Talk:Mark 37 torpedo

Military history: Maritime / Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not 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
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

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

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

entered service?[edit]

First this:

It entered service with the US Navy in the early 1950s, ...

then

Between 1955-56, thirty torpedoes were produced for development testing, with large-scale production commenced shortly afterwards.

After 1956 is early 1950s?--WerWil (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Size Comparison[edit]

This torpedo is 19 inch diameter, 11 feet length. Its replacement, the Mk 48 is 21 inch diameter, 18 feet length. Big difference. How many submarines or ships had torpedo tubes that could take thy=e MK 37, but not big enough for the Mk 48?
74.214.48.37 (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a ship size issue. Standard tubes are 21", so any boat capable of firing Mk XIVs could (in theory) fire Mk37s. (That presupposes refit with the appropriate firecontrol gear...) There was a tube length issue, but AFAIK, that only applied to the 21" TT; some tubes weren't capable of accomodating longer fish. (Not sure offhand if that meant they couldn't use prewar fish, which were longer, but that's the impression I get.) I believe some stern tubes in the Skipjacks & Skates were for Mk37s only, & some of the 21" tubes were shorter, also. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Mk 37 was designed for quietly "swimming out" of a 21-inch torpedo tube, rather than being ejected. There was also the tube length issue. Some Mk 37s were short enough that two could fit in a torpedo room rack. The bulk of 21" torpedoes were too long for the stern tubes intended for the Mk 37. The Mk 37 had several 1" thick guide studs, which centered the torpedo in the tube and allowed a water space for swimming out. The World War II Mark 27 torpedo also had this feature. The Skate and Tang classes (also USS Darter, but not the Skipjacks) were completed with stern tubes for the Mk 37 that did not have ejection pumps, thus they could only use swim-out torpedoes in those tubes. Friedman states that these were usually called "countermeasures tubes" and only one reload was carried per tube. On all bow tubes, Mk 37s and all 21" torpedoes could be used. See Friedman, US Submarines since 1945 for details. To further confuse the issue, the stern tubes on Triton (SSRN-586) were full-length with an ejection pump. RobDuch (talk) 06:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mark 37 torpedo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/1592/ustorp5.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311061437/http://www.personal.psu.edu/pq9/active.html to http://www.personal.psu.edu/pq9/active.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can I be in service?[edit]

That notional "service history" section isn't, it's a single mention of a trivial incident that doesn't deserve inclusion. Can I be any clearer? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an external link would be more appropriate. Underneaththesun (talk) 06:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me, tho I do think a section, with actual information, on its operational use iw merited. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Destroyer use[edit]

The Mark 37 was also used aboard Sumner-class destroyers that had undergone FRAM II refits, as well as some Gearings that underwent DDE conversion.

216.152.18.132 (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]