Alternate German submarine developments.

[McPherson]

Nope. This discussion is going in circles. The Germans could have, would have, should have. They did not because they could not.

Look at it this way. Test case: POSTWAR. The British and Americans and Japanese all looked at captured German WW I technology and implemented it.

-magnetic fuses
-electric motors
-torpedo fire control systems
-diesel engines

So these guys were and are not tyros.

Now WW II: POSTWAR. US, UK, CCCP

-wet launch
-GsG sonar
-snorts
-battery buss system

These guys, especially the British, are not tyros either, (Not even the Russians as their rockets and own atomic programs attest.)

What did the British, Americans (and Russians) who had the Walther motors and captured U-boat examples not do?

Succeed, even though they had the engineers, materials science, trained submariners and money and time to accomplish it.

Now then, embrittlement and high temperature metals science? British specialties. They worked hard on the Walther engine. If anyone could make it work, they should have. They failed.

They looked at the German WW II technology and abandoned it even before they received US light water reactors.

And as for hydrogen peroxide systems used in WW II? Someone actually deployed a system that worked. The Americans. Mark 16 torpedo. Ralph Christie's baby.

 

[NoMommsen]

"Alternate German submarine developments"

Nope. This discussion is going in circles. The Germans could have, would have, should have.

Well I think, that's exactly what this thread is all about.

 

[cortz#9]

"Alternate German submarine developments"

Well I think, that's exactly what this thread is all about.

Its what t AH.com is all about, alternate ideas & alternate premises.

 

[phx1138]

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

And if Germany develops it prewar, the Brits will start figuring out ways to put helos on DDs, DEs, & corvettes, & will start powering them with 500-600hp engines (not 200hp), so they can carry a couple of DC or a homing torpedo (or, at minimum, dipping hydrophone)--& then we're back to my sub-launched AA rocket...

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.

Okay, except for nerve gas, none of that actually addresses what I wrote.

Not to mention U-boats to carry such large weapons would be insanely large for WW2, or (might, even if such existed) only carry (maybe) one rocket, which is a level of trivial return for exorbitant expenditure that's high even for Hitler.

Can we stop trying to introduce George Washington in 1940, now?

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...

Bear in mind how big a convoy is: something like half a mile long & more than a mile across. The rockets don't need to be pinpoint accurate to hit something. Even if they don't, they might cause a change of direction, offering opportunity for another boat. The rockets are also way cheaper than torpedoes... And if you use them against single ships from close in, or against escorts... How accurate does it need to be to hit a 300' long target from 1000m? From 500?

As for shelling harbors, sure, I have no problem with dropping a few rockets on them, but IMO that's a nuisance use.

Well I think, that's exactly what this thread is all about.

Calling out ASB is also a time-honored tradition here.

 

[eltf177]

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

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

The Walther system was dangerous enough in peacetime. Now imagine wartime where quality control suffers for all sorts of reasons. T-Stoff is NOT something you can afford to take chances with, the slightest foul-up in manufacturing or misstep by the crew and you can say 'bye-bye' to that sub and crew.

Yes, you're faster underwater. So Corvettes and Subchasers won't be built with VTE's but with turbines allowing them to keep up with Walther boats. It will be a harder fight but one I don't see the U-Boats winning in the end...

 

[Shadow Master]

Ok, so...

Good discussions going back and forth. I would caution folks not to make up their minds on this or that thing being un-doable, based upon lack of thorough investigation of the subject matter/crazy idea at hand. For instance, the easily discounted trans polar submarine trade route idea has been dismissed, because of inaccurate/incomplete/misleading information, that had some folks thinking that a submerged, 1600 mile transit was needed, but as it turns out, this is not the case, and this means that dismissing such a concept, for those reasons, is not for valid reasons. When I started this thread, I, probably like the majority of posters here, was under the mistaken impression that the north polar region was frozen solid, year round, and that the ice cover was mainly stationary, and only seasonal variations took place near the edges of this unbroken ice pack. However, as it turns out, the north polar region is not covered by huge glaciers year round, like Greenland and Antarctica, but rather just by a migratory pack of frozen chunks of ice, that sometimes are solid and up to 3-4 meters thick, and sometimes leave open water in places! I for one didn't know that this ice pack was moving, I just thought that is was basically stationary, but IIUC, the ice forms in between N. America and Asia, and then makes it's way, by wind and currents, up across the north pole and out into the N Atlantic, and that during this process, the ice fractures, opens up clear water, and rapidly refreezes. What this means is, the topography of the north polar ice covering is constantly changing, but not solidly, impenetrably thick!

Now, this wasn't discovered until the 1950's, and we cannot say what differences there were in the 1920's-1940's from what was discovered in the 1950's, but it seems a safe assumption that, had some major effort been mounted to really look at finding a way for submarines to explore/discover a path through, then these things would have been known earlier, and that they were not discovered earlier was not a function of their being no way to "Go there, do that", but rather more "why would we" and the lack of funding such a mindset implies.

I like the discussion going on on ideas that might have been tried, and devices and weapons that might have been. I'm still not feeling 100%, and work has been keeping me from doing many things, but I'm hoping to get some really good stuff done this weekend, if I can only avoid the movie binge-watching, and Starcraft II mega marathons! I'm also working on the thread for the polar commerce route, and am interested in PM's from those that want to help me get this into a really good, informative opening post, so that many misconceptions can be laid immediately to rest, and the way to an interesting discussion can be paved with facts and concepts, so if you would like to spend some time helping a fellow forum community member with this crazy idea, just PM me!

I'm also interested in getting some of the ideas posted upthread supported with pictures, even if I/we have to resort to posting hand drawings to get the ideas across. Some of the ideas posited here, even with links, I just have not gotten my mind around what they actually look like, so even a crude picture may indeed be worth a 1,000 words.

 

[Gudestein]

Nope. This discussion is going in circles. The Germans could have, would have, should have. They did not because they could not.

Look at it this way. Test case: POSTWAR. The British and Americans and Japanese all looked at captured German WW I technology and implemented it.

-magnetic fuses
-electric motors
-torpedo fire control systems
-diesel engines

So these guys were and are not tyros.

Now WW II: POSTWAR. US, UK, CCCP

-wet launch
-GsG sonar
-snorts
-battery buss system

These guys, especially the British, are not tyros either, (Not even the Russians as their rockets and own atomic programs attest.)

What did the British, Americans (and Russians) who had the Walther motors and captured U-boat examples not do?

Succeed, even though they had the engineers, materials science, trained submariners and money and time to accomplish it.

Now then, embrittlement and high temperature metals science? British specialties. They worked hard on the Walther engine. If anyone could make it work, they should have. They failed.

They looked at the German WW II technology and abandoned it even before they received US light water reactors.

And as for hydrogen peroxide systems used in WW II? Someone actually deployed a system that worked. The Americans. Mark 16 torpedo. Ralph Christie's baby.

Problem is they did. The reason why they didn’t make the larger walther submarines is because they, late in the war when they were losing, couldnt mass produce the fuel. So they filled the submarines with batteries in stead.
Its funny you missed it, but even if history repeats itself, going all in early on the walther submarines is a clear winner.

 

[thaddeus]

For instance, the easily discounted trans polar submarine trade route idea has been dismissed, because of inaccurate/incomplete/misleading information, that had some folks thinking that a submerged, 1600 mile transit was needed, but as it turns out, this is not the case, and this means that dismissing such a concept, for those reasons, is not for valid reasons. When I started this thread, I, probably like the majority of posters here, was under the mistaken impression that the north polar region was frozen solid, year round, and that the ice cover was mainly stationary, and only seasonal variations took place near the edges of this unbroken ice pack. However, as it turns out, the north polar region is not covered by huge glaciers year round, like Greenland and Antarctica, but rather just by a migratory pack of frozen chunks of ice, that sometimes are solid and up to 3-4 meters thick, and sometimes leave open water in places! I for one didn't know that this ice pack was moving, I just thought that is was basically stationary, but IIUC, the ice forms in between N. America and Asia, and then makes it's way, by wind and currents, up across the north pole and out into the N Atlantic, and that during this process, the ice fractures, opens up clear water, and rapidly refreezes. What this means is, the topography of the north polar ice covering is constantly changing, but not solidly, impenetrably thick!

Now, this wasn't discovered until the 1950's, and we cannot say what differences there were in the 1920's-1940's from what was discovered in the 1950's, but it seems a safe assumption that, had some major effort been mounted to really look at finding a way for submarines to explore/discover a path through, then these things would have been known earlier, and that they were not discovered earlier was not a function of their being no way to "Go there, do that", but rather more "why would we" and the lack of funding such a mindset implies.

during German-Soviet collaboration the KM was able to launch raider Komet thru Northern Sea Route https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Sea_Route into Pacific (in approx. 3 weeks) possibly this sparks (attempts at) year round use of route?

 

[PSL]

The planned storage and feed systems for these Nazi high concentration hydrogen peroxide subs was plastic bags suspended in sea water tanks between inner & outer hulls. In event of problem these bags could be ejected out to sea. Rossler THE U-Boat. The biggest limitation would be supply only enough for only few hundred sortie per year.

LOX production for V-2 on the other hand was order of magnitude more supply and could have allowed hundreds of sortie per month. Test model of this was trialed on a TYPE-VII replacing one diesel engine.

There was insufficient battery production to double the capacity across the fleet. Better idea was to adopt the electric creep motors developed as 'back up' for the original fish boats. These could be fitted in the space of the rear torpedoes. This could double submerged endurance from 20 hours @ 4 knots to 2 days @ 4knots. Walther had to develop schnorkel in 1933 to make the V-BOATS to work , with small imagination that tech could be adapted to type 7 or 9 from the beginning of the war. Further Walther peroxide boats also exploited stream lining and such changes could be adapted to U-Boat fleet.

ELIMINATING 1/2 OF THE FLOOD SLATS INCREASES SPEED BY 1 KNOT , WHILE WALTHER SAIL SHOULD ADD 1.5 KNOTS. Type IX could manage 10 knots submerged , which should cut the effectiveness of allied ballistic ASW IN HALF. However while batteries could allow this top electric speed for only 1-2 hours, LOX Diesels should likely allow endurance of 12 knots for 21 hours . Finally variable speed propellers could allow a basic Type VII to reach 12 knots submerged.

 

[phx1138]

going all in early on the walther submarines is a clear winner.

It may be clear to you. It's far from clear to me.

 

[thaddeus]

There was insufficient battery production to double the capacity across the fleet. Better idea was to adopt the electric creep motors developed as 'back up' for the original fish boats. These could be fitted in the space of the rear torpedoes. This could double submerged endurance from 20 hours @ 4 knots to 2 days @ 4knots. Walther had to develop schnorkel in 1933 to make the V-BOATS to work , with small imagination that tech could be adapted to type 7 or 9 from the beginning of the war.

the "creep motors" used diesel engine and would require schnorkel would they not? or are you projecting use of LOX diesel?

 

[M79]

It may be clear to you. It's far from clear to me.

Maybe going all in on the Walther allows the idea of an Elektroboot to appear earlier? If Germany can get them into the water in numbers say around late 1942 or early 1943...

 

[phx1138]

Maybe going all in on the Walther allows the idea of an Elektroboot to appear earlier? If Germany can get them into the water in numbers say around late 1942 or early 1943...

I would argue research on the Walter boats, & the attendant headaches & hazards, might lead to early adoption of a modified Walther (high-streamlined) hull casing around a lengthened Type IX pressure hull, so BdU starts the war with a *Type XXI (minus the torpedo reloading gear, maybe with more TT & reloads). IMO, that would be ideal for Germany: no highly-sophisticated & dangerous fuels required, but the high dived speeds that create headaches for RN & RCN corvettes.

No, it won't be able to transit the North Pole, nor launch *V-2s. Live with it.

 

[McPherson]

And if Germany develops it prewar, the Brits will start figuring out ways to put helos on DDs, DEs, & corvettes, & will start powering them with 500-600hp engines (not 200hp), so they can carry a couple of DC or a homing torpedo (or, at minimum, dipping hydrophone)--& then we're back to my sub-launched AA rocket...

Okay, except for nerve gas, none of that actually addresses what I wrote.

Look, the fact is (Hint: see my background info.) the worst thing a WW II sub can do, is launch a missile barrage from the sea in the near vicinity of a convoy. A Nebelwerfer rocket barrage may by some miracle hit one or two freighters (the freighters can maneuver and there is interval between), but as sure as K-guns are and mortars are trainable and ASDIC is a searchlight sonar with an active effective range of 3000 meters, what does one think the U-boat's future portends?

Not to mention U-boats to carry such large weapons would be insanely large for WW2, or (might, even if such existed) only carry (maybe) one rocket, which is a level of trivial return for exorbitant expenditure that's high even for Hitler.ibn

I'm not the one arguing that this insanity is possible or practical. Loss of mission is my line!

Can we stop trying to introduce George Washington in 1940, now?

My main problem is the peroxide boats. I understand the screwy chemistry, but it is hard to get across how batskip dangerous it is to people who do not understand it. I tend to think that all the rocket stuff is more easily self-explanatory to them. BOOM, blub, blub, blub.

Bear in mind how big a convoy is: something like half a mile long & more than a mile across. The rockets don't need to be pinpoint accurate to hit something. Even if they don't, they might cause a change of direction, offering opportunity for another boat. The rockets are also way cheaper than torpedoes... And if you use them against single ships from close in, or against escorts... How accurate does it need to be to hit a 300' long target from 1000m? From 500?

"Right rudder one point, all ahead, brace for impact!" I'd trade a freighter for a sub.

As for shelling harbors, sure, I have no problem with dropping a few rockets on them, but IMO that's a nuisance use.

How about the Houston oil terminal? Good deck gun target if one had a V-sub.

Calling out ASB is also a time-honored tradition here.

Yup. Walther boats and IRBMs are WW II ASB. Electro-boats and FAT torpedoes are not.

 

[Shadow Master]

No, it won't be able to transit the North Pole. Live with it.

I'm working on the opening post for a polar transit submarine route thread, and if your statement is based upon what was posted upthread, you might want to check it out...

 

[eltf177]

ELIMINATING 1/2 OF THE FLOOD SLATS INCREASES SPEED BY 1 KNOT , WHILE WALTHER SAIL SHOULD ADD 1.5 KNOTS. Type IX could manage 10 knots submerged , which should cut the effectiveness of allied ballistic ASW IN HALF. However while batteries could allow this top electric speed for only 1-2 hours, LOX Diesels should likely allow endurance of 12 knots for 21 hours . Finally variable speed propellers could allow a basic Type VII to reach 12 knots submerged.

Getting rid of the deck gun and putting AA guns in streamlined turrets would also help...

 

[phx1138]

I'm working on the opening post for a polar transit submarine route thread, and if your statement is based upon what was posted upthread, you might want to check it out...

It's really not. IMO, the battery capacity to make this credible means a boat that's enormous by WW2 standards. Besides, there's nothing in the Arctic: it only becomes useful when you've got SLBMs with nukes, or need to attack FBMs that do.

Not to say a thread on a polar transit wouldn't be an interesting read...

the worst thing a WW II sub can do, is launch a missile barrage from the sea in the near vicinity of a convoy. ...sure as K-guns are and mortars are trainable and ASDIC is a searchlight sonar with an active effective range of 3000 meters, what does one think the U-boat's future portends?

Presuming the escorts see the launch. Presuming the attack isn't against one of the escorts. Presuming the escort is able to prosecute to kill--& you may be overestimating how easy that is.

If detecting the trail =death, any torpedo wake would be (necessarily) fatal. It wasn't.

And if it was me, I'd be trying to attract the escorts so I could shoot 'em & have an unescorted collection of merchants...

I'm not the one arguing that this insanity is possible or practical. Loss of mission is my line!

Looking at your remarks on large solid lifters, it wasn't clear to me if you were arguing for it being insane or impossible (or both)... Either way, I just wanted to be clear I agree; OTOH, I don't think the smaller rockets are so stupid.

My main problem is the peroxide boats. I understand the screwy chemistry, but it is hard to get across how batskip dangerous it is to people who do not understand it. I tend to think that all the rocket stuff is more easily self-explanatory to them. BOOM, blub, blub, blub.

We're in complete agreement on that score.

I'd trade a freighter for a sub.

For being the target? Maybe. I wouldn't want to be in a U-boat. USN boat against IJN, sure.

How about the Houston oil terminal? Good deck gun target if one had a V-sub.

You still need an awful lot of rounds to produce credible damage, unless you can hit a loaded tanker or something.

Yup. Walther boats and IRBMs are WW II ASB. Electro-boats and FAT torpedoes are not.

Which is why I've argued for a *Type XXI with pattern-runners & more tubes (& fish); the rockets are an AA (or anti-escort) addendum, not a replacement.

 

[PSL]

the "creep motors" used diesel engine and would require schnorkel would they not? or are you projecting use of LOX diesel?

"creep motors" were smaller hugely efficient electric motors designed for low power consumption and ergo greater endurance.

 

[PSL]

Getting rid of the deck gun and putting AA guns in streamlined turrets would also help...

Your half right with the gun removal, but the AAA "WINTER GARDEN" were something of a disaster since this crippled submerged maneuverability and would have canceled out increased speeds [ much like ordnance under the wings of fighter aircraft] .

Worse was the danger of even staffing/shrapnel from attacking bombers. If you have schnorkel - you don't need AAA.

 

[thaddeus]

Finally variable speed propellers could allow a basic Type VII to reach 12 knots submerged.

this was kind of lost in your post ... did not think it should be and warranted highlighting, would make huge change, especially coupled with schnorkel.