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.
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,
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.
The flaw is that while the Uboat could remain under, that also meant its ability to see ships was restricted.
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,
interesting materials if you can open this pdf. file: http://amp.rokket.biz/docs/an_illustrated_guide_to_uboat_research.pdf
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.
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.
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.
Here is a pretty definitive page on the U-Boat.net site concerning the Dutch invention. Goto: The Schnorchel - Technical pages - German U-boats of WWII - Kriegsmarine - uboat.net
[FONT=&]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.