More Comments on Murfett's "Naval Warfare 1919-45"

I am still struggling on with this [1], nearing the end now, but have to report this gem:

"Strangely, the Japanese submarine fleet with unquestionably the best torpedo amongst the active combatants - the Type 93 or 'Long Lance', and the even faster, longer range Type 95 - did not make as big a mark on the Pacific Campaign as they ought to have done."

I won't quibble about the use to the name 'Long Lance', but note it is not a contemporary Japanese name for these weapons.

Type 93: 24" surface ship oxygen torpedo, not a submarine torpedo

Type 95: 21" submarine oxygen torpedo (and I'm not sure that Morrison applied the term 'Long Lance' to this).

Of these the Type 93 is very much the longer range weapon (as would be expected given its greater size - other things being equal). Also there is no significant difference between their top speeds.

What galls me about this is that these things are common knowledge among those with an interest in (relatively) modern naval warfare and if you do not know about such things they can be looked up on-line without any trouble. So why does Murfett not know these things? One slip is excusable, we all make mistakes, but Murfett does this again and again. Another example is his overselling of MAD, which could be useful in conjunction with sonobuoys and Fido but on its own of very little value.

References:

1. Murfett, M., Naval Warfare 1919-45; An operational history of the war at sea, Routlege, 2009