ASDIC and Sonar origins

[chuck]

What would be a good sources of information on any technical development and tactical thinking regarding submarine detection prior to WWI? Had there been a strong drive to develop ASDIC or Sonar prior to WWI, or was the main thrust in anti-submarine warfare development aimed at some other direction?

[Filipe Ramires]

Before WWI???? Hmmm, tricky question. Let me check my bibliography on it. I've been researching on a subject very similar to that...I will look for something.

[Werner]

How far back do you want to go? Sonar was first mentioned by DaVinci in the 1490 Codex. Prior to WW.I, active noise generators were considered as ancillaries to lighthouse warning systems.

Listening developed very rapidly after 1905.

Hackmann, Willem D. Seek & Strike: Sonar, Anti-submarine Warfare, and the Royal Navy, 1914-54. (London: HMSO, 1984)
Hackmann, Willem D. "Sonar Research and Naval Warfare 1914-1954: A Case Study of a Twentieth-Century Science.� Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 16#1 (1986) 83-110

Very early Sonar was developed to allow surface ships the ability to obtain range and bearing data on other surface ships.

Even WW.II's Prinz Eugen had passive Sonar for this purpose.

[chuck]

Obviously what Leonardo had toyed with 400 years before the submarine had actually become perceived as a realistic and serious threat is not of too much concern. I am talking about the main thrust of ASW thinking prior to August 1914. Serious and workable naval submarines had already existed for over a decade by that time and there must be some active programs to counter them. With 1914 technology, passive listeners could at best offer warning and provide a rough bearing. There is no apparent means available at the time to use passive listening for range or depth. I like to know whether the development of active ASDIC or Sonar would have been inevitable within that decade even without WWI.

[Werner]

Obviously what Leonardo had toyed with 400 years before the submarine had actually become perceived as a realistic and serious threat is not of too much concern. I am talking about the main thrust of ASW thinking prior to August 1914. Serious and workable naval submarines had already existed for over a decade by that time and there must be some active programs to counter them. I like to know whether the development of active ASDIC or Sonar would have been inevitable within that decade even without WWI.

History records the first serious efforts at echolocation were very likely in order to locate and salvage Titanic in 1912.

The US Iceberg Service also experimented with active location in 1914, but resolution was insufficient even at 5 miles.

[chuck]

But was that also the main thrust of naval submarine location development at the time?

[Filipe Ramires]

Here's a few from a short basic list for my research:

Science Museum, Seek and Strike: Sonar, Anti-Submarine Warfare and the Royal Navy, 1914-54

Llewellyn-Jones, Malcolm, The Royal Navy and Anti-Submarine Warfare, 1917-49

Abbatiello, John, Anti-Submarine Warfare in World War I

Franklin, George D., Britain's Anti-Submarine Capability, 1919-1939

Messimer, Dwight R. Find and Destroy: Antisubmarine Warfare in World War I

Of course these are related with WWI ASW experience mostly but they eventually approach the development of sonars and asdics prior to the war.

I think I have a few more references and perhaps copies of articles regarding this. I will look further...

[Werner]

But was that also the main thrust of naval submarine location development at the time?

There were probably as many submarines as Zeppelins in 1912. Londoners know how well prepared the UK was for bombardmenrt from the air in 1914. Except in a fleet action, a submarine had to surface and identify it's enemy according to the usages and customs of war. I doubt the military applications of antisubmarine search and destroy were much in prospect.

[Gone Asiatic]

The submarine did not prove itself a viable weapon until 22 September 1914, after which the necessity to counter the threat drove the R&D.

[bengtsson]

I would need to check, but I seem to remember from A Marder's history of the RN "From Dreadnought to Scapa Flow" and dozens of other books I have on ASW in WWI, that no efforts were made at ASW before the Submarine proved able to sink RN warships and merchant vessels. The use of underwater sound predates any use for ASW.
Active sonar required a leap in underwater sound technology that was too much for the WWI era. Passive was able to hear a submarine, but not very well. Hydrophone arrays like the Germans used on surface and submarine hulls in WWII were what I call the first real effective passive sonars. Bar hydrophones worked, but not all that well.
Passive and Active sonars for ASW were a complete response to German Submarine success in WWI. The books listed by others cover the subject in great depth.

Bob B.

[phil gollin]

I would need to check, but I seem to remember from A Marder's history of the RN "From Dreadnought to Scapa Flow" and dozens of other books I have on ASW in WWI, that no efforts were made at ASW before the Submarine proved able to sink RN warships and merchant vessels. The use of underwater sound predates any use for ASW.
Active sonar required a leap in underwater sound technology that was too much for the WWI era. Passive was able to hear a submarine, but not very well. Hydrophone arrays like the Germans used on surface and submarine hulls in WWII were what I call the first real effective passive sonars. Bar hydrophones worked, but not all that well.
Passive and Active sonars for ASW were a complete response to German Submarine success in WWI. The books listed by others cover the subject in great depth.

Bob B.

ASDIC (active sonar) was developed in WW1

Passive (hydrophones) were pre-WW1 , but hydrophones sufficient to hear submarines were ship and sea-bed mounted (protecting harbours and anchorages) were used in WW1.

Depending on what you mean by "arrays" - they were developed inter-war - the british having the ability to take bearings (VERY rough and short ranged) on underwater submarines and surface craft by comparing inputs from various hydrophones on their harbour defence hydrophones.

.

[Werner]

Massey addresses the non-technical aspects and much of the timing in Castles of Steel (although my memory confesses it might be Dreadnought, they former covers a somewhat later interval).

[bengtsson]

Massey addresses the non-technical aspects and much of the timing in Castles of Steel (although my memory confesses it might be Dreadnought, they former covers a somewhat later interval).

I don't recall how much was covered in those two books Werner. The Journal "Warship" had an article on Britain's underwater sound detection efforts in WWI. Very fine article. It came out the year they went from Quarterly Journal to yearly book form. So I think it was the year the 4 sets didn't all get published.
The RN made a great deal of progress during the war and had towed hydrophones called the "Nash Fish". A great step forward. As to Active sonar [echo ranging], this is what Marder says: " A method devised for the transmission and reception on supersonic sound waves began with experiemnts in June 1917. These showed that the device could be used to detect Subs and other vessels. The Admiralty Experiment Station at Harwich succeeded in the Spring of 1918 in securing supersonic echos from a British Submarine at a range of a few hundred yards. The war ended before any experimental ASDIC sets could be fitted into ships and operated at sea". The RN then carried on the work after the war. So an asdic did exist in experimental form. Several hundred yards could help find where to drop depth charges in some cases. But as a general search sonar, there would need to be alot of improvment.
Marder is just one of many books I have on the subject, I could look further if there is interest.
Bob B.

[bengtsson]

Hydrophones on surface ships are always held back by the noise a surface ship makes breaking the water's surface and the broken flow along the hull. Subs don't suffer from this surface effect. Also the surface ship hydrophones are in the surface layer where sound may not reach from further down where the sub may be. Subs can search the whole 'surface to operating depth' range. Big advantage to the sub! Sea water is layered by temp and salinity, these bend the sound waves.
With active sonar you can switch to hydrophone mode and just listen. This works for torpedos and very loud Russian nuke boats. But it is nowhere near as sensitive as a passive array.
During the cold war, the USNs huge advantage was our massive open ocean sea bed hydrophone arrays. Here again, the Royal Navy led the way with their harbour systems in WWI.

Bob B.