Technology and Operations
This forum is for discussing technological & operational matters pertaining to U-boats.
More questions
Posted by:
Tom Iwanski
()
Date: April 19, 2001 11:54AM
Hi SK,
Your statement makes sense, but I would like a clarification. If the air tank is designed to contain 250 atmospheres of internal pressure, that means it could theoretically withstand 250 atmospheres of external pressure, regardless whether it is pressurized or not, corrrect? What I\'m getting at is that the physical structure of the tank is what gives it its strength, not the fact that it has over 3000psi of compressed air in it. Is that correct?
My next question will expose my ingorance of physics, but isn\'t a smaller cylinder capable of greater depths than a larger cylinder made of the smae type and thickness of material? What I\'m thinking here is that a smaller cylinder has less surface area exposed to pressure, and is inherently more capable of withstanding depth. Am I all wet on this one?
If I\'m not all wet on that theory, then the releatively huge subs in service today rely on the material, thickness and design of the hull to overcome the increased amount of surface area thier larger hulls expose, correct?
Finally, isn\'t there also a relationship between hull size and vulnerability to a depth charge shock wave? I beleive this site speaks of mini-subs that were more likely to get tossed about by depth charges rather than being ruptured. The type VII subs were definitely vulnerable to D/Cs, but did their smaller size make them less vulnerable than, for example, the American Gato or Nautilus (or is that Norwhal?) class subs?
Thinking out loud,
Tom
Your statement makes sense, but I would like a clarification. If the air tank is designed to contain 250 atmospheres of internal pressure, that means it could theoretically withstand 250 atmospheres of external pressure, regardless whether it is pressurized or not, corrrect? What I\'m getting at is that the physical structure of the tank is what gives it its strength, not the fact that it has over 3000psi of compressed air in it. Is that correct?
My next question will expose my ingorance of physics, but isn\'t a smaller cylinder capable of greater depths than a larger cylinder made of the smae type and thickness of material? What I\'m thinking here is that a smaller cylinder has less surface area exposed to pressure, and is inherently more capable of withstanding depth. Am I all wet on this one?
If I\'m not all wet on that theory, then the releatively huge subs in service today rely on the material, thickness and design of the hull to overcome the increased amount of surface area thier larger hulls expose, correct?
Finally, isn\'t there also a relationship between hull size and vulnerability to a depth charge shock wave? I beleive this site speaks of mini-subs that were more likely to get tossed about by depth charges rather than being ruptured. The type VII subs were definitely vulnerable to D/Cs, but did their smaller size make them less vulnerable than, for example, the American Gato or Nautilus (or is that Norwhal?) class subs?
Thinking out loud,
Tom
