Fleet Boat vs. U Boat

[Anthony W.]

Well folks, I'm bored. So here's my proposed debate. Would you rather sail a fleet boat, or a U boat? This isn't taking into account crew accommodations and comforts - strictly game only.

I'd rather sail in a fleet boat... Here are my points...

All torpedoes stored internally

10 Tubes

5 inch deck gun

Better radar

HOWEVER...

My points for the Germans...

Quicker dive

Turns better

Smaller and harder to spot

Quieter (from what I can tell)

Better (late war) sonar

Now, let the battle begin!

[Schwieger]

If strictly from a gaming point of view... U-Boat, because I prefer the presentation of SH3.

[Torplexed]

I've lost track of how many threads there have been on this subject over the years. I think the general consensus is that it's like comparing apples to oranges since they fought in such vastly different theaters.

[sharkbit]

I've lost track of how many threads there have been on this subject over the years. I think the general consensus is that it's like comparing apples to oranges since they fought in such vastly different theaters.

Exactly...different design philosophies based on their expected missions and doctrine, at least early on in the war for US boats.

:)

[razark]

Again?

How about we do Titanic vs. iceberg this time? At least it would be new.
:D

[Schwieger]

Again?

How about we do Titanic vs. iceberg this time? At least it would be new.
:D

Lol... How about Titanic vs Lusitania?

[razark]

Lol... How about Titanic vs Lusitania?
Either that, or we can skip straight to the part where the fleet boat boys call the u-boat boys Nazis.

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

I'm about half and half to be honest on this debate.

Fleet Boat
1. More torpedos and tubes
2. Larger caliber deck gun
3.Early air radar
4. Better surface speed
5. More fuel
6. Longer range

U-Boats
1. Small size makes it harder to dectect
2. Early surface radar.
3. Electric torpedos by 1940
4. Less dud torpedos
5. Can dive deeper
6. Had resupply subs

[Sailor Steve]

Yep, had the argument many times. The point about different theaters is probably the best one. Like comparing the Type VII and Type IX, which was also just done recently. One is designed for medium-range operations, and is smaller and more maneuverable, and the other is of necessity designed for extreme long range, and so has to be bigger, which makes it less maneuverable and slower to dive. On the plus side the fleet boats had refrigerators, fresh food for the entire patrol, laundry machines, lots of fresh water, none of which makes a difference in the game, but certainly made a difference to morale after two months at sea.

Either that, or we can skip straight to the part where the fleet boat boys call the u-boat boys Nazis.
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/ThemvsUs.jpg

[Stealhead]

Depends on my mood really I like both about equally.When I play as a fleet boat I am running TMO as a German I play OM.The best feature about the U-boats for me would be their TDC (the one that OM has in good detail) and I also like the fact the German torpedoes are bit more powerful also they have more speed options.The German hydrophones are much better than the Americans.Downside wise the Germans have poor radar compared to the US and for me personally the U-boats having only two engines when you must charge the batteries it takes longer and slows the boat more which can be a big liability.Generally much more challenging playing as a German due to no radar early on which makes hunting harder.

Fleet Boats I like the higher torpedo load out(though the German IX has more than the US boats) Faster crash dive times (not sure why the OP thinks that the U-boats are faster the 7 is but the 9 is slower diving)No dealing with external torpedoes.Better tube layout(though in the type IX with the better torps this is somewhat nullified).Far superior radar systems and higher speeds.I do not like the TDC interface as much from certain aspects.

Never a fan of the Nazi thing when anyone who knows knows that the majority of the Grey Wolves where not members of the Nazi party and liked things like Jazz something the Nazis frowned upon they where I think the least Nazi branch of the German military.

[Sailor Steve]

Depends on my mood really I like both about equally.
And that's the problem I always have. If we're discussing the merits of the actual boats then there are many, many factors involved, and a true "best" is impossible to determine, both (or rather all) having their fans, with reasons ranging from appraisals of the machinery to appraisals of how they were used to just plain "I like that one best".

If we're talking about the history, I have no choice. I love to read about them all.

If we're talking about the game(s), again there's no clear choice for me. I loved Silent Service, I love AOD, I love SH1, I love SH3 and in SH4 I'll gladly play both. I usually go for a u-boat sim first, not because I like them better but because I like to start at the beginning of the war and there aren't to many fleet boats in action in 1939.

And that's my final answer.

[Schwieger]

Makes you wonder why no one ever starts a thread IJN subs vs Fleet Boats. After all, U-boats have been discussed time and time again, no? :haha::har:

[Sailor Steve]

We don't have an IJN game to play. No one discusses British, Dutch or Italian boats either. People argue about what they can play with.

[Schwieger]

We don't have an IJN game to play. No one discusses British, Dutch or Italian boats either. People argue about what they can play with.

Maybe, but there are IJN sub mods out there.. and some British ones too, I think :hmmm:

[zedjr]

what is up with jsut being able to donwload 3 files. it ahs been a week adn still cant download anymoer files?

[Krauter]

what is up with jsut being able to donwload 3 files. it ahs been a week adn still cant download anymoer files?

:timeout: wait what?

[razark]

:timeout: wait what?
That's why u-boats are obviously superior. The Type VII u-boat would allow you to download seven files. The Type IX allowed even more.

Imagine if they Germans had been able to deploy the Type XXI early enough, they could have overwhelmed the Allies with the sheer number of mods they could have employed.
:salute:

[Platapus]

Again?

How about we do Titanic vs. iceberg this time? At least it would be new.
:D

It was a lucky thing that iceberg survived.

Who would have thought that Murdoch was such an Iceberg hater. :nope:

[Torplexed]

Who would have thought that Murdoch was such an Iceberg hater. :nope:

Actually colliding with the iceberg it was a desperate maneuver on Murdoch's part to scrape these two idiots off the bow. :D

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_aVzW2toYwZ8/TT-TD_DqJtI/AAAAAAAABt0/KY81Ot59RyQ/s1600/leonardo-dicaprio-and-kate-winslet-in-titanic.jpg

[Ducimus]

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=132&pictureid=802


The only "vs" discussion i would ever indulge is a Gato or Balao vs a Type 9C or type 9D uboat.

All other versus and comparison's are apples and oranges.

[Subnuts]

I really wish people would read a serious technical history of conventionally-powered US submarines before indulging in these debates. John Alden's The Fleet Submarines in the United States Navy or Norman Friedman's US Submarines Through 1945 would do just fine.

Seriously, the level of ignorance I see in these sort of threads boggles my mind. A lot of people seem unwilling or unable to understand the basic tenets and trade offs of submarine design. Forget surface speed, habitability, underwater endurance, armament, sonar and radio outfit, range, diving depth, or reserve buoyancy. There will always be those who think that the ability to dive deep was the only important factor in submarine design prior to the Nautilus. :nope:

[Anthony W.]

There will always be those who think that the ability to dive deep was the only important factor in submarine design prior to the Nautilus. :nope:

Though personally I'd love to be able to outrun a destroyer... Lol

[Sailor Steve]

Maybe, but there are IJN sub mods out there.. and some British ones too, I think :hmmm:
The problem I have with that is that for me it's not complete unless the interiors and the voices are all correct. I'd love to play a real British, Dutch or Japanese campaign, but only if it's all there.

[Schwieger]

I really wish people would read a serious technical history of conventionally-powered US submarines before indulging in these debates. John Alden's The Fleet Submarines in the United States Navy or Norman Friedman's US Submarines Through 1945 would do just fine.

Seriously, the level of ignorance I see in these sort of threads boggles my mind. A lot of people seem unwilling or unable to understand the basic tenets and trade offs of submarine design. Forget surface speed, habitability, underwater endurance, armament, sonar and radio outfit, range, diving depth, or reserve buoyancy. There will always be those who think that the ability to dive deep was the only important factor in submarine design prior to the Nautilus. :nope:

Range and Speed are the precise reasons I'm a fan of the Japanese subs. If I want to go deep and evade destroyers, there's VII. For everything else, there's IJN.

[JU_88]

For gaming - a Uboat, just because I prefer the ATO.
In reality, I'd go with a Fleet boat (for obvious political reasons) and because my chances of survival would be better :salute:

Though I think if I were riding ANY WWII era vehicle in to combat, I'd be far too busy crapping my pants to worry about the technical specs of my given unit. :cry:

[Randomizer]

I really wish people would read a serious technical history of conventionally-powered US submarines before indulging in these debates. John Alden's The Fleet Submarines in the United States Navy or Norman Friedman's US Submarines Through 1945 would do just fine.

Seriously, the level of ignorance I see in these sort of threads boggles my mind. A lot of people seem unwilling or unable to understand the basic tenets and trade offs of submarine design. Forget surface speed, habitability, underwater endurance, armament, sonar and radio outfit, range, diving depth, or reserve buoyancy. There will always be those who think that the ability to dive deep was the only important factor in submarine design prior to the Nautilus. :nope:
Excellent post! But I would also include research into the technical design origins of the Type VII and Type IX dating back to WW1.

In three months when this topic reappears, it should be linked back here so it can die a quick, painless, and unlamented death.

[JU_88]

I guess most of the weapons that fought WWII in the first few years were pretty out dated - hell, never mind design, some WWII ships even fought in WWI, though I guess ships have a longer shelf life due to the time and cost of production :)
But yeah, the Type VII and IX are classic examples of a weapon being pushed way beyond its effective operational life, they were technically obsolete as early as 1941, they should have been replaced mid-war.

The main British sub classes S and T were quite badly technically flawed come to think about it.

-Oval shaped pressure hulls to accomadate 6 fore tubes (no where near as stong as a cylinder).
-Torpedos had no TDC or gyro and were gas powered only (at least the detinators were reliable though)
-Lack of external tube doors on the bow tubes created alot of drag.
-External Torpedo tubes mounted outside the pressure hull, were often prone to failiure and could not be reloaded at sea.
-They were Slow, even slower than their predecessors such as the P, O and R classes.
-They were ASDIC equipped, why? not suprisingly British submariners never used it!

[Stealhead]

I really wish people would read a serious technical history of conventionally-powered US submarines before indulging in these debates. John Alden's The Fleet Submarines in the United States Navy or Norman Friedman's US Submarines Through 1945 would do just fine.

Seriously, the level of ignorance I see in these sort of threads boggles my mind. A lot of people seem unwilling or unable to understand the basic tenets and trade offs of submarine design. Forget surface speed, habitability, underwater endurance, armament, sonar and radio outfit, range, diving depth, or reserve buoyancy. There will always be those who think that the ability to dive deep was the only important factor in submarine design prior to the Nautilus. :nope:

I have read and own both of these books and I must to an extent disagree with your statement.You are over thinking the question the OP asked about what one prefers what one thinks is better from the limitations of the Silent Hunter series not what was best in real life.And even from that view better technology alone means nothing if you do not have highly trained and motivated men manning a sub.Also I find Friedman's book to be some what scattered he must have been under pressure of a deadline and have you read any books on German or any other nations submarine technology?You cant simply read two books about one nations subs and say that all others are inferior if you have only read books on part of the subject but consider this enough to be definitive evidence of superiority then maybe you are boggling your own mind.

[razark]

A-10 vs. C-5?

Which is the better airplane?

[I'm goin' down]

what is up with jsut being able to donwload 3 files. it ahs been a week adn still cant download anymoer files?

I think this the wrong thread for the above post.

As for all of the other posts, except razarks first post, :yawn:

[Schwieger]

I have read and own both of these books and I must to an extent disagree with your statement.You are over thinking the question the OP asked about what one prefers what one thinks is better from the limitations of the Silent Hunter series not what was best in real life.And even from that view better technology alone means nothing if you do not have highly trained and motivated men manning a sub.Also I find Friedman's book to be some what scattered he must have been under pressure of a deadline and have you read any books on German or any other nations submarine technology?You cant simply read two books about one nations subs and say that all others are inferior if you have only read books on part of the subject but consider this enough to be definitive evidence of superiority then maybe you are boggling your own mind.

Well then, I think the question can be simplified to:

"What is the best submarine in the Silent Hunter Series?"

[timmyg00]

Range and Speed are the precise reasons I'm a fan of the Japanese subs. If I want to go deep and evade destroyers, there's VII. For everything else, there's IJN.
Didn't help them much against the Batfish, did they? :har:

TG

[Daniel Prates]

Stealhead is right in the sense that if we demand expert academic knowledge from everyone to be allowed to discuss here, this forum would be narrowed down to a dozen expert pointdexters, rubbing their egos in eachothers' faces in every single discussion - soon enough, this forum would be as deserted as a small town in a spaguetti western (get the idea? Tumbleweeds rolling in the mains dusty street? The sound of the wind? eh? eh? Ok, forget it).

Let's lighten up, people. Who started this thread was only trying to do some small talk.

[TorpX]

Stealhead is right in the sense that if we demand expert academic knowledge from everyone to be allowed to discuss here, this forum would be narrowed down to a dozen expert pointdexters, rubbing their egos in eachothers' faces in every single discussion - soon enough, this forum would be as deserted as a small town in a spaguetti western (get the idea? Tumbleweeds rolling in the mains dusty street? The sound of the wind? eh? eh? Ok, forget it).

Let's lighten up, people. Who started this thread was only trying to do some small talk.

:agree:



I don't really have a favorite boat, but I much prefer the PTO to the ATO. The Pacific has ongoing land battles, contending air forces, contending naval forces, island chains changing hands, exotic far-away locations. The ATO is more linear. U-boats vs. merchies, or U-boats vs. escorts. I must admit, SH III has a lot of nifty mods though. :)

[Stealhead]

Well then, I think the question can be simplified to:

"What is the best submarine in the Silent Hunter Series?"


"Well folks, I'm bored. So here's my proposed debate. Would you rather sail a fleet boat, or a U boat? This isn't taking into account crew accommodations and comforts - strictly game only."

Did you read the OPs first post?It did say strictly game only.No offense meant here but it does seem to me that you are fitting Daniel Prate description here some what.

[Ducimus]

.You are over thinking the question the OP asked about what one prefers what one thinks is better from the limitations of the Silent Hunter series not what was best in real life.

Stealhead is right in the sense that if we demand expert academic knowledge from everyone to be allowed to discuss here, this forum would be narrowed down to a dozen expert pointdexters, rubbing their egos in eachothers' faces in every single discussion

The core problem to ANY discussion on this subject in any way, shape, or form, is fanboism. There are ALOT of hardliner fans on subsim. At times the fanboyism is more apparent then other times, but it is ALWAYS there in the community, just under the surface; and all it takes is one little blast of high pressure air to make it porpoises up from periscope depth.

In my opinion, with a few exceptions, most of the community is incapable of having an objective, unbiased discussion about this subject.

[magic452]

Game only I far prefer Fleetboats and the PTO. There is just so much more going on in the PTO and there is nothing wrong with a Fleetboat. It's the right tool for the job at hand. The Fleetboat has some advantages over a U Boat and I exploit them.

Nothing at all wrong with a U Boat, they were very good at the job they had and you learned to fight them with the tools they had.

Magic

[Daniel Prates]

Nothing at all wrong with a U Boat, they were very good at the job they had and you learned to fight them with the tools they had.

Magic

They were also built in larger numbers - about 1000 boats in a 6-year period - within a much more overwhealmed industry. So I guess they were cheaper, simpler and more 'spartan' that fleetboats for a reason.

[JU_88]

The core problem to ANY discussion on this subject in any way, shape, or form, is fanboism. There are ALOT of hardliner fans on subsim. At times the fanboyism is more apparent then other times, but it is ALWAYS there in the community, just under the surface; and all it takes is one little blast of high pressure air to make it porpoises up from periscope depth.

In my opinion, with a few exceptions, most of the community is incapable of having an objective, unbiased discussion about this subject.

LOL not just this subject, any subject, have a look at GT for example.
Objectivity is not one of mankinds strong points.

[Rockin Robbins]

What I want to know is why when the two came together it was the fleet boat that got the kill. It seems to me the war footing of the crew trumps any superiority of either boat and for some reason the fleet boat won. I can't blame it on a better prepared American crew, they were just trying to survive to get to the Pacific.

I'm going to chock that one up strictly to Lady Luck.:D

[max-peck]

The main British sub classes S and T were quite badly technically flawed come to think about it.


Not to mention the bronze conning tower and periscope, weaker than steel.

Made of bronze so as not to interfere with the magnetic compass, the RN deciding they had little faith in a gyro compass.

[WernherVonTrapp]

I have to admit that I don't think I know enough about these subs to comment either way, but I do have a monkey-wrench.

How would the typical U-Boat fare in the Pacific vs the typical Fleetboat in the Atlantic?:o

[Daniel Prates]

How would the typical U-Boat fare in the Pacific vs the typical Fleetboat in the Atlantic?



I should think that there would be little difference in terms of tactics - afterall, water is water anywhere! - but the strategic use of uboats would naturally have to be adapted.

My guess would be that the u-boats would have a better chance at spotting and obliterating convoys, than they had in the atlantic. Ship spotting with uboats was mostly visual, as they did not count on the kind of radar that fleetboats had from the early war (at least not until it was too late to make much difference). So I am guessing that the pacific, with all it's straigths and narrows, would provide some chocking points that would ease the job of wolfpacks.

[HMCS]

There weren't any convoys that were "obliterated". There were a couple scattered, e.g. PQ 17, but there were more than U-Boats involved there.

[Daniel Prates]

There weren't any convoys that were "obliterated". There were a couple scattered, e.g. PQ 17, but there were more than U-Boats involved there.

Yeah, I never said there were. Jeeez. It was a figure of speech.

My point is that straights and narrows might make wolfpack action a little easier, as the convoys would be limited to only so many sealanes. In fact, the same happens in SH4, where it's a bit predictable where the convoys will be transiting.

So far I have never read anything about fleetboats acting in packs. What do you guys know about that?

[razark]

My point is that straights and narrows might make wolfpack action a little easier, as the convoys would be limited to only so many sealanes. In fact, the same happens in SH4, where it's a bit predictable where the convoys will be transiting.
U-boats might have a bit of a problem transiting to their patrol zones. The Pacific is a large ocean, and the u-boats were not designed for such work.

So far I have never read anything about fleetboats acting in packs. What do you guys know about that?
Later in the war, fleet boats would operate in loose groups of three or so boats. They would keep in contact with each other, with one boat in overall "command", but there was no coordinated attacks and such. Each boat would keep to its own area.

[timmyg00]

I should think that there would be little difference in terms of tactics - afterall, water is water anywhere! - but the strategic use of uboats would naturally have to be adapted.

My guess would be that the u-boats would have a better chance at spotting and obliterating convoys, than they had in the atlantic. Ship spotting with uboats was mostly visual, as they did not count on the kind of radar that fleetboats had from the early war (at least not until it was too late to make much difference). So I am guessing that the pacific, with all it's straigths and narrows, would provide some chocking points that would ease the job of wolfpacks.

Hmmmm:

- Let's say you send the Type VIIs out in the Pacific at the start of the war... these are the (very) rough equivalent of the S-boats in capability and habitability. The S-boats held the line in the early stages of the war, but did not win the war. Neither would the Type VII.

- How long would a crew endure the primitive conditions of the Type VII in the Pacific tropical heat?

- U-boats did not get an effective radar until 1943, a year after the fleet boats. In such a large theater as the Pacific, radar was invaluable. U-boats would have been hobbled until radar came along.

- I think there's a big difference in terms of tactics just based on the capabilities of the boats, such as radar as mentioned above, and weapon loadout. You have more flexibility using the end-around tactic just having radar.

- the Type IX was the only U-boat roughly equivalent to the fleet boat in crusing range and weapons capacity (22 torpedos vs. Gato/Balao/Tench with 24 fish), and it had a slightly lower top surface speed than the fleet boats. However, as I understand it, its dive times were a little long. I don't know if the dive time was longer or shorter than the fleet boats', but if it was longer, they were more likely to fall prey to Japanese air patrols. Type IX did have a deeper diving depth, so if they did manage to get down, they were more likely to survive an attack.

So far I have never read anything about fleetboats acting in packs. What do you guys know about that? Wolfpacking was used with some success in the Pacific by US boats, but as I understand it they didn't start until after they heard about the Germans doing it. IMO Their success was largely due to their capabilities and their improved ship-to-ship comms, which meant they could let their packmates know immediately if something was coming their way.

TG

[Ducimus]

Their success was largely due to their capabilities and their improved ship-to-ship comms, which meant they could let their packmates know immediately if something was coming their way.
Believe it or not, US subs could communicate with each other via their radar.

[Daniel Prates]

Believe it or not, US subs could communicate with each other via their radar.

How so?

[razark]

How so?
A radar system is nothing more than a radio transmitter and receiver, really. They were able to key the radar signal on and off, using it to transmit in Morse code.

Look into the Batfish and her detection of the Japanese submarines. One of the first things they noticed was the radar set acting funny. They realized that it was caused by interference from another radar set on the same or nearly the same frequency. Morse code transmitted by radar was just carefully controlled interference.

[AVGWarhawk]

I like the zoo.

[magic452]

My point is that straights and narrows might make wolfpack action a little easier, as the convoys would be limited to only so many sealanes. In fact, the same happens in SH4, where it's a bit predictable where the convoys will be transiting.

You can check this out in the game, just take an S boat or even a Gato out with no radar and see how well you do. I myself get about triple the tonnage with radar. I've gone patrol after patrol and never even heard a depth charge.

Radar can give you such a good firing set up the escorts never even know you're there till one of the ships sink.
My point, quicker diving times mean very little to me.

I just posted a screen shot of a big TF that I missed cause I was out of position, no radar. Sonar only didn't get me close enough and they were too fast to do a runaround. With radar I would have gotten something out of it.

As I said, you fight with the tools you have.
Wolfe Packs were used as tactic to enhance the U Boat, most notably no radar early and to bring more fire power to the fight, something the Fleetboat already has.

My own personal opinion is that great crews took a not so hot U boat and made a he** of a fighting machine out of it.

Magic

[Daniel Prates]

A radar system is nothing more than a radio transmitter and receiver, really. They were able to key the radar signal on and off, using it to transmit in Morse code.

Look into the Batfish and her detection of the Japanese submarines. One of the first things they noticed was the radar set acting funny. They realized that it was caused by interference from another radar set on the same or nearly the same frequency. Morse code transmitted by radar was just carefully controlled interference.

I'll be damned! Yes, I see now, it is possible.

[Platapus]

How so?

In Dick O'Kane's book he describes using radar to communicate. It was not as fast as regular radio, but for transmitting simple coded messages, it seemed to work well for Dickie.

[Daniel Prates]

But since they had regular radio, I fail to understand when this would be useful.

Perhaps when they feared radio interception and pin-pointing, which can be done when two listening stations compare their bearings to the source of the message intercepted. This would be a situation to use a pre-estipulated blunt radar emission, apparently usual for the intercepting jap but meaning something to the receiver.

[Ducimus]

Well, if the Japanease heard radio chatter they'd know US subs are in the area.

[timmyg00]

But since they had regular radio, I fail to understand when this would be useful.

Perhaps when they feared radio interception and pin-pointing, which can be done when two listening stations compare their bearings to the source of the message intercepted. This would be a situation to use a pre-estipulated blunt radar emission, apparently usual for the intercepting jap but meaning something to the receiver. Radar is pretty much line-of-sight, so if they figured out the bearing of the interference, they had a secure channel with the other boat. Plus, the Japanese were jamming radio, and/or intercepting radio comms and impersonating US radio comms, but not radar.

TG

[razark]

It may have had something to do with the ability of the radar to act as a directional antenna, allowing communications to be transmitted without broadcasting the sub's position and message to anyone listening in.