# S-boots



## Erich (Jul 1, 2005)

guys thought I would get comment on this crafty almsot stealth little boats that were a thorn in the flesh of the Allies........

From the 8th S-Boot Flottille


----------



## Erich (Jul 1, 2005)

how about another one but from a different Flottille


----------



## Erich (Jul 1, 2005)

surrender to British forces in Denmark


----------



## plan_D (Jul 1, 2005)

There was a massive stand-off between the British and German fast attack boats. The British ones actually won that, they used fast attack boats against German shipping in the North Sea. 

Quite remarkable though, that such small vessels were a vital part of the battle in the sea. There they were gunning each other with HMG, while the big hitters were blasting away in the same style with 380mm cannon!


----------



## Erich (Jul 1, 2005)

am not sure about the British winning the war with their mtb's. The British encouraged going after these 'FAST' boats hoping for one to be captured so it could be fully examined and develop tactics to thwart the boot but it did not happen. 

S-boots attacked the mainland of England even during the final week of the ETO.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 1, 2005)

The British MBT and MBG were in charge of the channel and North Sea though. The German forces couldn't hope to keep up, they were attacking but it's the sea...you can't cover every inch. Naval warfare is about control, the German supply shipping was constantly getting hit while the Allied shipping was largely unhampered by the German fast attack boats.


----------



## Erich (Jul 1, 2005)

the most effective means that the S-boots had in the channel during 45 was the adaptation of mining entry/exit ports. dump them at night and speed away. you are quite correct the RAF coastal command was covering the skies well and any troopship and especially fuel/cargo craft were ripped up quickly.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 1, 2005)

Yeah, as everything else in the Wehrmacht died, I think the Kriegsmarine felt it worst. With the Kriegsmarine crews being drafted into Heer service and such.


----------



## Erich (Jul 1, 2005)

Even in Berlin. In Hamburg U-boot crews were armed with mg 42's and Panzerfausts, hastily trained. what a joke !


----------



## Erich (Jul 1, 2005)

last image for tonight

Torpedos los !


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 2, 2005)

I love fast attack boats.....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 2, 2005)

i don't like them for what they are really, the only thing i like about them is that they're small, cheap boats with the ability to sink huge capital ships


----------



## Erich (Jul 2, 2005)

friend don't understand your point, I don't like them for what they are really ? Sorry this old Opa doesn't fully understand, but this is normal with sometimers disease.... 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 2, 2005)

well, if i were to just look at one without knowing what it was, i wouldn't like it, if i knew more about how she worked, i wouldn't like it, it is only because of the fact that such a small boat could sink a capital ship, that i like them.............


----------



## zerum (Jul 2, 2005)

What is the difference between S- and E type boats?I have heard about the E types but not the S type,speed,size,armour,etc..


----------



## Erich (Jul 2, 2005)

Lanc you really think the boot is ugly then ?? I find it one of the handsomest ships afloat, even now............sleek, fast, stealth and very deadly. It was made for precisely it's function and that was : Hit and run

am I understanding you now correctly ? your comment about how it worked still confuses me....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 2, 2005)

I must say, they do look pretty cool 8)


----------



## Erich (Jul 2, 2005)

here is one of my favourite Wappenshields like presented on the uppermost boot. From the 8th S-Boot Flottille


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 2, 2005)

erich i'm trying to say the only thing i like about the boats, is the fact they could destry capital ships, and possibly the way the torps. are flung out the tubes, that's the only things i like about them........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2005)

zerum said:


> What is the difference between S- and E type boats?I have heard about the E types but not the S type,speed,size,armour,etc..



E-Boots is just what the Allies called the German S-Boots. S-Boots standing for Schnell Boots. That is the only difference.


----------



## Erich (Jul 2, 2005)

correct friend, the Allies called the boots E meaning enemy.

2nd S-Boot Flottille Wappen


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2005)

I think the whole concept of the German S-Boot being developed because of the Versaille treaty and what they did with them was quite awesome. To me they were great boats.


----------



## trackend (Jul 2, 2005)

The E boat/S boot was definately the best of the WW2 small attack boats the MGB's MTB's and PT boats did not match the E boats in general sea kindlyness even JFK of PT 109 / the US president fame admitted that he thought them a far better boat on a vist to one in Germany.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2005)

There was a lot more designing and planning involved with the S-Boots. They were designed to be able to take on large ships at Sea but were small as limited by the Versaille Treaty. Quite genious actually there design.


----------



## trackend (Jul 2, 2005)

Thats the same as the pocket battleship's Adler limited size and weight but with a mighty punch


----------



## Erich (Jul 2, 2005)

I would have to look but the AA armament for the small boats were rather large, up to a single 4cm weapon. 2 torpedos later 4, with 2 rearward firing.

hope the next image works as it is the predesessor of the WW 2 type, from ebay.de


----------



## plan_D (Jul 3, 2005)

The S-Boats were superior in design to the MTB but I certainly wouldn't say "far superior" plus the Royal Navy developed a better system of MTB and MGB support. 
Plus the MTB gave the German merchant vessels a lot of trouble in the North Sea, and little could be done about them.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 3, 2005)

I think the S-Boots were the best of there type. There were several similar types of boats that were very good and close to it but I think the S-Boots were a true example of great engineering adn thought.


----------



## Smokey (Aug 14, 2005)

Here is why the S-boots were better at sea than the MTBs - the Lurssen Effect

OK, basically, the center rudder did all the steering and behaved exactly like a normal single-rudder set up, so the S-boats were, in effect, single-rudder ships.

The two outboard rudders were ‘trim rudders’, designed not to assist with steering, but to affect the angle of the hull as it goes through the water.

At low speed, the two outer rudders would remain parallel to the line of travel. Once the vessel got up to about 25-26 knots, they would be turned outward, away from each other, until they were pointed 30-degrees out from the line of travel. This caused the water to be pushed ahead of them, instead of passing cleanly around them. Because this zone of water traveled along with the hull, the screws were kept in a zone of water that was moving more slowly past them than the actual speed of the ship. The propulsive force of the screws is increased, allowing them to push the vessel along at a slightly higher speed (about 1 knot) without increasing RPMs; basically, instead of spinning the screws faster to keep up with the water rushing by, you have slowed the water down to allow the screw to push against it at the same RPM.
The biggest benefit is that the stern of the vessel gots pushed upward, leveling the boat, which eliminates the ‘rooster tail’ stern-wave and also cuts down on drag. The rising stern forces the bow back down, and the ‘white water’ bow wave disappears. So now you are going 27 knots instead of 26, making less noise, and showing very little wake.

Of course, you want to go faster than 27 knots, but the drag of the trim rudders angled out 30 degrees prevents this. But here is the cool thing...once the Lürssen effect kicks in, you can slowly bring the trim rudders back towards the centerline as you increase speed, without disrupting the effect, until they are at just a 17-degree outward angle. Now the speed increase is on the order of 5%, so you can go 42-43 knots on the RPM for 40 knots, and you are still making very little ‘white water’ wake. So you have no white-water wake to betray your presence at night, and you are making less noise than you enemy...does it get any better for a night attack?

From this site
http://p216.ezboard.com/fwarships1discussionboardsfrm14.showMessage?index=11&topicID=1032.topic

The Lurssen effect also gave better acceleration and the single centre rudder and two aerofoil shaped outer rudders gave better maneuvrability than the MTBs

Because the S boot was quite level even when speeding at sea, a Luftwaffe gun turret could be placed in the nose, with 360 rotation and 90 elevation without the bow of the Sboot pitching up and blocking the view like on MTBs





Bow 2cm gun





4cm Bfors salvaged from an Sboot

From
http://www.prinzeugen.com/Weapons.htm


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 14, 2005)

I think they were marvelous ships.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 14, 2005)

I dont think any of the small patrol boats of all the combatants sunk any capital ships.

I could be wrong.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 14, 2005)

Well I know of one Cruiser the HMS Charybdis that was sunk by German torpedo boats. The rest of these are not capital ships but destroyers. But the Cruiser is a Capital Ship.

23.10.1943 HMS Charybdis Sunk in the Channel by Torpedoboats T23 and T27

25.02.1941 HMS Exmoor Sunk in the Channel by S-Boat S30

15.03.1942 HMS Vortigern Sunk in the Channel by S-Boat S104

15.06.1942 HMS Hasty Sunk in the Mediterranien by E-Boat S55 

03.12.1942 HMS Penylan Sunk in the Channel by E-Boat S115

12.03.1943 HMS Lightning Sunk in the Mediterranian by E-Boats S55 and S158 

14.04.1943 Eskdale, Norway Sunk in the Channel by S-Boats S65 and S112 

10.09.1943 USS Rowan Sunk in the Mediterranian by S-Boat

23.10.1943 HMS Limbourne Sunk in the Channel by Torpebo Boat T22 

29.04.1944 HMS Athabascan Sunk in the Channel by Torpebo Boat T24 

06.06.1944 Svenner NO Sunk in the Channel by Torpebo Boats Möwe , Falke , Jaguar and T28 

http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/victorys/destroyer.html


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 14, 2005)

HMS Athabaskan should actually read HMCS Athabaskan. Nice list.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 14, 2005)

That is what I meant, I just could not think of what you Canadians call your ships, so I figured HMS would work until you corrected me.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 14, 2005)

If ever in doubt, just stick a C in there someplace.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 14, 2005)

Thanks, well catch you later I am out for a couple of weeks on vacation.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 14, 2005)

Have a good one, man! Get a good tan, eh?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 15, 2005)

I sure will.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 16, 2005)

You mean only one cruiser was sunk by all of the patrol boats in WW2?


----------



## mosquitoman (Aug 18, 2005)

Add to that plenty of merchant shipping


----------



## Erich (Aug 18, 2005)

there were several Allied heavy armed ships that were poked by Schnellbooten as I have all the lists from Freiburg ........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 30, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> Add to that plenty of merchant shipping



Exactly that was not there main mission to attack capital ships but to compliment the U-Boot arm and go after merchant shipping.


----------



## mosquitoman (Sep 2, 2005)

early version of an S-Boot, it doesn't have an armoured cupola


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 3, 2005)

Nice model.


----------



## mosquitoman (Sep 3, 2005)

Thanks


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 4, 2005)

Did you build it?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 4, 2005)

Here are several designs for German S-Boote that never materialized but interesting none the less. All this info including pictures is taken from http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine

*Kleinstschnellboot Projekt*

Dimensions
Length (Total): 14,2 m 
Beam: 3,0 m 
Draft: 1,2 m 

Weapons 
2 cm MG: 5 
1,3 cm Machine Guns: 1 
86 mm Rocket Launcher: 4 
45 cm Torpedo tubes: 2 
Depth Charges 10 

Engines 
Shafts: 3 
Engines: 3 
Type: Piston engines 

Performance 
Total Performance: 2100 hp 
Speed: 47 kn (loaded); 50 kn (unloaded) 

*Tragflügelboot Projekt*
Length (Total): 15 m 
Beam: 3,0 m 
Height: 3,1 m 
Draft: 0,9 m 

Weapons 
2 cm MG: 4 
1,3 cm Machine Guns: 1 
86 mm Rocket Launcher: 5 
45 cm Torpedo tubes: 2 
Depth Charges 10 

Engines 
Shafts: 3 
Engines: 3 
Type: Piston engines 

Performance 
Total Performance: 2200 hp 
Speed: 55 kn 

*Turbojet Tragflügelboot Projekt*

Dimensions
Length (Total): 15 m 
Beam: 3,0 m 
Height: 3,1 m 
Draft: 0,9 m 

Weapons 
2 cm MG: 4 
1,3 cm Machine Guns: 1 
86 mm Rocket Launcher: 5 
45 cm Torpedo tubes: 2 
Depth Charges 10 

Engines 
Shafts: 3 
Engines: 3 
Type: Piston engines 
Turbojets: 2 

Performance 
Total Performance: 2200 hp (plus 2900 kp turbojets) 
Speed: 55 kn (65kn with turbojets)


----------



## mosquitoman (Sep 4, 2005)

Yes, and nice pics. Lucky they never went into service


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 4, 2005)

Cool stuff.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 4, 2005)

I fine them interesting especially the one with jet propulsion.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 4, 2005)

Jet's _and_ propellers by the look of it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 4, 2005)

Yes it was a mixture and there were versions of both.


----------

