Talk:Tigerfish (torpedo)

Military history: Maritime / Technology / Weaponry / British / European Start‑class

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

The Mod 0 failed its initial fleet acceptance trials in 1979 but was nevertheless issued to the fleet in 1980. The Mod 1 DP (dual purpose) anti-submarine and anti-ship model also experienced problems, though a redesigned version (Mod 2) passed sea trials in 1978 and was issued the following year.

Is there something wrong with the dates? Mod 0 issued to fleet in 1980 Mod 1 no date Mod 2 sea trials in 1978, issued (to fleet?) in following year (1979?)

Bankrobber70 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.13.101.136 (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, in-service dates given in Hansard were: "Mod 0--1974 ; Mod 1--1980 ; Mod 2--1986". David Biddulph (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008[edit]

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warhead?[edit]

Is there a source that really Torpex is used as a warhead for the torpedos? As far as I know this stuff was very instable and unsuitable for military use.--88.153.4.251 (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. I have no idea if the Tigerfish warhead used Torpex -- I would guess probably not, since Tigerfish was meant to be super-high-tech, and superior alternatives to torpex were available at least 5 years before the design started.

However, torpex was developed specifically for torpedoes, was used for a number of years and was very successful in that role. The explosives that superseded it are actually very similar, with just some slight tweaks and some extra desensitisers. It is true that they are less shock sensitive, but torpex isn't particularly bad in that regard; it is just that when you have 1,800 lb of explosive lined up on each side midships of your destroyer, outside the armour, you want as little chance as possible that a hit by an enemy shell will sympathetically detonate them. -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What pun?[edit]

From the Design & Development section: "one report was titled "Whither ONGAR?" - the pun being intentional"

What's the pun? Could an explanation be inserted? 80.192.102.25 (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When the project started in 1959 it was called Project Ongar. Project Ongar was intended to be the world's most advanced torpedo at the time of its original planned in-service date of 1967. At the time, Ongar railway station was the end of the line on the Central line (London Underground) - i.e. it was a far as you could go.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]