Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Depth charge

A depth charge is an anti-submarine warfare ordnance comprising a metal canister or drum filled with high explosives such as TNT, equipped with a hydrostatic fuse that triggers detonation at a preset depth after being released into the water from surface ships, patrol boats, or aircraft. The explosion generates a powerful underwater shock wave, leveraging water's incompressibility to transmit pressure that can rupture submarine hulls, damage propulsion systems, or force submergence if detonated sufficiently close—typically within 20-50 feet for fatal effects, though non-lethal damage extended to about 100 feet. Originating from British naval innovation in 1915-1916 amid World War I U-boat campaigns that threatened Allied shipping, the depth charge marked the first dedicated weapon for underwater submarine attack, evolving from earlier concepts like spar torpedoes and proving instrumental in convoy protection despite requiring precise positioning and often salvo launches for efficacy. In World War II, it formed the backbone of Allied ASW efforts against Axis submarines, with millions produced and deployed via racks, throwers like the U.S. K-gun, and aerial drops, contributing to the attrition of over 800 German U-boats though at low per-attack success rates of around 3-5% due to detection challenges, submarine depth capabilities exceeding early charge limits (initially 100-200 feet), and the weapon's area-effect nature rather than precision guidance. Postwar advancements included deeper settings, nuclear variants like the U.S. Mark 101 "Lulu" for enhanced yield against Soviet submarines, and eventual supplantation by homing torpedoes and forward-throwing projectors such as Hedgehog and Squid, which addressed the blind zone aft of attacking vessels.

Principles of Operation

Design and Components

Depth charges are typically constructed as cylindrical steel canisters or barrels designed to contain a high-explosive filling, such as or , with a total charge weight of approximately 300 pounds in early models like the Type D introduced during . The casing provides structural integrity to withstand water pressure and impact, while the interior is packed with the explosive material initiated by a primer charge. Central to the design is the hydrostatic , often termed a "," which employs a pressure-sensitive mechanism to detonate the charge at a predetermined depth, typically adjustable up to 300 feet in variants. This operates on the principle of compressing a or to release a , ensuring activation only below the surface at the set hydrostatic level. Early designs, such as the British Type D, featured basic cylindrical shapes without advanced stabilization, relying on for descent. By , refinements included reinforced casings capable of withstanding greater depths, up to 1,000 feet in some U.S. models, informed by empirical testing of resistance and yield. For aerial applications, later variants incorporated stabilizing fins to induce spin and maintain trajectory or parachutes to control descent rate and orientation, preventing premature detonation or deviation. Streamlined teardrop shapes emerged in WWII to reduce drag and improve sinking predictability.

Detonation Mechanisms

Depth charge detonation primarily relies on hydrostatic pistols, mechanical devices that trigger the explosive charge upon sensing a predetermined corresponding to a specific depth. These pistols incorporate a or assembly exposed to hydrostatic through ports in the device housing; as the charge sinks, increasing flexes the , compressing a and eventually releasing a to strike the detonator primer. Settings typically range from 50 to 500 feet, adjustable via calibrated rings or screws that preload the spring against the expected at the target depth. Early designs employed purely mechanical hydrostatic mechanisms, often supplemented by clockwork timers for initial delays to ensure safe separation from the launching vessel, as sink rates varied unpredictably with factors like charge weight and water conditions. These clockwork elements provided a fixed time before hydrostatic activation but proved imprecise due to inconsistencies in descent velocity. Later refinements introduced chemical delay initiators, such as acid-based corrosion timers, and electrical systems using pressure-activated switches to initiate solenoid-driven firing pins, enhancing reliability and reducing mechanical failure rates under high-pressure conditions. Calibration of hydrostatic pistols occurs through empirical pressure testing in controlled water columns or sea trials, accounting for standard seawater density; however, variations in salinity (affecting pressure gradients) and temperature (influencing compressibility) can shift actual detonation depths by up to 10-20% from settings, necessitating operational adjustments based on local oceanographic data. Depth-specific detonation optimizes the charge's effectiveness by positioning the explosion's shockwave—propagating rapidly through water's near-incompressibility—at the submerged target's , maximizing transmitted and hull rupture potential while minimizing loss to the surface or atmosphere. A surface or prematurely shallow burst would dissipate much of the shockwave upward into less dense media, reducing lethality, whereas precise depth triggering ensures the radial shock front compresses the target proximally before attenuating.

Underwater Explosive Physics

Upon of an underwater explosive, the rapid generates a high-temperature, high-pressure gas that expands violently, displacing surrounding and initiating a spherical . This shock front propagates radially outward at the in , approximately 1,500 m/s, which is over four times faster than in air (343 m/s), enabling swift transmission of the across large distances with minimal from . The initial peak near the source can exceed several megapascals, decaying rapidly due to geometric spreading and . The shock wave's pressure profile features a sharp positive-phase impulse followed by a negative-phase reflection, with peak pressure scaling inversely with standoff distance in the near field (often modeled as P ∝ 1/R for simplified far-field approximations, where R is distance). Empirical measurements from controlled underwater detonations confirm exponential decay in both peak pressure and impulse, with energy flux diminishing such that significant structural loads persist only within tens of feet of the epicenter for conventional charges. For instance, tests with TNT equivalents show pressures dropping from gigapascal levels at close range to below 1 MPa beyond 10-20 meters, underscoring the exponential falloff that necessitates precise targeting for effective damage. Interaction with a submarine hull induces dynamic whipping, where the impulsive load flexes the structure as a under fluid-structure coupling, potentially exceeding yield stresses and causing or rupture if the incident exceeds hull design thresholds (typically 10-50 for WWII-era pressure hulls depending on material and geometry). The negative pressure phase can trigger bubbles on the hull surface, leading to localized implosions upon collapse that amplify pitting or erosion through microjet impacts, though primary lethality stems from the initial positive shock. empirical analyses of 300-pound charges indicated lethal radii of 20-50 feet for pressure hull rupture, based on controlled data correlating standoff distance with observed structural failure modes. Beyond direct hull breach, the propagating wave transmits concussive forces through the hull to internal compartments, inflicting non-lethal but disruptive effects on crews such as , disorientation, and internal hemorrhaging from overpressures as low as 0.1-1 , as documented in naval studies. Controlled tests further reveal that damage severity decays nonlinearly with distance cubed for impulse-related effects, reinforcing the causal requirement for explosions within close proximity to overwhelm submarine resilience.

Historical Development

World War I Origins

The German initiation of around the in February 1915, exemplified by attacks on merchant shipping including the sinking of on 7 May 1915, prompted the Royal Navy to seek effective countermeasures against U-boats operating submerged. Traditional naval guns proved inadequate for submerged targets, leading the to prioritize antisubmarine ordnance that could detonate at preset depths. In early 1915, civilian engineer Herbert Taylor, working at the Admiralty's HMS Vernon torpedo school in , developed a depth charge featuring a hydrostatic to trigger explosion underwater at a targeted depth. Taylor's design, consisting of a cylindrical canister filled with approximately 300 pounds of or , was tested and refined through 1915, with the Type D model entering service by January 1916 as the first standardized version. This innovation addressed the need for a that could damage hulls via shockwaves, though initial hydrostatic fuses limited reliable detonation to shallow depths of around 100-135 feet, constraining effectiveness against deeper-diving U-boats. The first confirmed sinking using depth charges occurred on 22 March 1916, when the armed merchant cruiser HMS Farnborough attacked SM U-68 off the southwest coast of ; after the U-boat torpedoed and missed the ship, Farnborough dropped charges set for 200 feet, resulting in an underwater explosion that forced the to the surface, where it was scuttled and wreckage confirmed its destruction. Subsequent verified sinkings in 1916 included UC-19 and UB-29, but these successes were rare amid hundreds of attacks. Production ramped up significantly, with an estimated 16,500 depth charges expended by Allied forces by war's end, yet empirical data from naval records indicate a low kill rate of roughly 1 per 400-1,000 charges dropped, attributable to imprecise depth settings, evasion tactics, and the weapons' reliance on close-proximity blasts rather than direct hits. Overall, depth charges accounted for about 38 of the 178 s sunk during the war, highlighting their role as a deterrent that forced submarines to operate cautiously but with limited outright lethality.

Interwar Refinements

In the and , depth charge designs underwent incremental modifications primarily to address limitations exposed by post-World War I analyses of capabilities, which demonstrated that early models with maximum settings of around 200 feet were insufficient against vessels capable of routine dives to 250-300 feet. Hydrostatic pistols were refined to permit deeper detonation settings, initially up to 300 feet, through adjustments in pressure-sensitive mechanisms that improved reliability under varying hydrostatic conditions; these changes were validated in controlled tank tests and limited at-sea simulations, revealing enhanced lethality within a 50-foot but highlighting persistent vulnerabilities if submarines evaded the blast zone by altering depth or speed. Standardization efforts culminated in models like the U.S. Navy's , introduced in 1938 with a 300-pound charge (later optimized to 200 pounds with added ballast for a sink rate of 12 feet per second), reflecting a 1936 ordnance board conclusion that larger charges yielded superior shock effects against hulls despite increased weight. British refinements paralleled this, retaining the Type D Mark III's 300-pound filling while introducing the Mark VII by 1939 with an external dial for quicker depth adjustments up to similar limits. These upgrades were causally linked to parallel sonar advancements, such as ASDIC's operational deployment in the mid-1920s, which provided range and bearing data to inform charge patterns, though integration exposed ongoing accuracy challenges from ship roll, parallax errors, and the need for synchronized releases. Real-world testing remained constrained by post-war budgetary austerity and naval treaties like the 1922 Washington and 1930 London agreements, which curbed fleet expansions and indirectly limited live-fire exercises; navies thus relied on scaled hydrodynamic models and pressure simulations, which confirmed expanded blast radii (effective to 25-35 feet for structural damage) but underscored unresolved issues in pattern density and timing precision against maneuvering targets.

World War II Production and Deployment


The Royal Navy relied on the Mark VII as its primary during the initial years of , equipping destroyers and smaller escort vessels with racks capable of holding dozens of units for rapid deployment against submerged threats. This cylindrical charge, weighing approximately 450 pounds with a 290-pound filling, sank at rates up to 10 feet per second and was set to detonate via hydrostatic pistols at depths up to 200 feet. British production scaled to meet demands of convoy protection operations, though exact totals remain undocumented in primary naval records; the design's simplicity facilitated manufacturing across multiple facilities to sustain frontline needs.
In the United States, the manufactured various depth charge models, with the —featuring a 300-pound charge and adjustable hydrostatic fuzing for depths from 30 to 300 feet—seeing the highest output at 218,922 units produced during the . The Heavy variant, with enhanced explosive power using minol fillings, supplemented these for deployments, enabling patterns of 10 to 14 charges per attack to cover estimated positions. Overall U.S. production exceeded demands for equipping an expanding fleet of destroyer escorts and screens, supporting transfers to Allied navies. Deployment emphasized integration into convoy escort groups, where surface ships released charges from stern racks or projected them via Y-guns and later K-guns to create lethal zones around sonar-detected targets, compelling German U-boats to favor deeper dives or nocturnal surfaced approaches to evade patterns. This widespread use across Atlantic and Pacific theaters strained material supplies but was mitigated through standardized designs and Allied coordination, ensuring consistent availability despite logistical pressures on munitions factories.

Delivery and Launch Systems

Surface Vessel Methods

Surface vessels deployed depth charges primarily through stern racks and projectile throwers to achieve patterned coverage over suspected positions. Stern racks featured inclined rails at the fantail, enabling sequential release of multiple charges—typically up to 14 per rack—as the ship maintained speed over the target area, with releases timed to bracket the submarine's estimated length and position. This method relied on the vessel's forward motion to distribute charges astern, forming linear patterns adjusted for ship speed and charge rollout dynamics. Projectile throwers supplemented racks by extending the attack envelope laterally. The U.S. Navy's K-gun, adopted in 1941 to supersede World War I-era Y-guns, consisted of smooth-bore, single-barrel projectors mounted bilaterally on the main deck, hurling one 200-pound or similar charge outward at ranges of 60 to 175 yards with flight times of 3.4 to 5.1 seconds. Combined with stern racks, two K-guns could generate a simultaneous pattern of three charges spaced about 50 yards apart, expanding coverage to encircle potential evasion paths without requiring the ship to alter course drastically. Tactical procedures emphasized close-range approaches, as in the Royal Navy's "creeping attack" developed by Captain during 1943-1944 convoy escorts. In this maneuver, one destroyer maintained active sonar contact to vector a second, silent-running escort into position for depth charge release, advancing incrementally at low speeds to minimize acoustic detection by the submerged target. Ships closed to within thrower effective ranges, accepting collision hazards in coordinated formations to exploit hydrodynamic constraints on submarine maneuverability at depth. Destroyer escorts adapted these systems for sustained operations, incorporating double rails holding 24 charges each alongside K-guns, permitting rolling launches without halting . This configuration supported continuous "creeping" patterns during extended hunts, with rail mechanisms ensuring reliable rollout under way to maintain attack momentum against evasive .

Aerial Delivery Techniques

Aerial delivery of depth charges was pioneered during by maritime patrol aircraft, including the , which could carry four 325-pound charges for anti-submarine operations. Drops were conducted from low altitudes, typically 50 to 150 feet, to reduce ballistic dispersion caused by aircraft speed and wind, thereby improving empirical hit probabilities against surfaced or shallow-diving submarines. The Mark VII depth charge, for instance, was cleared only for release heights up to approximately 150 feet at moderate airspeeds to prevent structural damage upon water impact or premature detonation. Post-World War II advancements shifted focus to helicopters, which enabled hovering deployment following sonar classification, enhancing accuracy in confined littoral environments where fixed-wing aircraft faced maneuverability constraints. Models like the integrated dipping for real-time target localization before releasing fast-sinking Mark IX 200-pound depth charges, allowing precise attacks without the forward throw associated with transitioning aircraft. Physics-based refinements for aerial drops accounted for entry dynamics, with depth fuses—hydrostatic pistols set pre-release to 25-100 feet—calibrated to tolerate impact from low-altitude releases, preventing inertial overshoot or fuse failure. computations incorporated velocity and descent angle to predict underwater positioning, compensating for forward that could displace the charge from the aim point during initial submersion. This ensured detonation at the preset pressure threshold, maximizing lethal radius despite aerial delivery variables.

Combat Effectiveness

Empirical Success Rates

During , empirical analyses of depth charge attacks against submarines revealed consistently low kill probabilities, typically ranging from 1% to 7% per attack across Allied naval operations. U.S. Navy records indicate that in the war's early months, only about 5% of attacks resulted in confirmed sinkings, dropping to 3% or less under standard combat conditions due to factors such as submarine evasion maneuvers and imprecise depth settings. British and Allied operational data similarly showed rates rarely exceeding 7%, with postwar reviews confirming an average of around 6% for direct kills in the . Integration of (ASDIC in service) enhanced target detection and attack initiation, increasing the frequency of engagements, yet inherent uncertainties in submarine positioning—stemming from rapid dives, erratic steering, and water currents—limited precision and maintained low hit rates. Operational studies, including those by Patrick Blackett's team, quantified that often evaded the lethal radius (approximately 25-50 feet for severe damage) by altering course immediately upon detection, reducing the effective probability despite improved patterns. These analyses, drawn from declassified naval archives, underscored that while depth charges inflicted occasional damage, their primary empirical value lay in psychological deterrence, compelling to remain submerged longer and expend power, thereby indirectly contributing to attrition rather than direct destruction.

Tactical Limitations and Criticisms

The requirement for vessels to approach within approximately 50-100 yards to accurately deploy depth charges exposed them to counterattacks from submerged , as the attacking ship often presented a vulnerable broadside profile during the stern maneuver. This tactical necessity contributed to significant losses in the ; for instance, during operations in 1942, multiple destroyer escorts were torpedoed while pursuing U-boats in convoy defenses, illustrating the causal risk of prioritizing anti-submarine aggression over self-preservation. German submarine commanders exploited this by holding fire until escorts committed to attack patterns, allowing opportunistic strikes that compounded Allied attrition. Depth charges demonstrated inherent inaccuracy against maneuvering submarines, as the weapons' slow sink rate—typically 7-10 feet per second—afforded U-boats 20-30 seconds to execute evasive dives or course alterations beyond the estimated 20-30 foot effective lethal radius of a standard 300-pound charge. Submarines could often evade by altering depth or speed, rendering single or small-pattern attacks ineffective unless the initial sonar contact was pinpointed within a narrow margin, a feat complicated by post-explosion sonar blackouts lasting up to a minute. Empirical assessments indicated that damaging or sinking a submarine frequently necessitated patterns of 10 or more charges to account for estimation errors and the weapon's limited shock propagation through water, where pressure waves dissipated rapidly beyond the hull-breaching threshold. By mid-war, depth charges showed obsolescence against advanced capabilities, including faster diving times under 30 seconds and operational depths exceeding 200 meters, which outpaced the weapons' typical 100-150 meter setting limits and reduced the probability of underwater detonation proximity. Faster propulsion and improved hull resilience to non-contact shocks further diminished the tactic's viability against alerted targets, as evasive actions could relocate the vessel outside the charge's attenuated blast effects. Allied naval reports characterized depth charges as a "crude" yet indispensable early-war expedient, effective only in sustained barrages against pinned targets but prone to wasteful expenditure without precise localization. German logs, conversely, highlighted frequent evasion successes, with commanders like those of U-94 crediting rapid depth changes and for surviving extended attacks, underscoring the weapon's reliance on the attacker's superior detection rather than inherent lethality. No postwar analyses substantiate claims of Allied overreliance leading to strategic defeat, as convoy survival rates improved through integrated tactics despite these flaws.

Key Historical Engagements

On 6 May 1943, during the Battle of in the North Atlantic, British corvette HMS Loosestrife detected German U-638 via while it maneuvered to attack the convoy. The corvette launched a pattern of depth charges, causing severe damage that led to the submarine's sinking, evidenced by rising oil, air bubbles, and wreckage; 50 crew members perished, with no survivors. This engagement highlighted coordinated escort tactics, with the depth charges exploding close enough to rupture the pressure hull at approximately 100 meters. In the Pacific Theater, U.S. destroyers USS Franks (DD-554), USS Haggard (DD-555), and USS Johnston (DD-557) engaged Japanese I-176 on 16 May 1944, about 150 miles north of Cape Alexander. Following contact, the destroyers executed multiple depth charge attacks, compelling the submarine to surface; it was then destroyed by gunfire and additional charges, with all 100 crew lost. Empirical post-action reports confirmed the effectiveness of sustained barrages in forcing surfacing after cumulative shock damage. Failures also marked depth charge operations, as seen in the same ONS 5 battle where U-266 evaded attacks despite detections and charge patterns, likely by diving beyond the initial 135-meter maximum setting of British Mark VII charges, per escort logs noting ineffective explosions above the target depth. Early-war inaccuracies compounded depth errors, allowing escapes; Admiralty analyses of 1943 logs revealed that over 70% of attacks in similar defenses failed to achieve hull breaches due to such miscalculations. These cases underscored the reliance on precise data for setting charge pistols amid variable sea conditions.

Post-War Evolutions

Immediate WWII Innovations

The primary limitations of conventional depth charges—slow sinking rates allowing to maneuver out of lethal radius after contact was broken, coupled with kill probabilities of around 3% per pattern in early 1942—drove Allied navies to develop ahead-throwing salvo weapons mid-war. These innovations maintained acoustic contact during firing, enabling precise targeting without the attacking vessel passing over the submarine's position, as evidenced by operational analyses of evasion tactics where vessels like U-427 endured over 600 depth charge detonations. The Hedgehog, pioneered by the Royal Navy and entering service in 1941, addressed these issues with a forward-firing array of 24 spigot mortars launching 65-pound projectiles (35 pounds explosive) in a circular pattern up to 250 meters ahead. Unlike depth charges, Hedgehog bombs detonated only on contact or proximity, minimizing water disturbance that could obscure sonar returns, and achieved sink depths of 200 feet in under 10 seconds. Prototype trials from 1941 confirmed higher hit potential through simultaneous blasts, with U.S. Navy combat data by mid-1944 recording kill rates of approximately 8% per salvo, a marked improvement over depth charge barrages. Building on Hedgehog's framework, the projector was developed and introduced in as a heavier-caliber system, firing three 375- to 390-pound charges from a three-barreled to ranges of 275-600 yards at muzzle velocities around 270 feet per second. This enabled rapid, deep attacks against faster-crash-diving s, with adjustable depths up to 500 feet or more, as validated in 1941-1942 prototypes and early 1944 operations where it achieved confirmed sinkings like U-333 on July 31. Squid's empirical testing emphasized hull-crushing power from coordinated impacts, shifting tactics toward multi-projectile volleys informed by U-boat survivability statistics exceeding 97% against isolated depth charge drops.

Modern Adaptations and Usage

While advanced Western navies, including the , phased out conventional depth charges by the in favor of homing torpedoes and anti-submarine missiles like the ASROC, rocket-propelled variants persist in select inventories for rapid-response . These systems, such as the Russian mounted on frigates and corvettes, launch salvos of RGB-60 rockets carrying unguided depth charges to saturate targeted areas up to 5.6 kilometers away, enabling attacks on submarines before they can maneuver out of range. Such adaptations address the slow sinking speed of free-fall charges, providing a cost-effective means for area denial in scenarios where precision guidance is compromised. Retention emphasizes empirical utility in shallow-water and littoral environments, where acoustic clutter, thermoclines, and bottom interactions degrade homing weapon performance, forcing diesel-electric into vulnerable shallow dives. In these contexts, depth charges exploit predictable sub behaviors, delivering non-discriminating effects that can damage hulls, sensors, or via shockwaves, as validated in naval tactical analyses of confined-water engagements. with helicopters or unmanned surface vessels for cueing and deployment further enhances timeliness, with simulations indicating viability against threats evading torpedoes by bottoming or using decoys. Critics note inherent limitations against nuclear-powered submarines capable of operating below 300 meters, where blast radii prove insufficient without massive yields, rendering the weapon marginal in blue-water operations dominated by and speed. In hybrid conflicts, such as patrols post-2022 amid Ukrainian threats, equipped vessels provide a fallback for immediate amid sensor-denied conditions, though documented successes prioritize missiles and torpedoes over depth charges due to superior lethality and standoff. Overall, these adaptations underscore a pragmatic niche persistence rather than , grounded in causal advantages of and reliability over high-tech alternatives in degraded littoral battlespaces.

References

  1. [1]
    Depth Charge: An Early Antisubmarine Warfare Weapon* Part I ...
    “The depth charge was the original dedicated ASW weapon.”14 Airplanes and blimps with depth charges were also added to the enemy submarine hunters.
  2. [2]
    The Effect of Depth Charges on Submarines - U.S. Naval Institute
    The first successful depth charge attack was made a year later on July 6, 1916, when the British motor boat Salmon sank the UC-7. The Salmon used hydrophones to ...<|separator|>
  3. [3]
    Antisubmarine Tactics, ONI No. 42, 1918
    The depth charge detonates without reference to the presence or absence of a submarine within its restricted area. If it is to be effective, the depth charge ...
  4. [4]
    DEPTH CHARGE: AN EARLY ANTISUBMARINE WARFARE ...
    The depth charge used water's incompressibility to create an explosion near a submarine, with success depending on proximity, depth, and multiple charges. A 25 ...
  5. [5]
    Weapon of War: The Y-Gun Depth Charge Launcher
    Nov 9, 2019 · Although the British basically invented the depth charge—which was the most effective anti-submarine weapon—the U.S. Navy contributed ...
  6. [6]
    ASW Weapons of the United States of America - NavWeaps
    Sep 25, 2025 · In the first few months of the war only 5 percent of all depth charge attacks were successful. Normal combat conditions reduced that figure to 3 ...
  7. [7]
    Type D Depth Charge (UK) - The Dreadnought Project
    Feb 3, 2017 · The Type D/D* weapons had 300/120 pounds of T.N.T. or Amatol initiated by 2.25 pounds of gun cotton, yielding total weights of 430/250 pounds ...
  8. [8]
    Depth Charges - Technical pages - Fighting the U-boats - Uboat.net
    A "pistol" actuated by water pressure at a selected depth detonated the depth charge. The 300-pound WWI depth charge could be detonated as deep as 300 feet ...
  9. [9]
    U.S. Mk. 230 Hydrostatic Fuze - Inert-Ord.Net
    The Mk.230 Hydrostatic Fuze was an improved fuze for depth bombs used in anti-submarine warfare and was developed circa 1943.
  10. [10]
    Depth Charge Projectors & Life Rafts - USS KIDD Veterans Museum
    By war's end in 1945, tear drop designed depth charges had all but replaced them, thus demonstrating the rapidly advancing technologies developed during wartime ...
  11. [11]
    Section II - Fuzes & Pistols: Depth Charge Pistol Mk X - Michael Hiske
    While the depth charge is sinking the increased pressure is transmitted through the holes in the pistol body and distance ring to the two discs of the diaphragm ...
  12. [12]
    CHAPTER-14-B - Gene Slover's Navy Pages
    The pistol mechanism, when operated by hydrostatic pressure, releases a firing pin which strikes the cap of the detonator. Before the charge is launched, the ...Missing: fuse | Show results with:fuse
  13. [13]
    Depth Charges - The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia
    The Japanese experimented with a depth charge having 220 lbs (100 kg) of explosives and a magnetic influence fuse, but this weapon did not reached production ...Missing: materials | Show results with:materials
  14. [14]
    The Early Development of Depth Charges
    Sep 5, 2024 · Early depth charge ideas included guncotton charges, a paravane with a charge, and a spar torpedo. The hydrostatic pistol was a key development ...
  15. [15]
    [PDF] FINAL REPORT NO. CLOCKWORK DELAY MECHANISM, 24 ... - CIA
    The reasons for use of a delay period are twofold; first, to insure the safety of personnel setting the charges and, second (and perhaps more important in ...
  16. [16]
    [PDF] iwitti'M - DTIC
    We also determined from the recorded waveforms that the preset detonation depth for TNT charges (50 m) was off by 10 m on average, and we included this effect ...
  17. [17]
    Underwater explosion induced shock loading of structures: Influence ...
    Aug 6, 2025 · Underwater explosion induced shock loading of structures: Influence of water depth, salinity and temperature. November 2016; Ocean Engineering ...
  18. [18]
    Underwater Weapons
    Explosive detonations which occur underwater create shock waves in a similar manner to explosions in air. Due to the elastic properties of water, the shock wave ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  19. [19]
    Underwater Explosion - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
    The shock wave generated by underwater explosion propagates radially in water and its peak pressure of the shock wave is related to the charge and relative ...
  20. [20]
    The changing law of underwater explosion shock wave parameters ...
    Feb 3, 2025 · When the velocity of sound in water medium was 1500 m/s as the propagation speed, the reflected wave propagated to the sensor later than the ...
  21. [21]
    Underwater Explosion Shock Wave Parameters at Large Distances ...
    Experimental observations of peak pressure, decay constant, and energy flux for TNT and pentolite are presented to ranges (in feet) defined by R≅2000W12, ...Missing: blast | Show results with:blast
  22. [22]
    Characterization of underwater blast waves from Cu wire explosions ...
    Aug 5, 2025 · The measurements indicate pressure peaks reaching up to 500 MPa and compressibility factors of 15% at a distance of 6 mm from the explosion ...
  23. [23]
    [PDF] Whipping Response of Ship Hulls from Underwater Explosion ...
    An underwater explosion interacts with the surrounding fluid in two different phases which are potentially damaging to a nearby ship or submarine. The first ...
  24. [24]
    Damage prediction of hull structure under near-field underwater ...
    This method provides an approach for the rapid prediction of the deformation of hull structures under near-field underwater explosions.
  25. [25]
    HyperWar: Antisubmarine Warfare in World War II [Chapter 11]
    Experimental evidence suggests that the pressure hull will be split if the charge explodes within a certain lethal radius of it. The lethal radius depends ...
  26. [26]
    The Science of Depth Charges - AstroCamp
    Jan 18, 2025 · The primary danger from a depth charge explosion is the pressure wave itself, not the bits of debris it throws around. In World Wars I and II, ...Missing: empirical data
  27. [27]
    How German U-Boats Were Used in WWI—And Perfected in WWII
    Mar 21, 2022 · In February 1915, Germany announced the start of unrestricted submarine warfare in which all vessels, even merchant ships from neutral ...
  28. [28]
    RMS Lusitania: 18 Minutes That Shocked The World
    RMS Lusitania was torpedoed by a German U-boat on 7 May 1915. The luxury passenger liner was crossing the Atlantic from New York to Liverpool when the German ...
  29. [29]
    Portsmouth: Where depth charges were developed - BBC
    Jun 23, 2016 · The world's first adjustable depth charge was developed at HMS Vernon in Portsmouth by a civilian engineer, Herbert Taylor.Missing: invention Admiralty 1915-1916 Swire Smith
  30. [30]
    First Successful Use of Depth Charges on 22 March 1916
    Mar 22, 2016 · On 22 March Farnborough was off the coast of Kerry when SM U68 (Kapitänleutnant Ludwig Güntzel) fired a torpedo that missed her. The U-boat ...
  31. [31]
    Sinking WW1 Submarines By Depth Charge. - Great War Forum
    Apr 8, 2024 · It`s estimated that some 16,500 depth charges were dropped in WW1. For, say, 35 U boats sunk, that`s 1 per 471 dropped. That ratio would look ...
  32. [32]
  33. [33]
    ASW Weapons of the United Kingdom / Britain - NavWeaps
    Jun 10, 2025 · The first Depth Charge Rack in British service was the USN Mark I, which was developed after the USN rejected the British practice of using a ...
  34. [34]
    Armaments & Innovations - Crude But Effective in Large Doses
    The depth charge was a relatively crude weapon, and it didn't help that a captain had to maneuver the stern of his ship into place to use it.
  35. [35]
    Depth Charge Racks - USS SLATER
    These racks were essentially a set of inclined rails on which the charges rested, with suitable mechanical devices arranged to release one charge at a time.
  36. [36]
    WWII: Anti-Submarine: K-Gun - Naval History and Heritage Command
    The K-Gun replaced the Y-Gun in 1941 for launching depth charges, with a range of 60 to 175 yards and a flight time of 3.4 or 5.1 seconds.Missing: interwar period
  37. [37]
    K-Gun - USS SLATER
    The K-gun is a single-barrel depth charge projector, mounted on either side of the main deck, firing one depth charge outboard. It has a smooth-bore barrel and ...Missing: surface methods
  38. [38]
    How did the K-gun depth charge thrower work in comparison to racks?
    Jul 4, 2022 · The k-guns, in conjunction with the racks, allowed the ship to place three depth charges in the water simultaneously, about 50 yards apart.Missing: surface | Show results with:surface
  39. [39]
    WW2 People's War - Captain Frederic John Walker: Creeping Attack
    He now gained contact in Wild Goose and ordered the Group to stand by for a “creeping attack”. On their hydrophones U-boats could hear the fast revving ...
  40. [40]
    Frederic John Walker & the German U-Boat - Warfare History Network
    The group would have particular success with what they called the “creeping attack,” a technique for dealing with a U-boat which had dived deep to escape the ...
  41. [41]
    The PBY Catalina in World War II | The National WWII Museum
    Apr 29, 2025 · Notable Navy figures like Rear Admirals Ernest King and William Pye envisioned the amphibious plane as a striking arm of the fleet, and the ...<|separator|>
  42. [42]
    Torpex and the Atlantic Victory - International Journal of Naval History
    Lacking an efficient bombsight, aircraft crews were forced to attack from such a low level that they risked damage from the explosion of their own depth charges ...Missing: blast | Show results with:blast
  43. [43]
    Development of the Helicopter as an Anti-Submarine Weapon
    The helicopter could carry a MK IX 200 pound, fast-sinking-type depth charge and drop it after surface contact had been made. ... Helicopter 'Dipping Sonar' Helps ...Missing: post- | Show results with:post-
  44. [44]
    The Sikorsky SH-3 Sea King (company designation S-61 ... - Facebook
    Oct 12, 2023 · The Sea King could also be fitted to deploy the B57 nuclear bomb. ASW equipment used on Sea Kings has included the AQS-13A/B/E dipping sonar ...<|separator|>
  45. [45]
    How was the depth adjusted for World War 2 era depth charges?
    Jul 2, 2022 · With a wrench or by hand. There is a dial on the depth charge where you would adjust the pointer to the desired depth setting.Can modern submarines handle the shockwaves from an old depth ...How does a submarine deal with a hovering enemy helicopter that ...More results from www.quora.com
  46. [46]
    [PDF] An Explosive Story: The Rise and Fall of the Common Depth Charge ...
    The depth charge was developed to destroy submerged submarines, which were a problem in WWI and WWII. Early attempts to counter submarines were unsuccessful.Missing: components specifications
  47. [47]
    Anti-Submarine Warfare - WWII - Operations Research in the Atlantic
    Nov 4, 2018 · A submarine would turn as soon as it was submerged, taking it well outside the 25′ lethal radius of a depth charge. However, in 40% of attacks ...Missing: probability archives
  48. [48]
    Operations Research in World War II - May 1968 Vol. 94/5/783
    The OR men found that, although depth charges were exploding at a level at which they could do great damage, this level was very much below that reached by a ...
  49. [49]
    ASDIC / Sonar - Technical pages - Fighting the U-boats - uboat.net
    Oct 9, 2011 · Yet another tactic was to dive very deep and under a thermal layer or beneath the depth at which depth charges were normally set to explode.
  50. [50]
    Why wouldn't an ASDIC work immediately after a depth charge attack?
    Oct 28, 2018 · To release depth charge ship would have to go below sonar's minimum range. Sonars (or ASDIC in British terminology) were relatively simple in ...
  51. [51]
    Submarine Report - Vol. 1, War Damage Report No. 58
    Oct 1, 2015 · This report details submarine damage from depth charges, bombs, mines, torpedoes, and gunfire, and illustrates their behavior under attack, ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
  52. [52]
    Hedgehog - USS SLATER
    The MK10 hedgehog was developed by the British to overcome the primary deficiencies of the depth charge attack. WWII sonar only scanned ahead of the ship ...
  53. [53]
    The Hedgehog — Meet the Allies' Devastatingly Effective U-Boat Killer
    Apr 29, 2023 · The Hedgehog was developed by the Royal Navy in 1941. It came to the United States as a form of reverse Lend-Lease, entering service in the U.S. ...Missing: WWII trials
  54. [54]
    WWII: Anti-Submarine: Hedgehog
    Hedgehog weapons were ahead-throwing projectors with 24 projectiles. They only exploded on impact, had a high sink rate, and were adapted from the British.Missing: effectiveness | Show results with:effectiveness
  55. [55]
  56. [56]
    Naval Gazing Main/Anti-Submarine Warfare - WWII Weapons
    Apr 15, 2018 · At the start of the war, the only weapon was the venerable depth charge, essentially an explosive thrown over the side and fuzed to go off at a specific depth.
  57. [57]
    The Squid Was a Deadly ASW Successor to the WWII Hedgehog ...
    Mar 31, 2025 · The first official Squid kill was scored by the frigate HMS Loch Killin (Pennant. No. K391) (poetically apropos moniker, eh?) on July 31, 1944, ...Missing: introduction date testing
  58. [58]
  59. [59]
    Big Leap For Indian Navy's Anti-Submarine Capability; DRDO Tests ...
    Jul 9, 2025 · The Soviet RBU-6000 used on Indian warships used rockets that carried depth charges in their warheads. The U.S. Navy pioneered the use of a ...
  60. [60]
    Anti-Submarine Warfare: Modern Strategies in Naval Defense
    Jul 18, 2025 · Depth Charges: Though less common today, depth charges remain a viable option for engaging submarines in shallow waters. Anti-Submarine ...
  61. [61]
    How useful are ship launched anti submarine rockets and depth ...
    Apr 8, 2025 · If you already have a helicopter in the area with sonobuoys and/or dipping sonar, that helicopter probably has torpedoes aboard, and can drop ...How does a helicopter conduct anti submarine warfare? I don't quite ...What makes destroyers much better in anti submarine than other ...More results from www.reddit.com
  62. [62]
    What scenarios make depth charges the best choice over torpedoes ...
    Aug 27, 2025 · They're not the best choice. Period. For starters, depth charges have no homing capability. They just sink and go off on contact, ...What is the max depth for the depth charge to work? - QuoraHow important is the depth a submarine can go in modern ... - QuoraMore results from www.quora.com
  63. [63]
    Black Sea battle: how Ukraine's drones overpowered the Russian ...
    Jul 22, 2025 · Black Sea battle: how Ukraine's drones overpowered the Russian Navy · Phase one: Defensive (Feb to Jun 2022) · Phase two: Degrade (Jul 2023 to Dec ...