Technology and Operations  
This forum is for discussing technological & operational matters pertaining to U-boats. 
Re: Fido(s)
Posted by: Patrick Meagher ()
Date: October 27, 2002 04:23PM

I don't believe we gave away MK 16's to our client nations. Reason being the Mod 6 which was the first big production run, was full of problems caused by Navol (H2O2O) contamination and leakage in the torpedo energy section and an overly complicated exercise head. I know in 1961 loading warshots for a Western Pacific deployment on board USS Cusk SS-348, our skipper elected to take Mk 14 Mod 3's rather than MK 16's because of all the problems with them. We still had submarine "operators" at that time who had experienced all the teething problems with the MK 14 during WWII, and they saw a lot of the same kind of stuff going on with the MK 16 Mod 6.

All the Mk 16 Mod 6's were recalled to torpedo stations for a major rework in the mid 1960's. They were reissued as MK 16 Mod 8's. The major change was the replacement of air actuated valves in the Navol distribution system with explosive actuacted valves and a simplified exercise head which was a copy of a MK 14 exercise head. That fixed all the problems with the MK 16.

I shot over 60 Mk 16 Mod 8 exercise units during my five years on USS Barbel SS-580 from 1970 to 1975. They were all HSN. In late 1973 we shot the first Mk 16 Mod 8 warshot in 8 years. It was HSN, ran 88 seconds, hit the target Island of Kahoolawe, and when 740 lbs of HBX-3 detonates it gets your attention. (By the way, I have never heard them get the sound of a torpedo detonation right in a movie.)

My understanding at that time was all the MK 16 Mod 8's were concentrated in Pearl Harbor. I was told recently by a shipmate and former Barbel "gun boss" who was XO on Barbel in late 70's, when the MK 16 Mod 8 was recalled to be taken out of service, Barbel expended her warshots against Kahoolawe the target island.

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Written By Posted
Fido(s) walter M 10/21/2002 09:48PM
Re: Fido(s) Rainer Bruns 10/22/2002 01:38AM
Re: Fido(s) walter M 10/22/2002 11:02AM
Re: Fido(s) Peter 10/22/2002 04:09PM
Re: Fido(s) walter M 10/23/2002 10:47AM
Re: Fido(s) MCE 10/23/2002 04:42PM
Re: Fido(s) walter M 10/23/2002 05:49PM
Re: Fido(s) MCE 10/24/2002 04:30PM
faster fidos and tired XXI's kurt 10/25/2002 01:01PM
Re: faster fidos and tired XXI's Rainer Bruns 10/25/2002 02:08PM
Ranier: fido speed kurt 10/25/2002 05:41PM
Re: Ranier: fido speed Rainer Bruns 10/25/2002 06:34PM
Re: Ranier: fido speed kurt 10/25/2002 07:48PM
Re: Fido(s) Rainer Bruns 10/23/2002 06:02PM
Re: Fido(s) MCE 10/24/2002 04:26PM
Re: Fido(s) Sander Kingsepp 11/06/2002 08:24AM
Re: Fido(s) Peter 10/23/2002 06:23PM
Re: Fido(s) Bram 10/23/2002 07:39PM
Re: Fido(s) ROBERT M. 10/27/2002 03:11AM
Re: Fido(s) Rainer Bruns 10/22/2002 05:44PM
Re: Fido(s) walter M 10/23/2002 06:00PM
Re: Fido(s) ROBERT M. 10/27/2002 09:06PM
Re: Ranier: fido speed Don 10/26/2002 12:46PM
Re: Ranier: fido speed MCE 10/26/2002 02:12PM
Re: Ranier: fido speed Rainer Bruns 10/26/2002 02:58PM
Re: Fido(s) Patrick Meagher 10/26/2002 05:08PM
Re: Fido(s) walter M 10/26/2002 07:34PM
Re: Fido(s) Patrick Meagher 10/26/2002 10:08PM
Re: Fido(s) Sniper 10/27/2002 09:59AM
Re: Fido(s) ROBERT M. 10/27/2002 02:04PM
Re: Fido(s) Patrick Meagher 10/27/2002 05:11PM
Re: Fido(s) ROBERT M. 10/27/2002 09:32PM
Re: Fido(s) Patrick Meagher 10/28/2002 07:03PM
Re: Fido(s) Patrick Meagher 10/27/2002 04:23PM
Re: Fido(s) ROBERT M. 10/27/2002 03:33AM
Re: Fido(s) Patrick Meagher 10/27/2002 03:39AM
Re: Fido(s) ROBERT M. 10/27/2002 02:32PM
Re: Fido(s) Patrick Meagher 10/27/2002 04:45PM
Good Allied Doctrine Mark K 11/02/2002 10:17PM
Re: Good Allied Doctrine ROBERT M. 11/03/2002 02:42AM
"mine" vice "torpedo" Mark 11/03/2002 09:08AM
Re: "mine" vice "torpedo" ROBERT M. 11/03/2002 02:27PM
Re: "mine" vice "torpedo" Sniper 11/03/2002 04:05PM
I think we agree then: Mark 11/03/2002 11:02PM
Re: I think we agree then: ROBERT M. 11/04/2002 04:26AM
Re: Good Allied Doctrine ROBERT M. 11/03/2002 03:26AM
Re: Good Allied Doctrine Sander Kingsepp 11/06/2002 08:15AM


Your Name: 
Your Email: 
Subject: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 ********         **  **    **  **     **  **     ** 
 **     **        **   **  **   **     **  ***   *** 
 **     **        **    ****    **     **  **** **** 
 **     **        **     **     **     **  ** *** ** 
 **     **  **    **     **      **   **   **     ** 
 **     **  **    **     **       ** **    **     ** 
 ********    ******      **        ***     **     **