This is coolbert:
The topic for discussion is midget submarines.
A midget submarine is carefully defined by the wiki entry as:
"A midget submarine is any submarine under 150 tons, typically operated by one or two but up to 6 or 8 crew, with no on-board living accommodation."
Submersibles small in size, but meeting the accepted criteria as to what constitutes a submarine.
* When surfaced, powered by an air-breathing diesel engine.
* When submerged, powered by an electric motor which uses a large bank of batteries for "juice".
* Submerges by taking in water into ballast tanks.
* Surfaces by expelling the ballasted water with compressed air.
* Engages enemy targets primarily by firing a torpedo.
The norm for fighting submersibles as established by John Holland a long time ago now.
Personally, I have always wondered about the midget submarine and the utility of same. More effort than they are worth. The returns are less than for what is put into them? Having a general purpose, versatile, medium size, ocean-going submarine is far more preferable?
[Please keep in mind that a conventional German U-boat of World War Two [WW2] would displace about 1000 tons. Midget submarines, as defined, displace only about 1/10th as much.]
With regard to midgets, the role historically has always been defensive or special purpose missions. NOT deep-water [pelagic] vessels with long-range capacity. Definitely NOT! Used in littoral waters for coastal or harbor defense. And having versatility as a harassing weapon when performing the special operations type of mission!
According to Suvorov, the midget sub is seen by Soviet/Russian naval planners as:
* "capable of penetrating into places in which the ordinary ship cannot"
* Harder to locate and destroy.
The midget sub is a concept now passe'? NOT really living up to billing in the past, and now an anachronism in the nuclear age? Maybe NOT SO!?