Childhood U-Boat Fascination:

Inspector #20

Ambassador of Tone
Fallen Star
Country flag
As a kid, I built models of U-Boats and I read everything that I could on the subject. I joined the Navy, largely due to a fascination with submarines.

Over the years, I became friends with three famous U-Boat commanders - Erich Topp, Otto Kretchsmer and Rheinhard Hardegen. I would write to them and chat with them by phone. Hardegen was the last to pass in July, 2018.

We discussed many U-Boat tactics that these men developed, but were not able to implement. I took concise notes and began to experiment with their tactics while playing Silent Hunter IV at 100% realism.

Sometimes, I play this U-Boat simulator when taking a break from music.

One tactic I employed, frequently used by Hardegen, was to approach targets "decks awash" which presents a very low visual profile to an adversary. Since targeting (at the time) was based on a visual observation of the target's size, a smaller profile gives the llusion of a target being much further away that it really is, and subsequent shots fired will strike far away from the U-Boat. Eventually, the observers will be able to 'walk' gunfire onto the U-Boat, so this is a shoot and move scenario.

20220101_180614.jpg

This allows the U-Boat to engage an enemy, such as a Destroyer - with its deck gun.

I was able to sink this Destroyer with my deck gun, by hiding around a shot-up, disabled and abandoned freighter.

20210531_185108.jpg

It took a while to sink, but it eventually succumbed to my deck gun fire.

20210531_160624.jpg

Other techniques involved diving to the very limits of the boat's design limitations.

Hardegen, Topp and Kretchsmer knew the U-boat was capable of at least 1,000 feet. In 1943, U-175 under Heinrich Bruns dove to an incredible 320 meters and Harald Busch took U-331 to 260 meters and survived.

I've used thermal layers and diving deep to penetrate an escort 'shield' and destroy targets undetected, despite as many as 7 Destroyer escorts.

20220103_190307.jpg

Playing at 100% realism means if your boat is destroyed, all progress is lost. My boat has been badly damaged a few times, requiring an insane 12 hours of real-time navigation (you can give a course and commands to the virtual crew to carry out while you are out of play) to get the badly damaged U-Boat back to Penang.

In one case, my boat was so badly damaged - off Christmas Island - that we could not submerge. We had to limp back to Penang on one diesel engine. Thankfully, a rain storm provided cover and the boat began flooding so badly that we successfully beached it at Penang with no crewmen lost.

We were given a new U-Boat as ours was not repairable.

So, using tactics developed by these commanders, many of which were never approved by Berlin for implementation, I racked up 770,000 GRT in only 4 years of service.

With 6 months of the war left in play, I'm shooting for 1,000,000 GRT.

20210709_010434.jpg
 
Last edited:
Part of my career was working on the Ohio class subs and their respective test launches. I could watch the launches live from a video feed from our Launch Area Support Ship (the LASS), piped back to Anaheim. I worked with many silent service men.



 
I think that's one of the games a friend plays. He always picks the German navy. His U-Boats, cruisers, and battleships have sunk the entire English and American navies whenever he plays. He loves sinking the Hood with the Bismarck. I think he just does it to amuse himself at times.
 
I think that's one of the games a friend plays. He always picks the German navy. His U-Boats, cruisers, and battleships have sunk the entire English and American navies whenever he plays. He loves sinking the Hood with the Bismarck. I think he just does it to amuse himself at times.

Somehow, all the calculations and strategies are relaxing for me.
 
Part of my career was working on the Ohio class subs and their respective test launches. I could watch the launches live from a video feed from our Launch Area Support Ship (the LASS), piped back to Anaheim. I worked with many silent service men.



USS West Virginia: now you're talking! ;)

Actually, its one of the more sophisticated in the Ohio-Class Sub group and the 11th one constructed. Unfortunately like all of the Ohio class, it is becoming increasingly aged and is set for replacement in its primary role as a SSBN ( nuclear powered/nuclear capable sub) by the upcoming Columbia Class, which should be entering service by 2031. The fate of the Ohio class will be one sub retired each year as each new Columbia enters service.

Personally, from what is known of the Columbia Class, i think its an overinflated piece of :poo: as its cost is $4Billion per unit vs the Ohio class cost of $2Billion per unit. Its far more advanced in its guidance and propulsion systems but its size is just slightly larger than the Ohio Class and yet it will carry 16 of the UGM-113A Trident II/D5 missiles vs the current Ohio armament of 24 UGM-113A Trident II/D5s ( reducing to 20 in 2023 under the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty or NSART).

Since the Trident II typically has the capability of up to 14 of the 90-kiloton W67-1 warheads ( reduced to 4 under the NSART), that means the Columbia sub will have a grand total of 64 warheads on board against the Ohio's 80 warheads. This number expands substantially if the NSART is voided, allowing a maximum of 224 warheads for the Columbia vs 280 warheads on the Ohio: big difference.

Of course, the life of the Trident II has been extended to 2040, so perhaps a more advanced SLBM will be in service and offset the difference in time. Until then, there will be at least an 8-10 year window where the US is lesser armed
 
USS West Virginia: now you're talking! ;)

Actually, its one of the more sophisticated in the Ohio-Class Sub group and the 11th one constructed. Unfortunately like all of the Ohio class, it is becoming increasingly aged and is set for replacement in its primary role as a SSBN ( nuclear powered/nuclear capable sub) by the upcoming Columbia Class, which should be entering service by 2031. The fate of the Ohio class will be one sub retired each year as each new Columbia enters service.

Personally, from what is known of the Columbia Class, i think its an overinflated piece of :poo: as its cost is $4Billion per unit vs the Ohio class cost of $2Billion per unit. Its far more advanced in its guidance and propulsion systems but its size is just slightly larger than the Ohio Class and yet it will carry 16 of the UGM-113A Trident II/D5 missiles vs the current Ohio armament of 24 UGM-113A Trident II/D5s ( reducing to 20 in 2023 under the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty or NSART).

Since the Trident II typically has the capability of up to 14 of the 90-kiloton W67-1 warheads ( reduced to 4 under the NSART), that means the Columbia sub will have a grand total of 64 warheads on board against the Ohio's 80 warheads. This number expands substantially if the NSART is voided, allowing a maximum of 224 warheads for the Columbia vs 280 warheads on the Ohio: big difference.

Of course, the life of the Trident II has been extended to 2040, so perhaps a more advanced SLBM will be in service and offset the difference in time. Until then, there will be at least an 8-10 year window where the US is lesser armed
The firm I retired from is a prime contractor for the Columbia class too. We have been working on that for years and I can't say anything about it. There is also a new missile on the drawing board.

From Wikipedia (so I don't get in trouble):

The W88 is a United States thermonuclear warhead, with an estimated yield of 475 kilotonnes of TNT (1,990 TJ),[2] and is small enough to fit on MIRVed missiles. The W88 was designed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in the 1970s. In 1999, the director of Los Alamos who had presided over its design described it as "the most advanced U.S. nuclear warhead".[4] As of 2021, the latest version is called the W88 ALT 370,[5] the first unit of which came into production on 1 July, 2021, after 11 years of development.[6] The Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) can be armed with up to eight W88 warheads (Mark 5 re-entry vehicle) or twelve 100 kt W76 warheads (Mark 4 re-entry vehicle), but it is limited to eight warheads under the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty.

There's a lot of brave and talented people that help keep us safe and out of harms way.
 
I sometimes miss my time in the Navy.

"Chief-Select Herndon!"

"Aye, Senior Chief."

"Nobody sets foot on this boat. Use of deadly force is expressly authorized. Happy Sunday..."

"Enjoy your weekend, Senior Chief..."

Even a bonehead like me could understand those directions...
 
The firm I retired from is a prime contractor for the Columbia class too. We have been working on that for years and I can't say anything about it. There is also a new missile on the drawing board.

From Wikipedia (so I don't get in trouble):

The W88 is a United States thermonuclear warhead, with an estimated yield of 475 kilotonnes of TNT (1,990 TJ),[2] and is small enough to fit on MIRVed missiles. The W88 was designed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in the 1970s. In 1999, the director of Los Alamos who had presided over its design described it as "the most advanced U.S. nuclear warhead".[4] As of 2021, the latest version is called the W88 ALT 370,[5] the first unit of which came into production on 1 July, 2021, after 11 years of development.[6] The Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) can be armed with up to eight W88 warheads (Mark 5 re-entry vehicle) or twelve 100 kt W76 warheads (Mark 4 re-entry vehicle), but it is limited to eight warheads under the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty.

There's a lot of brave and talented people that help keep us safe and out of harms way.
I'll respect your clearances and NDAs on the matter, so obviously I'm not gonna hound you with questions that clearly can't be answered lol

I have a retired friend from the USAF who was in Intelligence with the 100th Missile Defense Brigade. Despite knowing the guy since my teenage years and going to concerts with him: if there was something he could not discuss, he would not discuss, period lol guy even met his wife in the same unit and due to rank and clearances, there were topics they couldnt discuss with each other.

But on the Columbia, i totally get the need for a new Sub class, because the life expectancy of those are far worse than aircraft due to pressure expansions, saltwater corrosion and then the nuclear reactors on board. It just seems a bit odd that if its going to cost twice as much and yet carry lesser armaments. But then again, as mentioned: if a newer missile hits the scene, it could make up for the lack of numbers in accuracy and destruction.

Kind of goes with early warhead technologies where a country would arm the biggest possible weapon ( be it a bomb or a warhead) to make up for poor guidance and accuracy. When things got more advanced, smaller precision weapons took over to cut down collateral damages
 
In 2017, we proposed a deal with the owner's of the non-diving submarine used in the production of U-571, to donate it to our foundation. Long Beach city government agreed to afford us a slip (the replica is 1:1 scale, 200 feet long, 250 tons) in exchange for using it as a floating museum.

During the course of our negotiations, we obtained a lot of behind the scene photos of the build. It was built by a shipyard in Malta and launched on 09/23/1998. All the filming was conducted in and around Malta. It has been berthed in Malta ever since.

DeLuarentis Productions tried to sell the seaworthy, self propelled prop in 2001 for $100,000 unsuccessfully.

The only fly in the ointment was we needed to raise enough money to get it ferried to California, and that's where we fell short.

So, my son's and I came very, very close to owning this U-Boat.

sub-under-construction-1.jpg

sub-in-construction-3.jpg

atsea.jpg

2810715.jpg
 
Last edited:
Back
Top