Top Ten Submarines....

[danlisa]

I just happened to catch this ranking on Discovery Turbo and some of the boats mentioned might interest you.

The one's that relate to us are:

5th Place - British T Class
4th Place - US Gato
.
.
1st Place - Ger Type VII

The ranking was based on:

Production Ease
Terror Effect
Weaponry
Overall Effectiveness (read tonnage sunk)
Range
Length of Service

While I concur that none of the boats above are actually proper submarines do you agree with the ranking's assessment of these boats?

Discuss.:D

[jas39]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Groundbreaking_submarines

[Kipparikalle]

Hell yeah

[subvers4]

Nice one Danlisa, well spotted. It depends on what you call a " proper submarine " I guess. My own personal opinion is that submarine warfare ( according to effectiveness ), peaked during the second world war. The theory was immaculate, the enemy was an island nation, surrounded by sea, cut off the sea routes and the supply routes are stopped. your enemy is then reduced to a small nation engaged in a siege situation. Provided this is not diluted, it is only a matter of time before you emerge victorious. Patience is a virtue. But as we all know, things can and do change, and success depends on how you adapt to changes. However, the type V11 was a very effective and efficient " bogey man ". Perfect for the period, and type of warfare it was used for.

[JU_88]

Glad to see the ol' T class up there, they certainly 'out gunned' their US and German counterparts - the 1st group T class could fire a whopping spread of 10 torpedos if they wanted....

If im not mistaken there were really 3 major factors that let RN T class subs down;

1) Low surface speed; I dont think any of the WW2 RN subs could achieve more than 14 knots, The 1st group T-class Lost a few knots due to its poor Bow design. The 2nd and 3rd group had the bow redesigned to boost performace - however they also removed the 1st group's some what unreliable bow caps which caused some additional streamlining issues, (but still an improvment overall.)

2) The S-class used oval shaped pressure hulls to accomodate the the 6 internal fore tubes, oval is not a strong as circular - and had a detremental effect on max depth. Not completley sure but I think the T class suffered from the same problem.

3) External Tubes on the T-class were quite unreliable too.

Alot of T-class boats were lost in the Mediteranien, at 84 meters long (thats 3 meters shorter than a type IXD2 Uboat) - they were just too darn big to operate comfortably in those waters. I guess by 1941 there just wasn't enough prey for RN subs in the North sea and Atlantic, so they sent them in to the Med - At least the trip through the Gibaltar straights would have been rather pleasent for British sub crews.

Gotta Love the T-class though
http://www.mikekemble.com/ww2/subs/britsub1.jpg

[Umfuld]

Yeah, I've seen that show a few times. It's pretty good.

[JU_88]

Nice one Danlisa, well spotted. It depends on what you call a " proper submarine " I guess. My own personal opinion is that submarine warfare ( according to effectiveness ), peaked during the second world war. The theory was immaculate, the enemy was an island nation, surrounded by sea, cut off the sea routes and the supply routes are stopped. your enemy is then reduced to a small nation engaged in a siege situation. Provided this is not diluted, it is only a matter of time before you emerge victorious. Patience is a virtue. But as we all know, things can and do change, and success depends on how you adapt to changes. However, the type V11 was a very effective and efficient " bogey man ". Perfect for the period, and type of warfare it was used for.

Perfect until about 1943....

[looney]

I'd love to see that show.. top 10 submarines.

Ofcourse the no1 can be only 1 the type 7.. Most ppl just know only 1 submarine the 7 or as many call em U-boat.

P.s. In Dutch there are 2 words for submarine:
1 Duikboat (=Dive boat) a vessel wich sails mostly surfaced like the WW2 era ships
2 Onderzeeer ("below sea-er" translated stricktly) New diesel/nuke subs.

[Brag]

I wish I could remember the title or the author. I've read a fantastic book written by the CO of a T type about his experinces in the Med. I particularly liked his descripption of the submarine's systems and explanations of some of the maneuvers.

Maybe someone in this forum knows the book.

[JU_88]

I wish I could remember the title or the author. I've read a fantastic book written by the CO of a T type about his experinces in the Med. I particularly liked his descripption of the submarine's systems and explanations of some of the maneuvers.

Maybe someone in this forum knows the book.

Is it Kemps book?

[subvers4]

Nice one Danlisa, well spotted. It depends on what you call a " proper submarine " I guess. My own personal opinion is that submarine warfare ( according to effectiveness ), peaked during the second world war. The theory was immaculate, the enemy was an island nation, surrounded by sea, cut off the sea routes and the supply routes are stopped. your enemy is then reduced to a small nation engaged in a siege situation. Provided this is not diluted, it is only a matter of time before you emerge victorious. Patience is a virtue. But as we all know, things can and do change, and success depends on how you adapt to changes. However, the type V11 was a very effective and efficient " bogey man ". Perfect for the period, and type of warfare it was used for.

Perfect until about 1943....

Precisely my point about adapting to changes. The U-Boot's main attacking strength, and also it's main defence, was stealth. It was not supposed to, or designed to be, a battleship. It was an assassin, silently in, make it's target, then silently out. Trying to make them bigger and more offensive, just defeated the whole point. They were never meant to be a conventional warship. They were ninja, if you like. Their most effective weapon was psychological.

[predavolk]

Or are you thinking of Bryant's book on the S-class?

And that show sucks. They're ratings are completely arbitrary which is what happens when you compare WWI, WW2, Cold War, and Modern subs. That's apples, oranges, bananas, and grapes as far as I'm concerned! I certainly think the Type VII is incredibly important, but I would consider Germany's WWI subs to be a close, or greater, match as they were the initial proof of the effectiveness of submarines. Putting the Sea Wolf at #2 is nice, because it's a gorgeous, extremely capable boat, but it's hardly had any impact on world. Certainly nothing like the WW1 or WW2 ships. Then again, they hardly compare to it in terms of capability. So the whole idea of their scale is porked. And that's about enough ranting for now. :p

[Brag]

Bryant seems to ring a bell (I've read it about 20 years ago).:roll:

[Randomizer]

In my opinion all of these so-called "Best", "Top" or "Greatest" (insert item here) lists are just plain crap. The criteria used is entirely subjective and as noted already, comparing apples to oranges is required as is an ignorance of the conditions under which the boats operated. What about habitability, range, sensors and blah, blah, blah. Using tonnage is a bogus measure and is like saying that Bomber X is better than Bomber Y because Bomber X got the opportunity to drop more bombs in action.

These things are entirely superficial and driven almost solely by fame and popularity.

Good Hunting

[bigboywooly]

Aye tis an interesting read

The IX has the VII beat hands down on the 3 following

Weaponry
Overall Effectiveness (read tonnage sunk)
Range

Of the top 10 most succesfull uboats against merc shipping only one type VII gets in there
Granted tis number 1 AND a VIIB
:rotfl:

But the next 9 are all IXB\IX\IXC

The VII were produced in massive numbers - not sure that was because of ease of manufacture or because thats the size of boat thought best suited for convoy attacks
The long range boats - IX - built in far reduced numbers yet most with very high tonnage returns - almost SH3 tonnage returns

You will never compile a list that will have everyone in agreement

[Bosje]

Looney how about onderzeeboot?

;)

what do you think the O stands for in the names of the WWII dutch subs?

other than that, yeah there is a clear division between torpedo boats which happen to able to sail submerged, and boats which are designed to fully operate below the waves but which are perfectly capable of surface operations as well

I've always been tought that WWII saw the shift between the two, with the transition to type XXI, is that incorrect?

[bigboywooly]

Aye the arguement goes XXI was the first so called real submarine being that it was designed to be submerged and surfaced only when needing to
As opposed to the others which ran surfaced and dived when needed too

The XXI formed the basis for many post war submarines

[Bosje]

yup that's what i heard

proves the point of the ranters above btw, i agree with you people that the show is complete crap: they also used to compare tanks, coming up with a list which features both the M1A1 and the PzIV and the T34 and the Leopard. rubbish

[Torp III]

Caught this on the Military Channel on the Dish Network last weekend. Got to agree with the some of guys here that the way it was rated was different fruits! Half never fired a shot in anger, so how can you compare? But in the the end I was glad my favorite Type VIIC on top!

[Umfuld]

That show is on all the time on the Military Channel. I've seen Top 10 bombers, tanks, subs, and so on.

They don't rank them on what is actually better. If they did it would be basically a list of the most modern weapons.
With such abstract catagories as "Fear Factor" it is obviously a list of opinion. One that, at worst, may just generate some debate.

I find it odd that it listed type VII as the best sub of all time many SHIII players say it's crap. :hmm:

[danlisa]

One that, at worst, may just generate some debate.

:rotfl: That's exactly why I posted it.

I agree the catagories for the list are bogus and generated on opinion rather than pure fact but we're all talking about it.;)

[Jimbuna]

Never seen this programme....was theSen Toku I-400 class or the French Surcouf rated :hmm:

[Randomizer]

The Type VII in GWX is my personal favorite and it certainly was successful in terms of tonnage sunk but from any objective veiwpoint, designating it as the "top" submarine of all time ignores its many design and engineering flaws. After all, the VII design was essentially just an updated WW1 UB-III class medium boat.
Good Hunting

[Umfuld]

theSen Toku I-400

Yes. This page lists the Top Ten as they rated them. I guess they are in reverse order so you can go through and the last is really #1:


http://military.discovery.com/convergence/topten/subs/slideshow/slideshow.html

[Jimbuna]

theSen Toku I-400

Yes. This page lists the Top Ten as they rated them. I guess they are in reverse order so you can go through and the last is really #1:


http://military.discovery.com/convergence/topten/subs/slideshow/slideshow.html

Rgr that...cheers http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/thumbsup.gif

[predavolk]

Bryant seems to ring a bell (I've read it about 20 years ago).:roll:

Bryant was Britain's top u-boat ace. Lots of going after Italian traffic, a good bit of deck gunning, and some encounters with German boats.

And to edit my previous rant slightly, they rank in terms of fan popularity I think. The Type VII is the best sub, OK I could see that, the T-34 is the best tank, OK that's pretty solid, the P-51 is the best fighter- OK, I could see that if you were blind and ignorant (it's WW2 record is weaker than the P-47, trivial compared to the Hellcat, Fw-190, Yak-1, or Spit, and meaningless compared to the Me-109). I'm a huge fan of when it comes to military, it's not what ifs, but what got the job done best in real life (not to be confused with being on the winning side). But oh well. In that order, the Type VII/IX (depending on total tonnage), T-34, and Me-109 rank as the best, with the B-29 as the best bomber. Pretty hard to argue that those types killed the most enemies, and when all's said and done, that's really what counts (sadly) with weapons of war, isn't it?

[antikristuseke]

While I agree with you for the most part Predavolk, there is more to a weapon of war than its total kills. For instance Panthers had a kill death ratio of 10 to 1 (or thereabouts, am a bit too lazy to look up the exact number at this moment) against the T-34 and its various models and 7 to 1 agains Shermans, but since Shermans and T-34's could be turned out in huge quantities they were a better weapon of war for that.

[JScones]

This page lists the Top Ten as they rated them. I guess they are in reverse order so you can go through and the last is really #1:


http://military.discovery.com/convergence/topten/subs/slideshow/slideshow.html
What?!?! No Collins Class?

:rotfl: