Did ships losing their bows in wartime show that the torpedo-ram concept was sound?
Short answerNo; the type depended on an exceptionally narrow technological moment that quick-firing guns closed before it became reliably useful.
NotesThe torpedo ram depended on machinery compact enough to drive a small hull at roughly 18 to 20 knots, giving it a speed advantage over its intended opponent. Torpedoes needed enough range to avoid an actual collision, while hostile guns had to fire slowly and inaccurately enough for the attacker to survive its approach. One view places this combination within a two- or three-year interval that had closed by the time the ships entered service. Clarke questions whether the concept was ever practical because a defender could buy and fit quick-firing guns faster than an attacker could construct a new torpedo ram. Both positions therefore recognize how quickly inexpensive defensive changes could invalidate the ship. Survival after losing a bow in a later war does not resolve those earlier problems of speed, range, and gunfire.