Submerge

Submerge (pronounced suhb-murj)

(1) To put or sink below the surface of water or any other enveloping medium.

(2) To cover or overflow with water; to immerse.

(3) Figuratively, to cover over; suppress; conceal; obscure; repress.

(4) To overwhelm (with work, problems etc).

(5) To sink or plunge under water or beneath the surface of any enveloping medium.

(6) Literally & figuratively, to be covered or lost from sight.

1600–1610: From the fourteenth century submerger or the Latin submergere (to plunge under, sink, overwhelm), the construct being sub- + mergere (to dip, to immerse; to plunge), the construct in English thus sub + merge.  The sub- prefix was from the Latin sub (under), from the Proto-Italic supo (under), from the primitive Indo-European upó.  The transitive form was the original, the intransitive (sink under water, sink out of sight) dating from the 1650s and becoming common in the twentieth century because of the association with submarines.  Used by submariners and others, the derived forms (resubmerge, resubmerged, resubmerging, unsubmerging et al are coined as needed and the word submerge is a little unusual in that it can be used to describe both an object going underwater (like a submarine) and water flooding somewhere (like a valley when a dam is built).  Submerge, submerged & submerging are verbs, submerse is a verb & adjective, submersible & submergible are nouns & adjectives, submersion, submerger & submergence are nouns and submersive is an adjective; the noun plural is submersibles.

The noun submersion in the sense of “suffocation by being plunged into water” was first noted in the mid-fifteenth century and was from the Late Latin submersionem (nominative submersio) (a sinking, submerging), the noun of action from the past participle stem of submergere; the general sense emerged in the early seventeenth century.  The transitive verb submerse (to submerge, plunge) was an early fifteenth century form, from the Latin submersus, past participle of submergere and etymologists suggest the modern use (dating from the 1700s) was a back-formation from submersion. The adjective submersible was formed from submerse and was noted first in 1862, the creation necessitated by the building of one of the early “submarines” used by the Confederate forces in the US Civil War (1861-1865).  The term “submersible craft” lasted for a while in admiralty use but was in the early 1900s supplanted by submarine and the alternative adjective submergible (dating from 1820) is probably extinct although there may be the odd technical niche in which it endures.

Lindsay Lohan, partially submerged, Miami, Florida, May 2011.

Fairly obviously, the construct of submarine was sub + marine.  Marine was from the early fifteenth century Middle English marin, from the Middle French marin, from the Old French, from the Latin marinus (of the sea), from mare (sea), from the primitive Indo-European móri (body of water, lake).  It was cognate with the Old English mere (sea, lake, pool, pond), the Dutch meer and the German Meer, all from the Proto-Germanic mari.  Just as obviously then it means “underwater” and that certainly accords with the modern understanding of the concept of a submarine (which the Admiralty once called “submarine-boats” and ever since, submarines, regardless of size, “boats” they have been even though some, such as the Russian Navy’s Typhoon-class submarines with a length of about 175 meters (574 feet) and a displacement of around 48,000 tons (when submerged) are larger and heavier than many ships in the surface fleet) but for the first few decades of their existence, they were better understood as “submersible boats”.  That was because they were compelled to spend most of their time on the surface, submerging only while attacking or when there was fear of detection.  However, despite them being “boats” both the US Navy and Royal Navy continue respectively to prefix their names with USS (United States Ship) and HMS (His Majesty’s Ship), ignoring anyone who points out the inconsistency.

Confederate States of America man-powered underwater boat CSS H. L. Hunley (1863-1864).

Quite when man first pondered the possibility of an “underwater boat” isn’t known but just as flight fascinated the ancients as they gazed at birds, presumably so did the fishes intrigue.  Sketches from the medieval period which appear to be “designs” for “underwater boats” have been discovered but as far as is known, it wasn’t until the 1500s that prototypes were tested and a proof-of-concept exercises some can be considered a qualified success and there were even innovations still used today such as ballast tanks but the limitations imposed by the lack of lightweight, independent power sources meant none appear to have been thought useful, certainly not for the (predictably) military purposes for which so many were intended.  The idea didn’t die however and over the centuries many inventors were granted patents for this and that and the what all seem to have concluded was that, given the available technology, an underwater boat would have to be a short range weapon capable of limited duration while submerged and man-powered by a crew of probably no more than two.  Given that, development stagnated.

The planned German Type 50 U-boat which was never launched (1918).

However, improvements in metallurgy continued and by the mid-nineteenth century, several underwater boats had been built in Europe although the admirals remained sceptical, an attitude which by many wasn’t revised even after 1864 when the one which entered service with the Confederate Navy during the US Civil War succeeded in sinking a warship nearly 200 times her displacement of 7-off tons.  However, because the method of attack was a explosive device on a long spar (the technique to ram the charge into the ship’s hull), the explosion damaged both craft to the extent both were lost.  That seemed to confirm the admirals’ view but technology moved on and by the outbreak of the First World War (1914-1918), submarines were an integral part of many navies, their usefulness made possible by the combination of diesel-electric propulsion and the development of the torpedo which meant charges detonated at a safe distance.  However, they remained submersible boats which could operate underwater only briefly.  Despite that, they proved devastatingly effective and in 1917 the Imperial German Navy’s Unterwasserboot (underwater boat (usually clipped to U-Boat)) flotillas were a genuine threat to the UK’s ability to continue the war.

German Type XII Elektroboot (1945).

In World War II (1939-1945), the course of the war could have been very different had OKM (Oberkommando der Marine; the high command of the Kriegsmarine (the German Navy 1935-1945)) followed the advice of the commander of the submarines and made available a fleet of 300 rather than building a surface fleet which wasn’t large enough to be a strategic threat but of sufficient size to absorb resources which, if devoted to submarines, could have been militarily effective.  With a fleet of 300, it would have been possible permanently to maintain around 100 at sea but at the outbreak of hostilities, only 57 active boats were on the navy’s list, not all of which were suitable for operations on the high seas so in the early days of the conflict, it was rare for the Germans to have more than 12 committed to battle in the Atlantic.  Production never reached the levels necessary for the numbers to achieve critical mass but even so, in the first two-three years of the war the losses sustained by the British were considerable and the “U-Boat menace” was such a threat that much attention was devoted to counter-measures and by 1943 the Allies could consider the battle of the Atlantic won.  The Germans’ other mistake was not building a true submarine capable of operating underwater (and therefore undetected) for days at a time.  It was only in 1945 when the armaments staff and OKM were assessing their “revolutionary” new design that it was concluded there was no reason why such craft couldn’t have been built in the 1930s because the capacity and technology existed even then.  It was a classic case of what Donald Rumsfeld (1932–2021: US defense secretary 1975-1977 & 2001-2006) would later call an “unknown known”.  The Germans in 1939 knew how to build a modern submarine but didn’t know that they knew.  Despite the improvements however, military analysts have concluded that even if deployed in numbers, such was the strength of forces arrayed against Nazi Germany that by 1945, not even such a force could have been enough to turn the tide of war.

Royal Navy Dreadnought class SSBN (Submarine, Ballistic Missile, Nuclear-powered), due to enter service in the 2030s.The concept the Germans in 1945 demonstrated in the Type XXI Elektroboot (electric boat) provided the model for post-war submarines which, once nuclear-powered, were able to remain submerged theoretically for decades, the only limitations in functional duration being the supply of food and the psychological strain on the crew.  This ability explains why they’re used by members of the “nuclear club” such as China, France, Russia, the UK & US operate them as part of their independent deterrents, equipped with submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), armed with nuclear warheads.  At this time, the boats are undetectable and they’re still been updated or replaced but there are suggestions advances in the capability of underwater sensors might erode or even remove this advantage which would mean the submarine would follow the big bomber, the battle ship and debatably the aircraft carrier as a once dominant weapon, the time of which has passed.  Already there are those in think tanks pondering whether the loss invulnerability of the SLMB platform would make war more or less likely.  Certainly, such a situation might change the math of the preemptive strike.