Yesterday's Weapons Forums

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_K_class_submarine

Maybe the Hunley wasn't so bad afterall. SW

_________________
Darkness is all around us and enemy are just beyond the perimeter.

Wow they weren't all that small either @ 338'. The Los Angeles class (of which I was on one) was 360'

_________________

It's 5 o'clock and it's watermelon time.....................
because you can't drink beer & load rockets - TXPete







Come Visit New Philly Sports.com!

I suspect the coal bunkers took up a lot of room. SW

_________________
Darkness is all around us and enemy are just beyond the perimeter.

Makes you wonder why they went steam when others were already onto diesel? Logistics maybe?

_________________

It's 5 o'clock and it's watermelon time.....................
because you can't drink beer & load rockets - TXPete







Come Visit New Philly Sports.com!

I think the idea was that a steam powered sub could keep up with the fleet on maneuvers.

The oldtimers were so set in their ways, they couldn't see the possibilities. Can you imagine submarines at Jutland? The admiralty sure couldn't imagine them sneeking into Scapa Flow. SW

_________________
Darkness is all around us and enemy are just beyond the perimeter.

Once agin I am showing my lack of understanding of the under sea service but, the idea of a steam powered submarine is no more logical (to me at lest) than having one with screen doors on it.

Speed was the primary issue. In theory a steam powered sub was faster than a diesel. Keep in mind diesel engines and the kind of batteries a sub needs were emerging technology at the time.

An issue that should have concerned everyone was carbon monoxide. No... I'd rather have been a grunt in Flanders than on a steam sub. Actually, life expectancy wasn't that far apart. SW

_________________
Darkness is all around us and enemy are just beyond the perimeter.

Ah yes! The 'K' for calamity boats. They were intended to keep up with the battle fleet and primarily intended for scouting duties. They were oil fired and could IIRC submerge in something like 8 minutes. My WW1 copy of Conway's isn't handy right now or I would give more detailed specs on them. Needless to say, they killed more Englishmen than germans.

_________________
David

"We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat; they do not exist"
Victoria 1899

only one enemy engagement and the torpedo failed to explode out of 18 boats , and six sunk by accident - not a real great record ,

My totally unreliable sub book says 23 knots surfaced, 9 submerged.
Steam turbine/electric motors. It also had three 4" deck guns. Next pages mentions these boats had advanced communications gear and could send morse code messages.

On opposite page, German U-9 has four kerosene engines/electric motors and had to have a dismountable funnel. It did take out three slow moving and obsolete cruisers in 1914. At least it was fast so the book says. Advanced for its time. 14 knots surfaced, 8 submerged.

How both of these boats hid their smoke from the enemy remains to be seen. Perhaps they went electric on the surface and did some scouting from afar?

Remember, this book is a pure comic book to what Enfield Shooter has. His costs real money, mine, more like pocket change at 1/2 Price Books.

Best Regards,

Mark

Mark,

My Conway's may be a better reference but it's of no use now as it's in an unaccessable
location. Your book is right at hand and thus much better.

_________________
David

"We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat; they do not exist"
Victoria 1899

......I guess they didnt make "Jane's Fighting Ships of the World" back then...

_________________
....Naj puška govori!....
.............deplorable typical "bitter clinger"....

Mine is like "Jims Book Of Sinky Boats". Perhaps good in a pinch, not much else.

Best Regards,

Mark

....I was bein' serious

http://www.ihs.com/products/janes/defen ... ships.aspx

_________________
....Naj puška govori!....
.............deplorable typical "bitter clinger"....

Found a few pics. Looking around, there are some real monstrosities among emerging submarine technology. I didn't look far enough to see how the Turk experiment worked out.

I still say carbon monoxide from the boiler would be more hazardous to crew than depth charges. SW

_________________
Darkness is all around us and enemy are just beyond the perimeter.

I have a copy of Janes for 1918. It has pretty pictures and lots of words, some of which may be accurate. You are better served with looking at British or German recognition charts. They are, for the most part, exceedingly accurate. I have a copy of the Admiralty recognition tables for the German Navy. A very different picture than that presented by Janes. The other reliable source is a series of books by Conways. The edition for WW1 covers 1905 to 1922. Unfortunately it's out of print and any that come available won't be given away.

_________________
David

"We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat; they do not exist"
Victoria 1899

what purpose does that enlarged bow serve ?

Well when you get down to it, our nuclear subs are steam powered. The reactor heat turns water to steam and drives turbines.

The enlarged bow was likely designed for operating on the surface is rough seas. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. I think that is a K-class.

Best Regards,

Mark

i guess that makes logical sense , but i was wondering if there was a munitions aspect - stacked torpedo tubes and racks of fish or even an ice breaking/ramming aspect ?