The more and more I play Silent hunter 3...

[Packerton]

The more I realize that German Submarines lacked attack ability compared to an American Submarine.


I mean American Subs could hold much more torpedoes and fire many more tubes at once.

You just cant do as much damage with a german submarine in a single attack.

[Hitman]

Aside from the duds problems that plaguered the US torpedoes until late 1943, the german ones had much more powerful explosive loads, so they did effectively same or even more damage with less torpedoes.:smug:

Because the americans expected their magnetic torpedoes to work well, they thought they could break the back of an enemy vessel with just one torpedo fitted with a lighter explosive load, and that design limitation was carried through the war in the MK14 torpedoes when they switched to impact detonator:hmm:

[Takeda Shingen]

No, they don't have as many 533 mm tubes, but the uboats are superior to the fleet boats of the Pacific in virtually every other aspect. They have better submerged performance, deeper test depth, reliable torpedoes, shorter dive times and, generally, better sound gear. I prefer the Pacific theatre to the Atlantic, but cannot deny the overal technical superiority of the unterseeboot.

[MENTAT]

No, they don't have as many 533 mm tubes, but the uboats are superior to the fleet boats of the Pacific in virtually every other aspect. They have better submerged performance, deeper test depth, reliable torpedoes, shorter dive times and, generally, better sound gear..

And
The success of the american submarines are directly result of an erronius japanese doctrine which is based on bushido philosophy. Shortly Bushido philosophy (Samurai tradition) directs to plan and to perform always to attack... not to defend. Defence is a weakness.

Pearl Harbour attack was also result of this way of acting. To attack to hit hard and for a decisive victory. (They have not choosen to strenghten the defence line for a grand naval combat over pacific) if i have to summarize, japanese destroyers were not assigned to convoys effectively and they failed to form a hunter groups as british/americans did in atlantic.

The results were catastrophic. US submarines wreaking havoc over pacific with faulty torpedoes, and cumbersome boats.

[Takeda Shingen]

Well, in fairness to the Silent Service, the subs had to be larger, as the distances they had to travel were far greater in the much larger Pacific.

[Puster Bill]

No, they don't have as many 533 mm tubes, but the uboats are superior to the fleet boats of the Pacific in virtually every other aspect. They have better submerged performance, deeper test depth, reliable torpedoes, shorter dive times and, generally, better sound gear. I prefer the Pacific theatre to the Atlantic, but cannot deny the overal technical superiority of the unterseeboot.

That isn't necessarily true. A US fleet boat could do 9 knots underwater. A comparable Type IX could do 7, or perhaps less. Even a speedy VIIB could only do 8 knots submerged.

They didn't really have better sound gear either, as near as I can tell from reading. They lacked the advanced radar that was pretty much standard on US boats later in the War.

The Vorhaltrechner in a U-boat didn't have a position keeper function, so if you changed course or speed during attack you had to re-do your firing solution.

In addition, the American boats were much more liveable than the German ones. That makes a big difference in combat efficiency of the crew.

It's not that one or the other is better, they were designed with different missions in mind. American boats had to operate independently over larger areas than the German ones. German boats were mostly designed around a war fought in the North Sea and North Atlantic.

[IrischKapitan]

No, they don't have as many 533 mm tubes, but the uboats are superior to the fleet boats of the Pacific in virtually every other aspect. They have better submerged performance, deeper test depth, reliable torpedoes, shorter dive times and, generally, better sound gear. I prefer the Pacific theatre to the Atlantic, but cannot deny the overal technical superiority of the unterseeboot.


I completly agree with what you say, but the american boats did'nt need to go as deep as their german counterparts because the jappenese lacked effective sonar and anti-submarine tactics, the british had a far more effective anti-submarine force.

[johnno74]

German u-boat development pretty much ceased after 1940 as it was beleived the war could be won with what they already had. The type VII was designed in 1933 and first produced in 1935 - far predating the US Navy GATO class subs - first one was launched in late 1941.

The first XXI was launched in june 1944 and I think there is no question that it was years ahead of any other WWII submarine. As you mentioned, earlier uboats had primitive living conditions, but the XXI had freezers and even showers onboard, an unheard of luxury before then!

At the end of the war the US, british and soviets all snagged type XXI uboats to study and improve their own submarines...

[Penelope_Grey]

That isn't necessarily true. A US fleet boat could do 9 knots underwater. A comparable Type IX could do 7, or perhaps less. Even a speedy VIIB could only do 8 knots submerged.
That does not mean they had better electric engines per se though... Knowing a bit about physics me being a science girl... I'd say the size of the propellors on the American boats was the reason for the faster speed.

They were quite big even compared to the boat they were propulsing. A larger propellor in the water generates more thrust than the smaller props on a U-Boat at the same RPMs, therefore, the boat goes quicker. U-Boats had more in proportion propellors.

[ichso]

But doesn't mean a bigger propellor a bigger need of energy to get the same turn rate as with a smaller one ?
This more in cost in energy might have lead to higher energy consumption for the german boats if they had used bigger props too.
Only if this matters at all concerning the battery life ;).

[Hitman]

Oh, not again the discussion :lol:

Well here go my two cents again...

US subs = Apples
German subs = Oranges

If you want to make a fair comparison, then put a Type IXD\2 against a Balao, not a Type VII (Huge design and purpose differences) as that would be like comaparinga motorcyle and a car.

Both the IXD and the Balao had the same characteristics and purposes:

The autonomy to operate alone very far from home base, which in turn meant larger torpedo and fuel load.

Now comparing those two subs you see where is each one superior to the other (1943 version in both):

IXD is superior in:

-Maximal diving depth (Debatable since no real tests were done)
-Power of the torpedo warheads
-Crash dive speed (By a little margin of two seconds)
-Optics (Much better periscopes)

Balao is superior in:

-Surface and submerged speed
-Number of torpedo tubes
-Torpedo reserves
-Deck gun caliber
-Electronics (Radar and TDC)
-Surface and submerged speed
-Endurance

I would say, for the war in the big Pacific the Balao is the winner, which is no wonder if you consider that the americans designed their subs for that purpose during 20 years, unlike the germans, who "patched up" a IX for that purpose. (FYI the IX was originally meant to be the moving headquarter of the leader of the wolfpacks during the attacks, staying close but outside the batte, coordinating and directing the smaller VII subs in the action. Later it was determined that BDU could do that from France with long range radio transmissions and the IX was redesigned as long range attack U-boot).

[Cerberus]

Another point of comparison - especially if one takes the points made in this thread and select models for comparison which were introduced relatively late in the war - no-one was bombing the ordure out of the people & places involved in the US design, development & build process.

One might like to incorporate one or two nice bits in ones boats, but if a factory making some of the parts is wiped off the map - it becomes much much harder to do.

[Jimbuna]

No comparisons from me because only one side had the ice cream maker :up:

[Sailor Steve]

And the showers.

And the laundry.

[kiwi_2005]

The more I realize that German Submarines lacked attack ability compared to an American Submarine.


I mean American Subs could hold much more torpedoes and fire many more tubes at once.

You just cant do as much damage with a german submarine in a single attack.
Dont forget the type XXI. Was to late in the war to make a difference.

[bigboywooly]

Chalk and cheese

Remember the first Baleo was laid down in June 42 and launched Oct same year
The first IXD2 was laid down in Nov 40 and launched March 42

The Baleo had an extra year and a half to be designed to suit the war as it was then

By 1943 Uboats were losing their deck guns as couldnt spend anytime on the surface where as the US boats had a much better time of it by then

You cant really compare the 2 vastly different theatres either

Try compare the ASW capabilities of the IJN and UK\US at the same time
lol
Plus as noted above the Ge factories were being bombed daily by then while the US ones remained untouched
Add to that the Germans were lacking in vital resources

Two totally different battles in the same war
Meh
No comparison really