You pronounce boot in German the same as boat in English. How would you pronounce 'video maker too lazy to do an easy simple search on 2021 internet'? In short I'd say 'twit'.
@@177SCmaro well, not during WW2, but during the Battle of the Falkland Islands during WW1 the HMS Canopus was grounded in the harbor and fired over the surrounding hills at the approaching German squadron using spotters on the hills to correct their aim. That’s kinda similar
@@TheHIV123 I suppose somewhat similar in concept. I do know I find it tiring at times, like it draws the matches out forever even in the Legends. Part of the reason WG added CV's to both versions and Subs to the regular version was probably to reduce this practice.
@@finlaywallbanks7304 well for before nuclear subs, building submarine carrier was hard as submarines did not do well underwater. They could maybe stay underwater for a day but sail for that long rather not. As such submarines stayed on the surface for most of their missions. And as no matters what armour they would have their only defence against combat ships was to dive and run. And the bigger the ship is the harder is to submarge it. And when something like type 7 could dive in just 15 seconds with trained crew, Surcouf could dive after a minute or more. I-400 that was true submarine carrier also took over minute to dive. That a lot of time for aircraft attack.
Wait didn't americans also used g7e T2 or they captured and produced T3? As they realy had to be despaired to use t2. Also from what i've heard at first Mark 14 had both kinetick and magnetic fuses not working.
@@Michalinus G7e TII did had his shares of problems even if they solved most of the issues, it was replaced by the TIII that entered service in 1942 that had a completely new exploder. And no, the Americans did not use the G7e, the Mark 14 problems were eventually fixed.
Well Surcouf french cruiser submarine from similar time needed around 3 minutes after surfacing to fire first salvo and could not fire after dark. I am quite sure this would be worst thing for uboat. Not to mention even with more conventional guns like 88 or 105 from type IX skippers would drop them for better hydrodynamics as uboats until type XXI had problems with moving under water.
And Type XXI had no deck guns and neither did the Balaos after GUPPY conversion post-war even if a few retained them, they we gone by 1950. Adding "bigger guns" was a futile endeavour and everyone of note build some of the submarine cruisers, besides French Surcouf there was the American Narwhal-class and the Soviet K-class, Japan had a few as well with the Type AM being the last but Japan used their for other roles (recon since their doctrine) and Germany had the Type IX that was already mentioned but the Type IX "cruiser" was more about its longer range that a attempt at artillery duels.
@@drakron well type IX was not designed as cruiser but for range alone. Type IX was similar to fleet boats while type VII was more of the costal submarine at around 700 tons, but as germans forgot that unlimited submarine warfare will yet again go to Atlantic as America gets involved so somehow their fleet of costal boats had to do the trick. That's why type XIV milk cow was developed.
"Why not just use torpedoes?" Actually even in WW2 the German U-boats preferred to use the gun whenever possible because the ammo was much smaller and cheaper, meaning you could easily carry a lot of gun rounds whereas torpedoes could only be carried in very limited numbers. It was important to save torpedoes for when a stealthy attack was required.
as well as most merchant ships arent heavily armed, any gun is enough to capture them, "hey surrender your goods or we will shoot" kinda makes people reconsider fighting when they already are aim and ready
Don't even let me starts on the US' "problematic" Mark 14 torpedoes. I mean a Us sub scored 13 directs (out of 15 torpedoes they) had hits on a Japanese whaling boat with that torpedo, Only the 14 one torpedo blew up and it didn't even reach the whaling ship that whaling ship still manage to escape the ambush . Suffice to say the Japanese whaler had one heck of a story when they got back home. What about the the last of the 15 torpedoes? The sub decide to keep it to show their superiors what useless junk that weapon is.
For anyone who is curious, the steam engines would be shut down before submerging. The role was to keep up with fleets while surfaced, as until very late in WWII submarines spent the majority of their time on the surface.
Yup; and unlike WWII crash diving wasn't really a thing, as aircraft were still too primitive to pose much of a threat to Sub's. (they had no way to find them beyond the mk-1 eyeball; and had limited armament to attack one even if they did)
The diesel burner would be shut down but a head of steam would still be available for a limited time before they had to switch to battery. Compressed air could also be utilized to power the boat.
I imagine the main issue would have presented itself when the submarine resurfaced. A diesel engine can get up to speed in minutes at most, a steam engine needs hot steam and a boiler can take quite a while to get hot. Having to run on batteries while surfaced or worse, lie becalmed, would be quite troublesome.
Didn't the French also build a *cruiser submarine in the Surcouf? I might be misremembering but I'm pretty sure they made one which had a traversible two-gun turret
@@PeterMuskrat6968 I wouldn't say it was much better in hindsight both are pretty impractical however if you want a closer British ship to surcouf the HMS X1 would be a better comparison
For context: until the end of WW2 submarines were surface ships that could submerge and engaged in combat while surfaced. Upping the caliber was meant to allow them to disable an enemy ship as quickly as possible while the submarine was vulnerable on the surface. The Seehund was actually one of the first submarines designed to maneuver, cruise, and fight submerged.
"One large gun would not be very effective for shore bombardment, especially since it was essentially fixed." *Lord Clive class monitors have entered the chat*
As an aside, since it was brought up: the HMS _Captain_ (you want the 1869 vintage) is one of the most goofity-assed warships ever built. It only got constructed because its designer threw a world-class hissy-fit via the press, and basically used PR to *force* the Admiralty to build it. It was a warship with gun turrets and *sails.* The sails were on elevated tripod masts, and the freeboard was very low. If you're wondering how well that worked, it was launched in April of 1870, and capsized five months later, killing 500 people in the process. Firing the guns during a test caused it to roll around 20 degrees (it would capsize at 21 degrees) and blinded the gunners with smoke because the sights were mounted on the roof of the turrets, not on the guns. It got into a bad windstorm off Spain, capsized, and sank, killing all but 27 on board.
HMS M2's sinking was actually witnessed by a local civilian sailor, but he thought nothing of the incident and didn't report it until a few days later when he asked a colleague if it was normal for submarines to dive stern-first.
"Interesting" is certainly one way of characterizing a cursed ship with a rotten service history. Which isn't to denigrate the sentiment! Her story definitely deserves a video.
@@Marinealver It used a "catapult" system where it launched it off a ramp. Similar to how battleships and cruisers would launch floatplanes. The planes were typically used for scouting but could carry very light bomb loads.
I've dived on the wreck of the M2. One of my best ever dives but a sobering experience when you realise the crew rest just the other side of the hull. Brave men all, sleep well lads.
While initially the idea of a steam engine or dreadnought gun on a submarine seems ridiculous, this is partially due to hindsight. Until WW2, a submarine was not intended to primarily operate underwater. The idea was that a submarine would travel on the surface, and attack using its deck guns, or perhaps maneuver into position then dive to make a final approach with torpedoes. The submarine would only dive to avoid enemy surface combat vessels. These were primarily surface boats, but capable of submerging. It wasn't until late in WW2 and in the postwar era that true submarines designed to primarily fight and move underwater were deployed.
This is indeed ironical, for John Holland, the Irish inventor of the first truly successful submarine, designed it for optimal performance underwater. When asked to design with more shiplike lines, he protested that this would diminish the quality of the boat's main task, condemning officers ignorant of the science of submersion, and asserting, "I will not give them a deck to strut upon!" His earliest boats were faster underwater than above.
Yup. Both used/use Steam Turbines. The difference is the K Class used Boilers to generate steam, while SSN's have uranium to do that job much more easily.
@@davehood2667 That's assuming a lot. Some Sub's do have electric motors aye, though most of the Nuke Boats built since the USS Nautilus had prop's direct driven by the steam turbines. In the latter kind of setup, the only major difference between how a K Class worked and how a Nuke Boat works, is what heats the steam for the turbines.
Always found it funny that the steam powered submarine finally got the last laugh when a heating method with no exhaust gas production was finally found.
@@USSEnterpriseA1701 Agreed. It also means that the K Class and HMS Dreadnought (the Sub', not the Battleship) are essentially parent and child, in as far as concept can be considered. (a Fleet Submarine, able to keep up with and engage warships in open sea)
I actually saw a picture of the M-Class in an "Eyewitness" book on submarines (showing a cutaway of the ship and mentioning how a merchant ship ran it down). On the same page of that image was an image of the French "Surcouf" sub ( 0:39), a K-Class sub's tower, the X1 cruiser submarine, the HMS M2 Aircraft carrier sub, and a sub on wheels.
I think it really should have been emphasized just how ludicrously impractical a 12 inch gun is, when mounted on a submarine. Just consider the 3 minute reload, compared to 30 seconds for the same weapon when it was mounted on a battleship. Not to mention that a gun that size is also hilarious overkill against a merchant ship. Ultimately, a 4 or 5 inch gun would actually be more effective, for a fraction of the effort. Still a great vid though, keep it up!
In fairness though: you'd only need 1 hit... and only if the vessel doesn't surrender the second they see the armament XD. (after all they don't know the reload time)
thats a pretty good point, but this sub can be a good morale booster and a good morale blow, it would boost morale to the brits and scare the heck out of the their enemies as its a battleship gun, that you cant see until its too late, at first it wont strike as much fear but the moment they realize those were battleship guns they would run for the hills since they would assume that they saw a battleship if they could not see the sub, and if they know then they know well that they are 1 shot away from death, overkill? yes, but think of the morale blow it would cause!
@@peternystrom921 Depends on the distance. Within a certain range missing is unlikely, and even armoured targets are vunerable. That's why the RN didn't try a Narvik style attack on the Tirpitz, as at such [relative] close ranges a single hit by either ship on the other would've gone straight through the armour, and been catastrophic.
You know some Yuktobanian somewhere in the Ace Combat Universe saw blueprints for this ship and really, REALLY thought to themselves "I like the concept of this design! Da, da, we will build something like it! Bigger gun, though, much bigger! slug thrower more powerful than Stonehenge cannons! Da! Extra large boat. Super Scinfaxi class!" And thus was built the Alicorn.
Since the M class was built in WW1, there were no targets. All the enemy merchant ships were either interned in neutral ports, or blockaded in their home ports. In WW2 the same situation existed. They were a solution looking for a problem.
The Royal Navy gave extra pay to aircrews and submariners. The pilot and observer of M2's aircraft were the only men in the RN who got both aircrew pay and submarine pay.
Actually, the extreme mass of the gun and turret so high up on the sub made them a real handful because the center Of gravity was way out of wack. Shells are much cheaper than torpedos though and require less storage.
Negative ghost rider (late to the start line but oh well...). They were well loved by their crews in their original configurations. They were spacious, stable and also quick to dive due to the weight of the gun. Furthermore, the buoyancy of the gunhouse caused an almost instinctive levelling off at the 20 foot mark. Further more further more, the Gun houses and guns provided a spray guard, stopping wash from reaching the flying top of the conning tower. This gave them the honour of being some of the dryest submarines in the royal navy at the time!
Honorable mention goes to the Surcouf, a weird little french aircraft carrying cruiser submarine which was armed with heavy cruiser grade guns and both frontal and deck mounted torpedo tubes, almost as if it was a mashup of destroyer, cruiser, aircraft carrier and submaine all into one weird little ship.
It is important to note that a common procedure for the Germans during WW2 was to either board a merchant vessel and place explosives, or sink it with shell fire from the deck gun. Torpedoes are bulky, and a limited number can be carried. Gun shells are much smaller and cheaper to produce, and can be crammed into the nooks and crannies of a sub. Thus it makes sense to use guns over torpedoes whenever practical.
That was used in WW1 far more than in WW2. In WW2 it was used at the beginn of the war and very rarely later. The german u-boat were also not crammed with shells, the Typ VII had only 220 rounds for the deckgun.
Meanwhile in another universe Britain uses M-Class sub in one minor engagement because it was close and they werent doing anything with it at the time. Germany Begin's to build a fleet of U-Boats fitted with 38 cm guns
I've got two perfect navalcursed by design for you. The first being both one of the worst torpedoes the US has ever designed, and the longest serving, the Mk. 14 torpedoe. It took the US navy 21 months after joining the war. Before the torpedoe could actually do the job it was designed for. The second arguably worst battle cruisers the Royal Navy ever built the Courageous Class (specifically the HMS Furious.) They were horrible battle cruisers but excellent converted air craft carriers.
The reason it shows your internet being faster on the VPN is because it's running the speed test from the server your VPN is connected to. This is not your actual speed.
Thanks for doing this vidio about this class of ship. And that end footage of hms m2 is great. As I've live right next to the weack of hms m2. And on a side note there are loads of ship weaks around portland and Weymouth. During ww1 hms hood was sunk to stop German torpedoes from being shot into the harbour, and during ww2 hms FoyleBank was attacked by and sunk but it did put up a fight.
You have to remember that pre-WW2 submarines weren't designed to operate underwater. They would operate on the surface and only dive to avoid enemy combat vessels. Many U-boat commanders considered the deck-guns their primary weapon.
Well technically the M class submarine probably give inspiration to the video game Like the alicorn in ace combat 7 Equipped with two 200mm railgun capable of shooting 80 round per minute and one 600mm/128 in caliber rail cannon capable of shooting nuclear shell
I WILL FLOOD THE BACK OF THIS SHIP TO GIVE ME THE GUN ELEVATION I NEED - Clown Torres. Though I believe the actual inspirations for Alicorn and the Himfraxi class subs would be the Japanese carrier subs in WW2.
"Not as reliable as those you maybe familiar with from classes such as the type VII U boat and Gato" Not sure if a joke or actually serious, since the G7e(TII) and the Mark 14 were both famous (or infamous) for having a list of failures probably longer than the torpedoes themselves. Anywhere from faulty exploders to depth keeping problems. Sure they were solved as the war progressed but for a time, the inter-war designed G7a steam torpedo and the WWI era Mark 10's as used on the old S boats were far more reliable.
It makes some sense to put the steam engine on a sub if it's an oil fired engine which doesn't need stokers. Once you dive, you turn off the oil and the turbine can continue to spin from the residual heat, at lower and lower pressures. The biggest issue was probably just the size of the sub.
@@amichiganboiwhosereallazy1544 That's probably not what they did in this context; based on what I read up, they had to spend like 5-10 minutes slowing down the turbine, locking it in place, and another 15 minutes doing other stuff before they could dive. Could've been a better system, but they way they did it just slowed everything down.
What I'd use it for is terror attacks on fishing villages. Fire a shell or two then go down the coast repeat on another Village. The public outcry would force the navy to pull ships off the front lines to defend home waters.
Correct; though it's more debatable now as Sub's could once claim to be launchable from Ships... while today there've been ones as big as a WWI Battleship, and several thousand times as heavily armed.
This is only a fine point, but it tends to give away someone not truly familiar with Naval usage: no article such as "the" is required before "HMS", as that means "His (Her) Majesty's Ship", making "the" redundant. One _does_ use "the" before "RMS", as that is "Royal Mail Steamer". That is a small point, but we who have been in the Naval Service tend to notice such things, as they inadvertently undermine credibility, in what may well be an otherwise accurate presentation.
Shore bombardment using a submarine sounds like a very interesting idea to me. If there are any important buildings or facilities near the shore, it would be interesting to use a cannon armed submarine to stealthily approach close enough, destroy the target, and then submerge again and disappear. It would be something like the raiding mission submarines would normally go on, except against shore and near shore targets instead of merchant ships.
Only error ive found so far that makes me wince is the one where the "guns were removed due to the Washington Naval Treaty". The naval treaties didnt actually implicate existing submarines (the word "hereafter" is used). Its actually a more depressing reason, but the admiralty realised that they were a pretty useless design philosophy, and woth the loss of Fisher (the M Class's main proponent), as well as the requirement for test bed vehicles meant that M2 and M3's guns were sent to the scrappers.
I have a volume of books called The history of the great European war ( Caxton ). One book shows an M class submarine with an aircraft hangar in front of the conning tower. It was lost when the hangar doors were opened underwater by mistake.
Those U-boats with 15cm guns are actually called U-Crusiers because of not just the huge guns, but also they were ocean-going instead of coastal defense. The cargo submarine Deutschland, from which the name U-Crusier comes from; launched March 28, 1916, who was built to avoid the WW1 British blockade. She eventually became U-Crusier U-155 in February 1917.(Osprey Publishing, U-boats of the Kaiser's Navy, 2002.)
Very much looking forward to your take on the K-class. It's such an insane deathtrap, some of the stories about it would make a great Greek drama with all the hilariously tragic events.
Tactically these would have been "useful" for night shore bombardments. able to approach a harbor or dock area, likely in groups for 3-5, surface, fire a volley over torpedo nets and such aiming for shore fuel storage, docked tankers, and such, then dive and retreat. They might have worked in conjunction with a mine laying sub that would deploy a small minefield between the battelships and the harbor to stop sub chasers, allowing the battleships to escape and move to the next site to harass.
According to one tale, a seaman on accompanying ship saw HMS M2 sink, mistaking it as a normal dive, asking later afterwards whether it was normal for a submarine dive backwards.
Very interesting video. I quite enjoy seeing documentaries about historic ships, but I had never before heard of this class of boats. I knew about the IJN submarine aircraft carriers and plans like Habakkuk, but this is entirely new to me. Thanks a lot!
Do you guys have a ballistic missile submarine? Royal Navy 1920s : we don’t know what a ballistic missile is , but we have ballistic ARTILLERY submarines .
@@liesdamnlies3372 I was thinking of up to WW2 , probably the physics of it wouldnt work, either the shells would be too small to damage large naval ships or the rate of fire would be too low or they would be too slow
@@wheelmanv what I was thinking was, as a battleship ww2 era was so expensive to make in terms of resources and men , would a group of say 15-20 sub size craft or small destroyer with one large caliber naval gun be effective ? I assume for stability it would be more "TD" than something with a turret.
@@lmc4964 The idea isn't too different from the June ecole (that's french so I'm not even going to try proper spelling and accents) Where you could build a large number of small craft which could raid commerce and possibly overwhelm a battle line. It didn't really work. But essentially torpedoes are much more economical and damaging. Even battleship shells payloads could be measured in tens or maybe hundreds of kg explosives, but torpedoes can deliver easily 10x that, and be carried by smaller and cheaper craft in larger number.
Submarines were even used in the US civil war. It didnt have a significant impact on the war; just the fact that they made it work and launch torpedoes is incredible.
For those curious, no the vpn isnt that safe or secure everyone can still see what your doing and the servers at the other end still know its you. Useful for getting round region copyright tho
I''m not sure what, "They have to surface to reload" means here. They have to surface to FIRE the gun in the first place. Also, three minute reload time when trying to sink a lone merchant is nothing. Biggest problem hear is complexity and cost of the large gun. If there had been any value in the idea, German subs through WWII would have had 13" deck guns not 5 inch weapons. Also, yes, it was deck guns for merchants, torpedoes for enemy warships.
The barrel couldn't be plugged from the inside, and it had to be leveled to load, so they could not open the breach to load unless the boat was surfaced, it would flood the gunroom. They didn't have to entirely surface to fire though, it was designed so that at firing angle the muzzle broke the surface at periscope depth, so they could pull a shoot&scoot, surface elsewhere and reload before coming back.
theres a very nice video from Friedrich Knudsten about a "battle" involving the K-class submarines , which was a major disaster , its callede " the battle of may island" i really reccomend it
In theory it’s sound and very ingenious considering that the time it takes for a shell to fire and hit its target vs the more unreliable torpedo, and in theory could jump out of nowhere and unload a round or two into a soft skinned merchant ship, to the point of significant or decent damage and then disappear, the German u boat is actually a copy of this idea, however they spent more time refining and perfecting it, by using an 8mm cannon instead, being easier to maintain and has no significant impact on the submarine itself as well as having more advanced torpedo technology in them than the British.
Most submarines built before 1945 had a deck gun. Hell americans started WW2 with 4 inch just so skippers would be less likely to use them. But as Mark 14 were garbage at start they had to use deck guns. And later submarines could use bigger guns like 5 or 6 inch. Hell japanese, thanks to little succeses of americans at start, never developed convoys and stilled used wood ships so deck gun was more than enough but after they captured type XXI they retrofited their boats snorkerls removed guns.
Interesting video, just like all your others. One thing though, I've only subscribed maybe 4 mo. ago, and all I have ever seen and watched were tank videos. I like tanks as well as ships so I'm glad to see another side of this channel, unless this subject isn't something new. Love the vid's
I have several other videos on naval topics. You can find a playlist of them on my channel. I recommend my one on the Japanese aircraft carrier subs if you liked this one though
I believe there is a story were one of these submarine dissapeared and the Bristol navy found a fisherman who saw the submarine last and remarked how he saw the submarine dive backwards.
That was the M2. It's assumed that the crew attempting to beat their own record for surfacing, launching and diving pushed their luck too far. The sub flooded from the deck hanger and would have sank by the stern. Attempts to raise the wreck failed so no definite evidence was found to explain the loss of boat and crew. One body was found that of the pilot of the spotter plane which was still in the cockpit when salvage divers eventually found the sub.
imagine being a merchant ship or some sort of naval ship in ww1 and when you look outside, you see 3 or 5 12 inch guns breaching the surface of the water just 500 metres from you.
Cyber Month Deal! Go to nordvpn.com/coneofarc or use code CONEOFARC to get a 2-year plan plus 1 additional month with a huge discount.
Nord is not a trustworthy VPN...
can you add metric to the imperial to make it easier to get the size? would be great 😊
PLEASE don't leave out the "battle" of may island when you go over the k class.
We're half way to team seas goal!
You pronounce boot in German the same as boat in English. How would you pronounce 'video maker too lazy to do an easy simple search on 2021 internet'? In short I'd say 'twit'.
long before before WOWS and WT’s naval battle, people are already experimenting the possibility of camping with battleship guns
Experimenting, yes, but I don't recall ever hearing of a single situation where an actual ship was "island camping" in real naval warfare during WWII.
@@177SCmaro it must have happend, a dutch ship took cover as an island so we have that
@@177SCmaro well, not during WW2, but during the Battle of the Falkland Islands during WW1 the HMS Canopus was grounded in the harbor and fired over the surrounding hills at the approaching German squadron using spotters on the hills to correct their aim. That’s kinda similar
@@davonmulder8458 Right but I meant as a standard practice.
@@TheHIV123
I suppose somewhat similar in concept.
I do know I find it tiring at times, like it draws the matches out forever even in the Legends. Part of the reason WG added CV's to both versions and Subs to the regular version was probably to reduce this practice.
Therapist: “Sneaky Cruiser doesn’t exist. It can’t hurt you.”
Sneaky Cruiser:
I can't believe more submersible aircraft carriers don't exist
Now time to hear about the Sneaky Aircraft carrier
@@finlaywallbanks7304 well for before nuclear subs, building submarine carrier was hard as submarines did not do well underwater. They could maybe stay underwater for a day but sail for that long rather not. As such submarines stayed on the surface for most of their missions. And as no matters what armour they would have their only defence against combat ships was to dive and run. And the bigger the ship is the harder is to submarge it. And when something like type 7 could dive in just 15 seconds with trained crew, Surcouf could dive after a minute or more. I-400 that was true submarine carrier also took over minute to dive. That a lot of time for aircraft attack.
And lemme tell you... bastard's eilling to hurt you plenty
@@finlaywallbanks7304 hay un submarino portaaviones japonés
"Why not use torpedoes? Well, this is WW1, torpedoes weren't as reliable as in WW2."
US Navy: *Cries in Mark 14 Torpedo*
Yeah, "reliable WW2 torpedo". The Mk14 didn't get that memo.
I think the M14 sunk more allied ships than enemy ships lol.
Wait didn't americans also used g7e T2 or they captured and produced T3? As they realy had to be despaired to use t2.
Also from what i've heard at first Mark 14 had both kinetick and magnetic fuses not working.
@@Michalinus G7e TII did had his shares of problems even if they solved most of the issues, it was replaced by the TIII that entered service in 1942 that had a completely new exploder.
And no, the Americans did not use the G7e, the Mark 14 problems were eventually fixed.
Meanwhile in Britain: makes a 21" torpedo in the 1920's for Sub's that's so good; it lasts in service until about 1984.
Just imagine how surprised convoy escorts would be if uboats in ww2 surfaced with battleship guns.
Well Surcouf french cruiser submarine from similar time needed around 3 minutes after surfacing to fire first salvo and could not fire after dark. I am quite sure this would be worst thing for uboat. Not to mention even with more conventional guns like 88 or 105 from type IX skippers would drop them for better hydrodynamics as uboats until type XXI had problems with moving under water.
And Type XXI had no deck guns and neither did the Balaos after GUPPY conversion post-war even if a few retained them, they we gone by 1950.
Adding "bigger guns" was a futile endeavour and everyone of note build some of the submarine cruisers, besides French Surcouf there was the American Narwhal-class and the Soviet K-class, Japan had a few as well with the Type AM being the last but Japan used their for other roles (recon since their doctrine) and Germany had the Type IX that was already mentioned but the Type IX "cruiser" was more about its longer range that a attempt at artillery duels.
@@drakron well type IX was not designed as cruiser but for range alone. Type IX was similar to fleet boats while type VII was more of the costal submarine at around 700 tons, but as germans forgot that unlimited submarine warfare will yet again go to Atlantic as America gets involved so somehow their fleet of costal boats had to do the trick. That's why type XIV milk cow was developed.
Probably fairly surprised. I imagine these would be great for long voyages bc u can carry more shells than torpedos
This is more like a U-boat than a Submarine.
"Why not just use torpedoes?"
Actually even in WW2 the German U-boats preferred to use the gun whenever possible because the ammo was much smaller and cheaper, meaning you could easily carry a lot of gun rounds whereas torpedoes could only be carried in very limited numbers. It was important to save torpedoes for when a stealthy attack was required.
as well as most merchant ships arent heavily armed, any gun is enough to capture them, "hey surrender your goods or we will shoot" kinda makes people reconsider fighting when they already are aim and ready
Don't even let me starts on the US' "problematic" Mark 14 torpedoes. I mean a Us sub scored 13 directs (out of 15 torpedoes they) had hits on a Japanese whaling boat with that torpedo, Only the 14 one torpedo blew up and it didn't even reach the whaling ship that whaling ship still manage to escape the ambush . Suffice to say the Japanese whaler had one heck of a story when they got back home.
What about the the last of the 15 torpedoes? The sub decide to keep it to show their superiors what useless junk that weapon is.
Right i was gonna comment that as well. It was always preferred to do it topside if possible.
@@Sniper5875 surrender your goods? I think you've misunderstood what the Germans did with merchant ships...
@@arturjogi2667 i dont have enough time to go through every single thing the germans did to merchant ships
For anyone who is curious, the steam engines would be shut down before submerging. The role was to keep up with fleets while surfaced, as until very late in WWII submarines spent the majority of their time on the surface.
Yup; and unlike WWII crash diving wasn't really a thing, as aircraft were still too primitive to pose much of a threat to Sub's.
(they had no way to find them beyond the mk-1 eyeball; and had limited armament to attack one even if they did)
The diesel burner would be shut down but a head of steam would still be available for a limited time before they had to switch to battery. Compressed air could also be utilized to power the boat.
I imagine the main issue would have presented itself when the submarine resurfaced. A diesel engine can get up to speed in minutes at most, a steam engine needs hot steam and a boiler can take quite a while to get hot. Having to run on batteries while surfaced or worse, lie becalmed, would be quite troublesome.
@@pixelkatten it is just academic but there is a process of flash steam production, also steam turbines as used in nuclear subs.
At least they weren't coal powered.
Didn't the French also build a *cruiser submarine in the Surcouf? I might be misremembering but I'm pretty sure they made one which had a traversible two-gun turret
Ye the surcouf
Yup, a much better design.
Yes
Far smaller caliber than the M class
@@PeterMuskrat6968 I wouldn't say it was much better in hindsight both are pretty impractical however if you want a closer British ship to surcouf the HMS X1 would be a better comparison
For context: until the end of WW2 submarines were surface ships that could submerge and engaged in combat while surfaced. Upping the caliber was meant to allow them to disable an enemy ship as quickly as possible while the submarine was vulnerable on the surface. The Seehund was actually one of the first submarines designed to maneuver, cruise, and fight submerged.
Well there was also type XXI that was supposed to stay underwater for whole mission. And it would like days.
@@Michalinus and even with the Schnorchel U-boats could only cruise at around periscope depth
"One large gun would not be very effective for shore bombardment, especially since it was essentially fixed."
*Lord Clive class monitors have entered the chat*
As an aside, since it was brought up: the HMS _Captain_ (you want the 1869 vintage) is one of the most goofity-assed warships ever built. It only got constructed because its designer threw a world-class hissy-fit via the press, and basically used PR to *force* the Admiralty to build it. It was a warship with gun turrets and *sails.* The sails were on elevated tripod masts, and the freeboard was very low. If you're wondering how well that worked, it was launched in April of 1870, and capsized five months later, killing 500 people in the process. Firing the guns during a test caused it to roll around 20 degrees (it would capsize at 21 degrees) and blinded the gunners with smoke because the sights were mounted on the roof of the turrets, not on the guns. It got into a bad windstorm off Spain, capsized, and sank, killing all but 27 on board.
HMS M2's sinking was actually witnessed by a local civilian sailor, but he thought nothing of the incident and didn't report it until a few days later when he asked a colleague if it was normal for submarines to dive stern-first.
You should cover the Surcouf. Thats definitely an interesting vessel.
"Interesting" is certainly one way of characterizing a cursed ship with a rotten service history. Which isn't to denigrate the sentiment! Her story definitely deserves a video.
Why is there a plane on a Submarine?
Want to see it fly?
@@Marinealver It used a "catapult" system where it launched it off a ramp. Similar to how battleships and cruisers would launch floatplanes. The planes were typically used for scouting but could carry very light bomb loads.
When I clicked on this video, I was expecting it to be about that ship!
@@TheEpictrooper the I-400 class.
These subs were a fun topic, hope you all enjoy the video and thank you to anyone donating to the oceans!
Shut up baron
9:26 "knowing Germany..."
Germany: *tries to slap a battleship gun on a tank*
If you count the SU-100Y the Soviets did something like that.
@@Gamerguy826 yeah, but the Ratte was supposed to carry a whole battery
Sure, it never happened, but that's way bigger than an SU-100Y
True, this actually sounds like it could have been one of Hitler's bright ideas. Submarines for bombarding Britain
@@wheelmanv a submersible Schwerer Gustav
If i remember correctly Germans also have a plan for a "Cruiser submersible" or something too, Type XI i think...
When you are REALLY committed to the big gun warship.
I've dived on the wreck of the M2. One of my best ever dives but a sobering experience when you realise the crew rest just the other side of the hull.
Brave men all, sleep well lads.
While initially the idea of a steam engine or dreadnought gun on a submarine seems ridiculous, this is partially due to hindsight. Until WW2, a submarine was not intended to primarily operate underwater. The idea was that a submarine would travel on the surface, and attack using its deck guns, or perhaps maneuver into position then dive to make a final approach with torpedoes. The submarine would only dive to avoid enemy surface combat vessels. These were primarily surface boats, but capable of submerging. It wasn't until late in WW2 and in the postwar era that true submarines designed to primarily fight and move underwater were deployed.
Basically yes: navies were still learning how to Submarine.
Hence why the correct term is submersible prior to proper Cold War submarines.
This is indeed ironical, for John Holland, the Irish inventor of the first truly successful submarine, designed it for optimal performance underwater. When asked to design with more shiplike lines, he protested that this would diminish the quality of the boat's main task, condemning officers ignorant of the science of submersion, and asserting, "I will not give them a deck to strut upon!" His earliest boats were faster underwater than above.
electroboat
Interestingly from the K-class steam engine "situation", steam engines are essentially what is on all nuclear submarines.
Yup. Both used/use Steam Turbines. The difference is the K Class used Boilers to generate steam, while SSN's have uranium to do that job much more easily.
Not quite, there's a rather big difference between using a steam piston engine and using a steam turbine generator to power electric engines.
@@davehood2667 That's assuming a lot. Some Sub's do have electric motors aye, though most of the Nuke Boats built since the USS Nautilus had prop's direct driven by the steam turbines.
In the latter kind of setup, the only major difference between how a K Class worked and how a Nuke Boat works, is what heats the steam for the turbines.
Always found it funny that the steam powered submarine finally got the last laugh when a heating method with no exhaust gas production was finally found.
@@USSEnterpriseA1701 Agreed. It also means that the K Class and HMS Dreadnought (the Sub', not the Battleship) are essentially parent and child, in as far as concept can be considered.
(a Fleet Submarine, able to keep up with and engage warships in open sea)
I actually saw a picture of the M-Class in an "Eyewitness" book on submarines (showing a cutaway of the ship and mentioning how a merchant ship ran it down). On the same page of that image was an image of the French "Surcouf" sub ( 0:39), a K-Class sub's tower, the X1 cruiser submarine, the HMS M2 Aircraft carrier sub, and a sub on wheels.
X1 now there was a scary ship, so good the admiralty tried to make it look bad.
@@the_bunse Just searched the X1, it's look kinda good imo
There are lots of submersible battleships! Some prominent examples include:
HMS Hood
The Kreigsmarine’s Bismarck and Tirpitz
IJN Yamato and Musashi
I think it really should have been emphasized just how ludicrously impractical a 12 inch gun is, when mounted on a submarine.
Just consider the 3 minute reload, compared to 30 seconds for the same weapon when it was mounted on a battleship.
Not to mention that a gun that size is also hilarious overkill against a merchant ship.
Ultimately, a 4 or 5 inch gun would actually be more effective, for a fraction of the effort.
Still a great vid though, keep it up!
In fairness though: you'd only need 1 hit... and only if the vessel doesn't surrender the second they see the armament XD.
(after all they don't know the reload time)
thats a pretty good point, but this sub can be a good morale booster and a good morale blow, it would boost morale to the brits and scare the heck out of the their enemies as its a battleship gun, that you cant see until its too late, at first it wont strike as much fear but the moment they realize those were battleship guns they would run for the hills since they would assume that they saw a battleship if they could not see the sub, and if they know then they know well that they are 1 shot away from death, overkill? yes, but think of the morale blow it would cause!
@@jimtaylor294 Still, making a singel hit at that time without computers couldnt be more then a few singel %
Overkill doesn't exist.
@@peternystrom921 Depends on the distance. Within a certain range missing is unlikely, and even armoured targets are vunerable. That's why the RN didn't try a Narvik style attack on the Tirpitz, as at such [relative] close ranges a single hit by either ship on the other would've gone straight through the armour, and been catastrophic.
You know some Yuktobanian somewhere in the Ace Combat Universe saw blueprints for this ship and really, REALLY thought to themselves "I like the concept of this design! Da, da, we will build something like it! Bigger gun, though, much bigger! slug thrower more powerful than Stonehenge cannons! Da! Extra large boat. Super Scinfaxi class!" And thus was built the Alicorn.
WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY
- Clown Torres
Since the M class was built in WW1, there were no targets. All the enemy merchant ships were either interned in neutral ports, or blockaded in their home ports. In WW2 the same situation existed. They were a solution looking for a problem.
The Royal Navy gave extra pay to aircrews and submariners. The pilot and observer of M2's aircraft were the only men in the RN who got both aircrew pay and submarine pay.
"STEAM ENGINES, on a /submarine/ How crazy is that?"
Modern US and Royal navies: * Awkwardly staring at each other *
9:50 makes me think of a joke about someone's uncle being kicked out if the submarine force for sleeping with the windows open.
Actually, the extreme mass of the gun and turret so high up on the sub made them a real handful because the center Of gravity was way out of wack. Shells are much cheaper than torpedos though and require less storage.
Negative ghost rider (late to the start line but oh well...). They were well loved by their crews in their original configurations. They were spacious, stable and also quick to dive due to the weight of the gun. Furthermore, the buoyancy of the gunhouse caused an almost instinctive levelling off at the 20 foot mark.
Further more further more, the Gun houses and guns provided a spray guard, stopping wash from reaching the flying top of the conning tower. This gave them the honour of being some of the dryest submarines in the royal navy at the time!
Honorable mention goes to the Surcouf, a weird little french aircraft carrying cruiser submarine which was armed with heavy cruiser grade guns and both frontal and deck mounted torpedo tubes, almost as if it was a mashup of destroyer, cruiser, aircraft carrier and submaine all into one weird little ship.
I can imagine a future version where a semi-submerged warship fires shells from underwater, using supercavitation before breaking surface.
It is important to note that a common procedure for the Germans during WW2 was to either board a merchant vessel and place explosives, or sink it with shell fire from the deck gun. Torpedoes are bulky, and a limited number can be carried. Gun shells are much smaller and cheaper to produce, and can be crammed into the nooks and crannies of a sub. Thus it makes sense to use guns over torpedoes whenever practical.
That was used in WW1 far more than in WW2. In WW2 it was used at the beginn of the war and very rarely later.
The german u-boat were also not crammed with shells, the Typ VII had only 220 rounds for the deckgun.
@@wolf310ii Good point, I forgot to include that this was done before the convoy system was implemented
But not 12" gun shells...
The problem, as I see it, is that unless you have several submarines like this, there's no way you could fight off multiple warship escorts.
It was a truly f*****d up concept.
wait, this isin't drachinifel??
So, cursed by design for ships? I'm down! Vasa and HMS Captain, here we go.
Don't forget the Mary Rose. 👍
You read my mind! I was just thinking that discussion of WW1 and interwar era submarines is a huge untapped area on RUclips. Excellent content!
‘Sir cruiser sighted’
‘ all guns, 20 degrees to port, open fire’
‘Enemy cruiser sunk, sir’
‘Good show’
‘Sir, it’s back’
‘What…’
Meanwhile in another universe
Britain uses M-Class sub in one minor engagement because it was close and they werent doing anything with it at the time.
Germany Begin's to build a fleet of U-Boats fitted with 38 cm guns
That Fleet then secured them Victory in WW2.
I've got two perfect navalcursed by design for you. The first being both one of the worst torpedoes the US has ever designed, and the longest serving, the Mk. 14 torpedoe. It took the US navy 21 months after joining the war. Before the torpedoe could actually do the job it was designed for.
The second arguably worst battle cruisers the Royal Navy ever built the Courageous Class (specifically the HMS Furious.) They were horrible battle cruisers but excellent converted air craft carriers.
Wait up, hold it! Let me get this straight a submarine designed to sink merchant ships in one shot was.... sunk by a merchant ship in one shot?!
The reason it shows your internet being faster on the VPN is because it's running the speed test from the server your VPN is connected to. This is not your actual speed.
Talk about the K class and the “Battle of May Island”
Steam engines in submarines.
"Hold my beer."
Honestly, when it comes to unusual ships, you might want to have a look at the Captain.
You are now filling the much needed role of a fast uploading Drachinifel!
"Relative disaster" that's putting it more than lightly considering how many just sunk randomly.
That's some Belkan Space Wizardry right there
"Who would put a steam engine in a sub."
Every Modern US sub designer: What is he talking about us?
Thanks for doing this vidio about this class of ship. And that end footage of hms m2 is great. As I've live right next to the weack of hms m2. And on a side note there are loads of ship weaks around portland and Weymouth. During ww1 hms hood was sunk to stop German torpedoes from being shot into the harbour, and during ww2 hms FoyleBank was attacked by and sunk but it did put up a fight.
How could you even get the idea of putting a steam engine in a submarine?
You have to remember that pre-WW2 submarines weren't designed to operate underwater. They would operate on the surface and only dive to avoid enemy combat vessels. Many U-boat commanders considered the deck-guns their primary weapon.
By now, most
Well technically the M class submarine probably give inspiration to the video game
Like the alicorn in ace combat 7
Equipped with two 200mm railgun capable of shooting 80 round per minute and one 600mm/128 in caliber rail cannon capable of shooting nuclear shell
Ah yes, the delivery of High Explosive SALVATION
@@nickcher7071 _STOP THINKING SO SMALL IT'S A SALVATION ON A GRANDER SCALE_
I WILL FLOOD THE BACK OF THIS SHIP TO GIVE ME THE GUN ELEVATION I NEED
- Clown Torres.
Though I believe the actual inspirations for Alicorn and the Himfraxi class subs would be the Japanese carrier subs in WW2.
The K-Class was a coffin...
Koffin class
"Not as reliable as those you maybe familiar with from classes such as the type VII U boat and Gato"
Not sure if a joke or actually serious, since the G7e(TII) and the Mark 14 were both famous (or infamous) for having a list of failures probably longer than the torpedoes themselves. Anywhere from faulty exploders to depth keeping problems. Sure they were solved as the war progressed but for a time, the inter-war designed G7a steam torpedo and the WWI era Mark 10's as used on the old S boats were far more reliable.
The French Surcouf, 1929, had twin 8" guns and heavy AA armament.
Funfact the only battleship to sink a submarine was the HMS Dreadnought by ramming said submarine
what a formidable example of a "because why not" class of weaponry
I hope you'll cover the Surcouff in the future, it's an even more advanced design with a very interesting story
It makes some sense to put the steam engine on a sub if it's an oil fired engine which doesn't need stokers. Once you dive, you turn off the oil and the turbine can continue to spin from the residual heat, at lower and lower pressures. The biggest issue was probably just the size of the sub.
But where does the steam go?
@@amichiganboiwhosereallazy1544 condenser. Closed loop system.
@@CreeperOnYourHouse ahhh clever lads
@@amichiganboiwhosereallazy1544 That's probably not what they did in this context; based on what I read up, they had to spend like 5-10 minutes slowing down the turbine, locking it in place, and another 15 minutes doing other stuff before they could dive. Could've been a better system, but they way they did it just slowed everything down.
@@amichiganboiwhosereallazy1544 Where the combustion air comes from and goes to is a more pressing problem...
What I'd use it for is terror attacks on fishing villages. Fire a shell or two then go down the coast repeat on another Village. The public outcry would force the navy to pull ships off the front lines to defend home waters.
It is my understanding that submarines (regardless of size) are properly referred to as "boats" not "ships"
Correct; though it's more debatable now as Sub's could once claim to be launchable from Ships... while today there've been ones as big as a WWI Battleship, and several thousand times as heavily armed.
The Washington Naval treaty didn’t originally limit submarines but after multiple countries pulled stunts like the MN Surcouf it was changed.
"with this you might wonder why future ships wheren't build with this massive armement" - The french sub surcouf had a battleship gun in world war 2
This is only a fine point, but it tends to give away someone not truly familiar with Naval usage: no article such as "the" is required before "HMS", as that means "His (Her) Majesty's Ship", making "the" redundant. One _does_ use "the" before "RMS", as that is "Royal Mail Steamer". That is a small point, but we who have been in the Naval Service tend to notice such things, as they inadvertently undermine credibility, in what may well be an otherwise accurate presentation.
Shore bombardment using a submarine sounds like a very interesting idea to me. If there are any important buildings or facilities near the shore, it would be interesting to use a cannon armed submarine to stealthily approach close enough, destroy the target, and then submerge again and disappear. It would be something like the raiding mission submarines would normally go on, except against shore and near shore targets instead of merchant ships.
Only error ive found so far that makes me wince is the one where the "guns were removed due to the Washington Naval Treaty".
The naval treaties didnt actually implicate existing submarines (the word "hereafter" is used).
Its actually a more depressing reason, but the admiralty realised that they were a pretty useless design philosophy, and woth the loss of Fisher (the M Class's main proponent), as well as the requirement for test bed vehicles meant that M2 and M3's guns were sent to the scrappers.
Make it launch aircraft and SALVATION IS AT HAND!
I have a volume of books called The history of the great European war ( Caxton ). One book shows an M class submarine with an aircraft hangar in front of the conning tower. It was lost when the hangar doors were opened underwater by mistake.
Those U-boats with 15cm guns are actually called U-Crusiers because of not just the huge guns, but also they were ocean-going instead of coastal defense. The cargo submarine Deutschland, from which the name U-Crusier comes from; launched March 28, 1916, who was built to avoid the WW1 British blockade. She eventually became U-Crusier U-155 in February 1917.(Osprey Publishing, U-boats of the Kaiser's Navy, 2002.)
**Captain Torres has entered the chat**
My grandad served on the M3 as an A/B between 26th June 1923 to 28 August 1924
Very much looking forward to your take on the K-class. It's such an insane deathtrap, some of the stories about it would make a great Greek drama with all the hilariously tragic events.
It's amazing to me how military hardware evolves, quite similar to biological evolution, experimenting ,sometimes reaching dead ends etc.
TEN MILLION LIVES AT THE COST OF ONE MILLION
Tactically these would have been "useful" for night shore bombardments. able to approach a harbor or dock area, likely in groups for 3-5, surface, fire a volley over torpedo nets and such aiming for shore fuel storage, docked tankers, and such, then dive and retreat. They might have worked in conjunction with a mine laying sub that would deploy a small minefield between the battelships and the harbor to stop sub chasers, allowing the battleships to escape and move to the next site to harass.
Dived the remains of one of the M class in Weymouth bay. It sank after having the hanger door open when diving. Busy in half when being raised
According to one tale, a seaman on accompanying ship saw HMS M2 sink, mistaking it as a normal dive, asking later afterwards whether it was normal for a submarine dive backwards.
Didn't knew this one existed. I was only aware about French Surcouf sub!
Submarine Gun: 8” or less…
Also Subramines: Nuclear ☢️ Warhead Missles
These rules of engagement make total sense.
Appears The Yamato is a submersible battleship.
Very interesting video. I quite enjoy seeing documentaries about historic ships, but I had never before heard of this class of boats. I knew about the IJN submarine aircraft carriers and plans like Habakkuk, but this is entirely new to me. Thanks a lot!
Do you guys have a ballistic missile submarine?
Royal Navy 1920s : we don’t know what a ballistic missile is , but we have ballistic ARTILLERY submarines .
i always wondered could you turn a sub into a "sea tank" , would be hard to hit and you have groups of them
The Russians typically operate in wolf packs, but on the other hand the latest ADCAPs are terrifyingly accurate and not easily fooled.
In which way do you mean, armored subs?
@@liesdamnlies3372 I was thinking of up to WW2 , probably the physics of it wouldnt work, either the shells would be too small to damage large naval ships or the rate of fire would be too low or they would be too slow
@@wheelmanv what I was thinking was, as a battleship ww2 era was so expensive to make in terms of resources and men , would a group of say 15-20 sub size craft or small destroyer with one large caliber naval gun be effective ? I assume for stability it would be more "TD" than something with a turret.
@@lmc4964 The idea isn't too different from the June ecole (that's french so I'm not even going to try proper spelling and accents) Where you could build a large number of small craft which could raid commerce and possibly overwhelm a battle line. It didn't really work. But essentially torpedoes are much more economical and damaging. Even battleship shells payloads could be measured in tens or maybe hundreds of kg explosives, but torpedoes can deliver easily 10x that, and be carried by smaller and cheaper craft in larger number.
I hope we get submarine's in warthunder eventually as it would be dope to have sub v sub battle as well as adding a actual use for depth charges.
Submarines were even used in the US civil war. It didnt have a significant impact on the war; just the fact that they made it work and launch torpedoes is incredible.
For those curious, no the vpn isnt that safe or secure everyone can still see what your doing and the servers at the other end still know its you. Useful for getting round region copyright tho
those kinds of submarines piqued my interest, having seen an example of them on the Anime Alt-history Sci-fi series "Konpeki no Kantai"
I have to wonder an I400 series combined with these would be like. A carrier, battleship and submarine.
I''m not sure what, "They have to surface to reload" means here. They have to surface to FIRE the gun in the first place. Also, three minute reload time when trying to sink a lone merchant is nothing. Biggest problem hear is complexity and cost of the large gun. If there had been any value in the idea, German subs through WWII would have had 13" deck guns not 5 inch weapons. Also, yes, it was deck guns for merchants, torpedoes for enemy warships.
The barrel couldn't be plugged from the inside, and it had to be leveled to load, so they could not open the breach to load unless the boat was surfaced, it would flood the gunroom. They didn't have to entirely surface to fire though, it was designed so that at firing angle the muzzle broke the surface at periscope depth, so they could pull a shoot&scoot, surface elsewhere and reload before coming back.
@@davehood2667 Well yes, that makes sense. The smaller deck guns actually used had to be cleared for action the same way.
Thanks for making this video Cone of Arc. I once saw a picture of this submarine but could never find more info.
theres a very nice video from Friedrich Knudsten about a "battle" involving the K-class submarines , which was a major disaster , its callede " the battle of may island" i really reccomend it
The Royal Navy thinking outside of the box.
It seems that Russia has recently also retrofittted their flagship Battlecruiser as a semi-submersible as well.
In theory it’s sound and very ingenious considering that the time it takes for a shell to fire and hit its target vs the more unreliable torpedo, and in theory could jump out of nowhere and unload a round or two into a soft skinned merchant ship, to the point of significant or decent damage and then disappear, the German u boat is actually a copy of this idea, however they spent more time refining and perfecting it, by using an 8mm cannon instead, being easier to maintain and has no significant impact on the submarine itself as well as having more advanced torpedo technology in them than the British.
Most submarines built before 1945 had a deck gun. Hell americans started WW2 with 4 inch just so skippers would be less likely to use them. But as Mark 14 were garbage at start they had to use deck guns. And later submarines could use bigger guns like 5 or 6 inch. Hell japanese, thanks to little succeses of americans at start, never developed convoys and stilled used wood ships so deck gun was more than enough but after they captured type XXI they retrofited their boats snorkerls removed guns.
It's bizzare, submarines are something where Germany didn't build the most impractical and unreliable thing.
Interesting video, just like all your others. One thing though, I've only subscribed maybe 4 mo. ago, and all I have ever seen and watched were tank videos. I like tanks as well as ships so I'm glad to see another side of this channel, unless this subject isn't something new. Love the vid's
I have several other videos on naval topics. You can find a playlist of them on my channel. I recommend my one on the Japanese aircraft carrier subs if you liked this one though
I am familiar with the pile of dolphin pop, the USN, Mark 14 sudo-torpedo. It could be relied on to fail.
Reminds me of the French cruiser submarine Surcouf, with her twin 8" guns. She suffered a similar fate in WWII.
I believe there is a story were one of these submarine dissapeared and the Bristol navy found a fisherman who saw the submarine last and remarked how he saw the submarine dive backwards.
That was the M2. It's assumed that the crew attempting to beat their own record for surfacing, launching and diving pushed their luck too far. The sub flooded from the deck hanger and would have sank by the stern. Attempts to raise the wreck failed so no definite evidence was found to explain the loss of boat and crew. One body was found that of the pilot of the spotter plane which was still in the cockpit when salvage divers eventually found the sub.
Very unusual and interesting production...well done!
imagine being a merchant ship or some sort of naval ship in ww1 and when you look outside, you see 3 or 5 12 inch guns breaching the surface of the water just 500 metres from you.
Admiral Fisher: you can't put steam engines in submarines.
Admiral Rickover: hold my beer