I really do not know what the Italian, British and Japanese subs looked like, so i am just Comparing/Asking About German Vs USA. I suppose i am thinking about the Type 7 and 9 Vs. the Gato class. The German subs had such a distinctive look. Were they any "better" than those of the USA, or did the Germans use their conning towers in a different way.? Or did they pretty much Operate/Do the same thing, but just, simply, have a different look.? Thank You
Interesting question, I think the early war U-boats often used to attack on the surface at night and then at one point were instructed to stay on the surface and fight it out if caught by an Allied aircraft. I'm not sure if that affected the design of the fin but I would have expected it to. Regards Tom
I don't have an answer to Chip's question but here is some additional info on Donitz's fight it out on the surface order. They also added a surgeon to the crew in addition to the beefed up flak batteries in anticipation of increased casualties. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/b...ied-destroy-allied-warplanes-and-failed-89026
This is one of those big picture questions that could evolve into a huge discussion about tactics and how submarines were used by the different forces but I'll try to keep this to generalities. It is important to understand that submarines as they existed for most of the Second World War for all participants were basically surface ships that could travel underwater for a limited time. They spent most of their time on the surface. Conning towers were water tight compartments that existed outside the pressure hull and were designed for controlling the vessel on the surface and basic attack functions. They provided some (minimal) elevation to make steering the vessel easier. Modern submarines have what is known as a sail or fin with the functions of attack and control now moved into the main pressure hull. As the functionality of submarines changed, so did the role or need of a conning tower.
The Nazis definitely had a penchant for style over function. I would suggest this could be a reason their conning towers were shaped differently to everyone else's; it made their subs look 'German'.
Thanks for the replies. I had a hard time writing my post. It was difficult to express what i was thinking, but Luddite (above) provably sums up what i felt............ the U-Boats "Looked German" where as most other subs sort of looked similar where their conning towers were concerned. So it made me wonder why they looked so different.? Was there some great purpose, or just an inconsequential design.? Thanks Again.
The German U-boats of WWII (Kriegsmarine) and WWI (Kaiserliche Marine) - uboat.net https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03071844809419168?journalCode=rusi19 WW2 Technology: German U-Boats - Ran Levi https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1326&context=nwc-review History and Technology - The Working Environment for German Submarine Design in WWII - NavWeaps
Always these highly specific questions.... Basically, the teardrop-shaped turret fairing was designed to be streamlined in order to maintain underwater speeds. The principle was probably the same for all navies. As the early subs were rather submersible torpedo boats, not as much effort was put into this design feature as with the modern types. At least in the case of the German boats, there was a development gap of a good 15 years, so they went back to the UB III design and built on it in an evolutionary way. The tower was to be kept as small and compact as possible to avoid early detection and to allow faster diving times. How this was done elsewhere, I do not know. But It was certainly different with the Gato class As to the details: The tower forms of types VII A, VII B and VII C differ essentially in the "fin" that ends at the back (see picture), Because at the rear of the turret the fresh air intake of the diesel was led upwards. Type VII B was equipped with an anti-aircraft platform, hence the changed course compared to VII A. With type VII C, the command centre was extended by 1.20m, which also moved the fresh air intakes for the engines to the rear - hence the new change. The upper part at the front of the turret, which points downwards at an angle, as well as the prominent edge halfway up, form the so-called wind nozzle (Windduese); in theory, during overwater travel, the airflow deflected upwards ensures that the bridge crew remains free of spray and thereby also reduces the "heat flicker" in the air and the view becomes clearer and, above all, wider. (All further extensions are then mainly due to the reinforced anti-aircraft armament, which is probably self-explanatory. I don't want to go into the further details of the numerous construction details later in the war, because I'm getting my roadster out of hibernation today, that has absolute priority )
