Is there any literature on developing plans for a model from scratch?

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Ady1 on 12/03/2023 13:58:52:

…

The other problem is the users are rarely the designers, there needs to be communication

A submarine chap who got onto a U-boat after WW2 wrote that the German boats were far better designed than the british subs as far as crew convenience was concerned

That would make German crews far better at their job for far longer, particularly since fatigue is a big factor when you are stuck in a smelly tin box for 2 or 3 months

…

Look closer into the history and it's apparent German and British submarine designers were working to significantly different requirements. British submarines and U-boats had distinctly different roles.

U-boats, at least the later variety, were designed to starve Britain into submission by stopping merchant vessels, to which they were steered by radio. This meant long-range, extended voyages, good fuel economy, first-class radio equipment, and deep diving to avoid the attention of the world's largest navy equipped with ASDIC. Although more attention was paid to crew comfort they were still dreadfully uncomfortable!

British submarines were primarily designed to blockade European ports; operating relatively short-range in shallow water, doing quick patrols, hardly ever using radio, operating against an enemy weak in anti-submarine facilities and only needing average fuel-economy. Less attention was paid to crew-comfort because patrols were expected to be much shorter.

Of course bad things happen when submarines optimised for one role have to take on another. U-boats were at a positive disadvantage in the shallow clear Mediterranean, where the smaller British U-class where far more effective. The British U-class wouldn't have performed well against Atlantic convoys. US submarines were designed to operate long patrols in the Pacific and paid the most attention to crew-comfort, possible because the boats could be bigger. They included air-conditioning, and were far more comfortable in hot climes than European and Japanese designs. Just as well they never had to operate in shallow waters where their size made them death-traps.

Curiously, the comfort thing was reversed in WW1 Battleships. Britain being a global power needed battleships with a long reach, meaning weight was allocated to fuel and comfort rather than armour plate. Germany had other needs: her battleships were intended to dominate the North Sea, so crew comfort took second place to engines and armour.

Jack Tar's opinion had little to do with it. Later, it was realised this was a mistake – the finest fighting machine in the world is hopeless when the crew are exhausted! The French Char B1 tank is an example. It's perceived role was incorrect, which led to a powerful vehicle with a tiny uncomfortable turret from which the commander was expected to evaluate the battlefield, decide tactics, direct the crew, co-operate with other units, and help work the guns. On paper, they were superior to German tanks, but they were used in uncoordinated penny packets and commanded by grossly overworked men. Failure to get the requirement right and ignoring human factors meant the machine couldn't deliver.

WW2 and after is full of examples of equipment being modified to increase efficiency by reducing wear and tear on the operators. However, even today crew-comfort is just one of many military design factors, and it's rarely the most important. For that reason designers try to reduce the need for humans in the system at all: though pilots hate the idea, there's much to be said in favour of pilotless aircraft.

Dave

[Author]

Posts