RAN retains the 2 x O class SS for WW2 - Submarines - Warships1 and NavWeaps Discussion Boards - Warships1 and NavWeaps Discussion Boards - Message Board - Yuku

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

RAN retains the 2 x O class SS for WW2

Author	Comment
sons of anzac	RAN retains the 2 x O class SS for WW2	Lead	[-]
Posts: 54 (20-May-2008 04:29:37) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I fthe RAN had retained the 2 x O class submarines - Oxley and Otway- rather than return them to the RN because of the depression- how would they have fared in the Pacific theatre against Japan? How did their design fair during war operations in the Mediterranean and Atlantic? I'm not familiar if any operated in the Pacific - Indian Ocean theatres but it would be interesting if there is any information out there on how they performed and what might have been if the RAN had retained them (lets say to end up in Singapore station in December 1941). No great numbers but 2 would have been better than the 0 that were in Singapore in 1941. (I believe 1 x submarine was there under refit apparently but took no part in operations to the best of my knowledge).
bager1968		#1	[-]
Posts: 2946 (23-May-2008 21:27:34) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The "Odin" class (also called the "Oberon" class), of which the RAN's were the second & third, were similar to most of the USN subs present in the Philippines at the start of the war... serviceable, but nearing obsolescence. While they would have been capable of effective combat (and were, in the RN where they had 7 sister subs), they were aging, and the RAN would have had to do a lot of work on them. Plus, apparently they had a design flaw: "The boats were of a saddle tank type with fuel carried in riveted external tanks. These external tanks proved vulnerable to leaking after depth charge damage betraying the position of the submarine." With 4 of the 9 being sunk by the enemy (44%, a higher loss rate than the RN subs in general - 73 of 270, 27%), it is likely that at least 1 would have suffered the same fate in RAN service. Note, there was a 5th loss ... ex-A01 Oxley, to friendly fire (HMS Triton). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odin_class_submarine Would they have made a difference? Probably not by themselves, but the act of keeping them until 1939 would have, by keeping a core of trained personnel and the training & support facilities... which would have meant the RAN would get a share of the British WW2 sub production, likely 4-6 "T" class boats, and they would have made a difference. Last Edited By: bager1968 23-May-2008 21:30:24. Edited 1 times.
sons of anzac	RAN and SUbmarines WW2	#2	[-]
Posts: 55 (27-May-2008 06:05:05) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	"Would they have made a difference? Probably not by themselves, but the act of keeping them until 1939 would have, by keeping a core of trained personnel and the training & support facilities... which would have meant the RAN would get a share of the British WW2 sub production, likely 4-6 "T" class boats, and they would have made a difference." Apart from the ex Dutch K9 did the RAN have any interest in acquiring submarines during the war? A modern submarine squadron operating from Brisbane in 1942- 43 supplementing USN subs would have been a good contribution tot he Allied war effort for minimal cost. I know the RN had trouble later in the war in manning their surface ships, did they have similar trouble with the expanded submarine fleet?
NewGolconda		#3	[-]
Posts: 3398 (27-May-2008 07:21:07) Commonwealth Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I managed to dig out the primary source documents for this question a while back. The Navy (reading between the lines, Hyde) thought. The submarines were useless, except as a full flotilla. That the funds for a full flotilla would not be forthcoming in the foreseeable future. The navy should concentrate on replacing the light cruisers, starting with Brisbane. That due to 1st London, they were now critical as they counted towards the BE total. They could not efficiently be maintained in reserve without prohibitive expense for very long. The Politicoes thought How much will the British government pay us for them, and can we use that money to help replace Brisbane (eventually HMAS Sydney) ** In hindsight, I think the Navy was right, HMAS Sydney was more useful, and there was no net surplus of British submarines during WWII. Had we maintained the technical skills, the only use would have been handing over highly skilled labour to British submarines under Admiralty operational control, and experiencing the heavy causalities associated with this service. Six or bust, and possibly six inc domestic construction of 3-4 if the flotilla was to maintained through WWII. In a alt history RAN, I might do this if I had double the historic budget. BTW, they were pretty much junk. The AEL diesels were a backwards move from Vickers diesels, and the rivited tanks leaked like a sieve and spread oil everywhere, includingleaving a trial on surface. Most boats using these engiens were de rated in the 1930's. By 1940, they were most use running supplies into Malta. (Source, Diesels a history, Lysle Cummins). For the Pacific, you want the USN fleet boats starting in 1939. True diesel electric (no direct shaft drive), reliable, long range. Shame about their torps.
bager1968		#4	[-]
Posts: 2959 (27-May-2008 07:23:43) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Not that I have read. The RAN only took on K9 (Tom Baker anyone?) as a training asses for surface vessels, so I would think they weren't interested in adding a new arm of the Navy in the middle of an all-out war. If the arm already existed, however, I think they would want to expand it.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Quick Reply