ASW prior to 1914

[nastle]

what kind of measures were taken to protect against submarines before ww1 ? By any navy RN , germans , italians etc 

 

thanks 

[KizmeRD]

You’ve asked such a broad question, and it’s slightly outside the timeframe of this forum. However, since none of the countries mentioned were actually at war, the threat posed from this new arm of naval warfare had yet to be fully appreciated. Many senior naval officers were more acutely aware of the limitations of early submarines, in terms of their limited endurance, inability to stay submerged for any length of time, low speed and inherent unreliability, and nobody had really yet figured out the tactics of how best they could and should be used (given their operational vulnerabilities, were they simply a means of providing local defence for naval ports and anchorages?)

Early ASW tactics depended therefore on denying submarines the ability to operate in areas where they were not welcome. Creating physical barriers such as boom defence, chain nets, and laying static underwater minefields. A surface patrol ship would often hope to surprise a hostile submarine on the surface and ram it, or sink it at close range with ship’s guns. If one was reported to have been operating in a particular location, then surface ships would head out to that position and generally wait around a short time for it to come to the surface, before engaging it.

MB

Edited 21 October , 2021 by KizmeRD

[The Treasurer]

The British also had the towed sweep, a 40lb guncotton charge on the end of an electrified cable, supported by a hydroplane. Idea was to foul the submarine, then detonate the charge. Had been in service since 1910. Not very effective and never sank anything. Developed into the slightly more effective modified sweep early in the war. Even in the very earliest war patrols British submariners recorded worries when they heard any kind of noises against the hull, thinking this could be an explosive sweep. Psychology is a weapon in itself.

Edited 21 October , 2021 by The Treasurer

[nastle]

5 hours ago, KizmeRD said:

You’ve asked such a broad question, and it’s slightly outside the timeframe of this forum. However, since none of the countries mentioned were actually at war, the threat posed from this new arm of naval warfare had yet to be fully appreciated. Many senior naval officers were more acutely aware of the limitations of early submarines, in terms of their limited endurance, inability to stay submerged for any length of time, low speed and inherent unreliability, and nobody had really yet figured out the tactics of how best they could and should be used (given their operational vulnerabilities, were they simply a means of providing local defence for naval ports and anchorages?)

Early ASW tactics depended therefore on denying submarines the ability to operate in areas where they were not welcome. Creating physical barriers such as boom defence, chain nets, and laying static underwater minefields. A surface patrol ship would often hope to surprise a hostile submarine on the surface and ram it, or sink it at close range with ship’s guns. If one was reported to have been operating in a particular location, then surface ships would head out to that position and generally wait around a short time for it to come to the surface, before engaging it.

MB

Thanks for the detailed reply 

what was the time a average british french or italian submarine could stay submerged ? How long does surface ships have to wait before the sub need to surface ?

3 hours ago, The Treasurer said:

The British also had the towed sweep, a 40lb guncotton charge on the end of an electrified cable, supported by a hydroplane. Idea was to foul the submarine, then detonate the charge. Had been in service since 1910. Not very effective and never sank anything. Developed into the slightly more effective modified sweep early in the war. Even in the very earliest war patrols British submariners recorded worries when they heard any kind of noises against the hull, thinking this could be an explosive sweep. Psychology is a weapon in itself.

Germans and AUstrians never developed anything similar ?

[KizmeRD]

Compton-Hall suggests that British WW1 era submarines seldom ever stayed submerged more that eight hours (lying inactive on the bottom). I assume he must have had in mind D or E class class boats. Pre-war designs would have been more limited as they had petrol engines which required regular venting in order to clear intoxicating fumes.

The ASW hydrophone was pretty ineffective, but it did eventually contribute to a kill in 1916.

MB

PS One of the five pre-war Holland class boats would normally stay submerged no more than three hours. Underwater, operating at 5 knots on electric propulsion, the batteries would discharge after about an hour.

Seeing your level of interest I recommend Richard Compton-Halls ‘Submarine Boats - the beginnings of underwater warfare’. Available to read online via Internet Archive https://archive.org/details/submarineboats00rich. This comprehensively covers the early development of all country’s submarines.

Edited 21 October , 2021 by KizmeRD
PS added

[The Treasurer]

7 hours ago, nastle said:

Thanks for the detailed reply 

what was the time a average british french or italian submarine could stay submerged ? How long does surface ships have to wait before the sub need to surface ?

Germans and AUstrians never developed anything similar ?

All of the combatants developed a wide range of devices once the war was underway. In addition to Compton-Hall's book already suggested, if you want to know more, Dwight Messimers's Find and Destroy: Antisubmarine warfare in World War One, gives a good account of the development and use of ASW during the war and the weapons used.

[nastle]

Thank you gentlemen for the recommendations , very grateful