General Discussions
This is the place to discuss general issues related to the U-boat war or the war at sea in WWII.
RE: US Battleship vs. U-boat?
Posted by:
kurt
()
Date: May 01, 2001 06:56PM
<HTML>In the days before seaborne radar, or ASW airpower, a sub could skirt around a target on the surface. The visibility of a large target like a ship, especially a huge one like a battleship, is much more, and it is visible from much longer distances, than a sub, which lies much lower in the water. While a battleship can go very fast, it normally cruises at a much slower speed, maybe 10 to 15 knots, so a U-boat running flat out can go faster than a cruising battleship.
The sub would go on the surface at high speed, far enough away from the target so that just the masts of the target ship would be in view. The sub would be almost invisible to the target ship. If the sub commander felt confident of the target track, he might even skirt out of sight and steam to an intercept position ahead of the target, and then submerge and wait.
This technique was called an \'end-around\', and was widely used in the Pacific by US subs, and in the Atlantic by U-boats in the early days. The \'U-boat Commander\'s handbook\' goes into this technique in great detail.
Once escorts got radar, and airpower became common, this became impossible, as subs could not stay on the surface for the high speed end around run.
This also explains why Mutzelburg could track a target for 16 hours and not identify it as a neutral ship - all he was looking at was the tips of the masts at a great distance....
</HTML>
The sub would go on the surface at high speed, far enough away from the target so that just the masts of the target ship would be in view. The sub would be almost invisible to the target ship. If the sub commander felt confident of the target track, he might even skirt out of sight and steam to an intercept position ahead of the target, and then submerge and wait.
This technique was called an \'end-around\', and was widely used in the Pacific by US subs, and in the Atlantic by U-boats in the early days. The \'U-boat Commander\'s handbook\' goes into this technique in great detail.
Once escorts got radar, and airpower became common, this became impossible, as subs could not stay on the surface for the high speed end around run.
This also explains why Mutzelburg could track a target for 16 hours and not identify it as a neutral ship - all he was looking at was the tips of the masts at a great distance....
</HTML>
| Subject | Written By | Posted |
|---|---|---|
US Battleship vs. U-boat?
|
Frank Blazich | 04/30/2001 02:51AM |
|
RE: US Battleship vs. U-boat?
|
Yngvi | 04/30/2001 02:19PM |
|
RE: US Battleship vs. U-boat?
|
Frank Blazich | 05/01/2001 03:51AM |
|
RE: US Battleship vs. U-boat?
|
Simon | 05/01/2001 03:40PM |
|
RE: US Battleship vs. U-boat?
|
kurt | 05/01/2001 06:56PM |
|
RE: US Battleship vs. U-boat?
|
Brian Corijn | 05/01/2001 09:07PM |
|
RE: US Battleship vs. U-boat?
|
Yngvi | 05/01/2001 11:32PM |
|
RE: US Battleship vs. U-boat?
|
Frank Blazich | 05/02/2001 02:40AM |
|
RE: US Battleship vs. U-boat?
|
Brian Corijn | 05/02/2001 03:59AM |