The Final Judgement
On the 20 October 1916 the board of the MTK met for a final judgement on Müller's idea,
the boat and the results. For this naval constructor Dipl Ing Max Szombathy prepared a
paper entitled Schiffbauliche Bemerkungen which ist quoted below as it is much
clearer and more professional the final 'official' document. |
| "The basic idea proved practical and, from this point of view,
the experimental vessel was successful. Military use of the boat is not recommended due to
the following disadvantages: |
- The boat is not seaworthy. The broad snub bow would require speed reduction in heavy
seas and might lead to hull stress.
- The boat ist open, so rain and sea spray might disturb both electric ignition and the
carburettors.
- The boat has no bulkheads and a single leak could cause the total loss of the vessel.
- The engines are not silenced which could lead to premature detection in night attacks.
- The engines have no self-starters and it is a rather involved process to start them by
crank. However, if the engines are kept in neutral when the vessel is stopped, to avoid
the need for re-starting, they become over-oiled.
- Torpedo launching over the stern ist unsatisfactory, as the boats turning radius at high
speed is to great.
- The torpedo suffers from wide deviation when ejected at high speed due to propeller
turbulence. It cannot stabilise itself and jumps out of the water or dives to great depth.
- The throwing of depth-charges is satisfactory but the minimum burst distance should be
checked."
|
Synopsis
"The vessel has been built to run basic trials. For military use a number of
modifications would be necessary. This would mean a complete rebuilding which would not
however alter the boat's bad seaworthiness. In addition the crew should undergo special
training. At present and in the existing form the boat cannot be recommended for military
use."
| Based on this document, and the subsequent discussion thereof, the board
judged that: |
- The boat was insufficient in terms of shipbuilding technolgy, was not seaworthy, and was
difficult to handle.
- The boat was unarmoured, open and without bulkheads.
- The noise of the unsilenced engines would warn an enemy of its approach.
- The speed, in full load condition was to slow(!).
- The torpedo ejection over the stern was inefficient and the turning circle at high speed
was so great that it would cost vital time in operational use.
- The boat accelerated and stopped badly.
- The boat could not carry out exact depth-charging, as visibility over the stern was not
good enough at high speed.
- The action radius was to small (120nm).
- The boat was no substitute for a seaworthy, armoured, motorboat. '... But vessels of
this or a similar type may be of value for the Navy if they can achieve a reliable speed
of 40kts, at a sufficient action radius, and can carry a 1200kg (2645.54lb) warload ... '
|
Some of the comments of the board are rather surprising or, at least, in contradiction
with earlier comments. For example, earlier reports spoke of good handling capabilities
and commented that istwas not necessary to install reversing gear as the manoeuverability
was sufficient. Considering the details of enemy high-speed craft, the argument about
insufficient speed seems not to have been throughly discussed. Nevertheless, the basic
intrinsic value of the hovercraft has not changed during the last 53 years. A modern
hovercraft is, like ist remote predecessor, a vulnerable weapon carrier, suitable only for
special missions, and needs very special maintenance and care. |
