US vs. German subs - which was better?

[Schwuppes]

Hi!

I'd like to know which Country had the better Subs, the United States or Germany?

From what I have gathered the US Fleet Boats were faster both submerged and surfaced, but the German Boats could dive deeper.
What is the maximum documented diving depth of a US and German boat respectively? I know that Kptl. Heinrich Lehmann Willenbrock took U-96 to 220 meters to evade a group of destroyers.... would this have been possible with a US sub?

But what were the other main advantages and differenences between the US and German submarines?

[Hartmann]

U.S submarines are better in endurance, speed, life conditions (like the ice cream machine )and a lot of space for the crew. All torpedoes are stored inside of the sub, and 6 tubes in the bow and 4 in the stern, this means a lot more of firepower.

And finally the biggest difference: the superior technology in Radar and radio, it means detect the targets and planes in the distance and know if is aproaching or not, and plot intercept courses in the dark without visual sight.

Geman subs are superior in dive depths and optics. but very limited in ASW tech
(finally decisive in the war)

[Sailor Steve]

Well, I can't argue with that summation.

Though I'm sure someone will. :rotfl2:

[_Seth_]

Both the fleet boats and the u-boats were childs of their time, with their technical differences and their main operational theaters. We all know this. At the time they were used, they were the best their country could make. So both types was good, but only good in the setting they were made to perform in.:yep: I agree with Hartmann's excellent statement, it summons it up in details. :up:

[Hitman]

Apples and Onions :)

You only can compare a long range Type IXD/2 with a fleet sub, mainly with a Balao (Both the german and american launched in 1943), because the Type VIIC was a much smaller, short range boat designed to operate in packs and closer to the home base. The US boats had to be bigger because they had to go farther -all away across the Pacific- and could not go back quickly to their home bases to refit. They carried therefore a larger load of torpedoes, much more diesel, storage for food and had better living conditions for their crews.

By comparing a Balao and a Type IX/D2, you can notice that:

Type IX/D2 has deeper crush depth
Type IX/D2 has slightly better crash dive times (Only 5 seconds or so)

Balao had higher surface & dived speed
Balao had longer range
Balao had larger torpedo load and bigger guns
Balao had way superior electronics (Radar)

[looney]

Then again we know that when we play radar is more a magnet to attract the attention of hunter killer groups. Thus radar was nice but imho also very dangerous.

firepower. several convoys got hammered by U-boats. They just took out 1 or 2 ships per day. So 2 torps/ ship was enough mostly. In my book no of tubes isn't that important, it's the number of eels one can carry.

Basically the theater of operations where so different, as where the conditions (winning vs loosing the war). It's impossible to compare both types of subs. Then again I know on which type i wanna be.

The one that brings me home.

[Penelope_Grey]

America had the better subs for certain things. Though if given a choice between going on a U-Boat or going on a fleet boat in war conditions... I think I would have to pick a fleet boat. Going on a U-Boat would be tantamount to suicide. Not that it wasn't dangerous for the Americans... but god... their losses can't compare to 3 out of 4 submariners dying.

Also one advantage a IXD has over a Balao that Hitman missed is underwater endurance. IXD2's can stay under longer than a Balao can. At least if SH4 and the U-Boat mission expansion are anything to go on... :up:

[STEED]

U-Boats of WW2 had very little change from those of WW1 and thats why they failed. There was no real big effort to modernize them until it was to late. The XXI shows what they could have done but a lack of thinking and budget sealed the U-Boat fate.

American subs had more going for them as already pointed out.

[msalama]

The XXI shows what they could have done but a lack of thinking and budget sealed the U-Boat fate.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Clay Blair inspect one captured specimen after the war and find her shoddily made? I.e. the design was innovative but the realization somewhat lacking...

PS. Effin' SH3 :damn: Crashed just when I was about to attack a BIIIG convoy. Back to a previous save now :cry:

[Penelope_Grey]

No you are right... however, the XXI's were built using slave labour practically, and were thrown together as fast as possible. Underwater the XXI could run rings around any other submarine in the world. In terms of design it truly was state of the art.

[STEED]

The XXI shows what they could have done but a lack of thinking and budget sealed the U-Boat fate.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Clay Blair inspect one captured specimen after the war and find her shoddily made? I.e. the design was innovative but the realization somewhat lacking...

What did you expect for that time in the war? The XXI could have been better if built early in the war but by the time they were being built Germany had lost the war.

Once again too little to late, as Penelope_Grey pointed out I hardly think a slave labour force is going to do a good job are they. ;)

[msalama]

Oh, absolutely true Steed & Penelope, and also partly explains (the slave labor bit I mean) why totalitarian societies / regimes and technological innovations are mutually exclusive in the long run.

Dictatorships of course have their share of highly paid and prestigious engineers and designers, but what they also have to make do with is a labor force consisting of people who've been coerced into putting those ideas into practice - and this includes the so-called "free" workers, too, because those hapless cogs of the Machine usually cannot (or do not dare to) go and say "no" to their bosses / Politruks / Gauleiters regardless of what the buggers throw at them! So as a result what you get is a coercive work culture negatively affecting pretty much everyone, "free" or not - and comparably substandard production, too, in the long run.

Nowhere was this as evident as in the former Soviet Union, but I'm pretty sure this would've happened to the Nazies as well had their Reich lived any longer. A totalitarian state due to its very nature usually succeeds in getting rid of is its brain power (and thus its innovators), and this of course cannot but wreck its technological process in the long run. That the Third Reich succeeded in producing technology like the XXI does not disprove this at all BTW, because as stated already their particular form of society (fortunately) didn't live long enough to really suffer from this...

OK, done rambling, thanks for letting me test this nifty new soapbox of mine :arrgh!:

[Platapus]

The XXI shows what they could have done but a lack of thinking and budget sealed the U-Boat fate.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Clay Blair inspect one captured specimen after the war and find her shoddily made? I.e. the design was innovative but the realization somewhat lacking...

PS. Effin' SH3 :damn: Crashed just when I was about to attack a BIIIG convoy. Back to a previous save now :cry:

Back in March we had this discussion.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=133357

Read the sixth post in that thread for what Clay Blair wrote about the US evaluation of the Type XXI

[Phaedrus]

Its a little like asking:

What was better?

A Spitfire or a B-17?



Two different designs, for two very different theatres, and two different missions.

[melnibonian]

Both types were designed for totally different missions. They both had advantages and disadvantages but they are not comparable. My personal opinion is that the US Boats due to the operation theater were closer to the modern idea of the submarine (long range and endurance) but in terms of performance they were not so far off the German designs. Nevertheless as others said before me you just cannot compare them.

[1480]

You could compare the submarines, but not in a head to head competition. You have to come up with subjective categories and evaluate them in each. Not dive times and crush depth but more along the lines of actual patrol time , percentage of machinery malfunctions, down time on refit, sinkings during a patrol etc. to come up with a level field of play. I found it interesting that military channel had their top ten submarine episode, the Gato/Balao came in 3rd and the Type VII came in 1st.

[Dowly]

Its a little like asking:

What was better?

A Spitfire or a B-17?



Two different designs, for two very different theatres, and two different missions.

Messerschmitt 109 :rotfl:

[Sailor Steve]

Just what I was going to say, Dowly. And as in the case of the submarines, the only possible real answer is: yes.

[Schöneboom]

Another way of framing the question: If you were being hunted down by Allied ASW units of 1943-44 vintage, which sub would you rather bet your life on? Perhaps the right answer in this case is, "None of the above"!

[Hitman]

Another way of framing the question: If you were being hunted down by Allied ASW units of 1943-44 vintage, which sub would you rather bet your life on?

A russian Kilo class :lol:

No WW2 was suited to survive against the highly effective ASW methods developed by 1944 except the Type XXI and XXIII, but those came too late :hmm:

Americans were of course lucky to have the IJN as opponent, but ultimately I insist that the comparison between a Type VII and a fleet boat is impossible. If you don't trust me, then take Pearl Harbor as starting base and go patrol the Japan coast in a Type VII. Sure, you might kill lots of merchants, but you will run out of torpedoes and fuel long before a fleet boat does. And if you want to carry enough torpedoes and fuel to the japanese coast, then you need something way bigger....like a fleet boat :smug:

Apples and onions!! :know:

[predavolk]

The fleet boat is the better offensive weapon, but as has been pointed out, the odds of it surviving against determined ASW are worse. Active radar in particular would have been a dead giveaway. The Type XXI was, of course, the best sub of the war- by far. I'd take the evaluation of their enemies with a grain of salt- especially given how feared the U-Boat threat was. But I'd concede that by that time in the war, manufacturing was a crucial liability to the type.

[Catfish]

Hello,
while there seems to have been no detector for the radiance caused by radar-detecting equipment like the Metox or the later devices, there certainly was for active radar. Don't know why the japanese should not have had and used it against US submarines ?
Even if it was feared by german commanders that the unwanted radiance of radar detecting devices gave away their position i think there never really was any such device on the allied side that would have been able - or was there ? - anyone ?

Regarding "which boat was the best": apples and onions, yes. And the radar equipped fleet boat with the late electro-mechanical targeting computer was not present until the late war, as well as the IX DII or the XXI type with their food freezers and the automatical target computer using sonar for a firing solution, with which torpedoes could be fired at a depth of 50 meters.

As it was said the manufacturing quality of the XXI type was bad, which is certainly true, but the computed theoretical crush depth was at 330 meters, or almost 1000 feet - operational depth was some 220 meters, or 660 feet, which was reached by all operational XXI types. Even some VIIC boats have reportedly dived to more than 300 meters as well, if not always intentional...
The real Walter boats with their hydrogen-superoxyde AIP propulsion also were very advanced, but not ripe for operational status, and there certainly were problems with the fuel needed for the turbines (difficult to produce and handle). One major advantage anyhow was the silence of the Walter boats, they would not be heard by hydrophones even at a speed of 15 knots submerged, top speed of the V80 (Versuch=trial) was a noisy 28+ knots submerged, as it was again tested after the war. Would this really be the "best boat" ?

Then the german doctrine of the U-boat war was a bit antiquated - the "new" type VII U-boats had basically the properties of the WW1 ones - diving max. depths as well as reliability were better, but speed surfaced and submerged was not. The type VII was intended to attack surfaced with the "Schnellboot-Taktik", or even stop and sink merchants with the deck gun following prize regulation, like in WW1. The total or unrestricted u-boat war was not so self-evident at the beginning of the hostilities.
At first this tactic worked out well, boats attacking surfaced at speeds of 18 knots could outrun early escorts, and merchants, and the praised hydrophones and ASDIC were useless against ships attacking surfaced. It was not before the boats were forced to dive, that ASW ships gained a real advantage.

Concerning equipment and "comfort" (lol) i would prefer a late Gato or Balao (if only because of the ice cream feature), but as soon as it gets to diving ... try to survive a british ASW group in a low-diving fleet boat with its max depth of 400 feet/130 meters in the Atlantic ocean ... I often wondered why US boats did have no greater diving depth ?

IMHO the scenario in which the boat is to be used, and at which time, would be the main argument - which has certainly be said before somewhere, and why i will stop here ;).

Greetings,
Catfish

[Puster Bill]

Back in March we had this discussion.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=133357

Read the sixth post in that thread for what Clay Blair wrote about the US evaluation of the Type XXI

Some of Blair's criticisms are, well, unfair.

Don't forget, while US and German subs were a product of their times, so was Clay Blair. One problem that I have with Volume II of "Hitler's U-Boat War" is that he denigrates the Type XXIII as being too small to accomplish anything. Yet in 1945, they had the best record of any u-boat class, sailing on 10 missions with 5 ships sunk to their credit and 0 operational losses.

Having read both volumes of "Hitler's U-Boat War" now several times, I get the impression that Blair was kind of biased towards big fleet-type boats like the ones he served in during WWII, and that this bias creeps up from time to time.

Some of his criticisms:

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.

This would be a major problem for a fleet-type boat, designed to spend most of it's time on the surface. The Type XXI was designed to basically spend *ALL* or most of it's time underwater, either on batteries or schnorkeling. While the battery recharge time is an issue, surfaced top speed really isn't. From a tactical standpoint, it doesn't matter that much.

Even the increased recharge time isn't a major issue, because while schnorkels and periscopes could be detected on the centimetric radar used late in WWII, it was at a much reduced range compared to a surfaced boat.

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.

If you are using the schnorkel, that means you are running very noisy diesel engines, so running noisy pumps isn't really a problem. Schnorkels were problematic in the beginning, but that doesn't mean they weren't going to be used. In fact, in Blair's own work (last half of Volume II) you can see the difference in surviveability between boats with and without schnorkels. The boats with schnorkels, and that used them, had a much better chance of surviving. Fixing the issues with the schnorkels was an engineering issue, not a fundamental problem with schnorkels themselves. I'd point out that *ALL* submarines today, even the nuclear ones, have schnorkels.

Again, this shows that Blair is a product of his experiences (as are we all).

His points about the hydraulic system and hull integrity are well taken, however.

One other point I would like to make is that the US boats never had to face an opponent equal to that faced by Germans, especially late in the war. The reason that the US Navy could keep the same basic design throughout the war with the only real improvements being to the electronics and diving depth is because they didn't face the same ASW pressure that the Kriegsmarine faced.

Consider what the losses would have been like in the Pacific if the Japanese were able to:
1. Develop and field centimetric and millimetric airborne ASW radars.
2. Decode traffic between boats and their control back on shore.
3. Keep the naval resources to "hunt to exhaustion" a submarine contact.
4. Develop more advanced SONAR, and to deploy them in great numbers.
5. Develop an ASW homing torpedo like the Mark XXIV FIDO.
6. Develop ASW weapons like the Squid and Hedgehog.

Those are just some of the things I can think of off the top of my head that the Germans faced in the Atlantic, that weren't an issue for the US in the Pacific. One could argue that the real reason for US successes in the Pacific was more because Japanese ASW doctrine and technology was woefully neglected compared US/British practice than because the US subs so technologically superior.



By the way, my criticism of Blair shouldn't be read to invalidate the main thesis of his work. It stands as a monumental and never equalled summary of the U-boat campaign in WWII.

[onelifecrisis]

Its a little like asking:

What was better?

A Spitfire or a B-17?



Two different designs, for two very different theatres, and two different missions.

Messerschmitt 109 :rotfl:

Pfft.
How can you even put that Bf109 heap of junk in the same category as the Supermarine Spitfire!? :smug:
Yeah yeah, fuel injectors, negative-g's, highest kills of any aircraft, blah blah, boring...
What you really want is eight machineguns superglued to a Merlin. :yep: :D

[rifleman13]

Its a little like asking:

What was better?

A Spitfire or a B-17?



Two different designs, for two very different theatres, and two different missions.
Messerschmitt 109 :rotfl:
Pfft.
How can you even put that Bf109 heap of junk in the same category as the Supermarine Spitfire!? :smug:
Yeah yeah, fuel injectors, negative-g's, highest kills of any aircraft, blah blah, boring...
What you really want is eight machineguns superglued to a Merlin. :yep: :D
Like a P-51?:hmm:

[onelifecrisis]

Its a little like asking:

What was better?

A Spitfire or a B-17?



Two different designs, for two very different theatres, and two different missions.
Messerschmitt 109 :rotfl:
Pfft.
How can you even put that Bf109 heap of junk in the same category as the Supermarine Spitfire!? :smug:
Yeah yeah, fuel injectors, negative-g's, highest kills of any aircraft, blah blah, boring...
What you really want is eight machineguns superglued to a Merlin. :yep: :D
Like a P-51?:hmm:
2nd choice ;)
Hey I just check wikipedia... it says 6 guns. :hmm:

[msalama]

Yer Biffers, Ponys and Spits... BAH!!! The sexiest prop fighter of all time is, of course, Yak-3.

Er, I'll get me coat then :88)

[Puster Bill]

Yer Biffers, Ponys and Spits... BAH!!! The sexiest prop fighter of all time is, of course, Yak-3.

Er, I'll get me coat then :88)

False. Sexiest prop fighter of all time:

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/5364/albatros2hi1.jpg

Albatros DVa

(This is the one at Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome)

[Dowly]

Its a little like asking:

What was better?

A Spitfire or a B-17?



Two different designs, for two very different theatres, and two different missions.
Messerschmitt 109 :rotfl:
Pfft.
How can you even put that Bf109 heap of junk in the same category as the Supermarine Spitfire!? :smug:
Yeah yeah, fuel injectors, negative-g's, highest kills of any aircraft, blah blah, boring...
What you really want is eight machineguns superglued to a Merlin. :yep: :D
Bah! Nonsense! I bet the Spits came true to their name, spitting fire as they were spiraling down towards the mother earth when someone like Hans-Joachim Marseille was peppering them with his 109. ;)

[Sailor Steve]

2nd choice ;)
Hey I just check wikipedia... it says 6 guns. :hmm:
True, but the P-51 had six Browning .50s, as opposed to eight .303s.

So, who had the better trench-digging shovels?

[raymond6751]

2nd choice ;)
Hey I just check wikipedia... it says 6 guns. :hmm:
True, but the P-51 had six Browning .50s, as opposed to eight .303s.

So, who had the better trench-digging shovels?

The 50's had better range and better punch, so I vote P-51. Aarh...

[ReallyDedPoet]

Nice discussion here lads :yep:, let's get back on track though with the OP regarding subs. Maybe Dowly you could start something up with regards to planes in the FS Forum, sounds like there is interest :)

By the way, got IL46 the other day, man, could not get over the amount
of planes to fly :D


RDP

[Phaedrus]

Just a few final notes:


- A P-51 is really an unfair comparison, designed in 1940 as opposed to 1933 for the 109, and 1934.
- Early model Spitfires had the eight .303's, later had two Hispano 20mm's and four .303's.
- The 109 is the most produced fighter design in history, so that counts for something.


Now, to return to the original discussion:

There are similar circumstances in the fleet boat / u-boat debate.
When trying to compare the boats, we would do well to remember that the VIIA was designed in 1934, with the VIIB following in 1936. While the IX boats were conceived in 1936.
The VIIC which shouldered the bulk of the load was first commissioned in 1940, but as has been mentioned, it was essentially a WW1 design.

The U.S. Gato class was quickly conceived and built, and entered production in 1940. The Balao class entered production in 1942.

U.S. design included internal torpedo storage and many forward tubes, but had terrible torpedoes and inferior fire control, particularly in when surfaced at night.
Pre-war U.S. training was also inferior compared to the German submariners, with just about half of U.S. commanders being relieved of command within the first 8 months of the war. I will allow that the comparison in training is not necessarily a useful comparison due to the vastly different missions of the two nation's sub forces (fleet engagement vs. blockade action).

Summary:

Each boat has it's own advantages and disadvantages, because they are really two different tools.
Yes, they are both submarines and they go under water, but just because my tin snips and pliers go into the same tool box, it doesn't make them the same tool.
Each is used for it's own designed purpose.

[JU_88]

Their both rubbish!!! :D
I prefer Royal Navy subs so there! :arrgh!:

[STEED]

Their both rubbish!!! :D
I prefer Royal Navy subs so there! :arrgh!:

I like that. :D :up:

[Mush Martin]

as someone whos played both extensively
and someone who's made opening salvo's my overall strength
I totally prefer US boats over Uboats for many many reasons.

that said

As a dedicated subsimmer and student of the subject for life.
I will play any boat in any theatre that is current state of the art.
(how I ended up a uboat skipper!)

M

[HunterICX]

comparing aircraft whent its about submarines

and...

Comparing a P51 versus a Spitfire...
you guys must be mad.:lol:

P51: Long range High altitude fighter
Spitfire: Interceptor

you cant compare as they where of a different fighter class,

if you would have a pool to compare the P51 with it would be-

P-51 , Hawker Tempest and the FW190D ''Dora''

but in general comparing aircraft to show who had the best is just impossible as everything had their advantages and disadvantages:

Advantages : use them well and there is a higher chance of victory for you
Disadvantages : get in a situation where your disadvantages will start to act up and you have a risk to be done for.

but in generals as for Aircraft and submarine alike,
the mix between Men and Machine is also very important.

HunterICX

[Jimbuna]

Their both rubbish!!! :D
I prefer Royal Navy subs so there! :arrgh!:

Same preference here...my favourite being the S class.

http://imgcash3.imageshack.us/img524/3058/sailornt1rr8.gif

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/8214/sshmsstormzu3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/2199/sahib1sq2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[JU_88]

I'll have a 'T' please Bob. :lol:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Hr._Ms._Dolfijn_%281948%29.jpg

Shame the RN boats never saw the same scale of operational usage and success of their US and german cousins, but considering what they did achive duing the war, they did well.

they sunk:
475 merchant ships, 105 warships and 36 submarines at the cost of 74 of their own.
The majority of the 74 RN subs on enternal patrol were actually lost to mines and accidents. The Italilans nailed quite a few of them in the Med though.

[Jimbuna]

IIRC 5 VC's were awarded to subs and all were in the Med.

[Kongo Otto]

That reminds me to discussions like "whos has the bigger one".
And it is the wrong question.
A sub or U-Boot is just a peace of military equipment,it depends to the men who use it,to make it a bad or a good boat.
And thats the only real important thing, who were the guys in that Subs or U-Boots?
It doesnt make a difference if Royal Navy,US Navy or Kriegsmarine, they were the Tough Hombres,the best of the best from WW2 Naval Forces.


And god asked the Rocks: "Do you wanna be a U-Boot Crew."
And the Rocks answered: "No, we are not hard enough."

[yamato9]

This lead to nowhere, like in arguing which is better SH3 or SH4(for me SH3 is better in THEMATIC issue because i like U-boats, but SH 4 is better in overal visual quality).

I and Dicimus got nice arguing about this issues before few months, and on the end we finaly concluded that conversation about this is pointless. All of you like subs and U-boats, so only is mater which sub you will select for which task, if you going on long range patrol then solution is US fleet boat, on another hand if you have shalow waters under keel, active sonar pings etc... then it is better to be in Jerry´s u-boat.

:up:

[Rockin Robbins]

This is the SH3 forum. In here the U-Boat wins with one of those ZumenBanger 20 knot acoustic homing torpedoes sent with a love note on it. The Kapitan merely goes deep and waits for a boom.

Over in the SH4 forums, the fleet boat wins every time calling in a squadron of PBYs with rockets and hedgehogs. On board the American sub they serve ice cream and take movies of the carnage.

"Dicimus" :rotfl::rotfl:You're onto something! Is there REALLY such a thing as a typo?:lol:

[yamato9]

"Dicimus" :rotfl::rotfl:You're onto something! Is there REALLY such a thing as a typo?:lol:

Sorry, it is "Ducimus",.... my fault.

Happy now!?:nope:

[Kipparikalle]

Offtopic;

Should I have the "Finnish Ferret" avatar too, for being a finn?

[Sailor Steve]

I don't know. Are you also a ferret? Dowly created that one for himself.

[Penelope_Grey]

A sub or U-Boot is just a peace of military equipment,it depends to the men who use it,to make it a bad or a good boat.


Your are absolutely right. 100%.

I agree.

[Jimbuna]

Not purposely wanting to steer this interesting thread off topic.....but I've often wondered why the original question (which has popped up previously in the past), never includes......"and what was the most effective ASW capability, the Japanese or the Allies ?"

Perhaps they should be kept apart......who knows ? :hmm:

[Puster Bill]

Not purposely wanting to steer this interesting thread off topic.....but I've often wondered why the original question (which has popped up previously in the past), never includes......"and what was the most effective ASW capability, the Japanese or the Allies ?"

Perhaps they should be kept apart......who knows ? :hmm:

That's a very interesting part of the question.

I submit that if the US submariners had to face an opponent as tough as the German U-bootwaffe ultimately faced, their successes would have been far fewer, and losses would have been much greater.

[Jimbuna]

Not purposely wanting to steer this interesting thread off topic.....but I've often wondered why the original question (which has popped up previously in the past), never includes......"and what was the most effective ASW capability, the Japanese or the Allies ?"

Perhaps they should be kept apart......who knows ? :hmm:

That's a very interesting part of the question.

I submit that if the US submariners had to face an opponent as tough as the German U-bootwaffe ultimately faced, their successes would have been far fewer, and losses would have been much greater.

That is a real possibility.

[predavolk]

Oh, there's absolutely no doubt that nothing compared to the ASW in the Atlantic by the Allies. Not even close. The pacific and the German ASW were pathetic in comparison, especially towards the end of the war. The German boats, IMO, were the best design to take on that kind of intense ASW. They obviously weren't up to beating that ASW, but they did much better than the giant US boats, the archaic British boats (poor fire control and torps), and the passive Japanese boats. The fact that other boats may have sunk more or less is not only comparing apples to oranges, it's measuring their success in totally different contexts.

[Puster Bill]

Oh, there's absolutely no doubt that nothing compared to the ASW in the Atlantic by the Allies. Not even close. The pacific and the German ASW were pathetic in comparison, especially towards the end of the war. The German boats, IMO, were the best design to take on that kind of intense ASW. They obviously weren't up to beating that ASW, but they did much better than the giant US boats, the archaic British boats (poor fire control and torps), and the passive Japanese boats. The fact that other boats may have sunk more or less is not only comparing apples to oranges, it's measuring their success in totally different contexts.
Absolutely, and that's why trying to compare the boats of different countries is iffy at best, because they served in totally different environments.

Now, Germany really didn't *NEED* to develop their ASW to the degree the Allies did, or to the degree that Japan should have. They get a pass pretty much because there was little submarine warfare against them.

Japan, on the other hand, should have started a crash program to develop and field any and every potentially useful ASW technique and technology as soon as it became apparent that the US was mounting a war of attrition against their merchant fleet. As it was, I believe that the IJN was so fixated on the "Decisive Battle" in terms of their main fleet clashing with the US fleet, that they didn't realize the decisive battle was actually the relentless sinking of their merchant hulls, and the supplies they carried.

I'm not sure what they could have realistically done. Probably the effort to make an equivalent of centimetric radar equipped VLR Liberators would have been problematic, although they did have maritime patrol aircraft equipped with metric radar if I recall correctly.

Certainly, they could have adopted some doctrinal changes, like "hunt to exhaustion", ie., you don't give up until you see the captains hat (preferrably still on his head) float to the surface. Having dedicated Hunter/Killer groups that can do that is another doctrinal change, as would recognizing that a couple of really big convoys, even if only minimally protected, are better than a bunch of small ones.

Almost certainly they would have failed on the codebreaking front: The SIGABA was much more sophisticated than even the 4 rotor Naval Enigma, and almost certainly unbreakable, given the technology of the day and the resources Japan could have used trying to break it.

I see no reason why the IJN couldn't have adopted a weapon similar to the Hedgehog.

Had Germany shared the technology from the T5, they could have also developed something similar to the FIDO anti-submarine torpedo. That would have been a *MAJOR* problem for US sub commanders, although I supposed countermeasures could have been developed.

[predavolk]

Here's an interesting quote from the American inspectors of the captured German VII U-570:

"In general the submarine has much more equipment to give it stronger offensive characteristics than any submarine of comparable size in either our Navy or the British Navy."

You can see the whole American report here:

http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-570ONIReport.htm

and the British version here:

"Comparison has been made [between the batteries] with standard plate cells of British manufacture. The German cells have a capacity/weight ratio which is about 45 per cent. higher than that of the British cells, but it is estimated that the life of the cells is only 2 to 2-1/2 years."

The British also conclude that her offensive systems are superior to any of theirs. Her torpedo control in particular, but her deck and flack guns as well.

So it looks like the right answer is: the German subs were the best built subs of the war. Pound for pound, nothing else was as generally capable, with the caveat that certain specific missions or goals might be better suited by specialized designs in other Navies.

[Deutschland]

German subs were the best of WW2..a lot best..the Germany was more technological advanced than Alies(much more!) and they have highest
constrution quality!

[Sailor Steve]

"In general the submarine has much more equipment to give it stronger offensive characteristics than any submarine of comparable size in either our Navy or the British Navy."
You quote one line from a description of the sound gear and make it sound like they're talking about the whole boat. US doctrine considered active sonar to be part of the equation. Also, the only US sub of comparable size was the 'S' class. The first Gato wasn't even in service when the US report was written.

"Comparison has been made [between the batteries] with standard plate cells of British manufacture. The German cells have a capacity/weight ratio which is about 45 per cent. higher than that of the British cells, but it is estimated that the life of the cells is only 2 to 2-1/2 years."
So the batteries weigh less than the British, but fail sooner. I fail to see the point.


The British also conclude that her offensive systems are superior to any of theirs. Her torpedo control in particular, but her deck and flack guns as well.
But the question didn't involve British subs. And on the TDC, from the Americans: "but definitely inferior to our torpedo data computer"

So it looks like the right answer is: the German subs were the best built subs of the war. Pound for pound, nothing else was as generally capable, with the caveat that certain specific missions or goals might be better suited by specialized designs in other Navies.
An easy conclusion to come to when you cherry-pick the reports and only choose what you like. Let me do the same:
"The deck gun is entirely too low to be of value unless the ship is operating in exceptionally calm water and the single anti-aircraft gun does not contribute materially to the offensive qualities of the ship."
"difficulties in reloading due to crowded conditions in torpedo rooms offset some of the advantage gained by the number of torpedoes carried" (which, by the way, is far less than the newest fleet boats)
"Congested conditions as they affect the efficiency of personnel."
"Lack of automatic emergency lighting, independent of main battery."

As has been said, tactically the Type VII was a great boat for short periods of time, but it was a bad choice for any long-term operations. It was indeed the best boat for the war it fought, but would have been useless in any long-range combat.


German subs were the best of WW2..a lot best..the Germany was more technological advanced than Alies(much more!) and they have highest
constrution quality!
Did you read the whole thread? The relative advantages of both are discussed at length, and with references. If you are going to just make a flat statement that one is best, please provide references to prove it. Your insistence doesn't mean any more than mine or anybody else's.

[STEED]

German subs were the best of WW2..a lot best..the Germany was more technological advanced than Alies(much more!) and they have highest
constrution quality!

Really?

Forgive me but didn't Adolf Hitler in 1940 put a stop to all long term scientific/tech research? Hitler believed the war was over and there was no need to carry on in this area which resulted in a mad dash later in the war when Germany was on the defensive.

[predavolk]

"In general the submarine has much more equipment to give it stronger offensive characteristics than any submarine of comparable size in either our Navy or the British Navy."
You quote one line from a description of the sound gear and make it sound like they're talking about the whole boat. US doctrine considered active sonar to be part of the equation. Also, the only US sub of comparable size was the 'S' class. The first Gato wasn't even in service when the US report was written.

I quote one line from the summary. I left the link there for the reader to read, so give me a break. :roll: US doctrine was against an opponent whose ASW efforts were about as good as me sticking my ear in the water with a heavy empty can as a weapon, so I'm not going to consider active active sonar very important. It wasn't important in WW2 in any but the most permissive environments.


An easy conclusion to come to when you cherry-pick the reports and only choose what you like. Let me do the same:
"The deck gun is entirely too low to be of value unless the ship is operating in exceptionally calm water and the single anti-aircraft gun does not contribute materially to the offensive qualities of the ship."
"difficulties in reloading due to crowded conditions in torpedo rooms offset some of the advantage gained by the number of torpedoes carried" (which, by the way, is far less than the newest fleet boats)
"Congested conditions as they affect the efficiency of personnel."
"Lack of automatic emergency lighting, independent of main battery."


Come on Steve, seriously. The deck gun comment has been proven wrong by combat experience and the deck gun is a secondary weapon used only in the most permissive environments (i.e., no escorts, no air cover, and no serious armament on merchant ships).

Reloading is a concern, but not a very major one. Subs rarely get the chance to stick around shooting, reloading, shooting, reloading, etc.

Congestion did not seem to impair the efficiency of U-Boat crews.

Lack of automatic emergency lighting is pretty minor. They also don't have an ice cream maker on board, but I don't consider that major either.

Instead of "cherry-picking" I chose broad, summary statements.

As has been said, tactically the Type VII was a great boat for short periods of time, but it was a bad choice for any long-term operations. It was indeed the best boat for the war it fought, but would have been useless in any long-range combat.

That's a ridiculous statement, given the success they had in 1941 off the US coast. But I agree that the VIIs, especially without refueling, aren't the best long-rage boats. That would be the IXB, which was the most effective WW2 design in terms of actual performance- tonnage sank (IIRC all 14 IXBs sunk about as much as the entire 77-strong fleet of Gatos- over a 5:1 ratio!). As I said above:


the German subs were the best built subs of the war. Pound for pound, nothing else was as generally capable, with the caveat that certain specific missions or goals might be better suited by specialized designs in other Navies.


If you want to argue that US fleet boats were better at long-range patrols against weak (and ONLY weak) ASW defenses, I might agree. In fact, with their better radar, I probably would agree. But they would have been massacred in the Atlantic 1942-on in even greater numbers than the VIIs or XIs. If you want to argue that troop insertion or airplane launches are better suited to Japanese big boats, I wouldn't argue with that either. If you want to argue that British boats took the least amount of design effort away from valuable design resources, I again wouldn't argue that.

But the German boats had the best defensive capabilities, and according the reports above, the best overall offensive capabilities in the face of modest-strong defenses. Look at the British pros and cons for the torpedo system. Pretty significant pros for the VII vs. the pretty minor cons. If you disagree, fine, but I personally think the evidence provided by the documents, on top of actual historical performance, is pretty clear.

[Hitman]

If you want to argue that US fleet boats were better at long-range patrols against weak (and ONLY weak) ASW defenses, I might agree

The US Balao/Tench were better when compared to a Type IXD/2, which was the german equivalent. The german sub was well built and dived deeper, yet the TDC and electronics (Radar, active sonar) were not as advanced as the american one.

Of course the US subs would have suffered disastrous loses, much worser than the Type VII german UBoats if facing the allied ASW in the Atlantic, no question about it. But if the americans had needed to engage superior ASW forces in shorter ranges then they would have built different submarines, not feelt boats.

It amazes me how people insist in these comparisons between Type VIIs and fleet boats; You can't compare them at all, not even in structural resistance and materials, because a larger design means always less strengthness.

German type VII subs were beatiful and well constructed, specially if you consider their design was hurried in the late 30s starting from a WW1 one (The UB-III type), and they set the pace in 1940-41. Later they became obsolete and the germans again developed a superb innovative design, the Type XXI, but too late for them. Americans never had the need to develop better or different submarines than their fleet boats because Japan had worser ASW. But in my opinion their superior industrial capacity would have done it if they had started suffering too heavy loses.

In all, my opinion is that germans constrcuted better subs, but americans equipped them better. :up:

[Deutschland]

"In general the submarine .....
..... [quote=Deutschland]German subs were the best of WW2..a lot best..the Germany was more technological advanced than Alies(much more!) and they have highest
constrution quality!
Did you read the whole thread? The relative advantages of both are discussed at length, and with references. If you are going to just make a flat statement that one is best, please provide references to prove it. Your insistence doesn't mean any more than mine or anybody else's.
Germany in WW2 was more technological advanced than Alies(much more!)
its proved worlwide: V2 roquet(first ballistic missile and first man-made object to achieve sub-orbital spaceflight); Me 262(world's first operational turbojet fighter);
Heinkel He 178(world's first aircraft to fly under turbojetpower); Advanced armored vehicles-Tiger II, Tiger III-MAUS; Panther tank''served as a benchmark for other nations' late war and immediate post-war tank designs''; BISMARK(the greatest ww2 battleship)
U-Boat Type XXI 'Elektroboote'(They were revolutionary when introduced and, if produced earlier and in sufficient quantity, could have seriously influenced the outcome of the battle of Atlantic)..
So, the Germany in all areas(AIR; LAND; and SEA was more technological advanced than Alies ....
PS: it was necessary almost all ww2 powers(Russia;UK;Usa;and almost
others countries to defeat Germany 'and later' Japan(just with the help of military
ignorance of Hitler!)

[Conan]

US subs have cool names.

[Puster Bill]

[quote]
German type VII subs were beatiful and well constructed, specially if you consider their design was hurried in the late 30s starting from a WW1 one (The UB-III type), and they set the pace in 1940-41. Later they became obsolete and the germans again developed a superb innovative design, the Type XXI, but too late for them.
I submit (admittedly with perfect 20/20 hindsight :D) that the Type VII was obsolete before it was even built.

Back in 1918, the British launched a new class of submarine that displaced 500 tons submerged, had 6 bow tubes, and had a top speed underwater of an astounding 14 knots. This was the British R-Class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_R_class_submarine ), a dedicated anti-submarine submarine.

The problem back then was that hydrophone technology wasn't up to the task of targeting a submerged submarine, and ASDIC hadn't been invented yet. Thus, sensor technology hadn't caught up to the advanced capabilities that the R-Class had.

Not that they were perfect: Their diesels were too small, which prevented the huge batteries from being fully charged at sea and also contributed to a slow surfaced speed of only 9 knots. Apparently, their handling on the surface also left much to be desired. However, they did show what was possible performance wise with a streamlined shape and a large battery.

To put it another way, there is no technological reason why the Germans couldn't have fielded a 750 ton boat with an underwater speed of 16+ knots, and an equivalent surfaced speed. The evidence was there that it could be done fairly simply by streamlining and increasing the size of the electric motors and batteries. The reason they didn't wasn't because it was beyond them technologically, it was a failure of imagination to perceive that a boat that was fast underwater would have great tactical advantages in both attack and in defense.

Not that the British recognized it either: They got rid of all but 2 R-Class boats in the early 1920's. The 2 they kept were used for ASW training, and apparently they were very capable at slipping away from the trawlers in use at the time.

[Sailor Steve]

Germany in WW2 was more technological advanced than Alies(much more!)
its proved worlwide: V2 roquet(first ballistic missile and first man-made object to achieve sub-orbital spaceflight); Me 262(world's first operational turbojet fighter);
Heinkel He 178(world's first aircraft to fly under turbojetpower); Advanced armored vehicles-Tiger II, Tiger III-MAUS; Panther tank''served as a benchmark for other nations' late war and immediate post-war tank designs''; BISMARK(the greatest ww2 battleship)
U-Boat Type XXI 'Elektroboote'(They were revolutionary when introduced and, if produced earlier and in sufficient quantity, could have seriously influenced the outcome of the battle of Atlantic)..
So, the Germany in all areas(AIR; LAND; and SEA was more technological advanced than Alies ....
PS: it was necessary almost all ww2 powers(Russia;UK;Usa;and almost
others countries to defeat Germany 'and later' Japan(just with the help of military
ignorance of Hitler!)
Again you're trying to lecture without providing proof. Yes, Germany had top scientists engaged in designing advanced equipment in a variety of fields, but had massive problems getting things into production.

The Type VII u-boat had thicker skin than any of its counterparts, and Zeiss made superb optics, but their torpedoes had the same problems as the American ones did and our TDC was superior. The Germans actually didn't believe the British could fit a decent radar set into an airplane until it was far too late, so they were behind in that technology.

And Bismarck, far from being the "greatest" battleship, was pretty much average for the day. And the Type XXI was indeed revolutionary, but the design far exceeded the capacity to adequately construct them, and the Allies were far in advance in ASW technology

[_Seth_]

http://images.cafepress.com/image/16113500_400x400.jpg

Pengy says: "Keep it cool, mateys" :yep::yep:

[Hartmann]

Also there are two war phases. early years and late , in the years 1939-1943 U.S subs perhaps could do the thing that VII can´t do, block the british merchant traffic and won the war.

In the late years , results could be the same but perhaps with less losses because the radar can alert of the enemy planes and see the movements in the radar screen and not only with a pasive detector like in german u-boats.

considere the bigger load of torpedoes, torpedo tubes, speed , range, endurance and radar.

germany had a lot of advanced weapons but the development was too late and in insuficient numbers, perhaps they think that can win the war in 1942-1943 .

[Schwuppes]

In all, my opinion is that germans constrcuted better subs, but americans equipped them better. :up:

I think that actually sums it up nicely! cheers! :up:

[Sailor Steve]

In all, my opinion is that germans constrcuted better subs, but americans equipped them better. :up:

I think that actually sums it up nicely! cheers! :up:
I concur.:sunny:

[predavolk]

In all, my opinion is that germans constrcuted better subs, but americans equipped them better. :up:

I think that actually sums it up nicely! cheers! :up:
I concur.:sunny:

Close enough. ;)

[Jimbuna]

The Americans definitely made the best ice cream making machines :lol:

[Phaedrus]

The Type VII u-boat had thicker skin than any of its counterparts, and Zeiss made superb optics, but their torpedoes had the same problems as the American ones did and our TDC was superior. The Germans actually didn't believe the British could fit a decent radar set into an airplane until it was far too late, so they were behind in that technology.

And Bismarck, far from being the "greatest" battleship, was pretty much average for the day. And the Type XXI was indeed revolutionary, but the design far exceeded the capacity to adequately construct them, and the Allies were far in advance in ASW technology
Don't know where to start.

American torpedoes were greatly inferior to German torpedoes, there can be some comparison of the abysmal American torpedoes with the magnetic pistol of German torpedoes during the Norwegian campaign, but at least the German impact pistol functioned.
To suggest that American and German torpedoes were of a similar quality and effectiveness is not only wholly inaccurate, but intellectually irresponsible.

As for "our TDC was superior", I'm not sure what you're basing that on, because I have never read anything to that effect.
Every source I have read indicates that the German TDC was the best of the war, and the UZO was the most sophistcated of the night time surface targeting systems. I will admit that I have read books that referenced that the only thing close was the U.S. TDC, and that my knowledge of late war US TDC innovations - if any - is limited, but I have not come across anything that suggests that the U.S systems surpassed the German one.


And finally: On the Bismarck - it was far from "average", as you suggest.


The Bismarck was the largest warship in the world when she was completed, and the third largest battleship class ever built; behind the Yamato class and the Iowa class (although the Bismarck class ships were three meters wider than Iowas at the beam, making it a very stable gun platform).

Aside from that, much is made of the fact that Bismarck only had 15 inch guns.
While obviously inferior to a 16 inch shell, it is worth noting that the 36,500 yard range of the German 38 cm SK was on just about on par with the American 16 inch / 40 and 45, and it was not until the improved American 16 inch / 50 came into service in 1943 that a significant range advantage (42000 yard) came into play.


Bismarck's Krupp steel armor was superior to American "A" armor plate, with some proof of it's effectiveness shown as she absorbed 6 torpedo hits (not counting the one the disabled her rudder), along with an estimated 350 shells, a large number of them fired from within 1-2 km's as she was disabled, 70 - 100 of those estimated to be from either 14 inch or 16 inch shells.
Only two 16 inch shells from Rodney were found to have penetrated the armor belt.

More to the point:

Calling the Bismarck "average" when compared to something like an Iowa class (designed later, utilizing war time experience, improvements in design, and technology) is as pointless as calling American fleet boats somehow superior.
They were designed 10 years after Type VII's, for a completely different mission.

It's like comparing grapes and apples. The apples make better pies, but the grapes make better wine.

If we're going to have a realistic comparison, let's compare the Porpoise, Salmon and Sargo class US boats (the boats designed in the same era) with their maximum depth of 75 m and trim controls so primitive the boats broached the surface when the torpedoes left the tubes to the type VII and IX and see how they stack up.


For those that seek sources, try Submarine Conflict 1939-1945 - War Beneath the Sea by Peter Padfield, Timothy Mulligan's Neither Sharks, Nor Wolves, and Hitler's U-boats by Clay Blair. For Bismarck / Iowa comparison see Fighting Ships of WWII, I think it's a a Time Life encyclopedia, but it's not nearby to be sure.


One more thing:

"To put it another way, there is no technological reason why the Germans couldn't have fielded a 750 ton boat with an underwater speed of 16+"

The technology certainly was available, but the navy was more interested in Plan Z and a surface fleet.
Same old story in every Army, Navy, and Air Force: the pretty projects get the money while the important things get sidetracked!

[Hitman]

As for "our TDC was superior", I'm not sure what you're basing that on, because I have never read anything to that effect.
Every source I have read indicates that the German TDC was the best of the war, and the UZO was the most sophistcated of the night time surface targeting systems. I will admit that I have read books that referenced that the only thing close was the U.S. TDC, and that my knowledge of late war US TDC innovations - if any - is limited, but I have not come across anything that suggests that the U.S systems surpassed the German one.


Well, the american TDC performed all functions of the german one plus:

1.- Gave a visual picture of the relative position of submarine and target

2.- Allowed computing enemy instant speed and average speed through zig-zags based on the bearing and ranges provided by the observer at the periscope

3.- Allowed shooting without even sighting the target thanks to the "Position keeper"

4.- Allowed solving for approximate target distance based on parallax difference between sonar and periscope bearings

I think the comments relating its superiority are more or less based on that.

American torpedoes were greatly inferior to German torpedoes, there can be some comparison of the abysmal American torpedoes with the magnetic pistol of German torpedoes during the Norwegian campaign, but at least the German impact pistol functioned.


That's correct, and besides the german torpedoes had a more powerful warhead.

If we're going to have a realistic comparison, let's compare the Porpoise, Salmon and Sargo class US boats (the boats designed in the same era) with their maximum depth of 75 m and trim controls so primitive the boats broached the surface when the torpedoes left the tubes to the type VII and IX and see how they stack up.


Nope, different characteristics. The only possible comparison because of size, tactical objectives, year of design and year of entering service is Balao versus Type IXD/2

Calling the Bismarck "average" when compared to something like an Iowa class (designed later, utilizing war time experience, improvements in design, and technology) is as pointless as calling American fleet boats somehow superior.
They were designed 10 years after Type VII's, for a completely different mission.

It's like comparing grapes and apples. The apples make better pies, but the grapes make better wine.


Agreed. Besides, the german was designed as a surface rider and the Iowa as fast CV escort and surface superiority BB

One thing were the US BBs were superior to the german from the start however, is the radar directed firing control, which obviously allowed for a precision in firing the german could not match.

One final observation: German design was hampered heavily during the inter wars period by the Versailles Treaty. In WW1 they virtually created the best submarines from scratch in a few years, so I can imagine that given enough time to develop, probably their designs would have excelled over their enemies.

And I still think that my conclusion above was correct: Germans built better, Americans equipped better.

Cheers

[joegrundman]

Well, the american TDC performed all functions of the german one plus:

1.- Gave a visual picture of the relative position of submarine and target

2.- Allowed computing enemy instant speed and average speed through zig-zags based on the bearing and ranges provided by the observer at the periscope

3.- Allowed shooting without even sighting the target thanks to the "Position keeper"

4.- Allowed solving for approximate target distance based on parallax difference between sonar and periscope bearings

I think the comments relating its superiority are more or less based on that.


hi hitman :D

point 2 is easy and just as fast to calculate using paper, pencil and slide rule anyway

point 3 - but this was discouraged was it not, due to the very poor success rate of firing without periscope confirmation. After a few months all firings were told to be accompanied by at least 1 scope viewing just before firing, or so i was led to believe. Besides we SH3 players know how to fire blind too.

and as for having all the functions of the german one...is that so? With the ingame modelled TDCs this is not the case.

The automatic connection between periscope bearing and AOB computation is a very useful feature for the German submariner ( i understand there was a few second time delay for the solution to be updated, marked with a green light when ready, which i wish was modelled into the game)

The american TDC as modelled in SH4 does not have this. It does of course represent range updates, but when the target nears you, errors in your original range estimate can lead to significant errors in both range and AOB solution. to try and update only bearing to target can raise problems with the AOB solution as well as range, and therefore an update of the target solution requires a full set of new data. Whereas with the GErman TDC, if ever AOB was entered correctly, it remains correct throughout the attack, and only range should be updated.

Similarly to target a second ship in a convoy using the US TDC requires resetting both AOB and range into the TDC, whereas this is not necessary for the German TDC. BEsides, because there is no PK, range is less relevent.

However, even so, i think the US TDC is better. I just think there is one useful function the german tdc provided that teh us one didn't

[kaarlo]

One final observation: German design was hampered heavily during the inter wars period by the Versailles Treaty. In WW1 they virtually created the best submarines from scratch in a few years, so I can imagine that given enough time to develop, probably their designs would have excelled over their enemies.


Let us remember, that Germans had set up a submarine construction office (Ingenieurskantoor voor Scheepsbouw) in Netherlands in 1922 in order to maintain their knowledge in submarine warfare. Major part of the engineers working there were german, and the office ordered several submarine prototypes from neutral countries between the wars. Type II and VII subs were initially designed here. So the german submarine know-how from WWI was never forgotten, and new types were designed, regardless of the Versailles treaty.

[Hitman]

Let us remember, that Germans had set up a submarine construction office (Ingenieurskantoor voor Scheepsbouw) in Netherlands in 1922 in order to maintain their knowledge in submarine warfare. Major part of the engineers working there were german, and the office ordered several submarine prototypes from neutral countries between the wars. Type II and VII subs were initially designed here. So the german submarine know-how from WWI was never forgotten, and new types were designed, regardless of the Versailles treaty.

Yes I know that, but you actually can't compare having a small covert design office in a foreign country with a whole department in your own Navy, right? ;)

The american TDC as modelled in SH4

Oh, SH4 models a very simplified version of the TDC, more similar to the british fruit machine than to the real thing.

But yes, the autoupdate based on optics was not in the US one...and no need for it, since the TDC operator could do it with one of the handles (Change bearing input telling the TDC to keep the rest of the data for attacking multiple targets) :)

[Cohaagen]

Bismarck's Krupp steel armor was superior to American "A" armor plate, with some proof of it's effectiveness shown as she absorbed 6 torpedo hits (not counting the one the disabled her rudder), along with an estimated 350 shells, a large number of them fired from within 1-2 km's as she was disabled, 70 - 100 of those estimated to be from either 14 inch or 16 inch shells.
Only two 16 inch shells from Rodney were found to have penetrated the armor belt.
As much as I hate to weigh in on a silly penis-length contest like this, I need to challenge this piece of received opinion.

First, you need to accept James Cameron's impartiality to take this statement into account, which I have problems with - he obviously set out with a fixed agenda (to prove the Bismarck sank through scuttling) rather than examining the ship first and drawing conclusions from empirical evidence.

Second, the fact that there were likely few penetrations of the armour belt is definitely not evidence that it was effective - this is a great example of causal thinking, which is always flawed. It simply confirms that Bismarck's main belt, which was low down near the waterline, was probably mostly submerged during her final engagement - the ship having taken on thousands of tonnes of water - and the British shells fired near point-blank hit the upper belt, unarmoured areas and superstructure instead.

Last, and most importantly, each of Bismarck's turrets and barbettes (and her conning tower) were penetrated at least once, causing massive damage and disabling them instantly. All had greater thickness of armour protection than the belt. Clearly, the 14" and 16" shells of the RN ships were more than capable of penetrating the armour belt, if they had targeted it.

I think it's impossible to make an adequate comparison of US and German armour. For a start - if I remember correctly - USN battleships have been involved in only a handful of battleships v. battleship engagements, only one of which involved even a half-hearted return of fire (Kirishima's single 14" hit), so the data pool is pretty small. Theoretical study is no substitute for analysis of actual, physical real-life evidence.

[Penelope_Grey]

I have little doubt in my mind that the Bismarck was scuttled rather than sank... if you are faced with an impossible battle which you know you are going to lose no matter what you do, in an act of defiance it is perfectly feasible to assume that the commanders of the Bismarck would indeed choose scuttling in an attempt to deprive the Royal Navy of their prize.

Britain said they sank it... Germany said it was scuttled.

In the end, the result is the same, the Britsh won. Whether they won via knockout or points is irrelevant... a win is a win. However... I am under no illusions that the Bismarck was going to sink immaterial of whehter the British or the Germans themselves delivered the death blow.


As far as the whole fleet boat vs U-Boat thing... its really not fair to ask which was better?

If you say "Which was better at ____________" then you have a much more solid frame to reference.

eg.

Which was better against ASW?
IMHO the U-Boat.

Which was better against enemy shipping?
IMHO the Fleet Boat.

Just my thoughts on the subject. However Hitman there has the right idea... the U-Boat in terms of mechanics... much better, but when it came down to electronic equipment the Fleet Boat had the U-Boat by the short and curlies. :D

[joegrundman]

The american TDC as modelled in SH4
Oh, SH4 models a very simplified version of the TDC, more similar to the british fruit machine than to the real thing.

But yes, the autoupdate based on optics was not in the US one...and no need for it, since the TDC operator could do it with one of the handles (Change bearing input telling the TDC to keep the rest of the data for attacking multiple targets) :)

i see, thanks a lot. :D

[Sailor Steve]

American torpedoes were greatly inferior to German torpedoes, there can be some comparison of the abysmal American torpedoes with the magnetic pistol of German torpedoes during the Norwegian campaign, but at least the German impact pistol functioned.
Actually the Germans had problems with their impact pistols as well, but the opposite problems to the Americans. While the US contact heads would bend and fail with direct 90° hits, the Germans sometimes failed at any angle outside 40°.

"The contact detonator used during the First World War was simple and reliable. After the war, the detonator had been completely redesigned to transfer the impact of the blow backwards through a series of complicated levers. In theory, it was supposed to provide a wide impact angle of 69 degrees to perpendicular. However, in practice, this was closer to 40 degrees. The new design had been tested only twice and that too with mixed results. As a result, the contact detonator was replaced with a much simpler design, mainly influenced by British technology captured from the submarine HMS Seal."
http://www.uboataces.com/articles-wooden-torpedoes.shtml

To suggest that American and German torpedoes were of a similar quality and effectiveness is not only wholly inaccurate, but intellectually irresponsible.
I would agree, but I'll defend my position by pointing out that: 1) I didn't claim that they were of similar quality (though in the case of the magnetic detonator faults the Germans took twice as long to solve the problem, coming up with a fix at about the same time as the Americans), but that they suffered the same problems, and 2) I was answering a specific charge, namely that the Germans did everything better.

As for "our TDC was superior", I'm not sure what you're basing that on, because I have never read anything to that effect.
Every source I have read indicates that the German TDC was the best of the war, and the UZO was the most sophistcated of the night time surface targeting systems. I will admit that I have read books that referenced that the only thing close was the U.S. TDC, and that my knowledge of late war US TDC innovations - if any - is limited, but I have not come across anything that suggests that the U.S systems surpassed the German one.
I was citing a direct observation made in the American report on U-570:
"(3) The torpedo data computer installed in this submarine materially adds to the offensive characteristics of the ship. In general it is considered to be markedly superior to the British "Fruit Machine", but definitely inferior to our torpedo data computer, into which all argument for the complete solution of the torpedo fire control problem except angle on the bow and range are automatically introduced into the instrument."
-Page 71


And finally: On the Bismarck - it was far from "average", as you suggest.


The Bismarck was the largest warship in the world when she was completed, and the third largest battleship class ever built; behind the Yamato class and the Iowa class (although the Bismarck class ships were three meters wider than Iowas at the beam, making it a very stable gun platform).
And Bismarck was faster than any big battleship except the Iowas. Again I will state that I was trying to deflect a flat statement of national superiority made without documentation. In an honest comparison I will gladly agree on Bismarck's good points. On the other hand, as far as the argument of large beam equaling stability, Bismarck scored no hits on presumably less stable targets in a running battle lasting more than an hour.

Aside from that, much is made of the fact that Bismarck only had 15 inch guns.
While obviously inferior to a 16 inch shell, it is worth noting that the 36,500 yard range of the German 38 cm SK was on just about on par with the American 16 inch / 40 and 45, and it was not until the improved American 16 inch / 50 came into service in 1943 that a significant range advantage (42000 yard) came into play.
And the British 16" guns used on Rodney had a maximum range of 39,000 yards, with the 15"/42 having 32,500 yards at the time in question and the 14"/45 36,500. All of which makes Bismarck's guns "about average". Also the maximum ranges aren't too important, since the longest hits on a naval target were both obtained at about 26,000 yards, one by the German 11" gun and one by the British 15".

Bismarck's Krupp steel armor was superior to American "A" armor plate, with some proof of it's effectiveness shown as she absorbed 6 torpedo hits (not counting the one the disabled her rudder), along with an estimated 350 shells, a large number of them fired from within 1-2 km's as she was disabled, 70 - 100 of those estimated to be from either 14 inch or 16 inch shells.
First off, armor plate is no more effective against torpedoes than regular steel. In order to protect against torpedoes ships must have a dedicated TDS (Torpedo Defense System). Bismarck's was of good quality, but neither better nor worse than similar systems on the battleships of other navies.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-047.htm

Only two 16 inch shells from Rodney were found to have penetrated the armor belt.
And yet, according to Rodney's gunnery log of the battle, Bismarck was observed to be listing heavily, and expected to sink within a few hours' time. This was before the crew had abandoned ship, and before German scuttling charges and British torpedoes made sure of her demise. This can be found in Warship Quarterly #28, or volume 7 of the collected series.

More to the point:

Calling the Bismarck "average" when compared to something like an Iowa class (designed later, utilizing war time experience, improvements in design, and technology) is as pointless as calling American fleet boats somehow superior.
They were designed 10 years after Type VII's, for a completely different mission.
I would like to reiterate: When I call Bismarck "average", I mean that she was typical of her day - more advanced in 1941 than most of her opponents, but a product of the technology of the time. I will gladly admit and discuss those differences and advances, but I've had too many arguments with rabid fans who insist that she was somehow the be-all and end-all of battleship development, magically better than any ship ever built, and unsinkable except by her own crew. From your statements I don't place you in that category, but you can see where it's coming from.

The Germans were indeed devoting time and resources to advancing technological developments in every field. This gave them some successes and many failures, but also came at the expense of having a few new advanced designs but falling far behind in manufacturing and production. And I will support the German side of the argument by noting that some American development came from captured German technology. In the U-570 report the investigators said that the periscope was "the best...they had ever seen" and recommended obtaining the details from their British counterparts and constructing their own as quickly as possible.

[looney]

Dumb question, but I played SH4 with the D2 for a while and mostly it has been a walk in the park. I think a D2 would do very well on the pacific theater especially later in war, working on the allied side. Late war many kills where made by the guns. and not the torpedo. Dive times are much shorter, imho due to the already deployed dive planes.

Or am I wrong and is the game much to easy in favor of a D2 compared to a us SUB?

[Hitman]

Or am I wrong and is the game much to easy in favor of a D2 compared to a us SUB?

The game is easier in that you find too many targets :) But considering the japanese ASW, I don't think that any of the advantages of the Type IX/D2 versus fleet subs would have been that important. (Except the better torpedo pistols in 1942-43, of course). And on the other side, it carries less torpedoes and has not a good radar to hunt in fog or low visibility weather.

On a side note, I was re-reading yesterday "Clear the Bridge" by O'Kane and was amazed again at the fabulous episode when they engage a small convoy of four ships with twelve (12!!!!) escorts penetrating the screen on surface by night with the huge Balao. That was a performance not shy of Kretschmer's best ones :up:

[Phaedrus]

Nope, different characteristics. The only possible comparison because of size, tactical objectives, year of design and year of entering service is Balao versus Type IXD/2.

----------------

And I still think that my conclusion above was correct: Germans built better, Americans equipped better.

Cheers


I generally agree with the "Germans built better, Americans equipped better premise".

My U.S. information is a little thin, so thanks also for the TDC points.

I'm more curious than anything else, but why isn't the Salmon, Porpoise and other U.S. boats a similar comparison?
I don't want to throw this topic too far on a tangent, so if you could be kind enough to just PM a quick little synopsis whenever you get a chance I'd be most grateful!

... any books you could recommend for a little indepth U.S. info would also be appreciated, I'm a little behind the curve.

Thanks Hitman!

[Biggs[CV]]

The Bismarck was a great ship for her day. As for if she was sunk or scuttled, if the Germans scuttled her or not she was going down. She was on fire from stem to stern and basically a drifting hulk.

German subs-vs- American: Each did an amazing job for what they were intended to achive. I wonder how well the Germans could have done if they had a Gato/Balao class in the numbers the Americans had.

[UnderseaLcpl]

http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/Battleship_Bismarck/scuttled.html

Bismarck was scuttled. Divers found her sea-cocks open. Not that it matters. she would eventually have been sunk anyway.

[U-84]

two different types of submarines with two different missions...but honestly it kind of is who has the best technology installed to detect ur foe first, and the best crew manning the sub.

[Kipparikalle]

two different types of submarines with two different missions...but honestly it kind of is who has the best technology installed to detect ur foe first, and the best crew manning the sub.
...Which means that Germans win.

/thread

[Hitman]

I generally agree with the "Germans built better, Americans equipped better premise".

My U.S. information is a little thin, so thanks also for the TDC points.

I'm more curious than anything else, but why isn't the Salmon, Porpoise and other U.S. boats a similar comparison?
I don't want to throw this topic too far on a tangent, so if you could be kind enough to just PM a quick little synopsis whenever you get a chance I'd be most grateful!

... any books you could recommend for a little indepth U.S. info would also be appreciated, I'm a little behind the curve.

Thanks Hitman!

Sure, I'll PM you later when I compile a document for you to read :up:

[msalama]

...Which means that Germans win.

He said "detect your foe". That criterion, plus the superiority of American electronics and radio technology (radar etc.) taken into consideration I think you're actually, ahem, wrong and he's right :hmm:

But then if you change your perspective and think of the war in the Atlantic the tables of course turn again...

Apples and oranges is what I say. And both are good.

[Cohaagen]

http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/Battleship_Bismarck/scuttled.html

Bismarck was scuttled. Divers found her sea-cocks open.
The fact that that link quotes a creature like David Irving in support more or less sums up a lot of the mentality behind the people pushing the scuttling theory* - a weird fondness for Nazi militarism that goes beyond curiosity and strays into admiration. I wonder what the reaction would be if people began digging into sinkings of Japanese ships looking for evidence of scuttling?

I don't believe anyone has found evidence the seacocks were open or blown up. The "evidence" seems to rest on the testimony of an octogenarian who also claims the British fired poison gas shells into the Bismarck. And quite how they pulled off such a textbook scuttle procedure when by their own testimony the main and lower decks were scenes of chaos and carnage with most of the crew dead is beyond me.



*not you personally, the academics and super-geeks expounding the theory

[Hitman]

I don't really understand what the difference is between being sunk by shells or scuttled before the shells did their job :hmm: Even if the crew had scuttled the Bismarck, it was just a matter of some minutes (And shells) more before it would go down anyway. And of course, since the last gun went off, it was a defeated ship :down:

The Bismarck episode has much of epic and in the popular folklore it was sure augmentated a few times but overall it was just another of the many dramatic actions in the war. Only it received more propaganda.

[Bewolf]

I don't really understand what the difference is between being sunk by shells or scuttled before the shells did their job :hmm: Even if the crew had scuttled the Bismarck, it was just a matter of some minutes (And shells) more before it would go down anyway. And of course, since the last gun went off, it was a defeated ship :down:

The Bismarck episode has much of epic and in the popular folklore it was sure augmentated a few times but overall it was just another of the many dramatic actions in the war. Only it received more propaganda.

It's quite simple a matter of British pride, especially after Bismarck sank Hood. That is also the reason why the british ships kept on firing on Bismarck long after all her weapons were silent. Chruchill was quite precise in his orders.
The notion Bismarck sank herself takes away from this feeling of "victory". It's alsmost sacreligious to say otherwise in certain circles.

[Sailor Steve]

Sounds like even more mythology. As I said earlier I've read Rodney's gunnery log and they didn't keep "firing on Bismarck long after all her weapons were silent". That they didn't stop firing immediately is a given, since on a crippled and heavily damaged target you can't tell what's going on.

As for the torpedo/scuttling controversy, I have to go with the words of a man who was there at the time. In Sink The Bismarck! - not the 1960 movie but the 1996 documentary - several of the men who lived through it were interviewed, including Hood survivor Ted Briggs. Baron Burkard von Mullenheim-Rechburg, when asked about the controversy, answered "To both of you I say 'Yes! You sank us!'"

[Phaedrus]

According to Roskill's 'The War at Sea' - the official history of the Royal Navy during the second world war; Rodney, King George V, Dorsetshire, and Norfolk all continued to fire at Bismarck after her guns were silent, and the Royal Navy Staff History "Battle Summary Number 5: Chase and Sinking of German Battleship Bismarck, 23-27 May 1941" also confirms this.

The engagement began with the first British shots at 0847, with Bismarck's last salvo fired around 0920.
Hits to the port turbine room and boiler room from Rodney (which had closed distance to 9000m - shells most likely from Rodney because King George V's "a" turret was out of action) led to the scuttling.

"These two hits and those which silenced the forward turrets and the main battery director led the Executive Officer, CDR Hans Oels, to order the scuttling of the ship (Measure V, where V = "Versenken" = Scuttling) between 0920-0930."

By 0930 Rodney had closed on Bismarck's starboard quarter to 5000m, and at 1000 had closed further to 3700 m.
King George V resumed fire with all turrets at 0954.
Rodney's last salvo was at 1014, King George V's at 1021.

She then took torpedo hits from Dorsetshire and sank at 1040.

As far as sources to suggest a combination of extensive battle damage and scuttling, see the two above, as well as Baron Burkard von Mullenheim-Reichburg's "Battleship Bismarck: A Survivor's story" (the author was the senior surviving officer on Bismarck), and Kennedy's "Pursuit: The Sinking of the Bismarck".

Also see the International Naval Research Organization's Warship International - Bismarck's Final Battle" by William Garzke Jr., and Robert Dulin Jr..
(These author's were the historical counsel for Robert Ballard's expedition)

[Kaleu_Mihoo]

I don't really understand what the difference is between being sunk by shells or scuttled before the shells did their job :hmm: Even if the crew had scuttled the Bismarck, it was just a matter of some minutes (And shells) more before it would go down anyway. And of course, since the last gun went off, it was a defeated ship :down:

The Bismarck episode has much of epic and in the popular folklore it was sure augmentated a few times but overall it was just another of the many dramatic actions in the war. Only it received more propaganda.

I coudn't say it better myself, Hitman!

I think the obvious problem in such endless “which one was better” discussions is considering only the technical data of the German equipment “on the paper”, and to disregard the real production capacities, materials availability etc. Let me give some examples: The King Tiger tank, best of the best, with front armor fragmenting and thus killing the crew after a hit with HE shell :up:, revolutionary He-162 Volksjäger, capable of doing 1100 km/h when diving and constructed from wood :up: or the XXI Elektroboot, consisting of parts that doesn’t fit because produced in 1000 works using slave labor :up: . They were good designs, but only designs, so I don’t think it is a good idea to put their real combat value on a same level with figures calculated in design offices. My 2 cents.

Greets

[Bewolf]

I don't really understand what the difference is between being sunk by shells or scuttled before the shells did their job :hmm: Even if the crew had scuttled the Bismarck, it was just a matter of some minutes (And shells) more before it would go down anyway. And of course, since the last gun went off, it was a defeated ship :down:

The Bismarck episode has much of epic and in the popular folklore it was sure augmentated a few times but overall it was just another of the many dramatic actions in the war. Only it received more propaganda.
I coudn't say it better myself, Hitman!

I think the obvious problem in such endless “which one was better” discussions is considering only the technical data of the German equipment “on the paper”, and to disregard the real production capacities, materials availability etc. Let me give some examples: The King Tiger tank, best of the best, with front armor fragmenting and thus killing the crew after a hit with HE shell :up:, revolutionary He-162 Volksjäger, capable of doing 1100 km/h when diving and constructed from wood :up: or the XXI Elektroboot, consisting of parts that doesn’t fit because produced in 1000 works using slave labor :up: . They were good designs, but only designs, so I don’t think it is a good idea to put their real combat value on a same level with figures calculated in design offices. My 2 cents.

Greets
Please differ between early and late war production. German construction quality levels up until the end of 42 were superb, and only then wartime conditions and slave labor later on detoriated quality to very low levels. Bismarck was a product from a time where german construction was still at the highest. But it is interesting you took only examples of 44/45 to prove your point about a ship from a different "era".

[Kaleu_Mihoo]

Yes, I agree about Bismarck, but please see the things realistic, when her "legend" was born, Bismarck was nothing else as a smoking, devastated can, so like Hitman said, it makes no difference how she sunk and how she was built. She was defeated and that's fact.
I took my examples form the different “era”, because the thread is about German vs. US subs, and I honestly see only minor differences between the earlier designs. The first better German design was in my eyes the XXI, but there you must also consider factors I mentioned before.
Greets

[Bewolf]

Yes, I agree about Bismarck, but please see the things realistic, when her "legend" was born, Bismarck was nothing else as a smoking, devastated can, so like Hitman said, it makes no difference how she sunk and how she was built. She was defeated and that's fact.
I took my examples form the different “era”, because the thread is about German vs. US subs, and I honestly see only minor differences between the earlier designs. The first better German design was in my eyes the XXI, but there you must also consider factors I mentioned before.
Greets
I never disputed she was beaten and sunk. Hard to argue otherways, anways. ;) Neither did I ever promote or denounce Bismarck in anyway.
I merely pointed out why the british in general have a problem with the argument of self scuttling, no matter if it is a fact or not and that Bismarck and King Tiger/Type XXI/Volksjäger are not comparable in production quality.
The rest you imply I said is purely in your head. :cool:

That said, I am going to say something now. And that is that the Type VII and even the Type IX maybe followed a rather old construction philosophy taken from WW1, but that this did not make the boats any less capable in their intended roles or gave them bad production quality. Old does not nessecarily mean worse, as quite a few folks make it out to be completly unrelated to the boats actual performances compared to other deisgns of their time. Thats more of a "club to death" argument then anything substantial, nevertheless brought up again and again when it comes to discussions like this. As if it's a last straw ppl have to hold upon to not "lose" the argument.

[Sailor Steve]

Bewolf, I completely agree with everything you just said, including the part about "not losing the argument". The only point I ever tried to make was against people who say "this was the best", no matter whether it's ships, tanks or planes. A true discussion of this kind has to take each machine on its own merits, including what it was designed for. The Type VII was the best boat for what it was designed to do, period. Germany needed a boat that could be mass-produced, and one that could dive fast, turn fast and dive deep. Some people say that American fleet boats would have been in big trouble if the Japanese had as good ASW as the Allies did. They are probably right, but we'll never know. On the other hand, the Type VII could never have made the long trips the Gatos did. The Type IX could do that, and more, but they had pretty much the same limitations as the American boats, with less torpedoes and worse sonar and radar.

Which was truly best? I think the answer is yes. The engineers on both sides designed the best weapon for the job.

[Jimbuna]

Which was truly best? I think the answer is yes. The engineers on both sides designed the best weapon for the job.

Precisely.....and in full agreement http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/pirate.gif




http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/4030/winkbigid2zj6.gif

[Puster Bill]

Yes, I agree about Bismarck, but please see the things realistic, when her "legend" was born, Bismarck was nothing else as a smoking, devastated can, so like Hitman said, it makes no difference how she sunk and how she was built. She was defeated and that's fact.

True, but having said that, you don't account for the fact that later it was raised and turned into an interstellar space battleship by a peculiar race of small people with green hair and orange skin. Very strange, and quite Darwinian in their outlook, but good singers.

I believe they also did the same thing with some swamped sampan out in the Pacific. Can't remember the name, though.

Oh, yeah, I remember now: Space Battleship Clamato.

[barkhorn45]

i read somwhere that a lucky shot from the Prinz Eugen might of sunk the hood.

[Cohaagen]

i read somwhere that a lucky shot from the Prinz Eugen might of sunk the hood.

15 years ago I read in a magazine that Val Kilmer ate a live locust on the set of Tombstone - doesn't mean it actually happened.

Personally, I give the locust story more credence.

[Puster Bill]

i read somwhere that a lucky shot from the Prinz Eugen might of sunk the hood.
15 years ago I read in a magazine that Val Kilmer ate a live locust on the set of Tombstone - doesn't mean it actually happened.

Personally, I give the locust story more credence.

It were time and space travelling Oompa-Loompas, I tell ye! :arrgh!:

[Kaleu_Mihoo]

Yes, I agree about Bismarck, but please see the things realistic, when her "legend" was born, Bismarck was nothing else as a smoking, devastated can, so like Hitman said, it makes no difference how she sunk and how she was built. She was defeated and that's fact.

True, but having said that, you don't account for the fact that later it was raised and turned into an interstellar space battleship by a peculiar race of small people with green hair and orange skin. Very strange, and quite Darwinian in their outlook, but good singers.

I believe they also did the same thing with some swamped sampan out in the Pacific. Can't remember the name, though.

Oh, yeah, I remember now: Space Battleship Clamato.

Man, I'd like to try that stuff you smoke :rotfl:

[Puster Bill]

Man, I'd like to try that stuff you smoke :rotfl:

Inhale diesel fumes, and drink a mixture of canned milk with fresh squeezed lemon juice.

When you are finished vomiting that back up, throw ice cold salt water in your face.

Then wait for inspiration. :yep:

[Bewolf]

Bewolf, I completely agree with everything you just said, including the part about "not losing the argument". The only point I ever tried to make was against people who say "this was the best", no matter whether it's ships, tanks or planes. A true discussion of this kind has to take each machine on its own merits, including what it was designed for. The Type VII was the best boat for what it was designed to do, period. Germany needed a boat that could be mass-produced, and one that could dive fast, turn fast and dive deep. Some people say that American fleet boats would have been in big trouble if the Japanese had as good ASW as the Allies did. They are probably right, but we'll never know. On the other hand, the Type VII could never have made the long trips the Gatos did. The Type IX could do that, and more, but they had pretty much the same limitations as the American boats, with less torpedoes and worse sonar and radar.

Which was truly best? I think the answer is yes. The engineers on both sides designed the best weapon for the job.

signed.

I'd be interested in the capabilities and introductions of sonar in both american and german boats, though. Hard to get any infos on that. :hmm:

[ECAaxel]

personally I think any swiss navy sub has got to be the best ;)

[Platapus]

I'd be interested in the capabilities and introductions of sonar in both american and german boats, though. Hard to get any infos on that. :hmm:


Ask and thou shall receive

http://uboat.net/articles/index.html?article=52
http://uboat.net/articles/index.html?article=45
http://204.13.154.195/sonar.html
http://www.maritime.org/fleetsub/sonar/index.htm

Enjoy :)

[msalama]

personally I think any swiss navy sub has got to be the best ;)

+1

And the Mongolian boats rock too I've heard.

[Hitman]

Quote:
personally I think any swiss navy sub has got to be the best ;)


+1

And the Mongolian boats rock too I've heard.

You ignorants!! :x

The best submaersibles in the world are those from the andorran high seas fleet, every child knows that!

[Subnuts]

Quote:
personally I think any swiss navy sub has got to be the best ;)


+1

And the Mongolian boats rock too I've heard.
You ignorants!! :x

The best submaersibles in the world are those from the andorran high seas fleet, every child knows that!
Andorra builds the best submarines in the world, it's just that they haven't yet jumped over the political hurdle of building a 70 mile long launching ramp that cuts right through France and into the Mediterranean.

[Contact]

:lol: Do we still remember the name of this thread ? US vs. German subs - which WAS better? (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=907971#post907971)

I'm 200% for German u-boats! unambiguously :rock:

And who made them better ? the best crew of that time Germany had :arrgh!:

[kenijaru]

i'd like to quote Karl Dönitz's memoirs on this subject (please note that i have a spanish translation, so the words on what I type here and what you have over there in you'r home will probably differ a bit).


(Refering to submersibles)
the fighting capabilities of a submarine do not increase, as oposite to surface vessels, when it's size is increased. Quite de opposite, many of the peculiarities that caracterize it's fighting abilities loose all meaning if the submarine has a displacement bigger than a certain ammount of Tns.
...
the inmersion manouver becomes more difficult, the tecnical management of the submarine travel becomes more complicated, it's harder to turn, both on the surface and submerged, and keeping it under control at periscope depth is also more complicated. (i asume you all know the fact that 2 rods, with the same degree of inclination (say... 30º) from the floor, if one is bigger it will reach higher, well, the same happens to the bow and stern of the sub, and if any broke the water surface, it wouldn't be good)
---
A bigger submarine will be able to carry more suplies and weapons but, a submarine crew, even at top phisical conditions, will not endure more than 2 or 3 months on the open sea. Therefore, the increased operational range of a submarine has a relative value.
---
a 500ton (type VIIA) sub would be best fit for the task, both because it was easily controled (specially compared to the larger type I) and had greater firepower and range than that of the type II.
--
(going back to the first quote) the fact that the bigger the ship, the stronger it is, is not completly true for a submarine. A big submarine, because of it's limited capabilities when doing some recon, will be rendered useless.
It's worth noticing, the fact that we could only build submarines equals to a limited total displacement, the limit already been set in a signed treaty, and that's why we tried to make the most efficient use of such a limited displacement. So it was better to build 4 500t submarines rather than 1 2000t submarine.


well, i know it's nt the best translation any of us has ever seen but... i sortof did my best :dead:

[Sailor Steve]

@ Contact: Sometimes people just need to unwind and have a little fun. As for your being in favor of German submarines, are you just saying which ones you like the best or do you have some new points to make?

@ Kenijaru: That's a good quote from Dönitz, but you don't comment on it. Do you think it applies to all submarine warfare, or just to the war Germany had to fight in the Atlantic? Do you think they would have been better off without the Type IX and Type XXI?

[Mush Martin]

Further too that Size doesnt count for ****

Design and construction matter.

You could probably have broken hood with two torpedos
dead centre.

but the same to torpedos probably would have left
a Japanese momi class still afloat despite a lack of armour.

Compartmentalization Machinery dispersal and armour.

surviving battle damage is possible if the pumps are still running.
but with no back up generators on a lot of RN ships (early)
damage control would prove impossible on the heels of power failures.

lessons were learned on all sides over the course of the war.
but it comes down to design construction and crew training.
these three things determine the odds of survival for your ship.

M

[antikristuseke]

Bah, you are all a bunch of pansies with your radar this and diesel that. Real men go to war in subs with steam turbines, like the K class. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_K_class_submarine)
:arrgh!:

[Orion2012]

German.

[Task Force]

It realy depends on where the sub is operating. fleet boats were better in the picific, U-boats were better in the atlanic.;) When inacuality niether were better because they were built to work in diffrent enviorments.:yep:

[Puster Bill]

Bah, you are all a bunch of pansies with your radar this and diesel that. Real men go to war in subs with steam turbines, like the K class. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_K_class_submarine)
:arrgh!:
Nope. Battle of May Island notwithstanding, REAL men go to war in subs that are hand-cranked:

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/6566/hunley3dp5.jpg

[Platapus]

Nope. Battle of May Island notwithstanding, REAL men go to war in subs that are hand-cranked:

Wow what a cool graphic. Is that from a game or did you make that yourself?

[Puster Bill]

Nope. Battle of May Island notwithstanding, REAL men go to war in subs that are hand-cranked:
Wow what a cool graphic. Is that from a game or did you make that yourself?

I did a GIS for "hunley". It was on the first page of results.

[Kongo Otto]

Quote:
personally I think any swiss navy sub has got to be the best ;)


+1

And the Mongolian boats rock too I've heard.
You ignorants!! :x

The best submaersibles in the world are those from the andorran high seas fleet, every child knows that!
Andorra builds the best submarines in the world, it's just that they haven't yet jumped over the political hurdle of building a 70 mile long launching ramp that cuts right through France and into the Mediterranean.

I´ve heared that they build some very good U-Boots in Zimbabwe either.

[Jimbuna]

Quote:
personally I think any swiss navy sub has got to be the best ;)


+1

And the Mongolian boats rock too I've heard.
You ignorants!! :x

The best submaersibles in the world are those from the andorran high seas fleet, every child knows that!
Andorra builds the best submarines in the world, it's just that they haven't yet jumped over the political hurdle of building a 70 mile long launching ramp that cuts right through France and into the Mediterranean.

I´ve heared that they build some very good U-Boots in Zimbabwe either.

They're all skinned in the black panther scheme.

[Puster Bill]

They're all skinned in the black panther scheme.

Could be worse.

Could be skinned in the pink panther scheme:

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/5458/balaokeywestpetticoatzl3.jpg

[antikristuseke]

Mock the pink panther scheme all you like fellas, but it really is bloody effective at night.

[Puster Bill]

Mock the pink panther scheme all you like fellas, but it really is bloody effective at night.

What bars do you hang out at?

[ReallyDedPoet]

Let's get back on track lads as per the OP in the thread :yep: For the most part there has been some nice discussion here.


RDP

[Letum]

Anyone mind if I Necro this thread?
It is the latest on the topic, right?

[HundertzehnGustav]

huuuh? say what?

[Letum]

I was wondering how each navy would have fared with each others
equipment. I suspect neither navy would want the others boats much,
but if they had no choice; how might it have gone?

Also; can anyone shed any light on crew experience? Did the Americans
or Germans have better training and experience?

[Torplexed]

Given the greater distances in the Pacific you had better include the Milchkuhs. I certainly wouldn't have wanted a Type VII if my base was Pearl. By the time you reached Japan it would be time to turn around due to lack of fuel. No air conditioning would hurt in the tropics too.

The Germans would have enjoyed their roomy Gatos until the point that the Allies starting homing in on their SJ radar. Then adios.

[Letum]

Given the greater distances in the Pacific you had better include the Milchkuhs. I certainly wouldn't have wanted a Type VII if my base was Pearl. By the time you reached Japan it would be time to turn around due to lack of fuel. No air conditioning would hurt in the tropics too.


Given that I think I may be right in saying that more IX boats where
built than fleet boats; the Americans could scuttle all of the VII's and still
have a bigger fleet after they swapped with the Germans if they didn't
fancy supply boats.
The IX boats did fine in the tropics with out air conditioning and ice
cream machines too.

Did the Germans ever figure out how good the Allies got at tracking
active radar? Would they have turned it off?

Would the American Torps been much of a problem in the Atlantic campeign?

[Sailor Steve]

Well, since the US fleet boats were similar to the Type IX, but with more engines and torpedoes, I'd say that they might have fared equally in each others' wars, if they took care; and I'm sure they would have. Heaven help the 'wonderful' Type VII in the Pacific though. Not knocking the boat itself, just its legs.

As for crew training and experience, I suppose it would have been just like the air war: Germany started out with the best trained men, especially the u-bootmen, as their trainers were the only ones who had ever fought a real submarine war. By the end, though, the Allies (especially the Americans) had the luxury of factories and shipyards that were never bombed, training bases thousands of miles from the front, and a training system that brought the experience combat veterans home to teach the new kids how it was done; while Germany had factories and shipyards that were bombed 'round the clock and their best and brightest, as Adolph Galland put it "fought until they were killed".

So it all depends on when.

[Sailor Steve]

Would the American Torps been much of a problem in the Atlantic campeign?
The Germans went through exactly the same torpedo problems, and yes they caused many headaches.

[Letum]

I'm sure use could have been made of the VII boats.
A supply ship extends the range up to 3 times (a refuel on the way there
and one on the way back).

How easy would it be to refuel a sub in the pacific?
Is it easy to hide a cargo ship there free from attack?

[Torplexed]

I'm sure use could have been made of the VII boats.
A supply ship extends the range up to 3 times (a refuel on the way there
and one on the way back).

How easy would it be to refuel a sub in the pacific?
Is it easy to hide a cargo ship there free from attack?

I suppose you could base the Type VIIs out of Australia as was done with many of the S-Boats. They'd still have the range to strike the Solomons or the Dutch East Indies. The US tried to keep tenders in the South Pacific well out of range of possible land-based Japanese air attack. That's why they ended up in Fremantle and Brisbane.

[Hitman]

Also; can anyone shed any light on crew experience? Did the Americans
or Germans have better training and experience?

German sub crews were very experienced and able at the start of the war due to the clandestine "elite" training of pre-war years. Because they could only train secretely a few, the level was quite good. But it soon started to drop sharply in 1941, when most veterans were retired from front duty or dilluted into crews of newbies. US crews were well trained from the start, but in the wrong tactics :haha:. Though they improved fast thanks to Morton, O'Kane and similars leading the way, adapted and were pretty much elite at the end of the war. It is worth mentioning that many german recruits were pushed directly into an UBoat without any previous knowledge of what a ship was. And in their first cruise, they were already bombed by enemy aircraft just after departing. Many US crews trained well in the US before departing on a newly comissioned submarine, and had long trips to Pearl and then to the patrol area to exercise a lot during the voyage.

Given that I think I may be right in saying that more IX boats where
built than fleet boats; the Americans could scuttle all of the VII's and still
have a bigger fleet after they swapped with the Germans if they didn't
fancy supply boats.
The IX boats did fine in the tropics with out air conditioning and ice
cream machines too.

I'm not sure about that, would need to check the figures :hmmm: Theye didn't work so well in the tropics, though. German uboats were designed with the north atlantic in mind. The fact that they could reach equatorial latitudes does not mean they were conceived for that. In fact, the crews had a bad time down there.


Did the Germans ever figure out how good the Allies got at tracking
active radar? Would they have turned it off?


They suspected it, and by late war they turned the radar off whenever possible.

Would the American Torps been much of a problem in the Atlantic campeign?

Of course. The problem was not related to where they were employed, but rather a design defect.

In general, the IX would have done a reasonable job in the Pacific, but the fleet subs did much better. They went even farther away, they had more torps and better electronics (Radar) for finding the enemy.

The fleet boats would have been crushed in the North Atlantic very much as the IXs were, because the overwhelming amount of air forces, electronics and escorts employed would have anyway annihilated any WW2 era sub.

[Sailor Steve]

I suppose you could base the Type VIIs out of Australia as was done with many of the S-Boats. They'd still have the range to strike the Solomons or the Dutch East Indies. The US tried to keep tenders in the South Pacific well out of range of possible land-based Japanese air attack. That's why they ended up in Fremantle and Brisbane.
Good point! With that many boats that close to the Solomons, the Tokyo Express would have been toast a year sooner at least. I never thought of that!:salute:

[Letum]

How well do the fleet boats do with AAA guns?

How about snorkels?

Is there any way to compare the boats on damage resistance when
under attack?

How reliable where the fleet boats?

And finally; how quiet are they?

:D Sorry for all the questions.

[Hitman]

How well do the fleet boats do with AAA guns?

Similar to germans, but by the end of WW2 everyone had realized that diving was the best option.

How about snorkels?

Unavailable in US boats AFAIK

Is there any way to compare the boats on damage resistance when
under attack?

No, and japanese depth charges had different power to allied ones, so that makes it even more difficult. Hull and pressure hull resistence seems to have been slightly better on german uboats, which should in turn provide better protection against depth charges. But this is just my theory.

How reliable where the fleet boats?

In general, building quality was on par or even better to the german ones. Plus they had four diesels instead of two, something that gives additional reassurance. However, when it comes to engines, the fleet boats equipped with HOR engines were a disaster, a pure nightmare. Winton and Fairbanks Morse equipped ones fared instead very well.

And finally; how quiet are they?

That's difficult to say, but with two four blade propellers and the big superstructure (Including all masts for periscopes, radar, etc.) I would bet that they were slightly noisier than german Type IXs. But not a huge amount.

[Letum]

More questions :D
this is going somewhere; I want to make a comprehensive table of pros
and cons...

About the AAA: didn't the Americans rely more on HMGs than cannon?

Your answers are very much appreciated. I know very little about fleet boats.

Am I right in thinking that the German optics where better?
I know the Germans where leading the world in optics before the war.

Did the Americans have a targeting system for surface attacks?

Where the American attack scopes powered? Where they self-stabilising
in rough seas like the German scopes?

Is it fair to say that the German fleet was more versatile?
Did the Americans use any of the following:
Milkcows, U-flak, coastal boats, mine layers, mini-subs, manned torpedoes and/or cargo adapted boats

Am I right in thinking that the American boats could use hydrophones
on the surface? Did this work well?

Did Americans develop pattern running torps? Wake-less torps?
How good where American acoustic torps?

Might the advantage of having 4 diesel engines in the American boats
be reduced a little because they didn't drive the prop shaft; they just
powered the (two?) electric motors?

Could the American boats rig a sail in case of engine failure?

Am I right in thinking that the Americans had taller conning towers?

Did the Americans have decoys like bold?
How about anti-sonar paint?

ed: Did the Americans have huffduff on the subs?
What about radar detectors like Metox?


Thanks :D

[Ducimus]

I'm surpised i haven't tossed my 2 cents into this thread.

Firstly, when comparing subs, you have to look at type, role and intent. One can't go comparing a type7 to a fleet boat. Thats like comparing an Fighter aircraft, to a bomber. So that leaves us with the type 9 compared to a Gato, and Balao class boat.

I'll get down to brass tacks here and express my belief that in this comparision, a Fleet boat, more specifically a Balao class, is superior to any varient of a Type 9 uboat. My opinion is based on the following:

Propulsion:
Type 9 was a direct drive, with 2 diesals. A balao was a indirect drive with 4 diesals. What this means, is the Balao had more flexiblity. It could put 1 engine on a charge and 3 on propulsion, vice versa, or any combination there of.

Armarment:
A type 9 had a total of 6 tubes, with torpedos stored externally. The Balao had a total of 10 tubes, with no torpedos stored externally, carrying an equal or greater amount of torpedos to the battle. No external stores means no vulnerable time period transferring them into the boat.

Performance:
A type 9 could expect to do up to 19 knots on the surface at best, probably averaging 18, with a max of 7.3 submerged. A balao could do 20.25 on the surface, and 8.75 , up to 9 kts submerged. Diving time for both boats was probably close to being the same. That being 45 to 60 seconds. I do not know what a well trained uboat crew could do, but I do know that trained US crews could dive their boats as fast as 35 seconds. As crush depth goes, the Balao could go every bit as deep as a type 9, and if the USS chopper incident is any indicator, probably even more.


Conning tower arrangement:
This bears mentioning. Because the periscopes are up higher, this allows the Balao to be submerged at a greater depth then a type 9 while using its periscope. This is to say that the risks of broaching are much higher in a type 9 because the Balao sits lower in the water. Additinally, the look outs in a balao (or any fleet boat) sit much higher up off the water, allowing them to see farther then lookouts in a type 9. Also, because of the positioning of the radar higher up, the balao is able to use its radar while remaining submerged. A type 9 would have a much harder time of this.


Speaking of radar.....

[QUOTE=Letum;1245138
The IX boats did fine in the tropics with out air conditioning and ice
cream machines too.
[/QUOTE]

The air conditioning in fleet boats, is really a DEHUMIDIFIER. A neccessary thing because their is ALOT more electronics in a fleet boat then a uboat. Given a tropical enviorment, electrical shorts would probably become crippleing. So the dehumidifier was put in to protect the equpiment, but the people profitted from it.

Ice cream machines were object of ingenuity. It's been said that US submariners in WW2 were born gadgeteers. They made and installed these ice cream machines by themselves, for themselves, because they could get away with it. This was not standard issue equipment. If anything, the famed ice cream machines are tributes to the crews "can do" spirit, and ability to be innovative.

[Jimbuna]

The Germans went through exactly the same torpedo problems, and yes they caused many headaches.

They also sorted said problems out a lot quicker without the consequence that a lot of territory/bases etc. were lost :hmmm:

I sometimes compare the ineptitude of the US in fixing the torpedo problem to that of the ineptitude of fixing the enigma problem.

Both sides were or had strong suspicions something was not right but both sides also had those within their ranks who chose to believe everything was fine and were happy to ignore said problems.

[Letum]

Was distance to the supply factories/testing grounds an issue in the delay fixing the American torps?

[Sailor Steve]

They also sorted said problems out a lot quicker without the consequence that a lot of territory/bases etc. were lost :hmmm:
German problems cropped up in Sept 39, fixed in Dec 42 - three years, three months.

US problems cropped up in Dec 41, fixed by end of 43 - two years.

[Ducimus]

>>About the AAA: didn't the Americans rely more on HMGs than cannon?

Not really. Towards the end of the war deck armarment was employed against coast craft because the Japanese had been reduced to using these more for supply due to umm.... a short supply of shipping vessels. :O:


>>Am I right in thinking that the German optics where better?

The german attack periscope was superior to anything the allies had as periscopes go.

>>Did the Americans have a targeting system for surface attacks?
Target bearing transmitter. Works like a UZO. TDC is in the conning tower. The captain had a "plotting party" working the solution.

>>Is it fair to say that the German fleet was more versatile?
In subs, yes. The US only had one category of sub, but then, they didn't need any other categories either.

>> Am I right in thinking that the American boats could use hydrophones
on the surface?

Yup.

>>Did this work well?

It was Meh. For most of the war, german hydrophones were superior. The allies caught up later on with the JP sonar.

>>Did Americans develop pattern running torps?
No.

>> Wake-less torps?
Yes.

>> How good where American acoustic torps?

Meh. They were really Mark 24 mines (FIDO), adapted to be shot out of a tube. Primarly anti escort in use.

>>Could the American boats rig a sail in case of engine failure?
With 4 engines, this never happened.

>>Did the Americans have decoys like bold?

Called SBT. Submarine Bubble Target.

>>How about anti-sonar paint?
No.

>>What about radar detectors like Metox?

Yes. Called Radar Counter Measures. Of course interference to their own radars acted as a detector in itself. Here's a neat trivia bit. The radars were good enough where they could acutally send messages to other boats by using the radar as sort of a morse code telegraph, reading the dots and dash's caused by the interference of each others radar. In other cases, Radar equpied japanese subs were found because of the low frequency interference they gave US radar units.

[Letum]

Balao could go every bit as deep as a type 9, and if the USS chopper incident is any indicator, probably even more.


Wiki tells me Chopper got down to 720 ft.

VII boats where tested in trials at just over 750ft. the Balao was only
ever tested to 400ft in trials.

The maximum field depth for a VII is estimated at 900ft. The
instruments and the fact that the boat was vertical in the water at the
time mean that this has a margin of error. It's also based on the
reading in the engine room plus the length to the bow (which was the
deepest point of the boat at the time).

I think there is little question that the VII could dive deeper.

[Ducimus]

Was distance to the supply factories/testing grounds an issue in the delay fixing the American torps?

No, just pure bureaucratic BS.

If your really interested in learning more about US boats, here's one documentary on the subject. Its one documentary of a 4 part series.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2427972655646186523&q=silent+service&total=559&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=8

edit:
>> Wiki tells me Chopper got down to 720 ft.

More like 1000 feet by the bow. The deepest deliberate dive i know of, is about 620 to 640 feet by the USS tang. Most skippers didn't push their boats taht deep, and in many place it wouldn't have done them any good if they tried. Two reasons:
1.) thermal layers
2.) many areas of the pacific are SHALLOW. So in context of the pacific theater, deep crush depths is largely irrelevant in many areas.

edit:
Inifact going through patrol reports, one finds they were forced down into the mud via depth charge shock often enough.

[Jimbuna]

German problems cropped up in Sept 39, fixed in Dec 42 - three years, three months.

US problems cropped up in Dec 41, fixed by end of 43 - two years.

Sorry Steve, I did mean earlier not length :oops:

Your Dec 42 is spot on :yeah:

In December 1942, well into the war, a new, improved magnetic pistol was introduced which also functioned on contact. It proved very efficient.

http://www.uboat.net/history/torpedo_crisis.htm

You weren't quite on the button (not normally you mind) with the Mark 14 though http://imgcash4.imageshack.us/img144/3336/tonguecm5.gif

In September 1943, the first torpedoes with new contact pistols were sent to war. "After twenty-one months of war, the three major defects of the Mark 14 torpedo had at last been isolated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_14_torpedo

I'd like to provide a more worthy link than Wiki but tis supper time.

Take care mate :sunny:

[Letum]

Besides, the Germans where ordered to use contacts only well before they got new triggers.

[Snestorm]

I like the IXB.
To me it's the perfect compromise between the more manuverable and faster diving Type VII, and the bigger, faster, and more powerful american fleet boats.

Let's face it. A fleet boat would be at a disadvantage against allied ASW efforts in The Atlantic. The Type VIIC didn't have the range to operate in The Pacific.

The dutch had some very nice boats operating in both theatres (en sp?).

[Snestorm]

Besides, the Germans where ordered to use contacts only well before they got new triggers.

You beat me to it.

[Hitman]

I think that also a good testament to the quality of the fleet boats is that once the war was finished, and the americans got hold of the Type XXIs to examine them the only things borrowed were:

-Snorkel
-Improved underwater hydrodynamics (Streamed bow, deck gun gone, new conning tower fairing)
-Enlarged battery capacity

With all that implemented, -and besides the snorkel and batteries, it was largely an external, almost cosmetic change- that fleet boats actually surpassed the Type XXI in performance, plus they also had way more advanced electronics (Radar, active sonar, etc.)


In any case, it is worth saying that both german and us (and british) engineers and designers were top notch, and the cream of the cream by the 1930s. But german ones were hampered severely by the Versailles Treaty and political/doctrinal (wolfpacks) matters and actually just could develop modernized -and well built, with german quality- updates of the WW1 submarines. Us and british ones largely had to cope with lots of money restriction after WW1, and also with a ridiculous doctrine that declared any submerged submarine close enough to an ASDIC equipped destroyer as potentially dead. But in all, they had more freedom of movement than german ones, because submarines were not prohibited for their navies, as well as a huge backup from the rest of the navy development (naval radar, etc.) and that pays off.

[Sailor Steve]

I'd like to provide a more worthy link than Wiki but tis supper time.
:D Folks dismiss Wikipedia, but in this area it seems their information is as good as any online.

Take care mate :sunny:
Always! You too.:)