Early vs. late war conning towers

[joea]

Well, just an observation, but I find it interesting how sleek and streamlined the early war fleet boat conning towers were...even the periscopes had a streamlined fairing. Contrast that with the relatively cluttered cut-down towers of mid-to-late war, and the irony of how the Guppy conversions went back to the streamlined look after the war.

This shows how the US sub campaign underwent changes in tactics due to the combat environment...after all the USN hoped to be able to make submerged hydrophone only attacks before the war. Later, they spent more time on the surface, attacking light shipping with guns as larger targets became more scarce.

Huge contrast with the Atlantic as the U-boats lost their deck guns, tried for a time to add AA guns but then with the far greater pressure of Allied ASW, with snorkels and culminating in the Type XXI with the realisation the future of submarines lay in becoming true submarines after all.

[Tarnish_UK]

As you say the US Fleet boats spent much time running on the surface acting as gun boats and those full sized conning towers stood out like... well a big black sign saying "Look at me! I'm a sub, bomb me!"

Plus too as you note the change in conning tower profile allowed a much wider range of possibilites for various gun installations. You gotta love that good old 40mm Bofors against light shipping.

I've got to say though that for me the mid to late war US boats profiles just have that "cool" factor, they just look great.

:)

[CybrSlydr]

Personally, I think the German U-boats look "cooler" than US Submarines.

They all look the same.

[hmatthias]

Agreed, but you have to remember the German U-Boat was used not just as a "fleet boat" (type IX), but as a "costal boat" (type II), and a "hybrid" (type VII), for close on attacks on England and the north Atlantic. Therefore, the designs were of a much bigger variety then the "fleet boat" design needed by the U.S. to cross long stretches of the Pacific.

Personally, I am pyched that we have both "options" now. I have SHIII and SHIV installed, and when I get tired of harassing the Japanese in their home waters, I can go fight "the losing battle" with the Kreigsmarine. Fun world we live in these days!

[AntEater]

The prewar conning tower of the fleet boats was a decidedly "peacetime" affair, with a enclosed steering post with portholes, where the helmsman could actually see outside during surface travel. I am not sure what term the US used for that, U-Boats never had such a surface steering station (WW1 uboats had it as well), and russians called it "limusin".
Having done helmsman duty on a warship myself, I wonder why a helmsman should need portholes at all, as all he does is keep or change the course as ordered. All he needs is a repeater compass and a rudder gauge...;)
The huge conning tower increased diving time, keep in mind the steering station only flooded through the portholes, so it kind of kept the boat on the surface for a few seconds longer.
The trimmed down conning tower increased lookout visibility and decreased siluette..
Streamlining for submarines seems to have been overrated at best anyway.
Such streamlining measures take effect only at high speeds underwater (above 10 knots). WW2 fleet boats never attained underwater speeds high enough for the streamlining to take effect.
Very early boats like the Holland type had extensive streamlining as well as a teardrop shaped hull. That was a drawback in their actual combat use as it affected surface performance.
A similar chase was the italians. Their boats had huge conning towers, which were cut down in WW2 and replaced by a "german" type (which led to serveral friendly fire losses after Italy changed sides). They even had a complete galley in the conning tower with a gas stove (for pasta?? :D).
Soviets never changed their conning tower profiles in WW2 while the british had quite spartan arrangements similar to the germans.