Alternate German submarine developments.

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.

They don't need too, true, but so far they have in tests.

As for what they look like and what they do?
 
Last edited:
regarding the hydrogen subs the Germans finally perfected it!

"Although hydrogen–oxygen propulsion had been considered for submarines as early as World War I, the concept was not very successful until recently due to fire and explosion concerns. In the Type 212 this has been countered by storing the fuel and oxidizer in tanks outside the crew space, between the pressure hull and outer light hull. The gases are piped through the pressure hull to the fuel cells as needed to generate electricity, but at any given time there is only a very small amount of gas present in the crew space."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine (if someone has already linked to it, my apology)

although for the time period we are discussing the use of Stirling engine (diesel and liquid oxygen) seems a safer and more realistic option https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotland-class_submarine (circa the same time as Type 212)
 
Absolutely (a Stirling, might even be possible in that time period)! As a matter of record, the Germans experimented with oxygen-boosted diesels, too. They should have consulted their Japanese allies.
 
I'm not one to put a damper on discussion, but continuing to argue for a patently (suicidally) dangerous propulsion system in preference to a proven, & manifestly less hazardous, alternative (more batteries), strikes me counterproductive...
 
I'm not one to put a damper on discussion, but continuing to argue for a patently (suicidally) dangerous propulsion system in preference to a proven, & manifestly less hazardous, alternative (more batteries), strikes me counterproductive...

I can see the wartime advantages of such a system, but the drawbacks and the fact that the fuel is extremely dangerous pretty much to me makes the whole system a wash at best. Can you imagine a Walther sub being depth-charged? If any come close I see the damage being lethal. And manufacturing and transporting hydrogen peroxide won't be easy, especially with the German railway system under constant attack...
 
I can see the wartime advantages of such a system, but the drawbacks and the fact that the fuel is extremely dangerous pretty much to me makes the whole system a wash at best. Can you imagine a Walther sub being depth-charged? If any come close I see the damage being lethal. And manufacturing and transporting hydrogen peroxide won't be easy, especially with the German railway system under constant attack...
Agreed. Yikes.:eek::eek: Leaking pipes are routine under attack: leaks of HTP into the boat mean even attacks that would otherwise fail might achieve kills.

Can I also add a question about "large rockets"? IDK where the idea WW2 boats would actually launch rockets the size of V-2s came from, but absent Germany having nukes, it's a stupid idea: the resource waste is enormous, if all you've got is a one-tonne HE payload...:rolleyes: And you're not bombing cities, you're trying to sink ships in convoys: salvos of 15cm rockets (10-20/1x?) make a lot more sense.

I also maintain, some kind of crude passive homer would be good; if you don't like semi-active radar, what about IR? Ships are hotter than ocean...
 
Can I also add a question about "large rockets"? IDK where the idea WW2 boats would actually launch rockets the size of V-2s came from...

It was planned that U-Boats tow a HUGE cylinder almost the size of the sub itself. It had a V-2 and below that was storage for the fuel. When it got to the operational area the back half of the cylinder would be flooded getting it to stand on end with the top sticking out of the water. The hatches would be opened, the V-2 fueled and then launched. At that point the cylinder would be scuttled.

All this took time, and the chances of the U-Boat being detected before launch were substantial. Not to mention discovery while underway...
 
What about a U-boat launching a Wasserfal rocket that was reconfigured from an AA rocket to hitting ground targets? The Wasserfall was one quarter the size of the V-2.
 
Can I also add a question about "large rockets"? IDK where the idea WW2 boats would actually launch rockets the size of V-2s came from, but absent Germany having nukes, it's a stupid idea: the resource waste is enormous, if all you've got is a one-tonne HE payload...:rolleyes: And you're not bombing cities, you're trying to sink ships in convoys: salvos of 15cm rockets (10-20/1x?) make a lot more sense.
Aren't these 15cm rockets the same kind of thing that every nations artillery establishment considers too inaccurate to do basic work, only good for barrage thickening and pysch effects? Don't see how they'd be sufficiently deadly to make their use worthwhile against a convoy without serious accuracy...
 
Aren't these 15cm rockets the same kind of thing that every nations artillery establishment considers too inaccurate to do basic work, only good for barrage thickening and pysch effects? Don't see how they'd be sufficiently deadly to make their use worthwhile against a convoy without serious accuracy...
I was thinking they could be useful for shelling ports and docks.
 
Agreed. Yikes.:eek::eek: Leaking pipes are routine under attack: leaks of HTP into the boat mean even attacks that would otherwise fail might achieve kills.

Can I also add a question about "large rockets"? IDK where the idea WW2 boats would actually launch rockets the size of V-2s came from, but absent Germany having nukes, it's a stupid idea: the resource waste is enormous, if all you've got is a one-tonne HE payload...:rolleyes: And you're not bombing cities, you're trying to sink ships in convoys: salvos of 15cm rockets (10-20/1x?) make a lot more sense.

I also maintain, some kind of crude passive homer would be good; if you don't like semi-active radar, what about IR? Ships are hotter than ocean...

a. A flock of pattern running torpedoes guarantees more kills.
b. A snort boat probably works better than a Walther with a..
c. Nerve gas. That might justify to deranged lunatic minds a strategic missile launched from a WW II sub. Optimum targets for such terrorists; New York and Gosport.
 
Last edited:
I'm not one to put a damper on discussion, but continuing to argue for a patently (suicidally) dangerous propulsion system in preference to a proven, & manifestly less hazardous, alternative (more batteries), strikes me counterproductive...

Yeah, second that, these proposals are quite a bit excessive and sometimes exotic. And IMHO needless. What they really needed first of all realising, that the vessels in a conflict would rather spend most if not all of their time underwater. Maybe a proper participation in the SCW with drawing the right conclusions.
So, again, once they want a ship optimised for submerged activities, they had pretty much everything prior to the war to make a proto-XXI: streamlined hull for submerged performance. Larger battery capacity for submerged performance. Leaving the deck gun. Maybe even an earlier
snorkel.
The basics were already there, improvements could followed, but the most important leap in submarineology could have been achieved.
 
McPherson wrote:
They don't need too, true,(broach the surface) but so far they have in tests.

Note the 'emphisis' is wrong here they DO so BECAUSE they are tests not because they do so due to some flaw. Doing so makes them easier to track and allows burst transmission of data for each run.

The main problem is the concept wasn't taken seriously until the 1960s for the major reason the fine buoyancy control and automation didn't exist before then. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_glider)

"In Theory" such a weapon could give you a way to launch a silent strike at medium or short range but anything beyond that needs active guidance and as always launch is problematical.

Randy
 
Test parameters are no good if the parameters do not match actual expected operating conditions. That is why there are test parameters.
 
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?


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.
Korean War? For real? It got canned because nuclear submarines were better.

Now, we have moved from couldnt be done into the fits all “lack of (stainless) steel.
Sure they needed steel but other subs also used steel. Stainless steel is a Krupp 1912 invention and you Can buy WW2 german stainless steel helmers e-Bay.
I Think you need to substantiate that this was a Factor in the OTL WW2 decision making.
 
You were the one who made the mistake of saying peacetime. I simply looked at the history.

The British had to buy a powerplant from the US. They were not developing nuclear power. No US option to BUY a ready made sub reactor, stuck on the route they were.

And? Chemistry means you have to have stainless steel. I've argued chemistry.

If the Germans had the right kind of stainless steel, Gudestein, they would have used it in their jet engines. Guess what? They did not. And standard Stahlhelms are standard carbon steel. By the way, stainless steel (patents) are credited to Clark and Woods. Then we move on to Harry Brearley who learned how to mass produce it.

By way of Haynes (about the same time as Brearley) the US got into the stainless steel business.

Cobb, Harold M. (2010). The History of Stainless Steel. ASM International. p. 360. ISBN 1-61503-010-7
 

NoMommsen

Donor
Dear @McPherson ,
... if the germans lacked the material conditions to handle T-Stoff and the like ... I just wonder :
  • first 2940 kW turbine running (since) 1936
  • first test-sub (V 80) running since 1940
  • first class XVII sub running from 1943
... and no explosions, no turbine, no sub "rotten away" by corrosion or exlposion.
(And this counts only for the subs, not counting for the various rocket-motor usage, torpedo-development etc.)

Yes, during tests there were fires and smoke, mainly due to under-sclaled and or clogged coolers by loosend paint, not up to the temmeratures, minot things encountered by mayn new developments, but nothing of the scale, you seem to assume has to happen (that did not).
 
Once again reread what I wrote. History should be a guide. Not assumptions or handwaves or refusals to believe. Actual history. The people who abandoned the efforts, Germans included, ran into the problems cited.
 
I'm not one to put a damper on discussion, but continuing to argue for a patently (suicidally) dangerous propulsion system in preference to a proven, & manifestly less hazardous, alternative (more batteries), strikes me counterproductive...

In this thread? Something propelling german submarines at 25 knots underwater were they could chase Down/escape almost everything?

I can see the wartime advantages of such a system, but the drawbacks and the fact that the fuel is extremely dangerous pretty much to me makes the whole system a wash at best. Can you imagine a Walther sub being depth-charged? If any come close I see the damage being lethal. And manufacturing and transporting hydrogen peroxide won't be easy, especially with the German railway system under constant attack...

Only and specifically arguing wartime advantage. The point of such a system is to not become depth-charged

You were the one who made the mistake of saying peacetime. I simply looked at the history.

The British had to buy a powerplant from the US. They were not developing nuclear power. No US option to BUY a ready made sub reactor, stuck on the route they were.

And? Chemistry means you have to have stainless steel. I've argued chemistry.

If the Germans had the right kind of stainless steel, Gudestein, they would have used it in their jet engines. Guess what? They did not. And standard Stahlhelms are standard carbon steel. By the way, stainless steel (patents) are credited to Clark and Woods. Then we move on to Harry Brearley who learned how to mass produce it.

By way of Haynes (about the same time as Brearley) the US got into the stainless steel business.

Cobb, Harold M. (2010). The History of Stainless Steel. ASM International. p. 360. ISBN 1-61503-010-7

I will try to make it simple. Without a shooting war the life expectance of a submarine must be 20+ year. In a shooting war? Only a few years. Incomparable performance/safety balance.

Regarding materials: the steel typed required his molybdenum containing steels or aluminium. Germany was short of these, particularly later, but we are talking Developments staring in 1934. All Things are relative. Look at the compatible type 316 steel

http://www.ozoneservices.com/articles/004.htm

http://www.espimetals.com/index.php/technical-data/202-stainless-steel-316-alloy-composition

Now I dont know the weight of the Walter engines, but the type IX had 6x2 tons man diesels for comparison. I'll go with 20 tons for the Walther engine. But I think not everything would be in contact with the fuel...10 tons? 2 % Molybdenum so 200 kg? Imports were in thousands of tons so it is possible to prioritize a war winning submarine design.

They had access to the Knaben mine during ww2.

Dear @McPherson ,
... if the germans lacked the material conditions to handle T-Stoff and the like ... I just wonder :
  • first 2940 kW turbine running (since) 1936
  • first test-sub (V 80) running since 1940
  • first class XVII sub running from 1943
... and no explosions, no turbine, no sub "rotten away" by corrosion or exlposion.
(And this counts only for the subs, not counting for the various rocket-motor usage, torpedo-development etc.)

Yes, during tests there were fires and smoke, mainly due to under-sclaled and or clogged coolers by loosend paint, not up to the temmeratures, minot things encountered by mayn new developments, but nothing of the scale, you seem to assume has to happen (that did not).

Yes, I have pointed out that OTL experience supports the use with a war time acceptable accident rate. Thanks
 
Top