Who had the best submarines in wwII?

[Freiwillige]

Excluding the Type XXI which is the clear winner! Before that type what was the differance between Japanese, American, German, British and Italian subs?

I know alot about U-boats but nothing much about any of the others.

It does seem that the American subs were huge in comparison to even the type IX Based on pictures from SH IV.

So Fire away, WHichs subs were better and which were worse and why.:know:

[Madox58]

The better subs were the ones that made it home.
The ones that made it home were better because they came home alive.
:up:
The ones that didn't make it home were worse. For obvious reasons.
:down:

Do I win a prize?
:lol:

[KeptinCranky]

Congratz you win the flawless logic award :smug: don't spend it all in one place...:D

It's a tough debate, some countries had lots of different subs with some especially good but others very bad (Japan) and some other had relatively ok subs but a whole lot (USA, Germany) it's mostly in how you use them though, and looked at it that way the US and Germany come out on top...

[Torplexed]

It's difficult to compare subs of different nationalities, since the respective nations often had different needs in mind due to geography or doctrine. The large US fleet type was originally meant to be scout sub for the battle fleet, but turned out also to be an excellent solitary raider for the vast distances of the Pacific for which it was designed. The German Type VII has horribly cramped but was ideal in the North Atlantic where the distances to patrol areas were shorter and it's slim sonar profile was the margin between life and death in many a depth-charging. The small British 'U' type was ideal for the Mediterranean but not really of use elsewhere due to low endurance. The British had other subs for that purpose tho.

The Japanese subs also were designed for the Pacific. They were large and had excellent endurance, and often scout planes, but weren't deep deep divers and performed sluggishly underwater. Japanese subs suffered primarily from a doctrine that emphasized them as part of the battlefleet and their job was seen as going after other warships. The Japanese never really developed an effective merchant sinking program.

Italian subs. Big conning towers. Poor doctrine. Probably excellent food tho. :up:

[joegrundman]

Also you have to bear in mind the changing times. Technological progress was huge between 1939 and 1945.

The type VII may have been the best all-rounder by the turn of 1940, but was more or less obsolete by 1943

[Platapus]

Excluding the Type XXI which is the clear winner!

Well let’s not just assume that the Type XXI is the clear hands down winner here.

I reference Clay Blair’s 1996 book “Hitler’s U-Boats” in two volumes.

Specifically I would like to quote from the Forward of the book where Mr. Blair discusses the United States’ evaluation of the U-2513 Type XXI Uboat. While 118 of the Type XXI boats were constructed, I believe only two (U2511 and U3008) had combat patrols.

From the Blair book

“In the classified report [the American evaluators] sent to the Chief of Naval Operations, dated July 1946, they wrote that while the Type XXI had many desirable features that should be exploited, it also had many grave design and manufacturing faults. The clear implication was that owning to these faults, the XXI could not have made a big difference in the Battle of the Atlantic. Among the major faults the Americans enumerated:

Poor Structural Integrity.

Hurriedly prefabricated in thirty-two different factories that had little or no experience in submarine building, the eight major hull sections of the type XXi were crudely made and did not fit together properly. Therefore the pressure hull was weak and not capable of withstanding sea pressure at great depths or the explosions of close depth charges. The Germans reported that in their structural tests, the hull failed at a simulated depth of 900 feet. The British reported failure at 800 feet, less than the failure depth of the conventional German U-Boats.

Underpowered Diesel Engines

The new model, six-cylinder diesels were fitted with superchargers to generate the required horsepower. The system was so poorly designed and manufactured that the superchargers could not be used. This failure reduced the generated horsepower by almost half: From 2,000 to 1,200, leaving the Type XII ruinously underpowered. Consequently, the maximum surface speed was only 15.6 knots, less than any ocean going U-boat built during the war and slightly slower than the corvette convoy-escort vessel. The reduction in horsepower also substantially increased the time required to carry out a full battery charge.

Impractical Hydraulic System

The main lines, accumulators, cylinders, and pistons of the hydraulic gear or operating the diving planes, rudders, torpedo tube outer doors, and antiaircraft gun turrets on the bridge were too complex and delicate and located outside the pressure hull. This gear was therefore subject to saltwater leakage, corrosion, and enemy weaponry. It could not be repaired from inside the pressure hull.

Imperfect and Hazardous Snorkel

Even in moderate seas, the mast dunked often, automatically closing the air intake and exhaust ports. Even so, salt water poured into the ship’s bilges and had to be discharged overboard continuously with noisy pumps. More over, during these shutdowns, the diesels dangerously sucked air from inside the boat and deadly exhaust gas backed up, causing not only headaches and eye discomfort, but also serious respiratory illnesses. Snorkeling in the Type XXI was therefore a nightmarish experience to be minimized to the greatest extent possible.” End of quote

So on paper the Type XXI should have been the best submarine of the time. If the Germans had the proper manufacturing capability the problems with the pressure hull and the diesel engines could have been fixed. The design of the hydraulic system being outside of the pressure hull is, in my opinion, a bad idea, just for the reasons listed in the Blair book.

Did the Type XXI have a reputation that was greater than the reality?

In the 1995 book “Count not the dead: The popular image of the German Submarine” Michael L. Hadley wrote “During both wars and during the inter-war years as well, the U-boat was mythologized more than any other weapon of war.”

Perhaps the greatest capability of the Type XXI was the myth of the Type XXI.

Since only two of them were used in combat (if memory serves me correctly) we will never know how effective the Type XXI would have truly been.

I think that a good Type VIIC or IXD2 might have been a better all around boat.

[Brag]

When it came to meet operational requirements of the time. the Type IX was probably the best.

I don't know how well would have the American Fleet type performed against the Royal Navy.

[Torplexed]

When it came to meet operational requirements of the time. the Type IX was probably the best.

I don't know how well would have the American Fleet type performed against the Royal Navy.
A typical American Gato class would have fared poorly against the vaunted Royal Navy hunter-killers, especially later in the war. It's large size and slow dive time would have worked against it, but without that large size and habitability it would have been incapable of operating effectively against Japan all the way from Pearl Harbor. Different boats designed for different oceans.

The Type IX was a good long range boat, but the lack of air-conditioning and refrigeration made life hell for the crew in the tropics.

[Ducimus]

An age old debate. This argument is usually centric to uboat vs fleetboat. Its a flawed argument becuase not all subs were designed and built for the same purpose. A type7 uboat would fail miserably to accomplish a fleet boats objectives and vise verasa.

Submarine design, is highly influenced by doctrine. The Germans already had an idea of what they wanted to do based on lessons from WW1. The US had their own ideas and went off in another (flawed) direction, it just happened that while the doctrine was flawed, the submarine designed for that doctrine happened to fit what was needed in the pacific theater quite nicely.

What im getting at here is that different subs, were built for different purposes. Type 7's were basicaly picket boats that would from a line (aka wolfpack) for convoy attacks. This intent thrust upon the design, requirements in order to accomplish its mission. When things are designed, its always a case of give and take. Hence, while they had nice profiles and performance, they lacked the range and firepower of longer ranged subs. This lack of firepower in the indvidual sub was offset by the pack tactic.

Type 9 uboats, orginally designed as at sea wolfpack headquarters of sort, happened to be their most ideal long range boat. Performance and profile was sacraficed for firepower and range.

So if one was to ask, who had the best boat, you have to look at the role for which the subs your comparing were intended for. The US really had no direct equivlant of a Type7. All of their boats excepting the S class were basicaly long range submarines, primarly because of doctrine and their operational theater was the worlds largest ocean.

[V.C. Sniper]

U.S. has the best submarines no doubt about it :arrgh!: :up: . The Gato/Balao class would dominate both oceans without a sweat. Highly superior technological advances in radar and electronics combined with outstanding performance: 20+ knots on surface, 8.75-9 knots submerge, large amount of torpedoes, super deep diving capabilities of the awesome Balaos, and a 30-35 second crash dive time (super fast for such large subs =D) would OWNZ all other subs of the era. =D

Plus, young and aggressive skippers like Mush Morton and Samuel D. Dealey (aka "The Destroyer Killer"), would turn the RN's sub hunters into the hunted. :up: :up: :arrgh!: :arrgh!:

[Torplexed]

The problem is the British know how that highly superior radar technology works. They invented it. They knew how to detect and exploit it. ;)The Japanese didn't have radar for most of the war. Speed was only an advantage on the surface when the enemy wasn't tracking your every move on their radar. German boats dived far deeper than American subs and still the British hounded them mercilessly.

Plus, the Japanese didn't have hedgehogs. Those things are nasty.

[V.C. Sniper]

"German boats dived far deeper than American subs" :rotfl: I don't think any Type VIICs would be able to survive a 1,011 feet depth excursion such that the USS Chopper (Balao class) had when she lost power in a training execise.:up:

[Ducimus]

U.S. has the best submarines no doubt about it. The Gato/Balao class would dominate both oceans without a sweat.

:rotfl: As much as i love fleet submarines, even i woudlnt make that boast! If one *REALLY* wanted to know how well a fleet boat would do in the atlantic, all one has to do, is look at how well the 9D2's faired. Which, really is the only fair comparision, as they're both very similar in size and endurance. The upperhand in THAT matchup however, i think goes to the fleet boat. No externally stored torpedos, better electronics, better propulsion system, and better (higher) field of view for lookouts. edit: Oh yeah, and faster dive time. A fleetboat in wartime was required to dive in under 40 seconds. 30-35 second dive being the goal in training.

[Freiwillige]

"German boats dived far deeper than American subs" :rotfl: I don't think any Type VIICs would be able to survive a 1,011 feet depth excursion such that the USS Chopper (Balao class) had when she lost power in a training execise.:up:

1,011 feet is 308.1528 meters. There are a few U-boats that have been that deep and lived to tell about it.
The desighne depth of the type XXI is 300 meters.

[yamato9]

"German boats dived far deeper than American subs" :rotfl: I don't think any Type VIICs would be able to survive a 1,011 feet depth excursion such that the USS Chopper (Balao class) had when she lost power in a training execise.:up:

1,011 feet is 308.1528 meters. There are a few U-boats that have been that deep and lived to tell about it.
The desighne depth of the type XXI is 300 meters.

Good point Freiwillige.

Here is example:
Partial quote of Jimbuna´s topic posted before some time.
Returning to the scene where Harvester had sunk, Aconit unexpectedly got a good sonar contact. This was Harvester's killer, U-432, still at periscope depth.
After sinking Harvester, Eckhardt had opened a bottle of champagne so the officers could celebrate, after which the officers and crew had begun to eat lunch or to sleep. When the first two salvos (ten depth charges) from Aconit fell, U-432 was deaf and blind. The hydrophone operator was washing the champagne glasses: the first watch officer had gone to bed. The close explosions caused extensive damage and drove U-432 to a record one thousand feet.

The depth to which U-432 plunged so terrified all hands that Eckhardt decided to surface in broad daylight and attempt to outrun his attacker. When U-432 popped up, Aconit was merely a half mile away. The French spotted the U-boat and instantly opened fire with the 4" gun and other weapons.
NOTE THAT THIS UBOAT WAS ALSO BADLY DAMAGED AND SHE STILL ENDURED PRESSURE AT 1000 FEET

Link: http://207.44.214.111/subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=128787

I think that german subs haved greater survivabilty, and US subs haved superior firepower. Against UK hunter-killers German u-boat´s got definetly better chance due their deeper dive capability, noticable smaller hull design(small sonar profile) and obviously better manouverability.

[Sailor Steve]

Plus, young and aggressive skippers like Mush Morton and Samuel D. Dealey (aka "The Destroyer Killer"), would turn the RN's sub hunters into the hunted. :up: :up: :arrgh!: :arrgh!:
Umm...they were both caught and killed by the "inferior" Japanese destroyers. Maybe more real discussion and less boasting...:dead:

[yamato9]

Here is clearly visible who got beter chance.
Note that this data is taken from Wikipedia and so this reflects standard worlds opinion about US & Jerry´s WW2 submarine capability.

LOOK ON TEST DEPTHS AND DISPLACMENT, so what you think who is the sub of the day in strugle against UK destroyers?


Balao class
Displacement: 1,525 tons (1,549 t) surfaced
2,424 tons (2463 t) submerged
Speed: 20.25 knots (38 km/h) surfaced
8.75 knots (16 km/h) submerged
Range: 11,000 nautical miles (20,000 km) surfaced at 10 knots (19 km/h)
Endurance: 48 hours at 2 knots (3.7 km/h) submerged
75 days on patrol
Test depth: 400 ft (120 m)
Complement: 10 officers, 70–71 enlisted[3]
Armament: 10 × 21-inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes
(six forward, four aft)
24 torpedoes

1 × 5-inch (127 mm) / 25 caliber deck gun
four machine guns

Type 7c
Displacement: Surfaced 769 tons,
submerged 871 tons
Speed: Surfaced 17.7 knot (33 km/h),
submerged 7.6 knot

Test depth: 230 m (754 ft). Calculated crush depth: 250-295 m (820-967 ft)
Range: Surfaced 15170 km (8200 miles) at 10 knots (19 km/h),
submerged 150 km (80 miles) at 4 knots (7 km/h)
Complement: 44-52 officers & ratings
Armament: 5 53.3cm Torpedo tubes: 4 bow, 1 stern (14 torpedoes or 26 TMA or 39 TMB mines))
1 C35 88mm gun/L45 deck gun with 220 rounds
Various FLAK weaponry

All doubts stops here.

[msalama]

Who has the best submarine of WWII? Well I do of course. It's only a IIA and I've only died thrice :smug:

[V.C. Sniper]

Here is clearly visible who got beter chance.
Note that this data is taken from Wikipedia and so this reflects standard worlds opinion about US & Jerry´s WW2 submarine capability.

LOOK ON TEST DEPTHS AND DISPLACMENT, so what you think who is the sub of the day in strugle against UK destroyers?


Balao class
Displacement: 1,525 tons (1,549 t) surfaced
2,424 tons (2463 t) submerged
Speed: 20.25 knots (38 km/h) surfaced
8.75 knots (16 km/h) submerged
Range: 11,000 nautical miles (20,000 km) surfaced at 10 knots (19 km/h)
Endurance: 48 hours at 2 knots (3.7 km/h) submerged
75 days on patrol
Test depth: 400 ft (120 m)
Complement: 10 officers, 70–71 enlisted[3]
Armament: 10 × 21-inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes
(six forward, four aft)
24 torpedoes

1 × 5-inch (127 mm) / 25 caliber deck gun
four machine guns

Type 7c
Displacement: Surfaced 769 tons,
submerged 871 tons
Speed: Surfaced 17.7 knot (33 km/h),
submerged 7.6 knot

Test depth: 230 m (754 ft). Calculated crush depth: 250-295 m (820-967 ft)
Range: Surfaced 15170 km (8200 miles) at 10 knots (19 km/h),
submerged 150 km (80 miles) at 4 knots (7 km/h)
Complement: 44-52 officers & ratings
Armament: 5 53.3cm Torpedo tubes: 4 bow, 1 stern (14 torpedoes or 26 TMA or 39 TMB mines))
1 C35 88mm gun/L45 deck gun with 220 rounds
Various FLAK weaponry

All doubts stops here.Survivability also depends on OFFENSE!!! You gotta punch em' in the nose!:arrgh!: And that's where the mighty Gato/Balao cleary beats the uboats in, with 6 bow and 4 stern tubes, you got a lotta firepower to send at those destroyers before having to result to going deep.

And besides, no body knows how deep the Balao class are capable of going. They could go way beyond 1,000 feet and survive for all we know. =D

[Sailor Steve]

Balao class
Test depth: 400 ft (120 m)
You (they) give no calculated crush depth. According to at least one source I've seen the Balao is good to at least 800 feet, and the Tench 900.

Type 7c
Test depth: 230 m (754 ft). Calculated crush depth: 250-295 m (820-967 ft)
According to http://uboat.net/types/viic.htm the calulated crush depth is only 220 m (722 ft)

All doubts stops here.
Not really. There is a lot of good discussion going on here about all the different parameters of the various boats, and one or two people showing some basic numbers and then proclaiming the discussion over doesn't help anyone.

[Torplexed]

Survivability also depends on OFFENSE!!! You gotta punch em' in the nose!:arrgh!: And that's where the mighty Gato/Balao cleary beats the uboats in, with 6 bow and 4 stern tubes, you got a lotta firepower to send at those destroyers before having to result to going deep.

And besides, no body knows how deep the Balao class are capable of going. They could go way beyond 1,000 feet and survive for all we know. =D


Problem is you gotta get in range to punch them. Unlike the Japanese who relied mainly upon visual lookouts they have radar too. And they can detect your radar emissions. Their sonar suites were excellent too. Working in groups they'd make your life short especially the with ahead throwing weapons. :p

Hey...I'm a proud American, but I wouldn't wanna go up against Johnny Walker and his deadly HKs.;)

[Ducimus]

Here is clearly visible who got beter chance.
Note that this data is taken from Wikipedia and so this reflects standard worlds opinion about US & Jerry´s WW2 submarine capability.

LOOK ON TEST DEPTHS AND DISPLACMENT, so what you think who is the sub of the day in strugle against UK destroyers?


Balao class
http://www.waterfootprint.org/images/gallery/original/apple.jpg

Type 7c
http://www.geocities.com/litcrittoolkit/orange.gif

All doubts stops here.
:roll:

[yamato9]

Survivability also depends on OFFENSE!!! You gotta punch em' in the nose!:arrgh!: And that's where the mighty Gato/Balao cleary beats the uboats in, with 6 bow and 4 stern tubes, you got a lotta firepower to send at those destroyers before having to result to going deep.

And besides, no body knows how deep the Balao class are capable of going. They could go way beyond 1,000 feet and survive.

Well, yes its true...i always admire to WWII US subs in their brutality of firepower, but i still belive that Jeery´s u-boats ar more suitable subs for dealing with british killers. 5 TT is also quite enough for taking some destroyer(expecially if they loaded with acoustic torps) but at the end its showed that destroyers more or less get beter end in this types of duels.

If Balao (test depth 120) can go beyond 300 m the who knows how deep was cracking point of 7 0r 7c41 boats with theirs 230 m test depths.

[Fincuan]

I think I'll take Balao(out of the choices Ducimus offers us), it just looks so delicious. The 7c pic is a bit blurry, so it's hard to tell its real quality :)

[yamato9]

Here is clearly visible who got beter chance.
Note that this data is taken from Wikipedia and so this reflects standard worlds opinion about US & Jerry´s WW2 submarine capability.

LOOK ON TEST DEPTHS AND DISPLACMENT, so what you think who is the sub of the day in strugle against UK destroyers?


Balao class
http://www.waterfootprint.org/images/gallery/original/apple.jpg

Type 7c
http://www.geocities.com/litcrittoolkit/orange.gif

All doubts stops here.
:roll:


:nope:

[Torplexed]

The Balao is the apple of my eye but the Type 7C has a certain a-peel. ;)

[Sailor Steve]

If Balao (test depth 120) can go beyond 300 m the who knows how deep was cracking point of 7 0r 7c41 boats with theirs 230 m test depths.
Very true, but how deep is only one factor. As was stated earlier, US subs would have had a harder time against British (and US) ASW techniques, but there is no way a 7C could have conducted a war across the distances required in the Pacific war.

I sometimes joke about US boats being better because they had showers, laundry, refrigerators and ice cream, but morale is also a factor in the isolation of life inside a submarine. Which is the better boat depends much on the situation and type of warfare being conducted.

[Antiacus]

Type IID

In my mind, sneakiest = best.

[yamato9]

Balao class
Test depth: 400 ft (120 m)
You (they) give no calculated crush depth. According to at least one source I've seen the Balao is good to at least 800 feet, and the Tench 900.

Type 7c
Test depth: 230 m (754 ft). Calculated crush depth: 250-295 m (820-967 ft)
According to http://uboat.net/types/viic.htm the calulated crush depth is only 220 m (722 ft)

All doubts stops here.
Not really. There is a lot of good discussion going on here about all the different parameters of the various boats, and one or two people showing some basic numbers and then proclaiming the discussion over doesn't help anyone.

1. Yes, statistic are diferent from site to site or book from book.

2. Type 7c/41 have 250 m(820 feet) crush depth. http://uboat.net/types/viic-41.htm

3. True, we can drag this statistics and thinking all day and generaly we could not extract some good(exact) conclusion about which subs are beter. Generaly is mater of how opinion and perspective have someone over submarine warfare in those days.

[yamato9]

If Balao (test depth 120) can go beyond 300 m the who knows how deep was cracking point of 7 0r 7c41 boats with theirs 230 m test depths.
Very true, but how deep is only one factor. As was stated earlier, US subs would have had a harder time against British (and US) ASW techniques, but there is no way a 7C could have conducted a war across the distances required in the Pacific war.

I sometimes joke about US boats being better because they had showers, laundry, refrigerators and ice cream, but morale is also a factor in the isolation of life inside a submarine. Which is the better boat depends much on the situation and type of warfare being conducted.

Totaly agreed with you, both subs(US & German) was designed for different tasks and they performed best in ther field of use. Hardly is to imagine survival of US sub in high aircraft & destroyers traffic on atlantic or Med. and also vice versa german u boat who needs to cross over entire Pacific to pound some Japs.

My first post are based on hipotetical engagment of uboat vs british destroyer and then US sub vs brit. DD. OK this is my point of view... but i think that the VIIc/41 is more suitable for this, but this dont´t need to be also opinion of all others here in discussion.

[Ducimus]

True, we can drag this statistics and thinking all day and generaly we could not extract some good(exact) conclusion about which subs are beter. Generaly is mater of how opinion and perspective have someone over submarine warfare in those days.

Thats why these discussions are kinda pointless. And lets not kid ourselves, the majority here are biased for one type of sub or another. People tend to enter these discussions, like they were lobbying over who's football team is better. I admit, im a big fan of fleet boats, but im not so diluted as to compare apples and oranges. comparing a Gato or Balao fleet boat to a type 7c uboat is like comparing a sports car with an SUV.

[yamato9]

True, we can drag this statistics and thinking all day and generaly we could not extract some good(exact) conclusion about which subs are beter. Generaly is mater of how opinion and perspective have someone over submarine warfare in those days.

Thats why these discussions are kinda pointless. And lets not kid ourselves, the majority here are biased for one type of sub or another. People tend to enter these discussions, like they were lobbying over who's football team is better. I admit, im a big fan of fleet boats, but im not so diluted as to compare apples and oranges. comparing a Gato or Balao fleet boat to a type 7c uboat is like comparing a sports car with an SUV.

Thumbs up mate!:up:

By the way i´m also a fan of fleet subs, i like their good look(design),impresive size and number of torpedo tubes, also on other hand i also like those much smaller u-boats (type VII & IX) and their nasty look.

Unfortunatly i dont have SH4 yet, to sail on those titans.

[Grayson02sept1980]

Excluding the Type XXI which is the clear winner! Before that type what was the differance between Japanese, American, German, British and Italian subs?

I know alot about U-boats but nothing much about any of the others.

It does seem that the American subs were huge in comparison to even the type IX Based on pictures from SH IV.

So Fire away, WHichs subs were better and which were worse and why.:know:
Germany - most developed Sub type XXI - was father/origin for most modern Sub design
USA - biggest with the GATO (I think) - also very succesfull :yep:
Japan - first Sub carrying two planes - USA was astonished when they got hands on it
GB ... forget about it... jsut like tanks the British never really got a hang on subs..
Russia - :rotfl:

so when you ask about the "best" I would say it was Germany with the type VII which was - despite the high loses - the most successfull sub in history! :rock:


.... that is - as was asked for - my oppinion... no statistics - no numbers.

[Fincuan]

Japan - first Sub carrying two planes - USA was astonished when they got hands on it


Make that three, and they were supposedly able to launch all of them within 45 minutes of surfacing. If the sub design was audacious, so was their final mission in the war: Bombing the Panama canal locks from the east. IIRC they got underway, but the mission was cancelled before the first sub was out of the Indian Ocean.

[Torplexed]

The Japanese actually cancelled the Panama Canal lock attack in favor of an attack on the closer Allied naval base on Ulithi Atoll where the US carrier fleet was anchored. However, before that could take place, the Emperor announced the surrender of Japan and the subs returned home to surrender.

[Jimbuna]

Excluding the Type XXI which is the clear winner! Before that type what was the differance between Japanese, American, German, British and Italian subs?

I know alot about U-boats but nothing much about any of the others.

It does seem that the American subs were huge in comparison to even the type IX Based on pictures from SH IV.

So Fire away, WHichs subs were better and which were worse and why.:know:
Germany - most developed Sub type XXI - was father/origin for most modern Sub design
USA - biggest with the GATO (I think) - also very succesfull :yep:
Japan - first Sub carrying two planes - USA was astonished when they got hands on it
GB ... forget about it... jsut like tanks the British never really got a hang on subs..
Russia - :rotfl:

so when you ask about the "best" I would say it was Germany with the type VII which was - despite the high loses - the most successfull sub in history! :rock:


.... that is - as was asked for - my oppinion... no statistics - no numbers.

Germany - Correct

USA - Wrong....I-400 Japan (they could actually carry 3 Aichi M6A Seiran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aichi_M6A) aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft) )

GB - Check out the S, T and in particular the U class in the Med (Wanklyn VC)

As stated earlier.....this is a kind of pointless no winners/no losers debate.

Most countries had different requirements of their subs and as such, each was designed for a different specific purpose.

It could easily be argued all had differing strengths and weaknesses.

A bit like comparing apples and pears http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/9708/piratebf4.gif (http://imageshack.us)

[AVGWarhawk]

The better subs were the ones that made it home.
The ones that made it home were better because they came home alive.
:up:
The ones that didn't make it home were worse. For obvious reasons.
:down:

Do I win a prize?
:lol:


Although this might look like strange logic on the surface, in retrospect, it is not really. Particularly this line, 'the ones that made it home'. What caused a submarine not to make it home? The submarine itself or the crew? The uboat/fleet boat is only as good as its crew. Other than that, it is a cold steel hull in the water. It knows nothing and does not think for itself. So, it is not a comparison of which boat is better. All boats are great boats in the right hands. Just like a race car can only win if manned by the correct driver. All crews were aggressive, daring and sometimes depended on luck to bring the crew and boat through. It is all about the crew that makes the machine a awesome tool for which it was made. Let's face it, throw the whole lot of us in this thread in any of the WW2 designed boats for a patrol right now, we probably would not make it out of the harbor let alone get underway from the dock. It was all about training, working as a team, thinking ahead, understanding your actions or inactions can doom/save the entire crew. The leadership in the boat had to be top notch and most if not all were. So, the TypeII, S class, up to the XXI/Tench class were all great boats if used correctly and to the best of that particular boats ability.

[jas39]

Excluding the Type XXI which is the clear winner!

Well let’s not just assume that the Type XXI is the clear hands down winner here.

I reference Clay Blair’s 1996 book “Hitler’s U-Boats” in two volumes.

Specifically I would like to quote from the Forward of the book where Mr. Blair discusses the United States’ evaluation of the U-2513 Type XXI Uboat. While 118 of the Type XXI boats were constructed, I believe only two (U2511 and U3008) had combat patrols.

From the Blair book

“In the classified report [the American evaluators] sent to the Chief of Naval Operations, dated July 1946, they wrote that while the Type XXI had many desirable features that should be exploited, it also had many grave design and manufacturing faults. The clear implication was that owning to these faults, the XXI could not have made a big difference in the Battle of the Atlantic. Among the major faults the Americans enumerated:

Poor Structural Integrity.

Hurriedly prefabricated in thirty-two different factories that had little or no experience in submarine building, the eight major hull sections of the type XXi were crudely made and did not fit together properly. Therefore the pressure hull was weak and not capable of withstanding sea pressure at great depths or the explosions of close depth charges. The Germans reported that in their structural tests, the hull failed at a simulated depth of 900 feet. The British reported failure at 800 feet, less than the failure depth of the conventional German U-Boats.

Underpowered Diesel Engines

The new model, six-cylinder diesels were fitted with superchargers to generate the required horsepower. The system was so poorly designed and manufactured that the superchargers could not be used. This failure reduced the generated horsepower by almost half: From 2,000 to 1,200, leaving the Type XII ruinously underpowered. Consequently, the maximum surface speed was only 15.6 knots, less than any ocean going U-boat built during the war and slightly slower than the corvette convoy-escort vessel. The reduction in horsepower also substantially increased the time required to carry out a full battery charge.

Impractical Hydraulic System

The main lines, accumulators, cylinders, and pistons of the hydraulic gear or operating the diving planes, rudders, torpedo tube outer doors, and antiaircraft gun turrets on the bridge were too complex and delicate and located outside the pressure hull. This gear was therefore subject to saltwater leakage, corrosion, and enemy weaponry. It could not be repaired from inside the pressure hull.

Imperfect and Hazardous Snorkel

Even in moderate seas, the mast dunked often, automatically closing the air intake and exhaust ports. Even so, salt water poured into the ship’s bilges and had to be discharged overboard continuously with noisy pumps. More over, during these shutdowns, the diesels dangerously sucked air from inside the boat and deadly exhaust gas backed up, causing not only headaches and eye discomfort, but also serious respiratory illnesses. Snorkeling in the Type XXI was therefore a nightmarish experience to be minimized to the greatest extent possible.” End of quote

So on paper the Type XXI should have been the best submarine of the time. If the Germans had the proper manufacturing capability the problems with the pressure hull and the diesel engines could have been fixed. The design of the hydraulic system being outside of the pressure hull is, in my opinion, a bad idea, just for the reasons listed in the Blair book.

Did the Type XXI have a reputation that was greater than the reality?

In the 1995 book “Count not the dead: The popular image of the German Submarine” Michael L. Hadley wrote “During both wars and during the inter-war years as well, the U-boat was mythologized more than any other weapon of war.”

Perhaps the greatest capability of the Type XXI was the myth of the Type XXI.

Since only two of them were used in combat (if memory serves me correctly) we will never know how effective the Type XXI would have truly been.

I think that a good Type VIIC or IXD2 might have been a better all around boat.

I have to say that I respectfully disagree with the opinions of the book. In the end of the war, the 2 XXI's that the US could have captured would have been of bad quality naturally because their manufacturing had been hurried in order to put them to sea. If the boats had ben built by the exact specifications as on the drawing board, then it might have been different...

[Elmer Kosterman]

One thing US boats had in WWII that the Germans didn't was a torpedo computer that could update solutions while the submarine itself was manouvering.

[Grayson02sept1980]

I have to apologize... the Russians quite had some different Subs....
How "good" or "not good" they were... I cannot say.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soviet_and_Russian_submarine_classes#World _War_2_Era

But that would be something for a Mod... the Russion subs :hmm:

[Penelope_Grey]

See... the word "best" is very up in the air even at the lol... best of times.

There are always going to be "fanboys" in every walk of life, though I prefer the U-Boat I like to believe that I'm not so jaded that if somebody asked me a question, and fleet boat was the right answer, I would give them that answer.

That is the mark of a true fan, giving the right answer, even if you don't like that answer.

[danurve]

The best Sub I know is right up the street from me.
Lucky 7 Deli. Meatballs, light sauce & a little parm sprinkled on top.


Hey Pen! BDU found out where your hiding and the word is out.

http://huntny.us/sh3/gwx/23_58.jpg

[Kipparikalle]

OMFG AMERIKANZ SUBMRZN R BEST LOHL!!!1111oneone

Srsly Sniper, take a time to think before opening your mouth.

Germans have the best submarines AND submarine crews & tactics.
German's had better tactics than Americans, according to my knowledge of course.

But What really matters in combat is how exprienced the fighting opposites are. You can have ****load of high-tech weapons but you're unskilled, and then your opponent is rambo with Bow, you're ****ed up.

[AVGWarhawk]

OMFG AMERIKANZ SUBMRZN R BEST LOHL!!!1111oneone

Srsly Sniper, take a time to think before opening your mouth.

Germans have the best submarines AND submarine crews & tactics.
German's had better tactics than Americans, according to my knowledge of course.

But What really matters in combat is how exprienced the fighting opposites are. You can have ****load of high-tech weapons but you're unskilled, and then your opponent is rambo with Bow, you're ****ed up.
Easy there. Like I posted a few back. It ain't the boat, it is the crew. I see you recognize that with the "unskilled" remark. Therefore, the are all good if you use the boats abilities to your advantage and are trained enough as a crew to do so.

[AVGWarhawk]

See... the word "best" is very up in the air even at the lol... best of times.

There are always going to be "fanboys" in every walk of life, though I prefer the U-Boat I like to believe that I'm not so jaded that if somebody asked me a question, and fleet boat was the right answer, I would give them that answer.

That is the mark of a true fan, giving the right answer, even if you don't like that answer.

My head hurt after reading that.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

..."all you need is good men" ;)

Amen to that.:up: :up: :up:

[Penelope_Grey]

Hey Pen! BDU found out where your hiding and the word is out.

That's it!?

THATS my cameo in GWX a badly damaged cruiser!? Well... somebody's head is going to roll for this. :arrgh!::arrgh!::arrgh!::shifty:

My head hurt after reading that.

In a good way? :hmm::D

[AVGWarhawk]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk
My head hurt after reading that.


In a good way? :hmm::D


Is there every a good way for a head to hurt :hmm:

[Penelope_Grey]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk
My head hurt after reading that.


In a good way? :hmm::D

Is there every a good way for a head to hurt :hmm:

Ah come on... was good wasn't it?

[ozzysoldier]

the dutch had some boats too:D

[Kipparikalle]

And Finland too! (Tho there were only 5 of them, 2 got sunk)

And come to think about it... Why GWX Doesn't have the legendary finnish battleships "Ilmarinen" And "Väinämöinen"?

[AVGWarhawk]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk
My head hurt after reading that.


In a good way? :hmm::D

Is there every a good way for a head to hurt :hmm:
Ah come on... was good wasn't it?

Coming from you it was excellent. Have you tried the SH4UB addon yet?

[predavolk]

These arguments are fun, but impossible to solve. I think the best argument one can make is which sub had the greatest impact on the overall war. And in that case, there is no doubt that the Type VII, just like the Me-109, had the greatest impact on the war BY FAR. You can also compare tonnages sank, and again, I believe the Type VII comes out well ahead. Neither the VII nor the Me-109 might be the very best sub/airplane from WW2, but of all those involved, they had the greatest impact. It's for the same reason that I consider the P-48 to be superior to the Mustang in terms of its importance.

You can argue about what COULD do forever. Even if it's fun! But as for what DID do, that's quite clear. If I had to pick a sub, I would pick one of the latest US boats because they had the most recent advancements. If I had was playing "pro-line" or betting on the number of "goals" a sub got, I would bet very heavily on the Type VII. I wouldn't bet much on anything non-nuclear vs. the Allies in the Atlantic circa 44-45!

[Kipparikalle]

These arguments are fun, but impossible to solve. I think the best argument one can make is which sub had the greatest impact on the overall war. And in that case, there is no doubt that the Type VII, just like the Me-109, had the greatest impact on the war BY FAR. You can also compare tonnages sank, and again, I believe the Type VII comes out well ahead. Neither the VII nor the Me-109 might be the very best sub/airplane from WW2, but of all those involved, they had the greatest impact. It's for the same reason that I consider the P-48 to be superior to the Mustang in terms of its importance.

You can argue about what COULD do forever. Even if it's fun! But as for what DID do, that's quite clear. If I had to pick a sub, I would pick one of the latest US boats because they had the most recent advancements. If I had was playing "pro-line" or betting on the number of "goals" a sub got, I would bet very heavily on the Type VII. I wouldn't bet much on anything non-nuclear vs. the Allies in the Atlantic circa 44-45!
God damnit Predavolk! Now we don't have nothing to do in here!

[Platapus]

I have to say that I respectfully disagree with the opinions of the book. In the end of the war, the 2 XXI's that the US could have captured would have been of bad quality naturally because their manufacturing had been hurried in order to put them to sea. If the boats had ben built by the exact specifications as on the drawing board, then it might have been different...

May I ask, respectfully, what you base your disagreement on? Do you have dissenting evaluations of the Type XXI. If so, I would be very very interested in reading them. The evaluation of the Type XXI is becoming an interest with me.

I agree about the manufacturing but we have to evaluate the Type XXI as it was actually built not as it "should have" been built. But manufacturing aside, what about the Hydraulic System? That seems to be to be a pretty significant vulnerability that was a design issue not a manufacturing issue.

Anyway Love or hate the Type XXI as you like :) That's what friendly debates are all about :up:

I just think that in sub games the Type XXI seems to be elevated to mythological levels as the ultimate super-sub. In sub games the Type XXI may be the bestest boat but I believe that the original poster's question was focused on reality.

Based on the American evaluation (and I see no reason to suspect them lying), the Type XXI could have been the best boat, but in reality had significant problems that could have eventually been fixed if the Germans had time.

I am sure that given time (something the Germans simply did not have in 1945) that the Type XXI Mod 2 would have been a better boat.

In the context of "could have been" the best sub, an investigation of some of the Japanese subs with the Type 95 could have been the best subs if their design was improved and their implementation strategy changed.

But more importantly, as the other posters stated. Best Submarine is difficult to address as the missions and operating environments were different.

A better question would be "what was the best submarine for xxxx mission?

[Platapus]

And in that case, there is no doubt that the Type VII, just like the Me-109, had the greatest impact on the war BY FAR.

The maximum diving depth of the Me-109 sucked. It was able to dive quickly but once fully submerged it took forever to surface again.

The maneuverability of the Type VII stunk too. Split-s and Immelman's were awkward and ineffective.
:lol:

[Fincuan]

And Finland too! (Tho there were only 5 of them, 2 got sunk)

Tsst tsst... None of them got sunk, but all except Vesikko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_submarine_Vesikko), which is a museum boat in Helsinki, were scrapped after the Continuation war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_war)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Submarines_of_Finland

[Graf Paper]

Platpus, that was classically..:rotfl:

I'd have to say that if you were to define "best" my own views are thus...

Assuming equally competent crews as a measuring stick:

Technologically and tactically, the u-boat in general is the better. Many advances in sub tech were copied by the Allies from captured u-boats, especially the XXI being the template for sub technology during the beginning of the Cold War. The Wolfpack and other tactics of the U-bootwaffe are still required reading at Annapolis. Germany demonstrated to the world that the submarine was a viable and deadly weapon.

The irony there being that it was an American that invented the modern submarine, yet it was Germany that exploited the technology and used the submarine to its fullest potential.

Strategically and logistically the American subs were the better. Their interdiction of Japanese shipping was far more successful than Germany's interdiction of Britain.

All the "what-if" comparisons aside, the Atlantic sub war was an entirely different beast from the Pacific sub war so it's difficult to make accurate comparisons.

[msalama]

But that would be something for a Mod... the Russion subs :hmm:

Yah, that would rock. Could be difficult to implement, though, because Russian sub warfare during WWII is a subject no-one seems to know anything about, at least in the West...

Gotta read this methinks: http://uboat.net/books/reviews.html/title/2247

[Torplexed]

The Soviet Union had the largest sub fleet in the world when Germany attacked in 1941. Over 200 boats of various types. But they were victims of Russia's rambling geography being divided between four widely separated fleets; the Baltic, Black, Northern and Pacific. Given the Soviet Union's obvious army-centric approach, they also seem to have been poorly maintained and to have lacked sonar or modern fire control equipment. Other than the sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff late in the war with heavy loss of life I can't think of too many Russian submarine successes that come to mind.

You can read about the Wilhelm Gustloff disaster here: http://www.wilhelmgustloff.com/

[Jimbuna]

I don't think the navies position was helped by Stalins purge:

http://www.gendercide.org/case_stalin.html

[Penelope_Grey]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk
My head hurt after reading that.


In a good way? :hmm::D

Is there every a good way for a head to hurt :hmm:
Ah come on... was good wasn't it?
Coming from you it was excellent. Have you tried the SH4UB addon yet?

I don't know if that is an insult of compliment.:shifty:

[AVGWarhawk]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk
My head hurt after reading that.


In a good way? :hmm::D

Is there every a good way for a head to hurt :hmm:
Ah come on... was good wasn't it?
Coming from you it was excellent. Have you tried the SH4UB addon yet?
I don't know if that is an insult of compliment.:shifty:

Compliment. Have you tried the add on?

[Penelope_Grey]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk
My head hurt after reading that.


In a good way? :hmm::D

Is there every a good way for a head to hurt :hmm:
Ah come on... was good wasn't it?
Coming from you it was excellent. Have you tried the SH4UB addon yet?
I don't know if that is an insult of compliment.:shifty:
Compliment. Have you tried the add on?

Yes I have.

Will post mine thoughts later on the right section. :up:

[AVGWarhawk]

Please do. :D

[Kipparikalle]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk
My head hurt after reading that.


In a good way? :hmm::D

Is there every a good way for a head to hurt :hmm:
Ah come on... was good wasn't it?
Coming from you it was excellent. Have you tried the SH4UB addon yet?
I don't know if that is an insult of compliment.:shifty:
Compliment. Have you tried the add on?
Yes I have.

Will post mine thoughts later on the right section. :up:
And the great pyramid of quotes keeps on building.

[Jimbuna]

You've just broken the magic circle :lol:

Send your apologies to 50 people you know on the internet or you will experience bad luck forever :rotfl:

[Kipparikalle]

You've just broken the magic circle :lol:

Send your apologies to 50 people you know on the internet or you will experience bad luck forever :rotfl:
SILENCE YOU PATHETIC HERETIC! THE BUILD OF THIS PYRAMID IS THE WILL OF SUBSIM'S EMPEROR!

PRAISE THE EMPEROR!


i have been playing Dawn of War for too long...

[ridgewayranger]

Hi Everybody,
I find this discussion quite interesting although most of it is pure speculation and, in some cases, flag waving. I served in various classes of R.N boats in the 50's and 60's. We were seconded to the R.C.N. based in Halifax on an A boat and had several visits to places such as Brooklyn Yard, New London and Norfolk where we usually tied up alongside a Host boat. The U.S.crews were always very interested and, after being shown around, were almost unanimous that for comfort they preferred their boats but for operations they would prefer ours.
The hospitality we were shown was wonderful. Three of us, young(ish!) petty officers were trying to find our way out of Norfolk yard when a car drew up and we were invited to hop in. We were taken to the home of the Exec of our host boat, LtCdr Vincent Shirley Lunn, met his wife and were given a lovely dinner.
I hope he, or someone who knows him, will get in touch.
RR

[Hartmann]

Germany had better hulls and steel, and other things like dive times, maximum depth but allies had better ASW devices like radar, and better confort..but the electronics technology makes a big difference in the ressults of the war.

I think that a gato could easily survive a biscaia cross with the radar.

[Friedmann]

Hi Everybody,
I find this discussion quite interesting although most of it is pure speculation and, in some cases, flag waving. I served in various classes of R.N boats in the 50's and 60's. We were seconded to the R.C.N. based in Halifax on an A boat and had several visits to places such as Brooklyn Yard, New London and Norfolk where we usually tied up alongside a Host boat. The U.S.crews were always very interested and, after being shown around, were almost unanimous that for comfort they preferred their boats but for operations they would prefer ours.
The hospitality we were shown was wonderful. Three of us, young(ish!) petty officers were trying to find our way out of Norfolk yard when a car drew up and we were invited to hop in. We were taken to the home of the Exec of our host boat, LtCdr Vincent Shirley Lunn, met his wife and were given a lovely dinner.
I hope he, or someone who knows him, will get in touch.
RR

Thanks for the information, always great to hear stuff first hand. My grandfather served on an A class boat, HMS Anchorite.

Your views seem to be somewhat similar to his, he felt that the Americans designed subs with crew comfort foremost while the RN would build a weapons system and more or less wrap crew quarters around it.

[jorgeneo560]

well, i think that is something that will never know, i liked more the german subs, but thank god, that the allys win the war, i think if germany has more time and resource to the xxi develop, i think that balao or gato class will be appear a toys against the xxi type and the atlantic war could finish in diferent way, and it's true the aws sistems of the us subs make the diference, like the german torpedo (g7e i think the name is) acoustic homing head (great for blow some nasty destroyers in attack run in sh3 :rock:), but if we can make sub vs sub, i think that us subs wins, not becouse are better subs, i think that could won becouse the aws and computer solution system, a german sub dosent had chance.
But like a sub, i prefer the german, becouse had bether hulls, and are pretty :P, anyway , i want a sh5 with soviet subs!, that would be awsome :P

[onelifecrisis]

just shoot me now and end the pain

[Torplexed]

just shoot me now and end the pain

:rotfl:

Who had the best dredging equipment of WW2? :D They must be using it to resurrect this thread.

[onelifecrisis]

:haha:

[Jimbuna]

just shoot me now and end the pain


http://www.thecomicforums.com/forum2//style_emoticons/default/suicide_anim.gif

[Synthfg]

The Soviet Union had the largest sub fleet in the world when Germany attacked in 1941. Over 200 boats of various types. But they were victims of Russia's rambling geography being divided between four widely separated fleets; the Baltic, Black, Northern and Pacific. Given the Soviet Union's obvious army-centric approach, they also seem to have been poorly maintained and to have lacked sonar or modern fire control equipment. Other than the sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff late in the war with heavy loss of life I can't think of too many Russian submarine successes that come to mind.

You can read about the Wilhelm Gustloff disaster here: http://www.wilhelmgustloff.com/

Think the main issue with the Soviet sub fleet is that the secrecy inherant in the communist system, combined with the traditions of the silent service means that there is very little published material on there role in the war,
There were several significant victories inclunding the Gustloff however

Does anyone here have a decent summary of soviet sub activity in the war ?

[kaptkirkU4467]

Does anyone here have a decent summary of soviet sub activity in the war ?

Yes..but right now the book's 400 miles from me.

I see now how old the thread is...wow.
.the XXI was a real junker and would never have survived action in the Atlantic.It looked cool,but was put togather in a real stupid way.

The US Fleet boats of the Balo class were good for the job they had to do..but there flaws were as many as the Type VII and IX.

But all here have forgot the Dutch boats!! :rock:

[Bronzewing]

Personally I think the Kreigsmarine would have been better served had they not bothered trying to switch to the revolutionarry type XXI which they just DID NOT HAVE THE TIME to develop properly and had instead built the type VIIC/42 which was a type VIIC with extra fuel, torpedoes and thicker pressure hull. The VIIC/42 would have been the deepest diving yet, and would have had a faster dive time than the regular type VIIC, and it would not have taken as long to get into service. It was a common fault that Germany had in general in ww2 that in their quest to have the BEST equipment they never built enough of the types that already worked, and ended up with hundreds of small experimental classes most of which were never ready in time.
"Quantity has a quality all its own." Joseph Stalin

[Synthfg]

Personally I think the Kreigsmarine would have been better served had they not bothered trying to switch to the revolutionarry type XXI which they just DID NOT HAVE THE TIME to develop properly and had instead built the type VIIC/42 which was a type VIIC with extra fuel, torpedoes and thicker pressure hull. The VIIC/42 would have been the deepest diving yet, and would have had a faster dive time than the regular type VIIC, and it would not have taken as long to get into service. It was a common fault that Germany had in general in ww2 that in their quest to have the BEST equipment they never built enough of the types that already worked, and ended up with hundreds of small experimental classes most of which were never ready in time.
"Quantity has a quality all its own." Joseph Stalin

TBH by 44/45 even a properly funcioning fleet of XXI's would not have gotten far against the RN/USN anti submarine types,
It wasn't until the Nautalus and the sub launched stand off missile that the balence of power swung back to the subs

[AVGWarhawk]

http://www.thecomicforums.com/forum2//style_emoticons/default/suicide_anim.gif



:har:

This is like finding an old girlfriend who had VD when you were dating her.

[BulSoldier]

TBH by 44/45 even a properly funcioning fleet of XXI's would not have gotten far against the RN/USN anti submarine types,
It wasn't until the Nautalus and the sub launched stand off missile that the balence of power swung back to the subs

The problem is that missile launching submarines are quite different.Actually apart from the ability to submerge their roles and armament are quite distant.

I must say that i am a fan of VIIC so that for me is the best.

However as stated before, uboots arent made to sink navy ships, as they were merchant raiders.In the end it is all about what the sub is made to do and how well it did.

If the us subs were made for the same job and did the same job then we could compare them, however sins this isnt the case we cant.

Probably we can however compare the diffrent subs that were doing the same job (not exactly the same but as close as it gets)

[Peto]

Decided I'd throw a couple pennies in to this discussion... I've watched the debate over which nation had the best subs in WWII with a mix of interest and amusement and kept my opinions to myself. I still will (sort of) and let history decide which sub classes were the best design.

After WWII--Russia, UK and the USA split up the uboats so they could check them out. They each received fully oprational boats of various types. The types were all tested, dissected, put back together and tested again. So--the real question is--what boat type had the greatest longevity after the war? The boat that remained in operational use by the most fleets would inherintly indicate that it was the best design. Those that were "retired" the soonest would be indicative of being the most flawed/limited.

The winner is? Balao and Gato classes. They were still operational well into the 60's. Stream-lined and with snorts added, they could do everything any other boat of WWII was capable of. It wasn't done in WWII because it wasn't nessecary for their success. They didn't dive so deep mainly because they didn't have to (which doesn't mean they couldn't). And diving deep is worth very little if there is still a hunter right above you that you can't escape from...

History reveals the winner.

[BulSoldier]

I dont think this is reasonable.There are many reasons as for why a nation would keep old subs.

And the most obveous one is for this nation prioritazing(spl?) their military modernization programs for other types of military equipment.(aircrafts, tanks etc.)

And the reasons i believe XXI not to be on service at other navies is that they would have to manucture parts especialy for them or make their entire submarines fleets consisting of this type or redisigned but esentialy a foreigh type of sub.Witch would mean to scrap all current boats they would have.

It is simply better to keep the large nubmers they have instead of scraping them in order to construct an entire new subarines (witch were made for atlatik use after all).And consdidering ther eis no Germany after ww2 it is no surpries that uboots werent on active duty after the war :)

[Peto]

I dont think this is reasonable.There are many reasons as for why a nation would keep old subs.

And the most obveous one is for this nation prioritazing(spl?) their military modernization programs for other types of military equipment.(aircrafts, tanks etc.)

And the reasons i believe XXI not to be on service at other navies is that they would have to manucture parts especialy for them or make their entire submarines fleets consisting of this type or redisigned but esentialy a foreigh type of sub.Witch would mean to scrap all current boats they would have.

It is simply better to keep the large nubmers they have instead of scraping them in order to construct an entire new subarines (witch were made for atlatik use after all).And consdidering ther eis no Germany after ww2 it is no surpries that uboots werent on active duty after the war :)

Very good points. :yep: (I still lean toward history's selection though ;)).

[Platapus]

Peto,

Some very valid points there. :salute:

[AVGWarhawk]

Decided I'd throw a couple pennies in to this discussion... I've watched the debate over which nation had the best subs in WWII with a mix of interest and amusement and kept my opinions to myself. I still will (sort of) and let history decide which sub classes were the best design.

After WWII--Russia, UK and the USA split up the uboats so they could check them out. They each received fully oprational boats of various types. The types were all tested, dissected, put back together and tested again. So--the real question is--what boat type had the greatest longevity after the war? The boat that remained in operational use by the most fleets would inherintly indicate that it was the best design. Those that were "retired" the soonest would be indicative of being the most flawed/limited.

The winner is? Balao and Gato classes. They were still operational well into the 60's. Stream-lined and with snorts added, they could do everything any other boat of WWII was capable of. It wasn't done in WWII because it wasn't nessecary for their success. They didn't dive so deep mainly because they didn't have to (which doesn't mean they couldn't). And diving deep is worth very little if there is still a hunter right above you that you can't escape from...

History reveals the winner.

Don't forget the Tench Class:D

[Jimbuna]

A really interesting debate has evolved here.

A little teaser if you like....meant as a potential means to broaden the discussion further:

Would or should success or quality or whatever be measured or have a weighting factor when consideration is given to which submarines sunk the most tonnage?

Should quality be measured in tandem to sinking successes?

[Peto]

Don't forget the Tench Class:D

I hope you can find room in your stoney heart for a smidgeon of foregiveness :wah:. Yes--I should have included the Tench Class :yep:.

[Peto]

Should quality be measured in tandem to sinking successes?

An interesting point. My gut reaction is "no". Why? Because success was more a factor of strategy and tactics than boat design. However--those factors shouldn't be completely ignored either. After all--a boat had to be good enough to be capable of accomplishing the strategies and tactics required of it. IMHO--the Gatos, Balaos (and yes--the Tenches ;)) were more effective at executing the tactics demanded of them than the U-boats were.

To include sub success/ships sunk would also require consideration of ships sunk/subs lost ratios... This is very difficult to do considering the vast differences of ASW capabilities of the Allies vs Japanese. Is it fair to say US subs were better because they lost less boats? Absolutely not. US and Germany weren't up against the same ASW technology levels.

Overall though, I believe US boats were better suited to accomplish their mission. To be truly effective, u-boats required at sea supply (Type XIV's etc). This seriously ham-strung them and reveals a weakness in their capability to accomplish the mission required of them. Arguably--they would have been better off building more IX's than VII's and adjust their doctrine accordingly.

Anyway--I might add more later but I'd better do some work now. I'd hate to have to fire myself :haha:!

[AVGWarhawk]

A really interesting debate has evolved here.

A little teaser if you like....meant as a potential means to broaden the discussion further:

Would or should success or quality or whatever be measured or have a weighting factor when consideration is given to which submarines sunk the most tonnage?

Should quality be measured in tandem to sinking successes?

That is a good question Jim but the uboats got a head start on the action therefore tonnage would be higher for the uboats. Do you concur? :hmmm:

EDIT: If I had to choose between the two and go on patrol, Tench for me. I'm extremely impartial in this matter but that is expected.

[Jimbuna]

That is a good question Jim but the uboats got a head start on the action therefore tonnage would be higher for the uboats. Do you concur? :hmmm:

EDIT: If I had to choose between the two and go on patrol, Tench for me. I'm extremely impartial in this matter but that is expected.

Not losing site of the fact we are comparing apples with pears.....I'd probably err on the side of a pro rata formula with regard to tonnage figures, but taking into account all the differing dynamics and factors I doubt it would ever be possible to agree on such a broad and widely diverse topic.

Basing my opinion on what I have read regarding both the ATO and PTO the only fair conclusion I can come to is a recognition that both submarine arms were relatively successful at what they set out and were designed to do.....the only difference being one accomplished well at the beginning whilst the other did similarly at the end.

[AVGWarhawk]

Not losing site of the fact we are comparing apples with pears.....I'd probably err on the side of a pro rata formula with regard to tonnage figures, but taking into account all the differing dynamics and factors I doubt it would ever be possible to agree on such a broad and widely diverse topic.

Basing my opinion on what I have read regarding both the ATO and PTO the only fair conclusion I can come to is a recognition that both submarine arms were relatively successful at what they set out and were designed to do.....the only difference being one accomplished well at the beginning whilst the other did similarly at the end.

And I sir, will drink to that conclusion! :()1: :yeah:

[Peto]

Not losing site of the fact we are comparing apples with pears.....I'd probably err on the side of a pro rata formula with regard to tonnage figures, but taking into account all the differing dynamics and factors I doubt it would ever be possible to agree on such a broad and widely diverse topic.

Well said! There are so many factors involved that it would be nearly impossible to create a formula everyone would agree with.

Basing my opinion on what I have read regarding both the ATO and PTO the only fair conclusion I can come to is a recognition that both submarine arms were relatively successful at what they set out and were designed to do.....the only difference being one accomplished well at the beginning whilst the other did similarly at the end.

A reasonable statement :yep:.

My only argument along these lines is that the u-boat arm never really had a chance from the beginning (not enough boats to accomplish the envisioned strategy). They were naver able to seriously threaten the UK. In fact, year-by-year statistics reveal that UK's merchant fleet grew every year of the war, replacements and new builds from many sources were always more than the losses they suffered from u-boats. But this wasn't a problem caused by the u-boats or their crews. It really came down to leasing shipping, aquiring shipping from other lost/threatened nations and the US' industrial capacity. They were handed a broken strategy at the beginning. What would they have been able to accomplish if they would have had 300 boats? Much more than they did without a doubt!

Cheers!

[Torplexed]

Found an interesting article on the web which compares the performances of the various WW2 sub fleets, not the submarine themselves. Basically he ranked them by comparing a ratio of tonnage destroyed to subs destroyed. I have no idea how accurate the numbers are though.

http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/macslog/TheRoleoftheSubmarineinWo.html

http://neptoon.homestead.com/SsubPeformance.jpg

[Peto]

That's an interesting link. Thank You for posting it!!!

:salute:

[Jimbuna]

Found an interesting article on the web which compares the performances of the various WW2 sub fleets, not the submarine themselves. Basically he ranked them by comparing a ratio of tonnage destroyed to subs destroyed. I have no idea how accurate the numbers are though.

http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/macslog/TheRoleoftheSubmarineinWo.html

http://neptoon.homestead.com/SsubPeformance.jpg

Great link Torplexed http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/thumbsup.gif

The write up in that article IMHO was really excellent, it approaches the subject from many angles, allowing each indivudal theorist to consider the facts from their own perspective and more or less supports everything already said on this thread.

[kaptkirkU4467]

Does anyone here have a decent summary of soviet sub activity in the war ?

My book for the USSR subs is "Submarines of WWII" by Erminio Bagnasco
Covers all boats used by everyone. :rock:
They were on the most part M class,Shch class,K and S class with some prewar L and D class....S class being the best.*based on the Turk "Gur" built in Spain.*

The USSR was the only country to have fewer boats at the end of the war then it had at the start.
Best opening kill:
Shch 307 sinks U 144 on 8/9/41.

[Pvt. Public]

from a technical aspect a admire the germans handywork, they achieved some amazing breakthroughs in technology. but if i had to choose any sub (excluding the XXI since its not fair to the rest) i would take a tench or balao. mainly because it is fast, has lots of destructive power, and most important in my mind are the crew comforts. a happy crew performs better under stress!

[Task Force]

I have a hard time decideing which boat was best, because they worked in different enviornments, and conditions.

U boats had it get progressivly harder on them, and had multiple nations working against them, also had technology from the allies get worse on them/ air power that made them caused alot of problems.

The us boats had it harder at the begining of the war. Faulty torpedos and other things made them have issues, but as the war went by things got somewhat easyer, and working conditions got better. Because the japanease wernt as advances as the allies when it comes to anti sub warfare.

So in my opinion nither sub was realy that much better than the other, there working conditions, and enviornments were different.:yep:

Things swhiched off, uboats got it harder, and fleet boats got it alittle easyer, and better technology.

[UpLateAgain]

The maximum diving depth of the Me-109 sucked. It was able to dive quickly but once fully submerged it took forever to surface again.

The maneuverability of the Type VII stunk too. Split-s and Immelman's were awkward and ineffective.
:lol:


And don't forget.. the 109's cannon had an extremely limited range when submerged and its SONAR capabilities were nonexistent. Pretty good visibility though.......:DL

[Sailor Steve]

Your very first post is to resurrect a year-and-a-half-old thread to add to a bad joke? Interesting introduction.

Still, I don't want to discourage you so WELCOME ABOARD! :sunny:

[Jimbuna]

[QUOTE=Sailor Steve;1559071]Your very first post is to resurrect a year-and-a-half-old thread to add to a bad joke? Interesting introduction.

Still, I don't want to discourage you so WELCOME ABOARD! :sunny:[/QUO TE]
I was wondering that when I recognised the thread title http://www2.raritanval.edu/departments/busadmin/full-time/Defilippis/tops/image/home/AnimSherlock_Ag00595.gif

http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/welcome.gif

[Hitman]

Your very first post is to resurrect a year-and-a-half-old thread to add to a bad joke? Interesting introduction.

Still, I don't want to discourage you so WELCOME ABOARD! :sunny:

LOL don't be so hard with him Steve, he his just catching up :up:

[Madox58]

I hope that's all it is.
:hmmm:
http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n12/privateer_2006/disturbance.jpg

[U777]

I prefer the US subs for its crew amenities (ice cream machine, AC system, escape trunk, etc) and it seems that the US boats had more room for their crews.

[Sailor Steve]

:damn:

[Madox58]

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n12/privateer_2006/Care-Map.jpg

[U777]

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n12/privateer_2006/Care-Map.jpg

Funny, I happen to live in that region lol

[Gargamel]

Ok, since this got bumped already (Not me this time! I swear!!), I don't feel so guilty asking this. Reading the thread, this question popped into my head. And it actually may reinforce the apples vs oranges arguement.

Would density of the water affect the crush depth?

Modern ships have that density tree painted on the side of their hulls, indicating max load for a given body of water. Fresh water (great lakes, etc) had a lower density since they were fresh water, and merchants can safely hold less cargo than a tropical Ocean, since the salinity is higher.

How would this affect Subs? Would the Germans/British have a shallower crush depth since their water is more 'dense', and the Americans/Japanese have a greater depth? Not sure on where the Med rates, but that's the Italians.

Or is it a moot point since the difference would be so small that individual boat factors (welds, age, damage, etc) would affect it first?

[Sailor Steve]

The real crush depth varies by individual boat. Even with modern production line techniques one bad weld can make a difference, though a very small one. The only way to actually find a boat's crush depth is to go deeper until you get crushed, which is not a recommended tactic.

I'm sure density does make a difference, but how would you tell?

[Jimbuna]

The real crush depth varies by individual boat. Even with modern production line techniques one bad weld can make a difference, though a very small one. The only way to actually find a boat's crush depth is to go deeper until you get crushed, which is not a recommended tactic.

I'm sure density does make a difference, but how would you tell?

Well you wouldn't after the ultimate test :DL

[Schwieger]

I'd take a B-1/I-15 sub over the 7c or Trench, Gato or Balao... seaplane could really help to spot those targets not to mention it was as fast as the American boats :)

[VONHARRIS]

I'd take a B-1/I-15 sub over the 7c or Trench, Gato or Balao... seaplane could really help to spot those targets not to mention it was as fast as the American boats :)

On the other hand the seaplane would have been spotted by the targets and that means destroyers hunting you.

I believe the Germans had the advantage in submarine warfare (both in weapons and tactics) at the start of WWII and lost it to the Allies ASW technology.

If the XXI type was put to service earlier then they might had a chance to fight back.

IMO the XXI and her little sister XXIII were the best subs of WWII.

[Gargamel]

IMO the XXI and her little sister XXIII were the best subs of WWII.

While the XXI did see a little service in the war, you really can't count it as a boat from the war. It was the next generation of sub design, and it (and it's progeny) redefined what submarine warfare is.

Just like the Me 242, it's biggest impact was on the future, not the present.

Had the XXI come out earlier, or the war lasted longer, I think it would have been, hands down, the best sub in the war, but it didn't see enough service to be really considered part of the war.

[ridgewayranger]

Hi,
I saw type XXIs at Lisahally (Lough Foyle) after the surrender and they certainly looked impressive compared with our boats. I believe one was commissioned into the Royal Navy as Meteor, for evaluation.
R.R.

[Jimbuna]

Hi,
I saw type XXIs at Lisahally (Lough Foyle) after the surrender and they certainly looked impressive compared with our boats. I believe one was commissioned into the Royal Navy as Meteor, for evaluation.
R.R.

U-1407 a Type XVIIB was raised after scuttling and named HMS Meteorite

http://www.uboat.net/boats/u1407.htm

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

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


U-1406 and U-1407 were scuttled on 7 May 1945 by Oberleutnant Gerhard Grumpelt even though a superior officer, Kapitän zur See Kurt Thoma, had prohibited such actions. Grumpelt was subsequently sentenced to 7 years imprisonment by a British military court.
In July 1945 U-1406 was allocated to the US and U-1407 to Britain and both were soon salvaged.
The Royal Navy repaired the U-1407 and recommissioned her on 25 September 1945 as HMS Meteorite.

[VONHARRIS]

While the XXI did see a little service in the war, you really can't count it as a boat from the war. It was the next generation of sub design, and it (and it's progeny) redefined what submarine warfare is.

Just like the Me 242, it's biggest impact was on the future, not the present.

Had the XXI come out earlier, or the war lasted longer, I think it would have been, hands down, the best sub in the war, but it didn't see enough service to be really considered part of the war.

I think we can count it as a boat from the war
http://www.uboat.net/boats/u2511.htm
What if Kaluen Schnee had fired.......
I agree with you that the XXI has influenced all modern submarine designs.
I also agree about the Me 262 jet fighter!

[ridgewayranger]

Thanks Jimbuna,
I stand corrected but claim memory lapse in mitigation!
R.R.

[Missing Name]

To be honest, I think the whole debate is like comparing members of the citrus family. Just as grapefruits and kumquats have benefits and disadvantages, so did the subs.

The German subs were high quality themselves, but by the end of the war American sub-borne sensors were better, not to mention they could be cranked out in larger numbers. American diving depth was abysmal compared to the German subs.

[Jimbuna]

Thanks Jimbuna,
I stand corrected but claim memory lapse in mitigation!
R.R.

Don't get me wrong, I didn't know anyway, it wasn't until I read your post I decided to look it up :DL

[Iranon]

If we go by the opening post and simply disqualify the type XXI... wouldn't the Japanese I-201 be the most obvious contender for the best sub?

I've only been on a type VII and a type XXI myself, none of which have direct American counterparts. From what I know (which isn't very detailed), a comparison between a Tench class and a Type IXD2 favours the Tench... the drivetrain seems more attractive, more tubes, all torpedos internal, better crew comfort, and going into the TDC, optics and electronics also seems to give more possible advantages to the American boat. During the time of these boats, the American torpedos had also started to actually work.

Can we give the IXD anything solid other than, according to most sources, better underwater endurance?

[Jankowski]

hmm, Imagine a silent hunter set from the soviet side.............

[Sailor Steve]

American diving depth was abysmal compared to the German subs.
That's pushing it just a bit. American subs could, and did, go quite a bit deeper than the recommended test depth. You might want to actually read the thread before throwing out statements that have already been discussed (and disproven) here.

[Schwieger]

That's pushing it just a bit. American subs could, and did, go quite a bit deeper than the recommended test depth. You might want to actually read the thread before throwing out statements that have already been discussed (and disproven) here.

Explain then why the Ohio class SSBN has a test depth only 10 meters deeper than VIIC...

[Gargamel]

Explain then why the Ohio class SSBN has a test depth only 10 meters deeper than VIIC...

The listing I show is a test depth of 240m, while the VIIc is listed at 230m.

But, the test depth for USN boats is 2/3 of their max operating depth, which is still less than their crush depth. The German VIIC had crush depth of only 250m. So the Ohio is a 66% of crush while the VIIC is at 92% of crush.

Test depth is some arbitrary number given to boats during peacetime operations, and is what the boat is tested to. Apples and Oranges again.

The concept of a pressure hull, hasnt changed much in the 100+ years it's been around. The deep diving boats had to have very thick hulls to survive those depths, but that made them very slow (also the limited energy systems). The mass of a SSBN with a similarly thick hull would be immense, and almost impossible to move. With the Ohio's been first built in '76, they are of 60's technology, only 20+ years removed from WWII. To see very little ratings difference in the hulls is actually not surprising. Until the fabled ceramic hulls start appearing, war boats will still be limited to relatively shallow depths.

[Iranon]

Well, the Russian Lira class (test depth of 350m, max operating depth of around 800m, crush depth well below 1km) is older... but apparently someone went bonkers before dreaming that one up.

[Schwieger]

The listing I show is a test depth of 240m, while the VIIc is listed at 230m.

But, the test depth for USN boats is 2/3 of their max operating depth, which is still less than their crush depth. The German VIIC had crush depth of only 250m. So the Ohio is a 66% of crush while the VIIC is at 92% of crush.

Test depth is some arbitrary number given to boats during peacetime operations, and is what the boat is tested to. Apples and Oranges again.

The concept of a pressure hull, hasnt changed much in the 100+ years it's been around. The deep diving boats had to have very thick hulls to survive those depths, but that made them very slow (also the limited energy systems). The mass of a SSBN with a similarly thick hull would be immense, and almost impossible to move. With the Ohio's been first built in '76, they are of 60's technology, only 20+ years removed from WWII. To see very little ratings difference in the hulls is actually not surprising. Until the fabled ceramic hulls start appearing, war boats will still be limited to relatively shallow depths.

Interesting, because from what I've read the Germans place test depth one half of actual crush depth..

[ETR3(SS)]

Explain then why the Ohio class SSBN has a test depth only 10 meters deeper than VIIC...This statement is invalid as you do not know what the test depth of an Ohio class submarine is. Unless you have served on one. And besides, what would be the point of a modern nuclear submarine being able to go deeper? To escape depth charges?:doh:

[Gargamel]

This statement is invalid as you do not know what the test depth of an Ohio class submarine is. Unless you have served on one. And besides, what would be the point of a modern nuclear submarine being able to go deeper? To escape depth charges?:doh:

Numerous sources I found showed 240m. Seems to have been declassified.

The ability to go deeper means better opportunities to exploit thermal layers, use topography for cover, dive below torpedo crush depths (not sure on that one, just random guess), etc etc.

[ETR3(SS)]

Numerous sources I found showed 240m. Seems to have been declassified.

The ability to go deeper means better opportunities to exploit thermal layers, use topography for cover, dive below torpedo crush depths (not sure on that one, just random guess), etc etc.I can asure you that the test depth of an Ohio has not been declassified, and won't be until years after the last hull is scrapped. I would disagree with your statements regarding diving deeper. Thermal layers are located more towards the surface, shallower during the winter and deeper during the summer. But still measured in the hundreds of feet. The ocean is several thousand feet deep thus rendering most topography well beyond use. In the shallower coastal areas they could be used, but most of the world is open deep ocean. The Mk-48 torpedo was designed to combat fast deep diving submarines, thus torpedo crush depth will always be deeper than submarine crush depth.

[Sailor Steve]

Explain then why the Ohio class SSBN has a test depth only 10 meters deeper than VIIC...
Did you do as I suggested and read the thread? As I said, this has all been discussed here before.

First of all, all "max depths" are by nature calculated, not actual. The only way to find the actual crush depth is to be crushed.

Second, I wouldn't expect an SSB(N) of any type to have an exceptional depth, simply because they are bigger than a WW1 Battleship, which means that longitudinally they are going to be more fragile.

Third, as has been pointed out more than once, the Tench class had an expected crush depth of 900 feet, which puts them very close to the VIIc.

Lastly, as always, I'm not trying to argue that "my favorite" was better than "your favorite". My point is that each different type was designed for a different purpose, and each has its strengths and weaknesses, and that each would fair poorly in the war the other was designed to fight.

[Capt Wade]

The German subs could dive deeper for longer and faster than any other subs in the war. (German subs could dive in excess of 250 meters. American subs could only dive to 100 meters) The type 7's sank more shipping than any other sub type and were built in the greatest numbers. The type 21's could outrun their adversaries while at depth, or just cruise slowly, then rev up and duck out from under the depth charge splashes. By the time the depth charges arrived, they were no longer there. The streamlined shape of the hull was nearly impossible to detect with active sonar if it was angled head on or head aft to the emitter. They were way ahead of their time. American sub designs were greatly influenced by the German type 21's after the war. The nuclear submarine Nautilus had a very similar hull and very similar hydrostatic flow characteristics, including the nasty tendency to roll to the opposite side during high speed submerged turns due to the sail being too far aft.

[Sailor Steve]

First, welcome aboard. :sunny:

Second, it would be nice if you read the dates before posting. This thread died four years ago.

Third, did you read the entire thread? All of that was hashed out before. Funny, that was my reply four years ago as well.

[Aktungbby]

Capt Wade!:Kaleun_Salute:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/resurrection_zps1dc648a0.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/SailorSteve/media/resurrection_zps1dc648a0.jpg.html):har:

[Onkel Neal]

The German subs could dive deeper for longer and faster than any other subs in the war. (German subs could dive in excess of 250 meters. American subs could only dive to 100 meters) The type 7's sank more shipping than any other sub type and were built in the greatest numbers. The type 21's could outrun their adversaries while at depth, or just cruise slowly, then rev up and duck out from under the depth charge splashes. By the time the depth charges arrived, they were no longer there. The streamlined shape of the hull was nearly impossible to detect with active sonar if it was angled head on or head aft to the emitter. They were way ahead of their time. American sub designs were greatly influenced by the German type 21's after the war. The nuclear submarine Nautilus had a very similar hull and very similar hydrostatic flow characteristics, including the nasty tendency to roll to the opposite side during high speed submerged turns due to the sail being too far aft.

Hi Capt Wade, all the points you raised are true. I would point out, the US subs had greater speed and range, and carried more torpedoes. And, they had A/C and ice cream :arrgh!:

[Jimbuna]

Welcome to SubSim Capt Wade :sunny:

[UKönig]

Just my two bits on offer,
I think ton for ton if I had to fairly rate them, I think US boats would in fact emerge as the winner.
With their sizes, weights, powerplants, electronic equipment and armament, US boats were like 'dive capable destroyers', vs the German 'torpedo attack boat, that can also dive'.
If you really want to know what clinches it in my books, is, crew comforts and accommodation. Aboard German operational subs, the crew were little more than flesh and blood links in a badly designed chain. Very little thought was given to their lives or comforts while at sea. As evidence, we have not enough bunks to go around. So they rest in shifts. Except when all crew has to lie down or conserve energy, there is no room. So they buddy up, or they lie on the deckplates. Not enough space for food or supplies. So they store it everywhere they can find a place. ...Everywhere. Only 2 W/Cs, and one of them is often acting as a 'pantry', until those supplies are used up. 1 crapper, 50 guys, I don't see a problem here, do you? Nah, what could go wrong? No privacy, only the Captain is afforded even the illusion of it, but he's the only one. And on, and on...

[ReallyDedPoet]

Welcome to SUBSIM Capt. Wade :sunny: