In message , Paul F Austin
writes
21" torpedo warheads ran around ~800lb of Torpex at the time (UK Mark
VIII - 640lb Torpex for the US Mark 14), which sounds competitive for
BLU-109/B (if a bit smaller than Mark 84)

That said, if you could get an under-keel detonation with any of those,
it will *hurt* a ship of that era.

You're right about the BLU-109 fill. Thanks for the correction.

Thanks for being gracious, I hope I'm as polite when corrected Just
an area where I had some figures in mind and others to hand.

How does a
modern insensitive explosive fill compare to Torpex?

Depends on role (and which 'insensitive fill' you mean). Torpedo
warheads are typically blast weapons, bombs are more interested in
fragmentation, and there are numerous exceptions to both those rules of
thumb.

'Torpex' was IIRC distinguished by its aluminium content to enhance
blast at the expense of brisance. I'm not a warhead expert, and the best
I can do is to suggest that going insensitive cost money but didn't
reduce lethality - and that modern explosive fills are both more
powerful and more stable than Torpex.


I'll stick with my opening gambit - either a 21" torpedo of the period
or a modern 2000lb bomb exploding under the keel of a 1941 carrier puts
into in that delightful Americanism, "a world of hurt".

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk