[nikimcbee]

See this article: http://www.gwpda.org/naval/br1669.htm

Now, having read this, how did they manage to destroy a u-boat with a depth charge?

First, there was no real way to track a submerged sub, did the u-boat commanders just not try to evade or what? Does anybody know how effective the towed cable was?

I'm thinking that those old subs just weren't built that well and couldn't hold up to a depth charge attack. (Rivets vs spot-welding) Having said that, you wouldn't need to have that persice of a depth charge pattern. Just the concusion might cause a minor leak, which could develop into a fatal leak. :dead:

I know that they couldn't dive too deep, but it seems that all they'd need to do is dive and change course and they'd lose the escort. Thus the classic cat and mouse game, but it would seen to favor the U-boat, since there's no active sonar.

[Sailor Steve]

I think that the periscope has a much more limited field of reference than we gamers are used to. The U-boat commander can only see what he's looking at, and if he's concentrating on a target he might forget to look behind. U-boat hydrophones were also in their infancy.

Otto Weddigen, the ace who sunk the three armoured cruisers Aboukir, Cressy and Hogue in one hour with U-9, died along with the rest of the crew of U-29 when they were rammed by the battleship Dreadnought.

To be successful the destroyer either had to catch the U-boat when he was surfaced (in which case he would know the boat's precise location) or catch him at periscope depth when he wasn't looking.

[Hitman]

They were also slower to submerge and manouver than WW2 submarines, so they were not that far away from where they were last spotted. Trimmage was very difficult, and the risk of blowing to the surface or sinking with no control high. Thus, manouvers were slow. Add to that what SS commented, and you get a the picture. From what I have read, if the submarine detected on time the DD and submerged deep, she was very rerely sunk. The convoy system however forced subs to stay at peri depth at very close ranges ( Torpedoes at WW1 rarely were fired at more than 1000 metres, and 200-500 metres was the rule ), and become more vulnerable. It is important however to note that unlike in WW2, subs that attacked convoys were usually able to kill one ship before being forced to go deep. The problem is that they lost any further options, and thus the majority of merchants survived ( Unlike when sailing independently ).

But its true that more subs were lost to mines than to ASW. The defeat in WW1 came due to targets being grouped and more scarce, not due to technology definitively making subs easily destroyable.

[don1reed]

If you get the opportunity, an excellent read, "Raiders of the Deep" by Lowell Thomas. He interviewed many WW1 U-Boat captains during a trip through Germany after the great war. (Thomas was the Walter Kronkite of his time. There are some great stories and interviews made by him with T.E. Lawrence a.k.a. "Lawrence of Arabia") Thomas made many newreels that I remember viewing at the theater back during the 40's.

The WW1 submersibles leaked enough oil to make them easy to trail and the reason for the bow netcutter is that the English Channel was strewn with a lot of nets that would entangle and be drug behind the fleeing boats, like a fish beneath a bobber. The English would attach mines to the nets and the more the boat would struggle for freedom, the more likely it would draw the explosive into it's hull. Some fishing trawlers were used by the English Navy to actually catch the boats in a steel net...more entanglements. Some of the boats (the lucky ones) returned to port looking like Moby Dick.

Cheers,

Don

[nikimcbee]

[don1reed]

you're most welcome.

...although I'm not familiar with the little yellow man that is expressing dry-heaves, (grin)

All the best,

Don