It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A History of Submarines

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 02:26 PM
link   


The BQQ-9 towed array signal processing equipment passive sonar on the Ohio- class subs is a long range search sonar providing medium detection probability at ranges of some 30NM.


This system has pretty long range what do you guys think? And sorry I couldn't find more info.


globalsecurity.org




posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
The problem was solved with the development of the bow-mounted anti-submarine mortars which fired charges in a set pattern and allowed contact to be maintained.
If my memory is correct
the name of the weapon you refer to was Hedgehog?


Yes, indeed. Thankyou very much.



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Howl/expert......There was also the Squid Depthcharge mortar, and later Limbo............then ASROC, IKARA and a whole mess of ASW missiles with a torp or dc to extend thier range BVR.

Have you seen the late 1950s tests of the nuclear depth charges?

Whe you realise that mushroom ball of water and vapour is several kilometres from the Summer or Gearing class DD in the photo, you get some perspective how terrifying the weapon was. I would have abandoned pack tactics too even if I had the subs for it. Can you imagine the crush pressure that would have exerted, even on the edge of the underwater blast wave? Goodnight! Thank god they never had to use them. We'd all be eating Mr Burn's fish now.

Anyway, the last part (for now) on Sonars.

After 1949 the Royal Navy also adopted the term Sonar to conform to NATO terminology, and all the then current Asdic sets were included in the lists.

Following the last wartime set, the Type 147 the following were known in 1979 (per W&W)

Type 184: standard active/passive set in Rothsay, Leander and other classes of frigates.
Type 184M; solid state version developed by an outfit called Graseby (wow...really hi tech today hey?*winks*)
Type 193: worlds first minehunting set, capable of identifying and classifying objects on the seabed. Fitted to the trials MCM Shoulton in 1960.
Type 193M; improved version developed by Plessey. Used in the Brecon class MCMVs and the (then) West German Lindau Class.
Type 195: helecopter dipping set developed from PLessy's PMS26/27 range.
Type 2016: hull mounted multi freq set used (at the time) in Broadsword class frigates.
Type 2020: submarine sonar, mounted at the time in the Trafalgar Class, and retrofitted to the Superb Class and back to the Courageous.

It (W&W) noted with interest at the time the RN had never favoured the bow position for big sonars, for it was claimed that in rough weather the bow lifted clear of the water and slammed down violently, with the risk of damaging the equipment. The only exception at the time was a 7.6m (25 feet) diameter bow sonar fitted to the HMS Matapan, a former Battle class DD come trials ship. This contained at least two big sets and was said to have led to the 2016 and 2020 that were just entering service in 1979, when this was published. (Must look an see if the info suggests whether these were successful or not......showing my age and recent reinvigoration with the materials...thanks ATS)

The pioneers with variable depth sonar were the Canadians, and the AN/SQS-505 series having been sold to the Netherlands and Belgian Navies at the time. Australia was developing the Mulloka sonar as the US and British sets were not optimised for the range of temperatures and salinity found in the SWPA (always wondered why we didnt buy off the shelf.....that and Singapore replumbing and wiring thier ex Baltic submarines to cope with humidity and salinity explained it to me)...after all, we wanted to defend our waters.

West Germany (in 1979) was developing its own DSQS-21 BZ surface ship sonar optimised for Baltic conditions, for service in the F-122 type frigates.

France was also pursuing an independent line in sonar development. French surface ships mounted the very large DUBV-23/43, a combination of hull mounted and variable depth sets. The DUUA-2 series of passive sonars were made for submarines, and Thomson-CSF and CIT-Alcatel marketted many commercial versions of French Navy sonars, as well as thier own designs for small ships. The DUBM-21A was a minehunting sonar similar in concept to the UK Type 193, and was used in the Tripartite minehunters of France, Belgium, and the Netherlands.

Obviously China and the USSR had their own developments, but being a Cold War publication I havent seen much detail, probably due to the lack of info (it was obviously one thing to get thier hands on a MiG or T-72 to pull apart and study its components and to publish that in the west, but completely another to get a Submarine and a destroyer to openly pull apart and talk about).

I assume these, and other nations still pursue thier own R&D and issue today. I will be interested to see how many though are seeking off the shelf foreign kit legally or otherwise, or entered into multinational joint ventures, as I look through the web for this.

The VDS was (is?) considered by some navies to be more trouble than they are worth. with many dozens and hundreds of yards of cable trailing astern and the risk of loosing the "fish" (sensor) at the end of it. The helecopter with dipping sonar is said to be more effective, but many navies use both systems (although would it be true to say post cold war that many treasuries are forcing a "this or that" rationale on thier Admirals today?)

It was noted that up until the 1970s sonar development was for many years under the patronage of the respective navies, many commercial derivates were being sold by the likes of Graseby, Plessey, EDO, Raytheon, Westinghouse amd Thomson-CSF.

No doubt today, this is moreso the case for these firms and thier successors and newer competitors.

I must admit, i do not pay half as much attention to current developments as I do to the history of them. We are reaching the point I think where we are squeezing blood from a stone to get more improvements out of systems and designs (anybody see some of the 2020 projects.....can you say "Sea Quest DSV" with me) that are going to be beyond affordable, and to me at least, the pioneering days and how we got to here are much more interesting. That said, I sometimes get excitable about current developments

See you later when I continue the history of submarines.



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Don't know if this was mentioned or not already, but there is a new book out called "Shadow Divers" which I am reading right now, and it is about a German U-boat that was discovered off the coast of New Jersey in the early 90s, and the extreme mystery it was to solve the identity of the U-boat. I am reading it right now, and I think it is an awesome book.

If you are a deep-sea diver, you will most definitely like it I think.

It is a true story.



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Broadsword2004,

Havent seen the book but saw a documentary on cable here about it. Agreed it was very interesting. Would love to read the book but dont think I'll be afforsing it anytime soon. Wegot rid of cable to pay broadband.

Hopefully others will find it and read it. Nice to know you can still find adventure out there without getting shot at in the process.

Cheers.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Good grief Craig! You sure you didn't work for my dad at General Dynamics??????? You are making me want to run up to Bath Iron Works then Groton CT. for a vacation! Still can't understand why ANYONE wants to be on a boat that sinks on purpose. Of course when I started skydiving everyone wanted to know why I jumped out of a perfectly good airplane.



[edit on 11/18/2004 by just_a_pilot]



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 05:35 PM
link   
I know what you mean. Couldnt hack being a submariner myself, but there is something about them. A few years ago when the new Collins boats were having serious teething problems I remember seeing the RAN advertising for recruits who wanted to volunteer for submarines. The salary for a newbie was about AUD$40,000.00 pa, significantly more than a "skimmer", RAN slang for surface ships crews

No I didnt work for GD. You can go to Groton! I'm jealous. I think there are vantage points where you can see the subs sailing out to deep water there.

All (6) of our submarines are home ported at HMAS Stirling, Garden Island Western Australia, about 45min South of Perth, my old home town. Figures I move across the continent and the move them from Sydney! But I fondly remember the old Oberon boats visiting Fremantle in Navy Week, a "short" hop from Stirling, when the subs were still based East Coast, but rotated to the West.

Cheers!



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 05:53 PM
link   
LOL Craig, I have been to Groton with dad. I actually am invited guest to the ceremony on the 17th of January 2005 for the 50 anniversary of the commissioning of the Nautilus. Im siked. From planes to subs........ My birthday is the 15th so I cant think of a better present!
whoooooooooohoooooooooo.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 05:48 PM
link   
I'm back. And on track with the history.

WW2 Pacific

In the Pacific War the Japanese employed a large number of submarines of various shapes and sizes, including aircraft carrier subs, midget submarines and "human torpedos" carried in larger subs (and planned for launch from hidden coastal facilities).

There were two subs EB noted with interest.

The Japanese I-201 class were hi speed submarines 259 1/6 feet (79m) long and displacing 1291 ton, that had diesels for 15knots surfaced. However underwater, with large batteries, they could maintain 19 knots for 1 hour (given the wartime standard of 8-10knots this was impressive). Each had two 25mm cannon and four forward tubes with ten rounds. The Japanese, who also constructed midget subs, built the largest operational conventional submarines of WW2 (and possibly ever). The I-400 class were intended as underwater carriers and were fitted with a hangar large enough for three assembled floatplanes, plus a fourth in pieces. They were 400 1/4 feet (122m) long and displaced 5700 tons ( about the size of a WW2 light cruiser in most navies). The hangar measured 12 feet (3.7m) in diameter and were 102 feet (31m) long, and aircraft were launched by a catapult built into the decking. Each submarine was armed with a 140mm deck gun plus seven 25mm AAA. They had eight tubes and twenty war rounds. They were never actually used for thier planned mission, an attack on the Panama Canal (which probably would have failed as the US was rumored to have fitted the gates with armour plate off a cancelled 1920s Battleship in 1940) but were used to resupply bypassed garrisons in the islands.

The US Navy (later with RN and Dutch Navy) waged a highly successful submarine campaign in the Pacific, mainly using the Gato and Balao class submarines. These were approximately 311 1/2 feet (94.9m) long and displaced 1525 tons. They had diesel electrics fitted for 20 knots on the surface and 9 knots underwater. The principle difference between the two classes was that the Gatos had a 300 foot (90m) dive depth and the Balaos a 400ft (120m) dive depth (handy when you consider the lengths of the boats) Manned by 65-70 crew, these boats usually mounted one or two single unshielded 5inch guns, plus several smaller calibre AAA weapons ( I came across a listing showing more than a dozen different outfit mixes, mainly based on forward base mods and personal preferences of skippers), ten tubes (six forward four aft) with 24 war rounds..

Next.....well what ever comes to mind or hand really


[edit on 21-11-2004 by craigandrew]



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 05:57 PM
link   
In the Pacific War the Japanese employed a large number of submarines of various shapes and sizes, including aircraft carrier subs, midget submarines and "human torpedos" carried in larger subs (and planned for launch from hidden coastal facilities).
Wasnt it a human torpedo that sank the USS indianaplis (spelling?) the crusier that had shiped the atomic bombs . its just as well she was sunk on the return trip.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Okay. I've decided to include an A-Z of Submarines, as listed in my trusty old copy of Weapons and Warfare.

Some of the entries show how bland a career some subs have had and others that literally fought to the last. I think they all deserve mention, as a class. I may mave to savagely edit some entries, or at the very least serialise them.

As usual, entries will weave back and forth between other applicable sub topics.

If anyone has any comments or suggestions,please PM me or if its something you want to post do it here....your welcome too.

Here is the first sample.

A1

First British A Class sub. Thirteen boats besigned by Vickers as a improved version of the US Adder Class, and was the first operational type designed in the UK. A1 (ordered as Holland No.6....that is UKs no.6 -CA) was launched in July 1902 and A13, the first British sub with a diesel engine, was launched in April 1905.

On 18 March 1904 A1 was sunk off Portsmouth in a collision with the liner Berwick Castle. She was later raised and put back into service, but she was the first to be disposed of, as she was sunk as a gunnery target in 1911, followed by A3 in 1912. In January 1914 A7 was lost in Whitesand Bay (UK) when she dived into the mud.

During WW1 the survivors were used for harbour defence - A2, A4, A5 and A6 at Portsmouth, A8 and A9 at Devonport and A10, A11 and A12 at Ardrossan. A13 had an experimental heavy oil (diesel) engine which was unreliable, and she was laid up in October 1914. The others were reduced to training by 1918, and were sold in 1919-20, except A2 which was wrecked while awaiting disposal and not sold off until 1925.

Displacement: (A1) 185/203t sub/surf (A2-13) 190/205t.
Dimensions: length (A1) 31.47m (103'3") oa x 3.58m (11'9") x 3.05m (10')
(A2-13) 32m (105') oa x 3.85m (12' 7 3/4") x 3.22m (10'7") Machinery: (A1) 1 shaft Wolsley petrol engine, 400bhp= 10.4 knots surfaced, electric motor 150ehp= 6 knots submerged.
(A2-4) 1 shaft Wolsley petrol engine, 450bhp=11knots, submerged as A1. (A5-12) 1 shaft Wolsley petrol engine, 600bhp=11.4knots, submerged as A1. (A13) 1 shaft Vickers diesel engine, 500bhp=11.4knots, submerged as A1. Armament: (A1) 1x 18" (460mm) tube with three rounds. (A2-13) 2x 18" tubes with four rounds. Crew:11.

What do you think?



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Xpert11......USS Indianapolis. I have heard that story too. I can check and getback to you. I beleive there was some dispute on the point but I remember an article on it that discussed the detail.

There was a dramatisation of the events around her loss ("Night of the Shark" from memory, Starring Stacy Keach.....if its on VHS here, it must be available over there). Because of her role in delivering A bombs to the B-29 base, she sailed under strict secrecy and radio silence, hence her going missing not being picked up on for some days.

Many of the crew survived the torpedoing, only to die of exposure exhaustion drowing and of course the presence of large numbers of sharks.

Cheers.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by craigandrew
Xpert11......USS Indianapolis. I have heard that story too. I can check and getback to you. I beleive there was some dispute on the point but I remember an article on it that discussed the detail.

There was a dramatisation of the events around her loss ("Night of the Shark" from memory, Starring Stacy Keach.....if its on VHS here, it must be available over there). Because of her role in delivering A bombs to the B-29 base, she sailed under strict secrecy and radio silence, hence her going missing not being picked up on for some days.

Saw the flim on video it was pretty good I enjoyed watching it. Even with the need for strict secrecy there can be no excuses there were no escoting DDs for ASW a lot of good men died because of a basic error. If I recall rightly the Indianapolis wasnt even Zig Zagging a basic precaution against submarine attack.

Okay. I've decided to include an A-Z of Submarines, as listed in my trusty old copy of Weapons and Warfare. Great idea !
craigandrew keep it comeing I am enjoying this thread.









posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 07:52 PM
link   
I think there was a degree of arrogance brought about by the Japanese losing all the big recent engagements with the allies. When you look at the sheer size of the allied forces involved at that stage, nobody gave much for thier chances.

It was not unusual for vessels like cruisers to sail independently. They were still used in scouting operations. For thier vast resources, there was a lot of ground and requirements to be covered...such as screening those vast resources ironically.

HMAS Sydney, an Amphion class 6in light cruiser was lost with all hands after being taken by surprise by the disguised German Raider Kormoran off the West Australian coast in late November 1941. She was on Convoy route patrol looking for raiders, but Kormoran faked her out acting as a freindly Dutch Cargo ship (Straat Malacca I think) until she closed point blank to voice to voice with her skipper.

In the weights and balances of the time, it might have been considered unusual enough to attract attention if the Indy had sailed to and from Tinian with an escort. I think even the USN from the Democratic USA was capable in those days of finding a scapegoat (or goats) to blame for a decision, even when that decision may have been a fair one.

It unfortunately seems the international norm today that if every step of a course is not a success then blame someone and apportion it to the most vunerable or influentless, rather than accepting that "S**t happens" and sometimes you just plain get out fought, out thought and outa luck.

The luck does not always run our way. Sometimes it never seems like it. If we had adopted the attitude of quitting when it got rough the USA wouldve surrendered and asked for terms on December 7, 1941.

If Indy had sailed 30 minutes earlier, or 30 minutes later she probably wouldve ended up at Bikini getting a maxi tan, and forgotten.

Cheers.


[edit on 21-11-2004 by craigandrew]



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 05:54 PM
link   
A1

Italian midget sub class. In 1912-13 the Italian Navy built two experimental midget subs for harbour defence in Venice. They were known unofficially as Alfa and Beta as they were never a part of the navy, and were scrapped in 1915-16.

Profitting by this experience Lt.Gen Ferrati designed a class of small electric driven subs for defending the Adriatic harbours. The plans for the French Naiade Class were used as the basis, and like them they carried two 45cm (17.7mm) torpedoes in external drop collars. All five were built by the Arsenal at Le Spezia, being laid down in July 1915 and completed between December 1915 and March 1916. The boats were numbered A1-6 and were discarded in September 1918. Submerged endurance was about 13.5kms (8 1/2 miles) at a speed of 4 1/2knots.

Displacement: 31.25/36.7 t (surf/sub) Length: 13.5m (42'3 1/2") pp Beam:2.218m (7'3 1/4") Draught: 2.275m (7'5 1/2") Machinery: single shaft electric motor, 46-60 ehp= 6.8kn/5.08kn (surf/sub) Armament: 2 x 45cm torpedoes. Crew:4.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 06:33 PM
link   
A 1

Lead ship of the Norweigan A class subs. The four boats of this class were built by Krupp's Germania yard in 1907-14. The lead ship was named Kobben but the class were give numbers on completion. They were very similar to the original German U-boat U-1 and the Austro-Hungarian Ub-1 and Ub-2 which immediately preceeded them.

Many improvements were incorporated into A 2-4 which were the first submarines built in Germany with deisel engines. A 1 had the Korting kerosene motor which was to continue in service in the German Navy for some years, and she also had an external stern tube, whereas her sisters were built with an internal one. The latter boats were fitted with a manouvering propeller in the bow, a very unusual feature in a submarine, and also with radio equipment.

In 1916 the Norwegian Navy aqquired some Farman biplane floatplanes (think exposed wire and spars,with a pusher motor and a giant clog shoe with two seats suspended between the wings) for trials with the service. The aircraft were prone to breakdown or running out of fuel in a headwind, so the Norweigans developed a system where on of the A class boats would standby out to sea to (usually) recover the standed aircraft off open water. The sub would submerge under the floatplane then surface, bring her charge home on the surface high and dry. There is a photo of A 4 with a Farman sitting tail down on the stern deck, with her floats resting on the pressure hull either side of the decking. Spare floats were strapped to the pressure hull forward of the conning tower.

A fifth unit, A 5 was still under construction at Kiel when WW1 broke out in August 1914, and so she was incorporated into the German Navy as UA. From 1916 she served only on training duties in the Baltic, and after the armistice, she was scrapped in Britain. The other four were laid up pending disposal, when the Germans invaded in 1940 (bad timing eh?).

Displacement: (A1): 206/259t surf/sub. (A2-4): 268/355t surf/sub. Length: (A1): 34.25m (112' 4 1/2") (A2-4) 46.47m (152' 5 1/2") Beam: (A1):3.7m (12'1 1/2") (A2-4) 4.78m (15'4 1/4") Draught: (A1): 2.95m (9'8") (A2-4) 2.7m (8'10") Machinery: (A1) 2 shaft Korting oil engine, 450bhp=11.9knots surf, electric motors, 300ehp=8.9kn sub. (A2-4) 2 shaft Krupp diesel engines, 700bhp=14kn surf, electric motors, 380ehp=9kn sub. 3x 18in (46cm) TTs and 5 rounds ( 4 in A1). Crew (A2-4) 16 (A1) 12.

Don't worry, thats the last A1 in the book. The rest under A have names....



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by craigandrew

It unfortunately seems the international norm today that if every step of a course is not a success then blame someone and apportion it to the most vunerable or influentless, rather than accepting that "S**t happens" and sometimes you just plain get out fought, out thought and outa luck.

The luck does not always run our way. Sometimes it never seems like it. If we had adopted the attitude of quitting when it got rough the USA wouldve surrendered and asked for terms on December 7, 1941.

If Indy had sailed 30 minutes earlier, or 30 minutes later she probably wouldve ended up at Bikini getting a maxi tan, and forgotten.

Cheers.


[edit on 21-11-2004 by craigandrew]


I not one that gose dishing out blame when someone dies in a war. However there is no such thing as luck in warfare. Luck is a combination of skill and Circumstances. The cirumstances I have outlined above and as for skill well the submarine arm of the IJN scored a rare success.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 04:52 AM
link   
Yes, but accidents happen in peace time too and we always need a scapegoat.

After the Melbourne sank the Voyager the enquiry went after the skipper of the Melbourne. It was Voyager's job to keep out of the way.

The Captain of the Indy was unlucky, and it has been proven that zig-zagging was not a defence. The Musashi was zig-zagging when a sub got her. (I hope I remembered the right ship!)

Where were the search 'planes looking for Indy? Where were the anti-submarine Catalina patrols? etc etc.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Yes, but accidents happen in peace time too and we always need a scapegoat.

The Captain of the Indy was unlucky, and it has been proven that zig-zagging was not a defence. The Musashi was zig-zagging when a sub got her. (I hope I remembered the right ship!)

I would hardly call the sinking of the Indy an accident.
Wasnt the Musashi was the sister ship to the Yamato?
If I recall correctly both super battleships were sunk by carrier based aircraft. you have valid points about the lack of air patrols/searches.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Luck does play an element in war. Some major ones I can remember.

The very lucky cruiser HMS Sheffield during the hunt for the Bismark. She was attacked by a flight of "Stringbags" (Swordfish) torpedo bombers from the HMS Illustrious ( I think) and the torps either detonated on impact with the water or passed underneath Shef without exploding. A message to the effect "good drops bad torps" was sent to the FAA Squadron responsible.

Good Luck

The one damaging torpedo hit on Bismark (caused by Ark Royals Swordfish) happened when the torpedo hit in the area of the rudders, jamming Bismark into a wide turning circle. If it had not happened in all likelyhood she would have come under the protection of the Luftwaffe and made it safely to Brest.

More Bad Luck.

The U-boat skippers log that said he had sighted Ark Royal turning into the wind to launch aircraft, and just happened to be in a perfect position to fire a spread of torpedoes to sink her.......except he was returning from patrol and had no torpedoes left to fire. Her aircraft then crippled the Bismark's steering.

There is a degree of it in everything.




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join