btw. if that is too much water for you guys, some Army Merch came in today and I approved of the quality. You can check it out here: teespring.com/stores/military-history-visualized

Amount of quality and effort is evident. Excellent video

"Remember, every single daughter helps"

So sinking surface ships with torpedoes has nothing to do with armor/hull piercing munitions, but instead with the shockwave and "pocket" created in the water underneath the ship? So, torpedoes are just big high explosive bombs? Guess you learn something new everyday, thanks MHV!

Great video, top explanation of a complex phenomenon - I reckon my brain expanded and contracted a couple of times while watching :).

I love the way you put the references in to the video. Wish more people did that

Another excellent explanation of a complex topic. I really like how you include your sources, it makes it much easier for the viewer to learn more. Keep up the good work

Absolutely fascinating, especially enjoyed the new graphics, and incorporation of scientific research. Griff

your videos are great! I wish there were more youtube channels like yours. Keep up the excellent work! :D

MHV's editing is so fantastic

Fascinating and interesting. Thank you so much! :)

Far, far more interesting then the topic suggests. Many thanks, great video.

Having worked with underwater shock as a structural engineer for the last 20 years I appreciate all efforts to educate and explain the phenomena. Kudos to you for a nice video. However, I would like to comment on the part where the bubble contacts the hull. The bubble will not continue to oscillate, it will collapse onto the hull causing a “water hammer effect” which is highly damaging. That is why near-contact detonations are dangerous even with small charges. In fact, the bubble can collapse onto the hull by only being in the vicinity of the hull.

Nice video!

1 person was a firecracker fishtank video maker

Psst, MHV, there are no annotations in the end

Does the underwater midships keel kill have a "sweet spot" where the explosion and bubbles have the best effect? If I recall right, due to pressure increasing with depth, an underwater explosion tends to send water upwards the most violently. My experience is limited to boyhood homemade firecrackers, but I noticed that when weighted and thrown into a pond the explosion would always send a fairly narrow column of water straight up. A firecracker stuffed into a model I tired of would send the parts everywhere. Good times. The physics of the dam buster bombs would be a possible sequel to this underwater explosions theme. It has been too long since I read about it, but they had to design the bombs to overcome problems posed by the Germans and physics.

Wow, you're such an uber-nerd to research all this stuff...like who would think to look up a Polish science journal to see what the navy had to say about the dynamics of underwater explosions?? Awesome job!!

Nice!

Not mentioned is the /internal/ pressure of the vehicle in question relative to the medium they are in. Submarines would have a different pressure relative to the explosion depending on their depth, whilst a ship on the surface would have a lower internal pressure, in essence one atmosphere. Also a submarine is designed to withstand pressure - the pressure of the surrounding water - whereas a ship is designed just to float on it. A submarine deep would probably already have stress on its hull to maintain structural integrity, so a smaller explosion / farther away could cause equal damage to a closer explosion in shallower depths.

Very helpful.

I know I read somewhere that in ww2 most sinkings from torpedoes are from flooding on one side causing it to capsize rather than breaking the keel

Interesting - thanks!

Remember this is what a torpedo does not including what fluid shock would do.

One factor regarding underwater explosions that I've heard about but that you didn't mention here is compressibility. Namely, that water doesn't really compress very well, while air does. This means that the force is transferred more directly and over greater distances underwater than in the air.

Key concept - air compressed easily, but “you can’t squeeze water”. Thus, the deeper the depth charge, the smaller the bubble created. Not to say that the blast front is lessened, but it dissipates faster and is moving 5x faster than it would in air

Barnes Wallis used the density of water against the Dams. Between the explosion and target it cushioned effect but if in contact it acted /with/ the explosive.Thus it needed less explosive once against the Dams.

I came here to learn how the Korean vessel got sunk, thanks for explaining it.

Can you make a video about the different types of shells used in the guns in tanks (and artilery)?

So, that's why depth charges work so well. Nifty stuff.

i have been learning about TBI and water explosions are the base of understanding the brain damage, so i appreciate your presentation, thank you

The sound wave pushes the fish and other sea animals at terminal velocity, this force causes the marine life to act like bullets, penetrating up to 20 ft. and slicing through steel.

Watching this made my brain hurt after the video but im really glad that i watched this video

I always thought that ( and that's about the depth charge) since the depth charge was basically a metallic barrel when it exploded the shrapnel from the barrel hit the submarine

Great video! Speaking of underwater explosions, could you maybe do a video on the incident that took place on board the Foxtrot-class submarine B-59 on the 27th October 1962? The "special weapon" was almost used. I would love to hear your take on that incident. And I´m sure the other viewers would find that fascinating. I personally think V. Arkhipov saved our collective asses that day.

So i clicked on this because i misread (it was 2 AM when i typed this) the tittle as: "How UNDERWEAR explosions damage ships and subs" and was quite confused but intrigued. lol.

Modern Heavy Weight torpedos on SSNs and SSKs are a guaranteed kill on any surface target...Huge warheads with a deep terminal dive and its Endex...

Love it how you pronounce buoyancy :D

One thing I did not see explained is that when a hole in the water is created, the water rushing back in to fill that hole, like the initial bubble, will overshoot equilibrium and slam into the hull of a ship with shattering force. This is what does the most damage- not the gas explosion, but the liquid implosion. This is because water has far greater density than gas.

This is more complex than I expected

Love that Star Trek reference

It's just a little thing to emphasize: The efficiency of explosion in the depth decreases drastically, its power decreases proportionally with water pressure. So any submarine is safer in the deep depth, there must be the explosion much closer to be effective, than in lower depth.

I will still prefer torpedoes than mines. Because mines are more like HE shells underwater and torpedoes are actually hard to recover once hit. Because torpedoes also brings the water in the ship, and huge mass of water comes in at high speed, creating very little time to react.

have you ever considered doing a Binkov's Battlegrounds stile of videos on planed operations that never got past planing, like operation Sealion or Downfall?

Makes me wanna pick up Silent Hunter 5 again =D

Now this is helping me bombing the boat in war thunder

Nice Star Trek reference ;)

"Liminal messages" - I like it. Is that new, or did I not notice it in the past?

Also i believe an underwater explosion can also act like a shaped charge as the path of least resistance is the hull, so the weight of the water behind the explosion will force the shockwave inwards, but is only achieved only if the explosive is detonated right against the hull as if done away from it the water acts absorbe more of the force. that's what i remember from Damn busters anyway

the beneath keel explosion is often far more damaging if the bubble breaches the surface of the water upon detonation, as the entire force of the explosion is immediately pushed upwards as the pressure finds an easier escape than through the water, used this way, subsurface detonations, generally mines, worked like a shaped charge.

Do a video on how different types of tank ammunition works against infantry and other armored targets.

question, if the bubble is what damages the hull, doesn't that mean that a second torpedo detonating In the same area under the keel will deform the bubble and make another deformed bubble, causing the 2 torpedoes to do less damage than one? i have wondered this for some time.

Given the nature of a submarine explosion, then, how effective would a double-hull construction be in enhancing submarine survivability in the event of a torpedo hit? Do ASW torpedoes detonate on contact or in proximity?

How about a video about the evolution of Destroyers. From the late 1800's to Present. The designs, breakthroughs, effectiveness of combat etc.

another amazing effect,even counterintuitive,its that any rigid structure nearby the explosion will atract it. if its big enough,will appear like a cannon shooting to the structure.bizarre.

Torpedo hit on surface ship: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mZNdmbNhlp28n5c.html Description of events in pictures: imgur.com/OKnlpAn

A bubble can not "touch" the hull more than one time while "pulsating". It's simply impossible - think for yourself (The answer is in the question "why is the bubble pulsating?")

Does the Keel-breaking trick only work if the explosion is actually UNDER the keel or does it also work if the Torpedo hits the keel just above the bottom. I only ask because this information would have been useful 10 years ago when I was playing Silent Hunter III. I think I always just tried to make holes in their sides or something; with Warships I would just try to hit the magazine since in a lot of cases my Ship-ID book told me where that was supposed to be.

The accent was a bit difficult to follow. But thank you for this post.

I was hoping he would also talk about the effects of near misses from airplane dropped bombs. There were many more near misses than actual hits in WW2.

Are you going to do more division of hoi4?

Given advances in active protection systems for tanks, one has to wonder how far such defenses against torpedos have developed under secrecy.

would the wsaer pressure 100s of meters down affect the radius of the shockwave tho, cause ud have higher pressure squeezing against the higher pressure of the charge and the water pressure, sonin theory the further down u go the more condensed the explosion

If you wanna see some pulsating bubbles underwater and even some sonoluminescence, just look up underwater (pool) shooting videos.

FYI the diving depth of a submarine is 400 to 500 feet (130 to 180 meters).

Watch any video of World War II anti-submarine weapons, depth charges always look like they hit something, due to the pulsation of the bubble breaching the surface.

Does reinforcing the midsection of ships give additional proof against this kind of explosions or would that just fuck up the distribution of mass?

Here is a good video of the underwater explosion with the oscillations mentioned in this video: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/e5uieqmLvLfKqp8.html

The repeating bubble blast is visible in the Smarter Every Day video "AK-47 Underwater at 27,450 frames per second (Part 2)"

It's also worth noting that most of the energy of a bomb explosion on an armored deck or turret dissipates into the air whereas a near-miss can transmit more of the energy, through the water, to the hull or keel of the ship. Also, under the heading English is nuts: "bow" rhymes with "Dow" not "Go."

High-Speed Flying Baguette pierces British Top-Notch Destroyer [Gone Sexual]

So when you fire a torpedo you don't hit the ship, but explode beneath the keel/besides the hull?

You should do a video about Black Army of Hungary

So, if a ships hull was made strong enough for it to be supported on 2 points, back and front, It would be pretty much immune to most torpedoes?

Time to play some Silent hunter 3 again

military physics visualized

Thanks for your great content. A somewhat random question, but what are your thoughts on how past propaganda and media sterotypes shape the research of historians? I could imagine that if you were exposed to certain preconceptions you are then more likely to interpret the information accordingly.

Yeeeah, no, I didn't understand the hydrodynamics part of your explanation, even though I'm an engineer myself, albeit in a different field

So what is the difference between explosion to sink ship and submarine? I still don't get it...

Why no one submarine used towed mine on the chain as a anti-ship weapon? It would be DEADLY !!!

The message at the end was very effective, time to hit that UnterseebootScribe button.

Информация не полна, интересно было бы посмотреть зависимость радиуса поражения от мощности заряда и глубины срабатывания.

another good way to kill a sib is to explode a torpedo underneath it (much like a ship) the weight of the water on top of said sub and the lack of buoyancy under the keel would snap the sub in half like a child's toy

It's "bow" like "cow"...not like a bow and arrow. In the word buoyancy the stress is on the first syllable.

Just viewing first video about the destroyed Nordstream gas pipeline. Searched “damage submarine water bomb” and found this video.

👍👍👍

There is no hole that the water that the ship falls into

He sounds like Bruno

Would a hot explosive fart do the same thing underwater

Kind of glad World of Warships does not 100% subscribe to the actual physics of underwater explosions lol

You forgot the damage to submarines.

About the ship breaking in half. You say it breaks under its own weight because of the hole in the water. Do you have a reference that supports this? What about this video? Is it real? kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mZNdmbNhlp28n5c.html Assuming it's a real video, it looks to me like: 1) The ship breaks upwards from the initial blast. 2) The ship starts to drop in the middle because the bubble has left it unsupported. 3) When the bubble collapses back in, the middle of the ship is pushed back up and the water surging through the broken hull rips off large sections of the superstructure. This makes sense to me. To create that big hole in the water, the explosion had to exert a very large pressure on the water. This same pressure would also be applied to the bottom of the ship, right? Isn't this force (which is also trying to break the ships back, but in the upward direction) likely to be larger than "force" from the water missing from the bubble ? Second, consider this: Your explanation is that the hole in the water leads to zero buoyancy for the part of the hull over the hole. I agree, it does. Now, there is another way to get zero buoyancy in the same area -- completely flood that part of the hull. So, would completely flooding the center of the ship cause it to break it's back. It seems possible, after all flooding in the forward part of the Titanic seems to have caused it to break its back. But I suspect a war ship is, in general, built stronger to avoid and survive battle damage. But, I don't know this for sure. Thus my earlier question -- do you have an references that discuss the details of the failure when an explosion occurs under a ships keel?

Torpedoes let water in

Have you considered looking into the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana in 1898? It led to the war between Spain and the US that year, and it is hotly debated yet today. Not saying it's an immediate priority, but I'm sure others would be interested in your analysis of the overall data.

o7

Minor pedantic correction: The bow of a ship is rhymes with cow, not slow. When you bend a person or the material making the front of the ship it is bow like cow. When you bend any other object it is bow like slow.

Submarines beat Battleships but they beat Destroyers but they beat Submarines I'm confused

Vietsub pls:))

Why didn't ships designed to sail above the water so they aren't vulnerable to underwater explosions?

In comments theres some confusion. Kamikaze is definitely the most suicidal.. for the individual ! It would have been interesting if they'd adopted the practice from day 1.