![]() |
SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997 |
![]() |
#1 |
Rear Admiral
![]() |
![]()
Ever since i first remember reading about the VIIC/42 in the manual that came with Aces of the deep i have been facinated by this sub.
In my mind its one of the most (or the most) advanced WW2 submarine. Yeah yeah i know the type XXI holds that crown, but it just seems too.... modern. When i play a WW2 sub sim, i expect WW2 subs, the type 21 is just.. different to me in this regard, perhaps because it was meant as a "True" submarine in the modern sense of the word. To me that just isnt as much fun, and honestly modern subs excite me about as much as watching paint dry. So the object of my facination falls squarely on the sub that never was. The VIIC/42. If you want to compare specs: http://www.uboat.net/types/viic.htm http://www.uboat.net/types/viic-42.htm The sum is larger engines, more range, a bit wider, a bit longer, a bit taller, a bit faster, ALOT deeper, but still about the same profile as the VIIC. It looks like a meld of VIIC manuverablity, the range and speed of an IX boat, all packed into a relativly small deep diving hull offering increased survivablity. Other intresting tidbits (albiet similar but a bit more descriptive) http://www.uboatwar.net/VII.htm http://www.uboataces.com/uboat-type-vii.shtml Looking at all scant info avaliable, it seems the designers were foward thinking. The first two boats, U699 and U700 were first ordered in april, 1942. I'll make this conjecture. I think more fuel was for two reasons. Extend range while snorkeling, or surface range to reach the us East coast. Deck gun was removed (and im guessing) because its wasnt very useful snorkelling, and its removal is what made room for the two extra external torpedo stores. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |
Weps
![]() Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Pacific NW, USA
Posts: 350
Downloads: 54
Uploads: 0
|
![]() Quote:
A bigger reason was to increase diving time and submerged speed since the deck gun vastly increased the drag on the boat as it tried to push its way through the water. In reality, any gains in this area due to deck gun removal were largely negated by the increased AA armament and the conning tower extensions needed to house it. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | ||
Rear Admiral
![]() |
![]() Quote:
Quote:
What i think is laughable is the VII/4 conning tower. (Uflak) If hydrodynamics were modled in this game, that sub would be alot less then ideal under water. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Admiral
![]() Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bay Area, California, USA
Posts: 2,377
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
Ducimus, check your PM.
![]()
__________________
It takes two to tango ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Rear Admiral
![]() |
![]()
Back at ya!
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Ace of the Deep
![]() Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 1,025
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
VII/42 sounds nice, but the U-cruiser is even better!
from uboat.net: Type XI U-cruisers Huge U-boats, designed in 1937-1938, with 4 127mm deck guns ( ![]() I read that they were designed for 26 kn surface speed. I searched but didn't find any photos or a blueprint / sketch. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Grey Wolf
![]() Join Date: May 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 978
Downloads: 5
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
nope I never was
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Navy Seal
![]() Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: York - UK
Posts: 6,079
Downloads: 43
Uploads: 0
|
![]() ![]() The XI U-cruiser
__________________
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Navy Seal
![]() Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: York - UK
Posts: 6,079
Downloads: 43
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
about th VIIC/42
the estimated crush depth is around 850ft There is a reliable record of a VIIC reaching a estimated depth of 900ft! (274m) (the depth dial in the control room was accidentaly turned off, but other dials in the ship eventualy alerted the crew) So chances are the VIIC/42 could have desended below 1000ft
__________________
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Ace of the Deep
![]() Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 1,025
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
@ Lectum
That's absolutely A-M-A-Z-I-N-G Thanks! These subs would definitly be useful in the first years of the war. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 | |
Navy Seal
![]() Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: York - UK
Posts: 6,079
Downloads: 43
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
if the engeneers had really pushed them selves I wonder if they could have ever created a U-Battleship.
Its probubly possible with 1930s/40s engeneering, but it has many drawbacks; not least the cost and recources for such a huge project wich would mean it would have to be neer compleation before the war broke out. The main task would be to make its hull strong enough to dive to a depth where it could not be seen from the air (~70m+ in calm, well lit waters), provide a stable gun platform and to achive a reasonable surface to dive time. The tactics would be vastly diffrent to U-boat tactics as such a large sub could not hide underwater from a destroyer. This presents another problem - you cant safely stay on the surface if there are aircraft about and you cant dive if there are warships about - what happens whern both are present? ![]() It would be hard to defend such a craft from attack, however in open ocean it would be hard to defend against. Its fun to imagine a modern day size sub or even larger, armed to the teeth with flack guns and 4-6 8inch main guns making 20+ knots with a snorkel surfaceing at long range in front of a convoy and letting rip. there was 2 german u-boats in WWI that had very large main gun turrent. At least one of them sank :hmm: cant remember all the details **edit** Quote:
![]() It's LETUM as in de-letum (delete) or letumful (lethal) Latin for death and a Roman god
__________________
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 | |
Rear Admiral
![]() |
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 | |
Mate
![]() Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Bushnell, FL
Posts: 60
Downloads: 1
Uploads: 0
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 | |
Ace of the Deep
![]() Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 1,025
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
![]() Quote:
I couldn't agree more about the change in tactics. This U-cruiser would definitly need 2-3 U-boats as "u-escorts" ![]() It would be useful up to the second happy times, shelling lone ships in American waters Later on it would get worse, because it would be: - More "visible" to radar - Easier to spot on the surface - Bigger target for planes After 1943 (if any of them went that far) the deck guns would be removed and converted to u-freighters ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 | |
Grey Wolf
![]() Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 797
Downloads: 187
Uploads: 0
|
![]() Quote:
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
__________________
My heart is steadfast, O God. I will sing and make music with all my soul. Ps. 108:1 Survival of the fittest does not explain arrival of the fittest. we live in a single spoken sentence.. "God said, let there be" ![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|