3 ms·

> This is a great read. It is not. I found it maddeningly superficial. It talks about "crippling flaws in all three control mechanisms." but fails to provide

by brazzy 7y ago

> This is a great read. It is not. I found it maddeningly superficial. It talks about "crippling flaws in all three control mechanisms." but fails to provide any information whatsoever about what those flaws were and what effects they had. The story about how the flaws were isolated and fixed is confined to a single sentence. It is completely unclear how "Lesson 1: Indecision can thicken the fog of war" has anything at all to do with the faulty torpedoes. Why and how did "operational consequences of this startling strategic decision masked the true nature of the torpedo problem"?

pjc50 7y ago
The wikipedia article cites three problems: wrong depth setting (caused by the test warheads being lighter than the real ones); over-sensitive magnetic detonators and under-sensitive contact detonators. It also cites inadequate testing because the torpedoes were too expensive.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  The article posted cites them and doesn't even discuss them. Furthermore it doesn't even go into any deep discussion as to why the navy couldn't figure it out. It's just hand waving about money and organizational politics. There is no depth or breadth of subject matter in this article. I think that makes "maddeningly superficial" an accurate description. Edit: If you're going to edit your comment to change the subject of your comment from "it" (referring to the posted article the GP is talking about) to "the Wikipedia article" thereby totally changing what you are discussing do us all a favor and mention it.
wffurr 7y ago
It's not a technical article about torpedo design. From that perspective, it is superficial but that's not what it's about. You can easily research the torpedo design if you want. The article is actually about the organizational and strategic failures that led to and exacerbated the problem. From that perspective, it has plenty to offer.
- brazzy 7y ago
  Even from that perspective, it has very little to offer because it completely fails to explain how those "organizational and strategic failures" actually had anything to do with the torpedoes.

by brazzy 7y ago

pjc50 7y ago

The wikipedia article cites three problems: wrong depth setting (caused by the test warheads being lighter than the real ones); over-sensitive magnetic detonators and under-sensitive contact detonators. It also cites inadequate testing because the torpedoes were too expensive.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
The article posted cites them and doesn't even discuss them. Furthermore it doesn't even go into any deep discussion as to why the navy couldn't figure it out. It's just hand waving about money and organizational politics. There is no depth or breadth of subject matter in this article. I think that makes "maddeningly superficial" an accurate description. Edit: If you're going to edit your comment to change the subject of your comment from "it" (referring to the posted article the GP is talking about) to "the Wikipedia article" thereby totally changing what you are discussing do us all a favor and mention it.

wffurr 7y ago

It's not a technical article about torpedo design. From that perspective, it is superficial but that's not what it's about. You can easily research the torpedo design if you want. The article is actually about the organizational and strategic failures that led to and exacerbated the problem. From that perspective, it has plenty to offer.

brazzy 7y ago
Even from that perspective, it has very little to offer because it completely fails to explain how those "organizational and strategic failures" actually had anything to do with the torpedoes.