Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Isilith and 6 guests

Submarines without electricity?

This fascinating series is a combination of historical seafaring, swashbuckling adventure, and high technological science-fiction. Join us in a discussion!
Re: Submarines without electricity?
Post by Dilandu   » Wed Jul 17, 2019 1:57 am

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2059
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Russia

Theemile wrote:
I didn't intend to imply that you did. I was try to add credence to your point of the lethality of early Subs and add Protected cruisers to your list - becuase the only US heavy loss was to a sub. I'm sorry it came off as a denial of your point.


Then I must apologise: seems I misunderstood you.
------------------------------

- Who would won in battle between strawman Liberal-Democrat and strawman Conservative-Republican?
- Scarecrow from Oz; he was strawman before it became political.

P.S. - And he have Russian twin, to watch his back)
Top
Re: Submarines without electricity?
Post by Dilandu   » Wed Jul 17, 2019 2:55 am

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2059
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Russia

About major warships, sunk in WW 1 by submarines.

Royal Navy:

HMS Majestic (BB)
HMS Formidable (BB)
HMS Cornwallis (BB)
HMS Russel (BB) - indirectly, by mines.
HMS Britannia (BB)
HMS Triumph (BB)
HMS Cressey (CA)
HMS Aboukir (CA)
HMS Hogue (CA)
HMS Hampshire (CA) - indirectly, by mines.

Marina Nationale:

Gaulois (BB)
Suffren (BB)
Danton (BB)
Amiral Charner(CA)
Dupetit-Thouars (CA)
Kléber (CA) - indirectly, by mines.
Léon Gambetta (CA)

Regia Marina:

Regina Margherita (BB) - indirectly, by mines.
Amalfi (CA)

Rossiysky Imperatorsky Flot:

Peresvet (BB/CA) - indirectly, by mines.

USN:

USS San-Diego (CA)

Germany:

SMS Prinz Adalbert (CA)

Ottoman Empire:

Barbaros Hayreddin (BB)

In total 12 battleships (BB) and 11 armored cruisers (CA) were sunk as a result of submarine actions - direct or indirect - during WW 1.
------------------------------

- Who would won in battle between strawman Liberal-Democrat and strawman Conservative-Republican?
- Scarecrow from Oz; he was strawman before it became political.

P.S. - And he have Russian twin, to watch his back)
Top
Re: Submarines without electricity?
Post by Erls   » Wed Jul 17, 2019 2:08 pm

Erls
Commander

Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 8:09 pm

How would submarines help Charis?

Submarines, except for missile subs, favor the weaker navy. Charis has no need to build them, as their warships are the dominant fleet on Safehold. They don't need to launch hidden strikes against anyone. Additionally, only Charis currently has dirigibles for use as scouts and bombers. They have no need to hide submarines from sight - they can always send bombers over at 10,000 feet.

Submarines would be more beneficial to Charis' enemies. Much like naval mines and rockets could have been easily built by Charis but were not because they were more defensive in application. Submarines are more of a commerce raiding/sneak attack unit (with the proscriptions) - which Charis doesn't need. Heck, the worst case scenario for Charis would be if someone comes up with a submarine that can carry (and rapidly deploy) an improved version of the COGA's rockets. Imagine if Desnair or Harchong (or Siddermark) was able to sneak a submarine with 100 or so rockets into range of Chisholm or Manchyr, surface, and launch them indiscriminately at the city/port.

That is not what Charis wants!
Top
Re: Submarines without electricity?
Post by Silverwall   » Wed Jul 17, 2019 3:26 pm

Silverwall
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 374
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:53 pm

The problem for a proscriptions compliant sub is range underwater which will be pitiful compared to WW1 subs if using pneumatic propulsion or if they somehow make a hydrogen peroxide engine more exciting than you would want.

There is also the problem that a steam powerd sub like the RN K class is not remotely stealthy and they were failures in their doctrinal role of battlefleet escort submarines. They took 5-10 mins to submerge and because of the smoke from their coal boilers could not sneek up on anything.

both sides would be far better served building classic WW1 destroyers of 800-1200 tons. They have longer range, better crew conditions, safer and a LOT more weapons.

A proscriptions compliant sub is, even more so than a motor torpedo boat a point defence weapon.

Finally someone pointed out all the narrows on safehold? these are NOT narrows like the Dardenells or the english channel. On the scale of these maps they are more like the entire Medeteraneaan wide. Looking at the scale on the map printed in the book the channel between Haven and Tarot for example is approx 200 miles wide. Basically think north sea not english channel. The Gulf of Dholar is bigger than the medeteranean at ~2000 miles long.

Edit

To be tactically useful submerged I consider the performance of U9 to be a minimum useful rstandard. Submerged her listed range is 80 nautical miles at 5 knots, less if you want to move faster.

Finally with no electricity the already bad in real life issues of lighting and ventilation will be much much worse as you will be forced into oxygen consuming sight sources such as a carbide lamp.
Top
Re: Submarines without electricity?
Post by Dilandu   » Wed Jul 17, 2019 10:38 pm

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2059
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Russia

Silverwall wrote:There is also the problem that a steam powerd sub like the RN K class is not remotely stealthy and they were failures in their doctrinal role of battlefleet escort submarines. They took 5-10 mins to submerge and because of the smoke from their coal boilers could not sneek up on anything.


Er...

* K-class were oil-burners.

* Their problems were based on them being "fleet submarines", capable of surface speed of 24+ knots.

* Many French WW1 submarines were steam-powered, by the way.
------------------------------

- Who would won in battle between strawman Liberal-Democrat and strawman Conservative-Republican?
- Scarecrow from Oz; he was strawman before it became political.

P.S. - And he have Russian twin, to watch his back)
Top
Re: Submarines without electricity?
Post by Silverwall   » Wed Jul 17, 2019 11:19 pm

Silverwall
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 374
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:53 pm

Dilandu wrote:
Silverwall wrote:There is also the problem that a steam powerd sub like the RN K class is not remotely stealthy and they were failures in their doctrinal role of battlefleet escort submarines. They took 5-10 mins to submerge and because of the smoke from their coal boilers could not sneek up on anything.


Er...

* K-class were oil-burners.

* Their problems were based on them being "fleet submarines", capable of surface speed of 24+ knots.

* Many French WW1 submarines were steam-powered, by the way.


They only built a handful of experimental boats with steam before transitioning to petrol/diesel propulsion. They were relegated to reserve/training by the time WW1 started. Even the nominally steam powered Pluviôse class transitioned to other systems during thier lifetime and development of later units.

The french steam subs had the same basic problems as the K class however taking up to 20 mins to safely cool the firebox/boiler before being able to submerge. This is the fundamental problem of all steam subs.

However, nitpicking over steam is a minor problem on safehold as Deisel is perfectly doable within the prescriptions.

The crux of the issue is submerged range limitations coupled with interior illumination within a submerged sub as flame based (Candles, carbide lamps) light sources are notorious for chewing up available oxygen and giving off CO2 and soot/smoke. Unlike mines there is NO fresh air being circulated into the boat to offset this issue.
Top
Re: Submarines without electricity?
Post by doug941   » Thu Jul 18, 2019 12:02 am

doug941
Commander

Posts: 171
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 5:21 pm

Dilandu wrote:
Silverwall wrote:


Er...

* K-class were oil-burners.

* Their problems were based on them being "fleet submarines", capable of surface speed of 24+ knots.

* Many French WW1 submarines were steam-powered, by the way.


They only built a handful of experimental boats with steam before transitioning to petrol/diesel propulsion. They were relegated to reserve/training by the time WW1 started. Even the nominally steam powered Pluviôse class transitioned to other systems during thier lifetime and development of later units.

The french steam subs had the same basic problems as the K class however taking up to 20 mins to safely cool the firebox/boiler before being able to submerge. This is the fundamental problem of all steam subs.

However, nitpicking over steam is a minor problem on safehold as Deisel is perfectly doable within the prescriptions.

The crux of the issue is submerged range limitations coupled with interior illumination within a submerged sub as flame based (Candles, carbide lamps) light sources are notorious for chewing up available oxygen and giving off CO2 and soot/smoke. Unlike mines there is NO fresh air being circulated into the boat to offset this issue.[/quote]

The K class had a bad problem beyond the heat from their boilers. Two of the class were lost after hatch seals failed leading to flooding.

As long as someone with an inventive mind works on it, lighting in a sub could work. What would be needed is glass tubes filled with Luciferin, the chemical(s) that bioluminescent creatures use for light. Granted it would be dim and short in duration but it would work.
Top
Re: Submarines without electricity?
Post by SilverbladeTE   » Thu Jul 18, 2019 8:09 am

SilverbladeTE
Commander

Posts: 226
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:14 am

Those "Narrows" still make hunting a lot easier than the whole Atlantic or Pacific ;)

Chemical lights...cyalume
And yeah, a genuine alien world may have possible chemical engineering potentials Earth doesn't

It would be negligent for Charis not to seriously investigate this.
We and even the IC do not know how things may turn out, neglecting a powerful tool is criminal.
Doesn't mean they need more than a handful in a secret design base though
They'll need years of experience for design, build and naval practice and tactics. THAT is the hard part

Enemies may design them.
Never overlook how smart folk can be.

Stealth (submarine laid) mining is incredibly effective and deadly.

Raider subs might be an idea, designed with no offense except deck gun, but to land Marine Commandos.

Chemical CO2 scrubbers exist you know. :)
Top

Return to Safehold