Anti-torpedo protection by J. G. Jones. A step away from the breakthrough


The layout of the ship with the protection of Jones. Photo by Marine Engineer / vova-modelist.livejournal.com


Self-propelled mines or torpedoes, which became widespread at the end of the XNUMXth century, were a serious threat to any warships. Various methods of protection against them were created and tested, but not all such inventions showed the desired result. At the turn of the century, British inventor Dr. George Horatio Jones offered his protection options.

Torpedo problem


The appearance of torpedoes provoked the development of anti-torpedo protection, and by the end of the XIX century. practically applicable results were obtained. The protection of ships at that time was divided into two main areas: the struggle against torpedo launchers and the prevention of hits were provided weapons into the ship.

To protect the ship from torpedo hit, special nets were used that were lowered into the water around the hull in the presence of a threat. However, setting up the network took a lot of time and was complicated, and with the deployed network the ship drastically lost speed and maneuverability. In addition, the network interfered with casemate artillery and thereby reduced the combat qualities of the ship. The answer to this protection was special cutting devices mounted on torpedoes.

The nets were useless, and therefore new anti-torpedo protection projects provided for the improvement of the ship's design. It should be finalized and improved with the expectation that hitting a torpedo would not lead to the death of the ship, and preferably even to the loss of combat readiness.

The first draft of J. Jones


In 1894, J.G. Jones applied for the registration of the invented means of protecting ships from torpedoes. Later, in 1897, an article by the inventor under the loud title “The Defenseless Navies of the World” was published in the British journal Marine Engineer and Naval Architect on March 1. It described the basic principles and advantages of the invention.


Shields in a fighting position. Photo by Marine Engineer / vova-modelist.livejournal.com

The invention of J. Jones was to equip the underwater part of the ship's hull with additional shields, the shape of which would repeat the contours of the sides. Shields should be made of steel with the desired strength characteristics. On the upper edge of the shield, nodes were provided for suspension to the board. Some means for controlling the position of the shields were to be included in the defense complex. However, technical details of this kind were not given in the article.

In the transport position, the shields literally stacked on the underwater part of the hull sides. The inventor believed that due to this they would not spoil the characteristics of the ship. In the event of a threat, the shields should be raised and placed at an angle to the hull. Curved aggregates were supposed to form an additional fence around the body, covering its side projections.

As conceived by G. Jones, the torpedo was supposed to hit the shield and detonate. The significant distance between the shield and the hull side reduced the effect of the shock wave on the ship. The proposed design was believed to have significant advantages over existing anti-torpedo networks. She could block all dangerous angles, did not interfere with casemate guns, and her transition to a combat position took less time.

The inventor managed to enlist the support of several officers of the UK Naval Forces and the development of some of the necessary documentation. Also made a model of the ship with the original anti-torpedo protection. However, things did not go further. A potential customer in the person of the Admiralty criticized the invention and did not want to help with its development.

The main complaint concerned the mass of the structure. In fact, it was proposed to equip the ship with two sides, which led to an understandable increase in mass and displacement, as well as to obvious losses of various kinds. In addition, the question of the system of raising the shields remained unresolved. She could take up space inside the case, needed some drives, etc.

Second project


Dr. Jones continued his work and a few years later proposed a new version of anti-torpedo protection. He took into account criticism of the previous project and reworked it in the most serious way. Only basic provisions of architecture and principles of work remained unchanged. In 1899, the inventor completed the project and applied for a patent.


The protection scheme of the second version. Graphics from Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering International / vova-modelist.livejournal.com

A description of the updated anti-torpedo protection was published in October 1901 in the journal Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering International. The article “The Jones Buoyant Torpedo Guard” recalled the previous project and reviewed a new one.

As before, it was proposed to equip the underwater part of the ship with side shields that repeat the shape of the hull. The shield was proposed to be made in the form of a box-shaped system based on a trellised power set with metal sheathing and sealing joints. The internal cavities were supposed to create Archimedean force and, at a minimum, compensate for the weight of the structure.

The previous project involved mounting the shield on a hinge. Now, J. Jones proposed using a set of hydraulic or other cylinders placed across the body. In the transport position, the shield should literally lie on the hull, and in combat - should be advanced with the help of cylinders to a predetermined distance from the side.

The inventor again hoped that the torpedo would explode when hit by a retractable shield. The distance between it and the hull was supposed to help dissipate the energy of the explosion and thereby protect the ship from damage.

Thus, in the second draft, Dr. Jones solved the main problems of the first, but managed to maintain all of his positive qualities. Properly designed retractable shields did not affect the mass of the ship, nor did they interfere with artillery, almost did not spoil the running characteristics, etc.

Anti-torpedo protection by J. G. Jones. A step away from the breakthrough

HMS Glatton Coast Defense battleship in a dry dock. The full anti-torpedo port on the port side is clearly visible. Imperial War Museum Photos

However, this time, the potential customer was not interested in the offer. However, other work to create anti-torpedo protection continued, and subsequently led to real results. With all this, the second draft of J. Jones probably did not even reach the construction of the layout. KVMF preferred other developments.

A step away from the breakthrough


In the years 1894-1901. Dr. George Horatio Jones proposed two options for equipping ships for protection against self-propelled mines, but none of them reached practical implementation. After the second failure, the inventor took up other projects in other areas and no longer returned to the topic of anti-torpedo protection. And, it seems, in vain - he stopped literally a step away from a real engineering breakthrough.

The second option of protection, like the first, could be developed with some changes. So, it was possible to abandon the idea of ​​extending the shields and simply fix them at a distance from the body. To improve the flow around such a structure, it was necessary to close the gaps between the upper and lower faces of the shield and the side of the hull. The resulting cavity could be drained.

A similar design work a few years later was done by other engineers. This type of protection confirmed its characteristics and then became widespread under the name "anti-torpedo bul." Such units were used on many warships from different countries and repeatedly confirmed their potential in a real battle. Also, various options for exploded reservations, remotely similar to the J. Jones systems, were explored.

For unknown reasons, Dr. Jones did not develop the second version of his project and was unable to get ahead of the competition in the invention of effective remedies. However, we should not forget that at that time scientists and engineers did not have our knowledge, and they had to search for optimal solutions - by the method of successive trial and error. And this process did not always immediately give the desired result.
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

47 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. knn54 April 12 2020 06: 59 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    There were British scientists at one time. "Not that the current tribe."
    1. Cat Kuzya April 12 2020 08: 55 New
      • 11
      • 5
      +6
      They still have them now, don’t hesitate, now in Russia there is a RAS where the “academics” talk about the “supernatural” and the “hand of God” ....
      1. dokusib April 13 2020 02: 12 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Do not confuse the RAS with the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences (Russian Academy of Natural Sciences). At the RAS, they don’t do such things
      2. refl 15 May 2020 08: 40 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        You all pray for western jeans. Yes, everything is bad there with science. And the Mayor of London has long been Sadik Aman Khan a hereditary Englishman. I am not racist but the time is really different and with science they have even more seams than ours.
    2. Mister X April 12 2020 11: 07 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      hi
      In the ground forces went the same way
      To protect against faustpatrons mounted anti-cumulative screens of various designs.
      They are relevant to this day.


      1. Narak-zempo April 12 2020 12: 08 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        The completely different principles of the destruction of the torpedo and the cumulative charge. If it is important for the cumulative to concentrate the energy of the explosion to the smallest possible amount of explosives (weight is critical, especially for infantry weapons), which require special conditions (funnel shape, distance from the armor), then the torpedo decides brutal force of hundreds of kilograms of explosives combined with incompressibility water. Therefore, the PTZ requires large drained volumes to absorb the energy of the explosion, which, after being hit, will collect water, which will affect the combat efficiency of the ship and will require long-term repairs.
        1. Mister X April 12 2020 15: 58 New
          • 5
          • 1
          +4
          Quote: Narak-zempo
          The completely different principles of the destruction of the torpedo and the cumulative charge.

          You really do not find anything in common with the principles of counteraction?
          The ship has a shield, and the tank has a belt.
          The implementation is different, but both designs perform the same task.
          You do not agree?
          1. Narak-zempo April 12 2020 16: 45 New
            • 4
            • 2
            +2
            Little in common.
            The energy of the cumulative charge is small, the simple detonation of such an amount of explosives on the armor is unable to damage the tank - this requires the correct focusing of the cumulative jet. The screen disrupts this focus.
            The warhead of a torpedo carries a charge that can itself cause significant damage, and not only with a direct hit (for which they tried to equip torpedoes before the Second World War with non-contact fuses) - due to the incompressibility of the water. Therefore, a thin shield, if there is water between it and the side of the ship, will not give much protection - the explosion energy will be transferred to the water through the shield deformation. The anti-torpedo protection is built on the principle of an expansion air chamber, and preferably several (for example, English boules were filled with steel pipes), preferably backed from the inside by an armored bulkhead. Their task is to absorb the energy of the explosion and redistribute it along the boule cavity.
            1. Mister X April 12 2020 17: 40 New
              • 4
              • 1
              +3
              Quote: Narak-zempo
              Little in common.

              explosion chamber, buoyancy compartment, liquid fuel hopper, anti-torpedo bulkhead ...
              We are discussing a project 100 years ago.
              I agree with your arguments, and I know them.
              But the article is about the first steps in the field of anti-torpedo protection.
              Therefore, it is worth evaluating them, given the level of knowledge and technology of those years.

              Regarding the cumulative charge of the Great Patriotic War.
              It is unlikely that many in the armored forces knew about the Munroe effect.
              Just the grid worked like a trap for a shell: the screen either disrupted the focus of the jet, or destroyed the grenade itself.
              I do not suggest that you compare the grids from the shell beds on the T-34, with the elements of dynamic protection Malachite on the Armata platform wink
            2. Hog
              Hog April 13 2020 00: 29 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Narak-zempo
              Little in common.
              The energy of the cumulative charge is small, the simple detonation of so many explosives on the armor is unable to damage the tank

              What does the tank have to do with it?
              Screens mainly put on light armored vehicles, and on them just the armor to a minimum (after getting into an armored car of an ATGM from Cornet, it is the destruction of the whole structure that occurs), like ships that have almost no armor in the underwater part (with rare exceptions) .
              1. Narak-zempo April 13 2020 07: 37 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Hog
                What does the tank have to do with it?

                Despite the fact that the Germans began to put the screens on the Panzer IV.
                1. Hog
                  Hog April 13 2020 11: 50 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Narak-zempo
                  Despite the fact that the Germans began to put the screens on the Panzer IV.

                  But then you need to remember that during the filing of J.G. Jones's applications for registering the means of protecting ships from torpedoes that he invented were not Long Lance, but small torpedoes with a maximum of 80 kg warheads and a maximum speed of just over 20 knots (and this was for the best samples, the bulk were still worse). So this protection was quite enough since detonation occurred at a distance and the energy of the explosion was distributed over a larger area of ​​the side, and there already thin armor in the underwater part could protect.
              2. Mister X April 13 2020 08: 13 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Hog
                like ships that have almost no armor in the underwater part (with rare exceptions).

                I do not agree.
                Take for example the Russian ships that participated in the Tsushima battle.
                Armored ships of the Aurora, Oleg, Svetlana type do not count.

                1st armored squad
                Squadron battleships:
                "Prince of Suvorov"
                "Emperor Alexander III"
                Borodino
                "Eagle"

                2st armored squad
                "Oslyabya"
                "Sisoy Great"
                "Navarin"
                armored cruiser I rank "Admiral Nakhimov"

                3st armored squad
                Squadron battleship "Emperor Nicholas I"
                Coast Guard Armadillos:
                Admiral Senyavin
                "Admiral Ushakov"
                "Admiral General Apraksin"

                Reservation scheme for battleships “Glory” and “Oryol” (type “Borodino”)

                1. Hog
                  Hog April 13 2020 11: 39 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  I do not agree.

                  Interestingly, does someone set torpedoes to a depth of 1 m or less when firing at battleships / battleships?
                  So it turns out that with a stroke depth of 4-5 meters, the torpedo hits 1 inch armor from which there is no sense.
                  1. Hog
                    Hog April 13 2020 11: 58 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    UPDATE.
                    It was Cesarevich, Retvisan and Pallas who caught torpedoes during the night attack of February 8–9, 1904.
                  2. Mister X April 13 2020 13: 26 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: Hog
                    Interestingly, does someone set torpedoes to a depth of 1 m or less when firing at battleships / battleships?

                    I tried to find information on the depth of the torpedoes of 450 mm caliber 18 "Ho Type 30 produced by Whitehead.
                    Failed.
                    Can share?
                    I did a good job with the Aquila class cruiser scouts, but they didn't have an armored belt.
                    1. Hog
                      Hog April 13 2020 15: 50 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Can share?

                      This is a hypothetical assumption.
                      I did a good job with the Aquila class cruiser scouts, but they didn't have an armored belt.

                      So I did not say that. Not about their armored belt, but about these cruisers in general.
  2. mr.ZinGer April 12 2020 08: 42 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Short and informative, thanks to the author.
  3. Avior April 12 2020 08: 45 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    It was always interesting, is it possible to use firing nets that delay and knock torpedoes off course as anti-torpedo protection?
    1. Narak-zempo April 12 2020 09: 13 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Imagine a nine-meter fool under three tons in weight (Japanese Type 93, aka "Long Spear"), rushing at a speed of 48 knots. What network is needed to stop it? It’s safer to shoot bombs (better in line). The question is how to aim the bomb with sufficient accuracy (especially true for those times when there were no sonars yet). Now such a task is generally solved by homing small-caliber torpedoes of the "Package-NK" type.
      1. ProkletyiPirat April 12 2020 09: 27 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Quote: Narak-zempo
        Imagine a nine-meter fool

        "Imagine a car rushing to a pedestrian stop and you throw a fishing net at it" I think this comparison is more understandable
        1. prodi April 12 2020 09: 50 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          yes, the network would only run against an aircraft missile, although it depends, and at what distance would you catch
          1. Chaldon48 April 12 2020 11: 25 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Against aviation, balloons were used to hold their ropes and were a real hunting net for enemy aircraft.
          2. Narak-zempo April 12 2020 11: 31 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: prodi
            the network would only go against an aircraft missile

            Laugh
            HVAR, for example, in a modification against submarines, was produced with an armor-piercing head - a steel ingot under 10 kg in weight with a minimum explosive charge. Specially to make a strong case. To catch such a net?
            1. prodi April 12 2020 12: 07 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              if the propeller is screw and the network is long enough to overlap? ..
              1. Narak-zempo April 12 2020 12: 08 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: prodi
                if propeller propeller

                Do you have a rocket?
                1. prodi April 12 2020 12: 15 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  are you talking about a rocket or a torpedo?
                  1. Narak-zempo April 12 2020 12: 16 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    You wrote about the rocket.
                    Quote: prodi
                    yes, the network would only run against an aircraft missile, although it depends, and at what distance would you catch
                    1. prodi April 12 2020 12: 19 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      it’s easier to get the missile off course, but a torpedo with a jet propulsion - if you only jam the rudders
                      1. Narak-zempo April 12 2020 12: 21 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: prodi
                        rocket off course easier

                        Uncontrollable? Than?
                      2. prodi April 12 2020 12: 23 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        loads at the corners of the "square" network when overlapping will create big problems even for the controlled
              2. The comment was deleted.
  • Operator April 12 2020 11: 50 New
    • 1
    • 4
    -3
    In connection with the advent of torpedoes, torpedoes as weapons remained only in the mrias of admirers of a cargo cult such as climatic and timokhin bully
    1. Grigory_45 April 12 2020 15: 50 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Quote: Operator
      In connection with the advent of torpedoes, torpedoes as weapons remained only in the mrias

      your statement from the same opera as “with the advent of KAZ, cumulative grenades and ATGMs are in the past”, i.e. has nothing to do with reality.
      1. Operator April 12 2020 15: 58 New
        • 0
        • 4
        -4
        You talk with the Israelis about the RPG / ATGM vs SAZ Trophy, and then we will discuss the opera reality.
        1. Grigory_45 April 12 2020 16: 02 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          with the advent of KAZ, no one refused from ATGMs and RPGs. And it’s not going to (they are developing more and more ATGMs and grenade launchers). For reasons you know (KAZ is expensive, you won’t put any vehicle on it, imposes restrictions on interaction with infantry, and does not give a 100% guarantee of repelling an attack). Anti-torpedoes - from about the same tale. So do not play the fool.
    2. Nehist April 13 2020 08: 54 New
      • 0
      • 4
      -4
      But what about your all-powerful Poseidon? In fact, the same torpedo with intelligence. How do you still believe in this nonsense
  • Grigory_45 April 12 2020 15: 59 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Johns' work, of course, is commendable in terms of ensuring greater safety of ships from torpedo weapons. But ... all his projects were reasonably unrealized. That in the first, that in the second case, the shields coolly limited the ship in maneuverability, as well as in speed, especially considering that the ships of that time could not boast of either one or the other. In addition, the shields distorted by the explosion of the torpedo could not be put back (not pressed to the hull) - with all the consequences. In addition, it is necessary to install the shields at a sufficiently large distance, in order to avoid a powerful hydroblow on the ship’s hull, which will lead to consequences that are almost worse than undermining the warhead torpedoes (water, as you know, is almost incompressible)
    1. Nehist April 13 2020 08: 56 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      I will say more! Acceptable torpedoes appeared only in the 30s of the 20th century! All that was previously an excellent way to commit suicide
      1. Aaleks1974 26 May 2020 19: 53 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        A third of the ships, in the WWII, sank precisely torpedoes! So, they fully corresponded to the general level of technology, otherwise you can agree, before comparing the “Ilya Muromets” with the TU-160.
  • Operator April 12 2020 16: 52 New
    • 0
    • 5
    -5
    Quote: Gregory_45
    with the advent of KAZ, no one refused from ATGMs and RPGs

    But there is no need for fairy tales - Palestinians / Lebanese sit on the priest exactly when Merkava passes by them laughing
    1. Grigory_45 April 12 2020 21: 22 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Quote: Operator
      Palestinians / Lebanese sit on the priest exactly when Merkava drives past them

      suppose that this fairy tale is a reality) Nevertheless, there remains (is and will be) still a mass of armored vehicles without KAZ. Which is not a child prodigy, i.e. does not give a 100% guarantee of non-defeat by means of VET

      Similarly, anti-torpedo systems. These pieces will not appear on all ships without exception (especially in vehicles), they are not an absolute weapon, and torpedoes in general do not yet have any alternative as a weapon to combat submarines. Therefore your
      Quote: Operator
      In connection with the advent of torpedoes, torpedoes as weapons remained only in the mrias of admirers of the cargo cult

      no more than your dreams)
      1. Operator April 12 2020 21: 45 New
        • 0
        • 5
        -5
        The main classes of ships and submarines are already equipped with torpedoes.

        Only supercavitating torpedoes with a ramjet engine and an inductive seeker of the Shkval-2 type have the prospect.
        1. Nehist April 13 2020 09: 01 New
          • 0
          • 3
          -3
          Laugh when you can? Flurry-2? !!! That's when the Flurry 2 with GOS really appears then it is possible to discuss. And your wet dreams got. You are not a stupid person! Do you have any reasonable comments? But forgive me sometimes such nonsense to fence ....
      2. Aag
        Aag April 13 2020 10: 26 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        "as a weapon against submarines, torpedoes do not yet have any alternatives"
        With such an assertion, it’s probably worth clarifying the situation. I don’t know how to landmines, but the depth charges, it’s kind of like, are in service. Please explain, if not difficult.
        1. Grigory_45 April 13 2020 10: 52 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -2
          Quote: AAG
          I don’t know how mines are, but the depth charges, like-like, are in service.

          Yes, they are still in service. Like marker and regular bombs.
          Depth bombs, as well as means for their use (bombers), have their drawbacks. Firstly, this is an extremely short range of use (for example, RBU-6000 drops bombs no further than 6 km). Secondly, you need a very accurate target designation. Thirdly, a bomb in water sinks rather slowly (about 11 m / s, despite all the tricks of the designers). Fourth, the radius of destruction when a bomb is detonated is quite small, which again requires very precise target designation. All this does not allow us to talk about bombs as an effective weapon against submarines (as a means of PDO and anti-torpedo - it still somehow did not go)
          Depth bombs are more or less effective only when equipped with their special warheads and in aviation applications.

          A homing torpedo of the majority has no shortcomings. It implements various search algorithms for the submarine, has a sufficient power reserve, high speed in attack mode, modern torpedoes allow hitting targets at a considerable depth (up to the limit for a submarine), well, the probability of hitting a target is much higher. As well as the range - as a rule, when attacking with NK, a torpedo is the warhead of a torpedo missile, which is first launched into the area of ​​the alleged location of the submarine (ASROC - up to 9 km, Waterfall, taking into account the range of the torpedo itself - up to 50 km), after which the torpedo itself is looking for the target.

          Mines, too, have not yet left the stage. Both torpedoes (as a "striking element") and mines are used to build "intelligent" minefields
          1. Aag
            Aag April 13 2020 15: 38 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Thanks for the detailed answer.
            But the alternative is still preserved :). True, it is significantly lagging behind in efficiency. hi
  • Grafova Irina April 13 2020 23: 45 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    There was such a domestic engineer by the name of Gulyaev ... Who cares - you will find information about him and his thoughts and projects