How many torpedo hits has as ship survived historically?

[adarbrauner]

Those "rooster tails" are not from the tail of the midget! that may well have been there anyhow.

And BBfanboy's explanation concerning the coordinated attacking time is more than plausible and sound.

there are also some wakes perpendiculars to the suspected one and parallel to the battleships line, similar at all, and if they are not from torpedoes, as it is much unlikely them to be, so then they were left by small motor boats sailing at full speed;

the rooster tail sprays remind of projectiles or splinters, or of any other hard similar object flying fast and hitting the water, originating from the opposite direction i.e. that of the battleship. There's a lot of water movement in the enlarged picture, in front of the sprays and at its side. The wake originating from there and extending linearly up to the West Virginia should rightly be that of the first torpedo released by the airplane.

[bobdina]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

The fact that the minisubs were found sans torpedoes doesn't mean much to me. They could have jettisoned those for ballast before scuttling or fired them elsewhere in order to 'use 'em or lose 'em'.

It's inexplicable to me that a minisub-having successfully penetrated harbor defenses-would have waited until the main body of the IJNAF TBs attacked to likewise attack at that exact moment. I seriously doubt that the minisub commanders would have been told the precise timetable of the aerial assault-or even if there was going to be any assault at all. Why a minisub that penetrated the harbor hours ago would have waited until the air was full of attacking airplanes, aerial torpedoes, bombs and AAA to attack is inexplicable.

Until it can be proven as a near certainty that this photograph captures a minisub torpedo attack, this rates as 'very unlikely' in my book.

Which is not to say that a minisub attack never occurred within the harbor. It very well may have. It's just very unlikely that this photograph is capturing said attack.

Couldn't agree more.

[Buckrock]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Oh ye of little faith! [:D]
The crew of the mini-sub that beached itself in a remote part of the harbour confirmed they were told to wait until 08:00 to launch so as not to spoil the surprise element for the incoming air strikes.

Yer right!

Do you have a source that states that the minisub crew was informed of pending airstrikes at 8am? I find that breach of OpSec for a 'disposable' asset implausible. Per Mythbusters, that's "Busted" until demonstrated otherwise.

They do appear to have been briefed beforehand on at least some aspects of the air attack schedule. However the plan seems not to be one of
attacking at the scheduled strike times of the aircraft but rather during the lull between the two attack waves or else later at night.....

From Japanese Monograph No. 102 (Submarine Operations Dec '41 - Apr '42):-

The mother submarines for the midget submarines were to be within 100 nautical miles of Pearl Harbor after sunset on 6 December, and
there, all preparations for launching the midget submarines were to be completed. The mother submarines were then to approach within 10
nautical miles of the mouth of the harbor secretly and launch the midget submarine after locating the harbor entrance.

The attack was to be delivered between the first and the second waves of air attacks by the Carrier Striking Task Force, but the scheduled
attack could be postponed until after sundown of the same day if circumstances required it.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Oh ye of little faith! [:D]
The crew of the mini-sub that beached itself in a remote part of the harbour confirmed they were told to wait until 08:00 to launch so as not to spoil the surprise element for the incoming air strikes.

Yer right!

Do you have a source that states that the minisub crew was informed of pending airstrikes at 8am? I find that breach of OpSec for a 'disposable' asset implausible. Per Mythbusters, that's "Busted" until demonstrated otherwise.

They do appear to have been briefed beforehand on at least some aspects of the air attack schedule. However the plan seems not to be one of
attacking at the scheduled strike times of the aircraft but rather during the lull between the two attack waves or else later at night.....

From Japanese Monograph No. 102 (Submarine Operations Dec '41 - Apr '42):-

The mother submarines for the midget submarines were to be within 100 nautical miles of Pearl Harbor after sunset on 6 December, and
there, all preparations for launching the midget submarines were to be completed. The mother submarines were then to approach within 10
nautical miles of the mouth of the harbor secretly and launch the midget submarine after locating the harbor entrance.

The attack was to be delivered between the first and the second waves of air attacks by the Carrier Striking Task Force, but the scheduled
attack could be postponed until after sundown of the same day if circumstances required it.

Interesting, but that summary doesn't say what either the 'mother' submarine captain or the minisub captains were told about any other simultaneous attack.

My guess (pending proof to the contrary) is that the minisub captains may have had instructions to attack "between 7:30am and 9:30am on Sunday, December 7th, Hawaii time". Period. Nothing about massive simultaneous airstrikes would need to be divulged to them in order to carry out their missions. This timing would have had them attack 'between the first and second waves of air attacks', but they wouldn't need to know those details in order to carry out their missions.

Unnecessarily divulging such detail to a disposable asset would be a huge and unmitigated OpSec risk. Without primary confirmation to the contrary, I doubt the IJN would have made such a mistake.

[Skyros]

If the California had been at sea she would have been buttoned up tight unlike at Pearl where many inspection hatches had been removed and facilitated rapid flooding. But then again who knows what would have happened at sea, its all conjecture.


[/quote]


Oh one ship that was saved after multiple hits was the USS California. It took two torpedoes at Pearl Harbor and then beached to save the ship. That's the only one I can think of that took more than one torpedo the same day and was put back into service, but the damage was extensive enough if she hadn't been in port she would have been lost.

Bill
[/quote]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: String

As the thread title says, what's the maximum number of torpedo hits in ww2 that a ship has survived and still made it back to port and after that, back to service? IIRC there was a thread on the same subject ages ago and IIRC the consensus was that it was a maximum of 2? However my memory is fuzzy and it seems to be a nice subject to re-visit.

Per your original question, West Virginia was hit by 7 Type 91 aerial torpedoes. She 'made it back to port' by sinking in same and was later refloated and made it back to service.

The Wiki page on Scharnhorst says "4" plus "several" later. But as Scharnhorst sank subsequently to this damage, it's moot.

[Buckrock]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Interesting, but that summary doesn't say what either the 'mother' submarine captain or the minisub captains were told about any other simultaneous attack.

My guess (pending proof to the contrary) is that the minisub captains may have had instructions to attack "between 7:30am and 9:30am on Sunday, December 7th, Hawaii time". Period. Nothing about massive simultaneous airstrikes would need to be divulged to them in order to carry out their missions. This timing would have had them attack 'between the first and second waves of air attacks', but they wouldn't need to know those details in order to carry out their missions.

Unnecessarily divulging such detail to a disposable asset would be a huge and unmitigated OpSec risk. Without primary confirmation to the contrary, I doubt the IJN would have made such a mistake.

Although it differs slightly from the Monograph, this is from Zimm's "Attack on Pearl Harbor", page 327:-
The Japanese transported five two-man midget submarines to the Hawaiian Islands. They were to penetrate into the confines of Pearl Harbor
on the night before the beginning of the war, lay on the bottom of the harbor, and in the dark of night after the aerial strike rise up and attack.
This concept did not sit well with the submariners—they wanted to attack at the same time as the aircraft, adding their 10 torpedoes to the 40
carried by the aviators. They petitioned Yamamoto and he granted their request.

I've also seen several other authors (such as Michael Slakman with "Target Pearl Harbor") similarly describe the midget submariners' knowledge
of the intended air strike as well.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Buckrock
This concept did not sit well with the submariners—they wanted to attack at the same time as the aircraft, adding their 10 torpedoes to the 40
carried by the aviators. They petitioned Yamamoto and he granted their request.[/b]

I've also seen several other authors (such as Michael Slakman with "Target Pearl Harbor") similarly describe the midget submariners' knowledge
of the intended air strike as well.

This is more convincing (bolded). Thanks for the follow up.

I find it staggering that they would have been given such detailed information.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Buckrock
This concept did not sit well with the submariners—they wanted to attack at the same time as the aircraft, adding their 10 torpedoes to the 40
carried by the aviators. They petitioned Yamamoto and he granted their request.[/b]

I've also seen several other authors (such as Michael Slakman with "Target Pearl Harbor") similarly describe the midget submariners' knowledge
of the intended air strike as well.

This is more convincing (bolded). Thanks for the follow up.

I find it staggering that they would have been given such detailed information.

Their chances of survival were considered virtually nil, and to make sure they were ordered to commit suicide with grenades after scuttling their vessels. One crew got cold feet but one appears to have foundered in the harbour and one was sunk by Ward. I can't recall the fate of the other two - tangled in nets and never got into the harbour I think so they scuttled at sea?

[spence]

In answer to the original question about ships that survived multiple torpedo hits it would seem that if it sank, then it didn't survive and so it should not win any "award".

USS Minneapolis took two torpedo hits at Tassaforanga and survived them. The USS Houston (Cleveland class CL) also survived two torpedo hits but the hits were separated by a considerable amount of time (although the same battle).
Two hits seems survivable. So what other ships survived two hits. Any (non-sinkers) hit by 3 or more?

[LargeSlowTarget]

Well, I cheated and googled - the question has been discussed in other forums and I have seen claims that "the winner is" HMS Terror which survived three torpedo hits off Dunkirk in 1917.

However, further Google "research" shows that HMS Terror has been beached before being towed back to England for repairs, so this case is not kosher either.

Minneapolis seems to be the only case within the parameters of the OP.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: SheperdN7

ORIGINAL: wdolson

At Midway a US sub scored a couple of hits on the Akagi after she was set on fire, but those didn't explode either.

I didn't realize any US subs fired torps at any of the CV's that day. Wasn't Hiryu the only one that was actually possible to save?

What most historians fail to comprehend is that the US sub torpedoes were not defective at all. Early in the war the mission of US subs was, in the tradition of US plains "Indians", to count coup. The trick was you had to clearly hear the torp bang into the enemy ship's hull or at least go "thud" and for that you needed to be really brave and get close to your target.

[adarbrauner]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: SheperdN7

ORIGINAL: wdolson

At Midway a US sub scored a couple of hits on the Akagi after she was set on fire, but those didn't explode either.

I didn't realize any US subs fired torps at any of the CV's that day. Wasn't Hiryu the only one that was actually possible to save?

What most historians fail to comprehend is that the US sub torpedoes were not defective at all. Early in the war the mission of US subs was, in the tradition of US plains "Indians", to count coup. The trick was you had to clearly hear the torp bang into the enemy ship's hull or at least go "thud" and for that you needed to be really brave and get close to your target.

Is it that what you teach your grandsons in your courtyard when they play?

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: SheperdN7



I didn't realize any US subs fired torps at any of the CV's that day. Wasn't Hiryu the only one that was actually possible to save?

What most historians fail to comprehend is that the US sub torpedoes were not defective at all. Early in the war the mission of US subs was, in the tradition of US plains "Indians", to count coup. The trick was you had to clearly hear the torp bang into the enemy ship's hull or at least go "thud" and for that you needed to be really brave and get close to your target.

Is it that what you teach your grandsons in your courtyard when they play?

I don't have any grandsons. If I ever did, I would have eaten them. I don't have any grandsons.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: spence

In answer to the original question about ships that survived multiple torpedo hits it would seem that if it sank, then it didn't survive and so it should not win any "award".

USS Minneapolis took two torpedo hits at Tassaforanga and survived them. The USS Houston (Cleveland class CL) also survived two torpedo hits but the hits were separated by a considerable amount of time (although the same battle).
Two hits seems survivable. So what other ships survived two hits. Any (non-sinkers) hit by 3 or more?

The Kumano.

One torpedo at Samar on 25 October, 1944.
Three bombs on 26th October.
Two more torpedoes on 6th November.
Five torpedoes and four bombs on 25th November.

So, in effect, the Kumano took three torpedoes by the 6th of November, but didn't keel over until five more on the 25th.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

While I am no expert, I always found it intensely curious that there is a straight line in the water from the rooster tail directly into the concussion on the Oklahoma. There are, of course, lots of possibilities. But Nature abhors straight lines (grunts get taught this, as a matter of fact). And there are several in this pic.

<edited> because my typing sux

I mean, if it were an aerial torpedo... the vector to where the plane was would be in that direction. And an AA gun would be firing along that vector.

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: spence

In answer to the original question about ships that survived multiple torpedo hits it would seem that if it sank, then it didn't survive and so it should not win any "award".

USS Minneapolis took two torpedo hits at Tassaforanga and survived them. The USS Houston (Cleveland class CL) also survived two torpedo hits but the hits were separated by a considerable amount of time (although the same battle).
Two hits seems survivable. So what other ships survived two hits. Any (non-sinkers) hit by 3 or more?

The Kumano.

One torpedo at Samar on 25 October, 1944.
Three bombs on 26th October.
Two more torpedoes on 6th November.
Five torpedoes and four bombs on 25th November.

So, in effect, the Kumano took three torpedoes by the 6th of November, but didn't keel over until five more on the 25th.

She was under repair between the three torpedo hits and did not made it "back to service" after Nov 6th - no cigar!

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: spence

In answer to the original question about ships that survived multiple torpedo hits it would seem that if it sank, then it didn't survive and so it should not win any "award".

USS Minneapolis took two torpedo hits at Tassaforanga and survived them. The USS Houston (Cleveland class CL) also survived two torpedo hits but the hits were separated by a considerable amount of time (although the same battle).
Two hits seems survivable. So what other ships survived two hits. Any (non-sinkers) hit by 3 or more?

The Kumano.

One torpedo at Samar on 25 October, 1944.
Three bombs on 26th October.
Two more torpedoes on 6th November.
Five torpedoes and four bombs on 25th November.

So, in effect, the Kumano took three torpedoes by the 6th of November, but didn't keel over until five more on the 25th.

She was under repair between the three torpedo hits and did not made it "back to service" after Nov 6th - no cigar!

The repairs were emergency repairs conducted in-theatre. Tantamount in my mind to damage control assisted by shore personal.

She meets the criteria; three torpedo hits and still managed to make it back to a port.

[LargeSlowTarget]

Don't mess with my mind! It's one hit and back to port and repairs and then two hits and back to port again. Like HMS Terror not a "pure" example of a "three hits survivor". Let the OP decide.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Don't mess with my mind! It's one hit and back to port and repairs and then two hits and back to port again. Like HMS Terror not a "pure" example of a "three hits survivor". Let the OP decide.

Eh, I get what you're meaning, but I doubt that the repairs made much headway repairing the damage caused in favour of just keeping it afloat. I think it's fairly safe to say that it was a "three hit survivor" in that it took the last two torps long before the damage from the first hit had been repaired.