QUESTION ABOUT WORLD WAR II SUBMARINE CONNING TOWERS
Gilbert Collins
I have a question with regard to the Conning Towers of World War II German and American submarines that I am hoping some of you knowledgeable submariners can answer for me. I understand that the term “Conning Tower” comes from the place technically where the boat is conned from but what I do not understand is the placement of the conning tower with regards to the pressure hull below. When I look at the cross section diagrams of the World War II subs the area shown as the Conning Tower shows precious little. My question is this: Does the area known as the Conning Tower contain the area where the captain actually looks out of the periscope or is that below inside the pressure hull proper? In many of the World War II submarine movies you see the crew jump from the Conning Tower into a hatch below but I am never very clear as to where they are going exactly. Are they entering the pressure hull from here or are they still within the Conning Tower area, which of course must be proof to the sea and watertight. In one diagram that I observed of a type VIIC U-Boat they seem to call the conning tower area the “Attack Room” and the room below the Conning Tower the “Control Room”. Are periscope observations done from the “Attack Room” in the Conning Tower or from the Control Room? Can the periscope be used from the Control Room at all? Any information on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
G. Collins
Barnum
Gilbert Collins wrote:
The conning tower on the US fleet boats is a small pressure hull mounted on top of the main hull. The conning of the vessel is normally done within the conning tower or from the bridge atop the conning tower.I have a question with regard to the Conning Towers of World War II German and American submarines that I am hoping some of you knowledgeable submariners can answer for me.I understand that the term “Conning Tower” comes from the place technically where the boat is conned from but what I do not understand is the placement of the conning tower with regards to the pressure hull below.
The fact that the conning tower is on top of the hull provides vertical height for raising the periscopes. These scopes during WWII were fixed-length tubes and could not be shortened or extended. In the lowered position the eyepieces were down in the bilges at the bottom of the periscope wells. The optical objective was housed. When the periscope was raised, the entire tube was raised until the eyepiece was at the viewing height in the conning tower. It was not possible to view through the periscope from the control room below the conning tower.When I look at the cross section diagrams of the World War II subs the area shown as the Conning Tower shows precious little.My question is this:Does the area known as the Conning Tower contain the area where the captain actually looks out of the periscope or is that below inside the pressure hull proper?
When the submarine was underweigh on the surface, the officer of the deck was on the bridge with two or more lookouts plus occasionally the skipper, the navigator and/or the quartermaster. To dive the boat, the OOD sounds the diving alarm twice followed by announcing "dive, dive" on the annunciator. Down below in the control room, the vents are opened by the chief of the watch. The lookouts and all others go below through the conning tower. The port and starboard lookouts go all the way down to man the bow and stern planes to control the dive process. The OOD is the last man down, and he hangs on the bridge hatch lanyard while the quartermaster turns the locking wheel. The OOD continues down to the control room where he becomes the diving officer. He is responsible to give all orders to trim the boats buoyancy and depth in accordance with orders from the conning officer who is then in the conning tower.In many of the World War II submarine movies you see the crew jump from the Conning Tower into a hatch below but I am never very clear as to where they are going exactly.Are they entering the pressure hull from here or are they still within the Conning Tower area, which of course must be proof to the sea and watertight.
tgb
=============================================================
In one diagram that I observed
of a type VIIC U-Boat they seem to call the conning tower area the “Attack
Room” and the room below the Conning Tower the “Control Room”.Are
periscope observations done from the “Attack Room” in the Conning Tower
or from the Control Room?Can the
periscope be used from the Control Room at all?Any
information on this would be greatly appreciated.Thanks.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />G. Collins
ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
Barnum <tbarnum...@altavista.net> wrote:
>> I have a question with regard to the Conning Towers of World War II
>> German and American submarines that I am hoping some of you
>> knowledgeable submariners can answer for me.I understand that the term
>> “Conning Tower” comes from the place technically where the boat is
>> conned from but what I do not understand is the placement of the
>> conning tower with regards to the pressure hull below.
>>
>The conning tower on the US fleet boats is a small pressure hull mounted
>on top of the main hull. The conning of the vessel is normally done
>within the conning tower or from the bridge atop the conning tower.
The practice varied between navies. Putting the commander (at his
periscope) in the conning tower rather than in the main hull gained a
bit of extra submergance at periscope depth at the cost of poorer
communications with the rest of the command room team. RN practice
was certainly to bring the periscope down into the command room
so that the captain was at the centre of the control team and could
give orders easily. The Germans, ISTR, put him up in the conning
tower - though I'd have to check Brown's chapters on Submarines to
be certain.
--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)
Interim Books
wrote:
>The practice varied between navies. Putting the commander (at his
>periscope) in the conning tower rather than in the main hull gained a
>bit of extra submergance at periscope depth at the cost of poorer
>communications with the rest of the command room team. RN practice
>was certainly to bring the periscope down into the command room
>so that the captain was at the centre of the control team and could
>give orders easily. The Germans, ISTR, put him up in the conning
>tower - though I'd have to check Brown's chapters on Submarines to
>be certain.
And the Americans took a third tack... They enlarged the conning
towers and moved the helm and attack instrumentation into the conning
tower. Planes control and ballast control remained below in the
control room.
Curiously, USS Nautilus retained this arrangment even though she did
not have a conning tower. The attack center was on the upper level
and the control room on the lower level in the main hull. She was
converted to the now conventional control/port attack/starboard
arrangement during her first overhaul.
D.
-------
Visit our search engine! http://www.interimbooks.com/pagescout/
-------
Interim Books | 322 Pacific Ave | Bremerton, WA | 98337
fair...@hurricane.net | (360) 377-4343 | http://www.interimbooks.com/
Steve Bartman
<tbarnum...@altavista.net> wrote:
>The fact that the conning tower is on top of the hull provides vertical
>height for raising the periscopes. These scopes during WWII were
>fixed-length tubes and could not be shortened or extended. In the
>lowered position the eyepieces were down in the bilges at the bottom of
>the periscope wells. The optical objective was housed. When the
>periscope was raised, the entire tube was raised until the eyepiece was
>at the viewing height in the conning tower. It was not possible to view
>through the periscope from the control room below the conning tower.
I believe one of the two scopes could be used in the control room.
Both could be used in the conning tower/attack center. Probably the
smaller-diameter attack scope was the one usable only above.
See http://www.maritime.org/fleetsub/appendix/pages/figa-28.htm
for a cutaway side view illustrating this as well as the arrangement
of the two wells.
Steve
--
Author of "The PaxAm Solution"
Read excerpts and order on-line at:
http://www.iuniverse.com/marketplace/bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=0%2D595%2D12935%2D8
B F Lake
> And the Americans took a third tack... They enlarged the conning
> towers and moved the helm and attack instrumentation into the conning
> tower. Planes control and ballast control remained below in the
> control room.
Roscoe "US Sub Ops WW2" (USNI 1949) shows the captain , periscopes, helm,
and "attack team" in the conning tower, while the "approach party" is at the
plot table in the control room below the conning tower. The diving officer
and men are at the control room diving station.
The "fire control party" worked with the CO in the conning tower. The
CO directed the approach and the attack, while the XO was the assistant
approach officer and there was also a plotting officer. From detection of
the enemy the sub would start an approach to take it ideally within a 1,000
yds of the target's track at a range equal to about 7 1/2 minutes of the
target's run.
Following the approach phase, the sub then manoeuvred to get the best
possible firing position (attack phase)
Since some might argue the difference between the approach and the attack is
a technical artificiality; it could then be argued that the job was done
from both the control room below and the conning tower above. (when not
surfaced and using the bridge mounted target bearing transmitter to the
fire control party , when perhaps three levels would be involved!)
Regards,
Barry
Gilbert Collins
question". I see that there were slight differences then depending on the
navy involved.
G. Collins
Peter McLelland
"B F Lake" <bfl...@coastnet.com> wrote in message
news:tvj5tp...@corp.supernews.com...
Having read the responses to this question I have come to the conclusion
that there would appear to be little benefit from having the attack run from
a separate 'attack room' set in the fin/bridge superstructure. The reason
stated was that the scope was raised higher thus the boat could be deeper,
but raising the base of the periscope higher means that the standards which
support it must also be higher to support it so there may be a gain in keel
depth, but little gain in the surface separation. The real question on this
is did the US boats manage to get any more surface clearance, and if they
did was there a benefit.
Other points of interest, the concept of a split in the attack process
certainly was not RN procedure, the whole attack was carried out by the
'attack team' and even to the very end, even after the salvo was fired the
plotters kept their plots running to detect post firing zigs. The Captain
could see all plots at any time and form his own opinion from the data. Mind
you some of the really good ones did the whole thing in their heads.
As to the positioning of things, on diesel boats the ship control was port
side, and on SSNs it was starboard side.
Peter
Interim Books
<peter.m...@baesystems.com> wrote:
>As to the positioning of things, on diesel boats the ship control was port
>side, and on SSNs it was starboard side.
On UK boats? In US practice the diving controls have been on the port
side since before WWII and remain there today.
Steve Bartman
<fair...@hurricane.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 09:19:33 -0000, "Peter McLelland"
><peter.m...@baesystems.com> wrote:
>>As to the positioning of things, on diesel boats the ship control was port
>>side, and on SSNs it was starboard side.
>
>On UK boats? In US practice the diving controls have been on the port
>side since before WWII and remain there today.
That's where we put steering wheels in cars too.
Ogden Johnson III
>Having read the responses to this question I have come to the conclusion
>that there would appear to be little benefit from having the attack run from
>a separate 'attack room' set in the fin/bridge superstructure. The reason
[Remainder read, but snipped.]
Be that as it may, and however cumbersome it might seem to you, it
worked in practice.
OJ III
[At least once the bubbleheads got torpedoes that worked.]
Brian Sharrock
"Steve Bartman" <sbar...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:psilvtk6u55m3fqif...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 11:25:37 -0800, Interim Books
> <fair...@hurricane.net> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 09:19:33 -0000, "Peter McLelland"
> ><peter.m...@baesystems.com> wrote:
> >>As to the positioning of things, on diesel boats the ship control was
port
> >>side, and on SSNs it was starboard side.
> >
> >On UK boats? In US practice the diving controls have been on the port
> >side since before WWII and remain there today.
>
> That's where we put steering wheels in cars too.
>
were being referred to :)
Obs whimsy; Could there be an advantage in having
the diving, and heading?, controls (allegedly) on
the stbd side of SSNs (SSBNs?) in Brit boats to help
in keeping the green cans on the correct side when
returning?
Obs IALA A; Follow the purple arrows ... !
Obs Sanity; IIRC the planesman on T209s has a
console on the starboard side which isn't even
located in the 'command' space.
--
Brian