| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Deamon
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 2302
Location: Germany
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 18, 2004 8:39 am Post subject: Guess the Sub #3 |
 |
|
Now this one should be fairly easy:
ANSWERED
Deamon
Last edited by Deamon on Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:17 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Hitman
Joined: 14 Sep 2002
Posts: 3059
Location: Spain
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| UC-140 :hmm: |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deamon
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 2302
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bingo! :sunny:
U139 actualy.
deamon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB..
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 2306
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2004 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
 lovely stuff...could they retract those masts when diving they stick up a heck of a long way...mind you could be usefull for sending recieving short range radio messages when submerged.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deamon
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 2302
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
They even had to retract them or they would break from that big leverage forces and that would surly have a negative impact on the submerged stability.And they would else stick up fare higher than the periscope and that wouldn't be very stealthy. :know:
And it wasn't possible to receive or send messages while submerged.
Deamon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB..
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 2306
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i was thinking about the possibility of them perhaps being at periscope depth and dead slow ahead (minimm to hold depth) with the masts being so high they might have been still usable (unless they electrically grounded out)
obviuosly they wouldn't etc etc.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deamon
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 2302
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, the masts sometimes jammed while they was been raised or lowerde than someone must have been on the deck anyway.When the mast was been layed down, all the cables must have been secured by the crew on the deck and opposit before they could be raised. Before the U-Boat could dive the radio cable connection inside the U-Boat must have been disconected from the radio cable pipe that leads the radio cable from the radiostation to the masts on the deck and the small hatch of this radio cabel pipe must have been closed or water would rush in to the pressure hull if it would dive. AFAIK the radio antennas shouldn't touche the water anyway in order to be operable. So at all there was no possibilities to communicate via radio submerged. Not to mention the severly lowered range if the U-Boat would try to transmit in a submerged state with radiomasts that sticked only very little out of the water.
But you will be able to go through all this proper proccedures, once i'v done, and then you will see how all of this stuff works.
Deamon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hitman
Joined: 14 Sep 2002
Posts: 3059
Location: Spain
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That explains also the slow diving times they had, and why the subs in WW1 were many time caught in the surface by other vessels. HMS Dreadnought sunk Weddingen's boat with gun fire, so I believe he had problems to submerge, as he sure had seen the battleship long before she spotted him.
:hmm: |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deamon
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 2302
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hitman wrote: | That explains also the slow diving times they had, and why the subs in WW1 were many time caught in the surface by other vessels. HMS Dreadnought sunk Weddingen's boat with gun fire, so I believe he had problems to submerge, as he sure had seen the battleship long before she spotted him.
:hmm: |
Not i think not.The U-boats wouldn't drive around all the time with raised masts, especialy if the U-Boat had to be ready for crashdive all the time.They would rather raise their masts on predetermined communication times for a short while. Besides the radio masts, the net rejecter cables was been used as second radio antennas(like on the WWII U-Boats) but was less powerfull, this also eliminates partialy the need to always drive around with raised masts. But the radio technology advanced fast and the net rejecter antennas becomes powerfull enough and around the second half of the war the tendency appeared to remove the masts and operate with the net rejecter alone, at least on the middle to small size U-Boats on the U-Cruiser they seem to be used till the end of the war, maybe becouse of the greater range that could have been achieved with them.
Concerns, Otto Weddingen, are you sure he was sunk with gunfire ? , as far as i remember right he was at PD and was about to attack but as the ships were very close he had a stability prblem and has broached the surface and was than spotted and befor he could go down fast enough he was rammed and sunk. Stability problems and surface broaches happened sometimes becouse of a plane jam.
Deamon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
turnerg
Joined: 18 Jan 2004
Posts: 1088
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yeah, he was rammed. Dreadnaught was the only BB ever to sink a submarine. :know: |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
