US fleet boats - best frontline sub of ww2?

[jazzabilly]

I happen to think that the Balao was a wonderful machine ~ if the sim is accurate, of course. I have to do some reading on the subject, which is a little weak. I much prefer it to the VIIc that I used to drive (mostly) in 3. The Battle of The Atlantic, I know very well. The Pacific, not so much.

The combination of speed, maneuverability and the EW capabilities of this boat make it my best sub pick. I don't know anything about the Tench class, though I imagine it was an improvement.

It's hard to say how differently the USN subs would have fared had the IJN had a more coherent and capable ASW force. They were certainly behind the game technologically speaking. An interesting "what if" would equip the Japanese with 10cm radar, Hedgehog and Squid DC mortars, and more capable ASW crews.

The Japanese also had no leader on par with Sir Max Horton, so the leadership wasn't there either.

As far as I can recall, it wasn't until after the war that most nations took ASW seriously, and career officers weren't normally drawn to the study of it.

[Torplexed]

I've always felt part of what made the submarine commerce war in the Atlantic and Pacific so different was that Germany and Great Britain had a huge rehearsal called World War One. Between Donitz's working on his wolfpack theories and British research into Asdic, radar, etc, they put a lot of thought and effort into it during the interwar period.

For some reason the knowledge from this bitter struggle never really caught on elsewhere. The US adapted U-Boat technology after WWI, but meandered through a lot of mediocre designs before very fortuitously coming up with the fleet boat in the late 30s, which by it's name was meant to operate with the fleet but turned out to be a fine independent machine. The US also struggled with very unrealistic prewar training and untested torpedo technology.

The Japanese really dropped the ball on their end, however. Being an island nation they really should have paid close attention to the British experience in the Great War. However, having built a navy and a mentality which emphasized the decisive battle and all things offensive it would have taken a major cultural shift for them to have done otherwise.

The US by dint of it's huge industrial capacity and it's alliance with Britain and her superb radar technology was able to overcome it's early mistakes in the misuse of it's submarines. For Japan, it was far too late by 1944 to have switched over to building cheap, dedicated escorts and radar-equipped ASW aircraft. At the time they were most needed their resources were already stretched to the breaking point. Prewar, in lieu of building the white elephant superbattleship Yamato they probably could have constructed 100 Kaikoban frigates. Hindsight is 20/20.

All that being said the fleet boats were probably the finest submarine for the environment and opponent which they were deployed against. Comparing submarines of different nationalities in WW2 is a bit like comparing apples and oranges. Unlike tanks and planes, submarines don't fight each other. They fight the other side's ASW system. :cool:

[AVGWarhawk]

Tench Class was basically the same in design as the others but it was the thick outer hull that separated it from the others. Dive a bit deeper. Take a bit more beating from DC.

[Red Lord of Chaos]

Japanese intrest in British naval technology and strategy was good upto the start of the War, indeed possibly too good, the Attack on Pearl Harbour was a copy of the British raid on Taranto. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Taranto

[Torplexed]

Japanese intrest in British naval technology and strategy was good upto the start of the War, indeed possibly too good, the Attack on Pearl Harbour was a copy of the British raid on Taranto. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Taranto
That's because the Japanese obsession with battle came at the expense of trade defense. Japan went to war with six large carriers and an excellent fleet air arm, but only four purpose-built escorts in service, and none of these had sonar (Shumushu class). None of the 14 members of the Type A Etorofu class were within two months of being laid down. They came fifth in the shipbuilding priority list. (i.e. aircraft carriers, submarines, destroyers, minesweepers, escorts) Compare this with the British Flower class frigates were by the end of January 1940, a total of 116 ships were building or on order.

[Rockin Robbins]

Just quickly without reference to any books, the American submarine had six forward and four aft torpedo tubes and carried more torpedoes to battle than any German submarine. Serving good food and having air conditioning made the men aboard a much more efficient fighting machine. They had longer range and were faster both on the surface and submerged than any German submarine that saw combat during the war.

Also, the power setup was much more advanced with the diesels used only to produce electricity for the electric motors, which were the only motors connected to the propellor shafts and to charge the batteries. Four engines vs. only two for the German submarines meant much more flexibility in power/battery charging configurations. The American TDC's position keeper was a huge step forward from the German TDC, allowing the American sub to shoot entirely blind from any depth as long as their targeting solution was valid.

And finally, the deal clencher that made the American submarine undeniably superior to ANY German submarine, a great and dependable radar.

The Germans made the mistake of going forward with WWI designs. The American subs took it to the next level. There was no comparison in quality.

[tater]

And an ice cream machine.

[joegrundman]

This is kind of a side question - -could someone explain in easy language what the comparative advantage is of a diesel-electric drive train over a direct drive diesel engine?

[Freiwillige]

German subs dived much deeper early in the war than any of their counterparts. And the German type XXI was the next evolutionary step in submarine technology, beyond reproach from anything the allies had at the time.

[jazzabilly]

German subs dived much deeper early in the war than any of their counterparts. And the German type XXI was the next evolutionary step in submarine technology, beyond reproach from anything the allies had at the time.

The Type XXI doesn't really classify as a front-line boat, as it never really saw action.

It is, of course, a milestone in submarine development.

[Schroeder]

And here goes the next apples and oranges thread.:roll:

@RockinRobbins

Is there any source that indicates an incident where a German crew has not been able to perform it's duty because of the lacking luxuary on a German sub? I've never heard of German crews being unaffective let alone much more uneffective than American crews.

@all
Let's play a little game. We pretend Germany stole the Gato - class blue prints and started to build them themselfes in let's say 1943.

The much bigger Fleetboats surely required much more ressources than the smaller German subs. Ressources Germany didn't have, so they only build a handfull of them and are therfore not able to cover the entire Atlantic (which already was impossible with dozens of German subs).
The superior radar technology is rendered useless by the ability of the British to detect radar radiation, so the moment you switch it on it will give away your position to the enemy. With the SD switched off you can only hope for enemy planes to use radar that you can detect and dive because of the slower emergency dive time compared to German subs (IIRC the war reports of USS Drum indicated a dive time of about 46-47 sec. while the German dive time of the Type VII was around 30sec. [stated by the German Wikipedia article about Type VIIs, the English article does not feature any dive times I'm afraight])
German subs could be depthcharged and hedgehoged to death in 200m depth and deeper. Now imagine how a big Fleetboat (which also resembles a big target) at 400 feet would do against British vessels.
The only advantages that could be put to use are the higher number of torpedoes and torpedo tubes (but what good are they if you can't survive an attck against a British convoy?) and the higher speed.

The Fleetboats also lacked the agility of German subs which makes evasion of escorts more difficult.

The American TDC was definetly ahead of the German one but still they could sink a lot of enemy ships too so this doesn't seem to be a major disadvantage for the German subs.
We see for Germany the Fleetboat would have been useless.

Let's turn the table and send a German sub to patrol in Japanese homewaters operated by American crews from Pearl Harbour.
Well I guess we get several problems now. The range of the German subs was not as high as that of the Flettboats so that the patrols would be shorter (although ships could be used to resupply them, but that only comes at the risk of sending a ship close to enemy waters). The amount of torpedoes is also smaller than that of the Fleetboat. The crew suffers from the missing ventilation system and missing fridges (remember German subs where not designed to operate in the Pacific). The maximum dive depth gives the u-boat a greater survivebility while beeing chased by angry escorts but finding targets to make escorts angry is somewhat more difficult without a radar (that the enemy has problems to detect in this theatre) and the crew will curse every plane that appears out of nowhere envying there friends in the Fleetboats who would have been alarmed several minutes before by the (hopefully properly working;)) SD (at least they know the have the better dive time...).


So we see both types of subs were optimal for there theatre. I surely would not want to take on British convoys in a Fleetboat. On the other hand German subs would have needed much more time to clear the Pacific ( finding the targets without radar, having not as many torpedo tunes and torpedoes and lacking the range of the Fleetboat). Maybe so much time that the Jpanese would have developed better ASW vessels and technology. (on the other hand maybe they would have done the job even quicker by simply having greater numbers fielded, but that is getting philosophically.:hmm:)

[tater]

The resources required is not valid. Had the US needed more submarines, say the 1100-1200 that germany built, we would have just churned them out.

As for the max depth, had that been an issue, we'd have simply made the pressure hull thicker. It's just a material saving issue—only make the hull as thick as it needs to be. Had we needed thicker hulls, we'd have built them in the numbers required.

The difference in dive time is only critical if you are surprised by a very fast enemy—meaning an aircraft. 15 seconds is not life or death if you have radar, so it's a non-issue.

Regarding patrol times, while the distances in the ATO were shorter, it was quite dangerous for u-boats coming and going to their home ports, no? We knew where they were based, and they needed to sneak in and out. Larger boats with more range/stores would have meant fewer trips into port.

[Schroeder]

The resources required is not valid. Had the US needed more submarines, say the 1100-1200 that germany built, we would have just churned them out.
I think it is because because it's not just the materials but also the crew numbers. German subs could operate with smaller crews.

BTW I wanted to point out with that, that Fleetboats would not have been the boats of choice for every country as was once stated on this forum.


As for the max depth, had that been an issue, we'd have simply made the pressure hull thicker. It's just a material saving issue—only make the hull as thick as it needs to be. Had we needed thicker hulls, we'd have built them in the numbers required.
Are you sure? I mean the US Navy jeopardized their crews for material saving issues although this wasn't necessary? You just said it wouldn't have been a problem to build greater numbers of subs, so builder thicker hulls really shouldn't have been a problem. That would have saved a lot of lifes I guess.


The difference in dive time is only critical if you are surprised by a very fast enemy—meaning an aircraft. 15 seconds is not life or death if you have radar, so it's a non-issue.
Only if you can use your radar. In the atlantic you could not.


Regarding patrol times, while the distances in the ATO were shorter, it was quite dangerous for u-boats coming and going to their home ports, no? We knew where they were based, and they needed to sneak in and out. Larger boats with more range/stores would have meant fewer trips into port.
O.K. that's a point.

[Captain Vlad]

Is there any source that indicates an incident where a German crew has not been able to perform it's duty because of the lacking luxuary on a German sub? I've never heard of German crews being unaffective let alone much more uneffective than American crews.


Fresh food, better habitation, etc = better morale and potentially longer patrol times. Don't think RR was saying the Germans couldn't do their job because they didn't have ice cream -- Age of Sail sailors would sail for a year with moldy bread and some warm grog -- but the increased livability of the US subs couldn't help but have a positive effect on the crew's mindset and willingness to continue giving their best.

[Torplexed]

@all
Let's play a little game. We pretend Germany stole the Gato - class blue prints and started to build them themselfes in let's say 1943.


If I were Doenitz I would have then put them to the same use as the Type IX. Long range patrols to distant, less well patrolled waters. More torpedoes, more tubes, better electronics, habitability, more sinkings. That's more of an apples and apples comparison of course. ;)

[gimpy117]

The resources required is not valid. Had the US needed more submarines, say the 1100-1200 that germany built, we would have just churned them out.
I think it is because because it's not just the materials but also the crew numbers. German subs could operate with smaller crews.

BTW I wanted to point out with that, that Fleetboats would not have been the boats of choice for every country as was once stated on this forum.


As for the max depth, had that been an issue, we'd have simply made the pressure hull thicker. It's just a material saving issue—only make the hull as thick as it needs to be. Had we needed thicker hulls, we'd have built them in the numbers required.
Are you sure? I mean the US Navy jeopardized their crews for material saving issues although this wasn't necessary? You just said it wouldn't have been a problem to build greater numbers of subs, so builder thicker hulls really shouldn't have been a problem. That would have saved a lot of lifes I guess.


The difference in dive time is only critical if you are surprised by a very fast enemy—meaning an aircraft. 15 seconds is not life or death if you have radar, so it's a non-issue.
Only if you can use your radar. In the atlantic you could not.


Regarding patrol times, while the distances in the ATO were shorter, it was quite dangerous for u-boats coming and going to their home ports, no? We knew where they were based, and they needed to sneak in and out. Larger boats with more range/stores would have meant fewer trips into port.
O.K. that's a point.
Ummm....max depth....the USS Chopper made it to 1011 feet at the bow and 720 ft. at the stern. 295 M is the Crush depth for a German U-Boat (VIIC IX was shallower) or about 885 feet.

I've seen both boats, U-505 in Chicago and the USS. Silversides In Muskegon MI. and I can say that the Fleet Boat is a much more impressive machine.
she had more tubes, more guns on average (counting AA and deck guns), better radar, deeper dive depth, sonar ranging systems, a better TDC, A/C, Refrigeration, and not to mention redundant Drivetrains.

[Rockin Robbins]

Yeah, what Gimpy said. Shroeder, the propensity for a depth charged U-Boat to just give up and surface while not heavily damaged was SO prevalent that Daniel Gallery used it as the plan for capturing U-505. In his book, Gallery discusses that at length and attributes it to the morale of the crew, not the capability of the boat. Ability to stand up to stress is severely impacted by environmental concerns. Germans and Japanese gave no thought to creature comforts which can make tremendous differences in the outcome of stressful situations. It doesn't make sense in view of our tendency toward macho views of what a warship should be like (they fight better BECAUSE of the primitive conditions. If we take out the bathrooms they'll fight even harder! Hard conditions make hard men!:rotfl:), but it is very true. Well-rested, well-fed, comfortable men handle stress better than "hard men in hard conditions." That means they fight better too.

Doenitz would have killed to have a fleet of American fleet boats with radar. The presence of radar detectors does not make radar any less useful. You act like the radar detector evens the game. It does not. While the possessor of the radar knew the exact disposition of the enemy, the possessor of the radar detector knew only that someone with enemy radar was somewhere out there. Joe Enright in his book Shinano! tells how he ran his radar throughout the entire encounter even though he knew for a fact that the Japanese ships likely had radar detectors. They did and they detected his radar. What does Shinano say about that evening of the odds? Try "blub, blub, blub." Enright knew that leaving the radar on was the right thing to do. So should you.

[gimpy117]

Agreed with the radar Robbins.

U boats couldn't use the radars because of the air presence in the Atlantic, who were equipped with HF/DF units (ships also had this but air power was by far the most deadly).
If I'm not mistaken we had them pretty pegged on radar / radio detection and could even pinpoint the general location of the boats. I would assume they could pinpoint radar signals as well considering it is a form of electromagnetic wave

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HF/DF

But that aside, American electronics were far more advanced and this went the same for radar systems.

[Schroeder]

Ummm....max depth....the USS Chopper made it to 1011 feet at the bow and 720 ft. at the stern. 295 M is the Crush depth for a German U-Boat (VIIC IX was shallower) or about 885 feet.

May I ask how they measured that? I think I haven't seen a Fleet Boat with an depth gauge that went to 1000feet.:o


I've seen both boats, U-505 in Chicago and the USS. Silversides In Muskegon MI. and I can say that the Fleet Boat is a much more impressive machine.
she had more tubes, more guns on average (counting AA and deck guns), better radar, deeper dive depth, sonar ranging systems, a better TDC, A/C, Refrigeration, and not to mention redundant Drivetrains. Well there have been Flak-Uboats in Germany too, but they failed to provide decent anti air cover so the idea was droped again. I think no sub stayed voluntarily surfaced to gun it out with an aircraft. Well for the bigger weapons ask some people of the RFB team how important they were.;)

@Rockin Robbins
I didn't know about the stress situation leading to abondoning subs.:o
The living conditions on the Fleet Boats were better for sure (how much worse can they get compared to a German sub;)) but I didn't know that it had such an impact. But the demoralising is not only a matter of comfort. Maybe they had cracked just the same on a Fleet Boat under the circumstance that many of their fellow subs had been sunk and they might have had several close calls before (I don't know the details of U505 service life...yet).

For the radar detector. From what I know (or think to know) the radar detectors used by escorts could point to the direction from which the enemy radiation came. Therfore only two ships were needed that were some distance apart from each other to locate the radiation source (I think the British did that with normal radio traffic radiaton of the German subs too). So if you use your radar against Tommies things might have turned out differently as in the Pacific.

Again, I don't want to say the German subs were the best and that the Fleet Boats sucked. I just wanted to point out that (IMHO) there is no THE BEST submarine, tank, plane, weapon....etc.
It always depends on the situation and the environment. The Fleet Boats were definitly the boats of choice for the Pacific but I doubt that they would have been that successfull if Germany had used them in the Atlantic against the British.

[tater]

As for the max depth, had that been an issue, we'd have simply made the pressure hull thicker. It's just a material saving issue—only make the hull as thick as it needs to be. Had we needed thicker hulls, we'd have built them in the numbers required.
Are you sure? I mean the US Navy jeopardized their crews for material saving issues although this wasn't necessary? You just said it wouldn't have been a problem to build greater numbers of subs, so builder thicker hulls really shouldn't have been a problem. That would have saved a lot of lifes I guess.

There are other design trade offs. Heavier boat would likely require bigger motors, etc. We only lost 52 boats, and many of those in shallow water. Had we decided that our boats were being sunk for lack of depth, we'd have altered them.

Remember as well that the design for even the later war boats was gelled up during a period where USN intel knew that the IJN seems to set their DCs at a max depth well above what the subs could already do.

[gimpy117]

Ummm....max depth....the USS Chopper made it to 1011 feet at the bow and 720 ft. at the stern. 295 M is the Crush depth for a German U-Boat (VIIC IX was shallower) or about 885 feet.

May I ask how they measured that? I think I haven't seen a Fleet Boat with an depth gauge that went to 1000feet.:o


I've seen both boats, U-505 in Chicago and the USS. Silversides In Muskegon MI. and I can say that the Fleet Boat is a much more impressive machine.
she had more tubes, more guns on average (counting AA and deck guns), better radar, deeper dive depth, sonar ranging systems, a better TDC, A/C, Refrigeration, and not to mention redundant Drivetrains. Well there have been Flak-Uboats in Germany too, but they failed to provide decent anti air cover so the idea was droped again. I think no sub stayed voluntarily surfaced to gun it out with an aircraft. Well for the bigger weapons ask some people of the RFB team how important they were.;)

@Rockin Robbins
I didn't know about the stress situation leading to abondoning subs.:o
The living conditions on the Fleet Boats were better for sure (how much worse can they get compared to a German sub;)) but I didn't know that it had such an impact. But the demoralising is not only a matter of comfort. Maybe they had cracked just the same on a Fleet Boat under the circumstance that many of their fellow subs had been sunk and they might have had several close calls before (I don't know the details of U505 service life...yet).

For the radar detector. From what I know (or think to know) the radar detectors used by escorts could point to the direction from which the enemy radiation came. Therfore only two ships were needed that were some distance apart from each other to locate the radiation source (I think the British did that with normal radio traffic radiaton of the German subs too). So if you use your radar against Tommies things might have turned out differently as in the Pacific.

Again, I don't want to say the German subs were the best and that the Fleet Boats sucked. I just wanted to point out that (IMHO) there is no THE BEST submarine, tank, plane, weapon....etc.
It always depends on the situation and the environment. The Fleet Boats were definitly the boats of choice for the Pacific but I doubt that they would have been that successfull if Germany had used them in the Atlantic against the British.
I've read that fleet boats were equipped with other methods of depth measurement.

here's a detailed breakdown: http://www.usschopper.com/Chopper%20Deep%20Dive%20Report.htm

and direction finding can be done with one aircraft and ship...it was even used as a navigation method on aircraft such ad the DC-3 (aka the C-47) and by using a round antenna or a special antenna the Brits were supposed to have you can point your way too a known nav station. This same method is used for finding submarines or, for that matter, anything that gives out electromagnetic waves in the specific bandwidth

[joegrundman]

I think it's very difficult to compare the performances since the quality of the ASW opposition was just so enormously different.

Strangely on this forum you get the feeling it's unpatriotic to say so.

Still after the ATO theater is fully developed for SH4, it should be easy to get a pseudo-test of these things! Driving a Gato in the Atlantic against the allies should be easy enough to mod.

but the increased livability of the US subs couldn't help but have a positive effect on the crew's mindset and willingness to continue giving their best

how do you know this?

Yeah, what Gimpy said. Shroeder, the propensity for a depth charged U-Boat to just give up and surface while not heavily damaged was SO prevalent that Daniel Gallery used it as the plan for capturing U-505. In his book, Gallery discusses that at length and attributes it to the morale of the crew, not the capability of the boat. Ability to stand up to stress is severely impacted by environmental concerns. Germans and Japanese gave no thought to creature comforts which can make tremendous differences in the outcome of stressful situations. It doesn't make sense in view of our tendency toward macho views of what a warship should be like (they fight better BECAUSE of the primitive conditions. If we take out the bathrooms they'll fight even harder! Hard conditions make hard men!:rotfl:), but it is very true. Well-rested, well-fed, comfortable men handle stress better than "hard men in hard conditions." That means they fight better too.

But then on the other hand the capture of U505 was in 1944, and the ASW the Germans received at that time was tremendously deadly. Knowing that your chances of escaping after being properly detected and located were at that time less than even, don't you think this would have a bigger influence on your decision to surrender than whether or not you had soft toilet paper?

The American experience was very different, since the Japanese ASW started out crap, got slightly better, but still far from good, and then became worse again as planes and destroyers were being eliminated. Why would an American skipper surrender, risking the lives of his crewmen trying to surface near a destroyer, when he knows his chances of successful evasion are so much better?

Now i personally love my creature comforts, and would also like to believe they make me a better warrior, but i think assessment of more rational influences explains things more satisfactorily.

Anyway from the US Operational Submarine History "It would do well for all Submariners to humbly ponder the fact that Japanese Anti-Submarine defenses were not the best. If our Submarines had been confronted with Allied Anti-Submarine measures, the casuality list of the Submarine force would have been much larger, and the accomplishment of Allied Submarines less impressive."

Anyway, I repeat my question about engines - what is the comparative advantage of a diesel-electric over diesel direct drive?

[LukeFF]

how do you know this?

It's directly referred to in the patrol reports submitted by the commanders of the boats.

[joegrundman]

how do you know this?
It's directly referred to in the patrol reports submitted by the commanders of the boats.

Fair enough, but of course you'd be foolish to report that the icecream maker and decent food was just a useless waste of space! The USN might decide they may better serve in their own homes!

Secondly, how do you assess the actual effect, did those men in the smelly sugar-boats report they wanted to surrender because of it?

Thirdly, and possibly at some contradiction to myself, in one of my books i have, it reports that submarines of all nationalities tended to be given better than average food for the purpose of making up for the lack of other comforts on a submarine.

The Japanese submarines had the best food the navy could afford for them, fresh rice, miso soup, pickles and tinned clams for example.

[LukeFF]

Secondly, how do you assess the actual effect, did those men in the smelly sugar-boats report they wanted to surrender because of it?
No, but the reports are abundantly clear (and blunt, for that matter) that living conditions on board S boats were poor. Living on a boat that was cold and dripping wet for months on end, sleeping on wet and moldy mattresses (and working with equipment that accumulated mold as well) were all commonplace with these boats.

[kylesplanet]

Just to go along with what Luke is saying, here is a excerpt from Silent Victory on S-Boat conditions:

The bunks beyond the wardroom are filled with torpid, skivvy-clad bodies, the sweat running off the white, rash-blistered skin in small rivulets. Metal fans are whirling everywhere-overhead, at the ends of the bunks, close to my ear....I am playing cribbage with the skipper, mainly because I don't like to wallow in a sweat-soaked bunk for most of the day.
I have my elbows on the table near the edge and I hold my cards with my arms at a slight angle so the sweat will run down my bare arms...without further soaking the pile of cards in the center. Overhead is a fine net of gauze to catch the wayward cockroaches which prowl across the top of the wardroom and occasionally fall straight downward...they live in the cork insulation that lines the subs hull. We've killed over sixteen million roaches in one compartment alone. The control room floor is littered with towels, used to sponge up the water dripping off the men and the submarine itself. The food is routine...something canned. The dehydrated potato's, powdered onions and reconstitued carrots have the same general taste...like sawdust.

That has to have a negative effect on the mindset.

[tater]

S boats are pretty much u-boats in terms of comfort, right?

I'm currently reading Pigboat 39, I'll letcha know how it is.

So far, there has been a lot of introducing the crew. It's interesting since the book was written by the wife of the pigboat submariner, and she had followed him to the Philippines. Loads of stuff about the wives, girlfriends, etc. I think my wife might actually like to read it, lol. Not my usual military history, but it certainly put a human face on things.

BTW, she said her husband would come home from the boat and stink.

[joegrundman]

I expect it is true that quality of life has a difference in the long-term running of a boat, but i do not think you are making a case that these difference outweigh more simple life/death calculations when it comes to hugely important and high-risk decisions such as surrendering in the middle of a depth-charging, or being able to perform a tracking calculation.

I'd say that good conditions likely reduce the possiblity of mutiny, maybe even keep overall performance up particularly over the very long pacific voyages, and help reduce friction between crewmen.

Kylesplanet is confusing "having an effect on the mindset", which can be anything, like what the guy in the next bunk said to you this morning, and the kind of decision making that would go on when assessing your chances of survival.

LukeFF has been in the forces.

Lets put the following scenario to him. He's trapped behind a rock and he's alone without a radio and out of ammo. The nearest real cover is 50 yards away. There are five guys about 100 yards away with AKs pointing at his rock.

The options available are - surrender, and accept the risk of being shot in the act of surrender or being shot summarily after.

Or try to run 50 yards in the open for the better cover and hope they miss.

Let's say our man knows that the five guys are poorly trained and the rifles don't seem to work well, and our man can run pretty fast. He sees that bullets rarely even come close to his rock and the guys sound like they're drunk. He's also heard they are pretty cruel bunch and like to shoot dead prisoners. Would this knowledge change his perception of his chances?

Let's say our man sees that these guys are very well trained and every time he puts an eye over the top of rock, a bullet whistles past missing by millimeters - he also sees they are maneuvering in a competent manner for a better position. He's also heard that if he did surrender he'll be treated fairly. Would this knowledge change his perception of his chances?

Let's say our man has clean silk underwear and had a good breakfast of ham and eggs, and that furthermore the spot behind his rock happens to be nicely in the shade and there's a cool breeze. Would this change his perception of his chances?

If the answer is yes to all, would you care to prioritse?

[Gino]

Comparing submarines is always fun to do.

However, don't forget to include the 'battlefields' they were intended to fight on.
For the Germans it was merely running out of the port and fight. So, they didn't need to have six tubes forward and 4 aft. With the load the VIIC could carry it was more than enough to send them out, run into the enemy, which they knew was there, attack, get back into port and run out again in a couple of weeks. The US had to first sail to their area of operation, and then find the Japanese, which had no regular running convoys.
Then they would attack and when empty had to sail the whole !@#$ route back.
Of course after so many days at sea the overhaul time was longer for the fleetsubs, where the Germans only took some weeks.

Also keep in mind that it was thanks to bright characters like Admiral Nimitz, that the fleetsub had all the luxury like airconditioning. Before WW2 other Navy staff didn't think it was a good idea, it would only 'spoil the crew'. But, maybe Nimitz knew about the new Dutch submarines that came to the Dutch Indies (now Indonesia) in 1938. They already had airconditioning, and a snorkel, and a half-automatic torpedo loading system...

Anyway, compare all subs if you like, but also take into account the role they were meant to play.

groetjes,

[Captain Vlad]

That has to have a negative effect on the mindset.
All that, and the roaches were big.

Was that from Silent Victory? Sounds like a passage from 'My War in the Boats'?

[kylesplanet]

That has to have a negative effect on the mindset.
All that, and the roaches were big.

Was that from Silent Victory? Sounds like a passage from 'My War in the Boats'?

Silent Victory pg 297 ;)

[NEON DEON]

That has to have a negative effect on the mindset.
All that, and the roaches were big.

Was that from Silent Victory? Sounds like a passage from 'My War in the Boats'?

Silent Victory pg 297 ;)

I think you guys are both right:D

[kylesplanet]

Kylesplanet is confusing "having an effect on the mindset", which can be anything, like what the guy in the next bunk said to you this morning, and the kind of decision making that would go on when assessing your chances of survival.

I'm not confusing that I just think that demoralizing conditions can effect ones judgement, some more than others.
I don't think the U Boat crews said "I'm gonna surrender because my sub sucks" but at the same time, many may be conditioned to think that a POW probably had better living conditions and a better chance of living.

I'm certainly not implying everyone did that but the possibility is there.

[Freiwillige]

One must also take into account the high (Elite) status the Unterseebootwaffe held in German eyes. It was a volunteer force first off, and every man knew why he was there as well as what his duty was. Secondly most U-boat men held the perception that Germany was right in its war of defence against England and its war mongering Churchell.

Under the stress of constant depth charges men crack. But the Resolve of the German U-boat fleet is beyond question. They kept going out even when more and more failed to return. Volunteers were never hard to find in the Kreigsmarine for Doenitz's subs.

The conditions aboard a u-boat may have been harsh at times but not to the extent that there was a massive failure in morale, Even in the end.

If almost certain death isnt enough of a demoraliser, than what does sweaty bunks and moldy cheese have to offer?

[joegrundman]

Kylesplanet is confusing "having an effect on the mindset", which can be anything, like what the guy in the next bunk said to you this morning, and the kind of decision making that would go on when assessing your chances of survival.
I'm not confusing that I just think that demoralizing conditions can effect ones judgement, some more than others.
I don't think the U Boat crews said "I'm gonna surrender because my sub sucks" but at the same time, many may be conditioned to think that a POW probably had better living conditions and a better chance of living.

I'm certainly not implying everyone did that but the possibility is there.

so you agree that the creature comforts on the submarine did not have a significant effect on the likelihood of a submarine attempting to surrender in war

[A Very Super Market]

You fail to realize that it wouldn't have mattered how bad your sub was, you didn't want to surrender to the Japanese.

[joegrundman]

i did in fact take that into consideration,

but nonetheless, the point supports my main argument here that rationale life and death considerations have a stronger influence on whether or not to surrender or evade than the quality of life and creature comforts on board the submarine

[kylesplanet]

Kylesplanet is confusing "having an effect on the mindset", which can be anything, like what the guy in the next bunk said to you this morning, and the kind of decision making that would go on when assessing your chances of survival.
I'm not confusing that I just think that demoralizing conditions can effect ones judgement, some more than others.
I don't think the U Boat crews said "I'm gonna surrender because my sub sucks" but at the same time, many may be conditioned to think that a POW probably had better living conditions and a better chance of living.

I'm certainly not implying everyone did that but the possibility is there.

so you agree that the creature comforts on the submarine did not have a significant effect on the likelihood of a submarine attempting to surrender in war

I don't think it was a deciding factor in most situations but bad conditions can lead to bad decisions. It's why we practice psychological warfare.

When you compare the two enviornments, the Fleetboats certainly had the advantage and the little details tend to make the difference.

[joegrundman]

kylesplanet, you are speaking in circles, and i'm beginning to tire of saying the same thing over and over

on the one hand you say the living conditions are not responsible, and then you say it is the little things that make the difference

which is it, in your opinion? The little things that lead a man to surrender his boat and crew, or the very,very big things?

the fact that you don't get ice cream, or the fact that you and your crew have a less than 50% chance of surviving if you don't surrender

which would make you surrender?

and as for the psychological warfare thing - psychological warfare is trying to give your opponent the impression that further resistance is futile and that is not likely to be obtained by cutting off their ice-cream machines unless the power to do so reveals a greater truth about the situation.

[kylesplanet]

kylesplanet, you are speaking in circles, and i'm beginning to tire of saying the same thing over and over

on the one hand you say the living conditions are not responsible, and then you say it is the little things that make the difference

which is it, in your opinion? The little things that lead a man to surrender his boat and crew, or the very,very big things?

the fact that you don't get ice cream, or the fact that you and your crew have a less than 50% chance of surviving if you don't surrender

which would make you surrender?

and as for the psychological warfare thing - psychological warfare is trying to give your opponent the impression that further resistance is futile and that is not likely to be obtained by cutting off their ice-cream machines unless the power to do so reveals a greater truth about the situation.

I'm not talking about an ice cream machine. In the post that I made about the S Boat conditions, there was no mention of ice cream. As I said before, I don't think they said "this is awful so I quit" but bad conditions lead to bad decisions which can cause you to lose your sub.
I think the Fleetboats had an advantage through a better enviornment and I believe it played a part in the u-boat war. When you spend a long time in those conditions it has effects on your performance, directly and indirectly.

[LukeFF]

I don't think the U Boat crews said "I'm gonna surrender because my sub sucks" but at the same time, many may be conditioned to think that a POW probably had better living conditions and a better chance of living.

I'm certainly not implying everyone did that but the possibility is there.

One thing people are forgetting is that the battery compartments on the U-boats were highly prone to cracking and thus releasing toxic chlorine gas. Once that happens, the crew's only chance of survival is to surface the boat. Of course, those cracked batteries were probably the result of a depth-charge attack, so it was pretty much game over when a U-boat had suffered cracked batteries when under attack from surface units.

[Freiwillige]

I have never heard of U-boats being highly prone to cracked batteries. All of the axis and allies subs used the same battery technology so wouldnt any sub be "Highly" prone to cracked batteries under an extreme depth charge attack?

I dont think German batteries were any more "Highly prone" than any other nations batteries.
I could be wrong but this is the first I have heard of it.

Maybe its because the Allies ASW technology tended to put a German U-boat under more combat stress for prolonged periods of time as opposed to other nations subs?

[gmuno]

The U-boats carried each about 50 liters of chalk-milk for neutralising leaked battery acid (at least the German ones). High pressure changes could lead to cracking cells and if the chalk milk wasn't used immediatly, chlorine gas would build up (and also some amounts of hydrogen). Sometimes the milk solidified (specially when standing around for some weeks) and mixing it up again took some time. Time you didn't have while being 'charged. Some skippers were stiring, but not all of them. I read once an account about a hunt for a sub which sunk during an attack by internal explosions. Hydrogen cannot be tasted in the air but is highly dangerous. The chlorine gas might have been neutralised but when chlorine gas hits chalk theres an additional build up of hydrogen. It might have reached a critical level.

[Rockin Robbins]

Comparing submarines is always fun to do.

However, don't forget to include the 'battlefields' they were intended to fight on.
For the Germans it was merely running out of the port and fight. So, they didn't need to have six tubes forward and 4 aft. With the load the VIIC could carry it was more than enough to send them out, run into the enemy, which they knew was there, attack, get back into port and run out again in a couple of weeks.
groetjes,
Gino, that's fine, but they were out there without the ability to change the war because they didn't have near the right amount of firepower. Throughout the war, German submarines succeeded in sinking a total of 1% of the shipping in Allied convoys. I would argue that the Germans had a need for ten forward torpedo tubes and four aft torpedo tubes.

Your best chance to tag a victim is during your first salvo, before the enemy knows that there is a sub out there and exactly where it is. Especially in the hostile environment U-Boats operated in they needed to fill the water full of torpedoes instantly, through many torpedo tubes in order to have the slightest prayer that their sacrifice was worthwhile.

Also, the German U-Boat was fatally crippled by lower speeds both surfaced and submerged than fleet boats. Often people refer to the "agility" of the U-Boat. It was a one-dimensional agility. Once submerged in that awful hurry, all the U-Boat could do was wallow around like Fat Albert in a wading pool. An S-Boat was agile. The U-Boat was a sitting duck once submerged. It could not evade well and it could not run for position submerged. Much is said of the "daring" surface attack methods of the U-Boats. It was much less daring and much more the only effective way they could attack because of inadequate submerged speed.

Finally, not having enough torpedoes forced the U-Boats to run the gauntlet into and out of port more often than necessary. This was arguably the most dangerous part of each cruise, and they had to do it much more than necessary. What was the percentage of U-Boats sunk without having sunk a single target, in spite of their immediate and target rich environment? How many were sunk without even having fired a single torpedo?

Even the decision to use U-Boats at all for offensive purposes was flawed because they were the wrong kind of boat, the British weren't shipping their supplies on their own bottoms and use of the U-Boats guaranteed the entry of the United States into the war. The Germans, with their cold-minded calculation, should have seen this in 1939 and made the decision to use U-Boats for defensive purposes only and pursue the war with the aim of keeping Britain and the US out of the war. Any other use of the things guaranteed defeat. You can't torpedo a truck convoy crossing Kansas, even if you don't have enough torpedoes to sink more than a couple!

[Nisgeis]

This is kind of a side question - -could someone explain in easy language what the comparative advantage is of a diesel-electric drive train over a direct drive diesel engine?

You can choose how you manage your generated electricity. If your engines are direct drive, then you can only charge your batteries as fast as you steam on the surface. With the engines driving generators only, you can choose to steam at an efficient speed, whilst having the engines at full throttle to charge your batteries quickly and reduce the time you need to spend on the surface.

[tater]

Nisgeis is spot on, as is RR regarding "agility."

Allied A/S doctrine was to hold enemy subs down longer than they could remain submerged, at which point they'd have no choice but to surface. Any time during this period they could be sunk, as well, obviously. If you know where a sub attack was, you saturate the area with ASW assets and it's gotta stay down. That area is a circle around the last contact point equal to the distance it can travel underwater given the amount of air it might have. Surface attacks mean that it has fresh air when it does dive, as well as massively increasing the area needed to be searched since the speeds are literally like 10X higher.

[mheil]

Quote:
Originally Posted by joegrundman
This is kind of a side question - -could someone explain in easy language what the comparative advantage is of a diesel-electric drive train over a direct drive diesel engine?

The electric motors provide a non-mechanical link from the propellors to the engines. If the propellor shaft moves or shifts suddenly, without the electric motors to absorb the shock, it could cause harm to the engine(s) moving parts. The electric motors had fewer moving parts and could take more punishment than an engine. Having electric cables connecting the electric motors to the engines could also mean that you were better able to jury-rig a way to get yourself moving than having a heavy mechanical connection.

[Freiwillige]

Comparing submarines is always fun to do.

However, don't forget to include the 'battlefields' they were intended to fight on.
For the Germans it was merely running out of the port and fight. So, they didn't need to have six tubes forward and 4 aft. With the load the VIIC could carry it was more than enough to send them out, run into the enemy, which they knew was there, attack, get back into port and run out again in a couple of weeks.
groetjes,
Gino, that's fine, but they were out there without the ability to change the war because they didn't have near the right amount of firepower. Throughout the war, German submarines succeeded in sinking a total of 1% of the shipping in Allied convoys. I would argue that the Germans had a need for ten forward torpedo tubes and four aft torpedo tubes.

Your best chance to tag a victim is during your first salvo, before the enemy knows that there is a sub out there and exactly where it is. Especially in the hostile environment U-Boats operated in they needed to fill the water full of torpedoes instantly, through many torpedo tubes in order to have the slightest prayer that their sacrifice was worthwhile.

Also, the German U-Boat was fatally crippled by lower speeds both surfaced and submerged than fleet boats. Often people refer to the "agility" of the U-Boat. It was a one-dimensional agility. Once submerged in that awful hurry, all the U-Boat could do was wallow around like Fat Albert in a wading pool. An S-Boat was agile. The U-Boat was a sitting duck once submerged. It could not evade well and it could not run for position submerged. Much is said of the "daring" surface attack methods of the U-Boats. It was much less daring and much more the only effective way they could attack because of inadequate submerged speed.

Finally, not having enough torpedoes forced the U-Boats to run the gauntlet into and out of port more often than necessary. This was arguably the most dangerous part of each cruise, and they had to do it much more than necessary. What was the percentage of U-Boats sunk without having sunk a single target, in spite of their immediate and target rich environment? How many were sunk without even having fired a single torpedo?

Even the decision to use U-Boats at all for offensive purposes was flawed because they were the wrong kind of boat, the British weren't shipping their supplies on their own bottoms and use of the U-Boats guaranteed the entry of the United States into the war. The Germans, with their cold-minded calculation, should have seen this in 1939 and made the decision to use U-Boats for defensive purposes only and pursue the war with the aim of keeping Britain and the US out of the war. Any other use of the things guaranteed defeat. You can't torpedo a truck convoy crossing Kansas, even if you don't have enough torpedoes to sink more than a couple!

The question you asked as to how many U-boats were sunk without even firing a torpedo. That has more to do with the fact that the Allies knew exactly where the Uboats were and simply sailed around them because we cracked there Enigma machine and read all of their naval traffic. When that was not possible the U-boats scored well. An example of this is in 1941 when they changed the Enigma machine and added another code wheel to it. After we lost the ability to read their codes the U-Boats success went right back up.

It hs more to do with the situation surrounding the Atlantic war than any short comming of the subs themselves. If Germany had built more Type VII's and Type IX's and trained there crews in the beginning of the wart the outcome might have been differant for England. As it is in 1940 a whoafully inadiquate U-boat force that was 1/10th of what Reader had wanted to put against England almost brought England to submission. 2 weeks of vital supplies left for the Island. ASW in the Atlantic was completly superior to what was encountered in the Pacific.
Even aircraft were more of a threat because there were more of them and they had all the latest ASW technology.

[gimpy117]

but honestly, as a fighting machine...I don't see a reason why the Fleet Boat wasn't better.

the german subs were antiquity designed granted, but were talking what was best design wise, not tactically

[Freiwillige]

Well the Fleet boat was huge by German standards and took up alot of raw materials for a war that was supposed to be against England a much smaller type VII was more than adequate to do the job. Also people keep acting as if the U-boats were WW1 boats. They were not, They were built in the mid 1930's just like the fleet boats. The larger type IX was Germany's version of a fleet boat and suited the navy's needs quite well while again using less men and materials.

There wasnt any technological gap in German and American sub desighns of the 1930's. They both used basic improved upon WW1 knowledge. The allies had better radar. THe Germans had better torpedo's with the acoustic homing, Lut and FAT desighns.

All and all both capable fighting machines.

[gimpy117]

Well the Fleet boat was huge by German standards and took up alot of raw materials for a war that was supposed to be against England a much smaller type VII was more than adequate to do the job. Also people keep acting as if the U-boats were WW1 boats. They were not, They were built in the mid 1930's just like the fleet boats. The larger type IX was Germany's version of a fleet boat and suited the navy's needs quite well while again using less men and materials.

There wasnt any technological gap in German and American sub desighns of the 1930's. They both used basic improved upon WW1 knowledge. The allies had better radar. THe Germans had better torpedo's with the acoustic homing, Lut and FAT desighns.

All and all both capable fighting machines.
yes tactically they were....but Raw Materials were not a problem in america...
the VIIC is supposed to be an updated WWI sub...it's practically identical

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Type_UB_III_submarine

http://www.uboat.net/wwi/types/images/ubiii.gif

[Rockin Robbins]

Well the Fleet boat was huge by German standards and took up alot of raw materials for a war that was supposed to be against England a much smaller type VII was more than adequate to do the job. Also people keep acting as if the U-boats were WW1 boats. They were not, They were built in the mid 1930's just like the fleet boats. The larger type IX was Germany's version of a fleet boat and suited the navy's needs quite well while again using less men and materials.

There wasnt any technological gap in German and American sub desighns of the 1930's. They both used basic improved upon WW1 knowledge. The allies had better radar. THe Germans had better torpedo's with the acoustic homing, Lut and FAT desighns.

All and all both capable fighting machines.
Again, Freiwillege, no U-Boat took enough torpedoes to war to do enough harm to be a meaningful threat. That 1% sinking rate is a devastating testimony to the impotence of the huge U-Boat fleet. Where the allies had many engineering advancements in the 1930's the Germans had next to none. Their Type VIIC was pretty much identical to the technology and capability of a WWI boat. Even the American S-Boat was MUCH faster underwater and we consider them total losers.

The American ballasting system was far in advance of anything the Germans took to war. The diesel-electric American system compared to the German direct drive clutch system is like comparing a Lamborghini to a farm tractor. American all-welded construction was light-years ahead of the German riveted hull. You are ignoring virtually every single aspect of the submarine, looking at them with unfocused eyes and declaring them equal because they are the same color blur. Look at the details, system by system and the American sub is technically MUCH better at least 3/5 of the time. I'm being too charitable with that 3/5.

AND the use of the U-Boat guaranteed the loss of the war. Since England did not ship its supplies on its own bottoms, the normally sober-minded Germans chose to ignore the certainty that unrestricted submarine warfare would bring the United States into the war. The very use of U-Boats in unrestricted warfare was the doom of Germany in the war. Once Britain and the United States lined up against Germany, the war was lost and the only question was in what manner were they going to die. Perhaps the stupidest decision in a war of stupid German decisions was the decision to fight Britain and the US.

The U-Boats should not even have been built. All those raw materials would have been better used to make tanks, artillery, vehicles and planes. But WWII was not a war of sane people fighting for reasonable objects with attainable goals. It was the war of a psychopathic god, busily finding creative ways for his people and himself to commit suicide, taking as many others with them on their way to Valhalla as possible, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory again and again. This he called glory.:rotfl:

[Freiwillige]

Okay it is based on a ww1 desighn but it was modernised to quite an extent. Modern building techniques were utilised such as all welded hull construction as opposed to riveted ww1 desighns making the Type VII have a much deeper diving depth than its UBIII ww1 bretheren it was based on. So in essance you take a proven WW1 desighn (UB III) and modernise it with 25+ years of technological advancement and you have the proven and succesfull Type VII.

The question is how much differant were the fleet boats to their predisessors?
Other then size not much until you begin adding the gadgets.:up:

Lets face it submarine warfare had not changed much in 30 years until one takes into account minor improvments such as improved hydrophones and radar.

[rubenandthejets]

The forum needs a "worst sub. of WWII" thread-like the Italian subs that took nearly three minutes to crash dive.

[gimpy117]

still...

more tubes, more range, more gadgets, more crew comfort, deeper dive, and more tonnage sunk etc.

how can we argue against the fleet boats??

[tater]

The same point has been made a couple ways on both sides of the argument.

That the theater of war mattered. Meaning that different boats might be better for different theaters.

Dissect that a little. The argument for the u-boats is that due to the nature of the ATO, the u-boat was a superior, or at the very least an equally capable platform. This might be true assuming you neglect a single, important factor. The purpose of the submarine force.

Results matter.

The KM sank many more tons, but RR alludes to this, and he is 100% correct—the increase in tonnage they sank was not enough. Not NEARLY enough.

Thought experiment:
Say the u-boats that saw service could have magically carried twice as many torpedoes. Seriously, magic—a Star Trek transporter that beamed them a full load as soon as they were out. They'd have maybe sunk 2% of convoyed traffic? What % was required to do the bottom line job assigned the KM—choke off Allied supply from the West to the extent that the Germans had a chance? A damn sight higher than 2%, that's how much.

So holding even twice as many fish—with no change in performance at all— would still not have made them the right tool for the task, though more would only have been better given the gauntlet they had to run.

It's a tribute to their crew quality that they did so well, actually (I won't say doctrine, because I believe their radio-centric doctrine was their most critical failure).

[Freiwillige]

This is becoming fruitless as many just outright ignore facts.

Fact: German U-boats had an advanced welded hull construction. Not the Type VII nor any other WWII boat had Rivets. See my post above on the type VII's evolution from the WW1 UB III

Fact: German U-boats have on a few occasions exceeded 300 meters depth and a couple of times by a scary margine. 300 meters is 984.5 feet. The type VIIC\41 had a thicker Pressure hull and could go deeper than any other U-boat.

Fact:The U-boats sank 3,476 merchant vessals during WW2 with the peak in 1942.

Fact: Admiral Doenitz had wanted 300 U-boats to go to war with England. He had stated that any less would make a blockade of England near imposable.
When WWII broke out he had 57 and of those the majority were the small coastal boats! Only 27 were sea boats available to blockade England.

So one could equate tha it wasnt that the tool wasnt right for the job just that there were not enough tools to do the job right in the first place.

So speed goes to the fleet boats surface and underwater.
# of torpedo tubes goes to the fleet boats.
Dive time goes to the U-boats
Depth goes to the U-Boats
Resource alotment goes to the U-boats both in men and materials
Tonnage sunk goes to the U-boats
Technolegy goes both ways. Defensive Fleet boats. Offensive U-boats.

The fact of the matter is that Germany needed the numbers more than any other factor to make a differance in 1939' 40' 41'. Those needed numbers never materialised but they put to damn good use what they did have available in that time period.

That would make a larger differance than to make a fleet boat equivelant when they could make two Type VII's for every fleet boat.

[Freiwillige]

Plus one more major factor. If the Kreigsmarine had the common sense to realise that the Enigma machine had been broken and changed their coding system. Many had suspected that the allies were reading their codes but the arrogance of the German high command in beleiving that the Enigma was un breakable led to its continued use and continued U-boat losses resulted.

[tater]

Freiwillige
I'll buy the resourses issue the way you framed it, actually, point taken.

Basically, though, short of starting hostilities with 2-300 boats, they were hosed. Note though that had they sunk even more tons early on (before Dec 11, 1941), they would have eventually made a mistake, and the US would have entered the war, IMO.

[Torplexed]

Frankly, I think instead of the 300 U-boats Germany should have looked into long range naval aviation. Using those bases in Norway and France they probably could have cut off the sea approaches to Britain by swamping them with squadrons of long range torpedo planes or eventually with anti-ship missiles launched from planes similar to the one they used to polish off the Italian battleship Roma. Britain on her own probably couldn't have built enough escort carriers to counter this threat.

Even just having a decent search plane program to aid the U-Boats search would have helped.

[tater]

True, but the US built something like 140 CVL/CVEs during the war :)

[tater]

No edit---again---anyway, the UK is farther to sea than Norway, so the LW would have needed not just had bombers, but escorts. Long-range escorts. They didn't have any long enough ranged for the 20 minute hop across the channel in 1940...

[Torplexed]

No edit---again---anyway, the UK is farther to sea than Norway, so the LW would have needed not just had bombers, but escorts. Long-range escorts. They didn't have any long enough ranged for the 20 minute hop across the channel in 1940...
I'm figuring if the Germans could have come up with something with range similar to the Japanese Betty they could have outdistanced the Spitfires and Hurricanes that made up the majority of British fighter planes. They couldn't be everywhere. If such an effort had coincided with the Battle of Britain most of those planes would have been tied up defending British cities given Britain's pilot shortage.

This all fantasy speculation anyway. Hitler's main obsession was his eventual showdown with Stalin and the drive to the east. He pretty much planned the whole war towards that goal. After the fall of France and the securing of his western flank everything else, the Kriegsmarine, the aborted Operation Sealion, the Afrika Korps, etc. all got the short end of the stick.

[Rockin Robbins]

300 U-Boats would only have brought the US into the war earlier and doomed Germany in 1943 instead of 1945. The very use of the U-Boat was inappropriate and fatal to the cause of Germany. The U-Boat was completely unsupported either by surface navy or aviation. No number of U-Boats had any chance of success, because the resources to build them would have erased thousands of trucks, tanks, artillery pieces, submachine guns, fill in the blank. Adding U-Boats subtracts a lot of other things. Then Germany would have been a sitting duck on land as well as at sea. What a success!:rotfl:Things don't happen in a vacuum.

Germany would have preserved their chances of victory only by NOT building more U-Boats than were needed for coastal defense (that is much fewer boats than the "inadequate" number Doenitz objected to) and using them for coastal defense ONLY. That was the only purpose they were fitted to anyway. Then they could use the additional resources to build more tanks, planes, etc to attack Russia without the hindrance of Britain and the US on their back side.

Only by keeping Britain and the US out of the war did Germany have any prayer of a strictly limited victory. After the strictly limited victory they could have done the evil empire USSR bit and been squashed later by Reagan's "you want an arms war? WE"LL show you an arms war, and walking away at Reykjavik. Different evil empire, same result.

I'm afraid that I am not the one ignoring facts and implications. Read Torplex's post above about the real obsession and tell me I'm wrong. Hitler lost focus and doomed his own efforts, abandoning attainable goals for a mindless suicide run. It worked!

[Freiwillige]

Im afraid ill disagree with you Rockin Robbins. Germany could have had 300 submarines. In retrospect the Bizmark and Tirpitz were failures. Not in desighn but in the hopeless naval situation Germany found herself in. So how many U-boats could have been produced in place of those 2 Ships alone?

America coming into the war was inevitable from Hitlers perspective. Neutral countries are not to arm other waring nations. That is a breach of Germany and America's neutrality agreement. Extending the U.S. territory from 100 miles off the coastline to the mid Atlantic and then claiming all U-boats will be fired on by a neutral U.S. navy escorting arms to England. Again a clear violation of the United States neutrality agreement sighned with Germany.

300 U-boats would have knocked England out of the war and quick. They came close with 1/4 that number in 1940' 41'. With England out where is the United States gonna base? Chances are that Germany would have starved England into a peace agreement. The U.S. would have turned towards Japan after Pearl and Germany and Russia would have fought their war to the bitter end.

[Freiwillige]

Im afraid ill disagree with you Rockin Robbins. Germany could have had 300 submarines. In retrospect the Bizmark and Tirpitz were failures. Not in desighn but in the hopeless naval situation Germany found herself in. So how many U-boats could have been produced in place of those 2 Ships alone?

America coming into the war was inevitable from Hitlers perspective. Neutral countries are not to arm other waring nations. That is a breach of Germany and America's neutrality agreement. Extending the U.S. territory from 100 miles off the coastline to the mid Atlantic and then claiming all U-boats will be fired on by a neutral U.S. navy escorting arms to England. Again a clear violation of the United States neutrality agreement sighned with Germany.

300 U-boats would have knocked England out of the war and quick. They came close with 1/4 that number in 1940' 41'. With England out where is the United States gonna base? Chances are that Germany would have starved England into a peace agreement. The U.S. would have turned towards Japan after Pearl and Germany and Russia would have fought their war to the bitter end.

[gmuno]

Ahem... "Operation Paukenschlag"
In WWII Germany declared war on America first not otherwise. If Hitler wouldn't have started the war, American ressources wouldn't have gotten so quickly to GB. Or in other words: if the open entry of the US to the European war would have been postponned to late 42 or early 43, the Brits would have had a really hard time and maybe even been forced to surrender. In retrospect, declaring war on the US and fighting at the same time the Sowjets was Hitlers doom.
Thank god he made the right wrong decision.

[Dread Knot]

Seems like we always have these attempts to salvage the U-Boat's reputatution with "what-ifs."

If you look at the constraints put on U-boat production in the 1930s, there is no way to get to 300 U-boats in 1939 or 1940. Under the treaty of Versailles, Germany was not allowed any submarines, so the Germans did some U-boat design work for other countries during the 1920s and early 1930s to keep up with the state of the art. Hitler was afraid of various treaty obligations, so he waited until 1935 to build his first small U-boats . The first Type II was launched is June 1935 and 13 more followed until the end of the year. Production peaked in 1936 with 10 Type II, 2 Type I and 9 Type VIIA. A single Type VIIA was launched in 1937.

If the Germans had used every loophole in the naval treaty with Britain and stretched things to the breaking point, they may have had around 90 U-boats in September 1939 and maybe as many as 150 by end 1940. The majority of them probably of the early Type VIIA design. This would have been most unpleasant for the British, but it would not have been decisive. In order to get the required 300 U-boats by end 1940, the shipyards would have had to set the stage for flat out production already in 1937/38 at a time the tonnage extension was not yet negotiated. Hitler would only have authorized this clear breach of the treaty if he had known he would have to fight the British when he attacked Poland. If he had known that, I am not at all sure he would have invaded Poland in 1939.

I'm also fairly certain that such a crash U-Boat buidling program would not have gone unnoticed by Britain. If they see the Germans have ceased building capital ships in favor of submarines, they cancel their own capital ships in favor of escorts.

[Rockin Robbins]

@Freiwillige: I have to agree with you on the German surface ships. They also were a waste for anything but coastal defense, and their resources could have been used to make U-Boats, which would have been dispatched to the bottom of the ocean with their crews and captains.

@gmuno: Had U-Boats actually threatened the defeat of Britain, the US would have entered the war without prompting by the German declaration of war, despite the Nazi-loving actions of Ambassador Kennedy. Roosevelt was already risking his job violating the US Constitution to save Britain by moving their secret service to New York, duplicating their enigma decoding operations in the United States and setting up the framework for a possible British government in exile.

Make no mistake about Roosevelt's determination not to allow Britain to be defeated. It would not and could not have happened. Submarines were not appropriate weapons to use against the British because, unlike Japan, their supplies came in ships of other nations. Sinking British supplies necessarily involved war with those other nations, dooming Germany. The use of U-Boats was one of many fatal errors of the Wehrmacht. Even in the absense of all the other fatal errors, the use of any number of U-Boats in unrestricted warfare against Britain and the US guaranteed the defeat of Germany.

@Dread Knot: your point is the central fact U-Boat enthusiasts choose to ignore. Hitler built the maximum number of boats he figured he could get away with. Just like the fact that using the U-Boats guaranteed the one enemy the Germans could not defeat, if they had ramped up production to the levels necessary to put 300 boats in the water, they would have been attacked and defeated easily in 1937 or 1938. Or they would have had to scrap ALL production to placate the Allies and ended up with even fewer boats at the start of the war in 1939. Paradoxically the forced killing of the U-Boat program could have saved possibilities for Germany to win, or at least it would have allowed one of Hitler's other fatal mistakes to lose the war for him. Either way, the 300 boats was a pipe dream in a vacuum. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a merry Christmas.

Has anyone thought of the other problem associated with putting several hundred more U-Boats into operation? U-Boats can't do squat without well-trained crews. If the Starship Enterprise were to for some imponderable reason, transported 500 Type VII U-Boats down the the German bases in 1939, they would have been useless. The same thing happens to U-Boat crews as happens to sports teams when there are too many. The quality of their crews would decline to the point that they could not have been a factor at all. This was the case in the Japanese air forces, where the good pilots were killed early and pilot skill just plummeted for the rest of the war until Japan was forced by incompetent pilots to use them as suicide bombers.

[gmuno]

I can only advise to read Churchills memoires.
He wrote quite clearly, how close the U-boats came to achieve victory.

[Rockin Robbins]

Churchill spent months in Washington DC, cultivating the friendship of President Roosevelt and conspiring to ensure that it couldn't happen. Churchill's fear was not based on impending doom, but on the possibility that if he failed the U-Boats could win. He knew what to do about it. He did it. He won.

But Churchill had to depend on Roosevelt for that victory. Knowing the nastiness of American politics, which looks on the surface to be more orderly than British politics, but tends to the politics of personal destruction, knowing that Roosevelt was violating the Constitution in several ways that if discovered would definitely cause him to be removed from office, knowing that if that happened the Republican isolationists of the time would take power and Britain would fall, he was justifiably afraid things might not work out the way he planned.

After all, Churchill himself narrowly won the victory in the 1930's with King Edward wanting to throw in with the Nazis and morph Britain into a proto-Nazi state. Churchill, standing almost alone (as usual) built the alliances that finally pressured royalty into forcing Edward's abdication "for the woman I love":rotfl::rotfl:and exile to Canada. Afterward, in spite of our ambassador to Britain, Joe Kennedy's Hitler loving, there was no talk of throwing in with the Germans.

So Churchill had been there before. He knew the end was not guaranteed. His previous experience was that of paying the price and gaining victory against fearsome odds. I have no doubt that although he chose to say he was afraid of the U-Boats he was confident that he was able to gain the victory. The key to that victory was the entry of the US. Roosevelt's illegal moves to help the British guaranteed entry of the US, Pearl Harbor or no Pearl Harbor.

American escorts were already killing U-Boats and we were already in the war before December 7, 1941. Even after December 7, 1941, official US policy was that we hold the line against the less threatening Japanese while we annihilate the more dangerous Nazis. Then we were going to focus on the Japanese. The reason for that policy? Churchill and Roosevelt. The moment Hitler decided to fight them with unrestricted submarine warfare, he was doomed.

[Dread Knot]

Has anyone thought of the other problem associated with putting several hundred more U-Boats into operation? U-Boats can't do squat without well-trained crews. If the Starship Enterprise were to for some imponderable reason, transported 500 Type VII U-Boats down the the German bases in 1939, they would have been useless. The same thing happens to U-Boat crews as happens to sports teams when there are too many. The quality of their crews would decline to the point that they could not have been a factor at all. This was the case in the Japanese air forces, where the good pilots were killed early and pilot skill just plummeted for the rest of the war until Japan was forced by incompetent pilots to use them as suicide bombers.

Exellent point since this actually happened during the course of the war. As production increased and Doenitz put more U-Boats into the fight, the sinkings per U-Boat plummeted as the crews were increasing made up of former surface sailors drafted into a task they didn't care for. You can have a small elite force with hand picked crews trained to a razor's edge, but sooner or later quantity dilutes quality. There were only so many professionial and highly motivated former WW I U-Boat officers to go around to train such a large force to the same degree.

Another thing to bear in mind is the consequences of scrapping the German surface fleet to create this 300 boat armada that Doenitz craved. The German surface ships are remembered as a failure but as the classic fleet-in-being, they had their effect too. Without them there would have no German invasion of Norway in 1940. The Kriegsmarine took a beating getting the Gerrman army ashore there, but without some sort of escort they never would have gone. Norway neutral was a nagging worry to the Germans. They were convinced Churchill would grab it as a base, and the British did think about it. Even as late as 1944 a lot of British ships which could have been used profitably elsewhere were still tied up in home waters just to guard against the possible threat of the Tirpitz venturing from her Norwegian lair.

In addition, with no German surface raiders to worry about containing, the British are free to throw the full weight of the Home Fleet with their carriers against the Italians and their supply line to Africa. Needless to say that would leave Rommel dry on his side of the Mediterranean, if it didn't knock Italy out of the war all together.

[Rockin Robbins]

Choices, choices, and all the choices were lousy ones. Germany had no business going to war in the first place. It reminds me of a memorable paragraph in The Perfect Storm, where the author explained that the entire book was about choices: how in the beginning there were many, many choices. Most of them were apparently inconsequential and good and bad choices were available in plenty. But as events moved forward and choices were made, the available field of choices shrank as each choice contained more and more consequence. The good choices became fewer and fewer until finally they were gone and the only choice left was how to die.

Germany was like that.

[Freiwillige]

I did'nt say anything about scrapping the entire German fleet, I was Talking about the Bizmark And Tirpitz. Just those two ships alone would provide the materials for 300 U-boats. And lets add the failed carrier Graf whatever that was never completed to the list. Now keep in mind that the first of these ships were laid down initially in what 37'? Thats almost three years before war. To train 300 Submarine crews in 3 years is not unacheivable. With 300 U-boats Germany would have still benn able to land in Norway. They had the Scharnhorts, Gneisneu, Deutschland class ships Etc. Plus all the tin cans, With a massive U-boat screen between England and Norway!

Secondly, Nobody was drafted into the Ubootwaffe. It was an all volunteer force. And with the prestige the U-boat arm held within the German navy, Volunteers were never short. Almost everyone wanted to command a battleship or a U-boat.

[Rockin Robbins]

No I was the one who said that their entire fleet, both surface and submarine, except for a small portion for coastal defense, was useless. You can't attack Russia from the sea and that was their real aim. Everything else was useless window dressing, although Hitler did appear to enjoy his trip to the railroad car after beating France.

But "I beat the French" is hardly a compelling thing to put on a T-shirt. It would beg the question, "And your point is?" I don't understand all the cheerleading for a third-rate sandbox bully. They killed people with cool looking weapons and that's as far as it goes. And the Russians made them look like amateurs at both dying and killing.

[Freiwillige]

Cheerleading? Im just debating the facts as I understand them and honoring the commitment and sacrafice of the German military. I would also defend England, Astrailia, Canada and my home the Great US of A if anybody were to try and talk down their performance in battle. Politics is Politics and I hate Politics. But military men and history thats something I can understand.

Also just to play devils advocate.:yep: Beating France in 1940 was actually an amazing acheivment that none thought possable. France was the largest military in the west far larger than England and America even put together! But Blitzkreig was born and a smaller German army wiped France off the war map in 6 weeks.

And the Russians coment. It was the German army again teaching lessons and it was the Russians who looked like amateurs. It was only the lend lease supply of once again America that gave the Russian army much needed supplies to first survive and then overthrow the German army. They say that the Russian Army was only mechinised to any extent because of the hundreds of thousands of trucks we sent them. Not to mention 8,000 frontline combat fighters, 100+ octane fuel
tons and tons of communications wire, radios. It can almost be said that we Americans built the russian army! Well we at least modernised it!

And the German invasion of the soviet Union cost Russia 20 million dead to Germanys 7 million fighting on all sides.

[Gino]

No I was the one who said that their entire fleet, both surface and submarine, except for a small portion for coastal defense, was useless. You can't attack Russia from the sea and that was their real aim.

Duh? I was never aware that Hitler had any plans to attack the Sovjet Union from the sea? Where did you get that idea from?
Ever read His (Mein) Kampf? He doesn't talk about attacking Russia from the sea. There he states that he wants Living Space in the east, that's what it was all about.
Mind that Hitler was first seen (early thirties) as a great guy by many country leaders.
None of whom had read his book (probably because it's actually unreadable, I tried but only after several attempts I could chew through the crap).
Then when the moron got away with annexing the Rhineland, Austria and parts of Tsjechia he may well have thought that attacking Poland would also have no response from both France and the UK.
Luckily Chamberlain was not as pussyfooted as Hitler (and his bunch of criminals) thought.
So, when Chamberlain declared war (and not Churchill as many people believe) it came as a huge surprise. But even then he thought that he could force the UK in a peace treaty by blockading them, and sending his 'glorious' Luftwaffe across the Canal. The whole 'strategy' of blockading the UK came from Doenitz and Raeder. They actually believed they could pull it off with only 300 boats. Wrong, even when they did (1943?) have them it didn't work. Why? Because the British had actually learned from WW1, and these two idiots apparently not. By the way, I still cannot come up with a good reason why they shouldn't have have hanged Doenitz after the war. He bloody well deserved it!

I also agree that Germany didn't have a chance to win. Merely, because Roosevelt and Churchill both recognized the menace for the world of a Greater Germany. Therefore, I think Roosevelt was absolutely right to say: Germany first. Although that opinion was not shared by a lot of american politicians. That's why he had to 'bend' some rules.
Fighting a two front war was well within his capabilities. Japan needed to get all its raw materials from abroad. And being an island it would only be a matter of time before they would stop moving.

BUT...The original question was: Is the U-boat better than the Fleet submarine? I agree with Rockin Robbins that the U-boat was not better, quite the opposite actually. The Fleet subs were more advanced than the U-boats, and indeed had a bigger 'punch'. Both services had their torpedo failures, poor command decision etc. But it was the better organized, and more flexible Silent Service that got the best results. Even with all the mistakes and blunders made they still pulled it off. The germans showed how submarine war fare had to be done (Rudel taktik etc), but it was the US that proved that the theory was right!

In an earlier post I stated that the area of operation also has to be taken into account. I still believe that true. But technology wise the Fleetsub wins.

By the way, what is interesting is that innovation wise the germans looked better. Mainly, because of the rapidly changing situation in the Atlantic they had to come up with newly designed boats. Something that the US didn't really have to do, since they were already winning. So, the germans had to come up with the type XXI etc., which (astonishingly...) was a diesel electric, more luxurious, six tubes forward...Hmmm, which submarine had that also? Oh yeah the Porpoise class Fleetsubmarine built in 1934...


groetjes,

[joegrundman]

but gino, those features you mention are hardly the defining characteristics of the type XX1 and XXIII, are they?

[Gino]

but gino, those features you mention are hardly the defining characteristics of the type XX1 and XXIII, are they?

Nah, not really. But, it does show that the germans used technology which was already used by the US in the Thirties, and from that point 'innovated' their design. Thus making an improved Fleet boat if you like, which the US then used to build their new subs after the war... In their design the germans indeed made some interesting things, like the Nibelungen machine (making it possible to attack with torpedoes from a greater depth) and the Walther propulsion system (which even today find its way in the german subs)
Mind that the Snorkel was not a german invention. Also mind that the Fleetsubs, when Guppied came very close to the XXI speeds (doing this from memory, too lazy to walk to my library...) So, they only had to be 'upgraded'. Again this tells me that the Fleetsub was technologically way beyond the VIIC and the IX types.

groetjes,

[Schroeder]

. So, the germans had to come up with the type XXI etc., which (astonishingly...) was a diesel electric, more luxurious, six tubes forward...Hmmm, which submarine had that also? Oh yeah the Porpoise class Fleetsubmarine built in 1934...
Last I checked the Porpoise had 4 front tubes and two rear.
You also forget to mention the automatic loading system of the XXI that could reload all 6 torpedoes within 5 minutes. The extreme speed it could go while being submerged, its maximum dive depth and it's agility. Now show me those features on a Porpoise.;)

[Red Lord of Chaos]

Bismark and Tirpitz were wasted in the role they wound up in but that was due to Herr Adolf losing focus and invading Norway. They were designed to fight their way across the Channel and support a landing on Britain. However when the moment came the Kriegsmarine wasn't upto it still recovering from the Norway invasion. If that had occured the U-Boat war wouldn't have happened.
Plan B was for the Luftwaffe to knock out GB which it threatened to do so during the Battle of Britain in 1940, before getting distracted by London and starting the Blitz.
The U-Boats were Plan C.
If the KM had been more successful during the Happy Times (had more/better boats) they could have forced Britain to sue for peace.
Hitler's habit of getting distracted (by Norway, Greece, Leningrad, Stalingrad, and Panther Tanks) ultimately won the war in Europe for the Allies.

[Gino]

. So, the germans had to come up with the type XXI etc., which (astonishingly...) was a diesel electric, more luxurious, six tubes forward...Hmmm, which submarine had that also? Oh yeah the Porpoise class Fleetsubmarine built in 1934...
Last I checked the Porpoise had 4 front tubes and two rear.
You also forget to mention the automatic loading system of the XXI that could reload all 6 torpedoes within 5 minutes. The extreme speed it could go while being submerged, its maximum dive depth and it's agility. Now show me those features on a Porpoise.;)

I guess I wasn't clear enough. I didn't mean to say that the Porpoise already had those features you mention. Of course not. What I meant to say is that the Fleetsubs that were Guppied (i.e. upgraded) after the war, came very close to, or were even better than the XXI. So, the fleetsubs 'only' had to go through an upgrade program to get the same speeds as the XXI, whereas the XXI was a newly designed boat.

Some facts (this time I made my walk to my library :lol: )
I give you the numbers for maximum surfaced speed, and maximum submerged speed:
XXI: 15.6 knots / 15 knots.
Guppy I: 17 - 18 kn./ 15 kn.
Guppy II: 17 - 18 kn. / 15 kn.
Guppy III: 17 kn / 14 kn.
Still, keep in mind that the Guppies were 'old' fllet boats that had 'some bodywork done'. (pimp my boat :D )

USS ALbacore, that was built as a new design in 1952-53 already did 20+ knots submerged. (surf. 25 kn). The Albacore was based on Guppy and XXI, so maybe that is a bit poluted data there.

As for the automatic torpedo loading feature the XXI had. Guess what? The Dutch submarines O-19 and O-20 (commissioned in 1938) already had a half automatic torpedo loading system. They also were the first submarines with a snorkel!
It could be that the germans used the plans of the new dutch submarines, some of them were captured in 1940, to design the XXI.

groetjes,

[Schroeder]

Well my data of the XXI (a pamphlet from the Wilhelm Bauer U 2540) says that the maximun surface speed is 18,1 knots (this is with diesels and electric motors, diesels only is the 15,6knots you mentioned).
Maximum submerged speed is written to be 17,2 knots.;)
http://foto.arcor-online.net/palb/alben/54/1012554/1024_6338326565613262.jpg

http://foto.arcor-online.net/palb/alben/54/1012554/1024_3234303365396638.jpg

Hmm... no maximum dive depth mentioned. Obviously the oceans aren't deep enough to determin it.:rotfl:

[Rockin Robbins]

No I was the one who said that their entire fleet, both surface and submarine, except for a small portion for coastal defense, was useless. You can't attack Russia from the sea and that was their real aim.
Duh? I was never aware that Hitler had any plans to attack the Sovjet Union from the sea? Where did you get that idea from?
Ever read His (Mein) Kampf? He doesn't talk about attacking Russia from the sea. There he states that he wants Living Space in the east, that's what it was all about.

Flag! Bad Sentence Structure. 15 yard penalty! Repeat 3rd down! Of course the sentence should have read "You can't attack Russia from the sea and attacking Russia was their real aim." I was presuming that it was so obvious that attack of Russia from the sea was not possible that nobody could entertain that notion. Sloppy sentence structure, to be sure.

skipping over a lot of great stuff....So, the germans had to come up with the type XXI etc., which (astonishingly...) was a diesel electric, more luxurious, six tubes forward...Hmmm, which submarine had that also? Oh yeah the Porpoise class Fleetsubmarine built in 1934...


groetjes,

A brilliant comment! The Type XXI was in most part an imitation of the American Fleet Boat. By the way, since the Type XXI is a blank slate with no actual accomplishments, it is traditional for Germanofiles to worship at its altar as a supreme game changer.....if only.....but.....then. Let me remind you that there were no trained crews, the reliability of the boat was not established and with no ability to support the things at sea, the Type XXI was doomed anyway. Hitler had already made a multiplicity of fatal mistakes, any one of which was sufficient to cause defeat.

[joegrundman]

No I was the one who said that their entire fleet, both surface and submarine, except for a small portion for coastal defense, was useless. You can't attack Russia from the sea and that was their real aim.
Duh? I was never aware that Hitler had any plans to attack the Sovjet Union from the sea? Where did you get that idea from?
Ever read His (Mein) Kampf? He doesn't talk about attacking Russia from the sea. There he states that he wants Living Space in the east, that's what it was all about.
Flag! Bad Sentence Structure. 15 yard penalty! Repeat 3rd down! Of course the sentence should have read "You can't attack Russia from the sea and attacking Russia was their real aim." I was presuming that it was so obvious that attack of Russia from the sea was not possible that nobody could entertain that notion. Sloppy sentence structure, to be sure.

skipping over a lot of great stuff....So, the germans had to come up with the type XXI etc., which (astonishingly...) was a diesel electric, more luxurious, six tubes forward...Hmmm, which submarine had that also? Oh yeah the Porpoise class Fleetsubmarine built in 1934...


groetjes,
A brilliant comment! The Type XXI was in most part an imitation of the American Fleet Boat. By the way, since the Type XXI is a blank slate with no actual accomplishments, it is traditional for Germanofiles to worship at its altar as a supreme game changer.....if only.....but.....then. Let me remind you that there were no trained crews, the reliability of the boat was not established and with no ability to support the things at sea, the Type XXI was doomed anyway. Hitler had already made a multiplicity of fatal mistakes, any one of which was sufficient to cause defeat.

no it isn't a brilliant comment, RR, and you are now resorting to the sort of fanboyism you decry.

The late war german designs were eagerly pored over by the allies and are well known for being tremendously influential in post war submarine development by both the allies and the russians.

And this is very simply because the most salient features of those designs were not those of fleetboats.

[Rockin Robbins]

You are confusing the most salient points with the most interesting points. The most interesting point of the Type XXI was a return to the S-Boat-like emphasis on underwater instead of surface hydrodynamics. This resulted an another boat with the S-Boat's mix of better underwater than surface performance. As has already been said, the only thing necessary for a fleet boat to exceed the performance parameters the the Type XXI was to change the shape of the hull. However, that would have hurt the fleet boat's performance in war.

Captain Eugene Fluckey worked out the system that worked best. That was based on the conception of the submarine being a PT boat (with much better weaponry!) that could submerge when it was absolutely necessary for the shortest possible time. Targets were best developed on the surface on diesel power. That way they could cover many times the number square miles per day of ocean surface in quest for contacts. It also ensured that when contact was made, battle started with fully charged batteries.

Had the fleet boat been able to make 17 knots underwater, those who chose the ostrich plan would have had more ammunition to defend their policy of see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. American subs would have been much less successful at finding the enemy and much better at not being spotted. That would have been putting the cart before the horse. The primary job of the submarine is to destroy the enemy. The secondary aim is to survive to do it again.

Our radar could already spot a snorkel on the surface. But the poor Type XXI had no way of knowing the bombs were falling. It would have been a slaughter modeled very well by Ducimus' evil airplanes and the resultant changes in tactics that are necessary to survive them. The ostrich method would have worked no better for the Type XXI at 18 knots than it did for the Fleet Boats at 9.

As Gino has already shown, the other systems of the Type XXI were already in place and proved for reliability and performance in the American Fleet Boat except for the auto torpedo loading, which was another interesting point.

The Gato class of submarines with six forward and four aft torpedo tubes was first produced in 1941. So the Americans througout the war had submarines carrying ten torpedo tubes. Finally, in 1945 the Germans deployed their first submarine taking enough firepower to battle to make a difference. As Erich Topp himself said in a well-publicized interview after the war, the Type XXI was not the magic bullet that could have won the war, or even the Battle of the Atlantic. And that's assuming that it did not have any crippling defects that only combat might have revealed. It was never a proven war machine. It could well have been as delicate and finicky as the vaunted Tiger tank: wonderful in concept, almost useless in practice.

[Gino]

And this is very simply because the most salient features of those designs were not those of fleetboats.

True, but they were also not only germans inventions. The greater underwater speed was already known for years at all submarine building nations. It was just because of the role that was thought for submarines that the idea was not worked out to the max. When germany was losing the submarine war in the Atlantic, they had to innovate their new boats to adapt to the situation. This meant snorkels, all over welded hull, greater underwater speed, better silent running, faster torpedoloading (15-20 min for a "total refill", by the way, not 5), radar, anti-'anti-submarine' defense system and maybe some more. That should sum it up.

But, if you look at all the things I mentioned here, there is actually nothing there that the Allies didn't already know off. The only reason they didn't use the majority of the ideas was very simple...they were winning the war.

Of course did they have a look at the XXI boats after the war. Better to use a free worked out design, than going through the trouble of desiging it yourself!
To give you an example: Have you ever seen photos of a Fleetsub firing a Loon missile, after the war? A Loon is just an american built V1 rocket. Again, better to use a worked out design and innovate it, than going through the trouble of starting from scratch.
With the captured XXI boats it was the same thing. I think that the stories about how the XXI could have changed the war are greatly exaggerated. Even when the germans would have had ample supplies to build them with trained crews, it would only have been a matter of time. The war was already lost in 1939 by starting it.
RR is right in stating that we are talking about, what if...if only..etc. That's using hindsight, and trying to convert designs on paper to a situation that never existed:

Example: maximum dive depth for the XXI: 270m, but after doing docktests on the prototype they found 330m feasable. The design with Panzermaterial was calculated as 600m (source: Bodo Herzog: 60 Jahre Deutsche Uboote 1906-1966)
Since the XXI building program was under a lot of stress due to shortages, none of the few boats that made it to the front could have reached those depths.
The trouble starts where people start believing that all the XXI boats were capable of diving to 600m. That's where myths take over from reality.
I must admit, that years ago I also thought that the XXI were great new designs, but after reading many books on the subject I can only come to the conclusions I stated here and before: Nothing realy special.

groetjes,

[tater]

I don't think the u-boats would have resulted in the UK "suing for peace." In general, axis fantasy about their enemies capitulating was ill-founded.

I think it would have simply hastened the US entry into the war.

[Rockin Robbins]

Now, Gino, I still don't come the the conclusion that the Type XXI was "nothing special." They are the most beautiful submarine design of the war in my book, as much German war machinery was menacingly beautiful, inspiring designs in Battlestar Galactica, the Star Wars movies and other future military fantasies. When you think "tank" you think of something that looks like a Tiger. When you think "dive bomber" you think Stuka. If looks could kill they would have won, hands down.

The Germans had style. Unfortunately, in war there are no style points. Ugly wins there, just fine.

[Torplexed]

It's one of those topics that has plenty of ammunition for endless debate. I've lost track of how many similar threads there have been over the years.

If there had been more U-Boats at the start, if the advanced types had come into service sooner, if the Germans had figured out the British were reading their mail. Seems like the proponents of a U-Boat victory need too many 'ifs.' Sort of reminds me of the Confederacy's 'Lost Cause' arguments.

However they all ignore the realities of the German political situation. Hitler's navy was always going to be the neglected stepchild to his more highly-favored army and air force. Hitler would have had to be a different person for it to be otherwise. If Hitler had any love for U-Boats, its was that they were cheap compared to the capital ships his admirals wanted, and he thought so poorly of. However, like Rommel's vaunted Afrika Korps they were useful in his eyes in that they kept the British tied up, while he turned the vast majority of Germany's industrial and military resources east to reconquer what the Kaiser briefly had in 1918. A vast eastern empire stretching to the oilfields of the Caucasus. Lebensraum in the form of a huge Ukrainian breadbasket. One of Hitler's grand obsessions was with autarky--total national economic autonomy, and in his mind that was only to be found in a conquest of the adjacent Soviet Union, not in tenuous maritime links to an overseas empire like the British had, and Germany once had and too easily lost.

[Schroeder]

This meant snorkels, all over welded hull, greater underwater speed, better silent running, faster torpedoloading (15-20 min for a "total refill", by the way, not 5), radar, anti-'anti-submarine' defense system and maybe some more.
http://foto.arcor-online.net/palb/alben/54/1012554/1024_6163623434306261.jpg
Well, the guys who have the actual submarine there say that it can reload within 5 minutes (fünf Minuten). Is the info about the reloding time too from that book you mentioned?:o:hmm:

[Gino]

Well, the guys who have the actual submarine there say that it can reload within 5 minutes (fünf Minuten). Is the info about the reloding time too from that book you mentioned?:o:hmm:

Nope, my info comes from: Eckard Wetzel: U2540 - Das U-boot beim Deutschen Schiffahrtsmuseum in Bremerhaven, page 35. "Da die alten Kampfboote sich oftmals um ihre Erfolgschancen brachten, weil sie ihre Torpedorohre nicht rechtzeitig nachladen konnten, erhielt der Typ XXI eine neuartige Torpedo-Schnellladevorrichtung, die es ihm ermöglichte, 18 Torpedos in schneller Folge abzuschiessen. Das nachladen der 2. Chargierung dauerte maximal 15 Min. für die 3. Chargierung (Torpedos aus der Reservelagerung) würde geschultes Personal knapp 20. Min. benötigen." You see, same boat, different book (published in 1996)

For those that cannot read German: Because the old boats could not load their torpedoes fast enough to get better results, the type XXI received a new torpedo loading device. This made it possible to load the second charge within maximum 15 minutes. The third charge could be loaded by a trained crew within 20 minutes.

I think that 5 minutes for 6 torpedoes, even with an automatic loader, with a trained crew is a little on the short side. Perhaps a very well trained crew in optimum circumstances could have pulled it off, but I stick to the less than 15 minutes.

groetjes,

[Captain Vlad]

When you think "dive bomber" you think Stuka.

Some of us think 'Dauntless'.:up:

[Torplexed]

When you think "dive bomber" you think Stuka.
Some of us think 'Dauntless'.:up:
Yeah! :p

Actually when it comes to German tanks I've always thought the Panther a deadlier looking customer than the Tiger. Not as heavily armed but faster.

[tater]

When you think "dive bomber" you think Stuka.
Some of us think 'Dauntless'.:up:

Beat me to it. :D

[gimpy117]

. So, the germans had to come up with the type XXI etc., which (astonishingly...) was a diesel electric, more luxurious, six tubes forward...Hmmm, which submarine had that also? Oh yeah the Porpoise class Fleetsubmarine built in 1934...
Last I checked the Porpoise had 4 front tubes and two rear.
You also forget to mention the automatic loading system of the XXI that could reload all 6 torpedoes within 5 minutes. The extreme speed it could go while being submerged, its maximum dive depth and it's agility. Now show me those features on a Porpoise.;)
I guess I wasn't clear enough. I didn't mean to say that the Porpoise already had those features you mention. Of course not. What I meant to say is that the Fleetsubs that were Guppied (i.e. upgraded) after the war, came very close to, or were even better than the XXI. So, the fleetsubs 'only' had to go through an upgrade program to get the same speeds as the XXI, whereas the XXI was a newly designed boat.

Some facts (this time I made my walk to my library :lol: )
I give you the numbers for maximum surfaced speed, and maximum submerged speed:
XXI: 15.6 knots / 15 knots.
Guppy I: 17 - 18 kn./ 15 kn.
Guppy II: 17 - 18 kn. / 15 kn.
Guppy III: 17 kn / 14 kn.
Still, keep in mind that the Guppies were 'old' fllet boats that had 'some bodywork done'. (pimp my boat :D )

USS ALbacore, that was built as a new design in 1952-53 already did 20+ knots submerged. (surf. 25 kn). The Albacore was based on Guppy and XXI, so maybe that is a bit poluted data there.

As for the automatic torpedo loading feature the XXI had. Guess what? The Dutch submarines O-19 and O-20 (commissioned in 1938) already had a half automatic torpedo loading system. They also were the first submarines with a snorkel!
It could be that the germans used the plans of the new dutch submarines, some of them were captured in 1940, to design the XXI.

groetjes,

well, the XXI was deployed in low numbers if I'm not mistaken...

[Nephandus]

Now I must say that I find this discussion highly amusing...

In my opinion it is hardly feasible to compare German U-Boats and US Fleetboats as they were based on completely different design ideas and intended areas of operation.

German U-Boats were strictly planned for merchant warfare, Fleetboats were intended for support of taskforces (it's not their fault, the possible taskforces were bombed into nigh oblivion at the beginning of the war in the Pacific).

As for the technology.... U-Boats were generally smaller than Fleetboats. Even the Type IXD (which happens to be one of the largest operational U-Boats) was smaller than the Balao (also the Type XXI was smaller).

The advantages of the U-Boats over the Fleetboats were generally faster dive times and a deeper dive depths. Also the maneuverability of the U-Boats was greater than that of the US Fleetboats.

Regarding speed, usually the US boats were better because they were designed to keep up with a surface fleet. The U-Boats never had this design notion and being used against slower freighters, speed was less a factor than stealth. One thing has to be noted though.... the speed of the Fleetboats was usually app. 3-4 kn higher on the surface and about 1-2 knots submerged.

As for the range... well... since the Type VII was comparable in size to the S-Class it is hardly surprising that the maximum range was somewhat comparable.

The Type IXC, IXC/41 and IXD had actually a greater range than the Balao.

Regarding the armament... well... the fleetboats had more Torpedos tubes (Balao: 6/4 with 24 Torps in total compare to Type IXC: 4/2 with 22 in total) but then again they where by design thought to act against enemy warships.
One should factor in though that the German torpedos had two advantages.... they were more reliable and had a higher explosive yield than the US counterparts (also the G7e Torp had a way better performance than the Mark 18, which was a copy of the former).

The Type XXI is actually a completely different story not being a dive boat anymore. This thing was designed to completely stay underwater therefore sacrificing surface speed for underwater speed (which was more then 70% higher of that of the Balao). The hull had basic streamlining which no Fleetboat parttaking in operations had in WW2. Actually... fact is that most early post-war submarines of the US shared the hull design of the Type XXI (btw... of the Type XXI 118 were built.... but without bases in France it poses to be somewhat difficult to reach any convoy routes in the Atlantic... especially if the war is lost anyway).

Furthermore... not only the boats were radically different in design concepts... also the type of submarine warfare of both theatres were radically different. The US pitted its submarines against an opponent who had virtually no experience in submarine- and ASW-warfare. The Japanese sonar was not nearly as efficient as the British counterparts, there were virtually no efficient ASW doctrines in the IJN and escort duty was considered a disgrace. Convoys were not common practice and air-coverage was very limited due to the vastness of the area of operations.

Compared to that, the UK adopted the convoy system quite early having experience with that and knowing its efficiency from WW1. The ASW warfare was perfected during the course of the war, providing permanent aircoverage by landbased and escortcarrierbased aircraft, covering the submarine bases as well. Also perfecting detection gear (high frequency direction finder, ASDIC, Radar) and weapons (Hedgehogs) did provide a hard time for the U-Boats.

And finally, the goals of the respective sub-wars were different.... the Germans attempted to choke Great Britain to force peace by cutting supply to their Airforce and Army... the US attempted more to choke vital supplies for the Japanese Airforce and Navy.

[Torplexed]

In my opinion it is hardly feasible to compare German U-Boats and US Fleetboats as they were based on completely different design ideas and intended areas of operation.


There were several instances in the thread where this was brought up. The apples and oranges argument doesn't seem to cut much ice anymore.

[tater]

Results matter. Not winning battles, but winning wars—or at least campaigns.

Fleet Type submarines wiped out the japanese merchant marine. Regardless of the initial design intention (the "fleet" bit), they turned out to be excellent commerce raiders (~90,000 tons per boat lost).

The KM boats were designed for commerce raiding, but for all the talk about superior depth, maneuverability, etc, they sank what, around 3 ships each before being themselves sunk (something like 11,00tons per lost boat)? Clearly they were neither deep-diving enough, nor maneuverable enough, which begs the question: were u-boats actually all that well suited to the Battle of the Atlantic?

If they evolved the superior form for their theater, they would not litter the bottom of the Atlantic.

[Freiwillige]

But Tater, Would the outcome be much differant if the Germans used Fleet boats? I am sure the Atlantic would still be full of dead submarines. Yes for the record I do beleive that the Fleet boat is the superior submarine to the U-boat. Well Pre- XXI that is.

And the point about the XXI that most people are missing that made it truly dangerous was not the fact that it could go fast underwater. It was the fact that it could go fast under water rather quietly and for a much longer time than any sub of its era. On all submarines batteries ran out rather quickly and escorts could just keep a sub down and wait and at worse the enemy could slip only so far at 2 knots before he had to come up again. XXI's could go much farther, faster and longer. Making it far more dangerous offensivly as well as defensively.

[tater]

I was confining my thoughts to subs that saw service. Only a few of the many built were even close to putting to sea, right?

XXI was an amazing boat, clearly.

As for the what-if, I have no idea, but you are probably right that fleet boats would do no better.

Fleet boats would have to do MUCH WORSE, however to lose this particular argument, IMO.

U-boats operating in place of USN subs would do poorly in the PTO, while Fleet Types would likely do no better.

Note that long range---and long submerged range---combined with surface speed does directly translate into survivability when ASW doctrine revolves around saturating a cirle which defines the max submerged endurance of the target. Watch that circle, and the target MUST surface in time. The bigger the circle, the more assets required to watch it.

[A Very Super Market]

Japanese ASW tactics were primitive and limited even during the late stages of the war. The Japanese merchant fleet operated in obvious routes, poorly escorted ones at that, which gave the fleetboats an innate advantage in ship sinkings. I find your argument that U-boots were poor commerce raiders to be unfair, the early war situation closer to what the Japanese scenario was like delivered similar results.

[Freiwillige]

How do Japanese subs compare to the U.S. fleetboats I whonder. I know little about them but I did read an article tonight in one of my old WWII magazines about I-17 shelling an oil refinery off the Santa Monica coast in feb. 1942. It has some small details about the I class Japanese subs. Seems fast enough, Has plenty of torpedo tubes and a friggen airplane hanger that can launch a biplane in 15 minutes!:up:

[Nephandus]

Results matter. Not winning battles, but winning wars—or at least campaigns.

Fleet Type submarines wiped out the japanese merchant marine. Regardless of the initial design intention (the "fleet" bit), they turned out to be excellent commerce raiders (~90,000 tons per boat lost).

The KM boats were designed for commerce raiding, but for all the talk about superior depth, maneuverability, etc, they sank what, around 3 ships each before being themselves sunk (something like 11,00tons per lost boat)? Clearly they were neither deep-diving enough, nor maneuverable enough, which begs the question: were u-boats actually all that well suited to the Battle of the Atlantic?

If they evolved the superior form for their theater, they would not litter the bottom of the Atlantic.

I'm sorry to tell you, but you are missing some points from the equasion. You are giving credit for success only in the light of the boats itself.

Fact is: the Fleetboats sank app. 5.2 million tons of ships against an enemy totally oblivious of concerted ASW procedures and usually having merchants travel solo without any escort and aircover.

The U-Boats sank 14.3 million tons against an enemy deeming them as their principal enemy going lengths in measures to defeat them.

It is quite clear that the US submarine force had it a lot easier. Their boats weren't bombed while in port or just leaving port. They did not have to go up against strongly defended convoys having air cover. Neither did they have an enemy who could monitor their radio traffic due to the communications code being broken. They didn't even have their bases in areas that could be said to have hostile inhabitants.

I guess it is definitely a difference wether your enemy takes to you dead serious or to be a nuisance not to be really bothered with until it is too late.

[Nephandus]

How do Japanese subs compare to the U.S. fleetboats I whonder. I know little about them but I did read an article tonight in one of my old WWII magazines about I-17 shelling an oil refinery off the Santa Monica coast in feb. 1942. It has some small details about the I class Japanese subs. Seems fast enough, Has plenty of torpedo tubes and a friggen airplane hanger that can launch a biplane in 15 minutes!:up:

Well.... the Japanese subs were technically some of the most advanced models being higher in range, able to submerge deeper and being more resilient. One type even had a submerged speed higher than the Type XXI. They also had the fastest torpedos (travelling at 49-50 kn at 9900 yards range or 13200 yards at 45 kn having the largest warhead of submarine torpedos in WW2).

But.... since the Japanese battle doctrine did not factor in the offensive use of submarines in commerce warfare, they were not used very successfully sinking only app. 1 million tons. And even that was only due to the fact that early in the war American ASW capacities were stretched pretty thin.

[Torplexed]

How do Japanese subs compare to the U.S. fleetboats I whonder. I know little about them but I did read an article tonight in one of my old WWII magazines about I-17 shelling an oil refinery off the Santa Monica coast in feb. 1942. It has some small details about the I class Japanese subs. Seems fast enough, Has plenty of torpedo tubes and a friggen airplane hanger that can launch a biplane in 15 minutes!:up:
They used one such sub's plane to bomb the US in 1942. The plane from the Japanes sub I-25 bombed a forest near Brookings, Oregon with incendiaries in an attempt to cause forest fires. It was meant to be a retaliation in sort for the Dolittle raid. It was the only time the continental United States was directly bombed during the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lookout_Air_Raid

[tater]

Results matter. Not winning battles, but winning wars—or at least campaigns.

Fleet Type submarines wiped out the japanese merchant marine. Regardless of the initial design intention (the "fleet" bit), they turned out to be excellent commerce raiders (~90,000 tons per boat lost).

The KM boats were designed for commerce raiding, but for all the talk about superior depth, maneuverability, etc, they sank what, around 3 ships each before being themselves sunk (something like 11,00tons per lost boat)? Clearly they were neither deep-diving enough, nor maneuverable enough, which begs the question: were u-boats actually all that well suited to the Battle of the Atlantic?

If they evolved the superior form for their theater, they would not litter the bottom of the Atlantic.

I'm sorry to tell you, but you are missing some points from the equasion. You are giving credit for success only in the light of the boats itself.

Fact is: the Fleetboats sank app. 5.2 million tons of ships against an enemy totally oblivious of concerted ASW procedures and usually having merchants travel solo without any escort and aircover.

The U-Boats sank 14.3 million tons against an enemy deeming them as their principal enemy going lengths in measures to defeat them.

It is quite clear that the US submarine force had it a lot easier. Their boats weren't bombed while in port or just leaving port. They did not have to go up against strongly defended convoys having air cover. Neither did they have an enemy who could monitor their radio traffic due to the communications code being broken. They didn't even have their bases in areas that could be said to have hostile inhabitants.

I guess it is definitely a difference wether your enemy takes to you dead serious or to be a nuisance not to be really bothered with until it is too late.

US submarines certainly had it easier. That's not the point of this thread. The idea of a what-if is actually the best answer to the OP (which was the best type of boat).

What-if a u-boat was used in the PTO from Pearl instead of a Fleet boat, vs what-if a fleet boat was used as a u-boat out of France (or wherever). MY guess is that the fleet boat would do fine in the ATO as a u-boat (about as well as a u-boat), and the u-boat would not do nearly as well in the PTO. Had the USN faced the same threat level, we would have adapted faster since we'd find the U-boat loss rate utterly unacceptable, and the US was not willing to burn through men without regard to them in the same way the Germans (or Russians, or Japanese) we willing to.

You'd do the what-if for a couple time periods at least. As I said above, I don't think that the deep-diving and maneuverability of the u-boats significantly improved their survival (almost all were sunk). If a fleet type could keep up with the X sinkings, then sunk herself, she'd win the contest unless the u-boat type could sink as many ships with fewer fish, less duration on patrol, horrible tropical heat, etc.

I tend to think that a U-Fleet boat, with all her radar, etc, would be a very capable boat in the hands of the KM, while the u-boats would be more like an S-boat in the PTO. Meaning that the Fleet type was the better, more versatile craft.

You could sort of test this in SH4 assuming you ran equally accurate campaigns/mods.

[Schroeder]

"Da die alten Kampfboote sich oftmals um ihre Erfolgschancen brachten, weil sie ihre Torpedorohre nicht rechtzeitig nachladen konnten, erhielt der Typ XXI eine neuartige Torpedo-Schnellladevorrichtung, die es ihm ermöglichte, 18 Torpedos in schneller Folge abzuschiessen. Das nachladen der 2. Chargierung dauerte maximal 15 Min. für die 3. Chargierung (Torpedos aus der Reservelagerung) würde geschultes Personal knapp 20. Min. benötigen." You see, same boat, different book (published in 1996)

Odd.:hmm: Now the big question, who is right? (I only have one number about reload times from a type VII. But it is from a novel and therfore I guess it doesn't count but there they reloaded the four tubes manually within 12 minutes (a record time they said). So I find it odd that an automatic is supposed to take 15 min. for 6 tubes....Maybe someone has more reliable data about that...)
BTW.
How long did it take the fleet boats to reload?

@Tater
I don't think the fleet boats would have done good in the ATO, but I wrote the reasons for that already and I don't want to repeat myself. Mybe we should just leave it at that since I don't think this thread will go anywhere.

[tater]

I know, but the reasons you cite (depth and maneuverability) clearly didn't work, or over 1000 u-boats would not have been sunk.

The edge would clearly go to the germans in the early war in terms of torpedo reliability. As for warhead, I think the torpex USN fish were about the same as the german types, if not more powerful. Stats on hits vs sinkings seem to bear this out (in another thread, I started by believing that german torps were more powerful, but looking at similar sized targets, the mk14s (and models with the same warhead) actually were more likely to sink various target sizes than even the late-war german torps.

That's based on the u-boat.net narratives for the ATO, and Alden's book on USN sub attacks for the PTO (match to japanese records). Note that the number of hits in Alden is if anything high since he lists claimed hits, and I checked vs certain sinking or damaged results (based on the jap records). I checked 7k ships for both, etc, and a higher % of ships actually hit* with one USN torp sank than 1 german torp, even in 1944+.

*this is important obviously because early in the war they failed to hit/detonate enough that it made them look quite bad, indeed, and they were bad—except when they hit, when the torpex really did a good job :)

[Rockin Robbins]

Depth and "maneuverability" (whatever that comprises!) definitely fall under the category of style, not increased performance in war. As has already been established, style points are not awarded during warfare.

Stats on hits vs sinkings seem to bear this out Tater has the H-Bomb on this one. Quitting the discussion would DEFINITELY be in order unless the inferiority of German torpedoes is something we're interested in proving. I left that unsaid on purpose. However Tater has the goods to show without question that the stats on the ingredients of German torpedos and their performance are seriously at odds. U-Boat worshippers are not subject to falsification, even if their own numbers show how ineffective their torpedoes were vs Mark 14s and Mark 18s, especially toward the last 18 months of the war.

You know, this is about arguing whether Robert E Lee or US Grant was the superior general in the American Civil War. All the style points go to Lee, but Grant showed that ugly wins just fine. Decision: Grant.

[tater]

German torpedoes were excellent, don't get me wrong (though the USN and KM were both put to shame by the IJN, hands-down).

I think that the warheads were probably pretty comparable, frankly. I think that the 292kg of torpex was at the very least about the same as 300kg hexanite, and quite possibly more powerful.

I think any argument that states the strength of one vs the other as being definitive is flat out wrong (in either direction). I don't think it is at all clear. I have seen folks argue that the G7e should be MORE powerful, and I looked into the sinkings as a reality check and was actually surprised to find that the m14 was more effective (when they actually exploded, lol) as they were. (measured by the % of attacks with only 1 hit on a given size target that ended up sinking. 1-hit sinkings for all 7,000 ton ships (I have the stats for every single attack on said size in a spreadsheet for the whole war) were something like 69% as I recall for the USN fish, and around half that for german attacks on Liberty Ships in 1944—and the Liberty was a POS in terms of construction, they were quite fragile.

The mk 18, OTOH, is likely weaker than the G7e it copied. I don't have breakdowns on the fish used for the late-war USN attacks I checked, so I'm certain a % were actually with the weaker mk18 (which lowers the stats vs the german fish, actually).

So it is fair to say the 2 navies had VERY similar fish in terms of warhead strength.

Caveat: some numbers list heavier warheads (some lighter, too) for the G7 fish. If there was a sub-model with a significantly larger warhead than 300kg, clearly the strength balance would shift. Navweaps says some sources have a 430kg number which would clearly be more powerful than 292kg of torpex by a ways.

[Schroeder]

I know, but the reasons you cite (depth and maneuverability) clearly didn't work, or over 1000 u-boats would not have been sunk.
Nope I also said that you can't make good use of your radar since the British could detect it. That would mean that you will attract a lot of hunter / killer groups while the convoys evade you. Without radar the fleet boat is more vulnerable to planes (as long as the planes don't use radar since the fleet boat can detect it too) because of the slower dive time. And once you are detected by British ASW vessels (I think after sinking some of there merchants they know that you are there;)) the bigger size of your boat makes you also a bigger target that (usually) doesn't dive as deep as a u-boat.

[Diopos]

Ok lets solve the issue within the SH4 framework! How about two "what if" campaigns or series of scenarios/battles with:
1. U-boats vs IJN and merchant marine and
2. Fleetboats vs Allied Navy and merchant marine.

What the heck! we're supposed to be subsimmers...

[tater]

Clearly deep-diving didn't work, though (unless you count diving all the way to the bottom, forever, as the large majority of u-boats did ;) )

Dive times... yeah, u-boats were faster on average, but in the fleet type books I've read (written by the skippers or crew) they were aiming for 30-something second crash dive times.

I actually agree the fleet type would not have been as effective against the allies by a considerable margin, though I'm a little at doubt as to how much worse it could have been than the u-boats. What % of u-boats were sunk? 90%? There's really not much room to do worse than that, and even if the fleet type WAS worse (probably true in the ATO, I'll grant you), it only had a few % points worse available to it. So if the u-boat was not at least that much better than the fleet boat in the PTO, the fleet "wins."

Get what I'm saying?

[Schroeder]

Dive times... yeah, u-boats were faster on average, but in the fleet type books I've read (written by the skippers or crew) they were aiming for 30-something second crash dive times.
I recently read war patrol reports of the USS Drum. In one of them the skipper wrote that they achived 45 sec (IIRC) and that that was an improvement over the crash dive tests done prevoiusly by the same boat and crew.

*Edit*
Found it:
http://www.drum228.org/warpatrol09.html#personnel


Daily dives for all watch sections were made enroute to the area. Many dives were timed in 45 seconds, which time is 6-7 seconds less than ever before.

*/Edit*



I actually agree the fleet type would not have been as effective against the allies by a considerable margin, though I'm a little at doubt as to how much worse it could have been than the u-boats. What % of u-boats were sunk? 90%?
Well there are still 10% to go.;)


There's really not much room to do worse than that, and even if the fleet type WAS worse (probably true in the ATO, I'll grant you), it only had a few % points worse available to it. So if the u-boat was not at least that much better than the fleet boat in the PTO, the fleet "wins."
Well it can be worse by sinking less ships than the u-boats did. The large fleet boats are easyier to detect (but to stay fair I have to admit that if the fleet boat gets a shot it can do more damage).

I think we are again at my first post in this thread. Each type of sub was best for it's theatre.:sunny:

[DaveyJ576]

A couple of points need to be addressed:

Diesel Electric propulsion: A diesel engine turns a generator to create electricity. The engine itself is not directly connected to the propeller shaft. The electricity created by the generator is then sent to high speed electric motors that are connected to the shaft through reduction gears. These same generator engines also charge the battery.

Advantages:

1. The engine does not have to be aligned with the propeller shaft, allowing a more efficient engine room arrangement.

2. Complex, damage prone, and hard to maintain clutches are eliminated from the drive train.

3. The engines can be run at their most fuel efficient speed, as speed is regulated by sending more or less current to the motors.

4. Constant speed operation greatly reduces wear and tear on the engines.

5. Generally, a much greater amount of electricity can be produced, allowing for greater hotel loads (better habitability) and more powerful electronics (i.e. radar and sonar).

Disadvantages:

1. Generally requires a larger submarine

Towards the end of the war, the U.S. replaced the high speed motors with slow speed models, allowing the elimination of reduction gears, which were very sensitive to depth charge damage.

Diesel Direct propulsion: A diesel engine is connected via a clutch to a combination generator/motor, which is directly connected to the propeller shaft via reduction gears. For surface propulsion the diesel is directly turning the shaft through the clutch. Some arrangements have a 2nd clutch aft of the generator/motor so the engine can charge the battery without providing propulsion. For submerged propulsion, the engine is secured and declutched from the shaft. Electricity from the battery is fed to the generator/motor which turns the shaft.

Advantages:

1. Due to the generator and motor being the same unit, you can have a smaller submarine.

Disadvantages:

1. Generally, the reverse of all the advantages of Diesel Electric.

2. There is no transmission or reverse gear in the drive train, so in order to back down, the engine has to be declutched and current has to be sent the the other side of the motor from the battery. Greatly slows and complicates maneuvering orders, especially in critical situations in harbors.

3. Because the engine is directly connected to the propeller shaft, you can only have two engines in your submarine! You can add some additional generator only engines for charging or electrical loads, but these can't be used for propulsion. On two separate occasions, the U.S. Navy experimented with connecting two diesels in tandem at the crankshaft, but these experiments were dismal failures. It is virtually impossible to precisely match the speeds of the two engines. Any mismatch is speed results in incredible torsional vibrations in the crankshafts and eventually broken crankshafts or engine mounts.

As for air conditioning: The major advantage of A/C on the fleet boats was not in providing crew comfort (which it did), but in greatly reducing humidity. Condensation in a submerged submarine is a huge problem. The condensate drips into electrical circuits and causes fires. The degree of mechanical reliability this gave to the Fleet Boats in incalculable.

This is a interesting discussion, but with no good answer. I think of it in this way: Which is the better airplane, a P-51 Mustang fighter, or a C-47 Dakota cargo plane? The answer is both. The P-51 is faster, more maneuverable, and carries a heavy armament. The C-47 has a much greater range and payload. The same line of thought applies to submarines. The Fleet Boat and the Type VII or IX were designed with completely different operating parameters and requirements. Both excelled in their respective areas, but can not be directly compared.

Dave

www.pigboats.com (http://www.pigboats.com)

[tater]

No, I think the fleet was a better all around sub.

45 seconds is decent for a dive, but in Silent Running, he talks about getting under 40 seconds.

In addition, RR mentioned something in another thread that has some bearing. He said that US skippers virtually never put the planes at more than a 10 degree dive angle during the war (previous training, etc?), but that after the war, Guppy boats (modified fleets) dived at steeper angles and sped dive times. If there was no physical limitation on that, and if u-boat skippers ever put more than 10 degrees on the planes, then tithe crash dive time might literally evaporate simply by ordering "15 degrees down!" There is also the whole diving party stuff (guys running forward which was not done in US boats at all).

Might be interesting to see what they could have done with dive times just by different doctrine, no changes to the boat.

Tench schemes 2 and 3 are listed with TEST depths of 1000', BTW. So the US could have easily modified Balao/Tench to go as deep as any u-boat, looks like.

[tater]

RR points out in the other thread that Archerfish did tests and found they could dive at 25 degrees down bubble, no problem vs the 10 degrees used universally during the war.

So the fleet could have crash dived considerably fast with no more change than a differently trained skipper giving the orders. What was a u-boat crash dive angle?

[Rockin Robbins]

The whole thing is VERY interesting speculation from any viewpoint. One thing fascinating about the U-Boats is how they got a large percentage of the utility out of much less technology. We talk about the aspect ratio method of measuring AoB. Of course with radar and good plotting you can measure that really precisely with a protractor.

Without radar, using their OLC Gui (insert German name for the real device here) they could measure AoB just about as precisely without all the technology, but just as quickly! The ingenuity of doing with less is often more admirable than brute force techological assault. But again, we're talking style points here. You really can get 15% better performance for about 300 times the effort and expense. The fleet boat proved it.

From our standpoint it's impossible to not admire the little guy who did 85% of the job with one third of the resources. But they would have died to get that extra 15%, no matter what it cost.

And that is the difference between the U-Boat sailor's view of the situation, if they had had the facts, and ours, safely speculating from the security of our cozy 21st century homes.

[DaveyJ576]

You have to be really careful with large down angles when submerging. Much greater than 10 degrees and you risk sticking the props out of the water. You have to remember that these boats were mostly driven under by the combined effects of the diving planes and propulsion. Stick the props out of the water and you eliminate the effect of propulsion and greatly slow the dive times.

For informational purposes: I qualified in submarines on the USS Darter SS-576 in 1984. The Darter was post war diesel boat very similar to the Fleet Boats.

Dave

www.pigboats.com (http://www.pigboats.com)

[tater]

I knew there had to be a trade off... that would be interesting to see. I'm curious though if the exceptional dive times of the u-boats came with more risk of that than the slower, but perhaps "safer" 10 degree dive used by the USN.

Then you get a game like SH, and they codify the u-boat fast times, but with none of the downsides, and codify the slower fleet boat times, with none of the increase in "safety" (no chance of sticking the props out).

Learn something new every day :D

[DaveyJ576]

Tench schemes 2 and 3 are listed with TEST depths of 1000', BTW. So the US could have easily modified Balao/Tench to go as deep as any u-boat, looks like.

I am not sure were you are getting your information, but the Tench class test depth was officially 400 feet. The Bureau of Ships designed a safety factor into the hulls of 1.5. That means the the theoretical crush depth of a Balao/Tench class boat was 600 feet. However, practical experience showed that this figure proved to be extremely cautious. As previously noted, the USS Chopper went to 1000 feet and survived. Dick O'Kane took the Tang to 612 feet on trials with no ill effect at all. So what is the true crush depth of a Balao/Tench? No one really knows for sure. Naval architects are a cautious bunch for very good reasons. I would be comfortable taking a Balao/Tench to 500 feet on a routine basis, and to 700 feet if my life depended on it. But to take it much below that would be foolish in the extreme.

Dave

www.pigboats.com (http://www.pigboats.com)

[tater]

It's listed like that in Friedman.

[DaveyJ576]

Tater,

I apologize if my previous post seemed a little harsh. That was not my intention. Subtlety of expression in these forums can be difficult at times. :oops:

Norman Friedman's book, U.S. Submarines through 1945 has a table on page 311 which lists the characteristics of several classes of submarines. The test depth for the Tench class is listed as 400 feet. Schemes 2 and 3 are listed next. These were proposals for follow on classes that were never built. The figure of 1000 is listed in the test depth column. However, the 1000 has an asterisk next to it. Checking the preface for the data tables, it clearly states that any depth figure listed with an asterisk denotes collapse depth.

Test depth: The depth at which a submarine can routinely operate without damage to the hull or associated piping systems.

Collapse (or crush) depth: The theoretical depth at which the submarine hull will fail due to water pressure.

In Table 12-3 on page 250, Friedman lists the operating (test) depth of the SS-475 (USS Argonaut) as 450 feet and the collapse depth of 750 feet. Proposed Design A and B had a test depth of 500 feet and a collapse depth of 800 feet.

Norman Friedman is a very reliable author. However, his writing style is very choppy and academic and is sometimes hard to follow.

Interesting fact: The internal watertight bulkheads of these boats were built to a different standard. Their thickness was reduced to reduce the overall weight of the boat. They would give way at 450 feet. This means that if a boat suffered battle damage and had a compartment completely flooded, the bulkhead separating it from the rest of the interior of the boat would collapse at 450 feet causing the loss of the boat.

The devil is in the details!

Dave

www.pigboats.com (http://www.pigboats.com)

[Rockin Robbins]

You have to be really careful with large down angles when submerging. Much greater than 10 degrees and you risk sticking the props out of the water. You have to remember that these boats were mostly driven under by the combined effects of the diving planes and propulsion. Stick the props out of the water and you eliminate the effect of propulsion and greatly slow the dive times.

Not to mention rev the heck out of some pretty delicate motors that are designed to function under a normal prop loat. Take all the load off and I imagine bad things happen. Although you might have to really work at it to lift the stern out of water, it could be plenty embarrassing if you did!:rotfl:

[tater]

I didn't take it that way in the least, just typed a short answer. I really don't get bent out of shape on forums easily, I treat it all as if we're talking over beers :) (which I'd be more than happy to do should you find yourself in albuquerque)

I just skimmed, and assumed that those to "Schemes" were sub-versions of Tench—my bad! (I saw the * on them, but there was no footnote for that).

I should add that I only got Friedman in the last few weeks, and have not had time to do more than glance at it.

<S>

tater

[DaveyJ576]

To all:

At the risk of giving myself a self-promotional plug, check out the following link:

http://pigboats.com/dave3.html

The books listed here are the ones that I use most often to do my research. There is a lot of junk info out there so you have to be kind of careful. These books are excellent and quite reliable.

Dave

www.pigboats.com

[LukeFF]

So the fleet could have crash dived considerably fast with no more change than a differently trained skipper giving the orders. What was a u-boat crash dive angle?

This is why I love the ONI manuals:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/LukeFF/ONIGerman.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/LukeFF/UBoatManueverability.jpg

[Samu*]

This is becoming fruitless as many just outright ignore facts.

Fact: German U-boats had an advanced welded hull construction. Not the Type VII nor any other WWII boat had Rivets. See my post above on the type VII's evolution from the WW1 UB III

Fact: German U-boats have on a few occasions exceeded 300 meters depth and a couple of times by a scary margine. 300 meters is 984.5 feet. The type VIIC\41 had a thicker Pressure hull and could go deeper than any other U-boat.

Fact:The U-boats sank 3,476 merchant vessals during WW2 with the peak in 1942.

Fact: Admiral Doenitz had wanted 300 U-boats to go to war with England. He had stated that any less would make a blockade of England near imposable.
When WWII broke out he had 57 and of those the majority were the small coastal boats! Only 27 were sea boats available to blockade England.

So one could equate tha it wasnt that the tool wasnt right for the job just that there were not enough tools to do the job right in the first place.

So speed goes to the fleet boats surface and underwater.
# of torpedo tubes goes to the fleet boats.
Dive time goes to the U-boats
Depth goes to the U-Boats
Resource alotment goes to the U-boats both in men and materials
Tonnage sunk goes to the U-boats
Technolegy goes both ways. Defensive Fleet boats. Offensive U-boats.

The fact of the matter is that Germany needed the numbers more than any other factor to make a differance in 1939' 40' 41'. Those needed numbers never materialised but they put to damn good use what they did have available in that time period.

That would make a larger differance than to make a fleet boat equivelant when they could make two Type VII's for every fleet boat.

This topic has lack facts since these über patriotic fellas came here with their refrigerators and A/C systems as a mandatory when comparing what WW2 -era fighting vehicle were better :D When discussing about WW2 era whit a true Yank, especially about Axis innovations versus Allied ones, he will 9 times out of 10 take this arrogant attitude "our stuff were ultimately better than their stuff ever was". And that very arrogance makes me sick.
The very same narrowminded deduction that has been proven wrong when comparing armour technology, rifles like german StG assault rifles, aviation technology, gun optics, etc.
When someone i.e states that 15 sec difference (31-32 sec over 46-47 sec!!) doesn't matter at all when talking about WW2 -era sub diving time, hes only one whos having the blindfold over hes eyes.

These super intellectuent peoples around here should tell why there were over 100 ex-Axis engineers and scientist at your Apollo -program? And why someone called Werner was one of the leading figures there, especially when designin the Saturn V -rocket that, if I'm not wrong, is being used still? Really the ultimate bashing of anykind of Axis -side engineering or achievements during 1930s and 1940s just tells how narrowminded and biased the judger is...

I'm quite sure that IF the German would have fought at the Pacific theatre against similar anti-sub -gadgets (or lack of em..) that Japs had, their U-boat design would have been very very different. And vice versa about U.S subs at Atlantic theatre against similar danger that Allies posed there.

Seems like the majority of these patriotic fellas here doesn't want to remember anything good that Axis had, did or achieved. No matter if it was at land, air or sea. For example some performance figures that the XXI -class carried. The technology and basic design that was used decade(s) after the war. Not something as extraordinary as i.e. ME 262, but when compared to the majority of Axis subs, XXI's characteristics were a huge leap forward. Germans surely had the engineers, the scientists and the knowhow through the WW2. Only thing that they were missing was the recourses.

[Rockin Robbins]

Sheesh, where'd that goose-stepping salute come from? The fact is U-Boats sank less than 1% of Allied ships during the war. The fact is that the vaunted homing torpedo hit 1/10 of the targets it was shot at, where the Cutie, crippled as it was hit 33%. The fact is that the German U-Boat didn't take enough weaponry to sea to do anything more than die and make an artificial reef with. The fact is that US submarine radar DID render a 15 second dive time difference irrelevent. The fact is that reskinned fleet boats with no modifications to drive systems outperformed the unproven Type XXI boat, whose reliability was never established.

The fact is that US submarines won their war in the Pacific while Germany lost in part BECAUSE U-Boats were helping defeat them by bringing unbeatable foes into the war. The US and Britain didn't have to be part of the fight. U-Boats made their enmity unavoidable and so caused the defeat of Germany. How good the boats were technically was irrelevent. How gallant their men were was irrelevent. All that technical excellence (while not as technically excellent as the fleet boat) and all that gallantry actually contributed to the defeat of the Germany who foolishly squandered them for an obviously impossible task.

By the way, the Saturn V rocket hasn't flown since well before you were born. I personally watched every Saturn V that ever flew, and not on television.

[tater]

In response to saluting the SS:

There is no honor in loyalty to evil. None at all.

[Rockin Robbins]

And the German submariners themselves were the first and loudest to say it. They HATE Das Boot and Iron Coffins because they do not speak for those who know better. There was no heroism there, only capitulation to evil. A hero would have left Germany in the mid 1930's. Many did. Now wannabe Nazis worship at the altar of a petty sandbox bully whose proudest achievement was the destruction of the world's cultural and scientific pinnacle, the home of Goethe, Schumann, Hermann Hesse and Albert Einstein. They would all have been ashamed of the "honor" of the SS. You need not be patriotic to any but Germany to see that as truth.

[LukeFF]

These super intellectuent peoples around here should tell why there were over 100 ex-Axis engineers and scientist at your Apollo -program? And why someone called Werner was one of the leading figures there, especially when designin the Saturn V -rocket that, if I'm not wrong, is being used still?

We brought them here to the US to keep them out of Soviet hands. Duh!

[tater]

True, the Soviets only advanced quickly by stealing, so we had to keep the Germans out of the CCCP. As many as possible, anyway. NASA would have done fine without them... the Soviets, OTOH.

Look at that pinnacle of Soviet aircraft design, the Tu-4 ;)

Or their A-bomb, for that matter (thank you, Fuchs).

tater

[Nephandus]

And the German submariners themselves were the first and loudest to say it. They HATE Das Boot and Iron Coffins because they do not speak for those who know better. There was no heroism there, only capitulation to evil. A hero would have left Germany in the mid 1930's. Many did. Now wannabe Nazis worship at the altar of a petty sandbox bully whose proudest achievement was the destruction of the world's cultural and scientific pinnacle, the home of Goethe, Schumann, Hermann Hesse and Albert Einstein. They would all have been ashamed of the "honor" of the SS. You need not be patriotic to any but Germany to see that as truth.

It was just a matter of time until Godwin's Law came into action in this thread... sheesh...

I am actually a bit tired of "America's better than you are" comparisons coming into existence by leaving out several facts that would prove uncomfortable...

For example.... percentage values look really nice since German percentages are lower than the US ones.... however in raw numbers German U-Boats still sank triple of tonnage compared to US boats... and that against two opponents highly developled in anti-submarine tactics and one oppenent being quite an expert in mass-producing freighters. That turned the war in the Atlantic into a war of attrition. And since the US produced freighters faster than the Germans could sink them, the equasion was in favour of the allies.

Now the funny thing about the aftermath of WW 2 is that the Americans wasn't so discriminating once it got to securing the spoils of war... like dividing up German submarines of all types... Russia, UK and US each took 6 of them for studying... and the funny thing is... almost all following sub types bore resemblance to a German sub of a later type (you know which).

Also a fact worth mentioning.... the hailed scientist who made Mercury, Gemini and Apollo possible was Wernher von Braun... the same von Braun who kept developing and building V2 Rocket for the Nazis until the day the war was over. It was known he was a Nazi... using Jews in Dora-Mittelbau building those things under abhorrend conditions. The US authorities chose it would be wiser to purge all his records of his Nazi past.

Jet technology wasn't that interesting though.... although the Germans were the first to mass produce jet aircraft, they didn't lay the foundations (that were the Brits).

On the other hand.... soundguided torpedos were first developed and fielded by the Germans (not being quite effective due to the allied use of the Foxer bait system) and also wireguided anti-tank missiles were developed by the Germans.

On further note.... a man named Zuse developed workable computers to calculate flight trajectory data for rockets and cruise missiles (what do you think, the V1 was?) and was quite successful in that.

So.... in addition to the tragedies of what happened in Germany in those years it is also tragic that the Allies (especially the US and Russia) chose to reap the spoils of torture and industrialised genocide to further their own technological development.

By the way.... you forgot Heinrich Heine in your list who spoke the words "There where people burn books, they will soon burn humans"

[Nephandus]

These super intellectuent peoples around here should tell why there were over 100 ex-Axis engineers and scientist at your Apollo -program? And why someone called Werner was one of the leading figures there, especially when designin the Saturn V -rocket that, if I'm not wrong, is being used still?

We brought them here to the US to keep them out of Soviet hands. Duh!

I guess you must have missed some then.... actually there are quite some interesting documentations base on historical facts that tell otherwise.

[Rockin Robbins]

By the way.... you forgot Heinrich Heine in your list who spoke the words "There where people burn books, they will soon burn humans"
Yes I forgot! The Nazis were quite good at burning people, weren't they? Thanks for bolstering my case.

And of course you pretend otherwise but you know that my case is that the Nazis were not patriotic Germans. They were parasites, working to the destruction of what they falsely claimed to love. Patriotism toward the United States, Finland, Canada or Uganda is unnecessary to see that fact.

America didn't claim to be better than the Germans and Japanese, the Germans and Japanese said so. And they were right. For the first time in history the victors of war did not exploit their rightful conquest. Instead the United States picked its erstwhile enemies up off their feet, helped them form true patriotic governments, financed their recovery and walked away, leaving two nations that can hold their heads up with pride as the equal of the United States or any country in the world. Damn right I'm proud of that. It has never been done before. It may never be possible again.

World War II was against deviant governments, not the German and Japanese people. Yes, many of those relatively innocent people had to die, but war is not about whether innocent people die, but WHOSE innocent people die. Let the record show that the Nazis killed millions of innocent Germans before we and the British did.

Germany won World War II in the only way possible. By losing. I'm afraid you also are hopelessly outclassed.

[Gino]

I am actually a bit tired of "America's better than you are" comparisons coming into existence by leaving out several facts that would prove uncomfortable...

Now the funny thing about the aftermath of WW 2 is that the Americans wasn't so discriminating once it got to securing the spoils of war... like dividing up German submarines of all types... Russia, UK and US each took 6 of them for studying... and the funny thing is... almost all following sub types bore resemblance to a German sub of a later type (you know which).

Also a fact worth mentioning.... the hailed scientist who made Mercury, Gemini and Apollo possible was Wernher von Braun... the same von Braun who kept developing and building V2 Rocket for the Nazis until the day the war was over. It was known he was a Nazi... using Jews in Dora-Mittelbau building those things under abhorrend conditions. The US authorities chose it would be wiser to purge all his records of his Nazi past.



Funny,
I'm Dutch, and I happen to live in the US. I don't have the"America is better than you" feeling.
I have studied both sides of the submarine war in WW2. Coming from Europe I had better access to Atlantic war material than Pacific war stuff. Living overhere and being involved with the USS Cod I have better access to US subamrine material.
And, I still find that technically spoken, the Fleetsubmarine was better than anything the Germans brought to the Atlantic, or to the Pacific.

If you read my posts to the forum on this topic, than you will also read that it took the US only minor upgrades to get the Fleetsubmarines that were used during WW2 to the XXI level.
This is something that would never have been possible if the design of the Fleetsub hadn't been so good.There was no nation in the world that could modify their running subs to something close to the XXI. Not the Sovjets, not the British, not the Dutch and certainly not the French. The other nations, like Norway, started running VIIC's after the war (example; the U995 at Laboe).


You also, obviously, didn't read the explanation I gave for the use of German technology by the US (and Sovjets etc.) after the war. Again, it is better, and cheaper, if you use already designed, readily available technology than going through the whole process yourself.

For example; If you look at all the footage available of the A4 rocket (aka V2), then you see a lot of experiments going wrong. Even when the Germans were firing V2 rockets from The Hague (in the Netherlands) the whole area of surrounding houses was obliterated by premature explosions of the rockets.
Having the guy that built them, tested them, improved them and made them run was priceless for the US. It gave them the advantage over the Sovjets at that time. Had Werner von Braun been captured by the Sovjets, you and I would probaly have spoken Russian, with our motherlanguages as an underrated second language...
That the US purged the SS archives from certain records can only been seen in that context. The Sovjets were far more a threat after the war, than having to send, and lose a very valuable man. That's politics, and politicians are not always known for their tact...
By the way, still living in Germany are several lower ranking SS war criminals from foreign nationality, that are deemed to 'sickly' to hand over to justice. Those guys didn't have any mercy when it came to the sickly when they pulled the trigger...politics...

groetjes, and sleep well

[surf_ten]

All I know is I certainly wish I had an SD/SJ radar system on my Type IX boat in SHIII. But then the Allies could counter this with radar detection and force the convey to coarse correct and send a few aircraft and destroyers my way. The Brits usually have a quick counter to everything.

Certainly in the Pacific theatre SD and SJ have proven very effective and invaluable for me in SHIV. Makes intercepting and setting up an ambush a breeze.

Overall I confess the fleet boats with the electronic warfare technology and larger number of torpedoes are starting to spoil me, but there will always be a spot in my heart for my Type IX U-boat.

[Gino]

Certainly in the Pacific theatre SD and SJ have proven very effective and invaluable for me in SHIV. Makes intercepting and setting up an ambush a breeze.



About five years ago, a Japanese Television station came to the USS Cod Submarine Memorial to shoot a documentary about "Why Japan lost in the Pacific".
They claimed it was due to the SD radar that the US had an overwhelming advantage over the Japanese. Since the Japanese subhunters had virtually nothing even close to detect them, it was felt by them to be the major reason why Japan lost so many ships.

Fun fact is that the US skippers weren't aware of this. Especially in the beginning of the SD radar they used it almost sporadically. The general thought was that the Japanese could detect them easily. This was not the case, but the mere thought made them very cautious.
When SH4 was developed we had a discussion about this fact. But how do you build a thought into a game...

groetjes,

[Freiwillige]

Germany and Japan were rebuilt not out of the kindness of our hearts but out of sheer necessity. Before Stalin started saber rattling with the west Germany was held down to a very low standard of living. And the plan was to keep them there for quite some time. But the specter of Communism made the western Europeans nervous so plans changed and Germans were needed again to face that Communism and buy time for the rest of the west to mobilize. Japan and Germany were Buffers to Stalins expansionist plans.

"Let the records show that the Nazi's killed millions of Innocent Germans before we did." -Rockin Robbins

Seriously? What kind of revisionism is that? That fits right along with the Nazi's were trying to take over the world garbage. Ever heard of Propaganda? The Nazi's did not kill Millions of innocent Germans. The Nazi's were not a controlling 10% either. While most Germans were not members of the Nazi party the majority of them were for it!

For being opposed to a regime that destroyed free thinking you seem pretty set and locked on to the idea of painting everything in WWII with one brush. We good they Bad. We weren't always good or right in that war and they weren't always bad. But this isn't about my atrocity isn't as big as there atrocity. Its a bout realistic, Subjective History. The war is over so lets all stop taking it so personal and shoving our emotional responses forward without the use of cohesive thought to back it up.:stare:

[Nephandus]

By the way.... you forgot Heinrich Heine in your list who spoke the words "There where people burn books, they will soon burn humans"
Yes I forgot! The Nazis were quite good at burning people, weren't they? Thanks for bolstering my case.

And of course you pretend otherwise but you know that my case is that the Nazis were not patriotic Germans. They were parasites, working to the destruction of what they falsely claimed to love. Patriotism toward the United States, Finland, Canada or Uganda is unnecessary to see that fact.

Unfortunately it was not that simple. The Nazis are still the perfect example what happens when you mix patriotism, extreme nationalism and a quite disturbed (from a humanist point of view) ideology together and use than concoction as a political foundation. Unfortunately they happened to be at the wrong place at the right time as they managed to relieve the pressure caused by the world economic crisis... who cared by that time that all measures taken were in the end preparations for war?

America didn't claim to be better than the Germans and Japanese, the Germans and Japanese said so. And they were right. For the first time in history the victors of war did not exploit their rightful conquest. Instead the United States picked its erstwhile enemies up off their feet, helped them form true patriotic governments, financed their recovery and walked away, leaving two nations that can hold their heads up with pride as the equal of the United States or any country in the world. Damn right I'm proud of that. It has never been done before. It may never be possible again.

Actually the Marshal Plan just financed Germany... Germany at least can feel lucky that the alternative, the Morgenthau plan never was incepted. However the US and the other western Allies didn't just walk away... The idea behind a highly industrialised western Germany was having a first line bulwark against the eastern block. Furthermore the Americans walked away from 1990 onward as no formal peace treaty was signed. Until then, western Germany was nothing more than occupied territory with the advantage of having been granted some degree of political autonomy.

World War II was against deviant governments, not the German and Japanese people. Yes, many of those relatively innocent people had to die, but war is not about whether innocent people die, but WHOSE innocent people die. Let the record show that the Nazis killed millions of innocent Germans before we and the British did.

Oh well... the nature of war brings out the inhuman sides of all involved. At least the terror bombing campaigns on Tokio, Cologne, Hamburg and Dresden (and of countless other larger cities) proved one thing: it did not quite help in breaking morale

Germany won World War II in the only way possible. By losing. I'm afraid you also are hopelessly outclassed.[/quote]

I don't see myself as outclassed as I still retain the dignity of sticking to historical facts, which is my duty as historian. Your are quite correct with the former statement though.

In that I just wish the US would have decided earlier to act.

You know, the funny thing is that 90% of the Americans didn't even want to get involved in WW2 (and that was still in 1941). Earlier there were even some American stating admiration for Nazi Germany publicly and in front of cameras (wasn't grandpa Bush actually trading with them?).

It took Pearl Harbor and the undeclared war of Japan in the Pacific to get the US moving and even then, many including greater parts of the government were unwilling to fight in Europe. Lucky for the Allies and especially UK that Germany had the courteousness of making that decision by declaring war on the US.

[AVGWarhawk]

Time out chair period. :03: