You are not logged in.


Friday, November 17th 2006, 12:49am

Roger, you'll probably be wanting to include some reserve buoyancy on those subs. About 10%. Also rather large for a Med class in the shallow water at that end. The outlines of subs are reasonably easy to spot from the air in shallow water. Its interesting that Greek and Italian solutions to the same problem look very similar.


what stopped them was money

We don't have money.

The hull in use isn't particularly streamlined in comparison to modern shapes. The biggest decrease in resistance is from removing the deck gun and adopting a smaller tower. Single propellor helps cut down to a large extent. Saddle tanks amidships still cause a great deal of drag, but the only way to get rid of them would be to go for a proper double hull, and on such a small vessel thats not really possible.

Rocky, yes - mainly because Italy isn't going to build any more for a long while having laid down 30 in the last few years. Take a break from construction, see what lessons can be learnt and then incorporate these into a new oceanic design - which will probably look like Sciesa again. Longer patrols need more room and better boat qualities. Making the sub better underwater also makes it worse on the surface.


Friday, November 17th 2006, 12:58am

The Dutch reinvented the snorkel cause they were too tight to put air conditioning in subs for tropical waters.

The opposition to high speed walter subs in the KM was that you couldn't put a naval band on the deck.

The IJN was experimenting with small high speed 2 man subs from the early 30's then stopped and then started again in the mid-late 30's.

A navy with long range requirements is unlikely to develop high submerged speed submarines. These navies pursued the fleet submarine - big and fast but not fast enough on the surface. The CT actually moves against this trend. The submarine is viewed as small and defensive.