The high conning tower of the Gato
 

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.

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

Good news indeed! :up:

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

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.

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:

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:

No doubt.

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

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

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

"Hey, Captain, I think I can see San Francisco from here!"

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

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/WW...nningTower.htm

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)

Conning Towers and profiles
 

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:

Love It Don't you.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...ngdane/653.gif Hehehe.

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...