Man Battlestations Forum
General => General Discussion => The Great War => Topic started by: Landlubber on April 22, 2014, 12:57:23 am
-
Dovetailing on Ruckdog's idea to discuss Dreadnoughts, I thought it might also be a good idea to have a thread dedicated to that other naval killer of World War One: the submarine.
I know next to nothing about sub warfare (historical or modern day), but as we do have a resident submariner ;), maybe we'll all learn something here about it.
To whet your appetites, here's an informative site on German subs in WW1 (http://www.uboat.net/wwi/), complete with pictures and technical specs.
-
Neat link! Thanks for that one.
So, it is important to remember that submarines of WWI were drastically less capable and sophisticated than the ones we think of from WWII. Don't forget, the first practical dual-drive submarine had only been perfected around 1900. In addtion to being slower and possessed of less endurance, WWI subs were also hampered by their armament. The torpedos of the time were slower, shorter ranged, less mechanically reliable, and were equiped with smaller warheads.
All that being said, naval archetects of the time were astonishingly bad at designing ships capable of standing up to catastrophic underwater damage. As a result, even a single mine or torpedo hit could be deadly to even the largest of dreadnoughts, as seen with the HMS Audacious. The Audacious was a top-of-the-line battleship, barely two years old when a single mine hit sent her to the bottom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Audacious_(1912)). Given this demonstrated vulnerability, naval commanders had to take the threat posed by the relatively primative submarines of the time seriously.
On top of that, at the start of the war there was no effective ASW weapons available, short of raming the offending submarine while it was at periscope depth or luring it in on the surface to attack what appeared to be a harmless merchant, but which was in fact a heavily armed "Q-ship." Effective depth charges weren't available before 1916, and no SONAR systems (other than primitive listening gear) existed until well after the war. Thus, submarines enjoyed a certain impunity from counter-attack at the outset that helped offset their other limitations.
-
All that being said, naval archetects of the time were astonishingly bad at designing ships capable of standing up to catastrophic underwater damage. As a result, even a single mine or torpedo hit could be deadly to even the largest of dreadnoughts, as seen with the HMS Audacious.
Was it a lack of technology, or was there a prejudice by the surface navy against subs? As in, I've got a battleship, what can a submarine possibly do to my ship? I only ask because that was the prevailing attitude against aircraft for years (until Midway put that myth to rest).
I've been looking around and can't find very many books that deal with sub warfare in WW1. Lots on WW2, but that's always the case. There are a few articles I've come across, some from professional military journals.
-
I would say it was a lack of knowledge and foresight. Battleships of WWI were designed to resist horizontal shell fire. As a result, they fared poorly against both underwater damage and aerial attack/plunging fire. That is why you saw many WWI era ships being heavily refitted during the 20's and 30's.
-
I've been looking around and can't find very many books that deal with sub warfare in WW1. Lots on WW2, but that's always the case. There are a few articles I've come across, some from professional military journals.
I recommend BUSINESS IN GREAT WATERS by Terraine, which covers submarine warfare in both World Wars.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00KTM7GUG/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1