General Discussions
This is the place to discuss general issues related to the U-boat war or the war at sea in WWII.
Running comparative numbers USN/Ubootwaffe
Posted by:
tonyingesson
()
Date: September 04, 2012 02:22PM
So now I'm trying to compare the impact of torpedo failures for the Ubootwaffe and the US Navy during their first years of combat operations (i.e. Sept 1939-Sept 1940 for the Ubootwaffe and Dec 1941 to Dec 1942 for the USN).
For the Ubootwaffe, I have an average failure rate of approx. 23.8% and for the USN I will assume 70% until I have found more accurate and detailed data.
Right now it's more about finding a proper formula and method for comparing than the figures themselves, so please bear with my assumptions for now.
The question is: how does one compare torpedo failure rates?
Roughly half of all fired torpedoes will miss in any case (preliminary data indicate this to be the case for both the Ubootwaffe and the USN). That leaves the torpedoes that would have hit but failed to detonate or went too deep as a result of technical malfunction of the torpedo or pistol.
Does it seem reasonable, based on the above assumptions, to say that:
15% of all American torpedoes could be expected to hit and detonate
38% of all German torpedoes could be expected to hit and detonate
(i.e., inverted malfunction rate divided by hit rate, so 0.3 * 0.5 and 0.76 * 0.5)
Consequently, German torpedoes were on average 2.52 times more reliable.
The next step would be to introduce this control to the average tonnage sunk per commander. Nominally, the difference between German and American commanders is 369% in favor of the Germans. If the American figure is multiplied by 2.53, the difference in favor of the Germans is reduced to 86%.
Thus, while this eliminates 283% of the difference between the German and American commanders, 85% of the difference still cannot be explained by unreliable torpedoes.
I've been doing this for too many hours straight, going over different ways to compare and illustrate, now I can't focus anymore. If the above sounds completely idiotic, let me know how and why please.
For the Ubootwaffe, I have an average failure rate of approx. 23.8% and for the USN I will assume 70% until I have found more accurate and detailed data.
Right now it's more about finding a proper formula and method for comparing than the figures themselves, so please bear with my assumptions for now.
The question is: how does one compare torpedo failure rates?
Roughly half of all fired torpedoes will miss in any case (preliminary data indicate this to be the case for both the Ubootwaffe and the USN). That leaves the torpedoes that would have hit but failed to detonate or went too deep as a result of technical malfunction of the torpedo or pistol.
Does it seem reasonable, based on the above assumptions, to say that:
15% of all American torpedoes could be expected to hit and detonate
38% of all German torpedoes could be expected to hit and detonate
(i.e., inverted malfunction rate divided by hit rate, so 0.3 * 0.5 and 0.76 * 0.5)
Consequently, German torpedoes were on average 2.52 times more reliable.
The next step would be to introduce this control to the average tonnage sunk per commander. Nominally, the difference between German and American commanders is 369% in favor of the Germans. If the American figure is multiplied by 2.53, the difference in favor of the Germans is reduced to 86%.
Thus, while this eliminates 283% of the difference between the German and American commanders, 85% of the difference still cannot be explained by unreliable torpedoes.
I've been doing this for too many hours straight, going over different ways to compare and illustrate, now I can't focus anymore. If the above sounds completely idiotic, let me know how and why please.
Running comparative numbers USN/Ubootwaffe