The high conning tower of the Gato

[Gezoes]

Hi guys,

Ever since SH4 was anounced I've been wondering about the Gato and her sistermodels. The conning tower is very high, and lots of stuff sticking out ABOVE that. It feels like a big wave to the enemy: Hey! Here we are!! :huh:

Now... that's not exactly a low profile now is it? Am I missing something?

It seems to me the human eye and certainly radar would pick up a Gato ten times easier than a U-boat...

:hmm:

[hyperion2206]

Hi guys,

Ever since SH4 was anounced I've been wondering about the Gato and her sistermodels. The conning tower is very high, and lots of stuff sticking out ABOVE that. It feels like a big wave to the enemy: Hey! Here we are!! :huh:

Now... that's not exactly a low profile now is it? Am I missing something?

It seems to me the human eye and certainly radar would pick up a Gato ten times easier than a U-boat...

:hmm:
The large conning tower was pre-war design, as the war progressed the conning towers were cut down to get a smaller profile.
I think this will be modeled in SH4 as well.

[Boris]

Yeah, the Devs have confirmed there will be newer conning towers available, just as there was in SH3.

[Gezoes]

Good news indeed! :up:

[Iron Budokan]

Yes, I was surprised at the high profile, too.

[Sailor Steve]

Even the new conning towers were large by German standards, but this was off set by mid-war by having the most advanced early-warning radar available.

[Hartmann]

Hi guys,

Ever since SH4 was anounced I've been wondering about the Gato and her sistermodels. The conning tower is very high, and lots of stuff sticking out ABOVE that. It feels like a big wave to the enemy: Hey! Here we are!! :huh:

Now... that's not exactly a low profile now is it? Am I missing something?

It seems to me the human eye and certainly radar would pick up a Gato ten times easier than a U-boat...

:hmm:

japanese navy and aircrafts don´t have good radars,and not comparable with allied ASW devices. Pacific war scenary was very different in a lot of things.:hmm:

[geetrue]

They didn't reduce the conning tower just for looks or because of radar detection, but
it also reduced diving times to the 35 second levels. :yep:

[flintlock]

No doubt.

Those massive conning towers must produce just as massive amounts of drag.

[hyperion2206]

They didn't reduce the conning tower just for looks or because of radar detection, but
it also reduced diving times to the 35 second levels. :yep:

I've read that the fleet subs needed roughly 60 seconds to dive. Does that mean 60s with or without the large tower?

[geetrue]

They didn't reduce the conning tower just for looks or because of radar detection, but
it also reduced diving times to the 35 second levels. :yep:

I've read that the fleet subs needed roughly 60 seconds to dive. Does that mean 60s with or without the large tower?

Neon wouldn't lie to me ... :lol:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=105611


The following comes from the USS Pampanito web site a Balao class submarine and very close relative of the Gato:

"A World War II submarine spent most of its time on the surface where it could travel quickly and more easily find its targets. She dove to make stealthy attacks or escapes from the enemy. To make it possible for the crew to walk outside the boat while on the surface, and to protect equipment that is not in the pressure hull, the main deck is built up over the pressure hull. The space between the pressure hull and the deck is the free-flooding superstructure. The many holes that are visible allow air to escape and water to flood this space. Any trapped air would slow down the dive. Pampanito can go from the surface to 60 foot depth in under 30 seconds."

http://www.maritime.org/tour/tadeck.htm

[Ducimus]

All im going to say is those towers were not without their advantages. ;)

[Sailor Steve]

All im going to say is those towers were not without their advantages. ;)
"Hey, Captain, I think I can see San Francisco from here!"

[Ducimus]

That and errmmm.. i guess you'd call it "radar depth".

[dean_acheson]

the bigger towers had places for lookouts on the periscope shears.

that is a big improvment on the German boats.

http://www.williammaloney.com/Dad/WWII/SubmarineLing/DeckViews/pages/04ConningTower.htm

[CCIP]

Yea, also consider the fact that while higher = seen from further out, higher also = able to see further out.

And of course 'radar depth'

Also, I think the American subs were no less capable than German boats of running 'decks awash' if they had to...

Anyway, I do agree though, but I think more than anything it's a matter of design philosophies. Germans focused on a stealthy commerce raider; Americans had fleet boats.

It is true though that most boats that started out with large conning towers ended up with cut-down versions in wartime. I remember looking at Italian subs - boy did they make some drastic reductions to their towers! (with german help)

[edjcox]

The conning towers were designed to reduce hydro dynamic drag. It was found that the solid profile of the tower was easier to see, especially at night. By cutting some of the metal back especially around the shears light was allowed to pass through and this reduced the solid chunk look considerably.

Running decks awash was a standard tactic of the day. Giving the advantage of quick submergence and lower profiles visually and to radar... With the turboblower a crew could lift the boat with a few minutes worth of awful noise which in a given tactical situation could be a detriment. Running "decks awash" therfore was also a smart move before full bouyancy commitment and letting the blower scream for a while.

A book I remember wherin this was discussed to some length "Ghostboat" contained some interesting historical references. A good read and kind of suspenseful.



:ping: :cool:

[flyingdane]

Love It Don't you.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v695/flyingdane/653.gif Hehehe.

[Iron Budokan]

I've always wondered why engineers of that day didn't make a surface hull with a rounded nose to go around the hull of the ship, sort of like we have today. Instead of the sharp nosed bow to cut through water, why didn't they go ahead and use the rounded nose? They certainly knew enough of hydrodynamics then to realize the rounded shape was superior to the "gun boat" style. I know they used this style so the sub could make good speed on top of the water, but was that the only reason they didn't use the rounded shape we have in today's modern subs? Was it because even the Americans viewed the sub as a surface attack craft first with the ability to dive underwater if need be? Just curious....

[CCIP]

I've always wondered why engineers of that day didn't make a surface hull with a rounded nose to go around the hull of the ship, sort of like we have today. Instead of the sharp nosed bow to cut through water, why didn't they go ahead and use the rounded nose? They certainly knew enough of hydrodynamics then to realize the rounded shape was superior to the "gun boat" style. I know they used this style so the sub could make good speed on top of the water, but was that the only reason they didn't use the rounded shape we have in today's modern subs? Was it because even the Americans viewed the sub as a surface attack craft first with the ability to dive underwater if need be? Just curious....
The bows maximized surface performance, since the boats were built with the idea that they would travel on the surface primarily and thus needed to be efficient surface-sailing vessels. There is a reason why the subs today have a much lower surface speed than the subs of WWII (while having much faster underwater speeds) - their hydrodynamic construction is optimal for submerged sailing, but very poor for surface travel. (Conversely, my understanding is that the WWII subs were actually rather inefficient subs as such).

Had to do not so much with attack practices as cruising practices. They would've been spending a lot more fuel to get to their patrol with a surface-inefficient bow like that...

[geetrue]

Remember even the Nautilus and the Triton had a normal ships prow and they were ten years after the war. I think the Barbel was the first to have a whale shape and she was a diesel boat. No wait it was the diesel powered USS Albacore AGSS-569, built in 1953 as an experimental submarine hull with no torpedo tubes, http://www.ussalbacore.org/html/virtual_tour.html, because everyone refers to modern subs as Albacore hulls, right?

No wait ... What about the USS Blueback SS-581 ... http://www.omsi.edu/visit/submarine/

She says that she is the first battle ready tear drop design, but she was also diesel powered.

So it wasn't till the Skipjack SSN 585 that we have the modern teardrop whale shape most modern day nuc boats use. Then the problem of bow planes vs sail planes developed and still goes on today.

[CCIP]

I think the delay had to do more with the manufacturing and design catching up after WWII. I'm sure this is the case with a lot of these things - the old doesn't die quickly! That and I'd probably note the Type XXI's lingering influence as a model to build on as well.

[flyingdane]

I think the delay had to do more with the manufacturing and design catching up after WWII. I'm sure this is the case with a lot of these things - the old doesn't die quickly! That and I'd probably note the Type XXI's lingering influence as a model to build on as well.

Delay...What ..Delay? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v695/flyingdane/477.gif

[NEON DEON]

I don’t believe that the cut down superstructure aided the boat’s dive time much if any when comparing their shapes side by side.

Gato with old conning tower:

http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08212a.htm (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08212a.htm)

Pampanito with the new conning tower:

http://www.maritime.org/tour/tpier.htm

The old conning tower has nothing mounted on the forward part of conning tower to create drag.

I believe the new conning tower, which is a lot smaller, negates its smaller size by the addition of the forward AA gun deck, railings, and 20 mm gun.

I also think that the positioning and size of the main deck gun would have more effect on dive time as opposed to the reduced size of the conning tower.

IE: a better place for the main deck gun would seem to be aft of the conning tower as opposed to forward of the tower.

[Sailor Steve]

I think the difference in dive times chiefly involved the fact that a Gato class submarine had approximately twice the displacement of a Type VII u-boat. That's a lot of inertia to overcome, even going down.

[XXi]

That`s right - considering the size and weight, they could go down relatively quickly.
I guess the main reason for change of the tower`s shape might be functionality.

As for the bow - these boats were designed to run on surface. Submerging was just an option, most of the time was spent on the surface. From the practical point of view there was little sense in mounting other type of bow - it would improve the underwater performance which had to be poor anyway and make the surface performance worse, resulting in limited speed and range. Better hydrodynamic bow is good solution only if the boat is designed to spend more time submerged, than surfaced.

[The WosMan]

Here is a pic I took of the USS Cod in Cleveland. It is a Gato and the conning tower is quite huge. To give you a sense of scale here are some people I went there with, my dad is the taller guy in the picture he is about 6'1".

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/9227/img2854zq7.jpg

[hyperion2206]

Wow, that's really huge! I don't want to know how big the pre-war towers were.:o Just kidding: I really want to know!;)

[geetrue]

Here is a pic I took of the USS Cod in Cleveland. It is a Gato and the conning tower is quite huge. To give you a sense of scale here are some people I went there with, my dad is the taller guy in the picture he is about 6'1".


Can you imagine being on this fleet boat in WWII in a Typhon/hurricane weather conditions ...

One boat in WWII, I think it was the Tinosa, lost two men, the OOD and one lookout in such conditions and I myself have been in the North Pacific in Force nine weather.

No fun on a rolly polly round bottom boat ... diesel boats were not allowed to submerge in inclimate weather ... due to batteries and electric motors can't protect you aginst a surge.

[Sailor Steve]

Actually that's the cut-down version. The original went all the way up around the persiscope shears. Check out these new pictures:
http://www.24flotilla.com/html/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=19511

[hyperion2206]

Actually that's the cut-down version. The original went all the way up around the persiscope shears. Check out these new pictures:
http://www.24flotilla.com/html/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=19511


I don't like the pre-war towers not only because they're huge but also because they always remind me of italian sub towers.:shifty:

[flintlock]

Can you imagine being on this fleet boat in WWII in a Typhon/hurricane weather conditions ...
Not fun I'm sure.

As long as I had a hot cup of coffee and was safely beneath the surface turmoil, I imagine it'd be a little more tolerable.

[Gezoes]

Here is a pic I took of the USS Cod in Cleveland. It is a Gato and the conning tower is quite huge. To give you a sense of scale here are some people I went there with, my dad is the taller guy in the picture he is about 6'1".



Amazing picture m8! But this is why I worry LOL.

That tower is huge, but even worse, VERY HIGH... :huh:

[hyperion2206]

Here is a pic I took of the USS Cod in Cleveland. It is a Gato and the conning tower is quite huge. To give you a sense of scale here are some people I went there with, my dad is the taller guy in the picture he is about 6'1".


Amazing picture m8! But this is why I worry LOL.

That tower is huge, but even worse, VERY HIGH... :huh:


Think of the positive effects: Because the tower is pretty high you can look further.;)

[Hartmann]

Another good thing is dont expose the tower in bad weather like u boats.
and the radar could be used submerged at radar depth.

[flintlock]

Another positive is it'll make a pretty silhouette against a sunset when you're trying to grab that killer screenie for the inevitable screenshot/competition threads.

;)