PDA

View Full Version : US subs performance vs U-boat performance.


DanCanovas
09-20-06, 08:14 AM
well ive decided to take it upon myself to try and learn a little more about US WW2 subs in preparation for SH4. I have to say, my knowledge in this area is somewhat limited most likely caused by my geographical location. This may have led to my keen interest in the European Theatre and in particular the battle of the atlantic. Up until now I have to say, that if someone gave me 2 pics, i couldnt tell the difference between a Gato and a Balao class boat!

Anyway after a brief effort to somewhat correct this i noticed that the main difference between U-boats and US Boats was as follows and I welcome any corrections.

1. US Boats (Gato, Balao and Tench) seemed to have more tubes that German boats.
2. US boats seemed to have longer operational ranges in comparison to the Type VII. This was obviously necessary due to the size of the area in question.
3. US boats had the capability to go slightly faster both surfaced and submerged than their German counterparts.
4. German boats seemed to have considerably more flexibility in terms of depth. Figures Ive pulled from several sites show that maximum operational depth for a Balao or Tench was about 120m. Please note im comparing the sort of maximum depths not normal everyday operating depths.
5. US Boats are uglier than there German counterparts. If you found this thread boring then you wont have got this far :rotfl:

Frenssen
09-20-06, 09:35 AM
The boats were so different so it`s hard to compare. I think it`s wrong to say one boat was better thamn the other. They all had their pros and cons.

DanCanovas
09-20-06, 10:08 AM
thats what ive tried to point out, I dont think I came to any conclusions about which were better, I certainly wasnt meant to give that impression. they were both strong in their own areas. This is purely a technical comparison.

Nightmare
09-20-06, 11:00 AM
1. US Boats (Gato, Balao and Tench) seemed to have more tubes that German boats.

Correct, those three classes carried 6 forward tubes and 4 aft tubes. The Germans u-boats carried 4 forward and 1 aft (or 2 in IX class). The US boats carried more torpedoes and had a more sophisticated TDC than their German counterparts.


2. US boats seemed to have longer operational ranges in comparison to the Type VII. This was obviously necessary due to the size of the area in question.

The US Fleet submarines had longer cruising ranges than most of the IX class.


3. US boats had the capability to go slightly faster both surfaced and submerged than their German counterparts.

This is correct, but only by several knots.


4. German boats seemed to have considerably more flexibility in terms of depth. Figures Ive pulled from several sites show that maximum operational depth for a Balao or Tench was about 120m. Please note im comparing the sort of maximum depths not normal everyday operating depths.

Generally the u-boats had a deeper diving depth across the board. However the Balao class had a thicker pressure hull than the Gatos. In his book Clear the Bridge Richard O’Kane (USS Tang) stated they took the boat down below 600 feet. I believe the US submarines had a wider safety margin in diving depth than what is stated by the builders.


5. US Boats are uglier than there German counterparts. If you found this thread boring then you wont have got this far :rotfl:

This is purely subjective, as I prefer how the US submarines looked. Especially when their conning towers were cut down to make them harder to spot on the surface.

As Frenssen said, they both had their pros and cons. Both has two completely different build philosophy due to the different challenges in each theater.

donut
09-20-06, 11:45 AM
raiding Turk atol in USN GATO,My gaming desire,what fun.:yep: :yep: :yep:

Hitman
09-20-06, 01:59 PM
Different boats for different purposes.....

The US subs had to travel thousands of miles before they arrived to their patrol zones in the vast Pacific Ocean, so they are more to be compared with a german long range Type IX/D2 than to any other U-Boot.

In a face to face comparison between a Balao and a IX/D2 (Both ships available appeared around 1943), you note that:

-Maximum diving depths is similar, with slight advantage for the IXD2 (Talking here about REAL crush depth, not factory specs)

-Slight speed advantage for the US sub (Surfaced & submerged)

-Armament advantage for the US sub (Both deck gun and 4 extra torpedo tubes)

-Huge electronics advantage for the US sub (Radar with PPI)

-Range advantage for the US sub

U-Boots are beautiful, and specially the Type VII was a masterpiece at the beginning of the war (Like its WW1 predecessor the UB-III), but let's face it: The US never attempted to do such a mid-size sub, so comparisons agains that one are not fair.

I would also like to remark that unlike the germans, the americans had little need for further development of their subs after the war started, because 1) They already had better electronics than the germans, and 2) Japanese ASW was not as good as the allied one. Note however that japanese convoys had less ships and much more escorts, so it still was a VERY challenging affair to engage them.

Camaero
09-20-06, 03:44 PM
Well I learned a thing or two new. Heres to SHIV being as good or better than SHIII! :()1:

DanCanovas
09-20-06, 03:59 PM
my interest lies in the atlantic and med but i think SH4 will improve upon SH3 in terms of graphics and gameplay. really looking forward to it

CCIP
09-20-06, 06:12 PM
I think it's fair to say that the US fleet boats were just that - fleet boats built on an entirely different design philosophy, whereas German U-boats were, on the other hand, purpose-built Atlantic commerce-raiding vessels. It's a bit unfair to compare them.

Ironically, the U-boats lost a war where they did exactly what they were built for, whereas the US subs won a type of battle they weren't designed for :hmm:

JSF
09-20-06, 06:28 PM
After reading this thread I guess I felt the need to post some ideas which came to mind regarding some of the differences which caused Germany to take submarine technology down a different path from the US. Both countries started out building subs which for the most part were considered coastal defence and as such were primarily designed to operate in the lottorals. Also it may be worth noting during the intial stages of submarine development most countries considered the use submarines to be a somewhat cowardly way of waging war and this reason contributed heavily to the diminutive scale of the subs physical dimensions and scope of operations.

However once it became clear that the submarine was the most cost effective means of controling the sea lanes, development around this strategy quickly resulted in the designs we have now come to know. Geographically Germany didn't require the use of ultra long range fleet type subs until the US entered the war. On the other hand the US was well aware of the threat Japan posed to US interest throughout the Pacific region as early as Theodore Roosevelt's presidency.

Two different philosophies one purpose in mind. Both equaliy effective but techology on the US front proved to be the determining factor as well as a decidedly higher quality management of the available resources. US submarines forces amounted to 1.9% of the US Navy however they were responsible for sinking 52% of all Japanese shipping with a loss of 52 units in the process. And that was inspite of prosecuting the war for 2 years with faulty torpedos.

Onkel Neal
09-20-06, 07:37 PM
US fleet boats were better for the crew: they had A/C and more space. Despite the dictate that the U-boats did not compromise for the crew, I would say keeping the crew comfortable (relatively) and morale high did a lot for efficiency and safety.

The biggest difference between US fleet boats and U-boats, imo, were the torpedoes. The Germans solved their torpedo problems in a matter of months. The US took over two years :down:

CCIP
09-20-06, 07:39 PM
The biggest difference between US fleet boats and U-boats, imo, were the torpedoes. The Germans solved their torpedo problems in a matter of months. The US took over two years :down:
Not really, they just stopped using magnetic triggers. As it was nicely put in one book, the Germans suddenly ended up with torpedoes that were actually worse than what they had in WWI (WWI torpedoes didn't have magnetic triggers and weren't electric, but they generally had better performance... and with magnetic triggers being faulty, there went the advantage). I believe it was only in late 1942 that the real fix came.

MadMike
09-20-06, 09:52 PM
Let's not forget the compromise of Enigma (by the Poles, British, and eventually U.S) which gave the British and U.S. great insight into neutralizing U-boat operations (same with Ultra against the Japanese).

Yours, Mike

JSF
09-20-06, 10:44 PM
US fleet boats were better for the crew: they had A/C and more space. Despite the dictate that the U-boats did not compromise for the crew, I would say keeping the crew comfortable (relatively) and morale high did a lot for efficiency and safety.

The biggest difference between US fleet boats and U-boats, imo, were the torpedoes. The Germans solved their torpedo problems in a matter of months. The US took over two years :down:

German torpedos in the beginning were afflicted with the same problems as the US. And you're correct that it took the US roughly 2 years to produce a reliable torpedo but on the other hand it took Germany the approximate same length of time. But Germany was already at war for 2 years prior to US's entry so you could say they had a head start. Torpedo stowage was another significant difference. Some early US designs experimented with external stowage but this was quickly abandoned in favor of full internal load out. This was not realized in German designs till the revolutionary type XXI appeared.

As Neal pointed out airconditioning was another improvement. It is worth mentioning that crew comfort from the A/C was an unintended consequence. Since fleet boats were being packed with more performance enhancing electronic devices A/C was needed to keep the humidity levels down in an effort to prevent short circuits in the electrical bus.

Again operating in thier own specific theaters both the VIIs and Gatos possessed thier own particular nuances which combined to make each design successful...up to a point. Improvements to the VIIs and IXs were not intiated soon enough to offset technological advances made on behalf of the allies. And reference must be made again about the lack of total quality leadership on the part of the Kreigsmarine.

Dantenoc
09-21-06, 03:00 AM
US subs where a resounding success in the war, sinking way more tonnage than the U-boats ever did, however, this is often paid little attention to because their success is completely eclipsed by the succes of the aircraft carriers. In contrast, outside of the U-boats, the rest of the german navy didn't do zip for the war effort, which makes the U-boat look a hell of a lot better in comparison.

...or something along those lines

Camaero
09-21-06, 03:47 AM
US subs where a resounding success in the war, sinking way more tonnage than the U-boats ever did, however, this is often paid little attention to because their success is completely eclipsed by the succes of the aircraft carriers. In contrast, outside of the U-boats, the rest of the german navy didn't do zip for the war effort, which makes the U-boat look a hell of a lot better in comparison.

...or something along those lines

I never knew US subs sunk more tonnage than U-boats. By how much?

DanCanovas
09-21-06, 03:59 AM
im afraid thats fiction. US subs sank approx 4,850,624 of Merchant shipping compared with the U-boats 14,500,000. Thats a massive difference for 2 reasons! The Germans had 5 years to do it in and they built considerably more boats! They also lost considerably more boats. its worth pointing out that a significant amount of this tonnage was actually sunk before the US even entered the war.

CCIP
09-21-06, 12:14 PM
Another reason would be the fact that they fought a much smaller enemy - they'd all but annihilated the Japanese merchant fleet. But compare being up against Japan and being up against the US and the UK - the US built more ships that the germans could sink even at the worst times of the war!

DanCanovas
09-21-06, 01:17 PM
yup thats true

John Pancoast
09-21-06, 02:20 PM
Let's not forget the compromise of Enigma (by the Poles, British, and eventually U.S) which gave the British and U.S. great insight into neutralizing U-boat operations (same with Ultra against the Japanese).

Yours, Mike

At the same time, the Germans cracked some British codes too, so both sides had a little help :)

Dantenoc
09-21-06, 07:32 PM
im afraid thats fiction. US subs sank approx 4,850,624 of Merchant shipping compared with the U-boats 14,500,000. Thats a massive difference for 2 reasons! The Germans had 5 years to do it in and they built considerably more boats! They also lost considerably more boats. its worth pointing out that a significant amount of this tonnage was actually sunk before the US even entered the war.

Oops, sorry, you are correct :oops:

I expresed myself very poorly, I meant to say that US subs outperformed the U-boats in relative terms, that's to say: compare the tonnage sunk return rate that the US got from their submarine investment and it is higher compared to the tonnage sunk return rate that was achieved by the germans after all their investments in their U-boats.

Comparing absolute numbers wouldn't be fair, because the germans had more boats and they where hunting in target rich environments, whereas the US subs where not considered a top priority in the US Navy. Hence, reading high absolute numbers on the part of the german U-boats doesn't really reflect the sad reality that a lot of them were sunk without ever having sunk down any merchant tonnage at all (some of them were even sunk on their very first patrol, which is realy a very sad thing).

Here's a link that you might find interesting: http://www.uboatwar.net/uboats.htm
at the very bottom of the page (after several light bits of statistics are given) you'll see the following message:

Given these figures, 73% of U-boats constructed during the Second World War (including all 1,170 U-boats - whether frontline or training machines) achieved no success against the enemy.

That means that out of every 4 U-boats produced, about only one ever got to at least damage (not necesarily sink) an enemy vessel.

Dantenoc
09-21-06, 08:00 PM
Acording to this site: http://www.oldsubsplace.com/Sub%20Statistics.htm , 288 U.S. submarines made a total of 1,692 patrols during WWII, in which they sunk 5,053,491 tons of merchant shipping and 577,626 tons of enemy warships.

(5,053,491 + 577,626)/288 = 19,552.4896

That's to say, on average, every single U.S. sub that actively participated in the war effort gave the allies a return of about 19,552 enemy tons going down

On the german side we have a total of 863 U-boats on operational use (actively participating in the war effort), and quoting Dan's figure of 14,500,000 tons sunk by them, we get:

14,500,000 / 863 = 16,801.854

So, on average, every german U-boat that actively participated in the war effort gave the axis a return of about 16,802 enemy tons sent to the deep.

So allready the U.S. comes out on top, and we haven't yet taken into acount that U.S. involvement in war was shorter than Germany's, or the fact that these numbers still don't reflect the fact that Allied merchant shipping bounced back with vigor from their sinkings, while the Japanese had their fleet practicaly wiped out (which leads us to the very tempting conclusion that the U.S. could have sunk even more ships if there had been more ships to sink!)

P.S.: And I must stress the fact that I did make a misleading first post by mistake, and I thank you for your caring watchfulness :know:

bookworm_020
09-21-06, 08:36 PM
They also craked the US codes for a period of time in 1943. When Churchill found out about this through Engima intercepts, he kept information from the Americans untill the US introduced new codes and ciphers.

The 1943 crack of US codes caused major problems in the africa campaign, it allowed Rommel to get the upper hand for a period of time.

DanCanovas
09-22-06, 04:45 AM
you also have to look at the Japanese unwillingness/reluctance to escort convoys. it was certainly a haphazard attempt.

Capt. D
09-22-06, 09:35 AM
Acording to this site: http://www.oldsubsplace.com/Sub%20Statistics.htm , 288 U.S. submarines made a total of 1,692 patrols during WWII, in which they sunk 5,053,491 tons of merchant shipping and 577,626 tons of enemy warships.

(5,053,491 + 577,626)/288 = 19,552.4896

That's to say, on average, every single U.S. sub that actively participated in the war effort gave the allies a return of about 19,552 enemy tons going down
Some of these numbers can be skewed even a bit more in favor of US boats. Of the 288 boats indicated above, only 250 saw action in the Pacific. Of these, only 190 had any success sinking at least 1 ship - steel-hulled and of more than 100 tons, during the course of their careers. This information covers the postwar reviews by the U.S. Army-Navy Assessment Commitee. If one took this into consideration:

5,053,491 tons merchant + 577,626 tons navel vessels / 190 boats which actual sunk at least 1 ship over the course of the war = 29,637.457 tons @ sub. A considerably higher ton vs sub rate. (Note the tonnage indicated is for the Pacific Theater only)

I think the important factor here is Dantenoc's point when comparing tons US vs U-Boat he is looking at the number of boats that had involvement with the final figures.

{Though we do not know if the total U-boats that he indicates were boats that actually did sink a min. of one ship:
On the german side we have a total of 863 U-boats on operational use (actively participating in the war effort), and quoting Dan's figure of 14,500,000 tons sunk by them, we get:

14,500,000 / 863 = 16,801.854 if this number - 863 - is actually less then the tonnage would increase per boat also however the US would still have a greater percentage.}

Bottom line a smaller group of US Boats did more damage - per boat - than the U-Boats by the end of the war. Also the 14+ million tons the U-Boats sank vs only 5,631,117 tons the US sunk is a vast difference, however there was a vast difference in the amount of targets avaliable in the Atlantic with the US suppling Britain with food, warsupplies etc on a constent basis throughout the war. Our replacement of ships sunk was most definatly greater than Japan could or did do, hence as the war progressed less was avaliable for US boats - (and there another thread which has alrady been developed earlier, and which I do not want to "rehash" here.)

Happy Hunting :ping:

Steeltrap
09-24-06, 09:40 PM
I think the biggest factors were the areas of operation, technology and the level of opposition.

Both sides had boats well suited to their respective theatres of operation. Distances in the Atlantic meant that U-Boats didn't need to be anywhere near as large as US ones, nor did they patrol for as long.

The US subs certainly benefitted from better radar etc. U-Boats were very durable, and VII-Cs regularly dived to 200m+, irrespective of the 'safe depth' (read Cremer's U-333).

The Allied ASW was infinitely more deadly than the Japanese. They had ASDIC capable of giving the target's depth, hedgehogs, squids, very effective ASW homing torps (the MkXXIV mine, dropped from aircraft - so effective the Germans only found out about it after the war). They also had better tactics and more escorts. Most significantly, Allies had comprehensive and highly dangerous ASW aircraft. The Japanese, in comparison, never developed much of any of these advances, and their ASW were regarded as 'lower echelon' commands.

I suspect a US Fleet boat in the Atlantic, faced with the Allied ASW effort, would have been slaughtered.

Patboot
09-26-06, 08:51 PM
Dan, to get back on topic- a rough rule of thumb is to compare the Type IX with the US Gato and Balao. Just add 2 more tubes forward, and 2 aft. 24 fish total, all internal. Better TDC- but a purist won't be using that, eh? Longer range as well.

Note I said ROUGHLY COMPARABLE.

Harry Buttle
09-28-06, 09:28 PM
Any comparison of a U-boat v a Fleet boat would also have to include the relative prices of both.

A fair comparison would compare the relative costs, a realistic comparison would compare the relative affordability.

The USA will win big on the affordability.

Torvald Von Mansee
09-29-06, 10:30 PM
Sooo....does anyone want to open the can of worms regarding IJN subs vs USN vs Kriegsmarine?

I must say, I'm bitterly disappointed that IJN subs won't be the protagonists for SH4. I would really like an expansion for that (HINT HINT)

CruiseTorpedo
10-05-06, 03:02 PM
Dont forget that US subs had showers and a washing machine to clean their clothes available to the men while on patrol. The water strainers or whatever they're called worked very well! If I had to pick between being in a uboat or US sub, I would definitely pick the one with air conditioners and showers! Also the men were not hot bunking in US subs, each man had their own bunk which I'd only assume helped the general health of the men in the subs since they didnt have to sleep in someone else's sweat. I think the us subs also had two working toilets while the uboat had one?

Sailor Steve
10-05-06, 03:05 PM
Don't forget the meat locker and ice cream machine.

Frenssen
10-06-06, 03:07 AM
Ice cream machines? My boat is cramped enough as it is: I don`t need 40 fat guys taking valuable space;)

Capt. D
10-06-06, 07:47 AM
Dont forget that US subs had showers and a washing machine to clean their clothes available to the men while on patrol. The water strainers or whatever they're called worked very well! If I had to pick between being in a uboat or US sub, I would definitely pick the one with air conditioners and showers! Also the men were not hot bunking in US subs, each man had their own bunk which I'd only assume helped the general health of the men in the subs since they didnt have to sleep in someone else's sweat. I think the us subs also had two working toilets while the uboat had one?
You make some very good points. However, one must put these in some sort of prospective.

US boats had evaporators which could produce a signifacant amount of water each day. However this water's main use was for the ships batteries and for cooking. Showers (1 for all officers, in the aft section of the forwd torp room next to their head; and 2 in the crew shower area. The 3 for 80 men) were not avaliable to the crew every single day and then it was wet down - turn off - soap down and rinse off. Though not a luxuary type shower it was still a lot better than most other countries subs.

Each of our subs had 4 heads. The officer head in the aft section of the forward torpedo room, 2 in the crew shower area, and 1 in the aft torpedo room. 4 heads for 80 men is not that many - however again far better then other navies.

Hot bunking was also part of the US sub process. With 80 men aboard a boat not counting "officer country" where the officers and Chiefs slept the rest of the crew had to use the 36 bunks in the crew quarters or bunks in the forward and after torpedo rooms. At times hot bunking was necessary as was noted in a TV program about the USS Bowfin - shown on the Histroy Channel last week. Yet if you compare to other navies it almost could be classed as the Hilton.

US subs were the "cream" of the crop in subs. Best food the Navy had, and in general, way better living conditions than other subs. Yet if you visit one of the remaining subs - life was not all a bed of roses in the cramped quarters etc. they had to live in for 60 some days at a time.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/adobrauer03/DSCF0341.JPG


Crews berthing area USS Silversides

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/adobrauer03/DSCF0324.JPG


USS Silversides

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/adobrauer03/DSCF0339.JPG


Crew mess (My father in law:) - he came with me on may last visit. Was on a Light Crusier in WWII a little more room on his ship!:p)

Happy Hunting:ping:

Deamon
10-06-06, 08:37 PM
US fleet boats were better for the crew: they had A/C and more space. Despite the dictate that the U-boats did not compromise for the crew, I would say keeping the crew comfortable (relatively) and morale high did a lot for efficiency and safety.
Well, germany had their own way of keeping the moral high. If a commander was to undecisive they shot him!

+Inhumane hard training.

The biggest difference between US fleet boats and U-boats, imo, were the torpedoes. The Germans solved their torpedo problems in a matter of months. The US took over two years :down:
What the germans also dind't knew, as they introduced magnetic fuzes, was that the allies already had degaussed their ships before sending them on the voyage.

Cheers,
Deamon

Deamon
10-06-06, 08:44 PM
At the same time, the Germans cracked some British codes too, so both sides had a little help :)
Are there some good references about it ?

Deamon

Deamon
10-06-06, 08:51 PM
So allready the U.S. comes out on top, and we haven't yet taken into acount that U.S. involvement in war was shorter than Germany's, or the fact that these numbers still don't reflect the fact that Allied merchant shipping bounced back with vigor from their sinkings, while the Japanese had their fleet practicaly wiped out (which leads us to the very tempting conclusion that the U.S. could have sunk even more ships if there had been more ships to sink!)

P.S.: And I must stress the fact that I did make a misleading first post by mistake, and I thank you for your caring watchfulness :know:
But then it also needs to be taken in account that germans enemies were far harder to beat than americas, if i'm not mistaken here. And maybe the invested u-boat tonnage vs. sunken enemy tonnage.

Deamon

Respenus
10-07-06, 03:16 PM
UFF!!! Enought data.

There is only ONE, and only ONE advantage of U.S. subs over U-Boats.

They didn't have Bernard! :yep:

EDIT: And let's not forget the XXI boat, which became the model for all modern subs!

Takeda Shingen
10-07-06, 04:30 PM
EDIT: And let's not forget the XXI boat, which became the model for all modern subs!

Until Albacore, which then became the model for all modern subs. Let us not mistake it; the XXI was a major innovation, but it was more important to the Soviets, who used it's design well into the production of the Soviet nuclear fleet, than the Americans, who switched designs early in SSN development.

Steeltrap
10-10-06, 12:09 AM
UFF!!! Enought data.

There is only ONE, and only ONE advantage of U.S. subs over U-Boats.

They didn't have Bernard! :yep:

EDIT: And let's not forget the XXI boat, which became the model for all modern subs!

Yes, a more interesting comparison would be XXI v. Fleet boat.

The XXI had individual bunks for all crew, showers, A/C and 3 heads. Most importantly the schnorkel, active sonar, fast dive time (supposedly 25 seconds to 20m), max submerged speed of 17kts and surface range of around 24,000km @ 12kts.

Throw in the 'semi-auto' torpedo loading for the 6 bow tubes and it's clear that the XXI would've made the Atlantic a slaughter ground for Allied merchants. The impressions of commanders/crews who got to do sea trials with XXI was that they were a quantum leap in capability. Had the German's had them in numbers in 1943 things would've been VERY grim for the Allies.

The hull shape and over-all design philosophy of the XXI certainly became the model for future designs in all navies i.e. concentrating firepower forward and a teardrop hull designed with the thought that "a submarine belongs below the surface ALL the time".

DanCanovas
10-10-06, 04:42 AM
erich topp has repeatedly stated that he didnt think the Type XXI would have made any difference to the Battle of the Atlantic because it was unable to operate in packs. It was purely designed to defend itself. He continues to say that Schnorkeling boats cannot operate in packs.

OKO
10-10-06, 05:49 AM
In fact, at the end of war, the XXI was the base for new generation of submarines for USA, UK, Russia and France, the actual leaders in nuclear submarine technology
US WWII submarine concept was abandoned as soon as war ended, and as soon as they could have a XXI.
Before XXI, both conception (german and US) was quite close, even if also quite different.
But the born of the modern submarine concept start with XXI.
If german had XXI from 1942, the atlantic battle should have been very different.
A chance they couldn't built it at this time !

OKO
10-10-06, 05:58 AM
Let us not mistake it; the XXI was a major innovation, but it was more important to the Soviets, who used it's design well into the production of the Soviet nuclear fleet, than the Americans, who switched designs early in SSN development.

All allies had one copy of the XXI
and all allies, after the war, built their new submarine generation from it, USA included.
There is nothing to compare beetween US submarines before and after the end of the war for that reason.
USA didn't found themself this kind of concept, they used the german technology.
Not only in that subject and not only the USA, of course.

OKO
10-10-06, 06:03 AM
erich topp has repeatedly stated that he didnt think the Type XXI would have made any difference to the Battle of the Atlantic because it was unable to operate in packs. It was purely designed to defend itself. He continues to say that Schnorkeling boats cannot operate in packs.

so, what you say is you just have to build a radio antenna coupled to the periscope (or the schnorkel ... but more usefull on the periscope for this kind of ship) isn't it ?
well ... that's a minor problem, and it should have been resolved ... if XXI had made the war ... and fortunatly they didn't.

OKO
10-10-06, 06:27 AM
Acording to this site: http://www.oldsubsplace.com/Sub%20Statistics.htm , 288 U.S. submarines made a total of 1,692 patrols during WWII, in which they sunk 5,053,491 tons of merchant shipping and 577,626 tons of enemy warships.

(5,053,491 + 577,626)/288 = 19,552.4896

That's to say, on average, every single U.S. sub that actively participated in the war effort gave the allies a return of about 19,552 enemy tons going down

On the german side we have a total of 863 U-boats on operational use (actively participating in the war effort), and quoting Dan's figure of 14,500,000 tons sunk by them, we get:

14,500,000 / 863 = 16,801.854

So, on average, every german U-boat that actively participated in the war effort gave the axis a return of about 16,802 enemy tons sent to the deep.

So allready the U.S. comes out on top, and we haven't yet taken into acount that U.S. involvement in war was shorter than Germany's, or the fact that these numbers still don't reflect the fact that Allied merchant shipping bounced back with vigor from their sinkings, while the Japanese had their fleet practicaly wiped out (which leads us to the very tempting conclusion that the U.S. could have sunk even more ships if there had been more ships to sink!)

P.S.: And I must stress the fact that I did make a misleading first post by mistake, and I thank you for your caring watchfulness :know:


If US submarines had operated on the atlantic battle, against allies, they probably couldn't have made half the score of the german boats :roll:
Remember japanese were really far from beeing as efficient as allies in ASW war ...
Anyway US submarines were designed for a very different theatre, waaaay less stressy and dangerous than the Uboats one.
I didn't said japanese was bad at ASW or US bad as submarine builder during WWII, I said that the theatre was much bigger and the japanese ASW means far less important than the allies one.
To be complete, if german Uboats had operated in pacific, they also couldn't have made the US results ...

IMHO, german boats (especially the type IX) were a bit more versatile than US couterparts at this period.
but who cares about versatility at this time ?
At this time, a platform should have been made especially for the theatre where it will operate. That's why german and US subs are so differents.

But there is so much difference beetween older submarines and Type XXI ...

Beeing a XXI commander should had give you the real feeling of the power at this time.
If you know how to use the XXI advantages, you just couldn't be stopped, harrassing the convoy until you are out of torpedoes and evading deep when you finished your devastation.
If you are detected, you just have to pass under the convoy at 15 knts to be on the other side to complete the job.
This platform could have been the absolute nightmare of the allies if it was released earlier.
Not able to win the war, but able to make it longer.
Imagine the D day with 50 XXI around ...

sorry for 4 posts instead of one ...

DanCanovas
10-10-06, 01:13 PM
erich topp has repeatedly stated that he didnt think the Type XXI would have made any difference to the Battle of the Atlantic because it was unable to operate in packs. It was purely designed to defend itself. He continues to say that Schnorkeling boats cannot operate in packs.

so, what you say is you just have to build a radio antenna coupled to the periscope (or the schnorkel ... but more usefull on the periscope for this kind of ship) isn't it ?
well ... that's a minor problem, and it should have been resolved ... if XXI had made the war ... and fortunatly they didn't.

im telling you what Erich Topp has said. Not what I said. And the XXI being the blueprint for post-war submarine development is not a reason for saying it would have changed the Battle of the Atlantic. The role of the submarine changed after the war.

Respenus
10-10-06, 02:54 PM
Let us not mistake it; the XXI was a major innovation, but it was more important to the Soviets, who used it's design well into the production of the Soviet nuclear fleet, than the Americans, who switched designs early in SSN development.
All allies had one copy of the XXI
and all allies, after the war, built their new submarine generation from it, USA included.
There is nothing to compare beetween US submarines before and after the end of the war for that reason.
USA didn't found themself this kind of concept, they used the german technology.
Not only in that subject and not only the USA, of course.
First off, I didn't qrite that part, someone else did! :nope:

Second, I agree with everything you say. The XXI would have changed the Battle for Atlantic, if it were introduced in 1942-1943. The whole, 6 tubes, 10 min meant that they could have struck a convoy and sink many more ships, then the ussual type VII or IX did.

And they could have worked in wolfpacks. Different style of combat Yes!, but they could still get together. Imagine seeing 20 torps heeding toward your convoy. I'd wet my pants. They they could reload pretty fast and let on another salvo. Plus the 17kt submerged speed, would mean, they worked better submerged and still outrun my escorts. Not DC can hit you at 17kt, that would be a mirracle! :yep:

Oh, and I forgot the turning time. You hear splashes, you go hard port/starboard and evade any DC!

John Pancoast
10-10-06, 07:39 PM
Let us not mistake it; the XXI was a major innovation, but it was more important to the Soviets, who used it's design well into the production of the Soviet nuclear fleet, than the Americans, who switched designs early in SSN development.

All allies had one copy of the XXI
and all allies, after the war, built their new submarine generation from it, USA included.
There is nothing to compare beetween US submarines before and after the end of the war for that reason.
USA didn't found themself this kind of concept, they used the german technology.
Not only in that subject and not only the USA, of course.

Fwiw, the US wasn't completely "awe struck" by the XXI.
I.e., in Blair's first volume, the general, major problems it had (more detail in book).

- Poor structural integrity.
- Underpowered diesel engines.
- Impractical hydraulic system
- Imperfect and hazardous snorkel.

Quoting Blair, "The U.S. Navy did in fact adopt some of the features of the Type XXI "electro boat" for its new submarine design in the immediate postwar years. However, by that time, the Navy was firmly committed to the development of a nuclear-powered submarine, a "true submersible" that did not depend on batteries or snorkels for propulsion and concealment."

And in his words, "were so technically sophisticated as to render the best ideas of German submarine technology hopelessly archiac....."

The problem with "if weapon X had been only developed in greater numbers" arguments, is that the advocates of said weapon tends to think it would have existed in a vacuum/time goes still type of scenario.

Of course that wouldn't have been the case. Countermeasures/weapon systems would have been developed.
And then the cycle would have started all over again.

Just as was the case throughout the war.

C-4
10-15-06, 05:26 PM
I think the reason that Type XXI was ever developed was really an answer to the Allied air superority in the Atlantic. The USN never had to deal with Japanese air superority, at least, as far as I know. If someone else knows better, please do tell me.

But in any case, the reason the XXI was developed to operate mainly underwater is because the Allied air forces were far too good at detecting surfaced submarines with RADAR. Had the USN been forced to operate in similar conditions, I think they would be forced to do the same. I think that the excellent underwater performance just came as a consequence, not as a reason, for the XXI.

AS
10-16-06, 04:24 PM
What it all comes down to is that you wouldnīt want to cruise the Pacific with a German VIIc and you wouldnīt want to fight in the Atlantic in an American sub simply because these subs were designed for different purposes. A US-sub took ages to crash dive and it couldnīt go deep, so in the Atlantic War, where sometimes there were several aircraft attacks a day (!) later on in war, they wouldnīt have been much fun. The same goes for the German U-Boats which were way too small and uncomfortable to travel huge distances in the heat (although some had to, which must have been hell for the crew), and they didnīt have enough torpedoes for extended operations.

By the way, Iīve got the Revell-modelkit of a VIIc (1:72 scale) and I just learned that a GATO-class modelkit (same scale, 1,30m length) will be coming out in December. :rock:

My two cents, cheers, AS

Ducimus
10-16-06, 04:51 PM
I think some of you should watch interviews 1 and 2 :

http://www.uboat.net/men/interviews/topp.htm

John Pancoast
10-16-06, 05:04 PM
I think some of you should watch interviews 1 and 2 :

http://www.uboat.net/men/interviews/topp.htm

As soon as they use something besides Real "SpywareRUs" Player, I will :)

WilhelmSchulz.
10-19-06, 05:59 PM
The only thing I have to say is that the diffrnece in the subs is in realtion of the naval warfair stratigyes of the two countrys.

Relatied thread.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=95535

Deamon
10-20-06, 12:17 AM
erich topp has repeatedly stated that he didnt think the Type XXI would have made any difference to the Battle of the Atlantic because it was unable to operate in packs. It was purely designed to defend itself. He continues to say that Schnorkeling boats cannot operate in packs.
Of course you can always appeal to Erich Topp. But he must not be necessarily right, others were of a different opinion. And you cannot conserve the XXI as it was and judge about it, cose the developement goes on and with an addition of a radio mast they would be as well able to operate in packs. Heck even in simulators you can see what difference they would make. Many advantages were already named in this thread and one thing that i want to mention else is that with XXI's you could operate much closer to the shore and create a much tighter barrage at the different appraoches. And operate in coordinated packs is not the sole factor for efficient operations. Imagine when just one XXI would sneak in to a convoy. With that attack potential it had - it would be convoys doomsday.

I would like to mention some other advantages of a XXI - the little loss rate they would have and becose of that the overpopulation of them after a short time. I doubt that the allied ASW would be able to cope with that any soon.

To make things even more worse for the allies, i feel i have to remind you guys that the XXI wasn't the real ace germanies but actualy only a makeshift!!! to bypass the short period of time until the worst allied ASW nightmare will go in to mass prodcution - the Walterboats!!!

I feel i have to remind on a couple of things about this boats. I want to look particularly on the type XXVI. It was or would be capeable to run 25,4 kn and a range of 160 nm at 22 kn speed even much further if it would run slower. How are you going to track it with asdic, if asdic isn't usable bayoned 15kn ?

But hey wouldn't a walter boat make a hell of noise at 22kn ? Even if the DD's couldn't keep up with it, wouldn't it be possible to track it with hydrophone buoys thrown from planes ? Nope!!!

During trials of the walter prototype one thing always occured that even the engineers couldn't explain until much later. Whenever during a test run the prototype switched to walter propulsion it suddenly disappeared from the hydrophones. Not detectable, not even from close distance at max speed!!!

The reason for this was. The Walter propulsion exhausted a bubble trail and this bubble trail muffled the noise beyoned any passive detectability. So we suddenly have a boat here that couldn't be tracked with asdic and neither with hydrophones. The nearly zero loss rate of them would too, lead to an overpopulation of them in a short period of time. How are the allies supposed to cope with that ? :88)

And then there were alot of new toys in the makings like, wire guided torpedos, wire guided ASM's. Rocket torpedos, yes folks, the fameous shkval is a german invention!

And then there is another creepy thing. My bud(who is not a u-boat nut at all) told me that he knows a woman who told him once that she new an old man who was an german u-boat commander in WWII who told her that at the end of WWII he was assigned to command a new prototype with a nuclear propulsion :dead:

I can't back up this story in anyway but well, that's what he told me.

Anyway this all is good stuff for some what if scenarios in a simulator.

Cheers,
Deamon

Frenssen
10-20-06, 01:14 PM
I agree with WilhelmSchultz. Like I said in the beginning of the thread it`s impossible to say one is better than the other, it comes down to bias. Apples and oranges etc. The men on both sides fought bravely with what they had and history turned out like it did.

TheSatyr
10-22-06, 09:05 PM
In a hypothetical world where US Subs fought against allied convoys in the Atlantic, I'd have to give the nod to the Subs over the Escorts for one reason. To the Germans,confrontations with allied escorts was something to be avoided. To US sub commanders,escorts were just another target. (A few Gonzo US Sub commanders even went battlesurface against Japanese escorts that were kind of comparable to the Flowers. I believe they were called the "Chidori" class. One sub was actually sunk when it turned out that the little escort it thought it was attacking turned broadside to the sub and turned out to be a DD.)

Just a difference in operational philosophy between the two navies.

I never could understand why the first u-boats to make contact with a convoy weren't tasked with taking out some of the escorts to make it easier for other wolfpack members to hit the merchants.

C-4
10-22-06, 09:14 PM
Some people on the forum argued that escorts were a waste of torpedoes, and didn't deprive England of supplies. I tend to agree.

So why would the US Navy be interested in attacking Japanese destroyers? Perhaps the Japanese had less industrial production capacity, and couldn't manufacture ships fast enough to replace losses, and sinking escorts would make other naval engagements easier?

WilhelmSchulz.
10-23-06, 05:06 AM
Some people on the forum argued that escorts were a waste of torpedoes, and didn't deprive England of supplies. I tend to agree.

So why would the US Navy be interested in attacking Japanese destroyers? Perhaps the Japanese had less industrial production capacity, and couldn't manufacture ships fast enough to replace losses, and sinking escorts would make other naval engagements easier?
Read up on Sam Dealy and the Harder. ;)

Sulikate
10-23-06, 03:40 PM
As Deamon said, in a also hypothetical situation of an Walter class facing the US or British anti-submarine tactics would be something very different from what we are used to read and play about. The would be simply no way for the DDs to attack or even track the boat, considering it's outstanding performance.

Just something to dream about...

John Pancoast
10-23-06, 06:12 PM
As Deamon said, in a also hypothetical situation of an Walter class facing the US or British anti-submarine tactics would be something very different from what we are used to read and play about. The would be simply no way for the DDs to attack or even track the boat, considering it's outstanding performance.

Just something to dream about...

Well, at least until they (US/British ASW) developed new asw methods to counter it, rendering it too obsolete ;)

TheSatyr
10-23-06, 06:20 PM
From what I understand,a few navies actually built some subs based on the Walter design after the war...and they turned out to be too dangerous to use. There were a few major accidents aboard those boats and the countries that tried using the Walter designs cancelled their programs. (And the SSN Nautilus also played a part in the death of the Walter experiments...why try to get what was considered a hazardous propulsion design to work,when it would be outclassed by nuke boats anyway?)

If the Germans had built operational Walters,I doubt they would have made that big a difference...since the design was apparently unsafe.

Deamon
10-25-06, 10:44 AM
Well, at least until they (US/British ASW) developed new asw methods to counter it, rendering it too obsolete ;)
What would take decades. Way to long apparently. This ASW inventions would have to come in a matter of months. And when you see the ASW methodes used since the WWII till the present day, you will see that passive and active sonar were always the main means. But this german inventions were a huge leap forward with new inventions comming in the pipeline.

How long did it take to get the dive boat threat under control and to which prize ?

What an armada you need to had to counter just this diving boats!

How long would it take to develope effective countermeasures to counter the Type XXI alone ? And which quantity would be needed of this means ?

Look at the post war ASW developement to get an idea. What a resource drain it is to only develope and establish an effective ASW!

The dive boats alone busted half the war the convoys. To counter it was a major effort that took several years, including enigma code breaking to get a way in this time. The electroboats would have busted the convois in the second part of the war. Long before effective countermeasures would have been develope would the Walterboats rock the sea. And assuming the war would goon even longer, the german u-boats would probable have nuclear propulsion at a time where the allies would be hardly able to counter the electroboats. Frankly even today is countering of electroboats a tought hardly doable business. Why do you think the allies would have rendered the Walterboats obsolet in a reasonable time, with what ? Maybe with, Surrealism and Delusions Of Grandeur ? :)

And before the germans would have widespreaded boats with nuclear propulsion they would probable already introduce boats with antigravity propulsions enabling the boats to shake of the DD's by simply flying away LOL :88)

Technicaly, germany could have had this boats 1-2 years earlier when the command would have had recognized it's potential right away.

The world was so lucky, so god damn lucky, this time!

Cheers,
Deamon

Deamon
10-25-06, 10:59 AM
From what I understand,a few navies actually built some subs based on the Walter design after the war...and they turned out to be too dangerous to use. There were a few major accidents aboard those boats and the countries that tried using the Walter designs cancelled their programs. (And the SSN Nautilus also played a part in the death of the Walter experiments...why try to get what was considered a hazardous propulsion design to work,when it would be outclassed by nuke boats anyway? Walter design is a german competence. That's just what happen when others mess around with it. :lol:

Copying technology is never good. Russians tried to copy US techniology for a long time and you see what it led to.

If the Germans had built operational Walters,I doubt they would have made that big a difference...since the design was apparently unsafe. Unsave for peace time standarts. In the war with such a high loss of u-boats their application would be justified. In wartime, safety is not an argument. When the loss rate through accidents would be much lower than the losses of the diveboats through allied ASW efforts, their application would be already justified. And by the time the safety situtaton would get improved.

I also expect that there would be a curtain loss rate through accidents. But the prototypes never blew up so Walter was of the oppinion that it's controlable. For the war it was save enough.

Cheers,
Deamon

Deamon
10-25-06, 11:21 AM
Well, at least until they (US/British ASW) developed new asw methods to counter it, rendering it too obsolete ;)
Forgot to tell that you will not only need sensors and platforms that are able to track a 25kn running boat but you would also need weapons that can keep up with a 25kn target. Wabos are to slow hedgehog too. The only thing that come to my mind are guided ASW torpedos. But then the torpeods would need a hell of a long time to get sophisticated enough to catch up a 25kn target and dive to it at its maximum depth. And which guidens do you want to employ on this torps ? passive ? Walter boats weren't trackable with passive means when running on Walter propulsion. Asdics ? Even the asdics of the DD's weren't that great, what do you want to instal in a torpedo ? the rubber coating of the u-boats further reduced the SCS by 70% and than the torps would have to deal with countermeasures and evasion manouvers too. The bubble wake is another confusing factor for the trops. There were no sophisticated computers not to mention software and were nowhere soon to come.

The allies were damn lucky that they got away with it! Period.

Cheers,
Deamon

John Pancoast
10-25-06, 01:51 PM
Well, at least until they (US/British ASW) developed new asw methods to counter it, rendering it too obsolete ;)
What would take decades. Way to long apparently. This ASW inventions would have to come in a matter of months. And when you see the ASW methodes used since the WWII till the present day, you will see that passive and active sonar were always the main means. But this german inventions were a huge leap forward with new inventions comming in the pipeline.

How long did it take to get the dive boat threat under control and to which prize ?

What an armada you need to had to counter just this diving boats!

How long would it take to develope effective countermeasures to counter the Type XXI alone ? And which quantity would be needed of this means ?

Look at the post war ASW developement to get an idea. What a resource drain it is to only develope and establish an effective ASW!

The dive boats alone busted half the war the convoys. To counter it was a major effort that took several years, including enigma code breaking to get a way in this time. The electroboats would have busted the convois in the second part of the war. Long before effective countermeasures would have been develope would the Walterboats rock the sea. And assuming the war would goon even longer, the german u-boats would probable have nuclear propulsion at a time where the allies would be hardly able to counter the electroboats. Frankly even today is countering of electroboats a tought hardly doable business. Why do you think the allies would have rendered the Walterboats obsolet in a reasonable time, with what ? Maybe with, Surrealism and Delusions Of Grandeur ? :)

And before the germans would have widespreaded boats with nuclear propulsion they would probable already introduce boats with antigravity propulsions enabling the boats to shake of the DD's by simply flying away LOL :88)

Technicaly, germany could have had this boats 1-2 years earlier when the command would have had recognized it's potential right away.

The world was so lucky, so god damn lucky, this time!

Cheers,
Deamon

Decades ? I highly doubt that. Necessity is the mother of all invention :)

Meanwhile, as was the actual case, the Allies are still cranking out merchant shipping at an absurdly weighted ratio/amount sunk, in their favor.
In other words, there was a *lot* of room for this ratio to change, and still not reach the break even point.

Of course, this all assumes the Soviets hadn't marched into Berlin already, as any sub the Germans pulled out of their hat had little affect on the Eastern Front.
Among other problems.

As I said earlier, it wouldn't be a vacuum :)

Deamon
10-25-06, 04:55 PM
Decades ? I highly doubt that.
Why ?

You will not only have to outperform the new boats but also thous that will dominate the battlefield at the time when you will be ready to beat the electroboats. And the electroboats aren't beaten till the present day!

After i studied this boats more in depth, they realy scared me.

Necessity is the mother of all invention :)
That's true and the mother of invention favoured the u-boats a big time and still do! lol

Slogans against electro and walterboats ?

Meanwhile, as was the actual case, the Allies are still cranking out merchant shipping at an absurdly weighted ratio/amount sunk, in their favor.
In other words, there was a *lot* of room for this ratio to change, and still not reach the break even point.
Finaly a valid argument. Actualy i was about to to make a new post about it. Of course this new boats would had to come early enough. The industrial power of the USA was the sole effective ASW. Even if the new boats would top the production rate it still would take a long time till the losses take serious effect, that's true. So it finaly comes down to the point that this new boats would have to be introduced early enough. Given the high surviveability of this new boats their population would become rediculous high as well after some time. The allies would have no way to avoid them. But not getting in to their way is the only effective 'ASW' mean. After the population of the new u-boats would reach that rediculous quantity, all approaches would be locked and no covoy could ever get through without cross the way of a couple of them. The sinking rate would sky rocket. Two XXI could send a whole convoy to the bottom.

I doubt the US would be able to keep up with this for long. And when the boats would be equiped with radio masts more subs could be called in increase the sinings even more.

Of course, this all assumes the Soviets hadn't marched into Berlin already, as any sub the Germans pulled out of their hat had little affect on the Eastern Front.
Among other problems.
Uhh. There couldn't be a D-day without sea dominance. Even if the allies would have landed before the new boats would have been delivered, cutting away the supplies would put them in a trap. Releasing resources on the west front would give planty more to do for russia on the east front. The multi front war, germany had to lead is what was so fatal for it. And russia got planty of supplys from the allies. That wouldn't work without sea dominance. England would had to capitulate and the allies would loose a major airbase with it - no more bomb raids from england! A whole different situation if germany could put its new boats early enough to sea.

This could lengthen the war and germany could throw new unconventionaly weapons on the battlefield, weapons like the foo fighters :dead:

This new boats were by fare not the most remarkable weapons they had in their pipeline. It's plain frightening what was going on technologicaly in germany at the end of the war. I still say the world had luck a big time!

Deamon

John Pancoast
10-25-06, 05:12 PM
Decades ? I highly doubt that.
Why ?

You will not only have to outperform the new boats but also thous that will dominate the battlefield at the time when you will be ready to beat the electroboats. And the electroboats aren't beaten till the present day!

After i studied this boats more in depth, they realy scared me.

Necessity is the mother of all invention :)
That's true and the mother of invention favoured the u-boats a big time and still do! lol

Slogans against electro and walterboats ?

Meanwhile, as was the actual case, the Allies are still cranking out merchant shipping at an absurdly weighted ratio/amount sunk, in their favor.
In other words, there was a *lot* of room for this ratio to change, and still not reach the break even point.
Finaly a valid argument. Actualy i was about to to make a new post about it. Of course this new boats would had to come early enough. The industrial power of the USA was the sole effective ASW. Even if the new boats would top the production rate it still would take a long time till the losses take serious effect, that's true. So it finaly comes down to the point that this new boats would have to be introduced early enough. Given the high surviveability of this new boats their population would become rediculous high as well after some time. The allies would have no way to avoid them. But not getting in to their way is the only effective 'ASW' mean. After the population of the new u-boats would reach that rediculous quantity, all approaches would be locked and no covoy could ever get through without cross the way of a couple of them. The sinking rate would sky rocket. Two XXI could send a whole convoy to the bottom.

I doubt the US would be able to keep up with this for long. And when the boats would be equiped with radio masts more subs could be called in increase the sinings even more.

Of course, this all assumes the Soviets hadn't marched into Berlin already, as any sub the Germans pulled out of their hat had little affect on the Eastern Front.
Among other problems.
Uhh. There couldn't be a D-day without sea dominance. Even if the allies would have landed before the new boats would have been delivered, cutting away the supplies would put them in a trap. Releasing resources on the west front would give planty more to do for russia on the east front. The multi front war, germany had to lead is what was so fatal for it. And russia got planty of supplys from the allies. That wouldn't work without sea dominance. England would had to capitulate and the allies would loose a major airbase with it - no more bomb raids from england! A whole different situation if germany could put its new boats early enough to sea.

This could lengthen the war and germany could throw new unconventionaly weapons on the battlefield, weapons like the foo fighters :dead:

This new boats were by fare not the most remarkable weapons they had in their pipeline. It's plain frightening what was going on technologicaly in germany at the end of the war. I still say the world had luck a big time!

Deamon

As long as you want to keep treating theoretical, etc. weapons as if they actually existed, etc. we'll just have to agree to disagree ;)

Deamon
10-25-06, 10:04 PM
As long as you want to keep treating theoretical, etc. weapons as if they actually existed, etc. we'll just have to agree to disagree ;)

I think i gaved an indepth and reasonable explenation of my thesis. Now it's your turn :lol:

You still didn't come up with an explanation why you disagree. Comon challange me :)

Share with me that secret knowledge that would have rendered the electro/walterboats obsolet.

Of course you can disagree without a justification. Just disagree :)

Well, since the boats have seen almost no action, you can effort to disagree, however that few that saw action performed impressively, leaving the allied escorts chanceless and overal confirmed my thesis.

And what do you mean with theorhetical. The electro and walter boats were a reality!

Uhh, i start to sound like Skybird :88)

Deamon

John Pancoast
10-26-06, 02:19 AM
As long as you want to keep treating theoretical, etc. weapons as if they actually existed, etc. we'll just have to agree to disagree ;)

I think i gaved an indepth and reasonable explenation of my thesis. Now it's your turn :lol:

You still didn't come up with an explanation why you disagree. Comon challange me :)

Share with me that secret knowledge that would have rendered the electro/walterboats obsolet.

Of course you can disagree without a justification. Just disagree :)

Well, since the boats have seen almost no action, you can effort to disagree, however that few that saw action performed impressively, leaving the allied escorts chanceless and overal confirmed my thesis.

And what do you mean with theorhetical. The electro and walter boats were a reality!

Uhh, i start to sound like Skybird :88)

Deamon

1. I don't care to engage in debates (on the internet) that are basically one's opinion vs. another's. And in reality, that's all this one is.
They tend to lead no where but circles, and I have no time nor desire to make the time, for that. :) Person x states his opinion, person y, theirs. End of story.

Now, if a debate is kept strictly factual, that's another story :)

2. You tend to choose to ignore a lot of historical facts in this thread. Your "indepth and reasonable explanation" is full of guesses, opinion, myth, and plain 'ole incorrect info.
Which is fine. But that's why it's a waste of time to argue about it. I have a feeling that nothing would change your mind, and in the end, what's the point ? Everyone's entitled to an opinion.

3. The nuke ones you mentioned earlier weren't reality. For starters :)

Deamon
10-26-06, 11:27 AM
1. I don't care to engage in debates (on the internet) that are basically one's opinion vs. another's. And in reality, that's all this one is.
They tend to lead no where but circles, and I have no time nor desire to make the time, for that. :) Person x states his opinion, person y, theirs. End of story.
I see this rather as an exchange of ideas and facts rather than a pointless clash.

Now, if a debate is kept strictly factual, that's another story :) Strictly factual ? You mean strictly related to what actualy HAS happened and no what if scenarios or something ?

2. You tend to choose to ignore a lot of historical facts in this thread.
Do I ?

Maybe i'm not ignoring them but instead just don't know them ? haha

Seen from this perspective you just make allegations to me. You talk about facts here and i just asked you to name them that's all.

Your "indepth and reasonable explanation" is full of guesses, opinion, myth, and plain 'ole incorrect info.
Well, i just went through a "what if" scenario in which the new boats were deployed much earlier and explained my thesis in ditail. If you don't like "what if" scenarios than it's fine for you and we should end the discussion.

Which is fine. But that's why it's a waste of time to argue about it. I have a feeling that nothing would change your mind, and in the end, what's the point ? Everyone's entitled to an opinion.
Uhh and i feel you are biased against me. I would actualy consider my self as openminded and asked you to edjucate me about your facts that you are so convinced of but mostly avoid to name.

3. The nuke ones you mentioned earlier weren't reality. For starters :)
For starters, i too consider that the nuke story is highly unlikely. I just stated what i was been told. I never stated that i blindely believe this. However the germans were such revoutionary and goofy engineers that it wouldn't surprize me if many of the 'myths' would be true. We cannot study the history in full ditail from official sources becose many things of the history are very very secret and never appear in thous.

Cheers,
Deamon

TheSatyr
10-26-06, 11:32 AM
There would have been one sure way to kill off the Walters...bomb them when they were in port. They'd have to return from patrol eventually. Or just bomb the shipyards that were building them.

And as long as we are talking "what ifs", if the Walters had extended the war then that would raise the possibility that the USA would have used their nukes on Germany instead of Japan. After all,that was the original plan in r/l. Germany just surrendered before the nukes were ready.

Deamon
10-26-06, 11:42 AM
There would have been one sure way to kill off the Walters...bomb them when they were in port. They'd have to return from patrol eventually. Or just bomb the shipyards that were building them.

Well that's actualy what in fact did happen. The allies were smart bombers, an u-boat can't be commissioned without all essencial parts so they concentrated their bombing on the electro motors factories, always kept the production low that way and thus significantly delayed commissions.

And as long as we are talking "what ifs", if the Walters had extended the war then that would raise the possibility that the USA would have used their nukes on Germany instead of Japan. After all,that was the original plan in r/l. Germany just surrendered before the nukes were ready.

Yes, forgot to mention this. If the war would have continued any longer it would got nuked :)

Uhh, i guess it was lucky this time.

Deamon

John Pancoast
10-26-06, 12:57 PM
1. I don't care to engage in debates (on the internet) that are basically one's opinion vs. another's. And in reality, that's all this one is.
They tend to lead no where but circles, and I have no time nor desire to make the time, for that. :) Person x states his opinion, person y, theirs. End of story.
I see this rather as an exchange of ideas and facts rather than a pointless clash.

Now, if a debate is kept strictly factual, that's another story :) Strictly factual ? You mean strictly related to what actualy HAS happened and no what if scenarios or something ?

2. You tend to choose to ignore a lot of historical facts in this thread.
Do I ?

Maybe i'm not ignoring them but instead just don't know them ? haha

Seen from this perspective you just make allegations to me. You talk about facts here and i just asked you to name them that's all.

Your "indepth and reasonable explanation" is full of guesses, opinion, myth, and plain 'ole incorrect info.
Well, i just went through a "what if" scenario in which the new boats were deployed much earlier and explained my thesis in ditail. If you don't like "what if" scenarios than it's fine for you and we should end the discussion.

Which is fine. But that's why it's a waste of time to argue about it. I have a feeling that nothing would change your mind, and in the end, what's the point ? Everyone's entitled to an opinion.
Uhh and i feel you are biased against me. I would actualy consider my self as openminded and asked you to edjucate me about your facts that you are so convinced of but mostly avoid to name.

3. The nuke ones you mentioned earlier weren't reality. For starters :)
For starters, i too consider that the nuke story is highly unlikely. I just stated what i was been told. I never stated that i blindely believe this. However the germans were such revoutionary and goofy engineers that it wouldn't surprize me if many of the 'myths' would be true. We cannot study the history in full ditail from official sources becose many things of the history are very very secret and never appear in thous.

Cheers,
Deamon

Well, i just went through a "what if" scenario in which the new boats were deployed much earlier and explained my thesis in ditail. If you don't like "what if" scenarios than it's fine for you and we should end the discussion.

Exactly my point; one can "what if" anything to death, and yep, you're right, I don't care to do so :)

History is *all* about "what ifs."

p.s. Regarding some of your other comments above, if there's facts you wish me to explain, just ask, and I'll be happy to oblige.

Deamon
10-26-06, 02:08 PM
Exactly my point; one can "what if" anything to death, and yep, you're right, I don't care to do so :)

History is *all* about "what ifs."

p.s. Regarding some of your other comments above, if there's facts you wish me to explain, just ask, and I'll be happy to oblige.

Well, never mind mate. I just felt to advocate some capeabilities of curtain german boats. :)

Cheers