The Schnellebootewaffe And MAS Boats--General Discussion

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Kriegsmarine except those dealing with the U-Boat forces.
varjag
Financial supporter
Posts: 4431
Joined: 01 May 2002 01:44
Location: Australia

Re: Is there any difference?

Post by varjag » 24 Jul 2006 03:23

Dare Furor wrote:Folks,

I have been reading these (5) pages for almost two hours and cannot find the answer to my most basic question: What is the difference between the German torpedo boat and the S-boat? I realise that the S-boat is a fast attack (swift) boat, but the Germans have both Torpedoboot flotillas and Schnellboot flotillas, thus I have to ask "what's the difference?"

Thank-you,

Dare Furor
:?

In the German terminology a torpedoboat (Torpedoboot) was akin to a small destroyer with a heavy torpedo-armament.
One could say - a follow-up of the very first torpedo-boats before they become 'torpedoboat-destroyers' and then 'destroyers'. The S-Boats (Schnellboote) corresponded to a Motor Torpedo-Boat in English and Italian parlance.
rgds, Varjag

User avatar
SES
Financial supporter
Posts: 3905
Joined: 26 Jan 2004 09:07
Location: 05 ON LT 8

Post by SES » 24 Jul 2006 07:24

Hi,
Please have a look here:
http://www.wlb-stuttgart.de/seekrieg/km/km.htm#F
bregds
SES

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1405
Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
Location: Canada

Post by Paul Lakowski » 24 Jul 2006 19:02

I have a question about Schnellboot and smaller MTBs. How solvent were they in rough seas? More particular were they rated to operate below a certain sea state [IE sea state 4 or less] ? I've heard they were not good in rough seas, but just want to know how rough .

Thanks.

Tiornu
Member
Posts: 922
Joined: 20 Aug 2003 20:16
Location: NAmerica

Post by Tiornu » 24 Jul 2006 21:18

The S-boats were far superior to the smaller boats typical in British and American service, which in turn would probably rate a bit above the very small boats that made up the bulk of Japanese, Soviet, and Italian MTB fleets. I may have some specifics somewhere....

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1405
Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
Location: Canada

Post by Paul Lakowski » 24 Jul 2006 22:34

Tiornu wrote:The S-boats were far superior to the smaller boats typical in British and American service, which in turn would probably rate a bit above the very small boats that made up the bulk of Japanese, Soviet, and Italian MTB fleets. I may have some specifics somewhere....


Thanks Tiornu any figures you can provide would be great. Would the LSB [light schnellboot] fit into the British American class of MTB or closer to the Japanese class.

varjag
Financial supporter
Posts: 4431
Joined: 01 May 2002 01:44
Location: Australia

Post by varjag » 25 Jul 2006 03:08

Paul Lakowski wrote:I have a question about Schnellboot and smaller MTBs. How solvent were they in rough seas? More particular were they rated to operate below a certain sea state [IE sea state 4 or less] ? I've heard they were not good in rough seas, but just want to know how rough .

Thanks.


I have had some rides in Swedish MTB's which were improved copies of the Italian MAS-boats. And in anything
like rougher (not real rough - forget about it!) conditions they were extremely unpleasant. In short -
hold on for dear life!
Also - the pounding tended to loosen joints in the fuel and cooling systems if driven too hard. The German
S-Boote were much better I am told. Their 'Lürssen-hulls', longer and narrower - has set the standard for
post-war hull shapes. Varjag

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1405
Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
Location: Canada

Post by Paul Lakowski » 25 Jul 2006 05:48

varjag wrote:
Paul Lakowski wrote:I have a question about Schnellboot and smaller MTBs. How solvent were they in rough seas? More particular were they rated to operate below a certain sea state [IE sea state 4 or less] ? I've heard they were not good in rough seas, but just want to know how rough .

Thanks.


I have had some rides in Swedish MTB's which were improved copies of the Italian MAS-boats. And in anything
like rougher (not real rough - forget about it!) conditions they were extremely unpleasant. In short -
hold on for dear life!
Also - the pounding tended to loosen joints in the fuel and cooling systems if driven too hard. The German
S-Boote were much better I am told. Their 'Lürssen-hulls', longer and narrower - has set the standard for
post-war hull shapes. Varjag


I read during the German invasion of Norway one of the troop transport squadrons was escorted by a fleet tender and about 1/2 dozen Schnellboot. The return distance was 1500km, but I guess having the tender there meant they could be refueled along side and any repairs done. But later I was reading of the view from the troops and they reported being tossed around on destroyers and all of them being deathly sick from extremely rough seas . So I wondered just how well those Schnellboot did in rough seas outside of coastal waters?

varjag
Financial supporter
Posts: 4431
Joined: 01 May 2002 01:44
Location: Australia

Post by varjag » 25 Jul 2006 11:19

I could be wrong here - but I believe that the S-Boote could be throttled back to 'slow' or even 'dead slow'
which is neccessary in high seas. The MAS-types had no such luxuary - it was either 'dead slow' on a
cruising motor or two = 6-7 knots but with too little power to steer well in high seas. Once you fired up
the Isotta-Fraschinis there was only a choice between 'fast' and 'extremely fast'!
As for the poor troopers aboard the destroyers bound for Narvik - they DID INDEED have a rough ride
- but anyone tackling The Norwegian Sea in April should prepare to puke.... :roll: , Varjag

Tiornu
Member
Posts: 922
Joined: 20 Aug 2003 20:16
Location: NAmerica

Post by Tiornu » 25 Jul 2006 23:29

I didn't find anything really useful. I saw that a boat the figured in the initial design gestation suffered excessive pounding at sea states above 3, while another performed well at 4.

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1405
Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
Location: Canada

Post by Paul Lakowski » 26 Jul 2006 03:21

Tiornu wrote:I didn't find anything really useful. I saw that a boat the figured in the initial design gestation suffered excessive pounding at sea states above 3, while another performed well at 4.



Thanks that was helpful.

From this site I got... http://www.sixthfleet.com/gloss.htm

"· Sea state 3 - Wind speeds 14-16 knots with waves around 2 feet.
· Sea state 4 - Wind speeds up to 20 knots with moderate waves.
. Sea state 5 - Strong breeze up to 27 knots with large waves sometimes reaching 20 feet."

I wonder what constitue a 'moderate wave'?

varjag
Financial supporter
Posts: 4431
Joined: 01 May 2002 01:44
Location: Australia

Post by varjag » 28 Jul 2006 11:45

Paul Lakowski wrote:
Tiornu wrote:I didn't find anything really useful. I saw that a boat the figured in the initial design gestation suffered excessive pounding at sea states above 3, while another performed well at 4.



Thanks that was helpful.

From this site I got... http://www.sixthfleet.com/gloss.htm

"· Sea state 3 - Wind speeds 14-16 knots with waves around 2 feet.
· Sea state 4 - Wind speeds up to 20 knots with moderate waves.
. Sea state 5 - Strong breeze up to 27 knots with large waves sometimes reaching 20 feet."

I wonder what constitue a 'moderate wave'?


With full deference to the Sixth Fleet - I wonder too? Depending a little on in which 'sea' you are, small = short
choppy wave action/ big ocean = eternal big swells activated and aggravated by wind. The 'moderate waves'
in 20-knot winds would have made life on an MTB very unpleasant whereas - judging by the hull-form of an
S-Boot - it would have handled it reasonably well.
A '27-knotter' would have to blow for at least 12 hours - before waves reach 20 feet - and then, I suggest that
S-Boote were as useless as those MTB's that already had fled for shelter. Even destroyers - have to think twice before 'footing the floor' - in 20-foot seas.....Varjag

Al Ross
Member
Posts: 2
Joined: 31 Jul 2006 23:23
Location: Bangor, ME

Post by Al Ross » 23 Aug 2006 02:38

Hi,

I'm new to the group and am particularly interested in MAS, MS, and VAS types. I have most of Erminio Bagnasco's material and have been getting "Storia Militare" for years, but am always looking for more material. As I'm working on volume 3 of Allied Coastal Forces in World War II with my friend John Lambert, I'd like to acquire more information on the 77' ELCO and 78' Higgins PTs that were transferred to Italy post-war.

I moderate a group on small combatants from about 1860 to the present and invite all to participate. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coastalforces

Al Ross

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002 14:12
Location: Europe

Re: Is there any difference?

Post by Andreas » 23 Aug 2006 14:09

varjag wrote:
Dare Furor wrote:Folks,

I have been reading these (5) pages for almost two hours and cannot find the answer to my most basic question: What is the difference between the German torpedo boat and the S-boat? I realise that the S-boat is a fast attack (swift) boat, but the Germans have both Torpedoboot flotillas and Schnellboot flotillas, thus I have to ask "what's the difference?"

Thank-you,

Dare Furor
:?

In the German terminology a torpedoboat (Torpedoboot) was akin to a small destroyer with a heavy torpedo-armament.
One could say - a follow-up of the very first torpedo-boats before they become 'torpedoboat-destroyers' and then 'destroyers'. The S-Boats (Schnellboote) corresponded to a Motor Torpedo-Boat in English and Italian parlance.
rgds, Varjag


German Torpedoboote (typical 1,000 tons or thereabouts)

http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ ... index.html

As said above, these were comparable to the British destroyer escorts, and close to the standard destroyer types then in use in terms of size, AIUI. I think the confusion really stems from the use of the term 'Boot', which is a misnomer in my view. These were proper ships that had outgrown the name initially given to their class.

German Schnellboote (typical 100 tons or thereabouts)

http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ ... index.html

Comparable to British MTB. Really a boat.

German destroyers (tpyical 3,500 tons or thereabouts)

http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ ... index.html

Bigger than the Tribal Class destroyers, more than twice as big as standard destroyers of e.g. the G or H class of the RN, unless I am confused by different measurements being used.

All the best

Andreas

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1405
Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
Location: Canada

Post by Paul Lakowski » 26 Aug 2006 21:11

I have a question. I was reading "S-Boote Geman Eboats in Action 1939-1945", and it was detailing the Sboote operations escorting troop ships to Norway in 1940. I gather the Sboote were used to ferry troops from the big ships to the shore and provide protection & escort. After these ports were secured , the Sboote operated for weeks later providing local coastal protection from the captured ports.


Reading these Sboote accounts , the operations normally radius was often 200-300km ,which was considered more than most smaller MTB operations. But the Norway operation was around 700km radius and the explaination is that a depotship or Fleet tender accompanied each Sboote flottila . So how was the Sboote range extended? Did the Tenders refuel the Sboote while they were steaming to Norway along with the troops ships? I know that Germans practiced replenishment at sea for the larger ships from Fleet oil tankers etc, but did these Fleet tenders also provide replensishment at sea for Sboote allowing them to exend operational radius of action?

Al Ross
Member
Posts: 2
Joined: 31 Jul 2006 23:23
Location: Bangor, ME

RA10

Post by Al Ross » 01 Sep 2006 02:20

During a 14SEP42 raid on Tobruk, MTB 314, a lend/leased 77' ELCO, was damaged and captured. My sources indicate she was salvaged and repaired, then assigned to the 6th Raumboot Flotilla. She was subsequently sunk by the RAF off La Goulette, 30APR43. Has anyone come across any other references to this craft?

Al Ross

Return to “Kriegsmarine surface ships and Kriegsmarine in general”