To assess the boats, you need to check out the link. I wonder what the USN would have done with them if built. Three were proposed and the higher speed diesel boat might have been selected. The question is also what to do with a full cruiser battery on a sub? What would have been their WW2 role. Again, material for an alternate history story in Navweaps.com naval fiction forum.
To assess the boats, you need to check out the link. I wonder what the USN would have done with them if built. Three were proposed and the higher speed diesel boat might have been selected. The question is also what to do with a full cruiser battery on a sub? What would have been their WW2 role. Again, material for an alternate history story in Navweaps.com naval fiction forum.
I can see them in use during Doolittle's raid or something similar to it. Having a sub Shelling the home islands early war will cause IJN units to be pulled from the line to guard against. Which csn be useful. Not to mention the morale effects on the citizens...
Through more likrly they be used in the Spec Ops role with the added fun if heavy cruiser fire support...
In relation to discussions around the proposed usefulness or otherwise of big-gun submarines in specific niche roles I would query the apparent lack of interest in them (outside Japan) in WW2 given the removal of a lot of budget constraints etc.
Would this not suggest that their time had passed and any advantages were now seen to not be worth the disadvantages of the concept, even for niche roles.
In relation to discussions around the proposed usefulness or otherwise of big-gun submarines in specific niche roles I would query the apparent lack of interest in them (outside Japan) in WW2 given the removal of a lot of budget constraints etc.
Even the IJN wasn't interested in 'big gun' submarines, though it did have a thing for big aircraft-carrying submarines (which fits into Japanese operational thought about submarine flotillas needing both a command ship and an air recon capability). They then strayed off down the garden path onto using them for special missions, and even that was essentially an IJN-only requirement that isn't mirrored for other nations.
In relation to discussions around the proposed usefulness or otherwise of big-gun submarines in specific niche roles I would query the apparent lack of interest in them (outside Japan) in WW2 given the removal of a lot of budget constraints etc.
Even the IJN wasn't interested in 'big gun' submarines, though it did have a thing for big aircraft-carrying submarines (which fits into Japanese operational thought about submarine flotillas needing both a command ship and an air recon capability). They then strayed off down the garden path onto using them for special missions, and even that was essentially an IJN-only requirement that isn't mirrored for other nations.
Steam-powered submarines - the British Royal Navy tried that in WW1. The K-class submarines took too long to dive, suffered much from all the extra hatches that needed secure closing before the dive, had to raise steam after surfacing which also took time. Steam turbines in submarines weren't practical - not until the advent of nuclear power.
You have not referenced Friedman's book or the USN website referenced in above posts. I don't have it handy but, I remember that the one monster had five pressure hulls arranged three on top of the bottom two. Boilers were in the bottom two and could therefore isolate the heat produced and removed the problem the K class experienced in part, at least. I don't know the dive times but these are armored subs with up to full CA firepower. One had ten forward tubes and 4 aft tubes. The ultimate expression was a C&R proposal for 25 million dollar scout cruiser sub. They were to scout the Pacific and fight for information. The ultimate steam powered sub had deck and side armor, side protection system and armored conning tower and turrets. Please refer to the listed sources and then make your call.
A 25 million dollar submarine was moving into aircraft carrier and battleship money financially . Also, the r and d plus guaranteed delays, plus needing specialized construction and drydocks, perhaps dredging their home ports, maybe unable to use allies submarine bases,etc. You could buy about 300 carrier aircraft for that kind of dough.
IIRC one of the issues with the big submarines, (which got particularly bad with the I-400s of the IJN) was that it was quite possible if one were very careless to push the submarine under, (say during a crash-dive) to a point where your forward end could mange to exceed its crush depth before the aft end was fully submerged...
Now some interesting things here that have reminded me of a speculative piece of AH I'm working up notes for. Fascintating that multiple hulls was considered as early as indicated, (mind needs this to happen between 1917 and around 1920 with an aimed for date of around 1918-ish in a WWI got interupted by 'bigger' issues scenerio) as I needed that and since I also needed a pretty fuel efficient propulsion system I was looking at turbo-electric (http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-038.php) and/or diesel-electric (http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-077.php) propulsion. (Electrical drives are needed for a secondary reason and this is going to need to be a BIG submarine that goes on a very LONG patrol with minimum resupply but a large crew)
In essence I'm looking at taking some 'war-surplus' ocean and near-shore patrol submarine pressure hulls and connecting them together, (with typical German over-engineering where applicable) and wrapping them in a new hydro-hull. It doesn't really have to worry about enemy ASW as they don't really HAVE any or even the concept really but they DO have really effectvie air power but it is very LOW powered air power as it were so once submerged the sub can break contact if it can stay down and hidden long enough.
My main questions are could such a concept work in a general way given the post-war 'large/cruiser' submarine trend? Which propulsion system would work better and be more fuel efficent since I have only a limted amount of resupply I can manage? There's as I noted no effective enemy ASW but the entire reason for using a submarine is recon and sabatoge so it needs to carry a good sized crew of specialists and military but not so large as to be unwieldy as it will be working in conjunction with several other submarines. It likely won't carry torpedoes as there is no sea-borne traffic and the only anti-air threat it can carry is several very-rapid fire exploding shell guns so it depends a lot on stealth and the enemy's lack of understanding of submarine tacitcs and warfare.
Lastly if the mods want they can move this to AH/theoretical but I was wondering what folks would recommend and think of the concept?
That's a rather confusing piece there, perhaps bullet points would help. I really cannot see the logic working to be honest about it. Not from your description.
That's a rather confusing piece there, perhaps bullet points would help. I really cannot see the logic working to be honest about it. Not from your description.
That's a rather confusing piece there, perhaps bullet points would help. I really cannot see the logic working to be honest about it. Not from your description.
In essence I was wondering how plausible the mutli-pressure hull designs were considered?
Further if long range was needed what was at the time the best plausible powerplant or combination powerplant? I've seen refrence to both diesel electric and turbo-electric (steam) power plants but operationally I'd think the former would be better even if you were running say (deck-awash) semi-submerged most of the time.
The plan here has a 10-knot cruise range using diesel motors powering generators of around 16,000 miles.
I'd like to think the Snorkel might have become operational sooner with more incentive/effort but I'm not sure how well it would work with 1916-1918 technology?
None, I didn't know they existed prior to the early 40s actually Since most submarines I'd seen had a monohull design I was wondering when the idea came up, I mean it seems pretty straightforward but that's usually not so true as I could hope. I was wondering if the idea was considered at all earlier say during WWI.
Russian project of underwater cruiser - 1915-1916, 2800/? ton, lenght 113 m, beam 10.6 m, descending turret with two 120 mm gun, and one 75 mm AA gun, 14 533 mm torpedo tubes (for new Russian torpedoes), + mines, full speed - more 20 knots.
Also, projected other submarine, 1998/2725 ton, two 130 mm guns and one 77 mm AA gun (maybe, 75 or 76.2 mm gun), 14 533 mm torpedo tubes.
...
Projects of big submarines with steam turbines, 1917:
All three types - with two 102 mm and one 75 mm guns. Diceplacement - from 1975/3140 to 3000/4560 ton, lenght 109-120 m, full range from 2750 to 3780 miles, depth to 50 metres, full speed to 25 knots.
...
Project of engineer Zhuravlev, 1910-1911, huge underwater cruiser, in 4500/5435 ton. Lenght 128 m, beam 10.4 m, depth - standart 116 m, extreme 174 m. Weapons - five 120 mm guns in descending turrets, 1000 rounds, 30 450 mm torpedo tubes, 60 torpedoes, 120 mines. 153 crews. Armour - belt 51 mm, deck 37 mm, walls of descending deckhouse 102 mm, roof 51 mm. Speed 25/14 knots. Two variants of engines:
Type A, steam turbines, range - 15 500 miles with 11 knots or 730 miles with 25 knots, underwater range - 275 miles with 6 knots or 21 miles with 14 knots:
Type B, diesel, range - 18 500 miles with 11 knots or 2350 miles with 25 knots, underwater range - analogical of Type A, but, possible increase of batteries on 13%, to 310.75 miles with 6 knots or 23.73 miles with 14 knots:
...
Also, project of submarine with one 100 mm and one 75 mm guns, 100 mines, 1916
...
Also, two projects of submarines with guns, from XIX century:
- V. Bauer (German), 24-gun underwater corvette
- Apostolov, submarine with 15 "special constructions" guns
...
Also, unknown big submarine projects of 1916:
- Zhuravlev, 1900 ton
- Ruberovskiy, Strunnikov, 1980 ton
- Yankov, Terletskiy, Tokmakov, 1960 ton
- Tolmachev, 1960 ton
- "Noblessner", 1800 ton
...
Soviet underwater cruiser, 1921, 4570/6700(or 7300) ton, 10 torpedo tubes, five 130 mm and four 100 mm AA guns, 25/10 knots, full range 25000 miles with 8 knots:
Also, projected cruiser in 5750 ton.
I found this image in a spanish language collection fascicles what heve the follow title: "Historia de la Guerra Europea de 1914" from Vicente Blasco Ibañez. Edited by Editorial Prometeo, Spain, 1920. I have a few fascicles that I get in a street book seller in 1989. No more information about this big gun imperial russian navy never built submarine.
Also, two projects of submarines with guns, from XIX century:
- V. Bauer (German), 24-gun underwater corvette
- Apostolov, submarine with 15 "special constructions" guns
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
