WI: Different evolution of the submarine

IOTL, the first armed submarine was designed as a submergable torpedo boat. This may seem a bit "out-there," but what if they were designed as regular warships, but able to be submerged-basically, instead of torpedoes as primary armament for subs, guns would be the norm. Hence, we'd see submergable destroyers/cruisers/battleships/ETC. If this is even remotely possible, how would it affect the world's navies and the development of warships?
 
are you thinking of something like a submersible dreadnought?
A ship that doesn't really dive deep, but just under the surface, to use the water to hide.

maybe a bridge on top of the mast, as part that will not be submerged.
 
I could see this leading to two development paths (at the same time, not either or);

Multirole Submarines:
Basically the a submersible Naval version of Multirole Fighters, that is equipped with some Torpedoes, Missiles and Guns, but not alot of each, designed to basically play a variety of roles against weak targets or as part of a Screening fleet.

Amphibious Warships:
Essentially Warships that are fully submersible (but not to depth) or partially submersible (the larger ones), in the first kinds case this would allow smaller warships to travel just under the water, making them all but invisible to anything but Radar or in clear waters, while in the latter's case this would allow them to appear smaller than they are, thus confusing the enemy/making them let their guard down, they may as well have the part that stays above surface designed to look like a class of smaller ship in use to further this affect.
 
IOTL, the first armed submarine was designed as a submergable torpedo boat. This may seem a bit "out-there," but what if they were designed as regular warships, but able to be submerged-basically, instead of torpedoes as primary armament for subs, guns would be the norm. Hence, we'd see submergable destroyers/cruisers/battleships/ETC. If this is even remotely possible, how would it affect the world's navies and the development of warships?
Those were actually built. And they quickly discovered that submersible gun turrets were a massive PITA. Real cruisersubs/battlesubs are even more impossible, since the principles of submarine building don't agree with those of armouring. Armour on a sub would need to cover the entire pressure hull (well, except the bottom) as well as the buoyancy chambers since a leak in any of those makes the sub unable to dive, or even float. The added weight requires bigger buoyancy chambers, meaning more armour, etc. Surface ships only need to protect the machinery, ammunition holds & preferably enough room to keep floating if all unprotected areas are flooded.
 

Perkeo

Banned
IOTL, the first armed submarine was designed as a submergable torpedo boat. This may seem a bit "out-there," but what if they were designed as regular warships, but able to be submerged-basically, instead of torpedoes as primary armament for subs, guns would be the norm. Hence, we'd see submergable destroyers/cruisers/battleships/ETC. If this is even remotely possible, how would it affect the world's navies and the development of warships?

But a submergable ship begs for weaponry that can be used in submerged state, doesn't it? Therefore I don't buy the "regular warship" approach. OTOH there are other plausibel design approaches, such as scouting or amphibious commando operations. ITL the first submarinnes would be smaller and less armed, perhaps only a machine gun to cover infantry in amphibious operations.
 
Last edited:
Top