Submarines

SYED wrote:Ramming ships are a long established class of ships, what if instead of normal ramming, they are also able to launch torpedoes, they could do alot of dammage, especially if htey can get up close.

Heh. I just had the image of a submarine build similar to Captain Nemo's ship that rammed the bottom of ships to sink them. The top of the sub was edged like a saw blade and the sub basically broke the keep and ripped a huge gash in the ships it hit.

Several points. During WW1 the German Empire launched two merchant subs designed to run the British blockade into and out of the US carrying low bulk, high value cargo. U-155 made two voyages before being taken into military service. Her sister ship was lost on her first voyage. During WW2 the German and Italian navies converted subs into cargo carriers running between Europe and Singapore. One of the German subs surrendered while carrying a load of Enriched Uranium.
Several major problems with USS Vesuvius. Zero transverse left and right, zero elevation up or down. Adjusting fire meant swinging the hull and varying air pressure. Also her dynamite guns had a range approx 25% that of conventional battleship guns.
Lastly use of steam in subs was tried by many navies and was generally found to be a BAD IDEA. Sealing funnels and intakes was time consuming. Boilers created heat problems for the crew and the hull openings for funnels created hull weaknesses.

Several answers:

doug941 wrote:Several points. During WW1 the German Empire launched two merchant subs designed to run the British blockade into and out of the US carrying low bulk, high value cargo. U-155 made two voyages before being taken into military service. Her sister ship was lost on her first voyage. During WW2 the German and Italian navies converted subs into cargo carriers running between Europe and Singapore. One of the German subs surrendered while carrying a load of Enriched Uranium.

They were build by the lesser naval power in desperate blokade situation, when their extremly limited cargo carpacity was the only way to obtain desperately limited resources from neutral or allies.

doug941 wrote: Several major problems with USS Vesuvius. Zero transverse left and right, zero elevation up or down. Adjusting fire meant swinging the hull and varying air pressure. Also her dynamite guns had a range approx 25% that of conventional battleship guns.

Well, it was realization of the project. For exapmle, the brasilian cargo ship "Nitheroy" during the 1894 ciwil war were armed with 380mm dynamite gun of the rotary mount.

And in isn't right to compare the dynamite guns with battleship guns. They are more like torpedoes.

doug941 wrote: Lastly use of steam in subs was tried by many navies and was generally found to be a BAD IDEA. Sealing funnels and intakes was time consuming. Boilers created heat problems for the crew and the hull openings for funnels created hull weaknesses.

We haven't got any real alternative, exep Stirling.

Dilandu wrote:We haven't got any real alternative, exep Stirling.

Charis (aka Howsmyn Industries) have extensive experience with pneumatic tools and motors; It wouldn't be particularly stealthy to anyone in a position to see the bubble trail, but a pneumatic drive would be within Charis' known capabilities.

Dilandu wrote:Several answers:

doug941 wrote:Several points. During WW1 the German Empire launched two merchant subs designed to run the British blockade into and out of the US carrying low bulk, high value cargo. U-155 made two voyages before being taken into military service. Her sister ship was lost on her first voyage. During WW2 the German and Italian navies converted subs into cargo carriers running between Europe and Singapore. One of the German subs surrendered while carrying a load of Enriched Uranium.

They were build by the lesser naval power in desperate blokade situation, when their extremly limited cargo carpacity was the only way to obtain desperately limited resources from neutral or allies.

doug941 wrote: Several major problems with USS Vesuvius. Zero transverse left and right, zero elevation up or down. Adjusting fire meant swinging the hull and varying air pressure. Also her dynamite guns had a range approx 25% that of conventional battleship guns.

Well, it was realization of the project. For exapmle, the brasilian cargo ship "Nitheroy" during the 1894 ciwil war were armed with 380mm dynamite gun of the rotary mount.

And in isn't right to compare the dynamite guns with battleship guns. They are more like torpedoes.

doug941 wrote: Lastly use of steam in subs was tried by many navies and was generally found to be a BAD IDEA. Sealing funnels and intakes was time consuming. Boilers created heat problems for the crew and the hull openings for funnels created hull weaknesses.

We haven't got any real alternative, exep Stirling.

A major problem with using a Stirling engine is you still have to have a large scale heat source in your hull. The UK's K class steam sub took approx 5 minutes to reach 80 feet of depth while still having red hot boilers. The only other pre-WW1 power systems were batteries (oh those pesky Prescriptions) or human power. Until reliable diesel/electric subs came into service, submarines tended to be self-dangerous coastal defense ships at best

Correcting some errors I made at the end of Post #44. "pre-WW1" should have read "pre-1900." The French sub "Plongeur" used compressed air but had a range of 5 miles and as such was barely a harbor defense weapon.

doug941 wrote:Until reliable diesel/electric subs came into service, submarines tended to be self-dangerous coastal defense ships at best

I think the "self-dangerous" part of that characterization had more to do with "air quality management" than with the propulsion system. It takes efficient CO2/Toxins scrubbing and efficient O2 replacement to build a true submarine (as opposed to a submersible that can only submerge for, usually short, limited periods.)

If you can provide adequate oxygen and prevent CO2/Methane (from farts) poisoning, even human power is feasible. Neglect air-quality and it won't matter how efficient your propulsion system is, your crew will suffocate in a matter of hours.

Weird Harold wrote:

doug941 wrote:Until reliable diesel/electric subs came into service, submarines tended to be self-dangerous coastal defense ships at best

I think the "self-dangerous" part of that characterization had more to do with "air quality management" than with the propulsion system. It takes efficient CO2/Toxins scrubbing and efficient O2 replacement to build a true submarine (as opposed to a submersible that can only submerge for, usually short, limited periods.)

If you can provide adequate oxygen and prevent CO2/Methane (from farts) poisoning, even human power is feasible. Neglect air-quality and it won't matter how efficient your propulsion system is, your crew will suffocate in a matter of hours.

Between 1900 and 1914 almost all subs were powered using gasoline engines which had a very unpleasant tendency to explode, hence "self-dangerous."

doug941 wrote: The French sub "Plongeur" used compressed air but had a range of 5 miles and as such was barely a harbor defense weapon.

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_submarine_Plongeur

A support ship, the Cachalot, followed her in order to resupply the compressed air necessary to her propulsion.

A small steam engine to run a compressor while surfaced would have extended the operational range of Plongeur and/or it could power the pneumatic motor directly.

I'm sure that Charis could do better than 180PSI operating pressure, too. Although any pneumatic powered sub would still have limited range when operating submerged, as long as it had a way to recharge the air tanks, its range would be greatly extended beyond the bland statistic of "powered range on pneumatic engine."

Even if it required a tender/towboat, an improved Plongeur is within Charis' current capabilities.

doug941 wrote:Between 1900 and 1914 almost all subs were powered using gasoline engines which had a very unpleasant tendency to explode, hence "self-dangerous."

Charis can't use gasoline engines until the proscriptions are lifted, so that wouldn't be much of a problem. The tendency for gasoline powered subs to explode is an "air-quality management" problem -- providing adequate ventilation and/or vapor control would eliminate most of those explosions.

Weird Harold wrote:

doug941 wrote: The French sub "Plongeur" used compressed air but had a range of 5 miles and as such was barely a harbor defense weapon.

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_submarine_Plongeur

A support ship, the Cachalot, followed her in order to resupply the compressed air necessary to her propulsion.

A small steam engine to run a compressor while surfaced would have extended the operational range of Plongeur and/or it could power the pneumatic motor directly.

I'm sure that Charis could do better than 180PSI operating pressure, too. Although any pneumatic powered sub would still have limited range when operating submerged, as long as it had a way to recharge the air tanks, its range would be greatly extended beyond the bland statistic of "powered range on pneumatic engine."

Even if it required a tender/towboat, an improved Plongeur is within Charis' current capabilities.

doug941 wrote:Between 1900 and 1914 almost all subs were powered using gasoline engines which had a very unpleasant tendency to explode, hence "self-dangerous."

Charis can't use gasoline engines until the proscriptions are lifted, so that wouldn't be much of a problem. The tendency for gasoline powered subs to explode is an "air-quality management" problem -- providing adequate ventilation and/or vapor control would eliminate most of those explosions.

Diesel, gas and electric are all off the table. Even if you found a safe place to build and crews to design and build, there are those OWPs waiting for you to power up. As for crank powered, those would be harbor defense only. You could size up the Hunley to 150' but you couldn't move it very far.