US concept from 1920, it was to use multiple parallel pressure hulls because of diameter limitations imposed by available
technology. Main turrets were hemispherical to resist pressure. The smaller turrets carried twin 4"/50 cal guns.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi729.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fww291%2Fjoncarrfarrelly%2FBTS%2FUS_20GRAND_1920_01.png&hash=a97be6d931824066881c276fc384f5109712a827)
From Friedman, U.S. Submarines Through 1945.
Wow, what a monster- engineering and practicality wise I can see why it never made it past the concept stage.
But in WHIF world, suddenly surfacing and opening up with those 12 inch guns makes for some interesting scenarios....
Then we have this lurking in the AU section of Shipbucket-
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shipbucket.com%2FAlternate%2520Universe%2FUSA%2520SSCVN%2520New%2520Hampshire%25201%2520AU.gif&hash=4af0c4f2861caccb97ebd879213c933e4c0673e4)
Interesting, JCF - is there any clue as to it's intended role? It's very large for a cruiser of any sort, approaching pre-war battleship dimensions, and the armament is an odd choice to say the least. Four 12" is quite strange - not enough for a battleship, but huge calibre for a cruiser.
The word 'cruiser' actually has no singular meaning, and in this context is a reference to extended range and endurance
when compared with fleet boats.
Oh that is gorgeous ! Has that shape :wub: :wub:
Why am I thinking of the J class of boats when I look at that design, Jon? I could imagine it being the way ahead if air wasn't a problem but as soon as air is introduced submerging quickly becomes very important. I'd be tempted to, instead of 12 inch guns to put a load of 20-40mm on top and have it rely on it's torpedoes....
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on February 19, 2015, 01:29:43 PM
The word 'cruiser' actually has no singular meaning, and in this context is a reference to extended range and endurance
when compared with fleet boats.
Yup very much so.
There were a lot of designs for "big gun" subs in the 20/30's and some even made it into hardware. Surcouf for example. However this does look too be the daddy of them
I make a kit of this in 1/1200!
(https://ptdockyardat.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/img01455-20110327-1420.jpg?w=468&h=351)
Dave G
The PT Dockyard
http://www.ptdockyard.com
Very nice! That really puts the size it into perspective next to what looks like a Gato. Well done.
Scratch built?
Very nice. I like the camo on that one ! And it is huge !
:cheers:
Seeing the model, it looks more like a 1920's attempt to revive the 1860's monitor.
The master was scratch built but this is a casting. Yes, that is an early Hato (another one of my castings😊)
Dave G
Hell's Bells! :blink:
First things that strike me:
1. How fast can it submerge? It's big, and it's got steam engines to shut down and seal.
2. How responsive is it in pitch & depth control? At 625 ft it's longer than the maximum safe depth of a typical sub of the period. A 24deg dive angle would have the stern at the surface and the bow at 250ft instantly.
3. How do they shut down and seal the steam plant for underwater running?
The only steam subs to see service were the British K class which were notoriously problematic.
As a fully qualified pedant (graduate of the Fat Hamster school of pedentry) I feel it my duty to point out that nuclear submarines use steam to turn their turbines.
;D
It's intended to fully submerge this beast ? I thought it was just a low rider...makes sense tho, it you're going to have the multiple pressure hulls.
:cheers:
Any conventional sub, whether it be diesel or boiler(steam), needs through hull fittings for a variety of purposes: air induction, exhaust, raw water intake, cooling water discharge, sewage, torpedos, etc. Most of these must be secured for submerged operations, and be robust enough to withstand the pressue at operating depth. Even Nuclear submarines need through hull fittings.
The real critcal valve, at least for diesel boats was the main induction valve, a mushroom shaped valve that allowed the diesels to run. Now our beastie here would require a huge number of valves, tanks and openings. Likely many more air trunks, valves etc. The "Christmas tree" showing when the boat was properly rigged for drive would be immense. A plumbing nightmare.
The turrets and guns further complicate watertight integrity.
My thoughts on Weavers musings:
1. She would take some time to rig for dive. You can have quick acting valves, but this beast would have numerous valves. The level of autotamtion in the period was limited. Many may require manual activation. The amout of air you need to vent/water you need to take on to submerge is large. You don't want to make the vents too large as you want good control over the ballast exchange rate. Don't want to sink like a rock. Hardly a "crash dive".
2. Handling would be poor. Large subs had a repuatation as poor manuevering boats. Constant fussing over balance, trim etc. Poor directional control in all three axis. Very slow to respond to directional, trim and speed adjustments. Limited power over a large mass. Small control surfaces. I can not tell from the drawing what type of diving planes she was envisioned to have, only the rudder which is very small.
3. A steam plant could be secured, like a diesel plant, but as per #1 the scale and number of valves on this one would present huge challenges. US boats like the Gato class had only one main induction valve and a smallish number of hatches and main ballast tanks, compared to our "cruiser" here.
I'd call her a white elephant.
Quote from: zenrat on March 12, 2015, 03:27:30 AM
As a fully qualified pedant (graduate of the Fat Hamster school of pedentry) I feel it my duty to point out that nuclear submarines use steam to turn their turbines.
;D
Show me one with funnels though... ;)
A mere detail...
QuoteThe only steam subs to see service were the British K class which were notoriously problematic
On the contrary the French operated a number in WW1. The Germans had a huge U-cruiser with steam propulsion, the Projekt 50, under construction in 1918. The Italians had a steam design that had 2-twin 6" turrets in 1929.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi540.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fgg335%2Flazer_one%2FGaleazzisSubCruiser1929Grigio.png&hash=c3c3c1a6ef1845f1c910c5a1739c55832f3fdb56)
The US had a number of contemporary designs along with this one, carrying everything from 8-8" guns to half a dozen planes.
Dave G
The PT Dockyard
I make a 1/1200 model of this one too :)
(https://ptdockyardat.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/coloniale-sub.jpg)
One of the club stands at Southern had a nice selection of these cruiser subs on display :thumbsup:
http://bernews.com/2013/05/new-theory-on-sub-lost-after-leaving-bermuda/
What is this ship?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_submarine_Surcouf
But turret and bow's shape are different.
Yup, the top picture is the Lorelei from a Japanese live action movie. It looks a lot like the Surcouf, but isn't.
The movie is gloriously over the top btw.
http://www.amazon.com/Lorelei-Witch-Pacific-English-version/dp/B00IFYMFKQ
You can even see the different turret shape in on the cover of the DVD.
The top picture in the Bernews has a raked bow, whereas the Surcouf has a straight one, the top pic is MILES shorter than the Surcouf, which was immensely long.
Not only are the gun turrets different but the directors are too. And to cap it all the one in the top pic doesn't have a hanger aft of the conning tower either.
Apart from that they're the same of course............. ;D