A better and deadlier German navy?

TDM

Kicked
BlackDragon98 said:
Basic, making a few hydrofoil S-boats and use them in missions where there are a lot of enemy naval mines.
Click to expand...

Problem is if that list is accurate they have some operational disadvantages as well as the mine advantage. They can lay mines quite well (although they be rather noticeable or slow while doing so), but they're not going to make good torpedo boats.

Leaving aside the general issue of making a few unusual and resource intensive X in case specific instance Xn occurs is kind of an ongoing issue within a resource strapped German military production.

or put it this way if I can have 25 more E-boats that can be effective in a wider range of situations and I already have the production line and support in place, vs 10 Hydrofoils that specialise but excel in a much narrower range of situations, and I'll have to set up new production infrastructure to get them I'll take the e-boats
 
Last edited:

ArtosStark

NoMommsen said:
Well, sry but ... have to somewhat answer back :
In 1915 a first version of something already able to be called a hydrofoil was tested by the k.u.k navy.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t suggesting Bell and Baldwin’s work was the first. It wasn’t even the first of theirs. And they got their idea from seeing a report of work done in Italy. Just using it as an example that viable hydrofoil craft were around at the time.

As to the rest of it, others have made my argument for me. Yes they could be used. But I doubt they will be cost effective.
 

TDM

Kicked
NoMommsen said:
May I ask where do you have your 'cost-comparision' from making a Hydrofoil 2,3 timer more costly than an E-Boat class S-100 ?
Click to expand...
It was just to make the metaphorical point.

But the reality is the S100 is an already mature technology and already in an established, mature production infrastructure. (it's a fast militarised boat). Hydrofoils are not only a newer tech with all the attendant costs for development and testing and getting it right that means, but as per the list even when working it's a resource intensive one (breaks/damages easily), and you're also going to have to create a production infrastructure for it as well if your going to roll it out

On top of that unless you are going to completely remove S100's in favour of hydrofoils you going to be running two productising lines, two repair facilities* two sets of spare parts* two sets of training (both to operate and build/repair), etc etc because you're still going to making and operating S100's. i.e. it's the opposite of KISS

Honestly once you factor all that in 2.5:1 is probably being generous to the hydrofoil.

But like I said if it gives you something that you can't get any other way and you really need that, then cool it's worth the cost. But that's also what I said you have to put that extra cost into the cost/benefit equation.



*don't get me wrong there will be some crossover obviously, but it's were there isn't that's important, especially if it's those different bits that are going to be the trouble. I.e. of you planes keep needing replacements because they are easily damaged you better have you replacement hydrofoil planes system up and running as well as the trained people available who can fit and test them.
 
Last edited:

Garrison

Donor
TDM said:
It was just to make the metaphorical point.

But the reality is the S100 is an already mature technology and already in an established production infrastructure. (it's a fast militarised boat). Hydrofoils are not only a newer tech with all the attendant cost for development and testing and getting it right that means, but as per the list even when working it's a resource intensive one (breaks/damages easily), and you're also going to have to create a production infrastructure for it as well if your going to roll it out

On top of that unless you are going to completely remove S100's in favour of hydrofoils you going to be running two productising lines, two repair facilities two sets of spare parts two sets of training (both to operate and build/repair), etc etc because you're still going to making and operating S100's. i.e. it's the opposite of KISS

Honestly once you factor all that in 2.5:1 is probably being generous to the hydrofoil.

But like I said if it gives you something that you can't get any other way and you really need that, then cool it's worth the cost. But that's also what I said you have to put that extra cost into the cost/benefit equation.
Click to expand...
Honestly hydrofoils sound exactly the sort of thing the likes of Speer would latch onto in 1943-44. A splashy 'wonder weapon' that will look good in the news reels while actually delivering few practical benefit and probably taking far longer to get into production than was promised to Hitler.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top