Submarine Warfare, Past, Present, and FutureFyfe, Herbert C.
History
Submarine Warfare, Past, Present, and Future
Fyfe, Herbert C.
Submarine warfare
The tactics to be adopted by his submarines in action were thus laid
down by Mr. Nordenfelt. Out of sight of the enemy the vessel ran on the
surface with its cupola and about three feet of its turtle back out of
water, but by forced draught, blowing out its smoke under the surface.
When she arrived within such distance of the enemy that she might be
discovered, she descended into the water so far that the cupola alone
appeared above the waves, this was done by taking in water into the
cold-water tanks sufficient to reduce the floatability to what the
horizontal screws were capable of overpowering. The “reduced
floatability” was never done away with, but the descent from the “awash”
position was effected by starting the vertical screws, thus overcoming
mechanically the buoyancy of the boat, which was pulled down to a less
or greater depth depending upon the speed given to the screws.
The three main points in Mr. Nordenfelt’s system on which he laid
special stress were these:
1. That by using water as the means of storing up energy he was in
possession of a reservoir which could never get out of order, and which
could be replaced at any hour in any part of the world, and without any
extraneous assistance from shore or other ships. The reason of all
others which at once decided him to adopt the hot-water system was the
enormous factor of safety obtained by his being able to blow out, by
steam pressure without the use of machinery, large weights of water
which would lighten the boat and counteract any leak likely to occur.
Mr. Nordenfelt had little faith in electricity as a motive power, which
is not surprising considering the accumulators then in use.
2. The submerging the boat by mechanical means: Mr. Nordenfelt was
convinced that previous attempts had proved unsuccessful, mainly because
either they depended upon varying the displacement of the boat by taking
in water to submerge her and to regulate the depth at which they desired
to operate, or they descended by steering downwards. His objection to
the first-named method of descending, by taking in water and thus
increasing the specific gravity of the boat, was that practically there
was no difference in the specific gravity of water on the surface or at
50 feet depth; thus when the boat had lost its buoyancy at the surface
it had also no buoyancy at any given depth, and the risk was thus very
great of suddenly descending beyond a safe depth.
3. The horizontal position Mr. Nordenfelt found to be a _sine qua non_
for a submarine boat.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account