Diesel and electric motors on submarines
John Hatpin
forums I thought I'd run it past you guys. You're good at this stuff.
I've read that a U-boat, aiming to conserve very limited diesel fuel,
ended up running on its electric motors for part of the time each day.
This seems illogical, because the batteries for the electric motors
were, of course, recharged by the diesels.
My first thought was that they were running on batteries with no
intention of recharging them, but then they ran one of the diesels to
recharge. All of this was done on the surface, so it wasn't as if
they were saving fuel by staying beneath the waves.
In short, WTF? Surely it's more fuel-efficient to drive the screws
with the diesels than to use the diesels to recharge the batteries and
then use the charge in the batteries to drive the screws. Obviously
not, otherwise they wouldn't have used the electric motors.
For background information, the electric motors were connected
directly to the drive-shafts, and the diesels could turn the shafts by
attaching a gearing mechanism. While the diesels were running, the
electric motors could be used to recharge the batteries. It looked
like this (fixed-pitch font recommended):
(aft)
X X <--- screws
| |
| |
|+ +| <--- gears
|| ||
|E E|
|E E|
| |
D D
D D
D D
(fore)
| = shafts
E = electric motors
D = diesel motors
To recap, how can it be more fuel-efficient to use diesels to turn the
electric motors to charge the batteries to later run the electric
motors, than to run from the diesels directly?
--
John Hatpin
Lalbert1
<nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> writes:
>Came across this oddity today, and before asking on the specialised
>forums I thought I'd run it past you guys. You're good at this stuff.
>
>I've read that a U-boat, aiming to conserve very limited diesel fuel,
>ended up running on its electric motors for part of the time each day.
>This seems illogical, because the batteries for the electric motors
>were, of course, recharged by the diesels.
>
>My first thought was that they were running on batteries with no
>intention of recharging them, but then they ran one of the diesels to
>recharge. All of this was done on the surface, so it wasn't as if
>they were saving fuel by staying beneath the waves.
>
>In short, WTF? Surely it's more fuel-efficient to drive the screws
>with the diesels than to use the diesels to recharge the batteries and
>then use the charge in the batteries to drive the screws. Obviously
>not, otherwise they wouldn't have used the electric motors. ...
Guessing from what it takes to charge car batteries, the car motor can be just
turning over and the batteries still get charged. I would think the same
applies to a diesel engine charging a submarine battery. And the submarine you
mention was running on the surface, which allowed the boat to move with less
resistance/greater speed while running its electric motors.
Les
Jerry Bauer
(in message <09u6vv88thk80ei82...@4ax.com>):
> Came across this oddity today, and before asking on the specialised
> forums I thought I'd run it past you guys. You're good at this stuff.
>
> I've read that a U-boat, aiming to conserve very limited diesel fuel,
> ended up running on its electric motors for part of the time each day.
> This seems illogical, because the batteries for the electric motors
> were, of course, recharged by the diesels.
<<<...>>>
>
> (aft)
>
> X X <--- screws
> | |
> | |
> |+ +| <--- gears
> || ||
> |E E|
> |E E|
> | |
> D D
> D D
> D D
>
> (fore)
>
> | = shafts
> E = electric motors
> D = diesel motors
>
> To recap, how can it be more fuel-efficient to use diesels to turn the
> electric motors to charge the batteries to later run the electric
> motors, than to run from the diesels directly?
>
>
Just a guess, but it may be that it is more efficient to charge the
batteries _and_ drive the propellers than it is just to drive the
propellers. That is, perhaps the diesels are capable of more torque
than the propellers can use efficiently, so, rather than run the
diesels suboptimally, they are run at capacity and the excess output
is stored in the batteries. Then, later, that excess is applied to
the electric motors while the diesels are shut down.
Ask the Toyota Prius engineers.
--
Jerry Randal Bauer
Jerry Bauer
(in message <bt087s$ih$1...@pc.tampabay.rr.com>):
> In article <0001HW.BC18C88D...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>,
> Jerry Bauer <use...@bauerstar.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 17:53:15 -0800, John Hatpin wrote
>> (in message <09u6vv88thk80ei82...@4ax.com>):
>>
>>> To recap, how can it be more fuel-efficient to use diesels to turn the
>>> electric motors to charge the batteries to later run the electric
>>> motors, than to run from the diesels directly?
>
> I guess since the sub wouldn't always go the same speed, and diesel engines
> (like two-strokes) are more efficient within a narrow RPM range, that
> arrangement allowed to keep the engine's speed nearly constant.
>
>> Ask the Toyota Prius engineers.
>
> Diesel-electric locomotives and some heavy equipment run that way too.
>
>
Most (all? -- I know of no counterexamples) diesel-electric
locomotives have no direct connection between the diesels and the
wheels -- the wheels are driven only by electric motors. I don't
know about other heavy equipment. I mentioned the Prius because the
wheels can be driven by the IC engine or the electric motor (or
both), in a way roughly analogous to John's description of the
submarine's configuration.
--
Jerry Randal Bauer
Mary Shafer
<nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Came across this oddity today, and before asking on the specialised
> forums I thought I'd run it past you guys. You're good at this stuff.
>
> I've read that a U-boat, aiming to conserve very limited diesel fuel,
> ended up running on its electric motors for part of the time each day.
> This seems illogical, because the batteries for the electric motors
> were, of course, recharged by the diesels.
>
> My first thought was that they were running on batteries with no
> intention of recharging them, but then they ran one of the diesels to
> recharge. All of this was done on the surface, so it wasn't as if
> they were saving fuel by staying beneath the waves.
>
> In short, WTF? Surely it's more fuel-efficient to drive the screws
> with the diesels than to use the diesels to recharge the batteries and
> then use the charge in the batteries to drive the screws. Obviously
> not, otherwise they wouldn't have used the electric motors.
Think for a minute about schnorkeling (running the diesels on the
surface, through a schnorkel tube). Why is it on the surface, which
is an unnatural place for a submarine to be?
Oxygen, of course. They can only run the diesels if they have oxygen
available. If they run the diesels under water, they quickly use up
all the oxygen in the air inside the submarine. They run the diesels
on the surface, using outside air, to charge the batteries.
They use the electric motors when they're under water because they
don't have the oxygen to run the diesels. Also, battery power and
electric motors are quieter than diesels.
Mary
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
mil...@qnet.com
Jerry Bauer
(in message <qjl7vvkiv3s808jvh...@4ax.com>):
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 01:53:15 +0000, John Hatpin
> <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
<<<...>>>
>> My first thought was that they were running on batteries with no
>> intention of recharging them, but then they ran one of the diesels to
>> recharge. All of this was done on the surface, so it wasn't as if
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<<<...>>>
> They use the electric motors when they're under water because they
> don't have the oxygen to run the diesels. Also, battery power and
> electric motors are quieter than diesels.
I think John understands the normal role of the the electric motors,
and asked a different question than you answered.
--
Jerry Randal Bauer
Derek
>
> I've read that a U-boat, aiming to conserve very limited diesel fuel,
> ended up running on its electric motors for part of the time each day.
> This seems illogical, because the batteries for the electric motors
> were, of course, recharged by the diesels.
>
> My first thought was that they were running on batteries with no
> intention of recharging them, but then they ran one of the diesels to
> recharge. All of this was done on the surface, so it wasn't as if
> they were saving fuel by staying beneath the waves.
>
> In short, WTF? Surely it's more fuel-efficient to drive the screws
> with the diesels than to use the diesels to recharge the batteries and
> then use the charge in the batteries to drive the screws. Obviously
> not, otherwise they wouldn't have used the electric motors.
>
It was not common to use batteries on the surface to conserve fuel,
but the U-boats could do some pretty clever stuff. They might use one
diesel to drive the boat using one prop and turn the other prop's
windmilling into a generator for the battery. There were some strange
combinations available.
Your original question: I'm going to get skewered by a double E major
because I will use the wrong terms, but here's an attempt. The diesel
had "excess capacity" for running the u-boat along at 6 knots. They
could use the excess incremental output for battery charging. An
example:
Assume you have a task in your garage requiring you use your car's
headlights for 30 minutes. At the conclusion of your task, you are
going to drive your car at 50 MPH (or KPH if you want to do it over
there;) for 30 minutes.
I think you would use more fuel if your car was at idle to power the
headlights for the first 30 minutes than if you just used the battery
for the first 30 minutes--and then spent the 2nd 30 minutes driving.
Let the skewering commence.
Derek
PS For a true expert's opinion the technical forum at u-boat.net is
your place. Here is a thread that may have something of interest.
Mark Brader
> Why is it on the surface, which is an unnatural place for a submarine
> to be?
In WW2, the surface *was* the natural place for a submarine to be.
They would only submerge for an attack or other operational reasons.
Late in the war snorkels began to change this, but of course they
still required the sub to run just below the surface. It wasn't
until nuclear reactors were available for power that subs were
really meant to stay submerged all the time.
I think the original question has been answered -- efficient use of
the diesels allowed them to charge the batteries while also powering
the sub, so to save fuel you could then shut them down and run off
the batteries for a while. Thanks; I hadn't heard of this before.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "It is one thing to praise discipline, and another
m...@vex.net | to submit to it." -- Miguel de Cervantes, 1613
My text in this article is in the public domain.
chrisgreville
"Mark Brader" <m...@vex.net> wrote in message
news:vv91b86...@corp.supernews.com...
> Mary Shafer writes:
> > Why is it on the surface, which is an unnatural place for a submarine
> > to be?
>
> In WW2, the surface *was* the natural place for a submarine to be.
> They would only submerge for an attack or other operational reasons.
The initial attack was done from underwater, but usually, if there were no
other warships in the area, they surfaced to finish the job with the surface
guns.
> Late in the war snorkels began to change this, but of course they
> still required the sub to run just below the surface. It wasn't
> until nuclear reactors were available for power that subs were
> really meant to stay submerged all the time.
One bit of information to add about snorkels was that they were needed them
because of improvements in the Allies radar. Eventually, by the end of the
war, even the snorkels could be picked up.
> I think the original question has been answered -- efficient use of
> the diesels allowed them to charge the batteries while also powering
> the sub, so to save fuel you could then shut them down and run off
> the batteries for a while. Thanks; I hadn't heard of this before.
AOL
Chris Greville.
John Hatpin
>Just a guess, but it may be that it is more efficient to charge the
>batteries _and_ drive the propellers than it is just to drive the
>propellers. That is, perhaps the diesels are capable of more torque
>than the propellers can use efficiently, so, rather than run the
>diesels suboptimally, they are run at capacity and the excess output
>is stored in the batteries. Then, later, that excess is applied to
>the electric motors while the diesels are shut down.
That makes complete sense. Thanks, Jerry.
The word "torque" always makes my head hurt, but in this context I
know what it means.
--
John Hatpin
John Hatpin
>The initial attack was done from underwater, but usually, if there were no
>other warships in the area, they surfaced to finish the job with the surface
>guns.
Often, the attack was conducted wholly on the surface. If there were
no warships in the immediate vicinity, and the merchants were unarmed,
and the sub had a reasonable chance of approaching on the surface
without being detected, why dive? Typically, the submarine would
approach at night, taking great care to avoid being moonlit.
A lot of U-boats sank merchant shipping using the deck gun (the cannon
mounted on the foredeck, only usable when surfaced) alone. In a way,
the WW2 U-boat was a very poor surface warship that had the ability to
submerge if necessary. And they were by far the most advanced
submarines of the time.
>One bit of information to add about snorkels was that they were needed them
>because of improvements in the Allies radar. Eventually, by the end of the
>war, even the snorkels could be picked up.
I thought that snorkels were pretty much invisible to radar? The wake
they produced was enough to be seen in certain circumstances, but I've
never heard of a case of a snorkel head being detected by radar. I'd
be interested to know of such a case.
>> I think the original question has been answered -- efficient use of
>> the diesels allowed them to charge the batteries while also powering
>> the sub, so to save fuel you could then shut them down and run off
>> the batteries for a while. Thanks; I hadn't heard of this before.
>
>AOL
AOL too. I think Jerry Bauer's hit the nail on the head with this
one.
--
John Hatpin
John Hatpin
>It was not common to use batteries on the surface to conserve fuel,
>but the U-boats could do some pretty clever stuff. They might use one
>diesel to drive the boat using one prop and turn the other prop's
>windmilling into a generator for the battery. There were some strange
>combinations available.
You're right - running on electric motors on the surface was normally
only done in dock. In this case, the U-boat (U-109) was extremely
short of fuel, and the commander was considering raising a sail.
I didn't know about the "windmilling" thing, but that makes sense.
>Let the skewering commence.
No skewering from this quarter. A good answer, to my mind.
>PS For a true expert's opinion the technical forum at u-boat.net is
>your place. Here is a thread that may have something of interest.
>
>http://uboat.net/forum/read.php?f=20&i=3787&t=3786
Yep. Normally, I post questions on that very forum (there's an active
thread on there at the moment that I started about torpedo reload
times), but I figured it would be better to ask on AFCA first. That
was a good decision in this case.
--
John Hatpin
Arthur Kimes
<nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
] I thought that snorkels were pretty much invisible to radar? The wake
] they produced was enough to be seen in certain circumstances, but I've
] never heard of a case of a snorkel head being detected by radar. I'd
] be interested to know of such a case.
Snorkel should be easily detected by radar. It's not the size
of the target that's important to radar, it's the SHAPE. I suppose if
the snorkel is low enough in the water it might get lost in the waves so
far as radar is concerned but the snorkel HAS to be above the waves or
it doesn't work.
Example, an early test of the f-117 (to see how well standard
radar picked it up) didn't go so well for the stealth plane. It was
picked up easily 50 miles away. Turns out it had three screwheads
sticking up 1/8 of an inch too high. That's all it took to provide a
great radar return. (page 69, The Skunk Works, pb edition)
"I am only correcting God's mistakes" - Celestine
chrisgreville
> chrisgreville wrote:
>
> >One bit of information to add about snorkels was that they were needed
them
> >because of improvements in the Allies radar. Eventually, by the end of
the
> >war, even the snorkels could be picked up.
>
> I thought that snorkels were pretty much invisible to radar? The wake
> they produced was enough to be seen in certain circumstances, but I've
> never heard of a case of a snorkel head being detected by radar. I'd
> be interested to know of such a case.
Towards the back of the Jones book that I lent you it is discussed, not in
great detail, but it is mentioned.
IIRC, the radar was tweaked a bit to read the specific wavelength of the
snorkel.
Chris Greville
chrisgreville
"chrisgreville" <chrisNooo-s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bt39rv$7ho$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
<Quote>
..........U-boats running on the surface recharging their batteries. To
charge the batteries that powered the electric motors for submerged
operations, all submarines had to surface to run their air-breathing diesel
engines. To counter the Allied radar threat the Germans perfected a Dutch
device known as the snorkel. Using a snorkel a submarine could run its
diesel engines and recharge its batteries while operating just below the
surface. Air for the diesel engines was drawn into the submarine through the
snorkel that was extended to the surface. To some extent the snorkel reduced
vulnerability to detection and attack, but it protruded above the surface
and could be detected by radar. The Germans introduced the snorkel too late
in the war to make a difference.
</Quote>
From http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blsubmarine9.htm
<Quote>
Toward the end of World War II, the Germans perfected a snorkel device which
had been invented by the Dutch years before. This device permitted the
running of diesel engines while the ship was submerged. The best storage
batteries discharged rapidly and limited submergence time. The snorkel
greatly increased underwater endurance, but protruded above the surface and
could he detected by radar.
(From the same paragraph comes the following little gem about tonnage sunk
compared to the size of the fleet)
Although the U. S. Navy still had a relatively small number of submarines
when World War II broke out, this fact did little to dampen the spirits of
submariners, and the tales of their successes fill countless pages of
history books. When the figures were finally tabulated it was found that
American submarines sank five and one-half million tons of Japanese shipping
during the war which included over half of the entire Japanese merchant
fleet.Another significant fact is that U. S. subs accounted for about 60 per
cent (over 1300 ships) of all Japanese tonnage sunk, yet the submarine
strength at that time comprised less than two per cent of the entire U. S.
Fleet.
</Quote>
From http://www.rddesigns.com/saga/subsaga_p6.html
Of course, all queries relating to snorkels should be directed to Kay, our
resident expert. :-)
Chris Greville
kay w
>Of course, all queries relating to snorkels should be directed to Kay, our
>resident expert. :-)
In my case, the radar profile of the snorkle is insignificant when compared to
the wake of the vessel's tail section.
This also does little to dampen the spirits of the submariners.
--
But Tonto he was smarter/ And one day said "Kemo Sabe,
Kiss my ass; I bought a boat. / I'm going out to sea."
Lyle Lovett
chrisgreville
"kay w" <scu...@aol.comatose> wrote in message
news:20040102124448...@mb-m07.aol.com...
> Previously, ChrisG said, in part:
>
> >Of course, all queries relating to snorkels should be directed to Kay,
our
> >resident expert. :-)
>
> In my case, the radar profile of the snorkle is insignificant when
compared to
> the wake of the vessel's tail section.
>
> This also does little to dampen the spirits of the submariners.
>
>
Sailors are notoriously unfussy about tail sections.
Chris <Ducking/running> Greville :-)
Blinky the Shark
"Looka the poop deck on that one..."
--
Blinky
John Hatpin
[snipped for bandwidth conservation reasonalisations]
I'll bet it was a lot harder to detect a snorkel head than it was to
detect a surfaced vessel. Otherwise, why bother with a snorkel in the
first place?
--
John Hatpin
chrisgreville
Certainly it is a smaller target, but it still showed up on radar if they
were unlucky.
Chris Greville
John Hatpin
In the accounts I've read, snorkelling U-boats were able to go about
their business pretty much undetected by radar-carrying Allied
aircraft. which was the main threat.
So, for example, U-234 was able to travel right across the Atlantic
with its load of scientists, Japanese diplomats, an ME-262 and tubes
of ... of who knows what, en route to Tokyo. Couldn't do that sans
snorkel.
--
John Hatpin
Blinky the Shark
> So, for example, U-234 was able to travel right across the Atlantic
> with its load of scientists, Japanese diplomats, an ME-262 and tubes
> of ... of who knows what, en route to Tokyo. Couldn't do that sans
> snorkel.
U-23x on U-234. I've always liked that.
Some say a V-2, as well.
--
Blinky
Arthur Kimes
<nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
They were also worried about being observed by eyeballs.
Snorkels are quite effective against that.
The Germans had a lot of ideas on how to fight the Allied 10cm
radar. They had special rubberlike coatings applied to the subs
outside, various kinds of ECM emitters. They didn't work.
Arthur Kimes
<nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
] In the accounts I've read, snorkelling U-boats were able to go about
] their business pretty much undetected by radar-carrying Allied
] aircraft. which was the main threat.
I've read differently. We disagree until one of us has time to
look up some cites.
] So, for example, U-234 was able to travel right across the Atlantic
] with its load of scientists, Japanese diplomats, an ME-262 and tubes
] of ... of who knows what, en route to Tokyo. Couldn't do that sans
] snorkel.
It's still a big ocean. Once you get past the heavily patrolled
areas, like the Bay of Biscay (where the u-boats based in France had to
traverse), and if you avoided the convoys (which had a LOT of radar
equipped ships and planes) chances are you would not pass under an
aircraft that had radar.
danny burstein
>
> The Germans had a lot of ideas on how to fight the Allied 10cm
>radar. They had special rubberlike coatings applied to the subs
>outside, various kinds of ECM emitters. They didn't work.
for some loose defintiion of "didn't work". Making the sub (or its
snorkel) less detectable, so that it would get picked up, say, five miles
away instead of 15, certainly helped them.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Arthur Kimes
<dan...@panix.com> wrote:
] In <3ff626ef...@news.cis.dfn.de> ar...@yahoo.com (Arthur Kimes)
writes:
] >
] > The Germans had a lot of ideas on how to fight the Allied 10cm
] >radar. They had special rubberlike coatings applied to the subs
] >outside, various kinds of ECM emitters. They didn't work.
]
] for some loose defintiion of "didn't work". Making the sub (or its
] snorkel) less detectable, so that it would get picked up, say, five
miles
] away instead of 15, certainly helped them.
Many of the measure the Germans came up with were either trivial
or counter-productive. For example, the antenna used by the detector*
for 3cm radar** was an excellent target for that same radar. So the
ability to detect that radar was balanced by the improved ability of the
radar to find the sub. The coatings worked somewhat in the laboratory,
but didn't stand up to the ocean environment.
They kept coming up with ideas and techniques to counter the
allies ideas and techniques but kept falling further behind the tech
curve.
"certainly helped them". Yeah they were helped but they were
still worse off than they were 6 months earlier.
* not relevant but interesting. that detector was non-directional.
radar ops came up with a trick were they would reduce the power on their
radar as they approached the sub. The operator on the sub didn't know
if airplane was getting closer. If the sub submerged on every detection
they could never stay on the surface to recharge.
** 3cm radar replaced 10cm radar later in the war.
chrisgreville
"Arthur Kimes" <ar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3ff626ef...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:43:20 +0000, John Hatpin
> <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> ] chrisgreville wrote:
> ]
> ] [snipped for bandwidth conservation reasonalisations]
> ]
> ] I'll bet it was a lot harder to detect a snorkel head than it was to
> ] detect a surfaced vessel. Otherwise, why bother with a snorkel in the
> ] first place?
>
> They were also worried about being observed by eyeballs.
> Snorkels are quite effective against that.
A lot depended on sea conditions. On a clear moonlight night, the wake from
a snorkel or periscope is visible for some miles.
I have read an account by a pilot who followed the wake of a submarine to
launch an attack.
In daylight, the wake from a periscope was spotted outside the entrance of
Pearl Harbour just prior to the attack.
> The Germans had a lot of ideas on how to fight the Allied 10cm
> radar. They had special rubberlike coatings applied to the subs
> outside, various kinds of ECM emitters. They didn't work.
>
They would have worked but for some exterior reason which the Germans got
wrong. I do not have my reference book to hand to give a cite.
I tried to do a google on "Snorkel radar invisibility" but got distracted by
this rather*ahem* unusual listing.
The Mountain
... Human Horses Human Spontaneous Involuntary Invisibility Human Vibrator
... of Fine Enema
Nozzles Pussy Snorkel PVC Men At ... Wildlife Art of Gary "Radar" Burghoff
Wind ...
www.thewvsr.com/mountain.htm - 62k - Cached - Similar pages
http://www.thewvsr.com/mountain.htm
Chris Greville
John Hatpin
Some are probably wrong. Wolfgang Hirschfeld, the telegraphy officer
on board U-234, makes no mention of a V-2 aboard in his book. It's
not exactly something you could fail to notice.
I suppose we'll never know during our lifetimes what the cargo in the
tubes was, though. Uranium oxide seems unlikely, and the complete
disappearance of Lt Falcke, the foreign liaison specialist aboard, who
'knew about the ore', strikes me as suspicious.
--
John Hatpin
John Hatpin
By that time, Allied air coverage of the North Atlantic was complete -
the 'gap' had been filled, mainly by US carrier-based aircraft, many
of which carried radar. It was a dangerous place to be for the
U-boats.
--
John Hatpin
John Hatpin
>I tried to do a google on "Snorkel radar invisibility" but got distracted by
>this rather*ahem* unusual listing.
>The Mountain
>... Human Horses Human Spontaneous Involuntary Invisibility Human Vibrator
>... of Fine Enema
>Nozzles Pussy Snorkel PVC Men At ... Wildlife Art of Gary "Radar" Burghoff
>Wind ...
>www.thewvsr.com/mountain.htm - 62k - Cached - Similar pages
>
>http://www.thewvsr.com/mountain.htm
Did you follow the "pussy snorkel" link? If the Germans had had this
device in WW2, the outcome of the Battle of the Atlantic might have
been different.
http://www.pussysnorkel.com/facts.htm
--
John Hatpin
James Gifford
> http://www.pussysnorkel.com/facts.htm
I saw that one... uh... coming.
--
| James Gifford * FIX SPAMTRAP TO REPLY |
| So... your philosophy fits in a sig, does it? |
| Heinlein stuff at: www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah |
chrisgreville
>
> Did you follow the "pussy snorkel" link? If the Germans had had this
> device in WW2, the outcome of the Battle of the Atlantic might have
> been different.
>
> http://www.pussysnorkel.com/facts.htm
>
I think they tried it out once, but it was sunk by shark bite.
Luckily, through some trick of evolution I can breathe through my ears.
An asset I have used with some suc(k)cess.
Chris Greville
(And I don't need no damn dental floss)
Blinky the Shark
> "John Hatpin" <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:cqrdvvc3n0pj53q4i...@4ax.com...
>> http://www.pussysnorkel.com/facts.htm
> I think they tried it out once, but it was sunk by shark bite.
Hey, we can be gentle when we want to.
--
Blinky
Blinky the Shark
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 23:20:01 +0000, John Hatpin wrote:
>>
>>> So, for example, U-234 was able to travel right across the Atlantic
>>> with its load of scientists, Japanese diplomats, an ME-262 and tubes
>>> of ... of who knows what, en route to Tokyo. Couldn't do that sans
>>> snorkel.
>>
>>U-23x on U-234. I've always liked that.
>>
>>Some say a V-2, as well.
> Some are probably wrong. Wolfgang Hirschfeld, the telegraphy officer
I'm sure you noted I didn't say "and a V-2". :)
> on board U-234, makes no mention of a V-2 aboard in his book. It's
> not exactly something you could fail to notice.
Pieces. Little pieces. Lots of little pieces. In fake cans of SPAM.
> I suppose we'll never know during our lifetimes what the cargo in the
> tubes was, though. Uranium oxide seems unlikely, and the complete
> disappearance of Lt Falcke, the foreign liaison specialist aboard, who
> 'knew about the ore', strikes me as suspicious.
I smell foul play.
Or maybe it's just the SPAM.
--
Blinky
chrisgreville
"Blinky the Shark" <no....@box.invalid> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.01.03...@box.invalid...
>
> Pieces. Little pieces. Lots of little pieces. In fake cans of SPAM.
>
> > I suppose we'll never know during our lifetimes what the cargo in the
> > tubes was, though. Uranium oxide seems unlikely, and the complete
> > disappearance of Lt Falcke, the foreign liaison specialist aboard, who
> > 'knew about the ore', strikes me as suspicious.
>
> I smell foul play.
>
> Or maybe it's just the SPAM.
>
How typical of a Shark. Always thinking of food.
Even if there was no SPAM, Lt. Falke prolly ended up on the menu.
Chris Greville :-)
Blinky the Shark
You have to remember -- to us, a SPAM can and a submarine are pretty
much the same, except for size and the amount of food they contain.
--
Blinky
chrisgreville
"Blinky the Shark" <no....@box.invalid> wrote in message
<Giggle>
Some links.
http://www.ihffilm.com/840.html is a video on the U234.
http://www.u234.net/Vance.html Shows some secret documents and pictures from
the book Critical Mass.
http://www.movbuy.com/Documentary-Movies/U234Hitlers-Last-UBoat.asp who have
the DVD for sale about the U234
Arthur Kimes
<nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
] Arthur Kimes wrote:
]
] >] So, for example, U-234 was able to travel right across the Atlantic
] >] with its load of scientists, Japanese diplomats, an ME-262 and
tubes
] >] of ... of who knows what, en route to Tokyo. Couldn't do that sans
] >] snorkel.
] >
] > It's still a big ocean. Once you get past the heavily patrolled
] >areas, like the Bay of Biscay (where the u-boats based in France had
to
] >traverse), and if you avoided the convoys (which had a LOT of radar
] >equipped ships and planes) chances are you would not pass under an
] >aircraft that had radar.
]
] By that time, Allied air coverage of the North Atlantic was complete -
] the 'gap'* had been filled, mainly by US carrier-based aircraft, many
] of which carried radar. It was a dangerous place to be for the
] U-boats.
If you're traveling from Germany to Japan you don't go through
the North Atlantic. (assuming your sub can leave from France).
John Hatpin
U-234 set off from Kiel. If she had sailed from a French Biscay port,
there's no way she could have avoided the North Atlantic without a
train or canal journey, as the North Atlantic waves lap against the
jetties and piers of Brest, St Lorient, et al.
I'm guessing you meant the *central* North Atlantic. It would have
been possible to keep to the Spanish and African coasts if travelling
east by way of the Indian Ocean - however, in this case, the captain
had decided to take the Cape Horn route from Kiel via Icelandic
waters, and was in the middle of the North Atlantic when peace broke
out.
--
John Hatpin
John Hatpin
>On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 16:28:25 +0000, John Hatpin wrote:
>
>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 23:20:01 +0000, John Hatpin wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, for example, U-234 was able to travel right across the Atlantic
>>>> with its load of scientists, Japanese diplomats, an ME-262 and tubes
>>>> of ... of who knows what, en route to Tokyo. Couldn't do that sans
>>>> snorkel.
>>>
>>>U-23x on U-234. I've always liked that.
>>>
>>>Some say a V-2, as well.
>
>> Some are probably wrong. Wolfgang Hirschfeld, the telegraphy officer
>
>I'm sure you noted I didn't say "and a V-2". :)
You're right, Blinky. I noted that, which is why I reiterated the
"some" bit.
But hey, it's surprising how many references there are to a V2 aboard
that boat, with (it seems) no reason at all to suspect there was one.
>> on board U-234, makes no mention of a V-2 aboard in his book. It's
>> not exactly something you could fail to notice.
>
>Pieces. Little pieces. Lots of little pieces. In fake cans of SPAM.
Those German submarines had to eat all sorts of stuff: mouldy bread,
mouldy ham, mouldy sausages ... but SPAM? Nah. Wouldn't be allowed
on board, fake or not.
>> I suppose we'll never know during our lifetimes what the cargo in the
>> tubes was, though. Uranium oxide seems unlikely, and the complete
>> disappearance of Lt Falcke, the foreign liaison specialist aboard, who
>> 'knew about the ore', strikes me as suspicious.
>
>I smell foul play.
So do I in this case.
>Or maybe it's just the SPAM.
"Increase the length of your torpedo by 3" without a prescription"?
--
John Hatpin
Blinky the Shark
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 16:28:25 +0000, John Hatpin wrote:
>>
>>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>I'm sure you noted I didn't say "and a V-2". :)
>
> You're right, Blinky. I noted that, which is why I reiterated the
> "some" bit.
>
> But hey, it's surprising how many references there are to a V2 aboard
> that boat, with (it seems) no reason at all to suspect there was one.
>
>>> on board U-234, makes no mention of a V-2 aboard in his book. It's
>>> not exactly something you could fail to notice.
>>
>>Pieces. Little pieces. Lots of little pieces. In fake cans of SPAM.
>
> Those German submarines had to eat all sorts of stuff: mouldy bread,
> mouldy ham, mouldy sausages ... but SPAM? Nah. Wouldn't be allowed
> on board, fake or not.
I tried to come up with a funny mock-German name for a SPAM equivalent,
and couldn't think of one worth using. :)
>>> I suppose we'll never know during our lifetimes what the cargo in the
>>> tubes was, though. Uranium oxide seems unlikely, and the complete
>>> disappearance of Lt Falcke, the foreign liaison specialist aboard, who
>>> 'knew about the ore', strikes me as suspicious.
>>
>>I smell foul play.
>
> So do I in this case.
>
>>Or maybe it's just the SPAM.
>
> "Increase the length of your torpedo by 3" without a prescription"?
There ya go!
--
Blinky
chrisgreville
"Blinky the Shark" <no....@box.invalid> wrote in message
> On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 01:40:57 +0000, John Hatpin wrote:
>
> >
> > But hey, it's surprising how many references there are to a V2 aboard
> > that boat, with (it seems) no reason at all to suspect there was one.
> >
> >>> on board U-234, makes no mention of a V-2 aboard in his book. It's
> >>> not exactly something you could fail to notice.
> >>
> >>Pieces. Little pieces. Lots of little pieces. In fake cans of SPAM.
There were components on board (apparently) in small packages, according to
the links that I posted.
> > Those German submarines had to eat all sorts of stuff: mouldy bread,
> > mouldy ham, mouldy sausages ... but SPAM? Nah. Wouldn't be allowed
> > on board, fake or not.
So thats where Lt Falke went.
> I tried to come up with a funny mock-German name for a SPAM equivalent,
> and couldn't think of one worth using. :)
Spamhaus (with appologies to that fine organisation)?
>
> >>> I suppose we'll never know during our lifetimes what the cargo in the
> >>> tubes was, though. Uranium oxide seems unlikely, and the complete
> >>> disappearance of Lt Falcke, the foreign liaison specialist aboard, who
> >>> 'knew about the ore', strikes me as suspicious.
> >>
Perhaps Lt. Falke ended up on Malta? (Falke means Falcon in German)
Where did he disapear from, onboard or at sea?
> >>Or maybe it's just the SPAM.
> >
> > "Increase the length of your torpedo by 3" without a prescription"?
The swine's !!
John Hatpin
>"Blinky the Shark" <no....@box.invalid> wrote in message
>news:pan.2004.01.05....@box.invalid...
>> On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 01:40:57 +0000, John Hatpin wrote:
>>
>> >>> on board U-234, makes no mention of a V-2 aboard in his book. It's
>> >>> not exactly something you could fail to notice.
>> >>
>> >>Pieces. Little pieces. Lots of little pieces. In fake cans of SPAM.
>
>There were components on board (apparently) in small packages, according to
>the links that I posted.
There were lots and lots of different shiny things in there, including
components for all sorts of stuff. As far as I can tell, the ME262
was the only complete Flying Machine aboard, but it's highly likely
that V2 parts were included.
>Perhaps Lt. Falke ended up on Malta? (Falke means Falcon in German)
>Where did he disapear from, onboard or at sea?
He disappeared after he was captured by the US Army, on US soil,
immediately after the boat was landed at Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
No search ever seems to have been made for him, which indicates that
the circumstances behind his disappearance were known to the
authorities.
Sadly, the most believable explanation I've seen is that he died
during interrogation. The US Army at that time wasn't famous for its
gentle treatment of POWs.
Ironically, the captain of U-234 (Fehler), had made the decision to
head for the coast of the USA rather than surrender to Canada, who he
wrongly believed to be more likely to give him and his crew a hard
time. He led quite a paper-trail of misleading radio reports about
his position in order to surrender to an American vessel, and soon
regretted it.
--
John Hatpin
chrisgreville
>
> He disappeared after he was captured by the US Army, on US soil,
> immediately after the boat was landed at Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
> No search ever seems to have been made for him, which indicates that
> the circumstances behind his disappearance were known to the
> authorities.
>
> Sadly, the most believable explanation I've seen is that he died
> during interrogation.
I tried a quick google on him several days ago, but came up with no mention
of him.
>The US Army at that time wasn't famous for its
> gentle treatment of POWs.
<Gentle splorf>.
> Ironically, the captain of U-234 (Fehler), had made the decision to
> head for the coast of the USA rather than surrender to Canada, who he
> wrongly believed to be more likely to give him and his crew a hard
> time. He led quite a paper-trail of misleading radio reports about
> his position in order to surrender to an American vessel, and soon
> regretted it.
>
Why?
And what happened to the Japanese passengers?
Chris Greville
John Hatpin
>
>"John Hatpin" <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:jtqjvv4g42umpn8f8...@4ax.com...
>>
>> He disappeared after he was captured by the US Army, on US soil,
>> immediately after the boat was landed at Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
>> No search ever seems to have been made for him, which indicates that
>> the circumstances behind his disappearance were known to the
>> authorities.
>>
>> Sadly, the most believable explanation I've seen is that he died
>> during interrogation.
>
>I tried a quick google on him several days ago, but came up with no mention
>of him.
His name's spelt Falcke, not Falke - sorry, I meant to mention that.
>> Ironically, the captain of U-234 (Fehler), had made the decision to
>> head for the coast of the USA rather than surrender to Canada, who he
>> wrongly believed to be more likely to give him and his crew a hard
>> time. He led quite a paper-trail of misleading radio reports about
>> his position in order to surrender to an American vessel, and soon
>> regretted it.
>
>Why?
They were treated pretty badly - needlessly beaten with "wooden
cudgels" and everything taken from them. That's Hirschfeld's account,
anyway, and I don't see any reason why he would lie.
>And what happened to the Japanese passengers?
Hmmm. Faced with certain surrender, and deprived of their swords,
they overdosed on sleeping pills before U-234 was captured. Their
bodies were surreptitiously given a burial at sea while the boat was
under US destroyer escort - the Germans pretended they'd stopped
because of engine problems.
Next time I see you, Chris, I'll lend you Hirschfeld's book.
--
John Hatpin
groo
>
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
> >
> >Pieces. Little pieces. Lots of little pieces. In fake cans of SPAM.
>
> Those German submarines had to eat all sorts of stuff: mouldy bread,
> mouldy ham, mouldy sausages ... but SPAM? Nah. Wouldn't be allowed
> on board, fake or not.
>
Why? Too many Jewish crew members?
--
"This is how the sum total of human knowledge is increased. Not with
idle speculation and meaningless chatter, but with a medium-sized hammer
and some free time." - JB on afca
John Hatpin
>John Hatpin wrote:
>>
>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> >
>> >Pieces. Little pieces. Lots of little pieces. In fake cans of SPAM.
>>
>> Those German submarines had to eat all sorts of stuff: mouldy bread,
>> mouldy ham, mouldy sausages ... but SPAM? Nah. Wouldn't be allowed
>> on board, fake or not.
>
>Why? Too many Jewish crew members?
You can never have too many Jewish crew members. Unless you're a
n*zi, of course, in which case your preferences don't count.
--
John Hatpin
James Gifford
>> Why? Too many Jewish crew members?
> You can never have too many Jewish crew members.
Well, the number of Jewish crew members should never exceed [complement-1].
Somebody's gotta run the boat on the sabbath... :)
John Hatpin
>John Hatpin <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Why? Too many Jewish crew members?
>
>> You can never have too many Jewish crew members.
>
>Well, the number of Jewish crew members should never exceed [complement-1].
>Somebody's gotta run the boat on the sabbath... :)
Make that [complement/2]. It took lot of simultaneous peeps to keep a
WW2 submarine afloat and capable. All them wheels and handles and
dials and stuff, they needed careful attention, y'know?
In theory, though, it would have been possible to dive deep and silent
and operate a U-boat with only four or five people, and to keep that
going for a day. That skeleton crew would be very tired by the next
morning (24-hour shift, anyone?), and the boat would be useless as a
weapon in the meantime, but probably no-one would die.
Seriously, is there any precedent for (non-working) Sabbath
observation among military personnel?
--
John Hatpin
chrisgreville
>
> Seriously, is there any precedent for (non-working) Sabbath
> observation among military personnel?
>
> --
There was (allegedly) a football match in WW1.......
But that was Christmas Day.
Crashj
<>
> Just a guess, but it may be that it is more efficient to charge the
> batteries _and_ drive the propellers than it is just to drive the
> propellers.
<>
> Ask the Toyota Prius engineers.
The Prius type cars regain energy from capturing the energy of slowing
down to charge batteries. Regenerative braking is not much of a big
deal on submarines.
--
Crashj
John Hatpin
>"John Hatpin" <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:pe8svv8733n2trcsi...@4ax.com...
>
>> Seriously, is there any precedent for (non-working) Sabbath
>> observation among military personnel?
>
>There was (allegedly) a football match in WW1.......
>But that was Christmas Day.
Never mind the 'allegedly' - it really did happen.
"Claim: German and British front-line soldiers sang carols, exchanged
gifts, and played soccer during a World War I Christmas truce.
Status: True."
http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/truce.asp
More reading here, apparently pasted from the Independent's
pay-per-read archives:
http://www.rense.com/general46/cchr.htm
Back to the original question - this article, and many others I
Googled, seemed to suggest that if someone's faith dictates that they
don't work on the Sabbath, it also dictates that "thou shalt not
kill". As the writer says, "Sabbath-keeping and non-participation
in warfare seem to go hand in hand".
In particular, "if a civilian Sabbath-keeper refuses to work on God’s
weekly Holy Day, he may lose his job; a soldier under the same
circumstances may be court martialed and jailed. Sabbath-keeping, and
military service and war, are totally opposed to each other."
http://www.giveshare.org/BibleStudy/militaryservice/sabbathmilitary.html
--
John Hatpin
Jerry Bauer
--
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 6:54:30 -0800, Crashj wrote
(in message <aa83a82f.0401...@posting.google.com>):
I'm not sure that regenerative braking is much of a big deal on the
Prius, either. Certainly, it would depend greatly on the amount of
stop-and-go that the car does.
Stop-and-go is a net loss, and regen-braking helps to ameliorate that
loss. Since a submarine doesn't do a lot of stop-and-go (I'd guess
-- I really don't know), regen-braking is not particularly useful to
one.
_ _
Jerry Randal Bauer
"I am not an Antediluvian" -- Strom B.
chrisgreville
> chrisgreville wrote:
> >
> >There was (allegedly) a football match in WW1.......
> >But that was Christmas Day.
>
> Never mind the 'allegedly' - it really did happen.
>
> "Claim: German and British front-line soldiers sang carols, exchanged
> gifts, and played soccer during a World War I Christmas truce.
>
> Status: True."
> http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/truce.asp
Yup, I didn't Google before answering, But I remember there was some doubt
cast about the story some 20 or so years ago.
Hence allegedly.
Chris Greville
John Hatpin
I remember the same doubt, and it's understandable that people would
be skeptical about an amazing story like that. I had some spare time,
hence the Googling and Snopesing.
--
John Hatpin
John Hatpin
This is Jerry Bauer:
>Stop-and-go is a net loss, and regen-braking helps to ameliorate that
>loss. Since a submarine doesn't do a lot of stop-and-go (I'd guess
>-- I really don't know), regen-braking is not particularly useful to
>one.
I can only speak authoritatively about WWII submarines, but it's
probably the same to this day. You never actually stop a submarine
unless you really, really need to. The reason is, they need a certain
amount of forward or backward motion for their dive-planes to maintain
the correct attitude, or pitch.
I could talk a lot more about this subject, but I sense a collective
AFCA yawn, so I'll stop here.
--
John "submarine bore" Hatpin
kay w
>I can only speak authoritatively about WWII submarines, but it's
>probably the same to this day. You never actually stop a submarine
>unless you really, really need to. The reason is, they need a certain
>amount of forward or backward motion for their dive-planes to maintain
>the correct attitude, or pitch.
Or what would happen? Were they top heavy, and would flip over, or nose dive,
or what?
--
But Tonto he was smarter/ And one day said "Kemo Sabe,
Kiss my ass; I bought a boat. / I'm going out to sea."
Lyle Lovett
Jerry Bauer
(in message <20040109220230...@mb-m03.aol.com>):
> Previously, Mr Hatpin said, in part:
>
>> I can only speak authoritatively about WWII submarines, but it's
>> probably the same to this day. You never actually stop a submarine
>> unless you really, really need to. The reason is, they need a certain
>> amount of forward or backward motion for their dive-planes to maintain
>> the correct attitude, or pitch.
>
> Or what would happen? Were they top heavy, and would flip over, or nose
> dive,
> or what?
Without active control elements (i.e. thrusters), the craft would
have no particular control over most axes, without motion through the
water.
If it were submerged, it would orient to a
center-of-gravity-under-center-of-bouyancy position. If it were not
exactly neutrally bouyant, it would rise or sink until it achieved a
stable depth for its bouyancy. That stable depth could be at the
point where the pressure at depth balances with the bouyancy, or it
could be at an abrupt cline in the density of the medium, i.e. at the
surface or the bottom.
In the course of rising or sinking, it could "glide" and achieve some
measure of control from the passive control elements (planes and
fins).
--
Jerry Randal Bauer
kay w
>If it were submerged, it would orient to a
>center-of-gravity-under-center-of-bouyancy position. If it were not
>exactly neutrally bouyant, it would rise or sink until it achieved a
>stable depth for its bouyancy.
Yes, I see that, I'm just asking what that position would be.
Jerry Bauer
(in message <20040109225049...@mb-m03.aol.com>):
> Previously, Jerry said, in part:
>
>> If it were submerged, it would orient to a
>> center-of-gravity-under-center-of-bouyancy position. If it were not
>> exactly neutrally bouyant, it would rise or sink until it achieved a
>> stable depth for its bouyancy.
>
>
> Yes, I see that, I'm just asking what that position would be.
I expect that it varies with the design of the sub, and with the
state of the ballast/bouyancy tanks.
Given the usual shape of such craft, I'd guess that equilibrium would
be either nose-up or nose-down.
--
Jerry Randal Bauer
Mary Shafer
<nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
> I can only speak authoritatively about WWII submarines, but it's
> probably the same to this day. You never actually stop a submarine
> unless you really, really need to. The reason is, they need a certain
> amount of forward or backward motion for their dive-planes to maintain
> the correct attitude, or pitch.
Ditto airplanes, for exactly the same reason. You can't make lift
standing still, and control authority comes from lift.
> I could talk a lot more about this subject, but I sense a collective
> AFCA yawn, so I'll stop here.
Me, too.
Mary
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
mil...@qnet.com
Nick Spalding
In 1955 I spent a couple of days on a WWII submarine, most of the time
submerged. It was a very elderly T class boat whose name I don't recall
used for basic training based at HMS Dolphin at Gosport. I was told
that how the boat was trimmed depended on the personal preference of the
officer of the watch. Some like to trim a little heavy and hold her up
on the planes and some the reverse. In either case the boat had to be
moving to remain under control.
Owing to her advanced age (she was an early riveted boat, not welded)
there were a number of small leaks in the high-pressure air systems
(does 2000psi sound right?) and so the pressure in the boat gradually
rose and when we surfaced it was necessary to open a valve for several
minutes to equalise the pressure before it was safe to open the hatch,
otherwise there was a risk of the opener being blown out!
--
Nick Spalding
John Hatpin
>In 1955 I spent a couple of days on a WWII submarine, most of the time
>submerged. It was a very elderly T class boat whose name I don't recall
>used for basic training based at HMS Dolphin at Gosport.
That must have been quite an experience - I'm impressed, and more than
a little envious.
>I was told
>that how the boat was trimmed depended on the personal preference of the
>officer of the watch. Some like to trim a little heavy and hold her up
>on the planes and some the reverse. In either case the boat had to be
>moving to remain under control.
>Owing to her advanced age (she was an early riveted boat, not welded)
>there were a number of small leaks in the high-pressure air systems
>(does 2000psi sound right?) and so the pressure in the boat gradually
>rose and when we surfaced it was necessary to open a valve for several
>minutes to equalise the pressure before it was safe to open the hatch,
>otherwise there was a risk of the opener being blown out!
As I understand it, the German boats had a similar valve, but often
they chose not to use it and just open the conning tower hatch
instead. As you say, the guy who opened the hatch was sometimes
popped through the opening like a champagne cork, but this was,
apparently, often preferred to waiting for the pressure to equalise in
a controlled fashion.
Typically, rapid depressurisation like that would be after escaping a
long depth-charge attack, when air quality in the boat would be
bordering on the dangerous. The RN subs rarely experienced that,
thankfully - maybe that's the difference.
--
John Hatpin
Nick Spalding
> Nick Spalding wrote:
>
> >In 1955 I spent a couple of days on a WWII submarine, most of the time
> >submerged. It was a very elderly T class boat whose name I don't recall
> >used for basic training based at HMS Dolphin at Gosport.
>
> That must have been quite an experience - I'm impressed, and more than
> a little envious.
It was indeed a great experience. My father (retired Commander RN) was
at the time running the old Foudroyant, ex HMS Trincomalee, as a
training ship for school groups, sea scouts and the like and she was
moored between the entrance to Haslar Creek and the Portsmouth-Gosport
chain ferry. We drew our power through an underwater cable from Dolphin
and were on good terms with them. Pa met the skipper of T<whatever> at
a party somewhere and he made the offer to bring me and a couple of
visiting schoolmasters out. Foudroyant has now been given her proper
name back and is in course of restoration at Hartlepool. She is a
frigate and is one of the oldest ships afloat, built in 1817 in Bombay
of teak by the Parsee shipbuilding firm of Wadia which was still in
business in the 1950s.
> >I was told
> >that how the boat was trimmed depended on the personal preference of the
> >officer of the watch. Some like to trim a little heavy and hold her up
> >on the planes and some the reverse. In either case the boat had to be
> >moving to remain under control.
>
> >Owing to her advanced age (she was an early riveted boat, not welded)
> >there were a number of small leaks in the high-pressure air systems
> >(does 2000psi sound right?) and so the pressure in the boat gradually
> >rose and when we surfaced it was necessary to open a valve for several
> >minutes to equalise the pressure before it was safe to open the hatch,
> >otherwise there was a risk of the opener being blown out!
>
> As I understand it, the German boats had a similar valve, but often
> they chose not to use it and just open the conning tower hatch
> instead. As you say, the guy who opened the hatch was sometimes
> popped through the opening like a champagne cork, but this was,
> apparently, often preferred to waiting for the pressure to equalise in
> a controlled fashion.
>
> Typically, rapid depressurisation like that would be after escaping a
> long depth-charge attack, when air quality in the boat would be
> bordering on the dangerous. The RN subs rarely experienced that,
> thankfully - maybe that's the difference.
The point was made that this problem was exacerbated in this particular
boat due to the leaky state of everything. It was necessary even if it
had been submerged for only a few hours.
--
Nick Spalding
--
Nick Spalding
John Hatpin
[...]
>The point was made that this problem was exacerbated in this particular
>boat due to the leaky state of everything. It was necessary even if it
>had been submerged for only a few hours.
Sorry, Nick, I'd missed that point. Yes, if the pressure hull's in a
bad state, and leaking, you'll gain pressure a lot quicker.
What astounds me is that they allowed the vessel to be submerged in
that condition, and with civilians on board too. A small leak can
turn into a massive one extremely quickly.
A guess: was this, by any chance, HMS Totem?
--
John Hatpin
Nick Spalding
> Nick Spalding wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >The point was made that this problem was exacerbated in this particular
> >boat due to the leaky state of everything. It was necessary even if it
> >had been submerged for only a few hours.
>
> Sorry, Nick, I'd missed that point. Yes, if the pressure hull's in a
> bad state, and leaking, you'll gain pressure a lot quicker.
>
> What astounds me is that they allowed the vessel to be submerged in
> that condition, and with civilians on board too. A small leak can
> turn into a massive one extremely quickly.
It wasn't the pressure hull that leaked but the HP air lines within the
boat. We never went much below periscope depth when I was on board and
several times this was due to trainees (or visitors) on the planes.
> A guess: was this, by any chance, HMS Totem?
That rings no bells. Is she particularly notorious?
--
Nick Spalding
chrisgreville
"Nick Spalding" <spal...@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:2i0500tklt4vu4sfg...@4ax.com...
> John Hatpin wrote, in <d1i300t0ehlnn7k6i...@4ax.com>:
>
> It wasn't the pressure hull that leaked but the HP air lines within the
> boat. We never went much below periscope depth when I was on board and
> several times this was due to trainees (or visitors) on the planes.
>
> > A guess: was this, by any chance, HMS Totem?
>
> That rings no bells. Is she particularly notorious?
> --
History
"January 45, went straight to Pacific Fleet. Rebuilt 52-53 with streamlining
and conversion, with additional 12 feet. Sold Israel 1964, refitted 1965-66,
renamed Dakar. Lost on passage, 26-Jan-68, all hands lost. (Without its
Totem pole, a souvenir presented by a Canadian Indian tribe - the pole is
now in the RN Submarine Museum). Rediscovered 1999 between Crete and Cyprus.
"
http://uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/3523.html
Nick Spalding
If she was built in 1945 then she would have been a welded boat not
riveted as T<whatever> was.
--
Nick Spalding
John Hatpin
>John Hatpin wrote, in <d1i300t0ehlnn7k6i...@4ax.com>:
>
>> Nick Spalding wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >The point was made that this problem was exacerbated in this particular
>> >boat due to the leaky state of everything. It was necessary even if it
>> >had been submerged for only a few hours.
>>
>> Sorry, Nick, I'd missed that point. Yes, if the pressure hull's in a
>> bad state, and leaking, you'll gain pressure a lot quicker.
>>
>> What astounds me is that they allowed the vessel to be submerged in
>> that condition, and with civilians on board too. A small leak can
>> turn into a massive one extremely quickly.
>
>It wasn't the pressure hull that leaked but the HP air lines within the
>boat. We never went much below periscope depth when I was on board and
>several times this was due to trainees (or visitors) on the planes.
Still surprising - AFAIK, most of the compressed air tubes can be
replaced routinely while the vessel's in service, even if it means
taking a trim tank out of service for a few hours.
Mind you, if it's air, not water that's getting in, that's no big
danger during peacetime.
>> A guess: was this, by any chance, HMS Totem?
>
>That rings no bells. Is she particularly notorious?
Not particularly, but I did a bit of Googling, and that boat was
apparently in the south of England around 1955. Something else made
me connect her with your account, but I disremember what it was.
My memory these days isn't what I seem to recall it was.
--
John Hatpin
tooloud
>
>> Jerry Bauer <use...@bauerstar.com> wrote in message
>> news:<0001HW.BC18C88D...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>...
>> <>
>>> Just a guess, but it may be that it is more efficient to charge the
>>> batteries _and_ drive the propellers than it is just to drive the
>>> propellers.
>> <>
>>> Ask the Toyota Prius engineers.
>>
>> The Prius type cars regain energy from capturing the energy of
>> slowing down to charge batteries. Regenerative braking is not much
>> of a big deal on submarines.
>>
>
> I'm not sure that regenerative braking is much of a big deal on the
> Prius, either.
I wouldn't bet on that.
> Certainly, it would depend greatly on the amount of
> stop-and-go that the car does.
Exactly. Stop-and-go driving and regenerative braking is what makes the
Toyota Prius (with an automatic) actually get 9 MPG *more* during city
driving than on the highway. Hybrid (or maybe full electric) cars are the
only ones that I know of that can do that.
> Stop-and-go is a net loss, and regen-braking helps to ameliorate that
> loss. Since a submarine doesn't do a lot of stop-and-go (I'd guess
> -- I really don't know), regen-braking is not particularly useful to
> one.
I'd probably agree with that.
> _ _
> Jerry Randal Bauer
> "I am not an Antediluvian" -- Strom B.
Anyway, Jerry, with all this talk of late about sig delimiters, is there a
reason you use two underscores instead of two dashes?
--
tooloud
Remove nothing to reply...
Jerry Bauer
(in message <btvt2b$bvj3p$1...@ID-121148.news.uni-berlin.de>):
>
> Anyway, Jerry, with all this talk of late about sig delimiters, is there a
> reason you use two underscores instead of two dashes?
>
>
*Because* of all the talk about .sig delimiters, I was playing a bit
of a game. In the article to which you replied, there was as .sig
delimiter at the _beginning_ of the article.
--
Jerry Randal Bauer
"I never said this." -- Ionesco
Huey Callison
> tooloud wrote:
>> Anyway, Jerry, with all this talk of late about sig delimiters, is
>> there a reason you use two underscores instead of two dashes?
> *Because* of all the talk about .sig delimiters, I was playing a bit
> of a game. In the article to which you replied, there was as .sig
> delimiter at the _beginning_ of the article.
HAHHAHAHA YOU AER TEH FUNNYMNA!!!!11!1111
--
Huey