Don:

You caught me!

I try to keep, as best I can, my historical conclusions based on statistics and facts, but judgements and evaluations (a 25 cent word for opinions) are ever present!

I looked up some Cutie statistics (from "Hellions of the Deep" Robert Gannon) and got the same numbers. Gannon probably got them from your source. The Cutie does statistically indeed look pretty good, along with the Fido.

I said what I said because a number of first person histories of WWII sub commanders will contain throwaways like 'fired a cutire and this time it actually worked', or 'fired a cutie but it missed - again!', or words to that effect, culling in me that attitude I expressed. The Cutie, like the T5, was looked to provided a great capability in anti-ASW self defence to the sub's arsenal, and it actually did a lot less than that - the technology simply was not ready then.

Perhaps there is a difference in opinion because air dropping a Fido and missing (which they did about 2/3rds of the time) leaves a very different impression on an aircrew (doubt they even knew it) as opposed to a sub using it in the last ditch of self defence against a charging ASW vessel and missing ('dang the Cutie missed! Rig for depth charging!!'). A 1/3 chance of hitting when up against the wall is not so hot.

Thanks for putting me back on the statistically accurate path!

PS Gannon's book is a must read if you are interested in US WWII torpedo dev't. Lots of details on many subjects like acoustic seeker dev't, etc. Rare photos too. Try Amazon.com - I got it there.