![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"Eunometic" wrote in message om... The German Type XXI u-boat had the an array sonar that was unusually accurate and capable of ranging (and thereby plotting and evading attacking ships) german hydrophones were based on passive arrays electronicaly processed and distributed around the hull and were far more accurate and sensitive than allied ones. Sonar ranging both active and passive allowed the Type XXI to attack without use of periscope. In theory, in practise the vast majority of type XXI boats built were of such poor quality that they were unfit for service and only one ever went on patrol. This of course delayed entry into service untill the defectice building was remediated. However they formed the backbone of not only the post war German navy but were extensively used by others. Some XXI's were for example a long time in use by: France: U 2518 ("Roland Morillot", decomm. 1967) Great Britain: U 2502, 2506, 2511, 3017, 3514 USSR: U 2529, 3035, 3041, 3515 USA: U 2513, 3008 The list of ships sunk by this type follows Start of List End of List Not for lack of capabillity: U 2511 (Korvettenkapitaen Adalbert SCHNEE) left Bergen at the end of April '45. On the next day she met a British Sub Hunter Group -- and was detected and attacked. But her sonar enabled her to plot the British movements and she escaped. On May 4th she met a British group, the cruiser HMS Norfolk with her escort. They had been on the usual U-Boat alert, but didn't find U 2511. Incidently U 2511 was in a good position. Assuming, that Adalbert Schnee didn't get his oakleafs for nothing, he couldn't have missed a cruiser at 700m distance, but the BDU had already ordered to cease fire. Back in Bergen, the Norfolk's officers didn't believe, they had been targeted, until, they read the log book of U 2511. Apart from their superb sonar, great speed, range and diving depth these u-boats had secondary creeper drive opperated via 12 v belts that made them essentialy undetectable at speeds of up to 6 knots. Keith |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Eunometic" wrote in message om... In theory, in practise the vast majority of type XXI boats built were of such poor quality that they were unfit for service and only one ever went on patrol. This of course delayed entry into service untill the defectice building was remediated. However they formed the backbone of not only the post war German navy but were extensively used by others. Some XXI's were for example a long time in use by: France: U 2518 ("Roland Morillot", decomm. 1967) Great Britain: U 2502, 2506, 2511, 3017, 3514 USSR: U 2529, 3035, 3041, 3515 USA: U 2513, 3008 There's a difference between evaulation and being the backbone. The fact is none of the type XXI's in US or RN services were operational for very long and certainly didnt form the backbone of the submarine force. The USN carried out the GUPPY conversions while the RN built the O & P classes The list of ships sunk by this type follows Start of List End of List Not for lack of capabillity: Not being able to put to sea is usually considered a sign of a lack of capability Keith |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
There's a difference between evaulation and being
the backbone. The fact is none of the type XXI's in US or RN services were operational for very long and certainly didnt form the backbone of the submarine force. The USN carried out the GUPPY conversions while the RN built the O & P classes Yeah right,there is also a difference between inventing and copying (stealing) a technology. Right Mr.Willshaw? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Denyav" wrote in message ... There's a difference between evaulation and being the backbone. The fact is none of the type XXI's in US or RN services were operational for very long and certainly didnt form the backbone of the submarine force. The USN carried out the GUPPY conversions while the RN built the O & P classes Yeah right,there is also a difference between inventing and copying (stealing) a technology. Right Mr.Willshaw? Indeed and the submarine was invented by an Irish American called John Holland. Keith |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"Eunometic" wrote in message om... In theory, in practise the vast majority of type XXI boats built were of such poor quality that they were unfit for service and only one ever went on patrol. This of course delayed entry into service untill the defectice building was remediated. However they formed the backbone of not only the post war German navy but were extensively used by others. Some XXI's were for example a long time in use by: France: U 2518 ("Roland Morillot", decomm. 1967) Great Britain: U 2502, 2506, 2511, 3017, 3514 USSR: U 2529, 3035, 3041, 3515 USA: U 2513, 3008 There's a difference between evaulation and being the backbone. Clearly they needed to 'evaluate' 5 of them. They were probably used as agressor subs in exercises. Presumably untill the Porpoise and Oberons came along many years latter they exceded the performance of anything else the British had and they were sensible to hang on to them untill they had something of their own. The fact is none of the type XXI's in US or RN services were operational for very long Do you know for how long? and certainly didnt form the backbone of the submarine force. The USN carried out the GUPPY conversions while the RN built the O & P classes The guppy conversions were inspired by the Type XXI's while the British submarines were virtual copies of the type XXI's in the way they worked and used ballast tanks. Guppies, while going some way to matching the peformance, in no way could match the other characteristic of all u-boats: there supreme diving depth that allowed them to evade attack and resist depth charging due to hull strength compared to allied and japanese boats. The list of ships sunk by this type follows Start of List End of List Not for lack of capabillity: Not being able to put to sea is usually considered a sign of a lack of capability Ho Ho Ho. You have a habbit of exaggerating teething or intitial problems that often occur in any designe and are then remedied to suit your opinions. The Type XXI was able to demonstrate its abillity to opperate against heavily defended British capital ships towards the end of WW2 and its succesfull and extensive use for 20 years after the war by the German and French Navy showed it was a solid designe with no basic problems. It was used by the other navies as well: for how long I don't know. The reality is that the type XXI was a breakthrough in concept. Keith |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Eunometic" wrote in message om... "Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... "Eunometic" wrote in message Clearly they needed to 'evaluate' 5 of them. They were probably used as agressor subs in exercises. Actually not, only U-3017 was commissioned and then only for a short period of trials Presumably untill the Porpoise and Oberons came along many years latter they exceded the performance of anything else the British had and they were sensible to hang on to them untill they had something of their own. Your presumption is incorrect. Post war the RN depended on the A-Class submarines The fact is none of the type XXI's in US or RN services were operational for very long Do you know for how long? Yes - the only boat put into service by the RN was scrapped in 1949 and certainly didnt form the backbone of the submarine force. The USN carried out the GUPPY conversions while the RN built the O & P classes The guppy conversions were inspired by the Type XXI's while the British submarines were virtual copies of the type XXI's in the way they worked and used ballast tanks. Dont be silly. The hull form is entirely different and all submarines use ballast tanks. Guppies, while going some way to matching the peformance, in no way could match the other characteristic of all u-boats: there supreme diving depth that allowed them to evade attack and resist depth charging due to hull strength compared to allied and japanese boats. Only one of those vunderveapons ever went on patrol with no kills. Compare and contrast with the record of the US Fleet submarines. The list of ships sunk by this type follows Start of List End of List Not for lack of capabillity: Not being able to put to sea is usually considered a sign of a lack of capability Ho Ho Ho. You have a habbit of exaggerating teething or intitial problems that often occur in any designe and are then remedied to suit your opinions. Only one boat made a patrol - that is no exaggeration. Keith |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Remember Pearl Harbor: Special Program Tonight at EAA | Fitzair4 | Home Built | 0 | December 7th 04 07:40 PM |
For Keith Willshaw... | robert arndt | Military Aviation | 253 | July 6th 04 05:18 AM |