Question about WWII German U-boat bow planes

Be nice to have a Nautical & Naval History Sub-Forum

I just searched history in Title and there's very few threads that have history in the Title

My opinion is that Design is to fill a need which is usually a result of History.

I thinking about proposing to the administrators a Nautical & Naval History Sub-Forum.

 

i admit the sherman was not the equal of the panther or tiger and the loss rate was say 3-4 to 1 in favor of the german tanks in tank on tank combat bu the 4th or 5th sherman would prevail, there were simply so many of the damn things

but i dare say that probably most german tanks were lost to air attack


i bet most generals and admirals like playing soldier and don't want their toys broken in some nasty war, there are exception i know

 

Nice idea Gannet!

 

Most were just blown by own crew! Not enough spare parts, no fuel, no ammunition.
When the US troops were in combat with the Germans the war was completely over, there was nothing to win for the Reich. Except a honorable surrender, but that was refused by the allied.
That your guys got the hide spanked in the last battle in the Ardennes was a nonsense from a tactical point of view. And it weakened the russian front.
But of course it has shown what would have happened if, say, that would have been one or two years earlier! You would have lost millions of soldiers, as the Soviet did.
Do´nt get me wrong please, I´m not a Nazi, quite the opposite! But both world wars i´ve studied in deep for some 25 years or so. And I started to study what the British and Dutch authors said, before I had the hand on German material.

Regards
Richard

 

Amazing that fisticuffs are still possible- coming on 70 years later...

 

1 person subduing 10, a problem

10 people subduing 100, good possibility

100,000 people subduing 1,000,000 no problem

 

We should delete all our last posts I think, it gets a bit irritating for others.
And I would like to focus more on technical questions. Though quite often a political background has to be understood in correlation to tech. questions.
And be sure, I´m not pro or contra any of the parties involved. I have a father with British roots and a German mother. No, no predecessors from Russia or the US............

 

http://www.combinedfleet.com/kaigun.htm

 

War is politics in action, sort of... A history teacher asked my class once;

"Name technical improvements that have changed the world"
The class said;
wheel
bow/arrow (hunting)
fire
bronze
iron
plough
Then he asked what have been used in war (he was i bit into warhistory...)
We excluded only the last one (the plough, a bit impractical, but possible).
Then he asked is there somewhere a minor (another) thing/ improvement that we normally don't consider to be that useful that it can't really matter, but when thinking closer, it will?

We were tired, lazy, wanted home....

Then he said; Stirrups. (as an example).

I've never forgotten that one.... the difference that detail makes in "a political discussion"... Small difference, but may cause a change in leaders.... History is full of those small details...

 

war is that last argument of kings

 

War is the father of all things...............Heraklit
„Πόλεμος πάντων μὲν πατήρ ἐστι.“
Polemos pantōn men patēr esti.

Though that is misquoted since centuries, because Heraklit said not "war" he said "dispute", "aggro".

And the plough, at least figuratively, IS a weapon. No food, no fight.

Thanks for the contribution mate!

Richard

 

And what I learned in the Marine Corps:
"anything can be used as a weapon"
"war is hell"
"the first casualty in war is the truth"
"everything is fair in hand-in-hand combat"
"make the enemy die for their country"
And what we said in Vietnam "the unwilling being led by the unqualified to do the unnecessary for the ungrateful."

Any thoughts on the use of bow planes as hydrofoils?

 

I don't understand the question Gannet.

Dive planes are hydrofoils aren't they?

Mine are...

Tom

 

Hi Submarine Tom

One thing I did notice is the German WWII submarines had their bow planes always submerged even when the sub was surfaced; whereas, the US and British submarines bow planes were either at the waterline or above the waterline when not retracted. From what I had read this was done by the US and British to reduce drag while running on the surface.

I was referring to my thoughts back in Post #33

And what I stated Post #37

 

The bow planes I saw last week on our British made subs are just below

the surface and they're small. Not a lot of lift from them. This sub is

about 20 years old and about 70 meters long.

I think the idea an interesting one but consider the wetted surface area

(both sides) and the drag of a plane large enough to produce enough lift at

a drag inducing angle compared to the reduction in wetted hull area due to

raising the sub up out of the water.

I'm not convinced the cost / benefit is advantageous...

Tom