Subs

Dilandu wrote: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.

While that is true, they were also suicidal vessels, as the spar torpedoes used nearly always sunk the attacking submarine as well as the target ship(if they sunk anything). And overall success rate was very poor.

Of course, that can be greatly improved upon relatively easy, but it´s still unlikely to be possible to achieve anything close to a WWI sub. Too many things that needs electrics.

Dilandu wrote:The historical main function of submarines were to attack enemy ships. Basically it's the only thing they could do effectively.

That´s overstating it. Japan used subs to keep their outer island garrisons supplied quite well.
German "milk cows" supply submarines were also reasonably effective.

And coastal shelling by subs were done a number of times, only reason they mostly didn´t do much was due to operational mistakes, or simply trying to do something the sub wasn´t really meant to do(a single 7.5cm or 10cm cannon isn´t going to do all that much damage to a harbour or other important target, if instead you have 2-4 subs each with 2 15cm guns however, that can make a noticeable dent in most things).

Using submarines to land commando strikes could be a VERY effective way of using them.

Submarines for scouting is also very realistic, except of course that wont work here since there´s no good communications.

Also however, it should be remembered that the success of submarines historically have been in sinking MERCHANT vessels, most of the time, submarines attacking warships were asking for trouble. While not a general truth, it is something to keep in mind.

Dilandu wrote:And historically, the underwater warfare was the main weapon of weaker navy against more powerful.

USA used submarines to extreme effect against Japan, so that´s not exactly true.

It´s the main weapon of choice against an enemy relying on shipping.

Note that while Japan started WWII with the best submarine tech in the world, their subs generally had very little effect on the war.

Given the reality that the ICN already has on hand, or will have on hand shortly, the firepower not simply to close but to destroy any mainland port as what happened in Desnair vividly illustrated, subs are, for the present, not a priority for the ICN.

The Temple or Dohlar could benefit from the idea, but both have too much on their plate to just survive to divert the energy and resourses needed for development.

Don

-

Put me in the theoretically possible but totally useless without electricity camp here.

Also needed for a viable submarine is some way of attacking enemy ships that can be done from range. This has traditionally been the torpedo and early torpedos sucked and it would take the church at least as long as real life to make them not suck. In our timeframe it took from the mid 1860's until about 1900 before they were viable weapons.

Tenshinai wrote:
While that is true, they were also suicidal vessels, as the spar torpedoes used nearly always sunk the attacking submarine as well as the target ship(if they sunk anything). And overall success rate was very poor.

Of course, that can be greatly improved upon relatively easy, but it´s still unlikely to be possible to achieve anything close to a WWI sub. Too many things that needs electrics.

Yes, but the good thing is that opposite also true. Too many things in anti-submarine warfare also required electics & radio technology.

I.e. it would be very hard to achieve such submarine sucsesses on Safehold as in World War I, but it would also be even harder to protect the ships against even primitive submarines attacks.

IMHO, if the submarines appeared in Dohlar navy, they would firtly be some analogue of "Turtle"&"Hunley"; i.e. hand-powered, with spar torpedoes. They would hardly be useful for anything more than threatening the blockading forced... but as war of 1775 demonstrated, even the primitive sub could scare the world's most powerfull navy pretty hard.

The second step - as soon as Dohlaran's would have steam engines (and they probably already have enough data to at least understood the main basics) would be to build semi-submercibles with steam machines for nighttime actions. Again, probably not very effective, but even the accidental sucsessfull attacks could make ICN pretty nervous at night.

And, well, the pinnacle of pre-electric submarine development would be the steam/pressurised air submarine, capable of storing the pressurised air onboard to move underwater, and armed with some sort of underwater cannon. Those ship could make things pretty... hard for Charisians, for real. Even KH's would probably not took shell from analogue of Ericsson's "Destructor" lightly.

Dilandu wrote:Yes, but the good thing is that opposite also true. Too many things in anti-submarine warfare also required electics & radio technology.

I.e. it would be very hard to achieve such submarine sucsesses on Safehold as in World War I, but it would also be even harder to protect the ships against even primitive submarines attacks.

Eyeballs remained one of the most important ways of noticing submarines up until the end of WWII.

Yes, it´s going to be much harder to attack a submarine while it is underwater, but ONLY while it is deep enough, because otherwise it´s still going to be visible from above using a simple optical instrument, basically an upside down periscope if you want.
Visual underwater range is short, but even lookouts in masts on a ship will be able to spot subs nearby underwater.


What it means is that the submarine will be forced down at least below 30m depth, and will have a drastically harder time attacking anything. So, you end up essentially with early WWI tactics. Spot the submarine BEFORE it can shoot, and force it to stay submerged until your ships are away from the area.

With a submarine having no way of reliably measuring how far they are above the seabottom, nor any way of tracking ships beyond periscope/surfacing, the subs are in the much worse position.

Even using them against large ships at anchor will be hard, as several attempts at using minisubs by the British and Japanese during WWII showed.

Dilandu wrote:IMHO, if the submarines appeared in Dohlar navy, they would firtly be some analogue of "Turtle"&"Hunley"; i.e. hand-powered, with spar torpedoes. They would hardly be useful for anything more than threatening the blockading forced... but as war of 1775 demonstrated, even the primitive sub could scare the world's most powerfull navy pretty hard.

Yes, they would probably work better as psychological weapons than for real, but that effect is quickly diminished if they are unable to cause any harm.

And Turtle did NOT use a spar torpedo, but what was essentially a mine that needed to be attached to the target with a screw.

Turtle was also noticed during its single attack.

And there is major questions whether the attack ever even happened, considering the fact that British sources from the time, including logbooks has no mention of any sort of unusual events.

Dilandu wrote:and armed with some sort of underwater cannon.

Underwater cannons are pretty much fiction only. There´s reasons why even the best of underwater projectile weapons have ranges measured in meters, usually singular. Water pressure, density and noncompressibility simply precludes the ability to make effective projectile weapons functional underwater.

Any submarines wanting to be effective with underwater attacks are going to need torpedoes, end of story.

Dilandu wrote:would probably not took shell from analogue of Ericsson's "Destructor" lightly.

I can´t even find mention of what you are referring to so i wouldn´t have any idea.

Tenshinai wrote:
Underwater cannons are pretty much fiction only. There´s reasons why even the best of underwater projectile weapons have ranges measured in meters, usually singular. Water pressure, density and noncompressibility simply precludes the ability to make effective projectile weapons functional underwater.

Any submarines wanting to be effective with underwater attacks are going to need torpedoes, end of story.

Dilandu wrote:would probably not took shell from analogue of Ericsson's "Destructor" lightly.

I can´t even find mention of what you are referring to so i wouldn´t have any idea.

My bad. She was "Destroyer".

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

Basically this was a real-build underwater gun, capable of firing on the distance of about 100 meters.