Author Topic: Type VII - Schnorchel Placement (Read 26067 times)

NZSnowman · « **on:** 30 Jan , 2009, 15:46 »

While drawing the piping for the schnorchel, I couldn

dougie47 · « **Reply #1 on:** 30 Jan , 2009, 16:30 »

Hi Simon,

Interesting point this. I think the U 995 snort is in the correct place - when it is raised it fits nicely into the clamp on the tower. The clamp looks to be in the correct place on the tower too?

The U 995 deck was completely rebuilt at the start of the 1970's. I don't think they built the wooden boards around the snort correctly, which is why you see errors when comparing with wartime shots. To confuse a bit more, I think the new deck they had in 1971 isn't the deck they have now. There are some differences. But both the 1971 deck and the 2009 deck aren't quite as they should be around the snort when compared with wartime shots.

U 995 is a nightmare - it didn't even have a lower wintergarten after Norwegian service. So much had changed on this boat over the years.

Always go for period shots if you can.

Cheers,

Dougie

NZSnowman · « **Reply #2 on:** 30 Jan , 2009, 19:21 »

Hi Dougie. I think you right about the snort is in the correct position and wooden boards around the snort is incorrect

They much had made the deck a little narrower here (approximately 30cm - I think

). This could had happen when they replace the steel plates in this section.

Thanks for the information and help

I always happyer to be able to sort out little things that we found. I hate the not knowing

rabapla · « **Reply #3 on:** 01 Feb , 2009, 13:14 »

I think the explanation is easier:

they just did't cover that much of the cylinder on 995 than one sees in the wartime shots.
in the top view from 995 you see a lot of free space lateral of the cylinder; there are just a few planks mnissing...........

Rokket · « **Reply #4 on:** 05 Feb , 2009, 23:46 »

side note - very nice dwgs

NZSnowman · « **Reply #5 on:** 13 Nov , 2010, 13:18 »

Below is poof that there is not enough space on the port side of the schnorchel. The pipe just ends on the edge of the deck

NZSnowman · « **Reply #6 on:** 09 Jan , 2012, 14:44 »

While doing some more research on the Schnorchel today, I came acoress this:

"Raising and lowering are controlled by hand wheels in the control room which activate a hydraulic mechanism. One hand-wheel is turned to "Open" for raising; when the schnorchel is to be lowered, this wheel must be on "Closed" and the other wheel turned to "Open""

From the NAVY DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS WASHINGTON Final Report - G/Serial 32 REPORT ON THE INTERROGATION OF SURVIVORS FROM U-575 SUNK 13 MARCH 1944 http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-575INT.htm

I was able to location the two 'Hand wheel' on U-995

http://www.kubische-panoramen.de/index.php?id_id=5379

SnakeDoc · « **Reply #7 on:** 10 Jan , 2012, 02:05 »

Hi Simon

Quote from: NZSnowman on 09 Jan , 2012, 14:44

I was able to location the two 'Hand wheel' on U-995

Right you are. These wheels are for valves of the Schnorchel rising and lowering hydraulic gear. The actuating piston for this gear is connected to the hydraulic system for the periscopes hoists.

--
Regards
Maciek

tore · « **Reply #8 on:** 22 Jan , 2012, 05:38 »

I just happened to stumble over your question on the snort piping and migth be able to help you. I was the engineering officer on the submarine R.Nor S "Kaura" (Ex. U 995) 1953-1954 while she was in the Royal Norwegian Navy (I`m 83 year old) and I`m sorry that your pipingdrawing is sligthly incorrect as the pipebend was not inside the casing but, protruding through the casingside on the top of the saddeltank. U 995 had a different snort mast with a newer electropneumatic shut off float (german Ringschwimmer) and a radardetector on the top just installed at the end of the war March 1945. You migth find the drawing on the net. I just realize that your photo no 5 shows the bend it`s the "lump", just above the saddetank under the gangway. I`am deligthed again to be a midshipman some 59 years after I graduated from the Naval Academy!
regards Tore Berg-Nielsen ltncmd (E) rtd R Nor Navy

TopherVIIC · « **Reply #9 on:** 22 Jan , 2012, 07:24 »

Ltncmd. Berg-Nielsen -
Welcome! You are going to be a most welcome addition to our family!
Christopher E-5 U.S.M.C.

NZSnowman · « **Reply #10 on:** 22 Jan , 2012, 12:01 »

Welcome aboard Tore

Thank you for you help and information. It is great to get it first hand

I am sure there will be lots of questions we would love to ask you about HNoMS Kaura if you have the time. With more research and time I was able to update my drawing on the piping, below is an updated one for you. The pink line is the deck outline.

Again thanks & welcome!

SnakeDoc · « **Reply #11 on:** 22 Jan , 2012, 16:37 »

I also welcome you aboard, Tore.

I would have a lot of questions about U-995 and would be very happy, if you had time
to share with us your knowledge.

--
Thanks, regards
Maciek

tore · « **Reply #12 on:** 23 Jan , 2012, 06:05 »

Thanks for all the welcomegreetings and NZSnowman your corrected drawing is now excellent. For some reason most modelbuilders have not got the detail of the snortpipebend together with the 3 different versions of the snortmast lockingpin. May be it is because for some reason have omitted these details on the Laboeversion of the U 995. For those of you who migth be interested, we had in operation 4 ex german subs in the Norwegian Navy ( don`t ask me how we got them). They were KNM Kaura (ex U 995 VIIC/41 Built Blohm & Voss, Hamburg 07. 1943), KNM Kya (ex U 926 VIIC built Neptun Werft Rostock AG 12. 1943), KNM Kinn (ex U 1202 VIIC built F.Schichau Werft Danzig 11.1943) and KNM Knerten (ex U 4706 XXIII built Germaniawerft Kiel 01. 1945). The 3 first were in service till the years of 1960 whereas the small XXIII type was faced out after a short service, she had a snortmast intergrated in the originaldesign. I was the EO of KNM Kaura and later KNM Kya.
Hope you don`t get bored of an old submariners chatter.

TopherVIIC · « **Reply #13 on:** 23 Jan , 2012, 08:14 »

Quote

Hope you don`t get bored of an old submariners chatter.

Tore -
I am sure you can talk about anything, and you would have at least 60 people here, alone, or collectively, that would buy you breakfast to hear the stories! You have already given us much information that is new and highly useful! Thank you!
Christopher

NZSnowman · « **Reply #14 on:** 23 Jan , 2012, 10:05 »

Tore

Thanks for the kind words about the drawing. Have you seen my other drawing of the snort piping. And I did not realise about the any ex U-boat.

Simon

http://models.rokket.biz/index.php?topic=854.0

SnakeDoc · « **Reply #15 on:** 23 Jan , 2012, 10:34 »

Hi Tore

Quote from: tore on 22 Jan , 2012, 05:38

U 995 had a different snort mast with a newer electropneumatic shut off float (german Ringschwimmer) and a radardetector on the top just installed at the end of the war March 1945.

Did the KNM Kaura had all her service the original, german elektro-pneumatic head valve?
Has it been left unmodified?
--
Thanks, regards
Maciek

tore · « **Reply #16 on:** 23 Jan , 2012, 13:07 »

Hi Maciek!
She was still at at the yard Trondhjems mek. verksted,Norway where she got her snort when the war ended , so the germans never operated her with the with the snortmast and thus the electro-pneumatic headvalve was the original one all the time. I really don`t know why the germans exchanged the mast on the Laboe U 995, may be the hinged-float type was the most representative type, for a war memorial sub. She was "laid up" in a fjord till we converted her by removing the guns and wintergarten whereupon we put her into service Dec. 1952. The conningtower was a bit different from the original VIIC type. The allied navies having air superiority didn`t made use of the snorting as the germans at the end of the war and for us the snorting was a new experience and we had many interesting events before we really got the grip on how to handle the sub.
Regards Tore

tore · « **Reply #17 on:** 23 Jan , 2012, 13:25 »

Hi NZSnowman!
As a newcomer I have unfortunately not seen your drawings. Did you made any interiors of the the E-room? The fantastic Junker freepiston compressor and the Rootsblower on the main engines? These are details which shows top german engineering and I would love to see same illustrated with your drawingskill.
Regards Tore

NZSnowman · « **Reply #18 on:** 23 Jan , 2012, 13:25 »

Quote from: tore on 23 Jan , 2012, 13:07

She was still at at the yard Trondhjems mek. verksted,Norway where she got her snort when the war ended , so the germans never operated her with the with the snortmast and thus the electro-pneumatic headvalve was the original one all the time. I really don`t know why the germans exchanged the mast on the Laboe U 995, may be the hinged-float type was the most representative type, for a war memorial sub.

I had totally forgot about this, I remember reading about this a few years back.

Quote from: tore on 23 Jan , 2012, 13:07

we had many interesting events before we really got the grip on how to handle the sub.

NZSnowman · « **Reply #19 on:** 23 Jan , 2012, 13:45 »

Quote from: tore on 23 Jan , 2012, 13:25

Hi NZSnowman!
As a newcomer I have unfortunately not seen your drawings. Did you made any interiors of the the E-room? The fantastic Junker freepiston compressor and the Rootsblower on the main engines? These are details which shows top german engineering and I would love to see same illustrated with your drawingskill.
Regards Tore

Here my drawing of the E-room so far, below is a picture link to a larger verison for you.

In this topic you can see many of my drawing http://models.rokket.biz/index.php?topic=106.0

tore · « **Reply #20 on:** 24 Jan , 2012, 00:31 »

Hi NZSnowman
I`m amaized with your drawingskill. It migth be somewhat confusing to some with all the smaller piping around the main exhaust outlet. As you probably know part of it is due to the airdriven gindingmachine connected to the exhaustvalvedisk via a gearpinion to a gearrim on the disk. At every dive one of the engineers had to start the grinder and rotate the disk to remove the carbondeposit on the seating. If the valve was leaking the trick was to wait till the we got 2-4 meters waterpressure on the disk. At periscope depth the pressure was to high for the grinder. An unpopular sideeffect of the airdrive was in the event of a bad leaking valve you build up an overpressure in the sub.
Regards Tore

SnakeDoc · « **Reply #21 on:** 24 Jan , 2012, 02:20 »

Hi Tore

Quote from: tore on 23 Jan , 2012, 13:07

She was still at at the yard Trondhjems mek. verksted,Norway where she got her snort when the war ended , so the germans never operated her with the with the snortmast and thus the electro-pneumatic headvalve was the original one all the time. I really don`t know why the germans exchanged the mast on the Laboe U 995, may be the hinged-float type was the most representative type, for a war memorial sub. She was "laid up" in a fjord till we converted her by removing the guns and wintergarten whereupon we put her into service Dec. 1952. The conningtower was a bit different from the original VIIC type.

Good to know this - I didn't know the snorkel was altered after passing the boat to the Germany.
I will try to find the photos of the KNM Kaura to get the exact view of the elektro-pneumatic head valve.

Quote from: tore on 23 Jan , 2012, 13:07

The allied navies having air superiority didn`t made use of the snorting as the germans at the end of the war and for us the snorting was a new experience and we had many interesting events before we really got the grip on how to handle the sub.

I have the question - I know, that boats equipped with the M.A.N. engines - which were charged by turbine blowers - had problem with exhaust gases back-pressure - they were modified in such way, that exhaust/intake valve overlap had to be decreased. I'm not sure if the mechanically charged G.W. engines had the same problem? Did their engine timing also had to be changed? I guess not, but I woud like to get information from the first hand.

Also, while snorting, there were constant under-pressure inside the sub (when the snorkel head valve was not closing). Did it affect noticeably the operation of the distilling plant unit?

Quote from: tore on 23 Jan , 2012, 13:07

As you probably know part of it is due to the airdriven gindingmachine connected to the exhaustvalvedisk via a gearpinion to a gearrim on the disk.

I have got another question regarding to the low pressure air installation - I have noticed, that hull valve in the E-motor/Aft torpedo room (E-motor cooling water intake and torpedo compensating tanks flooding) has also connection to the low pressure air installation. I wonder what is for - I guess it was used to "crack" the valve - to help opening valve at greater depth or with the jammed valve. Is that right?

Another question related to the heating system - I know, that type VII boats were equipped with the steam heating installation used only in harbour and powered from the U-Boat tender. While visiting the U-995 I have seen no sign of the steam heaters. I imagine, they had looked like on these photos (below the hatches)

(http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-570Photo17.htm)

(http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-570Photo23.htm)

Was the steam heating installation removed from the KNM Kaura?

And in the end - when the Norwegian Navy taken over the U-995 - did you have manuals, drawings, technical specifications? Did you use the knowledge of former german sailors or you were discovering and reverse engineering the sub?

--
Thanks, regards
Maciek

tore · « **Reply #22 on:** 24 Jan , 2012, 04:59 »

Hi SnakeDoc!
I have a photo of me inspecting the rising of KNM Kauras snortmast showing the details and shall publish same as soon as I can figure ut how! ( May be my grandchildren can show me)
Regards Tore

tore · « **Reply #23 on:** 24 Jan , 2012, 05:22 »

SnakeDoc !
The main engines were Krupp Germaniawerft made and was not turbocharged. Allthough the germans had a turbocharger system called the Buchi system, the VIIC engines had a mechanical driven superchargesystem. The blower (Roots blower type) was clutched in via a double cone frictionclutch at a certain load to boost the top speed. The blower was never used at lower loads. The tuning of the exhaust/inletcams was adopted to higher exhaustpressure even on boats without a snort as the VIIC used the dieselexhaust to blow the ballasttanks when half surfaced in order to save HP air.
Regards Tore

tore · « **Reply #24 on:** 24 Jan , 2012, 05:57 »

Snorting underpressure
Would you belive it, we didn`t use a destillingplant and the permanent underpressure was not a problem except for the cook. We never operated more than one diesel at the time and always with the propellor disengaged, chargeing the batteries.The other E-motor/generator took care of the propulsion. We tried out direct dieselpropulsion while snorting but learned that the hydroplanes and the boat was not very suitable for high speed submerged and the mast was not designed for the load. The snorting challenge was definitely bad weather and fluctuation of airpressure,I experienced an officermate bursting his eardrums.
Regards
Tore

tore · « **Reply #25 on:** 24 Jan , 2012, 06:15 »

Heating
The LP connection on the hullvalve in the E-room. I`m a bit rusty on this and hope to revert. Non of the VIIC`s we had in operation did have steamheating. We operated for weeks in the artic and never had a problem.
Regards
Tore

tore · « **Reply #26 on:** 24 Jan , 2012, 06:39 »

Drawings, manuals.
Hi Maciek!
Good question. The story is. I was taken rigth from my graduation at the naval academy and sent to the Royal Navys submarine trainingcenter HMS Dolphin at Gosport near Portsmouth. Attended an Engineering Officers trainingcourse learning practically evrything about the RN`s A, T, S and U/V class submarines only to return to Norway and to my astonishment realized I was assigned a VIIC of which I did`t know much. The design difference of the two countries submarines was significant. In 1953 we did not have any connection with the germans and the documents/manuals were were not overwhelming. Thus you had to do it the hard way, trying and failing. Some of the failings were exciting. Eventually we become pretty good in handling the boats I dare say.
Regards Tore

tore · « **Reply #27 on:** 24 Jan , 2012, 09:51 »

Hi Maciek!
Trying to post a picture of KNM Kaura`s snortmast half raized. the young handsome man with white cap inspecting it is me!
regards Tore

NZSnowman · « **Reply #28 on:** 24 Jan , 2012, 11:34 »

Quote from: tore on 24 Jan , 2012, 09:51

Hi Maciek!
Trying to post a picture of KNM Kaura`s snortmast half raized. the young handsome man with white cap inspecting it is me!
regards Tore

Maciek, There are several more pictures of the snortmast on page 147 of U-995 by Eckard Wetzel.

NZSnowman · « **Reply #29 on:** 24 Jan , 2012, 11:42 »

Quote from: tore on 24 Jan , 2012, 06:15

Heating
The LP connection on the hullvalve in the E-room. I`m a bit rusty on this and hope to revert. Non of the VIIC`s we had in operation did have steamheating. We operated for weeks in the artic and never had a problem.
Regards
Tore

Very interesting! I try last summer to add this system to my drawing, but give up, after I could not found any evidence of it on U-995 or found any additional information on is system. I was planning to take another look at it later.

NZSnowman · « **Reply #30 on:** 24 Jan , 2012, 11:57 »

Quote from: tore on 24 Jan , 2012, 00:31

Hi NZSnowman
I`m amaized with your drawingskill. It migth be somewhat confusing to some with all the smaller piping around the main exhaust outlet. As you probably know part of it is due to the airdriven gindingmachine connected to the exhaustvalvedisk via a gearpinion to a gearrim on the disk. At every dive one of the engineers had to start the grinder and rotate the disk to remove the carbondeposit on the seating. If the valve was leaking the trick was to wait till the we got 2-4 meters waterpressure on the disk. At periscope depth the pressure was to high for the grinder. An unpopular sideeffect of the airdrive was in the event of a bad leaking valve you build up an overpressure in the sub.
Regards Tore

I read somewhere that the Germans would do this every 3 hours while running the diesels. First they would stop one diesel and clear the seating, then restart this diesel, 3 hours later they would stop the other diesel and do the same.

This part of the drawing it not up to the standard I would like, the drawing very basic.

Very limit detail and information around on the piping structure of this area of the boat. I base most of my drawing from a picture of U-250.

NZSnowman · « **Reply #31 on:** 24 Jan , 2012, 12:07 »

Quote from: tore on 24 Jan , 2012, 06:39

Drawings, manuals.
Hi Maciek!
Good question. The story is. I was taken rigth from my graduation at the naval academy and sent to the Royal Navys submarine trainingcenter HMS Dolphin at Gosport near Portsmouth. Attended an Engineering Officers trainingcourse learning practically evrything about the RN`s A, T, S and U/V class submarines only to return to Norway and to my astonishment realized I was assigned a VIIC of which I did`t know much. The design difference of the two countries submarines was significant. In 1953 we did not have any connection with the germans and the documents/manuals were were not overwhelming. Thus you had to do it the hard way, trying and failing. Some of the failings were exciting. Eventually we become pretty good in handling the boats I dare say.
Regards Tore

I bet some of the failings were exciting and were events that you wish would not happen again

I remember reading some funny stories while training the German crews to sail the U-boats. I can only imagine you had fun!

I think I would almost give my right arm to see so of them drawings and manuals now. Tore, do you think the RNoN would still have them?

tore · « **Reply #32 on:** 24 Jan , 2012, 12:56 »

Exhaustvalve grinder
Hi NZSnowman!
I have to admit I couldn`t quite follow the piping on your drawing. I believe the details are clearly visible on the U 995 at Laboe, the system should be still intact. May be somebody could can take a picture for you. To me grinding every 3 hours seems to be excessive, migth be they had a low fuelquality. On the other hand a leaky main exhaustvalve could be serious, in spite of the drains, we flooded the cylinders more than once and your correct drawn indicatorcocks were as a standard procedure always open while turning the engine prior to the starting after surfacing. It happened water did squirt out of the cocks and a waterstroke risk was a nigthmare. A few times we had to surface due to a leaking valve. So this was an important item.
Regards Tore

tore · « **Reply #33 on:** 24 Jan , 2012, 13:16 »

Manuals and drawings.
Hi again NZ Snowman!
I guess some manuals are still at the Norwegian Naval Museum in Horten, Norway E-mail: mar-mus@online.no but I am afraid they are all in norwegian.
regards Tore

TopherVIIC · « **Reply #34 on:** 24 Jan , 2012, 14:43 »

Quote

Manuals and drawings.
Hi again NZ Snowman!
I guess some manuals are still at the Norwegian Naval Museum in Horten, Norway E-mail: mar-mus@online.no but I am afraid they are all in norwegian.
regards Tore

Hi Tore! Love having you here!
Do you think they would entertain requests for information from New York, USA? I am sure we could slug out the Norwegian, but this group is pretty good at deciphering such things!
Cheers
Christopher

NZSnowman · « **Reply #35 on:** 24 Jan , 2012, 17:38 »

Quote from: tore on 24 Jan , 2012, 09:51

Hi Maciek!
Trying to post a picture of KNM Kaura`s snortmast half raized. the young handsome man with white cap inspecting it is me!
regards Tore

Hi Tore

I was wondering can you remember the colour of the very top on the schnorkel head?

I have always wondered that colour the Jaumann-type anti-radar coating was. Most photographs show it as very dark, perhaps black or very dark gray $:-\$ (even in your photograph is look very dark) however, I have one photograph of U-325 schnorkel head and it look gray and perhaps painted in a camouflage pattern

tore · « **Reply #36 on:** 25 Jan , 2012, 00:43 »

Manuals Drawings
Hi Christopher!
I just realised you are building an unbelievable VIIC/41 model and hence thirsty for details which are far beyond my capacities allthough I spent hours crawling around in the narrow spaces. I wish I had kept my numerous sketches now for your museumpiece. I donated all my sketchbooks to the Norwegian Naval Museum, unfortunately they were only dealing with RN`s A,T and S class thus of no use for you, however the RNorN submarineservice, www.uvb.no, had a designoffice for possible conversion of our older british and german subs and it migth be they have some detailed drawings.
I all modesty I`m in the final stage of a 1/72 model of KNM Kaura, the norwegian version of VIIC/41 (ex U 995) this how the real boat looked like in my time.
Regards Tore

tore · « **Reply #37 on:** 25 Jan , 2012, 01:03 »

Quote from: NZSnowman on 24 Jan , 2012, 17:38

Quote from: tore on 24 Jan , 2012, 09:51
Hi Maciek!
Trying to post a picture of KNM Kaura`s snortmast half raized. the young handsome man with white cap inspecting it is me!
regards Tore

Hi Tore

I was wondering can you remember the colour of the very top on the schnorkel head?

I have always wondered that colour the Jaumann-type anti-radar coating was. Most photographs show it as very dark, perhaps black or very dark gray $:-\$ (even in your photograph is look very dark) however, I have one photograph of U-325 schnorkel head and it look gray and perhaps painted in a camouflage pattern

Hi NZSnowman
As I remember it was black at the time I was onboard, however we did tried out different colours and and as I remember a kind of greenish/dark blue turned out to be the best. We never repainted in my time. I guess it was more the size (radarreflection) and wake than the colour which betrayed the snorthead.

regards Tore

tore · « **Reply #38 on:** 25 Jan , 2012, 01:30 »

Hi again NZSnowman
Just reading my quick answer to you I realised it`s a bit on the side. Non of the our electro/pneumatic snortheads had the Jaumann type of covering, it was simply a small "steelbarrel". I guess this was just the time when it was more important to register that you was detected than trusting you wouldn`t be. That the device possibly could act as a "ligthouse" was another question.
Regards Tore

TopherVIIC · « **Reply #39 on:** 25 Jan , 2012, 10:18 »

Hey Simon - Unless I am wrong, this picture of U-1065 (VIIC/41) has your ductwork for the snort.
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/5418/u1165.jpg

Right in this very thread is u249londonderry570zn7.gif with what looks to be the same ductwork. Am I seeing that correctly?
Christopher

TopherVIIC · « **Reply #40 on:** 25 Jan , 2012, 10:27 »

Quote

I all modesty I`m in the final stage of a 1/72 model of KNM Kaura, the norwegian version of VIIC/41 (ex U 995) this how the real boat looked like in my time.
Regards Tore

Tore,
Thanks for the Pic of the KNM Kaura, and your stories of your experiences with her. Thank you also for your good thoughts about my build. I am sure the folks here would enjoy seeing your build also!

Quote

thirsty for details which are far beyond my capacities allthough I spent hours crawling around in the narrow spaces. I wish I had kept my numerous sketches now for your museumpiece.

If I were closer to Labeau I would crawl all over her too, with camera and sketch pad in hand! :-)

Stay well.
Christopher

NZSnowman · « **Reply #41 on:** 25 Jan , 2012, 16:42 »

Quote from: tore on 25 Jan , 2012, 01:30

Hi again NZSnowman
Just reading my quick answer to you I realised it`s a bit on the side. Non of the our electro/pneumatic snortheads had the Jaumann type of covering, it was simply a small "steelbarrel". I guess this was just the time when it was more important to register that you was detected than trusting you wouldn`t be. That the device possibly could act as a "ligthouse" was another question.
Regards Tore

Hi Tore

From my research on the Schnorchel I believe that KNM Kaura did have a Jaumann-type anti-radar coating. The Jaumann-type anti-radar coating was about 70 mm in thickness. As it was coated on both side of the head this added additional 140 mm to the diameter to head. The German

Rokket · « **Reply #42 on:** 25 Jan , 2012, 17:25 »

Tore - keep us posted on your build, excellent subject. I love the "different" projects myself, something that is unique or has a twist. A Norwegian version in those lovely fjords...Ja!

tore · « **Reply #43 on:** 26 Jan , 2012, 00:19 »

Quote from: NZSnowman on 25 Jan , 2012, 16:42

Quote from: tore on 25 Jan , 2012, 01:30
Hi again NZSnowman
Just reading my quick answer to you I realised it`s a bit on the side. Non of the our electro/pneumatic snortheads had the Jaumann type of covering, it was simply a small "steelbarrel". I guess this was just the time when it was more important to register that you was detected than trusting you wouldn`t be. That the device possibly could act as a "ligthouse" was another question.
Regards Tore

Hi Tore

From my research on the Schnorchel I believe that KNM Kaura did have a Jaumann-type anti-radar coating. The Jaumann-type anti-radar coating was about 70 mm in thickness. As it was coated on both side of the head this added additional 140 mm to the diameter to head. The German’s only used the costing on the very top of the Schnorchel.

From the drawings below you can see the different between the Schnorchel head with the costings. You can see the drawing on the left has the bigger diameter to the head. This is the additional 140 mm of the Jaumann covering. You can see the original diameter of the pipe below the Jaumann.

From your picture (69.gif) we can clearly see the same profile, the small diameter lower pipe, and the larger diameter top half.

Hi NZ Snowman!
You are absolutely right. I guess I got confused and took the Wesch type antiradarcoating for beeing the Jauman, honestly we were not so familiar with the german names and moreover we never were concerned about the thing. Anyhow it was black. In those days (the early cold war periode) the average radar was not that great. We tested our german radar a foggy day outside the Lofoten islands northern Norway and got no echo on the screen, then we blew the whistle and got immediately an soundecho and when the fog disapeared we looked at a mountaindropoff of 4-500 m high rigth in front of us. Due to this experience we never used the radar but trusted only the sonar and hydrophones. I`m impressed by your knowledge.
Regards Tore

tore · « **Reply #44 on:** 26 Jan , 2012, 00:58 »

Hi Rokket !
Thanks for your interest in an old mans activities. My modest model of KNM Kaura is partly based on the Revell VIIC/41 1/72 atlantic version type, with some modefications, (the U 995 at Laboe is not a very good reference, particulary on the casing and floodgates). I had primarely to change the conningtower (I had to cast a new afterpart),the snort and snort lockingpin details, furthermore the casing and wooden deck including the snort casing and pressurecontainers. I`m now busy with the challenging task for an old mans stiff fingers to get the rigging correct and hope to be ready within a couple of weeks. If of any interest I`ll see if I can manage to make a picture (my camera gave up, new camera).
Regards
Tore

NZSnowman · « **Reply #45 on:** 26 Jan , 2012, 02:27 »

Quote from: tore on 26 Jan , 2012, 00:19

We tested our german radar a foggy day outside the Lofoten islands northern Norway and got no echo on the screen, then we blew the whistle and got immediately an soundecho and when the fog disapeared we looked at a mountaindropoff of 4-500 m high rigth in front of us. Due to this experience we never used the radar but trusted only the sonar and hydrophones.

I believe that water or fog this one of the very best anti-radar thing around. I remember reading somewhere that the America were looking into making a fog around there ships to make them invisible from radar, but like you found out, it can be a little to hard to see out

Quote from: tore on 26 Jan , 2012, 00:19

I`m impressed by your knowledge.

I am sure my knowledge on the Type VIIC, is only tiny compare to what you know.

NZSnowman · « **Reply #46 on:** 26 Jan , 2012, 02:34 »

Quote from: tore on 26 Jan , 2012, 00:58

Hi Rokket !
Thanks for your interest in an old mans activities. My modest model of KNM Kaura is partly based on the Revell VIIC/41 1/72 atlantic version type, with some modefications, (the U 995 at Laboe is not a very good reference, particulary on the casing and floodgates). I had primarely to change the conningtower (I had to cast a new afterpart),the snort and snort lockingpin details, furthermore the casing and wooden deck including the snort casing and pressurecontainers. I`m now busy with the challenging task for an old mans stiff fingers to get the rigging correct and hope to be ready within a couple of weeks. If of any interest I`ll see if I can manage to make a picture (my camera gave up, new camera).
Regards
Tore

Tore, I also would love to see some pictures of Kaura.

I started a list a few years back on the changes between U-995 to Kaura and back to U-995, the list is long

You are right about U-995 at Laboe, not being a very good reference.

tore · « **Reply #47 on:** 26 Jan , 2012, 04:32 »

Quote from: NZSnowman on 26 Jan , 2012, 02:34

Quote from: tore on 26 Jan , 2012, 00:58
Hi Rokket !
Thanks for your interest in an old mans activities. My modest model of KNM Kaura is partly based on the Revell VIIC/41 1/72 atlantic version type, with some modefications, (the U 995 at Laboe is not a very good reference, particulary on the casing and floodgates). I had primarely to change the conningtower (I had to cast a new afterpart),the snort and snort lockingpin details, furthermore the casing and wooden deck including the snort casing and pressurecontainers. I`m now busy with the challenging task for an old mans stiff fingers to get the rigging correct and hope to be ready within a couple of weeks. If of any interest I`ll see if I can manage to make a picture (my camera gave up, new camera).
Regards
Tore

Tore, I also would love to see some pictures of Kaura.

I started a list a few years back on the changes between U-995 to Kaura and back to U-995, the list is long You are right about U-995 at Laboe, not being a very good reference.

Hi NZSnowman
May be it`s because I spent two years of my life with her, but I think it is a shame that the only real authentic famous VIIC(/41)type is not correctly maintained. They could at least make correct floodgates in the renewed casingplates in stead of simply to blank it off
totally.
regards Tore

tore · « **Reply #48 on:** 26 Jan , 2012, 07:21 »

Quote from: NZSnowman on 26 Jan , 2012, 02:34

Quote from: tore on 26 Jan , 2012, 00:58
Hi Rokket !
Thanks for your interest in an old mans activities. My modest model of KNM Kaura is partly based on the Revell VIIC/41 1/72 atlantic version type, with some modefications, (the U 995 at Laboe is not a very good reference, particulary on the casing and floodgates). I had primarely to change the conningtower (I had to cast a new afterpart),the snort and snort lockingpin details, furthermore the casing and wooden deck including the snort casing and pressurecontainers. I`m now busy with the challenging task for an old mans stiff fingers to get the rigging correct and hope to be ready within a couple of weeks. If of any interest I`ll see if I can manage to make a picture (my camera gave up, new camera).
Regards
Tore

Tore, I also would love to see some pictures of Kaura.

I started a list a few years back on the changes between U-995 to Kaura and back to U-995, the list is long You are right about U-995 at Laboe, not being a very good reference.

NZSnowman
Well, I remember from my destroyer practise we made tremendeous smokescreens ( reducing the fans in the boilerroom) by order of the commodore to hide the vessels.
Tore

NZSnowman · « **Reply #49 on:** 26 Jan , 2012, 11:37 »

Quote from: tore on 26 Jan , 2012, 04:32

but I think it is a shame that the only real authentic famous VIIC(/41)type is not correctly maintained. They could at least make correct floodgates in the renewed casingplates in stead of simply to blank it off
totally.

Do not get me started on this

I make me cry what the German

NZSnowman · « **Reply #50 on:** 27 Jan , 2012, 13:02 »

Quote from: tore on 25 Jan , 2012, 00:43

Manuals Drawings
Hi Christopher!
I just realised you are building an unbelievable VIIC/41 model and hence thirsty for details which are far beyond my capacities allthough I spent hours crawling around in the narrow spaces. I wish I had kept my numerous sketches now for your museumpiece. I donated all my sketchbooks to the Norwegian Naval Museum, unfortunately they were only dealing with RN`s A,T and S class thus of no use for you, however the RNorN submarineservice, www.uvb.no, had a designoffice for possible conversion of our older british and german subs and it migth be they have some detailed drawings.
I all modesty I`m in the final stage of a 1/72 model of KNM Kaura, the norwegian version of VIIC/41 (ex U 995) this how the real boat looked like in my time.
Regards Tore

Hi Tore

The dark shape under the group of men along the hull side, was it made off Wood?

Were has been discussing about the propose of these on the U-boat. Some believe it was for strengthen the decking around the Schnorchel. My feeling is it was made of wood and used to stop the harbour ropes rubbing on the metal edge of the deck.

tore · « **Reply #51 on:** 27 Jan , 2012, 14:35 »

Quote from: NZSnowman on 27 Jan , 2012, 13:02

Quote from: tore on 25 Jan , 2012, 00:43
Manuals Drawings
Hi Christopher!
I just realised you are building an unbelievable VIIC/41 model and hence thirsty for details which are far beyond my capacities allthough I spent hours crawling around in the narrow spaces. I wish I had kept my numerous sketches now for your museumpiece. I donated all my sketchbooks to the Norwegian Naval Museum, unfortunately they were only dealing with RN`s A,T and S class thus of no use for you, however the RNorN submarineservice, www.uvb.no, had a designoffice for possible conversion of our older british and german subs and it migth be they have some detailed drawings.
I all modesty I`m in the final stage of a 1/72 model of KNM Kaura, the norwegian version of VIIC/41 (ex U 995) this how the real boat looked like in my time.
Regards Tore

Hi Tore

The dark shape under the group of men along the hull side, was it made off Wood?

Were has been discussing about the propose of these on the U-boat. Some believe it was for strengthen the decking around the Schnorchel. My feeling is it was made of wood and used to stop the harbour ropes rubbing on the metal edge of the deck.

Yes they were made of wood and painted black, they looked like being fitted in a hurry with some variations between the various boats. They were kind of rough. We never made use of them. I was told they were for open sea towage and laying alongside f.i. a supplysub loading torpedoes in the open sea. They were definitely not for strengthening the wood of the casingdeck. By the way have you noticed the rodcasing for the snort lockingrod, the vertical "pipe" on the conningtower? As you migth know they were in at least 2 different versions, the Kaura version, KNM Kya (ex U 926) version, rod free over the brakewater and then directly inside the conning tower.
Have a nice weekend.
Regards
Tore

NZSnowman · « **Reply #52 on:** 27 Jan , 2012, 21:29 »

Yes, I knew about the different versions for the rodcasing. Hoping to have my article about the Schnorchel ready in a few days.

tore · « **Reply #53 on:** 27 Jan , 2012, 23:35 »

Quote from: NZSnowman on 27 Jan , 2012, 21:29

Yes, I knew about the different versions for the rodcasing. Hoping to have my article about the Schnorchel ready in a few days.

Are you writing an article on the snorting? I once in antique ages wrote a paper on timing and modifying the profile of the cams on the diesels for optimal timing while snorting. Everything long gone. I would love to see your paper.
Regards Tore

tore · « **Reply #54 on:** 28 Jan , 2012, 14:41 »

NZSnowman
Re your paper on the snort I`m sending a pictue of the KNM Kya (ex U 926) and on the stb side of the conningtower it could be something like a pipe.
regard tore

tore · « **Reply #55 on:** 28 Jan , 2012, 15:01 »

Hi NZSnowman!
The wooden "fender"
Im sending a couple of pictures showing the variations ot the thing.
Regards Tore

TopherVIIC · « **Reply #56 on:** 28 Jan , 2012, 19:28 »

We should start a thread called " learning with Tore!"
I hope we are not making you tired, Sir!
You have stumbled into people who NEED information!!! (myself included!)
As one who enjoys sharing information I can only hope that the info you choose to share is enjoyable to you!
Having said that Sir, in your capacity as a snorchel officer, did you ever notice visual conditions of the boat that may or may not have affected your job?
The things you may have noticed in passing... We all want to hear your words!
For instance, I wonder if you recall seeing little things like ratings (or whatever your Navy might call them,) painting the outboard metal or the inboard hull?! Things an officer might be in charge of that you can describe!

tore · « **Reply #57 on:** 29 Jan , 2012, 00:03 »

Hi Christopher
I was thinking the other day that I should for my own sake start a new thread like Tores mailbox for VIIC`s where you guys could ask questions which you believe I could answer. As it is now I get questions popping up on many different threads which I haven`t read and you migth easely not getting an answer. It migth be easier for an old man not so conversant in cyberspace to stay put in some place and let the questions come in. Would it be an idea?
Regards Tore

Rokket · « **Reply #58 on:** 29 Jan , 2012, 00:41 »

Tore - good idea. Start a thread!

tore · « **Reply #59 on:** 29 Jan , 2012, 03:25 »

Christopher
My reply to your questions I have answered in my new thread which I opened upon yours and Rokkets suggestions.
Regard Tore

Author Topic: Type VII - Schnorchel Placement (Read 26067 times)

TopherVIIC

TopherVIIC

TopherVIIC

TopherVIIC

TopherVIIC

TopherVIIC