Gato vs. VIIC

[Iron Budokan]

Let's get ready to rumble! :rock:

Which was the better weapon of war, the Gato or the VIIC?

[CCIP]

Apples and oranges my friend, apples and oranges.

A Gato would be as ill-suited to the North Atlantic fighting as the VII (or even a IXB/C) to the Pacific theater.

I'll pull out some figures shortly.

[CCIP]

Gato Class

Displacement: 1526 tons surfaced, 2424 tons submerged
Crew: 80 – 85 officers and men
Test depth: 300ft (91.4m)
Speed: 20.25 kt (37.5 km/h) surfaced, 8.75 kt (16 km/h) submerged
Torpedo tubes: 6 bow, 4 stern (24 torpedoes)
Deck Gun: 102 mm/50
Range: surfaced 21,900 km at 10 knots (19 km/h), submerged 185km at 3 knots
Max depth: ?

Type VIIC

Displacement: surfaced 769 tons, submerged 871 tons
Crew: 42-46 officers and men
Test depth: 90m
Speed: surfaced 17 kt (31 km/h), submerged 8 kt (15 km/h)
Torpedo tubes: 4 bow, 1 stern (14 torpedoes)
Deck gun: 88 mm/45
Range: surfaced 11,470 km at 10 knots (19 km/h), submerged 175 km at 4 knots
Max depth: 220 m (722 ft)

Hard to compare two boats one of which is about 3 times larger than the other, and with a totally different design doctrine behind it :hmm:

[WilhelmSchulz.]

Yea its A&O. But If you want to go by stats
#of fish, Gato
Range, Gato
Technolgy, Gato
Diveing depth, VIIC.
Efectivenes aganst fleet, Gato

But the subs where construcetd for diffrent TOs. So you cant realy compare them.

[Sailor Steve]

Yea its A&O. But If you want to go by stats
#of fish, Gato
Range, Gato
Technolgy, Gato
Diveing depth, VIIC.
Efectivenes aganst fleet, Gato

But the subs where construcetd for diffrent TOs. So you cant realy compare them.
Maneuverablility, VIIC
Speed, Gato
Habitability, Gato
Sonar profile, VIIC


Me, I'm still in love with the laundry facility, shower and ice cream machine.

And steaks.

[CCIP]

Yea its A&O. But If you want to go by stats
#of fish, Gato
Range, Gato
Technolgy, Gato
Diveing depth, VIIC.
Efectivenes aganst fleet, Gato

But the subs where construcetd for diffrent TOs. So you cant realy compare them.
Yep.

Though I would chalk up the VIIC for the tighter turn radius, quicker dive time, and (possibly) a somewhat more damage-resistant build. There were also several technology pieces like hydrophones and attack periscope in it that the British/Americans were impressed by when they captured German boats.

A Type IXD/2 is possibly the only German boat that's really worth the comparison. In which case it's still unclear - though the IXD/2 was possibly a deeper diver and definitely had better range than the Gato, it was probably a far less effective long-range raider due to a huge advantage that American boats had in terms of radar. (and their higher speed and heavier armament didn't hurt)

[Boris]

I agree. Considering the size and number of eels of the gato, the IX is a much better comparison.

If it's merely a case of which ones I like better, the German boats win hands down. But then I haven't got to know the US boats yet.

[Tuesday]

Yea its A&O. But If you want to go by stats
#of fish, Gato
Range, Gato
Technolgy, Gato
Diveing depth, VIIC.
Efectivenes aganst fleet, Gato

But the subs where construcetd for diffrent TOs. So you cant realy compare them.
Maneuverablility, VIIC
Speed, Gato
Habitability, Gato
Sonar profile, VIIC


Me, I'm still in love with the laundry facility, shower and ice cream machine.

And steaks.

Hehe yeah Steaks and Icecream for the win!

[flintlock]

I'm still in love with the laundry facility, shower and ice cream machine. Don't forget those linoleum floors.

If I had to choose to skipper one, I'd take that superior German engineering in a heartbeat!

[Boris]

I'm still in love with the laundry facility, shower and ice cream machine. Don't forget those linoleum floors.

If I had to choose to skipper one, I'd take that superior German engineeering in a heartbeat!
:rotfl:Or were they vinyl? :hmm:

[flintlock]

lol, I believe we established it was linoleum.

[flyingdane]

You can't compaire the two, GATO= :up: and 9c=:down: so there..HaHaHa:lol:..BOO!

[b1bmsgt]

Considering the size and number of eels of the gato, the IX is a much better comparison.
U-Boat = Eels

US Boat = Fish



Just keepin' it real, dawg... :rock:



Russ :yep:

[Iron Budokan]

Thanks guys, that's all info I didn't know, and the comparison has helped me see both boats differently.

Weren't the VIICs pretty much built just for war and nothing else? What I mean is, there were very little comforts on the VIICs, they were war vessels, period, and not meant to serve in the fleet a really long time. Isn't that right?

[CCIP]

Weren't the VIICs pretty much built just for war and nothing else? What I mean is, there were very little comforts on the VIICs, they were war vessels, period, and not meant to serve in the fleet a really long time. Isn't that right?

Well I think it's true that the reason Germans excluded many comforts was that they wouldn't sacrifice any performance for that!

That said, I think there again is the difference in philosophy - American boats were built for longer fleet operations, with the comforts accounted for.

Mind you, some German boats still served in various Allied navies for years after the war...

[flyingdane]

Weren't the VIICs pretty much built just for war and nothing else? What I mean is, there were very little comforts on the VIICs, they were war vessels, period, and not meant to serve in the fleet a really long time. Isn't that right?

Well I think it's true that the reason Germans excluded many comforts was that they wouldn't sacrifice any performance for that!

That said, I think there again is the difference in philosophy - American boats were built for longer fleet operations, with the comforts accounted for.

Mind you, some German boats still served in various Allied navies for years after the war...

Well Said :up:

[NEON DEON]

Weren't the VIICs pretty much built just for war and nothing else? What I mean is, there were very little comforts on the VIICs, they were war vessels, period, and not meant to serve in the fleet a really long time. Isn't that right?

Well I think it's true that the reason Germans excluded many comforts was that they wouldn't sacrifice any performance for that!

That said, I think there again is the difference in philosophy - American boats were built for longer fleet operations, with the comforts accounted for.

Mind you, some German boats still served in various Allied navies for years after the war...

Well Said :up:

and modified Balaos served in the US Navy into the Sixties.:up:

[flyingdane]

The US Fleet sub during ww2 was the best submarine for long range patrols any where, bar-non".. there were none better in the whole world...(Truth) http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v695/flyingdane/thsmilie_winner1.gif

[CCIP]

And let's not forget that some Tench class boats (still the same essential design) are still in service! Example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cutlass_%28SS-478%29

[Fat Bhoy Tim]

I'm still in love with the laundry facility, shower and ice cream machine. Don't forget those linoleum floors.

If I had to choose to skipper one, I'd take that superior German engineering in a heartbeat!

Superior German (over) engineering is one of the major things that lost them the war mind you.

[DanCanovas]

German boats were well constructed enabling them the operate deeper and more resistant to damage. US boats on the other hand were able to operate for longer periods and were equipped with this in mind.

[flintlock]

Superior German (over) engineering is one of the major things that lost them the war mind you.High quality engineering is a German trait in general. Though I agree, insofar as the war effort was concerened, their penchant for excellency in engineering dealt them a massive and irreparable blow. This was true with most all equipment Germany designed and manufactured for the war. This was definitely one time where the quality over quantity mantra hurt them.

[Fat Bhoy Tim]

Superior German (over) engineering is one of the major things that lost them the war mind you.High quality engineering is a German trait in general. Though I agree, insofar as the war effort was concerened, their penchant for excellency in engineering dealt them a massive and irreparable blow. This was true with most all equipment Germany designed and manufactured for the war. This was definitely one time where the quality over quantity mantra hurt them.

Indeed it is. And it's usually often not required, still the ridiculously expensive maintenance makes BMW half their profits - so there's method to the madness.

[Onkel Neal]

I can't argue with that, the Germans have always been excellent engineers.

[flintlock]

For "The Ultimate Driving Experience," I don't mind paying a little extra. Sure, I've had to pay a premium on the odd part, but my experience overall has been great. Their automobiles are a joy to own (and even more fun to drive) and they enjoy a healthy resale value.

[dean_acheson]

I am not sure that VIIC and GATO is fair, maybe VIIC and a Balao is closer to being an even comparison, both include wartime improvements.

[flintlock]

I am not sure that VIIC and GATO is fair, maybe VIIC and a Balao How about the GATO vs XXI? ;)

/tongue planted firmly in cheek

[Iron Budokan]

I only meant a comparison between the two subs from the standpoint the Gato was the main sub in the Pacific and the VIIC the main sub in the Atlantic. I didn't mean so much which was the better sub, but which was best for its TO. My fault for not being clear, but I'm enjoying the thread anyway. Thanks, guys! :rock:

[CCIP]

I am not sure that VIIC and GATO is fair, maybe VIIC and a Balao How about the GATO vs XXI? ;)

/tongue planted firmly in cheek

Haha.

How about XXI vs. Guppy then? :p
(not quite fair, of course, since Guppy was in many ways an upgrade based on what's been learned from the XXI)

[U-Dog]

One thing not mentioned yet. The difference between the ASW capabilities of thier respective enemies. I suspect the Gato's would have had a tougher time if Japanese ASW was as good as Allied. Thoughts?

And of course the Fleet submarine wasn't used in the way it was envisioned at the time of its design...

i do agree that its apples and oranges but that doesn't make this discussion any less interesting, and it does make me think more about all these wonderful boats!

Cheers,

[Sulikate]

I am not sure that VIIC and GATO is fair, maybe VIIC and a Balao How about the GATO vs XXI? ;)

/tongue planted firmly in cheek
IMHO there is no WWII sub that can beat XXI :arrgh!:

[Hartmann]

Gato vs Ix boats, perhaps iXD

type VII must be compared with other us boats like P- class or barracuda.
but a true comparation is difficult because us boat were bigger than german boats.
for example s-class, about 900 tons , 12 torpedoes, and 14- 10 knts (from sh1)

XXI boat has not comparation with other ww2 submarine. because was the first modern submarine and not very different with actual diesel/electric concept (except the new AIP boats)

[XXi]

Well it`s very hard to compare the VIIs and Gato/Balao/Tench. They`ve been designed for totally different areas and therefore have little in common. Just notice the range issue - Gato wouldn`t have problems operating in the Atlantic while VII would have to spare fuel in order to operate in the Pacific.
Just for that, I guess it`s better to compare type IX to American projects.
IXD2 had superior range than Gato. Additionally, lower mass and ability of going deeper would make them more difficult target for ASW. And keep in minds, that all ASW means the Japanese had can be compared to the Allied of 1939-41 when we speak of quality, availability or numbers.
Another important aspect is the offensive potential and ability to intercept enemy targets. Here, Americans win. Sure, German attack periscopes were a piece of art and excellent design but you just can`t beat American radar equipment. Additionally, American conning towers were a little bit higher so even if we forget about the radar for a moment, Americans earn another point. Additionally, slightly higher maximum speed and more torpedo tubes mean more chances for interception and succesfull attack.
Then, comfort of the crew. In this term, Americans win easily. There was much less space in the German subs and in general the conditions were harsh.


In general, American subs may seem better but we should not forget about two important factors:
1. Japanese ASW were very poor when compared to the Allied ASW, especially late in the war. I bet American subs in the same conditions the U Boats suffered from 1943 on would have had the same or even higher loss ratio with not more successes.
2. Typ XXI was actually in all aspects way more advanced than any other sub of the time. So I guess this wuold be the ultimate winner of the competition :D

[Ducimus]

IXD2 Vs Gato is the only fair comparision. If one was to look at their specifications and dimensions, one would find they are very similar.

[dean_acheson]

I agree w/ Ducimus.

The thing that I have been wondering, and haven't been able to find a good answer, or ever a bad one, anywhere is which boat was quieter at depth.

Anyone have any angles on this?

I'd give up a 100 feet of depth to have the extra four tubes anyday, not to mention the climate control....

[mmarsh]

I have been on board both a German U-Boat (U-505 a IXC) and an BALAO class Submarine (USS PAMPANITO) I was also aboard USS Growler (build just after WWII). Both are combat vets.

The German boats were impressive, espically all the toys they built for them later in the war such as Snorkel, the various pattern running and Homing Torpedos, it was all state-of the-art.

But I think in basic submarine design, the US boats were superior.

They had the better range, better speed, (Dive depth was about equal) were much faster both underwater and on the surface and were better armed. Also I believe the US had the advantage with a superior TDC. It was less accurate than the Germans but could provide a solution faster and target corrections could be transmitted via the pariscope.

The US also had better, and readily available search radar.

One thing nobody has mentioned is relibility, Espically the engines. The American GM diesels were incredibly reliable engines.

In terms of living space, the Gatos were much roomier. I thought space was pretty tight in the U505 boat (espically if you are 6'2). The USS Pampanito was much easier to move around.

[NEON DEON]

I agree w/ Ducimus.

The thing that I have been wondering, and haven't been able to find a good answer, or ever a bad one, anywhere is which boat was quieter at depth.

Anyone have any angles on this?

I'd give up a 100 feet of depth to have the extra four tubes anyday, not to mention the climate control....

No. But, the Americans had the equipment to detect and use a thermal layer to their advantage. This alone should be enough to give the boat a huge tactical advantage over a U boat.

I dont believe the Germans did that.

[flintlock]

I practice, I wonder how many US subs on war patrols during WWII actually had bathythermographs installed? I recall reading an interview with a WWII German U-boat captain, that the Germans were well aware of the thermal layer phenomenon, and that getting under them was advantageous. However, the only way they knew they were passing through one (thermal layer) was if they observed a temperature fluctuation on the thermometer.

I'll have to see if I can dig that old article up.

[Barkhorn1x]

I practice, I wonder how many US subs on war patrols during WWII actually had bathythermographs installed? I recall reading an interview with a WWII German U-boat captain, that the Germans were well aware of the thermal layer phenomenon, and that getting under them was advantageous. However, the only way they knew they were passing through one (thermal layer) was if they observed a temperature fluctuation on the thermometer.

I'll have to see if I can dig that old article up.

Well, at least the USS Pampanito did as its use is mentioned several times in the excellent book, USS Pampanito, Killer-Angel".

Barkhorn.

[NEON DEON]

I practice, I wonder how many US subs on war patrols during WWII actually had bathythermographs installed? I recall reading an interview with a WWII German U-boat captain, that the Germans were well aware of the thermal layer phenomenon, and that getting under them was advantageous. However, the only way they knew they were passing through one (thermal layer) was if they observed a temperature fluctuation on the thermometer.

I'll have to see if I can dig that old article up.

Probably every fleet sub that went back into port for a refit.

Scorpion SS-278

"Following further yard work and fitting out, Scorpion conducted shakedown operations off the southern New England coast during January 1943 and sailed for Panama in late February. In mid-March, she transited the Panama canal, and, on 24 February, she arrived at Pearl Harbor. There, she underwent modifications which included the installation of a bathythermograph, a then new oceanographic instrument to enable her to locate and hide in thermal layers that minimized the effectiveness of SONAR equipment."

[Finback]

Great discussion going here!!!

A couple points I'd like to make:

1. The deep diving depths of the U-Boats was due to the fact that they had to go that deep for their very survival. US boats typically weren't subjected to ASW attacks as deadly as the assault of Allied Hunter-Killer groups. The Allies simply had better electonics. Go to www.de220.com (http://www.de220.com) for specifics as to WWII ASW capabilities. US subs could go very deep (Puffer: Gato Calss 500 ft, Tang: Balao Class 700 feet, Pollock: P Class 500 feet) but they weren't forced to do so as the U-Boats were. Not that going through a depth charge attack on one would be any less terrifying than on the other.

2. USS Seawolf. The only US sub to be sunk in the Pacific by an Allied escort the DE Rowell (I think). The Rowell had all the latest in ASW electonics and weapons (hedgehog/teardrop depth charges). It didn't take too long to put the Seawolf on the bottom...

[Ducimus]

..the Americans had the equipment to detect and use a thermal layer to their advantage. This alone should be enough to give the boat a huge tactical advantage over a U boat.

I dont believe the Germans did that.

From my understanding, thermel layers exist in both the pacific and atlantic, however the layers in the atlantic are MUCH DEEPER then in the pacific. Deeper then what submarines of the era could dive to. If i have that correct, then the germans (nor the american's) could exploit thermal layers in the alantic regardless if they had the gear to detect them or not.

[Iron Budokan]

I wonder why the thermal layers in the Atlantic would be deeper than the Pacific? I'm not saying this is incorrect, I'm just wondering why.... :hmm:

[NEON DEON]

..the Americans had the equipment to detect and use a thermal layer to their advantage. This alone should be enough to give the boat a huge tactical advantage over a U boat.

I dont believe the Germans did that.

From my understanding, thermel layers exist in both the pacific and atlantic, however the layers in the atlantic are MUCH DEEPER then in the pacific. Deeper then what submarines of the era could dive to. If i have that correct, then the germans (nor the american's) could exploit thermal layers in the alantic regardless if they had the gear to detect them or not.

Thermal layers are not static nor are they exclusive per ocean.

The Thermalcline can vary from 30 to 400 meters with the the majority of them occuring towards the top of the range. 30 to 100 meters.

I doubt the entire Atlantic is under 200 meters constantly. Unless of course you are next to shore at which point surface disturbance and seasonal change can destroy the thermalcline altogether. There are also currents like the gulf stream that will effect the level as well. Off the coast of New jersey for instance the thermal cline often hovers close to 30 meters accept during the winter when it can disappear completely.

The best way to hide from surface vessels is to find and go into the layer or under it. U Boats just didnt do it where as US fleet boats had the equipment and knew how to use it. That is a huge adavantage.

"Ocean temperature varies with depth, but at between 30 and 100 meters there is often a marked change, called the thermocline, dividing the warmer surface water from the cold, still waters that make up the rest of the ocean. This can frustrate sonar, for a sound originating on one side of the thermocline tends to be bent, or refracted, off the thermocline. The thermocline may be present in shallower coastal waters, however, wave action will often mix the water column and eliminate the thermocline. Water pressure also affects sound propagation. Increased pressure increases the density of the water and raises the sound speed. Increases in sound speed cause the sound waves to refract away from the area of higher sound speed. The mathematical model of refraction is called Snell's law."

From this article in Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASDIC

[TheSatyr]

I don't know what it is about the fixation over German subs going deeper than American boats. The Pacific war was nothing like the Atlantic war. Alot of the times the US boats were operating in waters that were too shallow for them to reach maximum depth anyway.

As for survivability I'll take the Gato/Balao class over any any German boat. How many German boats took multiple hits from 8 inch shells and lived to tell about it? A US boat did...course it was considered unrepairable and scrapped once it returned to port...but it did make it back.

How many German boats were pounded by DCs for over 24 hours some of which were no doubt 600 pounders and survive? The Puffer did.

Don't sell the US sub designs or their crews short.

Bottom line,the Germans for all thier vaunted technology failed to starve out England in approx 6 years of warfare. The US Subs starved out Japan,which had the third largest merchant fleet in 4 years. Approx 1 1/2 of those years was fought with defective torps. And the US did it with far fewer subs.

Which means that the Gato/Balao class were superior to the german boats in one major way...they succeeded,the type VIIs and type IXs failed.

[DanCanovas]

I don't know what it is about the fixation over German subs going deeper than American boats. The Pacific war was nothing like the Atlantic war. Alot of the times the US boats were operating in waters that were too shallow for them to reach maximum depth anyway.

As for survivability I'll take the Gato/Balao class over any any German boat. How many German boats took multiple hits from 8 inch shells and lived to tell about it? A US boat did...course it was considered unrepairable and scrapped once it returned to port...but it did make it back.

How many German boats were pounded by DCs for over 24 hours some of which were no doubt 600 pounders and survive? The Puffer did.

Don't sell the US sub designs or their crews short.

Bottom line,the Germans for all thier vaunted technology failed to starve out England in approx 6 years of warfare. The US Subs starved out Japan,which had the third largest merchant fleet in 4 years. Approx 1 1/2 of those years was fought with defective torps. And the US did it with far fewer subs.

Which means that the Gato/Balao class were superior to the german boats in one major way...they succeeded,the type VIIs and type IXs failed.


i don't understand what your saying. we are talking technical data, not who won the war. had the US subs had to fight the same as the u-boats, the fleet would have been wiped out in 6 months. the fact that the japanese were incompetent at protecting merchant shipping does not make the Gato/Balao superior to the German boats! we are purely talking technicalities here, we not saying the US subs must have been better because they won the war.

[JSF]

I don't know what it is about the fixation over German subs going deeper than American boats. The Pacific war was nothing like the Atlantic war. Alot of the times the US boats were operating in waters that were too shallow for them to reach maximum depth anyway.

As for survivability I'll take the Gato/Balao class over any any German boat. How many German boats took multiple hits from 8 inch shells and lived to tell about it? A US boat did...course it was considered unrepairable and scrapped once it returned to port...but it did make it back.

How many German boats were pounded by DCs for over 24 hours some of which were no doubt 600 pounders and survive? The Puffer did.

Don't sell the US sub designs or their crews short.

Bottom line,the Germans for all thier vaunted technology failed to starve out England in approx 6 years of warfare. The US Subs starved out Japan,which had the third largest merchant fleet in 4 years. Approx 1 1/2 of those years was fought with defective torps. And the US did it with far fewer subs.

Which means that the Gato/Balao class were superior to the german boats in one major way...they succeeded,the type VIIs and type IXs failed.


i don't understand what your saying. we are talking technical data, not who won the war. had the US subs had to fight the same as the u-boats, the fleet would have been wiped out in 6 months. the fact that the japanese were incompetent at protecting merchant shipping does not make the Gato/Balao superior to the German boats! we are purely talking technicalities here, we not saying the US subs must have been better because they won the war.

Again another apples and oranges debate......So I will wage in with my apples to your oranges......You speak about the US subforce being wiped out in 6 months....I think it would be a safe bet that if the US were the ones waging the war against the UK in that time frame it would have been the UK wiped out in 6 months.

Now....How retarded does this sound...About as retarded as the rest of this thread!......How ya like dem apples.

[WOD]

I don't know what it is about the fixation over German subs going deeper than American boats. The Pacific war was nothing like the Atlantic war. Alot of the times the US boats were operating in waters that were too shallow for them to reach maximum depth anyway.

As for survivability I'll take the Gato/Balao class over any any German boat. How many German boats took multiple hits from 8 inch shells and lived to tell about it? A US boat did...course it was considered unrepairable and scrapped once it returned to port...but it did make it back.

How many German boats were pounded by DCs for over 24 hours some of which were no doubt 600 pounders and survive? The Puffer did.

Don't sell the US sub designs or their crews short.

Bottom line,the Germans for all thier vaunted technology failed to starve out England in approx 6 years of warfare. The US Subs starved out Japan,which had the third largest merchant fleet in 4 years. Approx 1 1/2 of those years was fought with defective torps. And the US did it with far fewer subs.

Which means that the Gato/Balao class were superior to the german boats in one major way...they succeeded,the type VIIs and type IXs failed.

Your comparison of the things go the wrong way..."who won the war" but you don´t name the main reason for the fact that so much german boats were sunk...."THE TECHNICS OF THE OPPONENTS"

A comparison that way is impossible because of the different technics the allied used and the japanese used. If the japanese would have had used (if it would have been available for them) the same technics of ASW like the allied have had in WWII...then your comparsion would make sense....but I doubt that if the japanese would have had the same technics that so many US subs would have had survived the war.

[Barkhorn1x]

Now....How retarded does this sound...About as retarded as the rest of this thread!......How ya like dem apples.

Ouch!! :o

But I kinda agree w/ you, what is the point of this thread really? The Gato and Type VIIC were so different as to render any attempt at comparison meaningless. And don't even get me started on the difference bewtween the Atlantic and the Pacific and the Allies and IJN ASW efforts.

Barkhorn.

[mheil]

Since we are comparing the Gato to the Type VIIC why not mention their names? I think "Gato" class sounds a lot more impressive than "Type VIIC" !

[Ducimus]

As ive said, the only fair comparision is the Gato vs IXD2. They were similar in many respects and even operated in similar areas. Infact, the areas they operated in were so similar, that a Gato (edit: in this case Balao) acutally saw one and got the drop on him:

http://www.uboat.net/boats/u183.htm
Sunk at 1300 hrs on 23 April, 1945 in the Java Sea, in position 04.50S, 112.52E, by a torpedo from the US submarine USS Besugo 54 dead and 1 survivor

[Iron Budokan]

I'm not sure the Gato is the better boat because the US "won the war" is a valid or defensible argument. It may have been the better boat. That's for someone more familiar with the specs of both vessels to decide, not me. I'm just an armchair bubblehead.

But I do know something about economics. America's main strength was in the number of vessels she could put into a TO.

When you consider the Germans only had a handful (comparitively speaking) of operative u-boats at the beginning of the war they did a pretty good job in damn near starving Britain, or at least crashing her economy. (Something Clay Blair totally overlooks, he just counts beans: numbers of u-boats vs. merchants. He completely glosses over the impact this blockade had on the economy. You don't have to sink every merchant ship to crash Britain's economy, or the economy of any nation. Economics doesn't work that way. But enough about Blair.)

By the time the Germans started fielding big numbers of boats the Allies were ready to unleash their superiority in numbers: DDs, planes, radar sets, etc.

The Americans in the Pacific on the other hand, were already winning the war after Midway. It was just a question of "when" they would win the war after that battle, not "if". With the aircover and superiority of numbers re: vessels and other support craft, it's no wonder the subs were able to totally destroy Japan's merchant fleet. I mean, what did Japan have at the end of the war, a couple of junks and a sampan or two? Maybe a bamboo raft thrown in for good measure? C'mon.

[Iron Budokan]

And while I agree the comparison spec wise between the Gato and VIIC may not be fair, it does bear looking into because these two vessels have the most mystique.

[sgt.weasle]

one thing i notice is that the gato has twice the crew size. so the germans could field 2 type VIIc"s to the US's 1 gato while training the same amount of crew. just a thought but id rather have 2 VIIc's than 1 gato.:D

[Sailor Steve]

That's only the crew. Can you get two VIIcs for the price of one Gato? I doubt it.

Oh, and welcome aboard.

[NEON DEON]

That's only the crew. Can you get two VIIcs for the price of one Gato? I doubt it.

Oh, and welcome aboard.

Ok. How about 2 IIDs and a motor launch.;)

[The General]

I recently read that a Gato class went to 450M after being accidently attacked by American planes (What's with those flyboys?)and survived!

[DanCanovas]

I don't know what it is about the fixation over German subs going deeper than American boats. The Pacific war was nothing like the Atlantic war. Alot of the times the US boats were operating in waters that were too shallow for them to reach maximum depth anyway.

As for survivability I'll take the Gato/Balao class over any any German boat. How many German boats took multiple hits from 8 inch shells and lived to tell about it? A US boat did...course it was considered unrepairable and scrapped once it returned to port...but it did make it back.

How many German boats were pounded by DCs for over 24 hours some of which were no doubt 600 pounders and survive? The Puffer did.

Don't sell the US sub designs or their crews short.

Bottom line,the Germans for all thier vaunted technology failed to starve out England in approx 6 years of warfare. The US Subs starved out Japan,which had the third largest merchant fleet in 4 years. Approx 1 1/2 of those years was fought with defective torps. And the US did it with far fewer subs.

Which means that the Gato/Balao class were superior to the german boats in one major way...they succeeded,the type VIIs and type IXs failed.


i don't understand what your saying. we are talking technical data, not who won the war. had the US subs had to fight the same as the u-boats, the fleet would have been wiped out in 6 months. the fact that the japanese were incompetent at protecting merchant shipping does not make the Gato/Balao superior to the German boats! we are purely talking technicalities here, we not saying the US subs must have been better because they won the war.

Again another apples and oranges debate......So I will wage in with my apples to your oranges......You speak about the US subforce being wiped out in 6 months....I think it would be a safe bet that if the US were the ones waging the war against the UK in that time frame it would have been the UK wiped out in 6 months.

Now....How retarded does this sound...About as retarded as the rest of this thread!......How ya like dem apples.

if you haven't got anything nice to say (retarded) or am unable to debate on a forum without accusing peoples conversations as "retarded" then don't say anything at all.

[Sailor Steve]

That's only the crew. Can you get two VIIcs for the price of one Gato? I doubt it.

Oh, and welcome aboard.

Ok. How about 2 IIDs and a motor launch.;)
I'll see that and raise you one Schnellboot.

I recently read that a Gato class went to 450M to after being accidently attacked by American planes (What's with those flyboys?)and survived!
I'm firmly of the belief that American fleet boats could go just as deep as the Germans, but in the case of a story like this I'll say what I always say: documentation please. Actual names, numbers and confirmation of the story. "recently read" and "a Gato class" doesn't tell anything but a whale of a tale.

[NEON DEON]

That's only the crew. Can you get two VIIcs for the price of one Gato? I doubt it.

Oh, and welcome aboard.

Ok. How about 2 IIDs and a motor launch.;)
I'll see that and raise you one Schnellboot.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

I fold!

[TheSatyr]

Considering how good the SJ and SD radars the Gatos used was,plus the 10 torp tubes I think the Gato/Balaos would have given the British fits. Plus the fact that the US sub service was excellant at developing sub tactics on the fly. They may have suffered serious losses early on...but they would have found a way to neutralize any advantage the Brits might have had.

The crews on US boats were generally better trained than their German counterparts. And I believe they also underwent mental tests to make sure they were suited to sub duty. Not sure if the Germans did that.

As for saying that the US navy started the war with more subs than Germany had in 1939...that is a moot point. They may have had more subs,but many of them were stationed in the Atlantic when the war began and others were undergoing maintanance.

And as for the constant denigration of Japanese ASW efforts,tell it to the boys who didn't make it home. You make it sound like only incompetent crews could have possibly been sunk by the Japanese. In a way,I find that to be rather insulting.

[heartc]

Considering how good the SJ and SD radars the Gatos used was,plus the 10 torp tubes I think the Gato/Balaos would have given the British fits. Plus the fact that the US sub service was excellant at developing sub tactics on the fly. They may have suffered serious losses early on...but they would have found a way to neutralize any advantage the Brits might have had.
Not sure about that, as it is a hypothetical (sp?) question, but another thing I see rarely coming up is the far more advanced TDC on the Fleet Subs compared to the German version. In fact, while we use to call it TDC, the German U-Boats didn't really have a Target Data COMPUTER. What they had was an Angle Solver, providing a valid fire solution for *one specific point in time*. The American TDC on the other hand provided constantly updated Gyro Angles in real time. The Fire Control party entered AOB (or target course), Bearing, Range and Speed into the TDC based on the observations of the Skipper, and - provided the target did not change any of those factors - from then on *target position* (both bearing and range!) and the Angles for both bow and stern tubes would be constantly updated accordingly while you could flip your sub around any way you wanted. This had the additional advantage that you could CHECK your fire solution for validity: When the TDC's calculated target bearing stayed true with the actual target bearing that you could see through the scope, you knew you had a pretty good grip on him.
Silent Hunter I got that down pretty accurate (I think iRL they used to enter AOB though while SHI used target course, but target course is just derived from own course and AOB - so IRL it might have even eased that calculation off you).

Now, iRL both Navies used to fire from very short ranges (until guided / pattern running torps etc showed up I guess) where there would be higher error tolerance, and of course there is no doubt the Kriegsmarine hit a lot of ships, however it's nice to be able to check your fire solution BEFORE shooting your fish, as well as being able to run circles around your target, go submerged etc and know constantly where the target is by simply looking at your TDC bearing and range readouts.


And as for the constant denigration of Japanese ASW efforts,tell it to the boys who didn't make it home. You make it sound like only incompetent crews could have possibly been sunk by the Japanese. In a way,I find that to be rather insulting.
Too true. I don't think it's legitimate to say the Silent Service "had it easy" against the IJN / IJAAF, submarine warfare was always risky business, but instead in the later part of the war the Kriegsmarine U-Boat war against the Allies was nothing short of *suicidal* - what's with sophisticated airborne radar, hedgehogs, airborne homing torps and not to forget *intel*. The very nature of the submarine is being the silent, invisible assassin. When you announce the assault on megaphone beforehand and then have the spotlight on you, it's game over.
I believe cracking the German Naval Code was one of THE horsemen of the apocalypse for the U-Boats.
In the end it was ignorance and stubborness which spelled doom for the U-Boats. As in the other military branches and operations, Hitler and part of the Command grossly underestimated the enemy's ability and will to fight, probably because of huge initial successes. We did not want to believe the level of sophistication on the Brit radar systems, nor that they cracked the naval code. And instead of using our technology in a concerted effort to counter effectively, we developed some fancy high tech **** here and there, which had little practical use in the great sheme of things. Which was a good thing for the world.

[Abraham]

Funny how this discussion pops up again now SHIV is about to be launched. Two years ago we had almost exactly the same thread when SHIII was introduced.

When comparing the Gato's/Balao's/Tench with the German boats we should remember that they were designed with completely different goals in mind. We should also realise that the origin of the US fleet boats was a German design.

The Germans, based on their experiences in WW I, went for an agile, simple sub to cut Britains commercial life lines in a battle that was to be fought on the Western Approaches and the North Atlantic. The VII was ideal for such a campaign.

The US saw Japan as a potential threat to it's supremacy in the Pacific. In case of a future war the Navy rightly predicted a Japanese expansion in a South Eastern direction to secure raw materials, especially the oil fields of Sumatra (Duch Indies). In order to realise that goal the Philippines had to be conquered by Japan.
The US Navy Plan Orange foresaw an excursion of the main US battle fleet towards the Philippines Sea to intervene with Japanese landings. The idea was that both battlefleets would clash and fight it out.
Fleet submarines were intended as - next to - invisable scouts to lead the battle fleet towards the enemy. Furthermore they would try to intercept Japanese capital ships during their approach to the US fleet. Finally they would attack retreating Japanese units or reinforcements.

Thus the US needed a very long range boat with a speed comparable to contemporary battleships.
In 1919 the US had acquired the U 140U-Kreuzer (sub-cruiser) as reparation payments from Germany. Thhe specifications are: draught 1930 tons; armarement: 6 torpedo tubes and 2 x 6" deck gun; range: 13.000 miles.
This served as a prototype for the US Fleet boats.

Because the US battlefleet was put out of action by the attack on Pearl Harbour, the Navy had to fight a different battle than anticipated. US carrier groups fought defensive battles at the outskirts of the expanded Japanese Empire - with some offensive raids to test the Japanese reaction - and only submarines could wage an agressive war.
It took the US about 9 - 12 monthes to get its act together, but as from ultimo 1943 the US sub fleet was engaged in a total war against Japanes merchant shipping, a role the fleet boats were never designed for.
They were extremely effective in this role, accounting for more than 50% of the Japanese merchant losses...

[Capt. D]

Funny how this discussion pops up again now SHIV is about to be launched. Two years ago we had almost exactly the same thread when SHIII was introduced.

When comparing the Gato's/Balao's/Tench with the German boats we should remember that they were designed with completely different goals in mind. We should also realise that the origin of the US fleet boats was a German design.

The Germans, based on their experiences in WW I, went for an agile, simple sub to cut Britains commercial life libes in a battle that was to be fought on the Western Approaches and the North Atlantic. The VII was ideal for such a campaign.

The US saw Japan as a potential threat to it's supremacy in the Pacific. In case of a future war the Navy rightly predicted a Japanese expansion in a South Eastern direction to secure raw materials, espoecially the oil fields of Sumatra Duch Indies). In order to realise that goal the Philippines had to be conquered by Japan.
The US Navy Plan Orange foresaw an excursion of the main US battle fleet towards the Philippines Sea to intervene with Japanese landings. The idea was that both battlefleet would clash and fight it out.
Fleet submarines were intended as - next to - invisable scouts to lead the battle fleet towards the enemy. Furthermore they would try to intercept Japanese capital ships during their approach to the US fleet. Finally they would attack retreating Japanese units or reinforcements.

Thus the US needed a very long range boat with a speed comparable to contemporary battleships.
In 1919 the US had acquired the U 140U-Kreuzer (sub-cruiser) as reparation payments from Germany. Thhe specifications are: draught 1930 tons; armarement: 6 torpedo tubes and 2 x 6" deck gun; range: 13.000 miles.
This served as a prototype for the US Fleet boats.

Because the US battlefleet was put out of action by the attack on Pearl Harbour, the Navy had to fight a different battle than anticipated. US carrier groups fought defensive battles at the outskirts of the expanded Japanese Empire - with some offensive raids to test the Japanese reaction - and only submarines could wage an agressive war.
It took the US about 9 - 12 monthes to get its act together, but as from ultimo 1943 the US sub fleet was engaged in a total war against Japanes merchant shipping, a role the fleet boats were never designed for.
They were extremely effective in this role, accounting for more than 50% of the Japanese merchant losses...

:up::up: Well said!!!

Our boats would not have done very well in the "confind" spaces of the areas VIII boats were mainly deployed. German boats were built to the needs they had and ours to what we anticipated were to be. Having said that I am sure a U-Boat Kapitain would not have minded at all to have a Gato/Balao class under his feet in the mid Atlantic or during their ventures to the US east coast or off the coast of Cuba.

With the length of patrols of the US boats the size and accommodations on the US boats certainly outclassed their German counter parts. I guess if one compared boat to boat - plus and minus - the US Boats would come out on top, but I am sure many a German sailor thought he lived because of the boat he was in.

Happy Hunting :ping:

[U-Dog]

It seems to me the Gato's biggest advantage is its radar. German U-boats would have benefitted greatly from this.

Didn't mean to put down Japanese ASW as much as comment on excellance of Uk-US ASW.

Tha bit about the U-1400 is really interesting! Had no idea, so it seems they were both German designs.;)

[Torplexed]

I guess I don't get this whole weapon-theater-swapping arguement. For example, it's a given that the German Tiger and Panther tanks were far superior to the US M4 Sherman. I'm sure Tigers and Panthers would have rolled over the laughable Japanese tanks and flimsy anti-tank weapons. They also would have been a pain to ship and get across a beachead given their larger size. Shermans and Stuarts were easier to cram into a ship's hold and were more than enough tank for the confined atolls and jungles of the Pacific. Shermans in Europe? Well...you got us Americans there. Quantity had to make up for quality.They probably should have hurried the development of the M26 Pershing along. ;)

I guess in the end it's all a moot point. Both sides developed material to fit the requirements they needed at the time and the rest was history.

[Abraham]

...They probably should have hurried the development of the M26 Pershing along. ;)
,,,Both sides developed material to fit the requirements they needed at the time ...
But in this proces faults - with hindsight - have been made.
For instance, in January '44 the US general for tank procurement, a certain George Patton, vetoed the mass production of the superior M26 Pershing tank on grounds that changing the production process would interrupt the delivery of the M4 Sherman, a tank with which the war could be won. As a consequence US tank crews in the European Theater of Operations suffered apalling losses against Panthers, Tigers and German AT guns ...

[Torplexed]

But in this proces faults - with hindsight - have been made.
For instance, in January '44 the US general for tank procurement, a certain George Patton, vetoed the mass production of the superior M26 Pershing tank on grounds that changing the production process would interrupt the delivery of the M4 Sherman, a tank with which the war could be won. As a consequence US tank crews in the European Theater of Operations suffered apalling losses against Panthers, Tigers and German AT guns ...
Aha! So, that's who is to blame. They should have appealed to his towering ego and named it the M26 Patton tank. ;)

There eventually was the M48 Patton...but long after.

[Abraham]

But in this proces faults - with hindsight - have been made.
For instance, in January '44 the US general for tank procurement, a certain George Patton, vetoed the mass production of the superior M26 Pershing tank on grounds that changing the production process would interrupt the delivery of the M4 Sherman, a tank with which the war could be won. As a consequence US tank crews in the European Theater of Operations suffered apalling losses against Panthers, Tigers and German AT guns ...
Aha! So, that's who is to blame. They should have appealed to his towering ego and named it the M26 Patton tank. ;)

There eventually was the M48 Patton...but long after.
You might even know that Patton was so stubborn in his opinion about the M4 Sherman tank that he did not allow his own tank crews to improvise makeshift armour plates on vulnerable parts of the M4, or to have them carry sandbags against HEAT grenades from German Panzerfaust (RPG-style) weapons...
But I'm pretty much off topic by now.
:-?

[Eagle Eye]

It's to tough to call, I'd lean towards the German boats, However the Japanese never put the resources into their anti submarine warfare capabilities that the Allies did.
Their merchant fleet was almost non existant by 1945 mostly due to the success of
american submarine forces. But then again without the allies staggering investment in aircraft and new technoligies the U-Boats would almost have certainly closed the atlantic.

The US subs seemed to be more a bane to Japanese fleet as well.

They sunk the Shokaku and Taiho at the battle of the Phillipine sea

Archer Fish Sunk the largest aircraft carrier of WW2 the Shinano it's first day out of port.

[Aktungbby]

Having visited the U-505 IX at Chicago and the USS Pampanito at Fishermans Wharf: the main difference is the VII was a submerged campground vs an actual submerged dwelling of the superior Gato or Baleo vessel. One overlooked aspect of the capture of the U-505 was the huge bucket in the engine room that everyone defecated in as the 2nd toilet opposite the cooks galley was used for food storage. I've seen the picture of a US sailor who bravely removed the bucket:Kaleun_Sick: at the capture even as the scuttle charges were being neutralized, but cannot locate it. The engine room must have reeked!
Moreover, bathing aboard a U-boat was nil for a crew of 45+ due to poor desalinization equipment. The repair backlogs at German bases was miserable as opposed to US facilities at Peal, Midway, Australia thus negating the Nazi strategy of strangling Britain into submission while the Allied effort in the Pacific was what Doenitz could only dream of. The advent of Liberty and Victory cargo rapid production vessels further stymied the Kriegsmarine effort to a total of only 3-5% of Allied cargo vessels sunk overall; ie: a failure of the overall strategy concept largely borrowed from WWI's failure when Britain's Grand fleet did most of the starving of Germany into submission. Doenitz must have seen the light; he pulled all his subs from the Atlantic in 1943??!!

[Bubblehead1980]

[QUOTE=Aktungbby;2938782][COLOR="ruby"]Having visited the U-505 IX at Chicago and the USS Pampanito at Fishermans Wharf: the main difference is the VII was a submerged campground vs an actual submerged dwelling of the superior Gato or Baleo vessel. One overlooked aspect of the capture of the U-505 was the huge bucket in the engine room that everyone defecated in as the 2nd toilet opposite the cooks galley was used for food storage. I've seen the picture of a US sailor who bravely removed the bucket:Kaleun_Sick: at the capture even as the scuttle charges were being neutralized, but cannot locate it. The engine room must have reeked!
Moreover, bathing aboard a U-boat was nil for a crew of 45+ due to poor desalinization equipment. The repair backlogs at German bases was miserable as opposed to US facilities at Peal, Midway, Australia thus negating the Nazi strategy of strangling Britain into submission while the Allied effort in the Pacific was what Doenitz could only dream of. The advent of Liberty and Victory cargo rapid production vessels further stymied the Kriegsmarine effort to a total of only 3-5% of Allied cargo vessels sunk overall; ie: a failure of the overall strategy concept largely borrowed from WWI's failure when Britain's Grand fleet did most of the starving of Germany into submission. Doenitz must have seen the light; he pulled all his subs from the Atlantic in 1943??!!


"Having visited the U-505 IX at Chicago and the USS Pampanito at Fishermans Wharf: the main difference is the VII was a submerged campground vs an actual submerged dwelling of the superior Gato or Baleo vessel."

Well said. Interesting, older thread I do not recall ever reading. Thanks for reviving.

I have visited both boats as well and agree. However, Pampanito is a Balao Class of course and 505 is a Type IX. Type IX as are aware is more comparable to the Gato or Baloa than a Type VII.

I believe we're perilously close to false comparison when comparing the Gato to the Type VII as were built for different theaters, different missions originally. Gato's were "fleet type submarines" designed to run with and scout for the US fleet when battleships were still the mainstay, before carrier airpower truly supplanted that role by the time the US was in the war. To my knowledge Us submarine doctrine was not faced on sinking enemy merchant vessels until after Pearl Harbor when the unrestricted warfare order was given, where as Germany had conducted such warfare in WW I and believe that was the plan all along for the next war, to blockade the enemy with warfare against commerce.


Not sure if anyone brought this up but one thing US submarines had going is they did not face the same type of mass effective, ASW effort from the Japanese that the Germans faced from the Allies. IJN was late to the game in ASW doctrine and while it was no cakewalk for the US submarine force, it was not what the UBoats faced. US submarines did not really hit their stride until 1944 (torpedo issues finally resolved in late 1943) and US doctrine evolved with night surface attacks being preferred method, "wolfpacks" becoming common against lage (by japanese standards) convoys of 12-15 ships.

The IJN never really had surface and air based radar that was effective against submarines that was widely deployed and it made AW less effective overall, unlike the Allies. I think about Tang in June 1944 off Nagasaki, attacking a convoy with 12 escorts, some with surface search radar, on the surface at night, from inside the convoy, in shallow waters. They slipped inside the screen and pretended to be part of it. Japanese apparently did not have PPI scopes, just "A Scope" type displays, so even if they detected the sub, it blended in well. They attacked successfully and escaped. This was not an abnormal feat against convoys in 1944 and 1945, even when they had plenty of escorts and radar. "Ramage's Rampage" of 31 July 1944 in Parche, of Jack's attack on the Take Ichi Convoy in April 1944, which had a direct strategic impact on the New Guinea campaign.

[LUKNER]

The Gato and VIIC types can be considered as mobilization type boats, for mass construction in war conditions. Preparation and commissioning with a new crew. In this regard, the Germans are ahead of the Americans, in terms of the training and preparatory base for commissioning these boats significantly. It is stupid and inappropriate to compare these boats in any other way. The conditions of use, tactical and technical characteristics, and the evolution of the development of submarine warfare are completely different for US and German submarines.
----------------------------------------------------
Тип Гато и VIIC можно рассматривать как лодки мобилизационного типа, для массовой постройки в условиях войны. Подготовке и вводе в строй с новым экипажем. В этом плане немцы опережают американцев, по учебной подготовительной базе ввода этих лодок в строй значительно. По другому сравнивать эти лодки глупо и не уместно. Условия применения, тактико-технические характеристики, эволюция развития средств ведения подводной войны абсолютно разная у подлодок США и Германии.