Author Topic: Tores mailbox VIIC and VIIC/41 operation and technical details  (Read 576386 times)

0 Members and 11 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Don Prince

  • Admiral3
  • *
  • Posts: 1,039
  • Gender: Male
Re: Tores mailbox VIIC and VIIC/41 operation and technical details
« Reply #2985 on: 27 Mar , 2016, 16:00 »
Hello Mr. Tore,


I went through Skizzenbuch and refined the index to the point that I believe this will be the final version which I uploaded to dropbox.  I also look forward to seeing the Schiffer Publishing version of Skizzenbuch. 


Regards,
Don_
A man's got to know his limitations...
Harry Callahan, SFPD

Offline tore

  • Tore
  • *
  • Posts: 2,539
  • Gender: Male
Re: Tores mailbox VIIC and VIIC/41 operation and technical details
« Reply #2986 on: 30 Mar , 2016, 08:04 »
I sometime get questions on the emergency escapes from U boats.
In general I can can only say the survival statistic is not very impressive and I only know about a handful successful attempts of the German boats. In the last accident in the RN I remember in my time the RN T class submarine HMS Truculent which collided with the Swedish tanker M/S Devina at the entrance of the Thames January 1950. There was quite a number of people on board as she had some yardpeople in addition to the normal crew. I guess some 57 people managed to surface but were taken by the strong tidal current and perished in the cold water some 20 were picked up. The escape is one thing, but survival on the surface depends on what kind of support is available. The WW2 standard of escape equipment was by no means comparable to to days standard.
In general the VIIC`s pressure hull is divided into 4 separate pressureproof compartments, the control room separated by pressureproof bulkhead from aft and fwd compartments and conningtower separated by the  pressurehull including by lower tower hatch. In addition you have the aft torpedo- and E- room, main engine room, the compartment consisting of galley and PO messroom, the compartment consisting of the sonar,radio, wardroom and CPO mess, and forward torpedoroom separated by watertight bulkheads. The watertight bulkheads have doors a bit low from the upper part of the pressurehull and the pressure hullhatches are equipped with a coaming.
In the event of an emergency escape, the lower doors and coamings all keeps the residue air in the compartments stable when flooding. The whole boat has to be flooded and the pressure tight compartment shut. You have now three separate escapehatches of which all if possible should be used as you have limited escape time, both with regards to pressure (bends) and chlorine gas emission from the flooded batterycompartments. When the uboat is flooded you pull down the escape hatch coamings lengthenings trunks which now ends submerged in the floodwater as the pressure equalizes with the ambient seawater pressure, at the same time the watertight bulkheads keep the trapped pressurized compartmentair up towards the pressurehull.
The crew is ordered to put on the Draeger breathing- and escape vest. This equipment is used both as and breathing apparatus or as an ascend/lifevest having an oxygen canister and a hydrosodium cartridge for CO2 absorption. In case of excessive chlorine gases the vest is used as a breathing apparatus otherwise the crew is waiting above the waterlevel breathing the trapped compressed compartmentair. A man dives under the hatchcoaming up to the escapehatch which now can be open as the pressure inside the u boat is the same as the ambient seawaterpressure. He has to be aware of the danger as the trapped air in the duct escapes as the hatch might slam shut when the airbubble collected at the top escapes. Now the waiting crew can take a deep breath of the compressed compartment air, dive under the coaming and have a continuous column of water up to the surface. While ascending the crew has to exhale all the time to let the compressed air out otherwise you might experienced a lungburst. Usually you are told to start whistling when escaping and due to the risk of "bend" you should adjust the ascendspeed ( by adjusting the air in the Draeger vest) to that of a small following airbubble. Normally a successful escape depends on the support you get on the surface almost everybody needs a decompression chamber treatment. The effect of having a human body exposed to high airpressure might be compared to a sodapop bottle, as long as it is kept under pressure it stays calm, but when you open the cork it start bubbling. The same happens to the human blood and can cause a fatal embolism hence you have to release the ambient airpressure slow ( in a pressurecamber).
« Last Edit: 30 Mar , 2016, 08:35 by tore »

Offline Don Prince

  • Admiral3
  • *
  • Posts: 1,039
  • Gender: Male
Re: Tores mailbox VIIC and VIIC/41 operation and technical details
« Reply #2987 on: 30 Mar , 2016, 19:45 »
Hello Mr. Tore,


Excellent information; thank you for sharing your years of knowledge and experiences, and please continue to do so...


Regards,
Don_
A man's got to know his limitations...
Harry Callahan, SFPD

Offline tore

  • Tore
  • *
  • Posts: 2,539
  • Gender: Male
Re: Tores mailbox VIIC and VIIC/41 operation and technical details
« Reply #2988 on: 31 Mar , 2016, 00:39 »
Escape equipment.
Further to my yesterdays post I may enlighten you a bit on the escape hatch details and coaming. The main escapehatch would be the upper conningtower hatch and the lower conning towerhatch having a permanent coaming ending in an expandable lengthening which could be pulled down to some 1650 mm above the controlroom floorplates . I guess this expansion coaming was originally made of 3mm sheetplates, however in my time we used a canvas trunk normally stowed up toward the permanent coaming as can be seen on the image below. As can be seen on the image they have removed the expandable coaming on to days museums U-995 and put a grating over the hatch opening.
As previously stated when flooding the tower, air shall be compressed and trapped towards the conningtower top hatch. By opening the hatch this air shall escape causing a pressure fluctation which might slam the hatch shut. The  hatch is provided with a catch normally to protect it from being flung open by the normal overpressure in the boat, this catch now allows the hatch just to open a crack to release the air. In addition you have a small checking cock which could be used for venting the air, however it is too small for practical use.
The time you are exposed to high airpressure ( the trapped air) is crucial with regards to bend and you have to reduce same by make the flooding and waiting time for the escape as short as possible.
Tore
« Last Edit: 31 Mar , 2016, 00:45 by tore »

Offline tore

  • Tore
  • *
  • Posts: 2,539
  • Gender: Male
Re: Tores mailbox VIIC and VIIC/41 operation and technical details
« Reply #2989 on: 02 Apr , 2016, 01:27 »
A well known discrepancy between the real VIIC and the Revell building kit 1:72 is the position of the anchorbay, which Revell has placed app. 1,5 frames  aft of of the real design. As seen on the modell kit the anchor would hit the fwd. hydroplane when lowered. Accurate modelbuilders would have to replace the anchorbay approximately one frame ahaed of the centerline of the fwd.hydroplane guard.
On the museum U 995 they have done another modification by introducing, for some unknown reason, a stopper for the anchor fluke, see image. As so many other details on the museum U-995 this should not be introduced on an accurate model.
Tore

Offline tore

  • Tore
  • *
  • Posts: 2,539
  • Gender: Male
Re: Tores mailbox VIIC and VIIC/41 operation and technical details
« Reply #2990 on: 03 Apr , 2016, 03:36 »
As probably known, the Royal Norwegian Navy took over 4 ex German uboats after WW2. Three of these were VIICs. Early 1960 we had plans to modernize the VIICs and KNM KYA ex U-926 was partly converted. Below is an image of the submarine after getting a new sailtower. An interesting detail is that the old hinged schnorchelmast was kept in a new homing in the sailtower thus no telescopic schnorchel.

Tore 

Offline SG

  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 660
    • https://3xblackcats.wordpress.com/
Re: Tores mailbox VIIC and VIIC/41 operation and technical details
« Reply #2991 on: 03 Apr , 2016, 08:40 »
Thanks for the information about the correct position of the anchorbay, Tore (and about all the other untold-before details). You're a gold mine, Sir. I'd suggest to celebrate the 200th page in your thread, it's quite an achievement!!!
« Last Edit: 03 Apr , 2016, 08:46 by SG »

Offline tore

  • Tore
  • *
  • Posts: 2,539
  • Gender: Male
Re: Tores mailbox VIIC and VIIC/41 operation and technical details
« Reply #2992 on: 04 Apr , 2016, 02:38 »
I have been involved as a VIIC and IXC technical adviser for a Canadian fiction author writing a WW2 uboat novel on uboatoperations in the Artic. In this connection I have tried to advise the author about the sonar mirror layer which you experience in these waters.
Apart from the problems of operating a VIIC under the polar ice, you have the well known WW2 submarine trick of hiding under the sonar reflection layer. In my time we had problems with unidentified submarines operating in the deep Norwegian fjords, like the Swedes we never caught one. Our theory at that time was that somebody used the fjord for training submarine COs of hiding under the sonar reflection layers which was quite frequently existing in the fjords. When rivers from the mountain lakes ends up in the salty fjordseawater it creates a layer of different salinity, eg. gravity, which reflects the sonar beams and hence acts like a sonarmirror protecting the submarine. If you in addition are able to stay dead silent under such a layer you would be fairly safe as neither the active sonar nor the hydrophones would pick up anything. However it requires some skill to place the submarine in such position. When you have found the layer by taking temperatures and watersamples, you used the regulating tanks to adjust accurately the submarine to neutral buoyancy, shutting down almost everything, placing the boat under the reflection layer. By topping up the hydraulic system on beforehand you are able to silently adjust the minor variation in buoyancy by lowering and raising the periscopes by using the hydraulic accumulators thus silently adjusting the displacement and buoyancy. This required some training and we were in my time of the opinion our fjords were used for that purpose.
Tore
« Last Edit: 04 Apr , 2016, 09:39 by tore »

Offline Don Prince

  • Admiral3
  • *
  • Posts: 1,039
  • Gender: Male
Re: Tores mailbox VIIC and VIIC/41 operation and technical details
« Reply #2993 on: 09 Apr , 2016, 00:16 »
Hello Mr. Tore and All,


While I was working on the INDEX FILE file I discovered 19 duplicate words with different spellings in the index generator file??? IN other words wrong spellings! I corrected the spelling errors and uploaded the latest Skizzenbuch 11 x 17 - M.PDF file into dropbox and the INDEX FINAL.PDF...


Regards,
Don_
A man's got to know his limitations...
Harry Callahan, SFPD

Offline tore

  • Tore
  • *
  • Posts: 2,539
  • Gender: Male
Re: Tores mailbox VIIC and VIIC/41 operation and technical details
« Reply #2994 on: 20 Apr , 2016, 03:00 »
Don.
Finally the site is back. My reply to you disappeared in the commotion. I had a quick glance at your last index and it seems OK to me.
Tore

Offline Don Prince

  • Admiral3
  • *
  • Posts: 1,039
  • Gender: Male
Re: Tores mailbox VIIC and VIIC/41 operation and technical details
« Reply #2995 on: 21 Apr , 2016, 14:13 »
Hello Mr. Tore,


Do you remember about a year and a half ago when I had a wrong understanding about the Regelzellen external fuel oil saddle tank.  I believed the saddle tank was open at the bottom which allowed the fuel oil to be pumped in and float on top of the sea water in the tank; as the fuel oil was consumed/burned the water level would rise in the tank.  At that time, the only issue I had was what stopped the tank from being dumped in rough seas with an open bottom?


In the first chapter of "Type VII U-Boats" around page 16 this was stated as the self-compensating fuel Oil tank design open at the bottom to the sea.  Originally, I got that idea from a German U-Boat web site, so I don't know which started that design idea. It looks like that wrong idea was put forth because there was no experienced U-Boat EO to explain the actual Header Tank Water Compensating System and the Regelzellen tank design which was backed up with the actual Type VIIC U-Boat engineering drawings!


Experience definitely comes in handy...


Regards,
Don_
« Last Edit: 22 Apr , 2016, 12:09 by Don Prince »
A man's got to know his limitations...
Harry Callahan, SFPD

Offline tore

  • Tore
  • *
  • Posts: 2,539
  • Gender: Male
Re: Tores mailbox VIIC and VIIC/41 operation and technical details
« Reply #2996 on: 22 Apr , 2016, 01:12 »
Don.
I cannot specificly remember the discussion, but the system works as follows. The regulating and fueloilbunker tank 1 stb and port are as you are saying, external saddle tanks. They are not watercompensated as the normal fuel tanks and as the capacity is limited to  4.700 m3 each, the surface effect is small. As fueltanks they are filled like the other fueltanks but instead of forcing the compensatingwater out of the tanks you can either drain the residue water, if any, by the ballastpump or/and vent the tank through the mufflers in the controlroom. As you see from my image below the tanks are connected to the fuelsystem as any other fuelbunkertanks but as it is no compensatingwaterpressure to squeeze out the fuel, you transfer same by airpressure supplied by a LP air (0.5 bar) pipe to the tank, as an alternative you might even use the spare luboilpump in the engine room to transfer the fuel as can be seen on the image.
 It goes without saying that when the regulating tanks are switched back to regulatingtank configuration, the tanks are contaminated by fuel which might leave an oilslick when in use. That is the reason why the regulating tanks are able to discharge the regulatingwater into the MBT3 while submerged keeping it on top of the MBT waterlevel until surfacing.
Tore
« Last Edit: 22 Apr , 2016, 01:17 by tore »

Offline Don Prince

  • Admiral3
  • *
  • Posts: 1,039
  • Gender: Male
Re: Tores mailbox VIIC and VIIC/41 operation and technical details
« Reply #2997 on: 29 Apr , 2016, 16:20 »
Hello Mr. Tore,


I have some questions about the early Type VII U-Boat that had the stern torpedo tube mounted in the upper deck area  In that configuration:


1. Could they only launch the stern torpedo while submerged and not while surfaced?
2. While submerged did they use the piston to launch the stern torpedo as to not create air bubbles to give up the U-Boat's location?
3. Was the gyro angle set in the stern torpedo, or was only a straight shot configuration available?


Regards,
Don_
A man's got to know his limitations...
Harry Callahan, SFPD

Offline tore

  • Tore
  • *
  • Posts: 2,539
  • Gender: Male
Re: Tores mailbox VIIC and VIIC/41 operation and technical details
« Reply #2998 on: 30 Apr , 2016, 00:18 »
Don.
As you know I am not a torpedoman, in fact I stayed away from it as much as I could, I guess Maciek is the right guy for answering your question. In my time we never fired a real shot with the aft torpedotube. I cannot see anything which should prevent you from launching a torpedo both submerged and surfaced, and using a piston the same way as in the forward tubes. We occasionally tested the launching bubbles usually in surfaced condition using a dummytorpedo as can be seen from a photo I took back in 1953 outside the submarinepen in Trondheim. Not much of lauchingbubbles as far as I can see. The setting of the gyroangle I am afraid I have to leave to Maciek.
Tore

Offline SnakeDoc

  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 536
  • Gender: Male
    • Torpedo Vorhaltrechner Project
Re: Tores mailbox VIIC and VIIC/41 operation and technical details
« Reply #2999 on: 30 Apr , 2016, 03:39 »
Hi Gentlemen,

Don, you have asked interesting questions regarding the aft/external torpedo tube on the first version of the type VII U-Boats, known later as type VIIA.

1. Could they only launch the stern torpedo while submerged and not while surfaced?
2. While submerged did they use the piston to launch the stern torpedo as to not create air bubbles to give up the U-Boat's location?
3. Was the gyro angle set in the stern torpedo, or was only a straight shot configuration available?

I have researched this topic some time ago and I think I have the answers to two of them.
Based on the Schussmeldung from torpedo attack conducted on 6th December 1939 by U31 (on Estonian merchant Agu), I can say, that torpedo was fired from aft torpedo tube, on the periscope depth (13,5 m), with the gyro angle 61,5 deg.
Regarding the piston, I do not have any direct information, but I suppose, it was also used in case of external torpedo tubes.

--
Regards
Maciek