Alternate German submarine developments.

Hi folks, let's take a look at some far fetched ideas and concepts for alternatives to OTL German submarine developments, with a focus on things outside the box.

Everything should be up for discussion, and some things should end up moved into their own threads, so that posts about specific ideas will not get lost in one giant thread will a dozen different ideas and concepts going on all at once.

We know that the Germans will be developing standard commerce raiding combat submarines and doctrine for the next war, and while that portion should be discussed here as well, let's look mainly at what differences could be made. Some things I would like to throw out there would be:

1) The Germans (NOT just the Nazi Germans), should be looking at getting around any and all ToV restrictions on their military, right off the bat. Not able to openly ignore such restrictions, they should be finding ways to get around them much more than in OTL. As pertains to submarine developments, this needs to take in German designers working in foreign lands. What lands might be open to German submarine designers after WWI, and before WWII? Obviously there will be some in Europe (Holland, for instance), but what about further abroad? Might the USA be willing to do some co-development of submarines with German companies? How about the Russian/Soviets? After the end of the Anglo-Japanese alliance, will Japan be interested in working on submarines, in concert with German companies? What other countries would/might be possible? Italy has her own submarine program, so under the right conditions, might they too climb aboard? What about Turkey, Spain, Argentina?

2) The Germans should be looking at lessons learned from WWI, and both the distant blockade, and trade submarines to partially counter such, should be on the minds of German planners, and while merchant submarines will never come close to being able to feed the German people in any meaningful way, they can feed German industry some of the most difficult to obtain rare materials. Thinking outside the box, and looking to develop viable submarine merchant shipping, I would think that the only obvious options where submarines would offer anything like an advantage over the far cheaper surface merchantmen, would be trans-polar shipping. Without Nuclear Power, is it even remotely possible to construct a submarine vessel that could transit the north polar cap submerged? Obviously not anything we saw developed in OTL, but something else? The OTL I-400 class submarines were an interesting idea, and solve the range problem very nicely, however, they don't include the submerged duration within their design to make such a voyage all the way under the polar ice cap, IIUC. The only thing that a submarine of the times could have as an option that might suffice, would have to be a propulsion method that would function without surfacing for prolonged times. The two most likely prospects for this that I can think of off the top of my head, would be the Walter submarines, or a submarine with enough battery capacity to power their engines for the entire time, and with a safety margin built in to avoid tragedy as part of such a requirement, this would have to be a very large capacity indeed. This idea obviously needs it's own thread, as it is going to be focused on non-combat, trans-polar, submerged commerce, and the needs and justifications for such as well as the engineering challenges that will have to be overcome. And of course, being me, I have to wonder just what technologies, ostensibly
under development for this goal, might just find themselves useful in a non-peaceful context.

3) Let's also look at the weapons historically used, both by and against, the submarines of the times, and see if we cannot come up with some interesting possibilities of our own. There will likely need to be some separation here as well, as discussions about SW/USW/ASW in the open oceans of the world will have little in common with midget submarines attempting to infiltrate a harbor/naval base.

4) Let's look, too, at ATL equipment and technologies that never were, and see what all folks can come up with.
 
Regarding submarine development, in the real life the Dutch and Finn's worked with the German's to develop the next generation pre-WWII submarines. From Wikipedia, "The Vetehinen-class submarine was a Finnish 500 tonne submarine class of three vessels that was designed and built in the 1920s and early 1930s. The Vetehinen class served in the Finnish Navy during World War II. The class was designed by Dutch dummy company Ingenieurskantoor voor Scheepsbouw den Haag (I.v.S) (set up by Germany after World War I in order to maintain and develop German submarine know-how and to circumvent the limitations set by the Treaty of Versailles) and built by the Finnish Crichton-Vulcan shipyard in Turku. The class was based on the German World War I Type UB III and Type UC III submarines and served as prototype for Type VII submarines."
 
Regarding submarine development, in the real life the Dutch and Finn's worked with the German's to develop the next generation pre-WWII submarines. From Wikipedia, "The Vetehinen-class submarine was a Finnish 500 tonne submarine class of three vessels that was designed and built in the 1920s and early 1930s. The Vetehinen class served in the Finnish Navy during World War II. The class was designed by Dutch dummy company Ingenieurskantoor voor Scheepsbouw den Haag (I.v.S) (set up by Germany after World War I in order to maintain and develop German submarine know-how and to circumvent the limitations set by the Treaty of Versailles) and built by the Finnish Crichton-Vulcan shipyard in Turku. The class was based on the German World War I Type UB III and Type UC III submarines and served as prototype for Type VII submarines."
Excellent! Thanks for the speed reply, and the use of links to articles! I'll be going over them this evening.:)
 
Regarding submarine development, in the real life the Dutch and Finn's worked with the German's to develop the next generation pre-WWII submarines. From Wikipedia, "The Vetehinen-class submarine was a Finnish 500 tonne submarine class of three vessels that was designed and built in the 1920s and early 1930s. The Vetehinen class served in the Finnish Navy during World War II. The class was designed by Dutch dummy company Ingenieurskantoor voor Scheepsbouw den Haag (I.v.S) (set up by Germany after World War I in order to maintain and develop German submarine know-how and to circumvent the limitations set by the Treaty of Versailles) and built by the Finnish Crichton-Vulcan shipyard in Turku. The class was based on the German World War I Type UB III and Type UC III submarines and served as prototype for Type VII submarines."

Remember also the Vesikko, or CV 707. It was more advanced than the Vetehinens, designed to be of an almost fully welded construction, and became the prototype for the OTL Type II.

It is all the more interesting because it still exists as a museum vessel. Take a virtual tour (with some period film clips) here.
 
One approach which could be taken as well would be not to develop any submarines at all, perhaps with some Type II style coastal subs, perhaps from foreign design, notwithstanding. Submarines failed during WW I and arguably were important in bringing US to the war. Submarines can have strategic effect only in a long war while Germany cannot hope to win a long war.

Submarines, at least long range ones, can't have any useful role in conquest of France. Submarines, perhaps with some exception to minor number of small submarines, are not useful against Soviet Union.

Use the high quality manufacturing and personnel to land and air forces instead.

As for foreign co-operation, Germany designed subs for Spain, Turkey and Soviet Union in addition to Finland.
 
One approach which could be taken as well would be not to develop any submarines at all, perhaps with some Type II style coastal subs, perhaps from foreign design, notwithstanding. Submarines failed during WW I and arguably were important in bringing US to the war. Submarines can have strategic effect only in a long war while Germany cannot hope to win a long war.

Submarines, at least long range ones, can't have any useful role in conquest of France. Submarines, perhaps with some exception to minor number of small submarines, are not useful against Soviet Union.

Use the high quality manufacturing and personnel to land and air forces instead.

As for foreign co-operation, Germany designed subs for Spain, Turkey and Soviet Union in addition to Finland.
Submarines though, are not limited to USW in the open ocean, and really only that option should risk dragging the USA into a new war with any certainty, but given FDR, no USW is no guarantee that the USA is going to be staying out of any new war anyway, so not building submarines at all doesn't seem all that an appealing of an option. Long range commercial submarines, however, might just be able to ensure Germany gets the rare materials it needs for it's war effort. Food takes to much space, and the needs would far outstrip any merchant sub fleet's shipping capacity.

I know I said "all options" in the OP, but perhaps that needs amended to "all options that bring us to interesting new designs of submarines, related tactics, technologies, doctrines, and ideas" instead?
 
Last edited:
I know I said "all options" in the OP, but perhaps that needs amended to "all options that bring us to interesting new designs of submarines, related tactics, technologies, doctrines, and ideas" instead?

Sure, that would be derailing the thread!

For submarines themselves I would guess that from historical types Type IX rather than Type VII should be focused upon. Their longer range makes it necessary for RN to escort convoys and hunt submarines basically everywhere in the Atlantic, even in the Indian Ocean if supply is arranged. A Type IX or some kind of equivalent could be redeveloped to merchant submarine as well, I'd guess.

Also, naval special forces capable of operating from submarines could be developed with fairly small cost. The British empire had vulnerable spots and harbors all around the world.

As for weapons, I wonder if smaller torpedoes could be used against single ships encountered early in the war? USN Mark 37 of the Cold War era was roughly half sized compared to long torpedo. Basically a torpedo with similar warhead, same machinery but less fuel? Additionally, could a heavier deck gun, perhaps around 5" be fit on Type IX for more efficiency in surface fights?
 

trajen777

Banned
I think the greatest needs would be broken down into three important groups
a. Detection of potential targets across the ocean distances
b. Make an underwater sub
c. Stealth (U480) & Speed
d. Firepower
e. Production -- (structure the modular sub build)



1. Detection of enemy units -- ie sonobuoy, drone (perhaps short flight rocket with camera etc), German underwater sonar
2. Air Defense - Wasserfall
3. Sub to Ship guided weapon,
4. Anti sonar coating U480 : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-480
The U-boat was laid down in the Deutsche Werke in Kiel as yard number 311 on 8 August 1942, launched on 14 August 1943 and commissioned on 6 October 1943 under Oberleutnant zur See Hans-Joachim Förster. U-480 carried out three war patrols, all under Förster's command. Because of its coating, the boat was sent to the heavily defended English Channel. The Alberich worked; U-480 was never detected by sonar.
5. Streamlining - Like electroboat (for faster underwater speeds)
6. Battery increases in boat -- longer duration under water
7. Dutch Snorkel
8. Japanese Long lance Torp
9. German zig zag Torp
 
One of the actually missed opportunities were the Walter submarines, proposed in 1934, got shown to Donitz in 1937 a d prototype construction started in 1939, done in 1940.....
Start it in 1934, set the record in 1935. Put it in production.
Its not going to be entirely safe and submarines Will be lost, but not as many as the enemy killed. And it Can Hunt down anything and be used tactically in surface actions as unseen motortorpedoboats.
The British would learn of their existence though - through Otto Gruber in IvS.
 
Remember also the Vesikko, or CV 707. It was more advanced than the Vetehinens, designed to be of an almost fully welded construction, and became the prototype for the OTL Type II.

It is all the more interesting because it still exists as a museum vessel. Take a virtual tour (with some period film clips) here.
Nice! Thanks for the link.
 
I think the greatest needs would be broken down into three important groups
a. Detection of potential targets across the ocean distances
b. Make an underwater sub
c. Stealth (U480) & Speed
d. Firepower
e. Production -- (structure the modular sub build)



1. Detection of enemy units -- ie sonobuoy, drone (perhaps short flight rocket with camera etc), German underwater sonar
2. Air Defense - Wasserfall
3. Sub to Ship guided weapon,
4. Anti sonar coating U480 : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-480
The U-boat was laid down in the Deutsche Werke in Kiel as yard number 311 on 8 August 1942, launched on 14 August 1943 and commissioned on 6 October 1943 under Oberleutnant zur See Hans-Joachim Förster. U-480 carried out three war patrols, all under Förster's command. Because of its coating, the boat was sent to the heavily defended English Channel. The Alberich worked; U-480 was never detected by sonar.
5. Streamlining - Like electroboat (for faster underwater speeds)
6. Battery increases in boat -- longer duration under water
7. Dutch Snorkel
8. Japanese Long lance Torp
9. German zig zag Torp
I totally loved the link for U-480, great info, and many thanks.
 

Kaze

Banned
How about this idea:

a. Submarine Aircraft Carrier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400-class_submarine

b. Submarine Missile platform.
There was a rejected plan to have a V-1 or V-2 inside a pod on the deck of the submarine (or towed). The submarine would reach para-scope depth, an electronic circuit was pressed. The rocket would launch towards the target location - the USA.
There were several flaws with the plan. Firstly, the tow cable broke and the electronic circuit failed. Secondly, the pod increased drag and sonar profile of the submarine.
 
How about this idea:

a. Submarine Aircraft Carrier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400-class_submarine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400-class_submarine

It's hard to see use for this. Early during the war I could see perhaps long range flying boats which would fly from an AMC or supply ship to reconnoitre targets for submarines. But airplanes? Hard to see any use.

b. Submarine Missile platform.
There was a rejected plan to have a V-1 or V-2 inside a pod on the deck of the submarine (or towed). The submarine would reach para-scope depth, an electronic circuit was pressed. The rocket would launch towards the target location - the USA.
There were several flaws with the plan. Firstly, the tow cable broke and the electronic circuit failed. Secondly, the pod increased drag and sonar profile of the submarine.

I think biological weapons with spraying would be the only effective warhead with WW2 tech on V-1 and that would result in massive Allied response.
 
The Walter system was interesting but dangerous, I honestly can't see this system being used in wartime.
I would turn it around and say it couldnt be used in peace time. In war time it safer you from the enemy in Exchange for an accident risk. Its a good deal.
Despite its dangers it was used in torpedoes. Some blame the kursk submarine accident on this. Still quite a few decades of use untill then.
 
my view they never made evolutionary changes, for instance the U-480 already highlighted ... one u-boat. there were numerous changes that could have been made prior to Elektroboot design, stronger electric motors, more batteries, etc.

more Type II and later Type XXIII smaller u-boats and designed to be transported easily overland, develop the tracked mini-submarine that could also have been transported overland then "launched itself" (Seeteufel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeteufel)

(imagine the smaller u-boats with coating from U-480 coupled with their already reduced profile?)
 
Hi folks, let's take a look at some far fetched ideas and concepts for alternatives to OTL German submarine developments, with a focus on things outside the box.

How far outside the box. Some of the suggestions, I've read so far are clearly pre-transistor and high pressure metallurgy and would be "questionable" with 1930s tech.

Everything should be up for discussion, and some things should end up moved into their own threads, so that posts about specific ideas will not get lost in one giant thread will a dozen different ideas and concepts going on all at once.

Suggestion of an example?

We know that the Germans will be developing standard commerce raiding combat submarines and doctrine for the next war, and while that portion should be discussed here as well, let's look mainly at what differences could be made. Some things I would like to throw out there would be:

Germans adopted guerre de course as modified for submarine warfare. In some respects, WW II is actually a regression as the Germans and the Wallies forgot what WW I taught them about the nature of convoy warfare.

1) The Germans (NOT just the Nazi Germans), should be looking at getting around any and all ToV restrictions on their military, right off the bat. Not able to openly ignore such restrictions, they should be finding ways to get around them much more than in OTL. As pertains to submarine developments, this needs to take in German designers working in foreign lands. What lands might be open to German submarine designers after WWI, and before WWII? Obviously there will be some in Europe (Holland, for instance), but what about further abroad? Might the USA be willing to do some co-development of submarines with German companies? How about the Russian/Soviets? After the end of the Anglo-Japanese alliance, will Japan be interested in working on submarines, in concert with German companies? What other countries would/might be possible? Italy has her own submarine program, so under the right conditions, might they too climb aboard? What about Turkey, Spain, Argentina?

In order:

Turkey, yes.
Spain before Franco, no.
Argentina, why?
Holland, yes until 1935, after no.
Russia, yes.
Japan, not before the WNT and London Naval Conference and after then only maybe. Their attitude was that the Germans were not very good at naval warfare.
USA would be interested in diesels, DC motor drives and GsG, but would Germany be interested in US tech (TDC and diving controls)? What do the Americans offer that the Germans do not already have?
Italy actually has some decent tech (torpedoes are very good) but the Germans think about them the way the Japanese think about the Germans.

2) The Germans should be looking at lessons learned from WWI, and both the distant blockade, and trade submarines to partially counter such, should be on the minds of German planners, and while merchant submarines will never come close to being able to feed the German people in any meaningful way, they can feed German industry some of the most difficult to obtain rare materials. Thinking outside the box, and looking to develop viable submarine merchant shipping, I would think that the only obvious options where submarines would offer anything like an advantage over the far cheaper surface merchantmen, would be trans-polar shipping. Without Nuclear Power, is it even remotely possible to construct a submarine vessel that could transit the north polar cap submerged? Obviously not anything we saw developed in OTL, but something else? The OTL I-400 class submarines were an interesting idea, and solve the range problem very nicely, however, they don't include the submerged duration within their design to make such a voyage all the way under the polar ice cap, IIUC. The only thing that a submarine of the times could have as an option that might suffice, would have to be a propulsion method that would function without surfacing for prolonged times. The two most likely prospects for this that I can think of off the top of my head, would be the Walter submarines, or a submarine with enough battery capacity to power their engines for the entire time, and with a safety margin built in to avoid tragedy as part of such a requirement, this would have to be a very large capacity indeed. This idea obviously needs it's own thread, as it is going to be focused on non-combat, trans-polar, submerged commerce, and the needs and justifications for such as well as the engineering challenges that will have to be overcome. And of course, being me, I have to wonder just what technologies, ostensibly
under development for this goal, might just find themselves useful in a non-peaceful context.

In order:

a. Freighter submarines, no. This was German attempted in WW I and it did not work. Further, the USN researched this issue as a logistics solution to d/e submarines on station both before and after WW II and their conclusion was that the volume carried was not worth the build cost or vulnerability to enemy ASW means. This especially includes operations expected against the Russians in arctic waters.
b. Operating under the ice cap. Again USN experience in combat and in peacetime suggests that operating near the ice pack fringe and along the famed NW passage is possible, but crossing the north pole is out of the question unless an AIP sub can operate for at least 3 weeks at creep speed. THAT has only recently come within our technological reach.
c. Walther submarines, based on German, Russian, British and American experience; are a pure pipe dream of some proponents, who might be unaware of the extensive historically known efforts of these nations to develop and proof the power-plants. The only reasonable expectation as a result of their combined experience; is an inevitable mechanical failure in the piping, followed by fires, explosions, crew poisoning and the loss of boat. There is no battery system or electric drive that allows for 3 weeks creep speed aside from fuel cells and that is a modern option (post 1990s) still not fully proofed or man-rated as safe.

3) Let's also look at the weapons historically used, both by and against, the submarines of the times, and see if we cannot come up with some interesting possibilities of our own. There will likely need to be some separation here as well, as discussions about SW/USW/ASW in the open oceans of the world will have little in common with midget submarines attempting to infiltrate a harbor/naval base.

With the technical know how within German reach:

a. the magnetic, acoustic and pressure wake mine.
b. the magnetic and acoustic torpedo
c. the deck gun.

I have not dealt with noisemakers (soda bubble cans are easily possible) and sonar defenses (rubber tiling [post WW II] and bubble makers, developed during WW II) as this may not occur to the Germans until they actually encounter active pinger sonars. For them that would be S gear which they develop after 1935 and GsG which comes around 1938.

4) Let's look, too, at ATL equipment and technologies that never were, and see what all folks can come up with.

The possibilities are these.

a. Messenger buoys.
b. Infrared TBS phones.
c. Wakehomers.
d. Fuel transfer at sea. (US: not German method which was dangerous and left the U-boat as a sitting duck.)
e. For the Germans and well within their ability, surface and search radars for subs that are as good as US and UK gear.
f. A breakdown helicopter, not the kite gyro-copter they developed.

One of the actually missed opportunities were the Walter submarines, proposed in 1934, got shown to Donitz in 1937 a d prototype construction started in 1939, done in 1940.....

See above. Walther promised but never could deliver a combat boat.

Start it in 1934, set the record in 1935. Put it in production.

The gasketing to make it work still does not exist.

Its not going to be entirely safe and submarines Will be lost, but not as many as the enemy killed. And it Can Hunt down anything and be used tactically in surface actions as unseen motortorpedoboats.

Same again.

The British would learn of their existence though - through Otto Gruber in IvS.

FIDO.

I totally loved the link for U-480, great info, and many thanks.

Agreed.

How about this idea:

a. Submarine Aircraft Carrier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400-class_submarine

No. The Japanese tried it and look where it failed them.

b. Submarine Missile platform.

The Germans launched a rocket from a submerged tube and it allegedly was possible. BUT, here is the problem; it was a hot launch. Every missile firing sub that is submerged, that is worth a flip, uses a cold launch pop up ejection system with an independent gas generator to throw the missile clear of its tube for safety reasons. Some nations use the rocket motor ignition to generate the gases to pop the missile up out of its tube (Russians), but this has not been a very good idea for obvious (K19) reasons.

There was a rejected plan to have a V-1 or V-2 inside a pod on the deck of the submarine (or towed). The submarine would reach para-scope depth, an electronic circuit was pressed. The rocket would launch towards the target location - the USA.

Tipover. And see above.

There were several flaws with the plan. Firstly, the tow cable broke and the electronic circuit failed. Secondly, the pod increased drag and sonar profile of the submarine.

And the rocket was guaranteed to explode on launch. Salt water and a V weapon do not like each other.

Also adopting the Dutch Snorkel much earlier...

This is quite problematic based on Dutch, German and British experience. The Germans have this persistent problem (the British do, too) with valve seating of main induction to overcome. With the snort it becomes worse. It actually bedevils everyone who attempts the snort clear into 1950. (GUPPY).
 
Top