Talk:Torpedo Data Computer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Torpedo Data Computer article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of Computing WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to computers and computing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an rating on the importance scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Edit Rationale

[edit] Japanese Torpedo Fire Control

The original article stated that the IJN did not have automated torpedo fire control. I have found two credible references that state otherwise. [1] [2] Unfortuately, there are web references that say that the Japanese did not develop any torpedo fire control computers. This does not appear to be accurate.

Seems Friedman's showing a bias, too. IJN "TDCs" had a statistical feature not available on USN mods... Trekphiler 15:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TDC Only Useful Against Surface Target

The TDC really had no ability to deal with a target with depth. In fact, while torpedoes have a fixed depth setting, the TDC does not even have a depth input. [3]

[edit] TDC Still in Service

The original article discussed some recent (1980s) maintenance activity by the US Navy with the TDC. Since the TDC is still in service with at least one foreign navy, Taiwan, I thought it was better to mention this activiy and the support going toward keeping the TDCs operational. Therefore, I removed the original contribution.

[edit] Defects/Improvements

  • Figure 2 shows track angle as 90 degrees. This could be confusing. Make it clearly look oblique.
  • Establish connection between the "rangekeepers" of the army and surface forces and the position keeper of the TDC. See new Rangekeeper section.
  • Pseudo-track is shown in Figure 2, but no mention is made of it. It should either be removed, replaced, or explained.
  • The torpedo fire control triangle is a good approximation for computing the gyro angle when the gyro angle is small. This needs to be explained.
  • There is a contradiction in the definition of track angle. Clarify it in Figure 3.
  • Finish position keeper sectionI have decided to create a new section
  • Add more detail on the foreign navy reference. USS Tusk and USS Cutlass are the submarines, they serve in Taiwan's navy, and they have Wiki entries.
  • It may be worthwhile to add a graph of track angle versus deflection angle and target speed to illustrate the optimal launch point.
  • Rather than say two out of three assumptions were met, it would be more accurate to say all three assumptions met reasonably well. The sight is in the same location as the torpedo, the target is moving on a constant course and bearing, and the torpedo comes to speed pretty quickly.
  • Equation 1 is incorrect. The Law of Sines is A * sin(b) = B * sin(a), not A * sin(a) = B * sin(b) (as it is now). It was several hours after following Wikipedia's formula and not knowing why my program wasn't working until I checked out the forumula in another location and realized the error. --71.115.71.57 03:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

blacksheep 13:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References/Endnotes

  1. ^ Friedman, Norman (1995). US Submarines Through 1945: An Illustrated Design History. Naval Institute Press, 195. ISBN=1-55750-263-3. “No other navy developed a comparable instrument [to the TDC]. The Germans and Japanese used angle solvers without position keepers (at least in the Japanese case, the device also had a timer that allowed it to dead reckon target position for indirect fire through smoke or mist). Probably because the Japanese had no TDC, they abandoned stern torpedo tubes in their later cruiser and fleet submarines on the grounds that they would require excessive gyro angles.” 
  2. ^ Jackson, USNR, Lt.(jg) J.G. (February, 1946). Japanese Torpedo Fire Control. US Naval Technical Mission to Japan. Fascicle O-1, Target O-32. “The Japanese spent considerable effor on the design and manufacture of torpedo fire control equipment. The various units were well constructed and function with good accuracy. their submarine torpedo data computers and auxiliarly equipment were more simplified and less accurate than US equipment, while above water torpedo control gear (especially for cruisers) is more complicated and equal in merit to that of U.S. design.” 
  3. ^ (1952) Submarine Torpedo Fire Control Manual. Historic Naval Ship Visitor's Guide. Retrieved on 3-July-2006.