What's new
British Ordnance Collectors Network

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

WWI anti torpedo net

You may have also noticed in the first display cabinet photo, middle / 2nd shelf down, extreme RHS standing vertical is the very rare Spring Pistol mechanism!!!

This is only the 2nd one I.m aware of.
Cheers
D
 
It may interest the members of this forum to know that according to Treasury documents I just found in my stash (happens more than you'd think), the British torpedo net cutter variant was patented (no.7854) in 1892 by the head of the Vernon school, Arthur 'Tug' Wilson (noted as Sans Pareil on the paperwork because he'd just been reassigned).
 

Attachments

  • P1300273.jpg
    P1300273.jpg
    288.4 KB · Views: 29
  • P1300270.jpg
    P1300270.jpg
    280 KB · Views: 31
Last edited:
Hello, Ben,

Incredible-You have found a Secret Patent-I do not know if drawings are attached, or whether they are separate. I found a Secret patent by Major Sadd, Porton Down, regarding the British Gas Mask Canister used in WW2-Unusual reason for it being secret. Unfortunately, although they were supposed to be printed after a period, this rarely happened. The Bouncing Bomb patent was an exception! see my PM.
 
Hello, Drew,
I believe you know Denis in Melbourne-he admires your tenacity! I sometimes wonder if the earlier Whitehead Pistols had a blocking safety device, operated from the propellor drive, so that, should a torpedo launched from an Underwater Broadside Tube become partially launched, due to a propulsion failure, then it would remain unarmed. When a Nose Propellor for arming was introduced, without the high drag external connection of the original system, presumably the water operated Locking Flap for the Arming Propellor was expected to take care of this situation, so that water flow transverse to the torpedo would not turn the propellor?

You show the Jutland Museums Scissor cutter-perhaps Japanese? Also you mention a real rarity-A "Spring Operated" Pistol-Swedish? Do you mean the Duplex Pistol that was used for British WW2 Torp., which, as it swivelled on impact, eliminated the bulky Inertia Pistol used by the States and others! The Jutland Museum items probably came from the most fantastic ordnance collection I have ever seen, which was housed at Christiana, adjacent to the commune. Everything demonstrated, and a curator-EODTIC, who knew every item backwards. When he was forced to retire, it was broken up, nobody knew what had happened and I believe Natter may have tracked down its remains, sadly no longer protected from the elements to an extent. Even had a british Gas mine from WW1, not mentioned in Admiralty history. Congratulations on, I believe, persuding the authorities in Fiume-sorry, Rijeka in Croatia, to look after their rusting exhibits!.
 
Thanks, Lefa,for that most helpful translation covering the Bellemo explosively augmented cutter. Very advanced for its early date-1886, so perhaps anticipating the Admiralty Wilson Cutter-one wonders if it even anticipated the French Scissor type, with cartridges firing bullets at the Scissor jaws, so as to increase the cutting force. Like you, I wonder why the Admiralty felt it to be inferior to their Pioneer-"Not invented here" syndrome, or perhaps because it did occupy quite a portion of the warhead, reducing explosive, and spacing the concussion away from the side of the hull of the target vessel. I wonder what approach the Germans used-I think the Japanese may have invented the Scissor Cutter, but I may well be wrong! Did you get my e-mail regarding the OCR pdf?
 
Hi Sprockets,

Yes I know Denis - he "persuaded" me to attended the Rijeka Torpedo Conference with him back in 2016

Yes the first Whitehead Pistol Design incorporated the "Spring-Pistol" mechanism which was connected by an external wire to tooth wheels located on the tail. These in turn were worm-gear to the propeller shaft - so after a set distance the pistol was in the "arm" state. In addition to the arming wire, the early designs also incorporated a second self destruct wire in case the torpedo missed the target. This was removed in the later spring pistol designs, although a similar internal mechanism was incorporated in later years to cut of the compressed air supply.


When a Nose Propellor for arming was introduced, without the high drag external connection of the original system, presumably the water operated Locking Flap for the Arming Propellor was expected to take care of this situation, so that water flow transverse to the torpedo would not turn the propellor?

The water flow would turn the small pistol impeller which in turn armed the torpedo after a set number of revolutions = min safe distance from boat after launch

To answer your query in more detail, you would need to look at the development of the Whitehead pistol designs from the 1870s up to WW1. Apart from the creative arming mechanisms that were incorporated in the various pistols designs over this period (some of course resulted from accidents / being struct by exploding shells while still in the launch tubes etc), the other key focus was to increase the "angle of bump" i.e. the offset angle from a direct head on target in which the torpedo pistol mechanism would still explode. This led to the introduction of external vanes or better known as "whiskers" and some of the later designs had quite extended whiskers. Interesting enough, the max "angle of bump" that was achievable was only around 30-35 degrees, which was deemed to be insufficient. Development from this point on led to the inertia type mechanisms (Universal Bell\Universal Pendulum) where the pistol no longer had to be situated at the tip of the torpedo (aka the modern type torpedo).

Cheers
Drew
 
..
I sometimes wonder if the earlier Whitehead Pistols had a blocking safety device, operated from the propellor drive, so that, should a torpedo launched from an Underwater Broadside Tube become partially launched, due to a propulsion failure, then it would remain unarmed. When a Nose Propellor for arming was introduced, without the high drag external connection of the original system, presumably the water operated Locking Flap for the Arming Propellor was expected to take care of this situation, so that water flow transverse to the torpedo would not turn the propellor?

Sorry for the delay.
This scenario was unlikely, underwater launching tubes were of the push out kind (the tube itself by mean of different technologies pushes the torpedo out, contrary to the swim out tubes where the torpedo leave the tube thanks to its own propulsion) and sometimes inclined negatively in order to help the expulsion with gravity just in case the expulsion system failed, the most common fault was the missed activation of the torpedo propulsion.
It was the introduction of broadside tubes that lead to the spreading of the propeller safety system – already developed by Whitehead during 1878 and fitted to some batch of weapons sold to the Austro Hungarian Navy - because during trials held in 1897, the French battleship JAUREGUIBERRY at Lorient launched a torpedo that failed to activate its propulsion, causing the weapon to be sucked into the ship’s turbulence and the relative explosion due to impact on the propeller of the air tank.
The propeller safety system didn’t had any external mechanical parts that could have been damaged due to impact on the launching ship, the maximum safety distance was about 90m translated in roughly 70 complete revolutions as 1 revolution corresponded to 1.3m.


..
Also you mention a real rarity-A "Spring Operated" Pistol-Swedish?

Until the development of torpedoes with speeds compatibles with the activation of the firing device by mean of the mass of the weapon impacting the target (1876, att.5), the activation was achieved by mean of a spring mechanism striking the ignition chain; these early models (att.1,2, 3, and 4), produced under some variants and few documented are quite rare now days, especially the one underlined by Drew wich seems the very first.

which was housed at Christiana, adjacent to the commune

I love Christiania..

Thanks, Lefa,for that most helpful translation covering the Bellemo explosively augmented cutter. Very advanced for its early date-1886, so perhaps anticipating the Admiralty Wilson Cutter-one wonders if it even anticipated the French Scissor type, with cartridges firing bullets at the Scissor jaws, so as to increase the cutting force. Like you, I wonder why the Admiralty felt it to be inferior to their Pioneer-"Not invented here" syndrome, or perhaps because it did occupy quite a portion of the warhead, reducing explosive, and spacing the concussion away from the side of the hull of the target vessel. I wonder what approach the Germans used-I think the Japanese may have invented the Scissor Cutter, but I may well be wrong! Did you get my e-mail regarding the OCR pdf?

Bellemo’s net cutting device was an “add on” that was screwed on the nose, it didn’t reduced the amount of explosive contained in the charge, it just stretched the overall length of the weapon.
I’d like to know more about years and conditions of the comparative trials, hopefully Ben will add more details; unfortunately I don't have any material about the devices produces by France and Japan, likely the collection posted by Drew is not referred to a signle Navy.
I didn’t received your mail, send me a PM.
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    89.1 KB · Views: 20
  • 2.jpg
    2.jpg
    185.3 KB · Views: 22
  • 3.JPG
    3.JPG
    104.3 KB · Views: 17
  • 4.jpg
    4.jpg
    131.2 KB · Views: 18
  • 5.jpg
    5.jpg
    195.8 KB · Views: 19
Last edited:
@ Sprockets

:xd: Now for a "shameless plug" >>> I think you really need a copy of this Amazon Best Seller: (That reminds me - I should really get around to selling them on Amazon one of these days! LOL)

http://www.bocn.co.uk/vbforum/threa...is-here-*BOCN-SPECIAL*?highlight=torpedo+book

As Lefa allured to above, with the increasing speed in torpedo development a parallel development was also taking place with the pistol designs to reflect this.

(Lucky for you a mutual friend has been organizing a copy for you..................hum may even be one of the last available copies!!!!)

Cheers
D

BTW - The pistols were normally stamped with a serial number - in the case of Whitehead torpedo pistols, that serial number can be crossed reference to the Whitehead Sales ledger which provides information on the type of torpedo /batch and which country purchased it.
I can't remember what the number the "spring pistol" had on it and will ask Gert for it later. Most likely was manufactured in Fiume for the Danish Navy.
The same serial number stamping system was adopted by Schwartzkopf.
 
Last edited:
I didn't knew that you've wrote a book about the topic, congratulations! I've seen that you've inserted the material and informations I've posted/sent you some time ago, is there a soft copy available?

Re serial number: this is a common procedure on integrated systems, not just a WHITHEAD and BMAG use, before s/n are marked the product undergo trials, then accepeted by a factory inspector, hence certified and then marked (every single component, also inside) as proof of quality control, some times when products were delivered to the end user there was a second cycle of acceptance (just like now days, FAT and SAT) and a second marking procedure, usually reporting the name of the customer inspector and the marks of the end user.

Back on the net cutting devices, I've found a couple of interesting pictures in the archive: a clean close-up of the "cannone" and the nose provided with blades I've quoted before.

Hi Sprockets,
..Back in 1873, Robert WHITEHEAD and the head of the torpedo workshop of the Royal Italian Navy Arsenal in Venice, capt. TILLING, performed trials with a torpedo fitted with a conical shaped block of blades which gave bad results..
 

Attachments

  • Untitled-2.jpg
    Untitled-2.jpg
    105.2 KB · Views: 12
  • Untitled-2 copy.jpg
    Untitled-2 copy.jpg
    224.5 KB · Views: 12
I didn't knew that you've wrote a book about the topic, congratulations! I've seen that you've inserted the material and informations I've posted/sent you some time ago, is there a soft copy available?

Thank you

The book was published back in 2016 - (seems like years ago now!) - unfortunately not in time for the Rijeka Torpedo conference.

Yes the reference material from "La Storia Del Siluro" that you posted enabled me to search for and find a copy that an Italian bookseller had shortly afterwards - it was one of the limited 1982 reprints - haven't seen a copy since. (spend endless hours translating parts of it for the book) Around that time I also track down a copy of the Whitehead Sales Ledger....................

Unfortunately no soft copy is available - call me "old fashion" as I prefer to have a physical book in hand rather than read a .pdf file any day, which is one of the reasons that it got published!

PM me if you are still after a copy - there a few left.
Cheers
Drew
 
Very good finding, the Motofides reprint from 1982 is defenitely sleek with its slipcase, I do own both (no, I'm not a book maniac..). The sales ledger must come from Petrucci's book, a good friend of mine, keep it private as the Company doesn't want these informations to be proliferated on the net, thats also the reason why there is just the oldest part of the ledger published.

Thanks mate but between price+shipping+customs I'd end up paying around $75 for it and given the content there is nothing I don't have among my nineteenth century manuals, I just wanted to review it and check if any of the material provided in the past was inserted and aknowledged as I felt that the below thread - among other exchanges - gived their contribute. During the period of your requests about these fuzes and Whitehead/BMAG in general you've never mentioned that the informations were needed in order to publish and sell a book.

http://www.bocn.co.uk/vbforum/threads/89352-Early-Whitehead-Torpedo-Pistols
 
Just a couple of clarifications:

Yes the material you posted was extracted from the above mentioned book - the quality /resolution wasn't acceptable for a later book publication decision, hence the search for a copy of the book and thereby the potential to obtained higher resolution scans of the diagrams; (None of your posted photos were used in the book else I would have included photo acknowledgements to you)

The diagrams alone do not provide a sufficient detail description of how some of the more complex mechanisms function, which was absent from your postings - hours of book translation provided that.

At the time of the postings (May 2014) I did indeed attempted to reach out to you - however I believe due to your work /travelling commitments the communications was slow, infrequent and there were periods of no replies ( I don't even know what your surname is!)

In addition, I was also seeking a copy of the Whitehead Sales Ledger in which you had access to but reluctant /unable to provide a full copy. (I now have a full copy in addition to Petrucci's Book (English)) You indeed may have an extensive library on torpedo reference books - I now have access to a number of extensive private libraries on torpedo books in addition to my own.

Finally the decision to publish 3 years of torpedo pistol design research only came about in 2016 prior to the Rijeka Conference and actually suggested by my Wife as a handout to other conference guest if required - I originally never intended to publish the research as it was just for my own amusement. However it started to become very clear that there was a distinct lack of available information on torpedo pistol development /design. The purpose of the book was to capture the chronological order of Whitehead Pistol and provide that in one simple reference rather than having to search /beg /borrow /google in the hope of finding any relevant data as I had to do over 3 years.

My apologies if you feel that you have been excluded from the book acknowledgements as I did indeed attempted to include all - reaching out to all those that assisted in any way. Perhaps the period of radio silence didn't help when I never heard back from you or me just getting old and forgetful ...........I could rectify that in the next revised edition..............

Cheers
Drew
 
Last edited:
Drew I’ve been misunderstood, most likely because of my limited English: I’m not seeking for aknowledgements, if you didn’t felt to be rightly addressed or that the material/informations provided in past here on the forum, by PMs or email was not valuable to your researches purposes I can’t see any reason why you should think that today.
The acknowledgment I’m on about was referred to the pictures shot by myself and not to the material coming from the manuals/book, which I’m very happy to share with anyone as usual.
What I meant with the review is that if you’d have told me about your project I’d integrated your research with fuzes missing in your index, addressing you to the manuals, archives and sources where the real juice is held.


From your words I deduce I’ve offended you with my terrible communication timing and because I didn’t sent you the sales book: about the first I’m very sorry but because of my job I travel very often, sometimes for months in countries where I can’t easly maintain steady communications and of course with no access to personal documentation, about the second nobody is allowed to use the material contained in Petrucci’s outstanding job or coming from the Whitehead private archives without the Company/author allowance.
“WASS 133 years of history” is not a publication out for sale beacuse is the now days gift of the Company to customers and the archive material which I’m lucky enough to have thanks to my relations with the Company and engineer Petrucci has been asked to keep private; as I’ve only one word, no matter if in a public or private channel I honor my word. I bet that who sent you a copy of the said sales book didn’t.
Because of the above, I’m the one that apologise to you.


Back on the net cutting device topic, I’ve to rectify what I wrote about the US made head sawed profile posted before, as I’ve found in the archive the attached picture (NH 84493), referred to trials of the said head and clearly showing a pierced (weak) metal made net, not a hemp fibres one.


[edit]


Just quoting your original post, to the which my reply was addressed:

Yes the material you posted was extracted from the above mentioned book - the quality /resolution wasn't acceptable for a later book publication decision, hence the search for a copy of the book and thereby the potential to obtained higher resolution scans of the diagrams; (None of your posted photos were used in the book else I would have included photo acknowledgements to you)

The diagrams alone do not provide a sufficient detail description of how some of the more complex mechanisms function, which was absent from your postings - hours of book translation provided that.

At the time of the postings (May 2014) I did indeed attempted to reach out to you - however I believe due to your work /travelling commitments the communications was slow, infrequent and there were periods of no replies.

In addition, I was also seeking a copy of the Whitehead Sales Ledger in which you had access to but reluctant /unable to provide a full copy. (I now have a full copy in addition to Petrucci's Book (English)) You indeed may have an extensive library on torpedo reference books - I now have access to a number of extensive private libraries on torpedo books.

Finally the decision to publish 3 years of torpedo pistol design research only came about in 2016 prior to the Rijeka Conference.

My apologies if I have excluded you from the book acknowledgements as I did indeed attempted to include all - perhaps the period of radio silence didn't help or me just getting old and senile...........I'll rectify that in the next revised edition.

Re the reasons that pushed you to publish your research: a noble and very helpfull purpose that deserves big credit, informations on such old subsystems are difficult to find and being spread over a large time window never clustered together.
 

Attachments

  • NH 84493.jpg
    NH 84493.jpg
    267.7 KB · Views: 14
  • NH 84492 copy.jpg
    NH 84492 copy.jpg
    280.7 KB · Views: 17
Last edited:
Broswing the valuable pictures collection cantained in the site posted by BDGREEN in this section (digitaltmuseum.se), I've found among the many interesting pieces these odd swedish (?) net cutters devices.
 

Attachments

  • MM 15425.jpg
    MM 15425.jpg
    149.1 KB · Views: 19
  • MM 15424.jpg
    MM 15424.jpg
    227 KB · Views: 22
  • MM 15423.jpg
    MM 15423.jpg
    152.1 KB · Views: 23
I have located a reference to what would appear to be Wilson's net cutter as a 'Pioneer' in a discussion over Woolwich torpedo gyroscopes, along with a few other bits and pieces. It's starting to reach the point now where I think I might be able to gather sufficient material to write a small article on the British torpedo net cutter.

2vxljrd.jpg
 
Last edited:
Lefa (4th June) shows pictures originally posted by BDGREEN The middle picture resembles the Wilson "Pioneer", if I remember correctly, if the four blades are replaced by four versions of the last (Open scissor) cutter. Thus there are four vee shaped cutters facing forwards, each carrying a small striker pin, travelling in a small diameter hole formed within the thickness of the blade, as can be seen in the last picture (RHS) I think that there may also have been a central striker, but I do not remember a safety fan. Perhaps, as these net-cutting torps would be launched in a harbour, at close range, by small, rapidly manoeuvring vessels, it was felt that there was no need to protect against a malfunctioning weapon-possibly the gyro might have been locked as well?
 
I have a small off topic question because my trip starts shortly. But the knowledge on the torpedo area is the biggest in this topic, I am staying in the neighborhood off Rijeka next week, is there beside the torpedolauncing site (Whitehead factory) any torpedo related material to be seen in Rijeka. The Internet is not clear on this subject. Thanks in advance!
 
The net-cutter isn't dead! Adaptive Methods Inc patented in 2016 a net-cutter for use by UUV (Underwater Unmanned Vehicles), so they can continue even if a fishing net blocks their path! (US2016207598) Also,Stabilimenti Biak ing Adolfo Pouchain of Turin, in 1917, patented an alloy for use in the explosively propelled annular ring type of cutter.(GB 120557)

 
Last edited:
Top