Alternate German submarine developments.


During WWI Germany drew up a design for a heavily-armed sub: U-151. It was to be armored and carry four single 5.9-inch guns plus two single 88mm cannons. I presume the plan was to use these guns on merchantmen. None were even laid down...

project for Type XI linked above had two twin 5" guns, thought the projected top speed of 23 kts and long range more interesting though ...
 
If you want to do any of this, the first thing you have to do is shoot Dönitz. He was sufficiently technophobic as to oppose important changes on a timely basis, let alone something like the Type XXI..
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
During WWI Germany drew up a design for a heavily-armed sub: U-151. It was to be armored and carry four single 5.9-inch guns plus two single 88mm cannons. I presume the plan was to use these guns on merchantmen. None were even laid down...

IIRC the idea behind the cruiser-submarine concept was not that they needed the big guns to sink merchantmen but to sink escorts. Escorts were usually not very heavily armed with guns as their main enemy was operating beneath the waves so depth-charges were more useful. The cruiser-submarine would sink those escorts which would force the enemy to use bigger and more heavily armed ships as escorts. Which would in turn weaken the main battle fleet.
 
IIRC the idea behind the cruiser-submarine concept was not that they needed the big guns to sink merchantmen but to sink escorts. Escorts were usually not very heavily armed with guns as their main enemy was operating beneath the waves so depth-charges were more useful. The cruiser-submarine would sink those escorts which would force the enemy to use bigger and more heavily armed ships as escorts. Which would in turn weaken the main battle fleet.
Huh. I don't think I've ever seen that argument before. Thx.

Can I suggest one of the very early things to do is to expand steel production/steel industry, so limits on U-boat construction aren't hit as early, or boats built at the expense of something else really useful? (IDK how much expansion, if any, was possible...)
What lands might be open to German submarine designers after WWI, and before WWII? ... What about Turkey, Spain, Argentina?
I'd rule out the U.S., Japan, & Italy (tho the Italians could afford the help). Turkey, maybe. Spain IMO is borderline; she's never built anything so sophisticated, & is likely to be pretty broke thanks to CW. Argentina IMO is still too backward; building corvettes, yes, & maybe even DDs, but not subs, not yet.
develop viable submarine merchant shipping
They'd be too small until the advent of nuclear power. Even the I-400s couldn't carry enough freight to be practical: bear in mind, a pretty small freighter carried about 2000 tons dwt, which is, what, double the displacement of I-400? For practical transatlantic or transpacific, you want upwards of 5000 tons dwt.
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.
Fuel cells were possible (they'd been conceived about 100yr before), but building them & getting them to deliver enough juice long enough isn't a trivial project. To do it, of course, you first need to throw Dönitz under a bus. (The same one you throw MacArthur under? Two for one special, today only.:openedeyewink:)

This tech has implications beyond subs: seafloor habitats, for a start, & spacecraft...

For fighting boats, more battery capacity, more motor hp, & better hull streamlining would all be really good ideas. If the Germans just examined the airflow (hydrodynamic) characteristics of Zeppelins, they could've had boats that were much faster for the same hp as an OTL Type VII or Type IX.:eek: That is bad news for Allied corvettes.:eek:
Let's also look at the weapons
I'm a particular fan of the pattern-running fish the Germans developed.

I also wonder if somebody couldn't have thought of *CAPTOR sooner, maybe even with a variety of *Skvall.:eek::cool::cool:

For ASW, an ATW that could throw a DC would have been a great idea, except for one thing: would it risk sinking the ship firing it?:eek: (When you run over the "explosion zone", do you get a "mining" effect?) Or could the charges be thrown in pairs, on both bows, rather than dead ahead?

Dipping sonar would be good, too. (Conceived at the end of WW1, never developed beyond crude hydrophone.)

I wonder if there was a prospect for using new materials to reduce the magnetic or sonar signature: plastics in the hull skins? Or cermets?

And given the prevalence of Allied maritime patrol aircraft, what about a sub-launched *HARM?:eek:
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.
Agreed. However, that sacrifices numbers, & again, Dönitz has to catch a bus.:openedeyewink:
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?
A shorter-range torpedo means you have to get closer before you shoot, which isn't always possible. The larger-caliber deck gun requires quite strong deck mountings, & more space to work it properly. Not to mention a sub being really vulnerable to counterbattery::eek: a single hit puncturing the pressure hull, & she's junk.

Now, if you want to increase firepower, adding a second 88mm...or even go up to a pair of 100mm/50cal...:cool: And you detail them only for engaging solo merchants or polishing off cripples.

I like the idea of an anti-escort torpedo, a short-ranged homer. I also like the idea of sub-launched rockets for anti-escort work: something like 15cm Nebelwerfer in WT cannisters on deck, fired from depths around 10-15m (periscope depth?).

Giving U-boats *Naxos from the outset would be good.

Not requiring them to send weather & position & ammo expenditure & toilet paper consumption reports on a regular basis would be a really, really good idea. (And, again, Dönitz & a bus.:openedeyewink: I feel like I've walked into a Monty Python routine.;))

Any a/c or helo aboard, IMO, is a complete waste of effort. They take too damn long to unstow, assemble, disassemble, & stow; it can't be done submerged, putting the boat at tremendous risk while it's being done; & the benefit is marginal.
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.
I see two options: deck cannisters (already mentioned) or a calcium permangenate "booster" (which wouldn't be a bad thing for deck-launched rockets, either).
Short flight rocket? Telemetry and launch problems.
Not seeing issues of telemetry with *Unternebelwerfer. Launch was tested OTL, & (AFAIK) worked without undue difficulty. (I see nothing here indicating it's impossible.)
solid fuel candle as big as a V-2
So far, nobody's suggested that; I'm certainly not: I'm thinking, adapt existing arty rockets.

And range needn't be an issue, if it's used solely against escorts that are closing fast...

Without nukes or sophisticated fuel cells, you can forget polar transits. Besides, there's nothing there worth shooting at.:rolleyes: You want to be off Halifax for days, & you want to transit the Atlantic in much less time without getting killed: turnaround time is key. So you want faster, not more sub-Polar capability. Faster dived, for the times you have to be, shortens transit time.

If we've got a clean sheet of paper (more/less)? *Type IX (longer) with more torpedo tubes (6-8 forward, 4 aft), more fish carried (30? More?), more streamlining & battery (for better dived speed & endurance), fiberglass conn skin, bow & stern sonar arrays, RWR (*Metox +P) on a retractable mast, 10x32cm deck rockets (WT tubes fold down into deck, for streamlining), 6x32cm *Unterflakrakete (*Sub-HARM) in compartment aft conning tower, retractable radar mast, more horsepower from her diesels (5000-6000?)
 
A shorter-range torpedo means you have to get closer before you shoot, which isn't always possible.

A lot of kills were deck-gun armed single traveling ships, ie. too risky to engage on surface but had no ASW capability. In fact, what was the average firing range for torpedoes anyway? Using even just some torpedo space for half-sized "merchant kill" torpedos would enhance storage drastically.
 
A lot of kills were deck-gun armed single traveling ships, ie. too risky to engage on surface but had no ASW capability. In fact, what was the average firing range for torpedoes anyway? Using even just some torpedo space for half-sized "merchant kill" torpedos would enhance storage drastically.

Depends on the model torpedo and the relative speeds of the target and the sub, but the real determinants are the torpedo nose wander anticipated over the run to target and the final angle solution translated into the lead or lag pursuit as determined by the target's and sub's predicted intended motion. That angle solution could be larger the longer the run to target duration and this size of angle determined how "close" a torpedo launch in salvo (US practice was usually 3 fish) had to be from the sub to the target. Assuming a lead pursuit and a torpedo speed between 40 and 50 knots, an average freighter speed of 9 knots and a sub's surface launch speed of about the same and angle solutions on the curve NTE > 60 degrees, about 1500 to 2500 yards average with outside shots of 6000 yards and minimums NLT than 600-800 yards for safe enabling for most torpedoes used by most navies.

The funny thing is, that unless there is an ability to correct the point of the weapon (guide it) at the predicted intercept of the target, there is no practical need to create a weapon whose run time exceeds the parameters of an angle solution. So; the Japanese went ahead and did that anyway with weapons that could run for more than 2000 seconds. American torpedoes could run on average from 300 to 500 seconds depending on type and speed setting. Japanese Type 95 torpedoes in extreme cases were 40,000 meter runs (effective in massed fleet salvo at about 20,000 meters) while the Type 95s were 12,000 meter runners with about the same effective individual target engagement envelop as a Mark 14, if it worked when employed (about 1000 to 4000 meters).

Too much torpedo is a huge conservation of force sin. The Japanese could have built a smaller shorter run time fish and still done as much damage as they RTL did. Some overcompensation to address naval artillery issues? Don't know. As a practical matter, it turns out that most massed fleet surface engagements when it came down to the torpedo were roughly 6000 meters of separation night ambushes or less distance, anyway. The Mark 15 was perfectly capable, when it worked, of tearing a Japanese cruiser apart at those ranges. There were a few occasions where the Japanese admiral "drew first" (Shunji Isaki) and an American admiral (Walden Ainsworth) serenely sailed into that massed fleet salvo of Type 93s and turned 3 brand new cruisers into dockyard repair cases, but even at Kolombangara (where this debacle happened), the American destroyers got their own torpedo shots in and sent Admiral Isaki and the Jintsu to the bottom.
 
The funny thing is, that unless there is an ability to correct the point of the weapon (guide it) at the predicted intercept of the target, there is no practical need to create a weapon whose run time exceeds the parameters of an angle solution.
I have a suspicion IJN & USN designs were both governed by doctrine.

The long range only makes sense if one of several conditions are met: you're firing a lot of torpedoes at a target, or the target is insanely large, or the target is heavily defended. Does that sound like a fleet engagement against a task force to you? "Browning" shots into a task force are likely to hit something. They're also likely to force the enemy to maneuver to avoid, which may bring him into the path of another fish, or cause collisions. They enable firing from a range ASW escort is unlikely to detect the firing boat(s), or less likely, & less likely to be able to track, attack, & sink them.

Against merchantmen, or even convoys, profligate expenditure like that is absurd.
 
I have a suspicion IJN & USN designs were both governed by doctrine.

The long range only makes sense if one of several conditions are met: you're firing a lot of torpedoes at a target, or the target is insanely large, or the target is heavily defended. Does that sound like a fleet engagement against a task force to you? "Browning" shots into a task force are likely to hit something. They're also likely to force the enemy to maneuver to avoid, which may bring him into the path of another fish, or cause collisions. They enable firing from a range ASW escort is unlikely to detect the firing boat(s), or less likely, & less likely to be able to track, attack, & sink them.

Against merchantmen, or even convoys, profligate expenditure like that is absurd.

The Japanese theory and it would work in daylight in open ocean under ideal conditions, but it turns out that Mister Dauntless Dive Bomber makes that a bit of suicide against an American fleet, so ye-olde-night-surface-action tends to be a close ranged disorganized melee gunfight with the Japanese hoping that their cruiser spotter planes can see American wakes so they can launch first and American radar operators hoping they can pick out Japanese splotches from all the shoreline returns in time for the Americans to "turn together, gun action starboard, rapid fire" and for the destroyers to execute "torpedo attack by division (or section) and retire".

Of course if you are 31 Knot Burke, you sit quietly in the lee shadow of a shoreline with the Eager Beavers and it is the Tokyo Express that steams into your massed torpedo ambush.

Americans sent their "doctrine" to the ashcan of history when it did not work. The Imperial Japanese Navy seemed to have had a different problem as Samar and Surigao Strait shows.
 
Have you ever worked with concentrated (> 80%) solution of hydrogen peroxide?


===============================


Concentrations are much lower (<30%).

Now imagine your steel-piped powerplant being run on an endo-thermic cycle that rusts it at an accelerated rate? Boom, fires and poison gas. In a submarine? Lead acid batteries (dangerous for much the same reasons of heat, acids and poison gas) is nowhere near as dangerous.
Submarine blew up again.oh no, we added acid to the peroxide again. Why cant we stop doing that.
And sorry, they didn’t blow up. It just didn’t happen. Maybe someone thought about it?
You are not gonna prove your point by keep linking amateur videos. Peroxide is a widely used chemicals and all the plant producing hundreds of thousands of tons dont blow up on a regular basis or need all the piping replaced on a 5 mins basis. Take a look at the scale here:http://www.essentialchemicalindustry.org/chemicals/hydrogen-peroxide.html
The fact is they didn’t blow up and explosive chemicals that just requires a spark to blow up - they have been handled on warships before.
 
Submarine blew up again.oh no, we added acid to the peroxide again. Why cant we stop doing that.
And sorry, they didn’t blow up. It just didn’t happen. Maybe someone thought about it?
You are not gonna prove your point by keep linking amateur videos. Peroxide is a widely used chemicals and all the plant producing hundreds of thousands of tons dont blow up on a regular basis or need all the piping replaced on a 5 mins basis. Take a look at the scale here:http://www.essentialchemicalindustry.org/chemicals/hydrogen-peroxide.html
The fact is they didn’t blow up and explosive chemicals that just requires a spark to blow up - they have been handled on warships before.

Do you know what T-stoff is?

Hydrogen peroxide

Since the Walter plant was based on the use of hydrogen peroxide as an
oxygen carrier, some remarks on this substance are given here. The peroxide
used for submarine propulsion was 80% (approx.) solution of hydrogen
peroxide (H2O2) in water. The Germans called it T-Stoff, Ingolin or Aurol. It is
a powerful oxidant and furthermore will decompose into steam and oxygen in
the presence of dirt, rust, most metals, woollen clothing--in fact the majority
of materials. Since the reaction releases sufficient heat to ignite most
inflammable materials it can be realised that careful handling is required.

If allowed to heat up to a high temperature, concentrated hydrogen peroxide
will explode.


Safety precautions may be summed up as measures to prevent
contamination; to keep the temperature down and to provide adequate
venting of the gases generated.
Large quantities of water should be available
on the spot for diluting spills of peroxide and, in emergency, for diluting
peroxide in storage. Pure aluminium, stainless steel, glass and certain
synthetic "rubbers" are non-catalysts and can be used for peroxide systems.

More about T-stoff.

Because of its extreme oxidizing potential, T-Stoff was a very dangerous chemical to handle, so special rubberized suits were required when working with it, as it would react with most cloth, leather, or other combustible material and cause it to spontaneously combust.

I'm, trying to let you know with extreme precision why H2O2 is not viable as an oxidizer for a submarine AIP engine. The examples I showed you by those "amateurs" of what it does in diluted form to organic molecules (that shirt) and to steels should be red flags. This stuff KILLS.

Hydrogen peroxide propellant is used because it propels a torpedo further and faster than an electrical motor. Russia decommissioned torpedoes using the propellant shortly after the Kursk sank. But the UK abandoned hydrogen peroxide in 1955 after an explosion on a submarine.
 
Last edited:
Do you know what T-stoff is?

More about T-stoff.

I'm, trying to let you know with extreme precision why H2O2 is not viable as an oxidizer for a submarine AIP engine. The examples I showed you by those "amateurs" of what it does in diluted form to organic molecules (that shirt) and to steels should be red flags. This stuff KILLS.

Now these quotes are better and let us approach the real point. It is dangerous. Accidents happen with it. No disagreement.
But, "Pure aluminium, stainless steel, glass and certain synthetic "rubbers" are non-catalysts and can be used for peroxide systems". Germany and Britain used it experimentally as submarine propellants. Britain used it in torpedoes until 1955, the soviet union until 2000. We had two sinking submarines.
Does the gains justify the risk, probably, when a hundred submarines goes out to sea some accidents will happen. But what does it mean to have 25 knots as compared to 8 knots underwater speed. More targets sunk, less subs sunk by the enemy. It is probably not a good bargain in Peace time were the enemy sinks very few submarines, but it is a very good bargain in war.
Their use as u-boat propellants were cancelled not because of accidents, but because of Peace. And nuclear power with had the same power + endurance.
 
I think it was McPherson that pointed out:
"Large quantities of water should be available
on the spot for diluting spills of peroxide and, in emergency, for diluting
peroxide in storage."
Aren't submarines frequently quite near "large quantities of water"?
 
Another possibility would be an unpowered buoyancy glider. Here an unpowered buoyant homing attack device, fitted with small upsidedown wings could develop substantial speed over a horizontal distance equal to perhaps 12-15 times submerged release depth. If I recall correctly a group of Rutgers University / ONR experimenters paced such a device over a very long distance (transAtlantic?). Power was required only to alter buoyancy to permit the glider to climb and descend, moving forward all the while.

Possibly the technique described above could be employed to extend range under the Arctic ice cap if sufficient clearance is available between the bottom of the ice and the sea bed.

Depending on ice cap thickness (measured acoustically), shaped charge mines could open holes sufficient for a snorkel or the entire boat to surface and charge batteries.

Equally obvious would be that a sub preparing to blast a polyna thru arctic ice would withdraw to a safe distance.

I didn't expect that my description of a Buoyancy driven glider could apparently be confused with a towed paravane. As already demonstrated by Rutgers, it is entirely silent, capable of speed (I'll try for reference) and excellent L/D fluid equivalent, which could move it far from its launch location .

is there a visual representation of glider anywhere (cannot find a reference) and how would it be controlled? and would it be armed?

thanks!!
 
Thaddeus,

My web search title was "Rutgers undersea glider" and there must have been 15 or more hits. This has been an active area of development and testing. I have not as yet been able to find a source that will give me an idea of glide speed, though the submerged equivalent of Lift/Drag ratio has been quoted as as high as 35, which means that a submarine, submerged at 500 feet might have the glider surface 17,500 feet (more than three miles) away.

The glider itself looks like a slender Regulus 1 guided missile- small swept back wings and vertical stabilizer, but no horizontal stabilizer. The glider would be sized to carry a payload of perhaps 100-200 pounds. Since there is no propulsion system to produce noise or a bubble trail (tho the glider might be detected via its echo) if equipped with an acoustic homing system it might offer some hope of success- tho after reading McPherson's comprehensive #53, an effective submarine defense against a depth charge attack does not appear as likely as I had hoped.

Dynasoar
 
Last edited:
The Imperial Japanese Navy seemed to have had a different problem
That wasn't limited to the Navy; Japanese generally clung to tactics even after they were proven ineffective. IDK why that is...but it seems to have something to do with training, all the way back to boot camp: initiative is discouraged.
 
I think it was McPherson that pointed out:
"Large quantities of water should be available
on the spot for diluting spills of peroxide and, in emergency, for diluting
peroxide in storage."
Aren't submarines frequently quite near "large quantities of water"?

You have to get it inside the sub. (Chuckles.) That is considered a no-no when you are trying to surface and ventilate.
 
Now these quotes are better and let us approach the real point. It is dangerous. Accidents happen with it. No disagreement.
But, "Pure aluminium, stainless steel, glass and certain synthetic "rubbers" are non-catalysts and can be used for peroxide systems". Germany and Britain used it experimentally as submarine propellants. Britain used it in torpedoes until 1955, the soviet union until 2000. We had two sinking submarines.
Does the gains justify the risk, probably, when a hundred submarines goes out to sea some accidents will happen. But what does it mean to have 25 knots as compared to 8 knots underwater speed. More targets sunk, less subs sunk by the enemy. It is probably not a good bargain in Peace time were the enemy sinks very few submarines, but it is a very good bargain in war.
Their use as u-boat propellants were cancelled not because of accidents, but because of Peace. And nuclear power with had the same power + endurance.

1955 was a time of peace? Ever hear of a recent incident called the Korean War? How about the Quemoy Matsu Incident?

Anyway, let's see what 40,000 wool uniformed Saarland coal miners turned into submariners can do with U-boats made out of Swedish sulfur tainted steel and propelled by T-stoff and C-stoff? The Germans don't have the pyrex, aluminum, stainless steel (a virtual American monopoly then) or RUBBER to make gaskets, pipes and pressure vessels for T-stoff for 400 Type XXVIs. It seems that given those limitations, the British can sit in their Flower Class corvettes, listen on ASDIC and laugh as they wait for good old chemistry to do to the U-boat arm, what it did to the Luftwaffe rocket fighter and rocket programs. Did you know in WW II that 1 in 10 conventional U-boats died because someone turned a valve wrong or made a wrong decision that caused the boat to malfunction or something was in the U-boat designed wrong (Main induction valve fails to close for example because the seal will not seat properly due to a design error, and how about the jammed open snorts that were a known issue? Two of my favorites...)? Yup, German crews had that 10% "operational kill rate, no enemy action required" built into their predicted casualty and loss of mission and boat futures. THIS situation is what one suggests will operate a fleet of peroxide boats successfully?
Thaddeus,

My web search title was "Rutgers undersea glider" and there must have been 15 or more hits. This has been an active area of development and testing. I have not as yet been able to find a source that will give me an idea of glide speed, though the submerged equivalent of Lift/Drag ratio has been quoted as as high as 35, which means that a submarine, submerged at 500 feet might have the glider surface 17,500 feet (more than three miles) away.

The glider itself looks like a slender Regulus 1 guided missile- small swept back wings and vertical stabilizer, but no horizontal stabilizer. The glider would be sized to carry a payload of perhaps 100-200 pounds. Since there is no propulsion system to produce noise or a bubble trail (tho the glider might be detected via its echo) if equipped with an acoustic homing system it might offer some hope of success- tho after reading McPherson's comprehensive #53, an effective submarine defense against a depth charge attack does not appear as likely as I had hoped.

Dynasoar

I still think hull flow noise will be a trackback to the towing sub. Plus the glider as it porpoises ====== will leave a surface signature. Not good either.
 
How large is "large" ? Keeping the torps in some sort of a dousing chamber wouldn't do ?

That is a good question! If it was a Type XXVI maybe 40 tonnes as your torpedo bathtub, while fighting the fire, is a sinker event. Something as small as HMS Exploerer? Maybe 5 tonnes would be a bolo? Depends on how far back or forward from CG the load is. With Kursk the time between fire and secondary detonation was mere minutes. I don't think a douser system or even a bathtub would have saved them. It is also my understanding that the torpedo was in the midst of a prep for launch and was in a wet tube already.
 
Under water gliders do not need to 'porpoise' a simple hydrostatic controller alters the hydro vanes from the climb phase to the dive phase at a set depth and vis a versa. The steeper the climb or dive angle is set the faster the water glider travels. the ideal path is a continuous flattened wave form such maximises forward travel at the optimum speed.
 
Top