the crew of a freighter cut off from a
dispersed convoy, having been warned not to tamper with the cargo,
broke out all manner of weaponry anyway because they figured they had
it anyway and were on their own, so why let it just sit? I recall they
used machine guns mounted on tanks, along with some other weapons, to
deefnd against air attacks.

--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

Paul J. Adam