General Discussions
This is the place to discuss general issues related to the U-boat war or the war at sea in WWII.
RE: Blair
Posted by:
kurt
()
Date: December 19, 2000 11:40PM
<HTML>I agree that Blair\'s critique of the XXI is based on flaws from its rapid development in a world coming apart, and are not valid criticisms of the basic design, or what a XXI type could have been if developed in calmer times.
You hit the nail on the head with \"The real question to ask is what would have happened if the Kriegsmarine had recognized the theoretical danger of airborne radar back in the late 1930s. They would then have designed a real submarine, a single screw teardrop design.\"
The type VII was really a re-tread of the classic U-boat of WWI. Doenitz chose to ignore the air threat, using his own gut feel and experiences in WWI rather than proper testing and modelling of what higher speed radar equipped airplanes would prove capable of in WWII. A systems engineering approach to the design of the U-boat in the thirties could have forseeen many of these problems and shown that a teardropped true submarine shape would have been the way to go.
Thanks for the info on ASW evaluations.
I am not so sure, however, that radar detection of snorkels would need IC chips and digital processing and therefore have to wait for the \'70\'s. If that were true teardropped shaped snorkeling diesel boats would have been effective until the \'70\'s. But the US quickly found by the \'50s that anything short of a permanently deeply submerged nuclear boat was easily detected, and went all nuclear with all its new designs. Even when the Soviets fielded good diesel submarines (after they tried and moved beyond some XXI retreads) in the \'50s the US considered the diesle boats easy pickings to find and track. Remember the SONUS nets were first made in the analog days.
By the \'50\'s even the slightest exposure of a sail, or even snorkel, by a US boat in Soviet coastal waters (what were they doing there?) would risk almost instant detection by the Soviets, whose radar technology was supposedly behind US standards of the day. The US would not even try the use of even advanced diesel designs for any kind of close in spy sub work after the \'40s - there are some interesting stories of this in \'Blind Man\'s Buff\'.
On a personal note I once worked with an older gentleman whose specialty was radar design. Turns out he was drafted right after Pearl Harbor and managed to spend the whole war in training - first artillery, then pilot\'s school, which he flunked, then B-17 bombadier school, which he aced. Just before being shipped to England, he got nabbed for something very hush hush which turned out to be B-29 bombadier school, which he also aced. He then got grabbed for something even more hush hush, which turned out to be B-29 radar bombadier school (shadows of operation checkerboard?). From that he went to a team doing development flight testing of a new airborne ground mapping radar - like the British H2S but a different world of capability. In 1945, just as the war ended, he was operating an airborne B-29 radar set that, according to him, could clearly and distinctly distinguish the individual pilings on a fishing boat pier over 20 miles away. Then the war ended and he went into civilian life (working on radars). The radar was huge, occupying a whole B-29 bomb bay (it had two). But I bet something like that could spot a snorkel or two.
Who knows?
That\'s the fun and frustrations of these \'what if\' strings.
Point is, we agree a logically developed U-boat submarine (not a submersible), clearly foreseable and attainable with 1940 vintage technology, would have been a very powerful weapon.
</HTML>
You hit the nail on the head with \"The real question to ask is what would have happened if the Kriegsmarine had recognized the theoretical danger of airborne radar back in the late 1930s. They would then have designed a real submarine, a single screw teardrop design.\"
The type VII was really a re-tread of the classic U-boat of WWI. Doenitz chose to ignore the air threat, using his own gut feel and experiences in WWI rather than proper testing and modelling of what higher speed radar equipped airplanes would prove capable of in WWII. A systems engineering approach to the design of the U-boat in the thirties could have forseeen many of these problems and shown that a teardropped true submarine shape would have been the way to go.
Thanks for the info on ASW evaluations.
I am not so sure, however, that radar detection of snorkels would need IC chips and digital processing and therefore have to wait for the \'70\'s. If that were true teardropped shaped snorkeling diesel boats would have been effective until the \'70\'s. But the US quickly found by the \'50s that anything short of a permanently deeply submerged nuclear boat was easily detected, and went all nuclear with all its new designs. Even when the Soviets fielded good diesel submarines (after they tried and moved beyond some XXI retreads) in the \'50s the US considered the diesle boats easy pickings to find and track. Remember the SONUS nets were first made in the analog days.
By the \'50\'s even the slightest exposure of a sail, or even snorkel, by a US boat in Soviet coastal waters (what were they doing there?) would risk almost instant detection by the Soviets, whose radar technology was supposedly behind US standards of the day. The US would not even try the use of even advanced diesel designs for any kind of close in spy sub work after the \'40s - there are some interesting stories of this in \'Blind Man\'s Buff\'.
On a personal note I once worked with an older gentleman whose specialty was radar design. Turns out he was drafted right after Pearl Harbor and managed to spend the whole war in training - first artillery, then pilot\'s school, which he flunked, then B-17 bombadier school, which he aced. Just before being shipped to England, he got nabbed for something very hush hush which turned out to be B-29 bombadier school, which he also aced. He then got grabbed for something even more hush hush, which turned out to be B-29 radar bombadier school (shadows of operation checkerboard?). From that he went to a team doing development flight testing of a new airborne ground mapping radar - like the British H2S but a different world of capability. In 1945, just as the war ended, he was operating an airborne B-29 radar set that, according to him, could clearly and distinctly distinguish the individual pilings on a fishing boat pier over 20 miles away. Then the war ended and he went into civilian life (working on radars). The radar was huge, occupying a whole B-29 bomb bay (it had two). But I bet something like that could spot a snorkel or two.
Who knows?
That\'s the fun and frustrations of these \'what if\' strings.
Point is, we agree a logically developed U-boat submarine (not a submersible), clearly foreseable and attainable with 1940 vintage technology, would have been a very powerful weapon.
</HTML>
| Subject | Written By | Posted |
|---|---|---|
type xxi
|
phil | 12/17/2000 12:41PM |
|
RE: type xxi
|
David W | 12/18/2000 06:36AM |
|
RE: type xxi
|
Dietzsch | 12/18/2000 09:12AM |
|
RE: type xxi
|
Rainer Bruns | 12/18/2000 01:35PM |
|
RE: type xxi
|
Nannia | 12/18/2000 02:37PM |
|
RE: type xxi
|
Takeo | 12/18/2000 03:16PM |
|
fallout?
|
Tom Iwanski | 12/18/2000 03:39PM |
|
RE: type xxi
|
kurt | 12/18/2000 05:43PM |
|
RE: type xxi
|
Rainer Bruns | 12/18/2000 03:40PM |
|
RE: type xxi
|
Steve Cooper | 12/18/2000 04:54PM |
|
RE: garbage?
|
Antonio Veiga | 12/18/2000 08:16PM |
|
RE: garbage?
|
Rick Mann | 12/19/2000 07:58PM |
|
RE: gaijin
|
kurt | 12/19/2000 11:47PM |
|
XXI and the 300 U-boats
|
SuperKraut | 12/18/2000 09:41PM |
|
Scary thought
|
J-E | 12/19/2000 01:27PM |
|
RE: type xxi
|
kurt | 12/18/2000 05:41PM |
|
RE: type xxi
|
MCE | 12/18/2000 06:00PM |
|
RE: type xxi
|
kurt | 12/18/2000 05:55PM |
|
You have missed the point
|
SuperKraut | 12/18/2000 09:30PM |
|
invisible snorkels at the XXI
|
Kurt | 12/18/2000 11:23PM |
|
XXI capabilities
|
SuperKraut | 12/19/2000 08:27PM |
|
RE: invisible snorkels at the XXI
|
Craig McLean | 12/20/2000 03:19AM |
|
Underwater speed and range
|
SuperKraut | 12/20/2000 09:39AM |
|
Snorkels and The Bismarck Add On
|
Fin Bonset | 12/20/2000 01:07PM |
|
Bismarck Fleet Add On
|
Fin Bonset | 12/20/2000 01:09PM |
|
RE: Bismarck Fleet Add On
|
Fin Bonset | 12/20/2000 01:10PM |
|
RE: type xxi
|
Steve Cooper | 12/19/2000 06:20PM |
|
RE: type xxi
|
Stewart | 12/19/2000 07:29PM |
|
Blair
|
SuperKraut | 12/19/2000 08:49PM |
|
RE: Blair
|
kurt | 12/19/2000 11:40PM |
|
RE: I meant 1950\'s
|
kurt | 12/19/2000 11:48PM |
|
RE: Blair
|
Jim, | 12/20/2000 01:35AM |
|
RE: mystery radar
|
kurt | 12/20/2000 10:10PM |
|
Radar and snorkels
|
SuperKraut | 12/20/2000 09:09AM |
|
Wilhelm Bauer Type XXI
|
Rick Mann | 12/20/2000 05:06PM |
|
RE: Wilhelm Bauer Type XXI
|
SuperKraut | 12/21/2000 10:08AM |
|
RE: Wilhelm Bauer Type XXI
|
Rick Mann | 12/25/2000 05:01PM |
|
RE: Wilhelm Bauer Type XXI
|
SuperKraut | 12/28/2000 12:41AM |