Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Uboats with snorkal flaw

Discussion in 'Atlantic Naval Conflict' started by steverodgers801, Mar 31, 2012.

  1. steverodgers801

    steverodgers801 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    73
    A book pointed out that while the German last model subs could not be detected while under water they would not be able to see convoys with out being on the surface effectively.
     
  2. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    26,461
    Likes Received:
    2,207
    Yes, but previously they had to surface to get air and use the diesels. Now they never had to surface if necessary. And the wolf pack system ( incl other subs and planes ) told them where the ships were and going. It seems to me that the snorkel was giving some kinda advantage to the subs,
     
  3. George Patton

    George Patton Canadian Refugee

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    1,171
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    I'm not an expert on the U-Boats, but I don't believe the snorkel was designed for any purpose except to allow the boat to charge its batteries underwater. The only way to charge the electric batteries required for underwater operation was to run the diesel engines. Prior to the snorkel, this had to be done while surfaced, and this process would take many hours and leave the u-boat in a very vulnerable position.

    A snorkel is basically just a retractable pipe with a splash guard on the top. I'm 99% sure that the designers never thought of it as a tool to allow the u-boat to find convoys effectively underwater. Based on that, this isn't a "design flaw", in my opinion.
     
  4. steverodgers801

    steverodgers801 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    73
    The flaw is that while the Uboat could remain under, that also meant its ability to see ships was restricted.
     
  5. George Patton

    George Patton Canadian Refugee

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    1,171
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    I understand that, but the snorkel itself was a success. Perhaps its implementation led to an overall tactical oversight (limited ability to see ships at a distance), but the actual snorkel technology itself was not flawed.

    Best Regards,
     
  6. Erich

    Erich Alte Hase

    Joined:
    May 13, 2001
    Messages:
    14,439
    Likes Received:
    617
  7. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    10,103
    Likes Received:
    2,574
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    I'm curious as to which book printed this garbage?

    Given that a U-boat could fully charge it's batteries in about 4 hours, that still left 20 hours to play with. Further, the schnorkel allowed the U-boat to charge it's batteries when the threat of aerial detection and interception was high, thus making anytime spent on the surface a very high-risk proposition. In this, it was a great success, although with the introduction of airborne radar sets in the 3 cm wavelength range, it was possible to detect the schnorkel "head". However, the radar operator would have to know what he was looking for, since the "head" would only appear as an intermittent contact. The schnorkel gave the U-boat a much better chance to survive it's passage around the British Isles, as opposed to those boat that were not equipped with the schnorkel. As such, which is more effective, a U-boat without a "snort mast" that is sunk on it's way to the Atlantic, or a schnorkeling U-boat that makes the passage safely?

    If anything, the "design flaw" of a schnorkel, was that the U-boat was restricted to an underwater speed of about 6 knots maximum while "snorting", lest the schnorkel mast snap off. But that probably was not so much a "flaw", as it was a design compromise between the strength of the mast and the ability to raise and lower it quickly.

    steverodgers801, you basically defeat the "flaw" argument with this passage
    A U-boat was not required to remain submerged at any time, it could surface whenever it deemed appropriate to carry out searching for it's prey. Although we must remember that the later German U-boats, the Type XXI & Type XXIII, were designed to be more effective submerged than surfaced. They were streamlined for higher underwater speeds, had better battery capacity to allow them to stay underwater longer, and were faster underwater than on the surface.
     
    CTBurke and George Patton like this.
  8. wa2ddl

    wa2ddl Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    snorkels could only be effectively used during light to moderate winds. Anything really whipping up the Atlantic would occasionally cover up the snorkel. A trap would then close, stopping the inflow of water and the diesels would now have to use available air from within the uboat itself. This would cause a severe drop in pressure with resulting problems with the inner ears of some of the crew.

    The snorkel, while a good idea at the time, in hindsight was a small and sometimes ineffective band aid for a problem of dwindling battery power in a hostile environment. It sort of reminds of the wintergarden addition for flak guns on the uboats. Doenitz had the idea to fight it out with multiple guns behind the periscopes instead of diving. This produced severe consequences for the sub as a plane could circle out of range, call in for support and have even more airplanes to contend with.

    The only real sub was the Walther hydrogen peroxide engined ones on the boards for approval back around 1939 or 40. I think that in war, if you dont upgrade your technology every 6 months, you are doomed. How long was the Typ VII in production for? The entire war? it was a good boat but should have been brought to the schools back in 1941 and the XXI or XXIII replacing it.
     
  9. harolds

    harolds Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    372
    May I point out that a submerged sub wouldn't have to see a convoy in order to detect it. It could hear the convoy since water is an excellent sound conductor. With sound locators they could hear the convoy and get a general direction, course and a rough estimation of the speed of the convoy. The last U-boats had an underwater speed (if the batteries are charged) that made interception possible.
     
  10. 4th wilts

    4th wilts Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2007
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    29
    Would I be correct in saying the snorkel was detectable using centimetric radar.? Cheers,4th
     
  11. 4th wilts

    4th wilts Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2007
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    29
    Pardon me,I did not see the above post.cheers.4th.
     
  12. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
  13. efestos

    efestos Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2010
    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    26
    [FONT=&amp]Initially the Kriegsmarine solved this problems with an engineer taking care of the air intake all the route. That man had to switch off the diesel engines if the air intake was interrupted more than two? minutes. Later the KM developed an authomatic device for this matter[/FONT]. (u-historia.com in spanish but the author is a marine engineer). An other "too late, too few".

    The peroxide subs were just a failfure, a death trap for they crews ... the infamous type XXI and XXIII were ELEKTRO-BOATS that had a very large Battery supply and a very silent diesel engine instalation. See Type XXI and Type XXIII in the U-boat.net page.
     

Share This Page