View Full Version : World War I German Submarine.... R/C Model Question sorta....

08-11-2007, 11:27 AM
Hi all! Well first things first, I came across this submarine while looking for plans of German World War I warships.

WARNING: BIG IMAGE!!! Well not on THAT page, but the link to the image... it's huge!


Now, I want more plans of her, but I can't find any, but that plan is enough for my needs - if I go ahead!

Some of you may know that I build radio-controlled models. I have several lol. 5 WW2 Tanks (Various types of Tigers), HMS Verulam a UK Destroyer, IJN Musashi, a Flower Corvette and I am building a WW1/WW2 UK Coastal Monitor... HMS Saracen (or similar) for those of you who read Douglas Reeman.

Now I am getting on with her, and after I have completed the hull (Props/engines going in at the moment, then just decks to go) I will be moving her aside and starting on a new hull - building from scratch while I do the Saracen's superstructure.

I cannot decide though... Should I make that submarine? I want to build a WW1 ship, and I just love those 6" guns and even better.... 10 - yes 10 torpedo tubes! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

4 bow, 2 midships, 4 stern. I had to count 3 times to find them all!

If I do build her then do I make her diving, if so, static or dynamic?

Static: You use pumps and the like - she dives like a real sub. (Very complicated!)

Dynamic: There is a speed that once you hit it, you dive. If you stop while dived, the submarine is boyant so floats up. (Easier)

Also what scale? I make that submarine 110 meters long (The Type XXI was 76.7 meters).

Let's put it this way, the Robbe Tyle XXI is a shade over 6' long at 1:40 scale. If I build THAT at 1:40 she is a sliver over 9' long! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

I need thoughts here! I don't want to do something stupid! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Mind you, seeing something THAT large... It is longer than the 6' model of HMS Vanguard (1946) my club runs! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

urm the options I am mulling over for my next hull are:

That submarine

SMS Goben

SMS Bayern

SMS Defflinger/Lutzow (Same Class)

SMS Yorck

So my question is this:

Should I build that Kewl submarine design, and if so do I make her diving, and what is your preference - dynamic or static - I have NO experience building subs - , or should I go for a Battleship/Cruiser (Probably the SMS Yorck or SMS Defflinger) - I have experience with surface ships, but not pyrotechnic guns which she will have), and what scale - ie what overall size should I have her?

I think that makes sense lol. I'll now open the floor to your thoughts?

Thanx in Advance folks!

08-11-2007, 01:11 PM
I vote for the submarine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Quoting JFK : ".....not because it is easy but because it is hard" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

08-11-2007, 02:31 PM
1/72nd scale seems to be the 'standard' that the big companies have gone for and it could work out better for you in the long run, with fitting extras. Revell's Type VII and Gato models are really very good.

I've not found anything from WWI on the net.

However, for really BIG models, there's a good site HERE (http://www.otwdesigns.com/Type7/type7.htm)dedicated to Type VII and there are other types on the site as well. Some at 1/32nd, some at 1/48th.

08-12-2007, 02:22 AM
I'd build the Mackensen- looks a bit like the Yorck but with two funnels. Together with HMS Tiger the loveliest capital ship of the Great War.
If the U-Boot had been built, by the way, it may well have been as "successful" as the Royal Navy's "K" class http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

08-12-2007, 02:28 AM
My vote is for the sub.

Was it only planned, or did Germany actually start construction of this during WW1?

08-12-2007, 03:57 AM
As far as I can tell, it was only planned AtlantikEel, and GerritJ9, it may not have been as sucessful as out "K" Class, the k's were designed to keep up with the battlefleet, hence the steam engines. This sub is a long range raider as far as I can tell, so she would probably have been a "diesels on the surface - but fast, hence the large engines room & funnel" and then slow submerge to torpedo warship targets - no need for a quick dive (one hopes!)

My thoughts anywho. I am probably wrong!

08-12-2007, 05:46 AM
The drawing clearly shows steam propulsion: boilers ("Kessel"), turbines ("Turbinen") and condensers ("Kondensator") in the engine spaces, plus other typical steam propulsion items. Interestingly, also a single reduction gear set for the turbines- most turbine installations were direct drive at the time. There are also two 1200 hp diesel engines, but these drive generators and are not coupled to the shafts- though they could power the electric motors for cruising (diesel-electric drive) as well as charge the batteries. The main electric motors are 1300 hp each, but there is no mention of turbine hp.
The drawing is dated July 5th 1918. "60 Jahre deutsche U-Boote" gives some further details of type UD1 "Ambtsentwurf UK50/1917 aus Projekt 47" with a surface displacement of 3800 tons, submerged 4500 tons, 125 metres length, power surfaced/submerged 24000/3800 hp, speed 25/9.5 knots, diving depth 75 metres. Armament details, however, don't match those on the drawing. "Geschichte des deutschen U-Bootbaus" gives somewhat different details concerning the diesel generators: two of 450 hp each, main electric motors 1900 hp each. Turbine power, at four turbines of 6000 hp each, matches the details in "60 Jahre deutsche U-Boote".

08-12-2007, 12:01 PM
GerritJ9, where did you find that info? I would be intrested in reading it - if it is in English that is! If it is German, that is probably why I never found it! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


08-13-2007, 02:11 AM
Some of the info supplied above (my first paragraph) can be deduced from examining the drawing itself: it can be blown up to a certain extent. All markings are in German, though, so you have to be fairly fluent in that language. It also helps if you have an engineering background.
The two books I mentioned are both in German and I have no idea if they were ever translated. They certainly deserve to be!The full ordering info is:

1) 60 Jahre deutsche U-Boote
Author: Bodo Herzog
Publisher: J.F. Lehmanns Verlag, München
No ISBN, my copy is dated 1968- book is probably long out of print so probably only available from second-hand bookshops.

2) Geschichte des deutschen U-Bootbaus
Author: Eberhard Rössler
Publisher: J.F. Lehmanns Verlag, München.
ISBN: 3-469-00507-9
Published in 1975 so probably also only available in second-hand bookshops.

The second book gives some more details about the engineering design. All other steam-powered submarines (R.N.'s "K" class included) had two major disadvantages: latent heat in the boilers made them very hot when submerged, and they also needed very large openings for the air intakes and flue gases- which have to be closed to submerge. This made them slow divers and I initially assumed this one would be no different. The second book, however, mentions that the Kaiserliche Marine solved both problems by placing the boilers OUTSIDE the pressure hull in free-flooding spaces. This would require only the closing of the watertight doors to the boiler rooms plus some shut-off valves on the pressure hull for steam, feed water and fuel- much quicker to close! Each boiler room has a flooding grating in the floor (marked "Flut-Öffnung" in the drawing), the air in the compartment was probably vented through the funnel.
It was always assumed that boilers would explode when subjected to cold sea water, but coincidentally, the sinking of a steam-powered launch with a water-tube boiler indicated that the boiler would NOT explode- a discovery which made the design feasible. The boiler design was patented by Baumeister Schäfer and Ing. H. Wölke.
One U-Boot of this type was ordered from the Kaiserliche Werft Kiel in February 1918 as UD-1, but it is not known whether any progress was made with actual construction.
The design does not solve the third disadvantage of steam propulsion, however- its huge fuel consumption rate compared to diesels. For this reason, I doubt whether UD-1 would have been very successful as a long-range boat.