PDA

View Full Version : Where's the Head? I gotta go, real bad!!!



HeavyRabbit
01-16-2010, 12:57 PM
I can't seem to find the Head on this darn VIIB.
There's gotta be a least one, somewhere. Otherwise, I will just have to wait until we surface. LOL.

Anyway, I wonder how many Heads there were on those subs, and where were they located?

With a crew of 51, my guess is that there were maybe two?

One off of the bow quarters, and one off of the stern quarters, with maybe one more off of the control room?

Was there at least one just for the officers, maybe?

Anyone know?

I remember a scene in one of my fave war movies: "DAS BOOT", where they show the officer coming out of one, which looked very small, and which had at least a toilet and a sink. There was a red light over the door, or something, to show whether it was occupied, or not.

Also, I assume the shower, or showers, were separate. How many of those were there? I remember reading or hearing something about a time limit on usage, which would make sense. I can't imagine they used sea water for the showers, so did they have a supply of fresh water in storage tanks from when they shipped out? That doesn't make sense to me. Did they have a desalinization processor?

Please, please, let me know as soon as possible.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

HeavyRabbit
01-16-2010, 12:57 PM
I can't seem to find the Head on this darn VIIB.
There's gotta be a least one, somewhere. Otherwise, I will just have to wait until we surface. LOL.

Anyway, I wonder how many Heads there were on those subs, and where were they located?

With a crew of 51, my guess is that there were maybe two?

One off of the bow quarters, and one off of the stern quarters, with maybe one more off of the control room?

Was there at least one just for the officers, maybe?

Anyone know?

I remember a scene in one of my fave war movies: "DAS BOOT", where they show the officer coming out of one, which looked very small, and which had at least a toilet and a sink. There was a red light over the door, or something, to show whether it was occupied, or not.

Also, I assume the shower, or showers, were separate. How many of those were there? I remember reading or hearing something about a time limit on usage, which would make sense. I can't imagine they used sea water for the showers, so did they have a supply of fresh water in storage tanks from when they shipped out? That doesn't make sense to me. Did they have a desalinization processor?

Please, please, let me know as soon as possible.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

PhantomKira
01-16-2010, 08:54 PM
The number of heads on a type VII was two. At the start of a patrol, they'd have one filled to the gills with foodstuffs, so there would only be one available until they ate the food in the other.

As for exact locations, I can't tell you as I don't own any diagrams of the boats. Generally, though, one forward and one aft.

Showers? What are those? Most of the men didn't wash during a patrol. Fresh water was far too precious a resource to be wasted on washing. As one character in Bill Mauldin's cartoons said when he found Joe (or Willy) brushing his teeth: "I don't haul no water up no crummy mountain fer luxuries."

M0ttie
01-17-2010, 01:56 PM
Remember watching a prog on discovery - life on a russian ballistic sub, cant remember type though.
IIRC they had a pool - not big but the sort you find in sports stadium changing room, about 10x10ft and even a smoking room.
Thing that stuck out for me was the condition of the sub. Ours you see are all nicely painted grey and metalwork 'clean', this was flakey paint and rust everywhere.........and that was inside!.

VONHARRIS
01-18-2010, 02:30 AM
For MOttie: Judging by the things you describe it was probably a Typhoon class SSBN, the only one big enough for this.

M0ttie
01-18-2010, 02:33 PM
Hi Von Harris,
I think your right and it was a typhoon.
What a mess though, it was really dirty, rusty and in a right state.

HeavyRabbit
01-19-2010, 12:55 PM
Fifty or so sailors in cramped quarters for weeks without anyone bathing?

EWWW!!!

Aside from the fact that I am claustrophic to begin with, and that I am very sensitive to a really good supply of fresh air, I just don't see how most men could stand those conditions for very long, and still be able to perform their duties adequately. That assignment would certainly not be ideal for me. Hats off to those who could deal with it, and not go loopy after a short time.

HeavyRabbit
01-23-2010, 02:26 PM
Hey:

I was just studying the different types of U-Boats on: "Uboat.net", and it turns out that the Type XXI electro boat actually had a freezer for food, a wash basin, and even a SHOWER.

How do you like that?

Anyway, there was no deck gun.

No deck gun?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

It also appears that it went faster underwater than on the surface: 15.6 knots surfaced, and
17.2 knots submerged.

17.2 knots submerged?

That seems incredibly fast submerged, at least in relation to what I am used to in my VIIB.

The Type XXI also had a max depth of 919 feet, as opposed to the VIIB's 722 feet.

PhantomKira
01-23-2010, 03:26 PM
This is what's known as "progress"!

Yes, there were certainly many creature comforts in the XXI that were not available on older types. The freezer made life much better for the crews, as they could enjoy perishable foods much longer than on other boats. Incidentally, it was the largest submarine type ever produced by Germany. Today's U-boats are smaller. They put all that extra space to good use (mostly with the extra batteries).

No deck gun indeed! Consider how well armed the Allies anti-submarine units were. There was almost zero opportunity to use a deck gun. If a boat surfaced and tried, it got blown out of the water by anybody who had a weapon (which was everybody, including the illegally armed merchants).

Take a look at the late war Type VIIs and XIs. They took the deck guns off. They were that certain there would be no opportunity to use them. Also, it cut down on drag, meaning a tiny bit of increase in underwater speed.

If you compare the type VII to the type XXI, you'll probably notice that the XXI is far sleeker than the VII. There was very little sticking out to create drag on the XXI like deck guns, flat faced conning towers, periscopes, schnorchels, and bulging saddle tanks, all of which were out in the open on the type VII. The direct result of this was less resistance to the water flowing around the type XXI. Add to the greatly reduced resistance a greatly increased battery supply (somewhere around 3x that of the VII), and far more powerful electric motors, and you get the increase in underwater speed and endurance.

Wolf Pack by Gordon Williamson states that the type XXI could stay under for up to 75 hours and run 285 nautical miles submerged (p.59).

It wasn't just a new design, but rather the next step (and a huge one) in the evolution of the submarine.

Kaleun1961
01-23-2010, 03:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If a boat surfaced and tried, it got blown out of the water by anybody who had a weapon (which was everybody, including the illegally armed merchants). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only a U-boat man could say that with a straight face. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

PhantomKira
01-23-2010, 05:09 PM
Who, me? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

HeavyRabbit
01-23-2010, 05:53 PM
In all seriousness Kaleun1961:

Are you suggesting that an armed merchant, in time of war, which is not hiding their armament, as per WWII, like the Liberty Ship, and which much to my surprise, started firing on me, as I attacked it on the surface in 1941, was, or is in violation of International Maritime Law, or the Geneva Convention?

Also, I have studied up on the German Merchant Raiders, a bit, who would pose as neutral merchants, but who would show themselves as the deadly attackers they really were, once they exposed their armament.

That, I assume, would be totally against Maritime Law.

IMHO: two entirely different ways of doing business, so to speak.

But, a merchant, who under duress, would openly arm themselves accordingly, and display their colors, doesn't make sense to me that it would be illegal, at all.

Just curious.

HeavyRabbit
01-23-2010, 06:02 PM
Wait, wait:

I now see that the offender, LOL, is Phantom, not you.

Like Gilda Radner once said: "Never Mind".

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

PhantomKira
01-23-2010, 08:52 PM
Now wait just a minute here!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Me? Offend anyone? Let alone a poor little ol' defenseless merchant ship? Come on, now! Seriously??

The specifics I don't know, but even today, merchantmen are legally not allowed to bear arms. Think of the guys plying the pirate infested waters of the world today, and the law states that they aren't allowed to have so much as a popgun to defend themselves with. Many, of course, carry (t)rusty old AK-47s, hidden away somewhere - just in case. Not that it would do them much good in the case of pirate attack, but that's another story.

What you're asking about was (still is?) something called the The Hague Convention Prize Laws. This required that before a ship was sunk all kinds of things had to be made sure of, all with the aim of removing the submarine's primary ally, stealth/invisibility. Guess who pushed this, big time? That's right, the British!

Under these laws, it was not legal to sink a ship:

"...without having first placed passengers, crew, and ship's papers in a place of safety. For this purpose, the ships boats are not regarded as a place of safety unless the safety of the passengers and crew is assured in existing seas and weather conditions, by the proximity of land, or the presence of another merchant vessel which is in a position to take them on board." - from the Prize Laws as printed in The Battle of the Atlantic by Terry Hughes and John Costello p.4.

Now if that isn't blatant anti-U boat, I don't know what is! Discrimination I say! No fair!

To do so required a submarine to surface, come along side, assist with debarkation into lifeboats, make sure ships papers were safe (probably requiring a boarding action, for which submarines didn't have the personnel, nor the weapons), and assure the safety of anyone and everyone in the process. Hardly possible for a small ship with almost no positive buoyancy against the large and huge (in comparison) target ships. It was all too easy for someone on the big ship to have an "oops", and ram and sink the submarine (sorry about that!). Therefore, the idea that this would be taken seriously was ludicrous.

So far as international law and maritime law, being under someone else's flag is semi-legal, so long as you don't attack anyone while flying any flag but your own. So the British and American Q-ships, and Auxiliary Cruisers, such as the famous German Pinguin , were perfectly (well, almost) within their rights to fly someone else's flag and get really close to their target; just so long as they dropped the guise and raised their national standard before opening fire.

The issue was that once the ship showed hostile intent, it was to be treated as the combatant it was. These ships were all crewed by military personnel, so the issue of civilian designation only came into account with the armed merchantmen in convoy or otherwise.

Was it technically illegal for these merchant ships to be carrying the deck guns, Navy gun crews, etc that they were carrying while in convoy and still call themselves merchantmen? Absolutely. The fact that they were doing so made them belligerents, regardless of who crewed the ship for operational purposes, civil or military.