Submarine Data - not RHS

[JWE]

M‘kay, I was doing a bunch of vetting for AE and found some interesting stuff for submarine endurance and fuel consumptions. Got some design data on US fleet types (starting with Cachalot), with gallon capacities for the main bunkerage tanks as well as the individual sets of “fuel ballast” tanks. Also have the specific consumption curves and ‘fuel mile’ stats for all the US wartime diesels (including the S-type HORs).

Got enuf specs on Brit, Dutch, Italian, and German designs, to conclude that physics and hydrodynamics seem to generate the same K factors, no matter the language; imagine that.

So, I talked to Charlie Chu, of Mitsubishi, told him what I was doing and asked if there was anything similar in the (non existent) records, and got way more than I wanted. Got some excellent (non existent) design specs on submarine propulsion plant design, along with the power curves and the specific consumption graphs. Cool! It looks like K is the same in Japan.

“K” seems to work across national fleets; as a function of power/length, speed/length, block and prismatic, K is the same within 5%, until you get to the nukes. You have to normalize it to a 10 knot cruise speed, but it’s amazing just how consistent ship design and hydrodynamics is around the world.

Would ya’ll like endurance/fuel figures for your subs? Should do them in national batches; US, Brits, Dutch, Japanese, US first, so the marginal differences can be explainable.

Let me know.

John

[Dili]

My data Range/Fuel. I would appreciate if you could correct(some improbable numbers there)/fill in blanks.
 
UK
 
Class T Grp III  8000/215
Class T Grp III  8000/215
Class S Grp III  6000/ ?
Class S Grp III  6000/ ?
Class U Grp III  3800/ ?
Class T Grp II  4500/ ?
Class T Grp II  4500/ ?
Class U Grp II  3800/ ? 
Class T Grp I Triumph 4500/135
Class T Grp I Minelayer Tetrarch 4450/132
Class T Grp I 4500/135
Class River 10000/ ?
Class R SS 10500/ ? 
Class P SS 10500/ ?
Class O   8500/ ?
Porpoise 7400/ ?
  
German
    
U-Boat VII B 8200/108
U-Boat VII C 10500/113
U-Boat VII C41 10500/113

Italian
 
Flutto/Tritone  13000/82
Perla              5100/47
Marcello          7500/108
Brin                9750/61
Adua              5000/47
Acciaio/Platino 5000/47
Glauco            9625/59
Ferraris           10300/60
Calvi               11400/75
Foca               7800/63
Liuzzi              13000/134
Marconi           10500/72
Cagni              13360/180
Romolo         12000/610 (might include cargo, it was a "Fat" transport submarine)
Mameli           4360/48
Pisani            4230/70
Bandiera        4740/45
Squalo           5650/45
Bragadin         4180/35
Settembrini     6200/52
Argo              5300/60
Argonauta      5000/28
Sirena           4880/45
Micca           6400/67
Capellini        7500/59  
 
 

[witpqs]

“fuel ballast” tanks

First time I've heard that term. What it brings to mind is fuel in ballast tanks, said fuel would be transfered via pump to main fuel tanks when the main tanks were empty enough, then the fuel ballast tanks filled with seawater.

Is that the deal or is it something less obvious?

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

“fuel ballast” tanks

First time I've heard that term. What it brings to mind is fuel in ballast tanks, said fuel would be transfered via pump to main fuel tanks when the main tanks were empty enough, then the fuel ballast tanks filled with seawater.

Is that the deal or is it something less obvious?

That's exactly what they are. Fuel from these was used first however; then fuel from the main tanks.

Here's a pic - the fuel ballast tanks are the ones in red. Main fuel in orange.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

JWE, give us what you have! Thanks in advance.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos
JWE, give us what you have! Thanks in advance.

Okey dokey, Monter. Here’s what I got for the Brits. Had to convert from tons to tonnes and from imperial to american gallons – why do the Brits always have to do everything different?

Normalized everything to metric tons; Dspl is an average of all the different ‘standard’ tonnages; dive depth is ‘test’ depth; K is raw fuel miles; horsepower is BHP because that is what uses the fuel and everybody had different couplings; fuel is in metric tons; got lazy & didn’t normalize the ‘U’s to 10k cruise speed, sorry.

‘K’ is my name for the Fuel/Mile parameter; use K because of the K’ parameter, used by Naval Artichects, which is a function of HP/wt, speed/length, block, etc, coefficients. A simple BHP ratio x K is reasonable and useful.

Brit diesels were mostly Paxman-Ricardo and Vickers, both single-acting MAN derivatives.

Class/Type -- Dspl ---- Sp1 -- Sp2 -- Rng --- Fuel -- Dive -- ‘K’ ---- BHP

O – 1924------1650----15k----10k----5000----112----230’----44.6----3000BHP
O – 1927------1790----17k----10k----6550----160----230’----40.9----4400BHP
P - 1928-------1780----17k----10k----7050----170----230’----41.5----4400BHP
Porpoise-------1825----16k----10k----6000----150----215’----40.0----3300BHP
Thames--------2175----22k----10k----6260----202----215’----31.0----10000BHP
S – 1931--------760----15k----10k----3800-----41-----300’----92.7----1550BHP
S – 1939--------875----15k----10k----4000-----59-----300’----67.8----1900BHP
S – 1940-41----890----15k----10k----6000-----85-----300’----70.6----1900BHP
S – 1942-43----855----15k----10k----6500-----93-----350’----69.9----1900BHP
T – Gp.1------1340----15k----10k----8000----134-----300’----59.7-----500BHP
T – Gp.1a-----1340----15k----10k---11000----181----300’----60.8----2500BHP
T – Gp.2------1350----15k----10k----8000----134-----300’----59.7----2500BHP
T – Gp.3------1350----15k----10k---11000----234----350’----47.0----2900BHP
U – 1940-------640----12k----8k-----4050-----59-----200’----68.6------625BHP
U – LH---------655----12k----8k-----7500----113-----230’----66.4-----625BHP

US subs next.

Sorry Dili, this is War in the Pacific, so no Germans or Italians.

[Dili]

Sorry Dili, this is War in the Pacific, so no Germans or Italians.

Okay, no prob. thx about British.

[el cid again]

"Range/fuel" data is not meaningful UNLESS you ALSO give us the speed for the range. "Cruising speed" is arbitrary - it isn't some real thing - and if the same vessel cruises at a different speed - the range is different. Real range data always is attached to something like "at ten knots"

[el cid again]

Fuel ballast could be used from any submarine - and the amount could be changed too - so it is a bit of a funny number. What is no doubt given is a standard practice for some given vessel in some navy. This will penalize the vessels that have inherent long range and never did it - but could have done - and over rate the vessels that did do it - relative to them. Yet even in those cases the vessel could have carried still more fuel. It may be better practice not to use this data - everyone is rated for their fuel tanks - and everyone can extend range at critritical need. Note that a sub or ship in WITP never runs out of fuel - even when it does - because it can always move at 5 knots forever on zero fuel.

[JWE]

Okey dokey, here’s the US subs. Found some interesting framing displacement on some of them to make room for addl saddle tanks (the * citations). Once again, like the Brits, everything is normalized to 10k cruise speed (except for the waving appendage ‘U’ class)

S-18----------850-----14k----10k----4050--- 70----200’----57.7----21502 Gal----1200BHP Nelseco
S-18*--------850-----14k----10k-----8000---137----200’----58.4----41921 Gal----1200BHP Nelseco
S-42----------905-----15k----10k-----5000-- 77----200’----64.9----23411 Gal----1800BHP Busch
S-42*--------905-----15k----10k-----9000---145----200’----62.1----44350 Gal----1800BHP Busch
Barracuda---2000----18k----10k----10000--297----200’----33.6----90935 Gal----4500BHP Busch
Argonaut----3095----15k----10k-----8000-----------325’------------------------------2800BHP BE/MAN
Narwhal-----2770----17k----10k-----9500-----------325’------------------------------4700BHP BE/MAN
Dolphin-----1745----17k----10k-----4900(8820)----250’------------------------------3500BHP BE/MAN
Cachalot----1130----17k----10k----~10k----272----250’----36.7----83290 Gal----3070BHP BE/MAN
Porpoise----1331----19k----10k----~10k----295----250’----33.9----90452 Gal----5200BHP Winton
Shark--------1335----19k----10k----~10k----283----250’----35.3----86675 Gal----5200BHP Winton
Perch--------1352----19k----10k----~10k----303----250’----33.1----92801 Gal----5200BHP Winton
Salmon------1449----21k----10k----~11k----314----250’----35.0----96025 Gal----6140BHP HOR
Sargo--------1460----20k----10k----~12k----356----250’----34.9----109000 Gal---6140BHP Winton/GM
Seadragon---1460----20k----10k----~11k----314----250’----35.0----96025 Gal----6140BHP HOR
Tambor------1475----20k----10k----~11k----315----250’----34.9----96365 Gal
Gar-----------1475----20k----10k----~11k----315----250’----34.9----96365 Gal
Gato----------1550----20k----10k----~11k----315----300’----34.9----96400 Gal----6400BHP GM
Balao---------1546----21k----10k----~11k----317----400’----34.7----97140 Gal----6400BHP GM
Tench--------1582----21k----10k----~11k----318----400’----34.6----97420 Gal----6400BHP FM
Tench*-------1595----21k----10k----~14k----386----400’----36.3----118300 Gal----6400BHP FM

The gallon capacity is right off the shipyard measurements; some yards were allowed to dink with frame 37 and 43, so there will be a nominal disconnect between the design measurements between an Electric Boat boat and a Portsmouth boat, depending on whether Anstruther or Porcher was the BuShips Constructor.

Saddle tanks were pioneered in the Sargo class, but didn't really work out. They were tried again in the Tench, according to a Detroit Diesel design, didn't work out there either.

Fuel type for US & Brits is 'Blended Diesel'; beware, it is not 'Distillate Diesel' like the Japanese used. Japanese fuel had an 11% FOE reduction because of their lack of technical resources.

BTW, if you are a Naval Architect, check out the K factors for the fleet boats as a function of BHP - woof! GM and FM were building some wicked cool $hit.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

"Range/fuel" data is not meaningful UNLESS you ALSO give us the speed for the range. "Cruising speed" is arbitrary - it isn't some real thing - and if the same vessel cruises at a different speed - the range is different. Real range data always is attached to something like "at ten knots"

He already stipulated 10 knots cruising speed in the first post.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

What means LH with U class?

[Dixie]

ORIGINAL: JWE


Okey dokey, Monter. Here’s what I got for the Brits. Had to convert from tons to tonnes and from imperial to american gallons – why do the Brits always have to do everything different?

Because we can [:D] And because we're British [;)]

According to British Submarines 1939-45 (by Innes McCartney, Osprey Publishing) the U's had a 3,800 mile range @ 10kts (39 tonnes of fuel) for the Group I and early IIs and 5,000 miles (56 tonnes) for the 40-41 Group IIs and Group III boats.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

What's difference between tonns and tonnes?

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos
What means LH with U class?
What's difference between tonns and tonnes?

LH is 'long hull'. Later 1941 boats were stretched about 5' in the stern to make them more streamlined. BTW, should mention that the U-LH is an amalgam of a few different variations. Some of the later boats were built with a better grade of steel, and partially welded, so they were rated at an additional 14 – 15 psi. Some had additional fuel tankage, but this could easily be refitting of a ballast set for fuel feed and return conduits in the “way slightly” more spacious pressure hull.

A ton is the good old english long ton = 2240 pounds
a tonne is what the Brits called the metric ton = 2204.6 pounds

Ciao. John

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Dixie
Because we can [:D] And because we're British [;)]

According to British Submarines 1939-45 (by Innes McCartney, Osprey Publishing) the U's had a 3,800 mile range @ 10kts (39 tonnes of fuel) for the Group I and early IIs and 5,000 miles (56 tonnes) for the 40-41 Group IIs and Group III boats.

Yes, but you call it by a French! name, avoirdupois .. HA! So there! I’ve run circles around you logically. BTW what’s the penguin doing on top of your telly?

I used McCartney & Bryan as one of the sources for the S, T and U classes. Most of the time he was right in the middle of the pack, so most of the time the data will agree with his very closely. Other times he was the outlier, so the data will be a bit different from his, but not by much. You’ll definitely still be within the cricket pitch if you use his raw data instead.

Don’t know why I didn’t include the U - 1936 group. Thanks for the addendum on those.

Ciao. John

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: el cid again

"Range/fuel" data is not meaningful UNLESS you ALSO give us the speed for the range. "Cruising speed" is arbitrary - it isn't some real thing - and if the same vessel cruises at a different speed - the range is different. Real range data always is attached to something like "at ten knots"

He already stipulated 10 knots cruising speed in the first post.

He seemed to say you have to normalize it - which I interpreted to mean he didn't do that.

He also said that Japanese subs had the same K factor - but that is suspect. For steamships Japanese engines were notoriously less fuel efficient - and we know the diesels had problems - at least on the reliability side. It seems likely they would also be less efficient. They produced licenced versions of European engines - but apparently less than perfect copies.

Japanese records are bloody awful - not only substantially destroyed - but also contradictory: no less than ten submarines were build at two different shipyards IF you believe the records (this is reported in a widely used British reference too - Conways). But except for the C(4) design there is no doubt about what the engines were for all classes. And in general - the waterline length and power available should create a very similar fuel consumption requirement for most submarines - because in that era all were designed for surface travel. Only post war submarines are designed with hulls that would be poor for surface cruising - not long enough to be efficient - because underwater what matters is total wetted surface.

[Dixie]

ORIGINAL: JWE

Yes, but you call it by a French! name, avoirdupois .. HA! So there! I’ve run circles around you logically. BTW what’s the penguin doing on top of your telly?

Curses! Foiled again [:D] As to your other point, what penguin? [&:] Now I'm confused (no change there...), is this some sort of in-joke that I don't understand? [&:][:D]

I used McCartney & Bryan as one of the sources for the S, T and U classes. Most of the time he was right in the middle of the pack, so most of the time the data will agree with his very closely. Other times he was the outlier, so the data will be a bit different from his, but not by much. You’ll definitely still be within the cricket pitch if you use his raw data instead.

Don’t know why I didn’t include the U - 1936 group. Thanks for the addendum on those.

Ciao. John

I wasn't making any point about your data sources, BTW. Just posting some values so that there would be an approximate comparisson for those who were interested.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Dixie
Curses! Foiled again [:D] As to your other point, what penguin? [&:] Now I'm confused (no change there...), is this some sort of in-joke that I don't understand? [&:][:D]

Monty Python

Just posting some values so that there would be an approximate comparisson for those who were interested.

And that is exactly how real research is done. Good on you.

John

[JWE]

Woof! Finally tracked down the IJN records of their sub tech specs; mind boggling. Ya’ll will have to wait a few days for the Japanese subs, till this gets digested.

The RAN Historical Section made it happen – they sent me a copy of a 1997 letter, on the same subject, from Capt. T. Yamamoto, JMSDF, Defence Attache, Embassy of Japan, to Cmdr. M. J. Gregory (RAN, R’td) detailing confiscation of records and documents by allied forces after the war. BTW, Gregory was a newly minted Sub-Lieutenant, who joined HMAS Canberra just in time for Savo.

Okey dokey, commo the Japanese Naval Attache in Washington, with a copy of the letter, and voila! Not only that, but there are compilations from the records and several monographs based on the records, done by serving officers; Naval Historical Section was taking a cue from what the Army was doing with the German Generals, post war.

Arranged for interlibrary loan from Monterey to Carney Mainside, at Pendleton. The NWC records collection is “vast” and only available in the Secure Collection reading room .. ah, well .. maybe someday.

And, here they are.

Dudley Knox Library, Naval Post Graduate School, Monterey CA.
NWC Main Library, Naval War College, Hewett Hall, Newport RI
Naval Historical Collection, Naval War College, Mahan Hall, Newport RI

Record Compilations
Fukuda, Ichiro, “Sensuikan”, Tokyo: Showa17-18 [1942-1943], 2 v. (author of “Shashin Nihon Gunkanshi”, (Konnichi no wadaisha))

Fukunaga, Kyosuke, “Sensuikan”, Tokyo: Arusu, Showa 16 [1941] (Showa 18 [1943] printing). (Arusu bunka sosho; 6).

Kaigunsho Kuroshiokai, “Kesshi senko juyushi”, Showa 18 [1943].

Monographs
Hori, Motoyoshi, “Sensuikan”, 1959. (head of Kure NSY Shipbuilding section during the war)

John