Kamikaze Submarines
- Thread starter Xenos
- Start date
Hmmm... Full sized subs or mini-subs? The fomer would be deverstating if everything went well... but would be of limited use against well protected naval ports (Scapa Flow; Pearl Harbour etc.) as large size implies low manouverability and hence makes 'em an easy target.
Mini-subs? The record of more conventional Mini-Subs in WW2 suggests that such a stratergy can work, but like the casewith larger subs it'd be highly dependent on attacking only suitable anchorages. Besides, why go for Kamikazi when you can just have the sub dump a big heap of explosives under/near the enemy vessel before running for safety (ala the British X-craft when used against Tripitz).
So yeah, possible... probably not as efficient as aircraft and it's probably not much more difficult to design a non-Kamikaze sub able to do more or less the same mission.
Anti-submarine nets. They'd need to go against an unprepared enemy, or they'll never even get close. It'd make more sense to have scuba-divers to plant those explosives, and then everyone can sneak out. Subs and crews are quite expensive from what i hear.
Not to mention the high cost of such a sub. A full sized sub for a certain one-way mission?
There is also the British Helmover torpedo.
From what i've read of it, a bloody great radio controlled torpedo to be launched from a Lancaster - so you can image how bloody big it was -the Lancaster had to stay in the target area to guide the torpedo, hence the suicide part.......
Quite a lot of time and effort was expended on it for some reason.
From what i've read of it, a bloody great radio controlled torpedo to be launched from a Lancaster - so you can image how bloody big it was -the Lancaster had to stay in the target area to guide the torpedo, hence the suicide part.......
Quite a lot of time and effort was expended on it for some reason.
Grey Wolf
Donor
A question on anti-submarine nets - do they protect the keel of a ship ? Considering they seem to be deployed on beams strung alongside the hull, do they also go right underneath ? Or are we talking about nets that are separate from the ship, and the ship is let into the centre of them by way of a boom ?
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
From Tony Williams
http://warbirdsforum.com/showthread.php?t=1037&highlight=Helmover
The idea of the Helmover was that it ran for much of the time on or just under the surface (with a snort to provide air to the engine), under radio control from the aircraft which had dropped it (which would fly figure-of-eights at a safe distance above and behind it). On approach to the target it would be directed to submerge, the Meteor engine continuing to run via compressed air bottles. One problem was that it could not be guided when submerged.
Speed was 40 knots (surfaced or submerged) range 50 miles on the surface, three miles submerged. It carried exactly one ton of explosives, which should have been enough to deal with any ship. For use against ships in harbours protected by booms, they were experimenting with a nose shaped to ride up over such obstacles.
It was indeed sized to be carried in a Lancaster bomb-bay. There was a proposed ship-launched version which was much longer to provide more volume for fuel and oxygen cylinders. This measured 49'9" long and weighed 20,900 lb. Ranges were 150 miles surfaced, 8 miles submerged. I've no idea how they would have controlled that (perhaps a spotter plane) but it makes the 24" Long Lance look like a little toy...
http://warbirdsforum.com/showthread.php?t=1037&highlight=Helmover
The idea of the Helmover was that it ran for much of the time on or just under the surface (with a snort to provide air to the engine), under radio control from the aircraft which had dropped it (which would fly figure-of-eights at a safe distance above and behind it). On approach to the target it would be directed to submerge, the Meteor engine continuing to run via compressed air bottles. One problem was that it could not be guided when submerged.
Speed was 40 knots (surfaced or submerged) range 50 miles on the surface, three miles submerged. It carried exactly one ton of explosives, which should have been enough to deal with any ship. For use against ships in harbours protected by booms, they were experimenting with a nose shaped to ride up over such obstacles.
It was indeed sized to be carried in a Lancaster bomb-bay. There was a proposed ship-launched version which was much longer to provide more volume for fuel and oxygen cylinders. This measured 49'9" long and weighed 20,900 lb. Ranges were 150 miles surfaced, 8 miles submerged. I've no idea how they would have controlled that (perhaps a spotter plane) but it makes the 24" Long Lance look like a little toy...
There were quite a few attacks on harbours by subs in WW2, pioneered by the Italian manned torpedo attacks on Alexandria and Gibraltar, which, inter alia, crippled two British battleships. The Brits clearly much admired this and set about developing their own forces, including a true mini-sub, the X craft (you can see one at the Gosport submarine museum.)
The Brits saw no cultural need for suicide attacks. However, no X craft survived their most famous mission, the successful attack on the Tirpitz. I know that's not a harbour, but working your way up a defended fiord must be just as difficult.
Appropriately, a joint Italian-British outfit was set up to carry out operations against what remained of Fascist Italy. They penetrated Italian harbours and blew up a large floating dock and (in a separate raid) an 8-inch cruiser (the Bolzano, I think.)
Finally, an Anglo-Australian submarine raid on Singapore harbour blew up a Japanese cruiser.
On the German side, there was of course Prien's famous sinking of the Royal Oak in Scapa Flow, but that was bravado rather than a specific operation. They developed their own human torpedoes and mini-subs and committed over 100 of the craft to attacking the shipping lanes to Normandy. Many of the crews resolved on suicide attacks, but in the event most were lost through accident or rough seas. One of them torpedoed the Polish cruiser Dragon, but this made little difference as she was to be scuttled as part of the Mulberry mole anyway.
The Brits saw no cultural need for suicide attacks. However, no X craft survived their most famous mission, the successful attack on the Tirpitz. I know that's not a harbour, but working your way up a defended fiord must be just as difficult.
Appropriately, a joint Italian-British outfit was set up to carry out operations against what remained of Fascist Italy. They penetrated Italian harbours and blew up a large floating dock and (in a separate raid) an 8-inch cruiser (the Bolzano, I think.)
Finally, an Anglo-Australian submarine raid on Singapore harbour blew up a Japanese cruiser.
On the German side, there was of course Prien's famous sinking of the Royal Oak in Scapa Flow, but that was bravado rather than a specific operation. They developed their own human torpedoes and mini-subs and committed over 100 of the craft to attacking the shipping lanes to Normandy. Many of the crews resolved on suicide attacks, but in the event most were lost through accident or rough seas. One of them torpedoed the Polish cruiser Dragon, but this made little difference as she was to be scuttled as part of the Mulberry mole anyway.