Another U-boat thread.
Fair enough, but this thread continues.
Maybe, and maybe not. What happened historically is relevant, to a point, but not a carbon copy of what must happen, in every such thread, so please don't cut and paste into this thread, which hasn't even gotten to 1939, about what will happen in TTL convoy battles years later.
As noted before, it isn't going to be "all about Herr Hitler", regardless of what HE wanted, but what Germany has already started, before he becomes an issue. Please stop getting ahead of yourself, and this thread, and just enjoy the discussion as it (slowly) developes.
Not sure what you mean?
This thread is to explore both what was done historically, and how that could be improved upon. Let us keep that in mind, and go forward with that.
I'm not well enough to do post after post, several times a day right now, so please be patient.
My point however is that it's often overlooked that most convoys didn't have battles, and that will still be the case even if the Germans have 5 times the numbers of submarines available in 1939. I think Dönitz estimate of needing 300 submarines to blockade the UK is wrong (by quite a margin).
Yes, that's the basic problem with any such scenario, Raeder has to go. It is necessary to replace him with someone else who will build a fundamentally different Kriegsmarine.
Mines are the key to success, certainly in the first 8 months of the war, but again, it takes someone other than Raeder in charge. Hermann Göring may be an incompetent fool, but he was right about the mines in 1939, he rejected mass aerial mining because the Lutwaffe was not ready and therefore did not make planes available. Raeder used the handful of his planes at his disposal. They laid some mines and the English found one and explored it. The Germans thus lost their advantage earlier than was realistically necessary.
I know this story is from the ASB world, but please don't dismiss it because of that. It is very well written and describes submarine warfare with a better German view of what the Kriegsmarine was supposed to be in 1933-1939. The bottom line is that submarines cannot win Germany the war, but they can prevent Germany from being defeated.
World War I to the Great Depression, 1919-1929.
So for this thread, let us try to take things from the beginning of the post WWI German submarine design and development efforts.
The number one thing, is that because of the terms of the ToV et al, any German armaments above and beyond what is allowed, not only have to be done in secret, but must be physically hidden from prying eyes. For something like pistols and rifles, this is a small problem for the tools to make them, but the factories that contain these tools are much more of a problem (but not an insurmountable one if on a small scale), to say nothing about storage of secret stockpiles of such. Aircraft need to exist, and without any overseas colonies post war, there is no place for the Germans to really make a ground based airforce between the wars. Enter the actual text of the ToV restrictions, and look for loopholes. Submarines are larger still, and building full sized subs is just about impossible within Germany, but again, loopholes in the ToV must be explored and exploited.
I'm personally not healthy enough to try to post all the things that the Germans did between the wars, and for that matter, probably not all the things specific to just the D/D of the submarines either, but I would ask others that have an interest in sharing information that they have about secret German rearmament actions to just go ahead and post them in this thread.
From this threadmark on, we can consider anything along these lines from the end of WWI, up to and including 1929, so that we can then go over everything that happens in ~the first decade, and then we should probably proceed in a few year increments after the Great Depression on, so perhaps;
1) WWI to the Great depression, 1919-1929.
2) 1930-1932.
3) 1933-1935.
4) 1935-1938.
5) 1939-1941.
6) Everything that comes about after USA entry to the war, that now cannot be won by Germany if this WWII is any thing like our historical war, but just covers the remaining stuff on the topic,
Lets try an make an effort to keep all future posts (at least relevant) to the time periods we are currently discussing. By that metric, we shouldn't be seeing any mention of Herr Hitler until we reach the 1933-1935 time frame, as before that, he really couldn't contribute anything of value to U-boat design and construction.
The number one thing, is that because of the terms of the ToV et al, any German armaments above and beyond what is allowed, not only have to be done in secret, but must be physically hidden from prying eyes. For something like pistols and rifles, this is a small problem for the tools to make them, but the factories that contain these tools are much more of a problem (but not an insurmountable one if on a small scale), to say nothing about storage of secret stockpiles of such. Aircraft need to exist, and without any overseas colonies post war, there is no place for the Germans to really make a ground based airforce between the wars. Enter the actual text of the ToV restrictions, and look for loopholes. Submarines are larger still, and building full sized subs is just about impossible within Germany, but again, loopholes in the ToV must be explored and exploited.
I'm personally not healthy enough to try to post all the things that the Germans did between the wars, and for that matter, probably not all the things specific to just the D/D of the submarines either, but I would ask others that have an interest in sharing information that they have about secret German rearmament actions to just go ahead and post them in this thread.
From this threadmark on, we can consider anything along these lines from the end of WWI, up to and including 1929, so that we can then go over everything that happens in ~the first decade, and then we should probably proceed in a few year increments after the Great Depression on, so perhaps;
1) WWI to the Great depression, 1919-1929.
2) 1930-1932.
3) 1933-1935.
4) 1935-1938.
5) 1939-1941.
6) Everything that comes about after USA entry to the war, that now cannot be won by Germany if this WWII is any thing like our historical war, but just covers the remaining stuff on the topic,
Lets try an make an effort to keep all future posts (at least relevant) to the time periods we are currently discussing. By that metric, we shouldn't be seeing any mention of Herr Hitler until we reach the 1933-1935 time frame, as before that, he really couldn't contribute anything of value to U-boat design and construction.
Last edited:
... would have been nice if one/some of the "Not possible" faction would have voiced their reasoning why they think it was not possible
... as well as the "Possible, but must be very much less effective than standard construction, because reasons" would have name the one or other 'reason'.
Comparison to OTL from 1943 onwards simply doesn't fits because of VERY different not only economical reasons (therefore this comparison IMHO shouldn't even be offered as a choice, tbh).
And I would be truly interested what 'reasons' make methods of mass production less effetive than singled hand-made contruction as almost every such 'switch' from single made to mass-made - or at least 'line-production' increased efficiency throughout history (otherwise I would be greatfull been shown considerable disproves).
... as well as the "Possible, but must be very much less effective than standard construction, because reasons" would have name the one or other 'reason'.
Comparison to OTL from 1943 onwards simply doesn't fits because of VERY different not only economical reasons (therefore this comparison IMHO shouldn't even be offered as a choice, tbh).
And I would be truly interested what 'reasons' make methods of mass production less effetive than singled hand-made contruction as almost every such 'switch' from single made to mass-made - or at least 'line-production' increased efficiency throughout history (otherwise I would be greatfull been shown considerable disproves).
Well, one did post a single reply, so that is a start, but yes, more from the "cannot be done" crowd is needed, so we can see what their objections are.
Yep, I too would like to hear the rationale for this, as well.
I want see what the objections are, when we start to be able to compare a proper sectional building program as opposed to the very bad historically rushed program.
Something else that just occurred to me, everyone understands that we are not talking about the type XXI subs (or at least, not only/mainly) right? My notional sectional building program must have time to build actual U-boats well before we go into serial production, just as the war starts, so some of the 70,000 tons of this timelines German submarine fleet must be built pre-war by using these methods of construction, and even then, only after years of experience of building ships (not subs) in order to deal with the vast majority of the basic problems, so quality control and precision manufacturing will have had a chance to be worked out, years before the war, so that any submarines are built by an industry that start off with only a very few remaining submarine specific problems remaining, when the first actual U-boats are built pre-war.
Yes to this, as well. Provided that everyone that voted for the top two choices understands that the design and development in TTL are not tied to 1933 or later, and that the submarines are not limited to the advanced type XXI subs, but notional variants of all the earlier submarines, especially all the type VII and type IX submarines, I too would like to know why they voted the way that they did.
If they were under the impression that this thread was going to try to have a vast fleet of type XXI, built as the first subs to use sectional construction methods, then that would make more sense to me.
Last edited:
In an environment where a nation wants to build submarines, but cannot do any construction of subs (leaglelly at least), and if they try to do this in secret, then they need to make sure that any such attempts cannot be found out, and this means physical security at the production facility, and disguised from aerial observation as well. Such requirements will be quite hard to meet anywhere in Germany, and with her colonies all lost after the war, this comes down to just two options;
1) Built submarines outside German borders, or
2) Goto the immense expense of building a disguised submarine construction facility somewhere within Germany.
As the risks of trying #2 above could have led to war, right then and there, it is no surprise that the first steps taken historically were just to design submarines in Germany (which doesn't actually violate the ToV), and then build them elsewhere. Historically, this was first and only done with the Dutch, but in an ATL where Germany does more than historically, then we should be thinking about who/where/when/how and why the Germans could approach and attempt to work with. Two nations that might fit this bill, both of whom have their own submarine design and development capabilities, namely Italy and Japan, seem likely as potential 'partners in crime' for the Germans to try to escape the "No submarine (construction within Germany) clause within the ToV", as the submarines so designed are not actually being (physically) built anywhere in Germany.
I'd ask when this would likely take place in each country. My own guess is, that Italy might be worked with from 1927, with the Japanese added in in 1929 perhaps.
Either way, by 1930 at the latest, Germany needs to be able to start experimental U-boat construction, and these need to be tiny things if being build secretly within Germany. Such a program would of course mean that these subs must be able to be disguised as something else, like freight hauling barges perhaps, or as a mini-sub constructed within a sectional merchantman, and for that to be a thing, sectional construction of merchantmen must already be a well established thing by that time.
At this point, I'd ask for people's thought with respect to two things;
1) When and what would the Germans start off with for merchantmen?
2) When might the first mini-subs, built as part of a merchantman's segments, first take place?
I would point out, a mini-sub would still need docking facilities, and if this is open to the air, then the jig is up, so to speak, and this means that a disguised submarine dock is part of the infrastructural requirements from the first day.
Given these prerequisites, when would the Germans build their first domestic mini-subs and the disguised facilities for them? Personally, for mini-subs, I'm thinking not later than 1929, but probably not earlier than 1927.
Lastly, given the above restrictions on sizes, what could R&D focused upon mini-subs give in terms of mission types for such tiny, and short ranged, submarines?
1) Built submarines outside German borders, or
2) Goto the immense expense of building a disguised submarine construction facility somewhere within Germany.
As the risks of trying #2 above could have led to war, right then and there, it is no surprise that the first steps taken historically were just to design submarines in Germany (which doesn't actually violate the ToV), and then build them elsewhere. Historically, this was first and only done with the Dutch, but in an ATL where Germany does more than historically, then we should be thinking about who/where/when/how and why the Germans could approach and attempt to work with. Two nations that might fit this bill, both of whom have their own submarine design and development capabilities, namely Italy and Japan, seem likely as potential 'partners in crime' for the Germans to try to escape the "No submarine (construction within Germany) clause within the ToV", as the submarines so designed are not actually being (physically) built anywhere in Germany.
I'd ask when this would likely take place in each country. My own guess is, that Italy might be worked with from 1927, with the Japanese added in in 1929 perhaps.
Either way, by 1930 at the latest, Germany needs to be able to start experimental U-boat construction, and these need to be tiny things if being build secretly within Germany. Such a program would of course mean that these subs must be able to be disguised as something else, like freight hauling barges perhaps, or as a mini-sub constructed within a sectional merchantman, and for that to be a thing, sectional construction of merchantmen must already be a well established thing by that time.
At this point, I'd ask for people's thought with respect to two things;
1) When and what would the Germans start off with for merchantmen?
2) When might the first mini-subs, built as part of a merchantman's segments, first take place?
I would point out, a mini-sub would still need docking facilities, and if this is open to the air, then the jig is up, so to speak, and this means that a disguised submarine dock is part of the infrastructural requirements from the first day.
Given these prerequisites, when would the Germans build their first domestic mini-subs and the disguised facilities for them? Personally, for mini-subs, I'm thinking not later than 1929, but probably not earlier than 1927.
Lastly, given the above restrictions on sizes, what could R&D focused upon mini-subs give in terms of mission types for such tiny, and short ranged, submarines?
I'm a bit confused by what you mean by this. By "within" do you mean the merchant built up around the sub, with the sub effectively entombed? Perhaps with some form of moon-pool? Just about the smallest useful sub for the era would be along the lines of the Saukko:
Finnish submarine Saukko - Wikipedia
As you can see, she is still over 32m long. I don't think it likely you would be able to construct a merchantman with a concealed 32m moon pool in 1930s Europe in secret. If you meant constructed as part of a merchantman's hull, said merchantman is going to be of broadly square-ish section, whereas a submarine's pressure hull must be of circular section. I'm not sure how you would go about concealing one as the other.
The whole thing seems a little too Oregon Files to me! I'm not sure it's really credible outside of a techno-thriller.
As for willing partners, I would expand upon the historical links that were forged in this period. Finland, Spain and the Soviet Union were all customers/partners of German interwar submarine efforts. Perhaps further/more successful construction at Cádiz? Perhaps alternatively follow Junkers to Limhamn, Sweden to avoid treaty restrictions? In any event, I'd recommend European ventures only. The logistics of the era in question would preclude partnering with Japan in preference to some closer to home. Shorter lines of communication would seem desirable in what is already a complex and technical endeavour.
TCG Gür (1936) - Wikipedia
Soviet S-class submarine - Wikipedia
On the subject of earlier sectional/modular construction u-boats, I'm sceptical. According to Rössler, Blohm und Voss didn't allow themselves to be rushed into launching U-2501 like Schichau did with U-3501 and she still needed to be returned to the yard for 10 days of rectification work!
If a renowned shipwright with years of institutional knowledge having such difficulties is any indicator, then attempting similar, earlier without that institutional knowledge of mass u-boat construction would indicate, to me, the lead boat of sectional construction being a disaster! A worthwhile, combat-capable boat would be many years and iterations down the line. Whether sectional construction would get you ahead of conventional methods is debatable.
I include a screengrab from Rössler's tome (The U-boat : The evolution and technical history of German submarines - page 219) that indicates the man-hours required for Type XXI construction were much higher than predicted. The benefits of peacetime as opposed to wartime construction could not completely offset the inevitable teething troubles IMO. The benefits of sectional construction would certainly take time to be realized, in any event.
If a renowned shipwright with years of institutional knowledge having such difficulties is any indicator, then attempting similar, earlier without that institutional knowledge of mass u-boat construction would indicate, to me, the lead boat of sectional construction being a disaster! A worthwhile, combat-capable boat would be many years and iterations down the line. Whether sectional construction would get you ahead of conventional methods is debatable.
I include a screengrab from Rössler's tome (The U-boat : The evolution and technical history of German submarines - page 219) that indicates the man-hours required for Type XXI construction were much higher than predicted. The benefits of peacetime as opposed to wartime construction could not completely offset the inevitable teething troubles IMO. The benefits of sectional construction would certainly take time to be realized, in any event.
Attachments
Last edited:
Well, I see I have some more explaining to do.I'm a bit confused by what you mean by this. By "within" do you mean the merchant built up around the sub, with the sub effectively entombed? Perhaps with some form of moon-pool? Just about the smallest useful sub for the era would be along the lines of the Saukko:
Finnish submarine Saukko - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
A type II or type XVII are far too big to qualify as "mini-subs", and I'm currently researching some OTL stuff that is close to what I am envisioning for the initial forrey into the illegal endeavors to achieve something/anything that can be built in Germany, and be kept away from prying eyes, that can give some data about underwater duration, some little propulsion, and a tiny bit of data about diving and surfacing, before you can really build anything as large as either of the above classes. Over on wiki we have these two entries:
This is more like what I have in mind, but still misses the mark by a bit, as the is mainly just a manned torpedo, rather than a mini-sub. The above was used successfully to sink and Austro-Hungarian Battleship in 1918. And in later times, we have:
These were used in the raid on Alexandria.
Looking at these two designs, I don't get anywhere near the details that I would for actual ships, so for instance, nothing about the length of these things. I'm thinking maybe 30' or so, but with my eyes being what they are, it could be 60' for all I know.
Either way, I'm picturing some early, experimental prototypes, that may start off as little more than three torpedoes in dimensions laid out side by side, like what we currently see with the Falcon Heavy boosters that SpaceX is using nowadays. Anyway, when I am saying mini-subs in this thread, that is more like the size I'm looking at.
I have to agree, something over 100' is not a good candidate for a concealable mini-sub, meant to arrive at a shipyard fully encased within a merchantmen sectional piece.
The other thing about the mini-sub, is the lack of any "surface" engines at all, as that would require and entirely larger scale of construct, but the important thing that Germany needs is the submerged data, and the mini-subs that only have battery systems will be able to give the Germans some crucial early data that they lacked in OTL, and of course, if the Germans are building tiny little mini-subs by 1930, what might they start thinking of using them for, in time of war?
Not familiar with that cultural reference, sorry.
Regardless of difficulties increased by distance, Japan, unlike Italy, offers the wide open, no unfriendly eyes around to observe type of location that Germany could only dream of, and use.As for willing partners, I would expand upon the historical links that were forged in this period. Finland, Spain and the Soviet Union were all customers/partners of German interwar submarine efforts. Perhaps further/more successful construction at Cádiz? Perhaps alternatively follow Junkers to Limhamn, Sweden to avoid treaty restrictions? In any event, I'd recommend European ventures only. The logistics of the era in question would preclude partnering with Japan in preference to some closer to home. Shorter lines of communication would seem desirable in what is already a complex and technical endeavour.
TCG Gür (1936) - Wikipedia
Soviet S-class submarine - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Oh, I agree.
The problem with the OTL operation is, as I see it, threefold:
1) The effort was focused upon a new and advanced U-boat design.
2) Was done all in a rush, while they were already loosing the war.
3) The subcontractors didn't have a decade of sectional construction under their belts, unlike they will have in TTL
If a good shipyard receives substandard parts, that are wildly flawed (as in the OTL 1943-1945 effort), there is only so much they can do, and the answer lies not with what they have to do to make the pieces fit, but to make sure that the folks making these sections know their jobs, and in TTL that is largely learned in the 1920's and by the early 1930's, they are getting experience with the mini-subs as well as the first attempts at full sized U-boats, I think that most every manufacturing problem is going to be worked out.
There are a lot of problems with trying yo build subs in sections.
First off when sectional building did get implemented for surface ships it had issues and a lot of them. A sub is much harder to build so presumably will be harder to get right.
Second was simoly how things where built hack then. Many things where NOT designed in detail like we do today. For example the Steel Cabooses built by the C&O in about that time had 1 main sheet of plans/sections. and a handful of specs. It was assumed that the trades would know what was needed. The Ambassador Bridge built in the late 20s between Windsor Canada and Detroit was built with less pages of drawings then a gas station takes in 2000. Note this incloused the bridge, its steel sections, the roadway, the approch spans on bith sides and both roads/boarder controls on both sids. Vs a gass station convenience store it site plan and its tank layout. we are NOT even including the tank sheets themselves nor the canopy, I know this as i read a copy of the plans for the bridge and i drew the drawings for the C-store (gas station)
The point of this is that back then it was very hard to design a 3d object as complicated as a sub in enough detail that you can make sections that fit together properly. Even today we have problems with that and we model things completely in 3D and still mess up on occasion.
Add in trying to keep the hull pressure tight and good luck with that.
First off when sectional building did get implemented for surface ships it had issues and a lot of them. A sub is much harder to build so presumably will be harder to get right.
Second was simoly how things where built hack then. Many things where NOT designed in detail like we do today. For example the Steel Cabooses built by the C&O in about that time had 1 main sheet of plans/sections. and a handful of specs. It was assumed that the trades would know what was needed. The Ambassador Bridge built in the late 20s between Windsor Canada and Detroit was built with less pages of drawings then a gas station takes in 2000. Note this incloused the bridge, its steel sections, the roadway, the approch spans on bith sides and both roads/boarder controls on both sids. Vs a gass station convenience store it site plan and its tank layout. we are NOT even including the tank sheets themselves nor the canopy, I know this as i read a copy of the plans for the bridge and i drew the drawings for the C-store (gas station)
The point of this is that back then it was very hard to design a 3d object as complicated as a sub in enough detail that you can make sections that fit together properly. Even today we have problems with that and we model things completely in 3D and still mess up on occasion.
Add in trying to keep the hull pressure tight and good luck with that.
Sigh.
Germany already did this in OTL. Look up IVS, a dummy company setup in 1922 in the Netherlands to build submarines. All the shareholders were German shipbuilders, the chief designer and design staff were all Germans who had worked on U-boat design before/during WW1. When the submarines went on trials IVS 'employees' (actually German navy crew and officers wearing civilian clothes) would go along and crew the vessel, then provide hand over training.
British intelligence had a spy inside IVS, informing them of everything that was going on. The politicians decided not to make a fuss as the efforts were fairly harmless in the 20s and early 30s at least this way Britain could keep an eye on German plans - if they complained and forced the Dutch to close IVS (or kick the Germans out) then Germany would carry on but perhaps somewhere the British couldn't see. So anything different the Germans do at IVS, the British will find out about.
I would also vigorously push back on the idea that you can transfer supply chains across to different boats. One of the concerns the German navy staff had was prematurely 'locking in' to a design, they knew once they picked something and ramped up they were going to be stuck with it. The VII and IX were pre-war designs and stayed in production the entire war, any attempts at replacements didn't work.
The German system was not flexible and pre-fab will only make it worse, so much tooling and equipment will exist for those designs so the industrial inertia to keep the design in production will be even stronger.
Germany already did this in OTL. Look up IVS, a dummy company setup in 1922 in the Netherlands to build submarines. All the shareholders were German shipbuilders, the chief designer and design staff were all Germans who had worked on U-boat design before/during WW1. When the submarines went on trials IVS 'employees' (actually German navy crew and officers wearing civilian clothes) would go along and crew the vessel, then provide hand over training.
British intelligence had a spy inside IVS, informing them of everything that was going on. The politicians decided not to make a fuss as the efforts were fairly harmless in the 20s and early 30s at least this way Britain could keep an eye on German plans - if they complained and forced the Dutch to close IVS (or kick the Germans out) then Germany would carry on but perhaps somewhere the British couldn't see. So anything different the Germans do at IVS, the British will find out about.
I would also vigorously push back on the idea that you can transfer supply chains across to different boats. One of the concerns the German navy staff had was prematurely 'locking in' to a design, they knew once they picked something and ramped up they were going to be stuck with it. The VII and IX were pre-war designs and stayed in production the entire war, any attempts at replacements didn't work.
The German system was not flexible and pre-fab will only make it worse, so much tooling and equipment will exist for those designs so the industrial inertia to keep the design in production will be even stronger.
... quite some often 'voiced' concerns hereabout regarding technologies:
If not been done OTL (best right away the point of time in question) than it can't be done in ATL (nearing ASB)
If sectional marine - not to speak of submarine - construction wasn't achieved IOTL it must be unachievable in ATL
... regardless the 1-2 decades of R & D (research & development, ... NOT Raeder & Dönitz ) assumed ITTL for that
) assumed ITTL for thatI'm often astonished how low imagination often seems to range here around ...
Esp as in this case ... as i.e. the UB I (~ 127t) and UC I (~ 168 t) types build in 1914 and 1915 actually WERE dismantled into 3 parts (or 'sections'
) and reassembled after transport by train at Flanders coast or at the adriatic. ... without immediat lethal accidents.Therefore ther WAS arleady in the post-war time some stock of knowledge to build upon.
IMHO small enough a boat properly planned constructable even within Germany with single parts delivered from all over the realm into small wrafs somewhere in the nowhere of the pmeerianian coast, well disguisable.
... and IMHO no need for these 'nearly-suicide-missionprofil-manned-torpedo' micro-subs stuff.
.. about the time frame we're intended to talk about ...
Would just like remind taht post occupation of the Ruhr 1923 the Reichsmarine - almost hectically - began a number of programs for the development of q cheap, small, easily and esp. quickly to be build naval assets.
These led not at least to the already named Kriegsfischkutter-program of civilian 'participation' (which was rather increasing inefficiency by too much 'civilians' thinking on production details) and the development of the rather famous T-boats.
... now lets have someone think about these 120 to 150 t boats of early WW 1 for coastal waters ... as a first step ...
... as a first incentive to look into rationalisation by 'Fordism'-methods leading towards sectional ship-building ...
In 1919 Germany had lost 90 % of its merchant fleet:
every ship above 1600 GRT
every 2nd ship between 1000 and 1600 GRT
every 4th fishing vessel
every 5th inland waterway vessels
all to be delivered to the winning side.In 1919 also it was demanded from Germany to deliverabout 200.000 GRT of shipspace every years for (at least) the next 5 years following signature of the ToV (unfortunatly I haven't found (yet ?) a source naming how much had actually been delivered. I only know it was fulfilled only quite partially).
IOTL the german goverment pumped billions of (infltion adjusted) Reichsmark into the shipbuilding industry - unfortunatly only 'traditional' style - that in 1930 its (civilian) shipbuilding capacities exceeded pre-WW 1.
... what if at least some of these billions or only some millions flowed into some 'assambly-line' kind production of at least smaller vessels. ... like Kriegsfischkutter or even some just about 1000 GRT Baltic ferries or merchantsmen.
Last edited:
... yeah ... 'James Bond' was there in every era of history ...
If ... the brits were as anti-sub as so ofgten stated on these sites why didn't they stopped these obviously treaty violating practise in the Netherlands? ... when it was seemingly soo easy to force the goverment of the netherland to do as wished by Whitehall?
Btw: would they have done the same with spain?
IOTL the germans were to set up a torpedo factory there together with this lad rather well befriended with Canaris as well as the spanish king as well as the the king following Prime Minister. ... and an awfull lot of other important figures.
On his behave above already mentioned TCG GÖr was build on his ship yard in Cádiz and only later sold to Turkey.
... it cannot be in ATL what's not allowed to be ... and was not there in OTL ... esp. if it violates beloved prejudices.
Last edited:
Truth, but the plans being formed up in this thread make allowance for that. In OTL, the Germans only tired this sectional construction method far too late to make a difference, with no time to get even the most basic bugs out of the system, and all while trying to build their most advanced U-boats of the war, so double the teething problems (new design/new construction method) both. In this thread, the Germans are going to take the time to properly develop the basic skill needed to be able to master quality control and precision manufacturing, years before the war, and before needing to try to build subs, let alone their most advanced and ambitious designs.
I'm thinking that it takes less than a year, for the shipyards, receiving crappy components from the manufactures to figure out what is wrong and needs fixing. After that, it is just going to be a matter of taking that knowledge, and translating it into well and properly built components, and getting this all worked out and up and running will take more than a year, of course, but not anything like a decade, so figure that the first merchantmen start getting built in 1922-1925, then they learn what has to change, and say three years later the major bugs are all a thing of the past, so around 1926-1929 Germany has it's heavy industry able to build merchantmen, and can start on U-boats.
Historically, the only reasons that the Germans didn't get this worked out, was that they waited to late, tired to make advanced U-boats right off, and only really tired once they were already loosing the war.
I posted all this upthread somewhere, lol. The Germans need to do more than they did historically, so we can have them better prepared once 1933 rolls around, and they have to be able to present a better program to mr blockhead.
Which is why the Germans need to have more, separate programs. I expect that the Italian project may also end up being compromised, while the Japanese project will not be compromised, nor the secret German project that has only been hinted at so far.
???
Are you saying something along the lines of interchangeable parts, from different designs? Not sure what you mean here?
This seems more like the problem of the historical German way of thinking, as anything specific to the idea of sectional construction itself, really.
Who said it would be easy? Possible is not the same as easy, though I accept this entire thread hinges on ignoring that fact.
As I said, letting the Germans play around with IVS where the British had a spy gave them an inside line. Forcing it to shut would not have stopped the Germans experimenting on U-boats, they just would have moved it somewhere else where the British may not have had a spy.
Better that than the "beloved prejudice" that if it doesn't violate the laws of physics then the Nazis could do it easily, instantly and perfectly.
I have to ask where the hell Germany is getting the resources to fund and man four parallel secret development projects, but that is the sort of question this thread is determined to ignore so I'm not expecting any answer.
As these submarines are being built in Germany by Germans that seems relevant. Or have we now progressed onto asking the question "What if German society and industrial history was completely different, but not in a way that makes any difference outside of U-boat construction?"
Out of curiosity for those of us not ship designers, why are you estimating three years?
I'm not a ship designer. I may be overlooking something that if the Germans focused on this in the '20s would make it a lot simpler than what I'm picturing.
Last edited:
Ok, lets try this again…. yes it can be done…but will it A) produce good subs and B) will it produce more subs over all then original time line.
I say for
A) not for a while and maybe never, there are difficulties that have to be overcome and they may or may not be overcome. But the tech was not in place to design this and get it all right the first time .
B) Probably not, You have to take a bit of time designing this, then time getting multiple manufacturing locations set up and then shipping figured out and once you have all that you need to scale and time it all so you wind up with the number of sub commponents on site when you need them. To many to soon you get a bottleneck that takes up your storage space at the final assembly location to few and you are sitting around waiting for parts, Then once you get this all figured out and start the process rolling you need debug the design and construction and you either do this slowly before you start ramping up production or you ramp up production knwoing you will have to fix things after they leave the aub assembly plant. Backing up production at the tinal assembly location. And you get a more complicated version of Boeings B-29 “battle of kansas”
By the time you get all this figured out you probably don't gain much
Then you get the next issue. What happens when it is time to design a new class of subs?
The US was turning out record numbers of Liberty Ships and build other ships such as destroyers and subs in “bulk” and yet we don't see this kind kind of thing being common in the US. Even the B-24 being built at Yippsilanti by Ford whish was sort of built in sections and then joined together was not assembled at different locations and then shipped it. And a B-24 is a LOT easier to build then a sub. But even the limited mass production of aircraft was such that it made changing designs very difficult.
So good luck getting improved subs later on
I say for
A) not for a while and maybe never, there are difficulties that have to be overcome and they may or may not be overcome. But the tech was not in place to design this and get it all right the first time .
B) Probably not, You have to take a bit of time designing this, then time getting multiple manufacturing locations set up and then shipping figured out and once you have all that you need to scale and time it all so you wind up with the number of sub commponents on site when you need them. To many to soon you get a bottleneck that takes up your storage space at the final assembly location to few and you are sitting around waiting for parts, Then once you get this all figured out and start the process rolling you need debug the design and construction and you either do this slowly before you start ramping up production or you ramp up production knwoing you will have to fix things after they leave the aub assembly plant. Backing up production at the tinal assembly location. And you get a more complicated version of Boeings B-29 “battle of kansas”
By the time you get all this figured out you probably don't gain much
Then you get the next issue. What happens when it is time to design a new class of subs?
The US was turning out record numbers of Liberty Ships and build other ships such as destroyers and subs in “bulk” and yet we don't see this kind kind of thing being common in the US. Even the B-24 being built at Yippsilanti by Ford whish was sort of built in sections and then joined together was not assembled at different locations and then shipped it. And a B-24 is a LOT easier to build then a sub. But even the limited mass production of aircraft was such that it made changing designs very difficult.
So good luck getting improved subs later on