Submarine Warfare, Past, Present, and Future — John Shaqi
Submarine Warfare, Past, Present, and FutureFyfe, Herbert C.
History
Submarine Warfare, Past, Present, and Future
Fyfe, Herbert C.
Submarine warfare
“The power required to impel a vessel through the water is augmented by
her submergence. If 5,000 1–h.p. are required to drive a displacement of
120 tons at 28 knots, then rather more power will be required to drive
120 tons wholly submerged at the same speed.”
This statement appeared in the _Engineer_ in the early part of 1901, but
it appears that an exactly opposite opinion is held by many eminent
authorities. For instance, at the discussion which followed the reading
of Mr. Nordenfelt’s paper on Submarine Boats at the Royal United Service
Institution in 1886, Mr. Anderson, C.E., stated that it was well known
through the late Mr. Froude’s investigation that a fish-shaped vessel
under water was in much more favourable circumstances for obtaining high
speed than any vessel on the surface of the water, because it had been
established theoretically that a vessel of easy lines completely
submarine met with no resistance at all except the skin friction of the
water, no resistance, that was to say, such as that which arose from the
bow wave.
Mr. Anderson went on to say that he believed that if Mr. Nordenfelt
would apply a little more ingenuity and perseverance to the perfecting
of his boat, the result would be the attainment of a very high speed
under water, and consequently a most formidable vessel. Mr. Nordenfelt
himself said that it was absolutely proved that the speed below for a
given consumption of fuel for a given boat must be greater than the
speed above, and Mr. J. J. Thornycroft recently explained to an
interviewer that the resistance is less for a completely submerged body
than one travelling on the surface, because no waves are created. “The
water that is displaced in front,” he said, “simply closes in behind and
helps to push the body forward. A boat moving on the surface throws out
waves in front and on either side, and that means an absolute loss of
energy. You will find that for this reason a ‘Whitehead’ torpedo travels
faster under the water than on the surface.”[5]
Footnote 5:
_Daily Graphic_, November 10, 1900.
ARMAMENT.
The armament of the boats designed by Bushnell and Fulton was a case of
explosive; the armament of the _David_ that sank the _Housatonic_ was a
spar-torpedo, but the armament of all modern submarines is the
automobile fish torpedo. Mr. Holland in his earlier designs provided his
boats with guns, but submarine cannon firing heavy shells have since
been discarded.
In the new British submarines one torpedo expulsion tube is fitted at
the extreme forward end of the vessel, opening outward 2 feet below the
light water-line. Five Whitehead torpedoes, each 11 feet 8 inches long,
are carried.
SAFETY AND HABITABILITY.
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account