Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests

Subs

This fascinating series is a combination of historical seafaring, swashbuckling adventure, and high technological science-fiction. Join us in a discussion!
Re: Subs
Post by Dilandu   » Sat Sep 03, 2016 11:40 am

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2541
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Russia

Well, I speculated about submarines on Safehold a while...

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=6823&hilit=submarine
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: Subs
Post by Dilandu   » Sat Sep 03, 2016 11:41 am

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2541
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Russia

In short:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=6823&hilit=submarine

Well, the general rule for lesser naval power is, that if the enemy controlled the surface - we would go underwater. And this rule were quite efficient; it may not be able to give you control over seas, but it definitely make the enemy war efforts much more difficult.

So, due to the Charis&Co surface domination - what about the possibility of Church&Co go underwater?

The Church already make a good step toward the screw propulsion, and have at least some data about modern mettalurgy and steam engines. Would it be possible for the Church and/or Dohlar to make the working submarine?

The good approximation of the submarine-building capabilites is the Ictineo II spanish submarine of 1860th. We could safely assume, that the 1860th Spain is not too far ahead of Church current capabilites. This small U-boat show, that it is at least theoretically possible to build the wooden-hulled submarine, capable of 30 meters dive and propelled by the thermal engine.

So:

- It is possible to build a watertight wooden hull, capable of stand the pressure of 30 meters. The Church, undoubtly, could do that.

- The powerplant could be more difficult. The Church have now at least the basics of steam engine theory, and were able to buildt at least simple single-expansion engines. But the underwater propulsion could be a problem; the original Ictineo II used the chemical reaction of zinc, manganese dioxide and potassium chlorate, that heated the boiler.

I could not found data about the level of Safehold chemistry. But, even if this components are unavaliable, the Church could use more simply avaliable pressurised air, as on Alexandrovsky submarine (1862). During the surface or shnorkel cruise, the air would be compressed with the help of steam engine, and stored in the cast-iron tubes. After dive, the compressed air would be diverted toward engine, for propulsion.

Of course, the compressed-air type would not have a really great underwater range, but after all, even WW-I submarines wasn't a great undervater sprinters. They generally used undervater propulsion only to get closer to target for attack.

- The main problem would be the weapons. It would be far too hard for the Church to produce some sort of gyro-stabilised torpedo, so they are out of question.

What could we use instead? I propose either/or pneumatic guns with large HE shells (like Zalinsky dynamite cannon), or underwater powder guns (like Ericsson torpedo cannon). The first would be able to provide range of over 1000 meters from the positioned submarine; the second would provide only about 100 meters range, but could be launched from completely submerged boat.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/tb/05050113.jpg

(Ericsson "Destroyer" underwater torpedo-gun)

Generally, my opinion is:

- 100-tonn submarine, with wooden hull, capable of 20-30 meters dive.

- Single-expansion steam engine for the surface operations, pneumatic or chemical engine for underwater propulsion (5-10 km underwater range)

- Armed with pneumatic gun and/or underwater torpedo gun, firing elongated torpedo-shells.

So, this is my opinion about the submarines. Let's not forget, that anti-submarine defense without the electricity would be a LOT harder, than in real world. 100-200 tonn subs, with steam surface and pneumatic underwater propulsion may be the great force in the Gulf of Dohlar, capable to at least make Charisian operation a lot more dangerous, if not drive the ICN out of the Gulf at all.
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: Subs
Post by fallsfromtrees   » Sat Sep 03, 2016 11:49 am

fallsfromtrees
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1960
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 10:51 am
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Dilandu wrote:Well, I speculated about submarines on Safehold a while...

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=6823&hilit=submarine

Interesting concept, but I don't think Dohlar is going to be in the war long enough to do the development required, and I don't think anyone else is able to do it
========================

The only problem with quotes on the internet is that you can't authenticate them -- Abraham Lincoln
Top
Re: Subs
Post by Dilandu   » Sat Sep 03, 2016 1:01 pm

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2541
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Russia

fallsfromtrees wrote:
Dilandu wrote:Well, I speculated about submarines on Safehold a while...

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=6823&hilit=submarine

Interesting concept, but I don't think Dohlar is going to be in the war long enough to do the development required, and I don't think anyone else is able to do it


Probably no. But this war seems not to be the last... ;)
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: Subs
Post by Loren Pechtel   » Sat Sep 03, 2016 4:20 pm

Loren Pechtel
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1324
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2015 8:24 pm

Charis has no real need for a sub as there soon won't be any surface ships to send it against. However, an idea occurs to me:

How about a semi-submersible bombardment ship?

The hull and the steam engine that powers it are entirely below the surface. There is a small part on the surface, though that provides the air supply and includes periscope optics so it can see where to go.

The armament is a load of rockets, akin to the church's new bombardment rockets. It slips into position in darkness, jettisons some stone ballast to surface quickly, opens the doors over the rockets and fires them. It then floods some ballast tanks to slip beneath the waves (the rocket area floods in the process) and slips away.

The mission would be bombardment of areas with fortifications that would keep ordinary ships away--make the church see no area as safe.
Top
Re: Subs
Post by Tenshinai   » Sat Sep 03, 2016 5:51 pm

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:34 pm
Location: Sweden

Loren Pechtel wrote:The armament is a load of rockets, akin to the church's new bombardment rockets. It slips into position in darkness, jettisons some stone ballast to surface quickly, opens the doors over the rockets and fires them. It then floods some ballast tanks to slip beneath the waves (the rocket area floods in the process) and slips away.


Much harder to make it work than you would think. Guns on submarines has historically worked well because shells are not store outside the sub while underwater, and beause they are completely enclosed.
Rockets would be very difficult to waterproof enough for that kind of setup to work.
And the other option would be to make those "doors" foolproof, and that suddenly turns a relatively simple semisubmersible into a complex piece of craftsmanship.

Remove the idea of those "instant fire" doors, and have the rockets easy to load into a launcher on top of the boat. That´s completely workable and realistic.


However, i think all of you miss the point of usefulness. I´m sure the tech can produce a submarine that is capable of reliably attacking enemy ships.

But they´re not going to be good at it, and their limitations(especially being forced to NOT use electrics at all) means it´s almost certainly a waste of resources and effort.

BUT... If you want the effect of submarines without submarines, you should of course look at torpedo boats(and in this case quite possibly rocket boats).

The requirement is to make a large boat/small ship class that has a low visual(and target) signature while being MUCH faster than all other vessels and mix that with a small load of single launch high power of destruction weapons with enough range that the attack boat does not have to get so close that it becomes easy for an enemy to hit it.

Combine them in squadrons of 3 as minimum, preferably 6 or so, and they can be a major threat to any enemy.

Remember the original name of destroyers, is TORPEDO BOAT DESTROYER.

Rockets are much harder to hit with(because you have to target in 4 dimensions rather than the 3 or even 2 needed for torpedoes), but a "rocket cutter" could also instead be excellent boats to support ground troops with.
Rockets also negate some problems that torpedoes have to deal with and rocket engines will also generally be smaller and lighter compared to energy generated.

A squadron of 6 torpedo boats would almost certainly sink one of those big (juicy target) King Harald ships unless they had multiple escorts around it.
Top
Re: Subs
Post by ssl4000g   » Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:34 pm

ssl4000g
Lieutenant (Junior Grade)

Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:00 pm
Location: Cinnaminson, NJ

Or you could build a sub like the Surcouf and drop 8" shells from 30 miles out on Zion with complete surprise. (possibly in early spring)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_submarine_Surcouf[/quote]

A submersible King Haarahld? :idea:

W
Top
Re: Subs
Post by Loren Pechtel   » Sun Sep 04, 2016 1:07 pm

Loren Pechtel
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1324
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2015 8:24 pm

Tenshinai wrote:
Loren Pechtel wrote:The armament is a load of rockets, akin to the church's new bombardment rockets. It slips into position in darkness, jettisons some stone ballast to surface quickly, opens the doors over the rockets and fires them. It then floods some ballast tanks to slip beneath the waves (the rocket area floods in the process) and slips away.


Much harder to make it work than you would think. Guns on submarines has historically worked well because shells are not store outside the sub while underwater, and beause they are completely enclosed.
Rockets would be very difficult to waterproof enough for that kind of setup to work.
And the other option would be to make those "doors" foolproof, and that suddenly turns a relatively simple semisubmersible into a complex piece of craftsmanship.


I wasn't planning on the rockets being waterproof. That's almost certainly beyond what they could build now. I don't see that waterproof doors are a big problem, though--they will never be subject to a lot of pressure and they don't need to be fancy. You have a panel with a rubber gasket around the edge that sits against a flat piece of metal and is clamped in place. They don't need to be big the only thing that will go through them are rockets. I would assume the gaskets would be destroyed in use (shielding them from the rocket blast is beyond their tech) but they're simple enough.

The reason I'm picturing it this way is that it needs to get it's fire off quickly before a fort finds it.
Top
Re: Subs
Post by Dilandu   » Sun Sep 04, 2016 2:49 pm

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2541
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Russia

With all respect, but submarines for Charis did not make sence. The historical main function of submarines were to attack enemy ships. Basically it's the only thing they could do effectively.

And historically, the underwater warfare was the main weapon of weaker navy against more powerfull. Because submarines aren't as susseptible to enemy naval superiority as surface ships. The German&Japanese submarines operated up until the last days of war for their countries - despite the fact, that the Britain&American naval superiority was absolutely overwhelming.

So, the submarines make sence for Dohlar. Make sence for Church. Even primitive subs would make close blockade much more dangerous; the US civil war clearly demonstrated, that even the hand-powered submarine could destroy relatively modern warship.
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: Subs
Post by Tenshinai   » Sun Sep 04, 2016 5:42 pm

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:34 pm
Location: Sweden

Loren Pechtel wrote: I don't see that waterproof doors are a big problem, though--they will never be subject to a lot of pressure and they don't need to be fancy. You have a panel with a rubber gasket around the edge that sits against a flat piece of metal and is clamped in place. They don't need to be big the only thing that will go through them are rockets.


Oh yeah, sounds REAL simple on paper...

Which is why things like that have been tried for real MANY times, yet it took decades of experimenting and developing to actually make it work reliably.

Trust me when i say that making waterproof doors meant to function like that is NOT an easy thing. (this is one of the primary reasons why several attempts at giving modern submarines the ability to fire SAMs have failed, and while they have been working with greater depths, they have also been working with drastically more modern technology, and are not disallowed to use electrics)

Also, there will be lovely things like condensation causing lesser amounts of water to build up, some of which WILL find their way to those rockets. You´re going to be lucky if half of them launch on command.

Also, exactly how are you going to launch them remotely? The only reliable way of doing so is electrically...


Loren Pechtel wrote:I wasn't planning on the rockets being waterproof.


As an absolute minimum, they need to be protected against water, otherwise you´re going to have a very random successrate(or quite possibly just ZERO success), because you are playing with something that is extremely susceptible to moisture, while on a vessel that moves low in the water, zero margin for staying out of the wet.

And when you´re going to fire, if the waves are anything beyond minimal, you WILL get water splashed over the rockets before firing, without any doubt. Only question is how much.

Rocketry is a lovely technology, but they have some drawbacks, especially when made in more primitive ways.
Top

Return to Safehold