Naval history buffs to me!

[Brazen]

I'm researching an article on the centenary of the Royal Navy's Submarine Service inspired by this article:
https://www.navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/11415

It will take the form of an interactive illustrated timeline and I need to identify the 10-15 most significant or influential (or downright rotten) classes, submarines or operations that would best illustrate the past 100 years of British submarine since 2014. What say you, Languish?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_submarines_of_the_Royal_Navy

[Admiral Yi]

I honestly can't think of a single noteworthy event performed by a Royal Navy submarine.

[Brazen]

I honestly can't think of a single noteworthy event performed by a Royal Navy submarine.

A few hints here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Navy_Submarine_Service

The Submarine Service proved its worth in World War I, where it was awarded five of the Royal Navy's 14 Victoria Crosses of the war, the first to Lieutenant Norman Holbrook, Commanding Officer of HMS B11.

During World War II the major operating arenas were the Norwegian waters; the Mediterranean where a flotilla of submarines fought a successful battle against the Axis replenishment route to North Africa; and the Far East where Royal Navy submarines disrupted Japanese shipping operating in the Malacca Straits.

HMS Conqueror made history in 1982 during the Falklands War when she became the first nuclear-powered submarine to sink a surface ship, the ARA General Belgrano.

[Admiral Yi]

Sinking the Belgrano is good.  The other two are PR fluff.  "They operated against Japanese shipping?"

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Something from the history of HMS Seraph, possibly even a summary of her storied career.

[Syt]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Venturer_(P68)

Her most famous mission, however, was her eleventh patrol out of the British submarine base at Lerwick in the Shetland Islands, under the command of 25-year-old Jimmy Launders, which included the only time in the history of naval warfare that one submarine intentionally sank another while both were submerged.

[Warspite]

The Resolution class is significant for being the first Royal Navy SSBN in 1968, carrying the Polaris. Not perhaps influential or revolutionary, but still important in a British context.

[CountDeMoney]

Sinking the Belgrano is good.

Lol, cheaters.

[Warspite]

If it's notoriety you're looking for, a British-built submarine (Upholder-class) caught fire shortly after being sold to the Canadians:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Chicoutimi_(SSK_879)

[PRC]

In 1998 Britain sold Canada four Victoria class submarines.  Shortly after their activation, one of them, HMCS Chicoutimi, two days out from from Scotland on its way to Halifax when a fire broke out on board taking the life of one sailor.  This caused some diplomatic strain between Canada and the UK when the British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon stated that Canada would have to pay for the rescue operation and that Canada should have obeyed the maxim "Caveat Emptor", essentially that the UK sold Canada some lemons. 

[Berkut]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Venturer_(P68)

Her most famous mission, however, was her eleventh patrol out of the British submarine base at Lerwick in the Shetland Islands, under the command of 25-year-old Jimmy Launders, which included the only time in the history of naval warfare that one submarine intentionally sank another while both were submerged.

After three hours Launders decided to make a prediction of U-864's zig-zag, and released a spread of his torpedoes into its predicted course. This manual computation of a firing solution against a three-dimensionally manoeuvring target was the first occasion on which techniques were used and became the basis of modern computer-based torpedo targeting systems. Prior to this attack, no target had been sunk by torpedo where the firing ship had to consider the target's position in three-dimensional terms, where the depth of the target was variable and not a fixed value. The computation thus differs fundamentally from those performed by analogue torpedo fire-control computers which regarded the target in strictly 2D terms with a constant depth determined by the target's draft.

The torpedoes were released in 17 second intervals beginning at 12:12, and all taking four minutes to reach their target. Launders then dived Venturer suddenly to evade any retaliation. U-864 heard the torpedoes coming, dived deeper, and turned away to avoid them. The first three torpedoes were avoided, but U-864 unknowingly steering into the path of the fourth. Exploding, U-864 split in two, and sank with all hands coming to rest more than 150 m (500 ft) below the surface.

I don't care what firing solution you used - if you shoot an unguided torpedo underwater at a submerged target than knows they are coming and maneuvers at all, and you hit them...that is just dumb, blind luck.

[grumbler]

Gotta talk about the K-class steam-powered subs.  They were designed to work with surface ships (hence steam engines to get the speed required), but they were un-maneuverable and a large number were lost to collisions.  IIRC, they were of such poor design/workmanship (no one had built a sub of that size before) that their safe depth was less than their length, and so a normal 30-degree down bubble would put the bow past its safe depth while the stern was still on the surface.

For the cool shit, look up the RN's submarine operations in the Sea of Marmara during WW1.  Passage of the Dardanelles minefields was so hazardous that, once a sub made it into the SoM, the RN didn't want to have it try to leave.  They'd bring in new torpedoes sling under float planes, and use captured diesel or olive (or any other kind of suitable) oil to run the engines.   Food was mostly captured to stretch out the rations they went in with.  In the end, 8 of 13 subs were lost, but they pretty much shut down the Sea of Marmora and sank 8 warships (including 2 battleships), a bunch of steamers, and many, many fishing and work boats.

I was going to write my book about these SoM operations, back when I had ambitions to write a book.  Here's a piece about the sub ops  during the Gallipoli campaign: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_8/daring_dardanelles.html

Also write about the U class ops out of Malta.  All the subs did well there for as long as they lived (13 out of 15 died, IIRC), but HMS Upholder was, ton for ton, the most successful ship of the war.  She should be spoken of in the same breath as HMS Warspite and USS Enterprise (and Upholder died in '42, so didn't even have a whole war to rack up stats).

British subs are probably the most under-reported and under-rated fighting service in the war.

[derspiess]

They'd bring in new torpedoes sling under float planes, and use captured diesel or olive (or any other kind of suitable) oil to run the engines.   Food was mostly captured to stretch out the rations they went in with.  In the end, 8 of 13 subs were lost, but they pretty much shut down the Sea of Marmora and sank 8 warships (including 2 battleships), a bunch of steamers, and many, many fishing and work boats.

That's pretty hard core. 

[Malthus]

British subs are probably the most under-reported and under-rated fighting service in the war.

They may have to share that honour with the US submarine service in the pacific - tpgether with the RN's, it was instrumental in paralizing Japan's economy, but is rarely discussed.

Come to think of it - the Brit subs' contribution to strangling the Japanese economy (alongside the US service) rates a mention.

[Jacob]

Come to think of it - the Brit subs' contribution to strangling the Japanese economy (alongside the US service) rates a mention.

I have it on good authority, from an Admiral no less, that the UK contribution on that front is mere "PR fluff".