|
Originally Posted by Dönitz
(Refering to submersibles)
the fighting capabilities of a submarine do not increase, as oposite to surface vessels, when it's size is increased. Quite de opposite, many of the peculiarities that caracterize it's fighting abilities loose all meaning if the submarine has a displacement bigger than a certain ammount of Tns.
...
the inmersion manouver becomes more difficult, the tecnical management of the submarine travel becomes more complicated, it's harder to turn, both on the surface and submerged, and keeping it under control at periscope depth is also more complicated. (i asume you all know the fact that 2 rods, with the same degree of inclination (say... 30º) from the floor, if one is bigger it will reach higher, well, the same happens to the bow and stern of the sub, and if any broke the water surface, it wouldn't be good)
---
A bigger submarine will be able to carry more suplies and weapons but, a submarine crew, even at top phisical conditions, will not endure more than 2 or 3 months on the open sea. Therefore, the increased operational range of a submarine has a relative value.
---
a 500ton (type VIIA) sub would be best fit for the task, both because it was easily controled (specially compared to the larger type I) and had greater firepower and range than that of the type II.
--
(going back to the first quote) the fact that the bigger the ship, the stronger it is, is not completly true for a submarine. A big submarine, because of it's limited capabilities when doing some recon, will be rendered useless.
It's worth noticing, the fact that we could only build submarines equals to a limited total displacement, the limit already been set in a signed treaty, and that's why we tried to make the most efficient use of such a limited displacement. So it was better to build 4 500t submarines rather than 1 2000t submarine.
|