[DiogenesLamp]

I expect that I was "the FReeper who posted the pictures" to which you referred...

Your name certainly looks familiar. I think you might be he.

Thank you for joining this discussion. I found your information to be very interesting and very eye opening.

Do you still have the pictures of the spar with the copper parts still attached to it? It was those pictures that convinced me that the thing was designed to blow up with the Sub still only a short distance away.

I don't know why the people of that era would not have recognized that as a suicide trap.

[TXnMA]

"Do you still have the pictures of the spar with the copper parts still attached to it? It was those pictures that convinced me that the thing was designed to blow up with the Sub still only a short distance away."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's the simplest one:

In this laser-scanned image, the powder cannister was to the left. The explosion shoved the torpedo remains to the right -- back up the spar. The (unmoving) mounting bolt ripped a slot through the copper mounting sleeve as it was shoved away from the explosion. (Note the 30-degree angle of the folded-back remains of the copper canister and sleeve-mounting plate.)

Examples of some of our stepwise CAD analyses of the above dynamics:

Bottom line conclusions:

1. The torpedo was bolted solidly to the spar.

2. The torpedo was the 135-lb. Singer design, with the mounting sleeve attached at a 30-degree angle.

3. The (triple) Lanyard-triggered Singer torpedo fuzes were converted for contact triggering.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I hope this clarifies the "Lanyard vs Contact" triggering question...

TXnMA