What is the difference between a missile and a torpedo

It's broad enough to cover space-based weaponry as long as it is thrown or launched. Torpedo describes "a While torpedo is usually associated with water, you can take the self-propelled aspect away instead if you so desire.

Missiles are any of the things that you launch explosives, shells, bursts of plasma , and torpedoes are things with their own fuel that don't simply rely on momentum like self-guided rockets. Considering both weapons got similar propulsion and operates in the same environment the only difference is how they kill. Torpedoes are made to target huge vessels and explode it's thick hull.

A big military vessel can need multiple shots to sink. Missiles are intent to target small and fast targets. They seek the target and detonates a fragmentation warhead when they get close. They actually don't hit the target and that's specially true with anti-air missiles. A missile is intended to open hundreds of small holes with hot metal scraps.

There are dedicated anti-ship missiles like the legendary Excocet. They are made to take advantage of the kinetic energy to penetrate the hull above the water line where the hull is more slim or even try to target the command center.

You can say they are rocket flying torpedoes. There's of course dedicated anti-runway, anti-tank missiles actually explodes things like a small torpedo. When I play Stellaris I also try to imagine torpedoes as more massive as missiles and intended to penetrate and do huge explosions inside the hull.

This standardisation allows ships across the Milky Way to rearm at any friendly station or salvage any unfired ammo from both friendly and hostile derelicts. Part of the standardisation is a modular approach. Each template-based projectile has a number of slots that can be fitted with any combination of modules, ranging from a variety of payloads, engines and advanced guidance features to integrated IFF and advanced automated target selection modules.

Missiles have an engine optimised for speed and maneuverability, a close-range payload, an automated target acquisition and tracking system and a guidance system that works in tandem with the TATS.

When fired, they choose their target manually based on a number of parameters, then automatically follow the target until they explode or the target is dead.

These missiles can be fired multiple at the same time, at which point each missile will choose a different target. Torpedoes have an engine optimized for speed, 2 highly damaging payloads and a guidance system that required selecting a target in advance. These deal much more damage than a missile, but are not capable of acquiring targets automatically.

A target must be configured in advance while loading the torpedo. A target cannot be changed after launch, and a missile targeting a destroyed target will still attempt to detonate against any remaining pieces of the target. Because of this distinction, missiles are most often used against smaller targets where manual targeting and a potential loss of target are inefficient. Torpedoes are most often used against immobile or slow moving targets: capital ships, space stations, automated defenses, Background: Some SciFi settings feature propulsion systems based on expulsion of ions or plasma.

Yet others feature a strong magnetic field around the ship, a field which may contain plasma. This field is "pushed" by the solar wind. These are not farfetched, but mimick designs in use today or on the drawing board at NASA. In any case, there's a "medium" consisting of particles or magnetic fields, in close proximity to enemy crafts, that a missile could "push against" using electric or magnetic fields.

This creates an analogy with torpedos that push against water. A missile with this propulsion would be able to "sneak onto" enemy vessels by showing zero exhaust and be able to "latch onto" the fields of large vessels, like a missile following the wake of a ship. So, we can make a very short list of how you might distinguish them. Presumably they're stored as they are today, in internal explosion-resistant lockers, that aren't going to be much different for space missiles vs. But there is another option: one or the other might be carried around permanently on external structures , like how bombs are carried on the wing pylons or conformal tanks of present-day jet fighters.

Although a distinction based solely on how they are carried alone doesn't really seem to justify having the two different names. This might work alongside storage. The name torpedo has its association with stealth from submarines and all , while a missile might take more preparation to launch.

So, torpedoes might be able to be launched from concealed openings on a space-ship's hull. While a missile might first need to be assembled, mounted and fueled on an external fixture, that is either in plain sight or more easily detected by enemy ship's equipment. The distinction would be most important when the intentions of an approaching ship are ambiguous.

So, a torpedo could be fired in a surprise attack from close range, while a missile might not be suitable for this, as it needs the extra time and obvious preparation of being fueled up on the pad. See Matt Bowyer's answer. If an adversary needs to spend more time setting up a missile and fueling it while it's hanging off a structure on the side of the ship, it might be expected that this extra investment comes with a payoff.

Probably that's greater damage to an enemy ship. Alternatively, if missiles are no more destuctive than torpedoes, then the need to assemble them externally may simply be a reflection of cheaper or less advanced technology. A potentially suitable distinction in a space combat setting could be that missiles are designed to overwhelm enemy defences through speed, numbers and decoys, whereas torpedoes are more like small drones delivered to carry an explosive payload, complete with armouring, shielding and defensive systems of their own.

This draws a hard line between what is a missile and what is a torpedo systems installed , as well as accounting for size, cost, speed and yield differences. It makes the most sense if sensors are assumed to be perfect and there is some form of 'instantaneous' in that the weapon can't react before it's hit weaponry available to use as point defence.

What makes this work particularly well is it draws a distinction between the use cases for missiles and torpedoes straight away. Missiles are for dealing with fast combatants that are light on point defence: torpedoes are for use against larger combatants that have the ability to destroy lightly armoured missiles; as they will sustain multiple point defence impacts before being destroyed.

This also opens up possibilities for arms races, where each side creates swarms of torpedoes that are designed not only to attack the enemy ships but also other ordinance.

This may lead to a more 'drone V drone' style of space combat depending upon resources and construction capability available. A similar example to this is the idea of Destroyers and Battleships.

Fundamentally, both are ships that carry weapons and are used in wartime roles. However, they fit different billings and as such are classified as Destroyers and Battleships. For some reason Sci Fi always comes back to navy terminology, so I will follow a very simple, Navy-Esque, bits of reasoning. Torpedoes are used for destroying big ships, and are designed with the goal of destroying big ships in mind. Their targeting, payload, propulsion, etc. Missiles are designed to destroy everything else, from small attack craft to huge planetary cities.

Finally, Marines are there to handle anything that you can't just blow up. Have fun with your spaceships. I'd like to hear more of the story. If you're talking of realistic space combat in an universe with realistic near-future technology, I'd consider the acceleration capabilities and available delta V as the main criteria for the distinction. Missiles have lots of thrust and acceleration -- much more than the usual spacecraft -- but low delta-v, so they're more effective in short range combat.

Torpedoes have low thrust and acceleration, but lots of delta-v. They can be launched from long range and perform more complex orbital maneuvers to reach the target. If you want to be more technical, missiles are cheap, small, ready-to fire, solid-fueled guided rockets. They can be very cheap, launched with short notice and in large quantities.

After launch they calculate the vector for an intercept, point and burn all the fuel, and use some secondary propulsion for fine-tuning the intercept. If they miss the target, they're out of the battle.

In contrast, torpedoes are essentially suicide drone ships. Large, expensive, with variable thrust and lots of delta-v and payload. They might have to be fueled before being launched depending on their size and kind of fuel being used. They might have their own power generator or solar panels instead of batteries so they can remain in an orbit for a long time if needed. If they miss a target they can try another intercept, look for a target of opportunity, etc.

Tactically speaking, missiles are more effective against targets roughly in the same orbital plane. If the target orbit has a completely different inclination, the low delta-v limits the tactical options and usefulness. Torpedoes can be used against targets in a completely different orbit, or even against targets orbiting another body.

Also, combat spacecraft are likely to have strong point-defense capabilities, so missiles will be launched in salvos intended to overwhelm the target defenses, while a torpedo is more likely to rely on its own defenses, armor, electronic warfare, etc.

They might have much more sophisticated computers and AI so they can make tactical decisions on their own to adapt to new conditions. Well, modern missiles work on the rocket principle, force of expelled gas propels the missile forward, while torpedoes move using propellers, which is the only real distinction, based on the environment where each operates. In space, of course, there is no air, so no real need for torpedoes, you'd only ever use missiles, so conventional distinctions are out. So what could be the difference?

Matt Bowyer, Adrian Colomitchi and Timpanus have mentioned all the answers I though of immediately, so I won't go into them again. The only things not mentioned yet are type of payload and fuel. Alternatively, one has limited conventional fuel in stock, and can thus only travel a short distance astronomically , while the other has a small fusion core, which allows it to travel further, and also adds to the explosion on contact.

This is accurate for the bigger ones, ie. So if you're to take into account the munitions that they use; torpedo's and missiles, we'll forget about lasers for now as its not in your question but you must also forget about relative earth sizes for what we consider conventional torpedo's and missiles as in space both could be any shape and size theoretically. A torpedo would be mainly for large ship to ship combat, designed for the range between laser and missile range, so basically, minimal guidance but to provide a lot of damage, possibly cheaper too.

A missile would again be for mainly ship to ship combat, could vary a lot more in size and power between smaller spacecraft battles to large ship battles and even planet destroyers.

These would generally be more sophisticated too. Rocket launchers are a type of readily carried firearm that designated soldiers will use in the combat zone. The rocket launcher is a shoulder-fired weapon, also known to be used as an anti-tank weapon. A rocket Pod consists of multiple rocket launchers that are designed to be used by aircrafts for airstrike assaults.

For large-scale attacks, rocket artillery was constructed. The artillery rocket itself does not have in-built guidance or target systems and is therefore not technically a missile.

Missiles are designed to carry explosives, with control and precision, to a designated target and at high speeds. Missiles are rocket-propelled weapons but because of their enhanced built-in technology, they are far more advanced than rockets for military uses. Missiles were developed and manufactured by the Germans in World War 2. They are controlled by wireless remote controls and are only used for military purposes, as opposed to rockets that are used for entertainment, space travel, military uses, and more.

The guided system in a missile is used to adjust and stabilize the flight path. An operator, or pilot, guides the missile to the intended target to ensure superior accuracy. The warhead part of the missile is the bomb. It can be explosive or toxic, either way, it is delivered by the missile to an exact target location for the explosion. The warhead can be detonated by several options, depending on how the missile was designed. From physical target detonation to remote detonation operated by a military service member, among other options that you can read more about here.

Missiles are designed to be powered by a type of engine, usually a rocket engine or in some cases, a jet engine. Target accuracy is critical to the missile doing what it was designed to do. The targeting system and the guidance system work together with radars and satellites, to determine the target and fly the missile truly to its mark.

Discussion in ' Trek Tech ' started by Albertese , Mar 28, Log in or Sign up. The Trek BBS. So what's the difference between "torpedo" and "missile"? It seems to me that in real life, a Missile is a self propelled weapon that is essentially a warhead attached to a rocket, while a torpedo is essentially a warhead attached to a propellor.

So why is a Photon torpedo a torpedo rather than a missile? Or am just splitting hairs here? Albertese , Mar 28, Joined: Mar 23, To me the difference between a Missile and Torp in the trekverse is a matter of size and useage. Torps are larger and more powerful. They are used as anti-ship weapons. Missiles would be smaller, more agile but less powerful weapons used against shuttles, runabouts and "fighters".

Indeed, the "micro-torps" seen on runabouts may better be termed missiles. I think the only times we have seen missiles mentioned are when the Ferengi prepared to launch at the Barzan wormhole, and on Voyager the Delta Flyer was equipped with "photonic missiles".

I never watched Voayger much so I could be wrong there. USS Avenger , Mar 28, A missile powered or unpowered is a weapon, it's something you aim at a target. A rocket is something that accelerates generally upwards very quickly by combusting it's own fuel. So, a rocket is a rocket whether guided or unguided , until you aim it at something, then it's a missile.

I have no idea if there is a reason for naming some Star Wars weapons torpedoes and others missiles. I do want to point out that while on present day Earth we use "torpedo" only for aquatic weapons, there is some logic to using the same term for weapons fired by ships that are part of the Imperial Navy.

BinaryWorrier That may be so but in the military context, when it comes to weapons, a rocket goes straight once fired. It is unguided, whereas missiles contain a targeting system to guide itself to an acquired target. That's mainly how the two, as weapons, are differentiated on Earth as far as I am aware. Hothie I wouldn't be surprised if it's just to sound cool tbh. Would love to hear what's the answer though, however lame it is. It seems you're missing how the projectiles do their damage.

Of the weapons you named, the torpedoes must strike the target to inflict damage. But the missiles can do damage with proximity bursts, like many of the air-to-air missiles employed by the American Air Force, which explode near a target, sending shrapnel to shred the flight surfaces, effectively downing the aircraft. Show 9 more comments.

Active Oldest Votes. Changing my comment to an answer as it pretty much answers the question. The definition of "torpedo" Looking up the definition of the word "torpedo" nets the following result: A cigar-shaped self-propelled underwater missile designed to be fired from a ship or submarine or dropped into the water from an aircraft and to explode on reaching a target In other words, a torpedo is nothing more than a missile that's designed to travel in water, rather than through the air.

But why do they call some space missiles torpedoes? I won't list all examples that's what the link is for , but some do stand out as commonly accepted space tropes: Space militaries almost always use naval ranks, as opposed to army ranks or the RAF system, and soldiers stationed in space are usually called "marines", e.

Starship Troopers did not call its soldiers marines though it could be argued that it established the archetype for later space marine forces. Even in real life, space explorers are called "astronauts" and "cosmonauts". Spacecraft even have "lifeboats"—generally called escape pods or something similar—despite the concept being largely impractical in case of realistic space travel. In space, hovering things have to move up and down slightly.

Note: this refers to making the scene believable for the viewer, rather than being physically sound It even makes more sense when you compare submarines not just boats to spaceships: Both move in three dimensional space. Prolonged exposure to space or water Visual displays of the outside environment are less than useless both space and the briny deep are inky black. The torpedo analogy works better as well. Conclusion Why are space missiles called torpedoes?

Because it's a common trope to use naval terms for space-travel, due to the similarities. So they are torpedoes. But why do they also call them missiles in Star Wars? Improve this answer. Flater Flater 8, 1 1 gold badge 28 28 silver badges 33 33 bronze badges.