Das Boot or the American Fleet Boat

[Krauter]

Well seeing as I recently changed over from sh4 to sh5 I'm finding alot of differences affecting my gameplay. Namely the huge differences between fleet boats and u-boats

in paricular
speed
torpedo stocks
aa protection
dive time
maneouvrability

what are other differences you notice and what do u think of said differences

[ETR3(SS)]

Endurance.
A fleet boat can travel much further than a U-Boat. But this is a matter of design necessity, each was built for it's own theater.

[msalama]

Endurance as stated and the Americans had pretty advanced electronics too, but it's apples and oranges really because the theaters were so different. That said both classes were pretty good for what they were designed for IMHO...

[thruster]

yeah, theyre products of their own environments. but i guess if you got a Type IX and a Gato, put them in the others theatre......

[Catfish]

Hello,
there are a lot of differences, despite the outer appearance being a bit (only a bit!) similar, due to the hydrodynamic hull when running surfaced.

You already mentioned some:
- speed
US Fleet boats were faster, if only 2-4 knots - but not all types.

torpedo stocks
- Much more torpedoes in the US subs, if not in the sugar boats

- aa protection
Depends on the types - the later VIIC, IXC and D types had heavy AA guns, including the 4x "whirlwind" type. And then there were the "Flak traps". A broken IXB unable to dive fought off more than 4 planes and a blimp for almost a day, in the carribean - with stock AA.

- dive time
German subs were a bit faster, i think 25-30 seconds for the VII types, and 35 - 40 for the bigger IX ones. Well trained crew assumed.

- maneouvrability
don't know whether the sims reflect the real thing, however it was said the german types were extarordinarily manoeuverable - maybe not the massive "Milk cow" types, and surely not the later type XXI which was a pig when it came to docking.


Two of the biggest differences were the propulsion system including Diesel types, and the dive depth.

Modern US fleet boats had Diesel-electric propulsion, meaning that they were running on electric engines all the time, being charged and powered by several Diesel engines which had not to be built in-line with the propellor shafts, but could be "scattered" all over the boat. Merely powerplants with wires to the electric engines, buffered by batteries. I was astonished to read that the US "Diesels" used in US boats were of the older two-stroke type.
When the batteries were loaded, one or more Diesels would then charge the batteries, resulting in drastically reduced speed, often turning off one of the propshafts and electric engines, entirely.

German boats' Diesels were coupled directly to the propshafts in a line, via a clutch system that after some time and wear caused slip, and had to be re-adjusted after some months.
The electric engines were again in line like with the US boats, but they could also be used as dynamoes/generators, in switching them to load the batteries.
So when the Diesels were running, one or two of the electric motors/generators could be clutched to the propshaft(s), thus charging the batteries, which only reduced the speed from 18 to 16 knots, instead of going down to 10 or 12 like with the US subs, at full speed.
The electric engines could also be switched additionally to the running Diesels, which would provide a top speed of 20 knots, if not for long because of rapidly draining the batteries.
This was shown in the film "Das Boot", when the captain ordered "Dreimal Wahnsinnige" to get near the coast after being detected, at Gibraltar.
"Ahead Flank" would be "Äußerste Kraft voraus", or "AK" in german, while this other command mentioned would urge the machine personell to get every horsepower out of the engines for the utmost speed, regardless wear or efficiency.

Again, the U-boat being driven by only one Diesel engine while the other would be maintained, or repaired, or just switched off to spare fuel, both electric engines were able to lad the batteries, since the turning screw of the unclutched repaired Diesel would load the generators via the turning propshaft - so one from the running Diesel, and the other by the - if slowly - turning screw being driven by the "slipstream".

Later IXC and D types had additional special belt-drive electric engines for silent running, apart from their stock inline electrical ones.
They also had two separated (not in-line with the propshaft) Diesels only for charging thr batteries.

Both US and german propulsion systems had their advantages, but in my opinion the german system was more flexible to use, under the circumstances experienced.


Regarding dive depth the german subs were able to dive much deeper than their british or US adversaries.
The VIIB was already able to dive to 220 meters (appx. 660 feet), or "140 meters plus A". "A" meant "Achtzig", to hide the capabilities of the boats in telegrams.

The later VIIC/41 and 42s were able to reach 300 meters, or 900 feet roughly, and one VIIC reached 360 (if by error of a sticking depth gauge), and survived - if with bent propshafts and the whole inner pressure cylinder bent and out of shape.

Don't know how deep fleet boats would be able to go, but i heard something of 450 to 500 feet (?), which would be 170 meters.


Another difference were the radar capabilities, and while later U-boats had and used radar, it was not as efficient and well-developed as in the late US silent service.


Greetings,
Catfish

[Ragtag]

Hello,
there are a lot of differences, despite the outer appearance being a bit (only a bit!) similar, due to the hydrodynamic hull when running surfaced.

You already mentioned some:
- speed
US Fleet boats were faster, if only 2-4 knots - but not all types.

torpedo stocks
- Much more torpedoes in the US subs, if not in the sugar boats

- aa protection
Depends on the types - the later VIIC, IXC and D types had heavy AA guns, including the 4x "whirlwind" type. And then there were the "Flak traps". A broken IXB unable to dive fought off more than 4 planes and a blimp for almost a day, in the carribean - with stock AA.

- dive time
German subs were a bit faster, i think 25-30 seconds for the VII types, and 35 - 40 for the bigger IX ones. Well trained crew assumed.

- maneouvrability
don't know whether the sims reflect the real thing, however it was said the german types were extarordinarily manoeuverable - maybe not the massive "Milk cow" types, and surely not the later type XXI which was a pig when it came to docking.


Two of the biggest differences were the propulsion system including Diesel types, and the dive depth.

Modern US fleet boats had Diesel-electric propulsion, meaning that they were running on electric engines all the time, being charged and powered by several Diesel engines which had not to be built in-line with the propellor shafts, but could be "scattered" all over the boat. Merely powerplants with wires to the electric engines, buffered by batteries. I was astonished to read that the US "Diesels" used in US boats were of the older two-stroke type.
When the batteries were loaded, one or more Diesels would then charge the batteries, resulting in drastically reduced speed, often turning off one of the propshafts and electric engines, entirely.

German boats' Diesels were coupled directly to the propshafts in a line, via a clutch system that after some time and wear caused slip, and had to be re-adjusted after some months.
The electric engines were again in line like with the US boats, but they could also be used as dynamoes/generators, in switching them to load the batteries.
So when the Diesels were running, one or two of the electric motors/generators could be clutched to the propshaft(s), thus charging the batteries, which only reduced the speed from 18 to 16 knots, instead of going down to 10 or 12 like with the US subs, at full speed.
The electric engines could also be switched additionally to the running Diesels, which would provide a top speed of 20 knots, if not for long because of rapidly draining the batteries.
This was shown in the film "Das Boot", when the captain ordered "Dreimal Wahnsinnige" to get near the coast after being detected, at Gibraltar.
"Ahead Flank" would be "Äußerste Kraft voraus", or "AK" in german, while this other command mentioned would urge the machine personell to get every horsepower out of the engines for the utmost speed, regardless wear or efficiency.

Again, the U-boat being driven by only one Diesel engine while the other would be maintained, or repaired, or just switched off to spare fuel, both electric engines were able to lad the batteries, since the turning screw of the unclutched repaired Diesel would load the generators via the turning propshaft - so one from the running Diesel, and the other by the - if slowly - turning screw being driven by the "slipstream".

Later IXC and D types had additional special belt-drive electric engines for silent running, apart from their stock inline electrical ones.

Both US and german propulsion systems had their advantages, but in my opinion the german system was more flexible to use, under the circumstances experienced.


Regarding dive depth the german subs were able to dive much deeper than their british or US adversaries.
The VIIB was already able to dive to 220 meters (appx. 660 feet), or "140 meters plus A". "A" meant "Achtzig", to hide the capabilities of the boats in telegrams.

The later VIIC/41 and 42s were able to reach 300 meters, or 900 feet roughly, and one VIIC reached 360 (if by error of a sticking depth gauge), and survived - if with bent propshafts and the whole inner pressure cylinder bent and out of shape.

Don't know how deep fleet boats would be able to go, but io heard something of 450 to 500 feet (?), which would be 170 meters.


Another differnce were the radar capabilities, and while later U-boats had and used radar, it was not as efficient and well-developped as in the late US silent service.


Greeetings,
Catfish

Nice post. Thanks for the info :up:

[Decoman]

What a fun read! I learned a thing or two. :up:

[Noren]

But remember, german sub design was superior late in the war and copied to the victors. Although I dont know if they had radar like the fleet boats.

[Onkel Neal]

US: Radar. Huge difference.

[Kromus]

Since you are mentioning here also IX class it would be fair to get some basic facts straight:

IXD vs Balao ice cream machine
Speed: 19,2 vs 20,25/6,9 vs 8.75
Range: 23700!(at 12 knots) vs 11000 (at 10 knots)
Torpedoes: 24 vs 24

[Fincuan]

Range: 23700 km!(at 12 knots) vs 11000 nm(at 10 knots)

Fixed.

[Kromus]

Fixed.

http://www.uboat.net/types/ixd.htm

Look for facts first.

Just FYI

Small VIIB was able to make 8700NM! and it was pretty close to 11000nm of US fleet boat range

[Fincuan]

http://www.uboat.net/types/ixd.htm

Look for facts first.


Depends entirely on which "facts" one chooses(tens of site on the internet saying different things), and which type IXD boat we're talking about. The range you listed matches quite well the range of a type IX/D1-uboat in kilometers, while that of a type IX/D2 was supposedly considerably longer, over 30,000 nm.

[Kromus]

Depends entirely on which "facts" one chooses(tens of site on the internet saying different things), and which type IXD boat we're talking about. The range you listed matches quite well the range of a type IX/D1-uboat in kilometers, while that of a type IX/D2 was supposedly considerably longer, over 30,000 nm.

I really don`t want start a "fight" here but site which exist (at least should be) since 1995 and has SO EXACT and COMPREHENSIVE information would definately not post a BS on basic facts, don`t you think?

Edit:

I also looked here:

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

values are pretty much the same (info on VIIC), biggest difference is in range 8190 (wiki) vs 8500(uboat).

[Hartmann]

US: Radar. Huge difference.

Exact , a decissive difference .

U.S boats can know the range and heading of the planes and ships,
this let the commander choose the best strategy and position for the engagament or evade a danger. and the radar situation is the best, in the top of the periscope mast.

Another difference about torpedos, 6 tubes bow and 4 in the stern, and all reloads inside of the boat. a lot of firepower for convoy and destroyers attacks. ( japanese were running out of destroyers at the end of the war)

[Noren]

Radas is all good but even if the germans had access to them, I know they had stationary radar, I doubt that they would have been useful in a routinely manner.
The allied convoys, signal stations and aircraft could, I belive, easily pick up on german radar signals and home in.

Im not to familiar to the pacific theatre but I dont recall the japanese having radar-detectors or searchplanes covering every bit of the western pacific. One could perhaps reason that american captains had a less risk of suddenly beeing attack, in most of the pacific.

[Dread Knot]

Im not to familiar to the pacific theatre but I dont recall the japanese having radar-detectors or searchplanes covering every bit of the western pacific. One could perhaps reason that american captains had a less risk of suddenly beeing attack, in most of the pacific.


The Japanese had good search planes. The excellent Kawanishi flying boats with a range of 4,210 miles. But because US subs had radar they could evade them. :D

The secret to a successful submarine cmpaign. Pick your opponent carefully. ;)

[Catfish]

Hello Noren,
while the germans thought that even their passive radar-detecting devices emitted some kind of radiation (and therefore did not really like to use it), the allied did not have (as far as i know) the capability to pick up passive radar detection devices, or even active radar signals (anyone?), let alone the japanese.

While Germany had and used Radar, and was quite good in building big exact long-range devices on warships etc., it lacked smaller types, especially the cm radar was considered as impossible to build into small aircraft or U-boats, by scientists in Germany, because the device was considered as being too big to install it on a plane, or U-boat.
With their well-developped cm radar allied ships and planes were theoretically able in the later war, to detect snorkels and periscopes, and generally all smaller things above sea level.

This is why german U-boat commanders and the high brass could not explain what was happening, like aircraft attacking at night in almost zero visibility. Instead they thought of a traitor in the naval headquarters.
Another guess was the allies using some kind of infrared night visison detection, and England mocked them by just using red lights (decyphered messages again). It was a hidden and secret war, no side knew exactly what the other was able to.
After the war it turned out that Germany had indeed become a leader in infrared night sight technology, due to the research on the assumed allied technology - which had not really been in existence at that time.

When a U-boat's Enigma telegram with a position had been decyphered, a cross bearing done (if the transmission was long enough, what it was mostly not due to the german short "taboo" system of sending), it was easy to send a cm radar-equipped plane to the vicinity of the last position, and let it find the boat.
It was not quite that simple, but with trained crews, personnel, bombs, rockets and special homing-in airborne torpdoes - you get the idea.

US radar was another standard, they used 10 cm radar which was enough against enemy ships and planes, but with a reliable turning system, and high above the bridge on a radar mast, improving range - something that was not done even on the later IXD2 boats. The german late active radar was often poorly built, with the turning electric motor failing after a few days of use. The new electric boats like XXI came too late to be decisive.

Greetings,
Catfish

[Onkel Neal]

Radas is all good but even if the germans had access to them, I know they had stationary radar, I doubt that they would have been useful in a routinely manner.
The allied convoys, signal stations and aircraft could, I belive, easily pick up on german radar signals and home in.

Im not to familiar to the pacific theatre but I dont recall the japanese having radar-detectors or searchplanes covering every bit of the western pacific. One could perhaps reason that american captains had a less risk of suddenly beeing attack, in most of the pacific.

Then you need to get familiar with the Pacific theater, it helps to know more about the subject you're talking about (not saying that in a sarcastic way at all). :yep:

[Gammelpreusse]

RADAR was a great asset in the Pacific, that is a fact. Especially against the japanese with their rather sparse ressources.

However, in the Atlantic, and there I agree with Cat, it would have posed a problem. German boats had Radar, but hardly ever used it for very specific reasons. Fleet Boats operating in the role of the german subs would have faced the same problems. So I am not exactly sure this device would have made such a difference on a basis of principle, not taking opertional theater conditions into account.

[Decoman]

I am guessing that the Japanese military did not have that good of an air coverage for the Pacific. Else aircraft would seem like a good way to spot US submarines on the surface.

So I am thinking that the Japanese was not that big of a threat when it came to air attacks against submarines. Wheter or not it was dangerous in general is of no importance. Being in the military is dangerous by itself, you could sit in a car/tank peacetime and end up dead because someone decided to drive across a frozen lake.

[Bilge_Rat]

RADAR was a great asset in the Pacific, that is a fact. Especially against the japanese with their rather sparse ressources.

However, in the Atlantic, and there I agree with Cat, it would have posed a problem. German boats had Radar, but hardly ever used for very specific reasons. Fleet Boats operating in the role the german subs took would have faced the same problems. So I am not exactly sure this device would have made such a difference on a principle basis, taking opertional theater conditions into account.

Radar would have been a great tactical assets to U-Boats, especially at night or low visibility conditions. Many U-Boats were caught on the surface and sunk by escorts or airplanes which could see them on Radar, while the U-Boat crew were basically blind.

[Gammelpreusse]

Radar would have been a great tactical assets to U-Boats, especially at night or low visibility conditions. Many U-Boats were caught on the surface and sunk by escorts or airplanes which could see tham on Radar, while the U-Boat crew were basically blind.

That is the point, however. RADAR works both ways, like a flashlight it helps you seeing stuff, but it also helps others to see you even better, given the right detection equipment. And the allies were particulary good at using every means to find U-Boats, including, to my knowledge, RADAR emission detectors. Evading an allied plane does not help much if this plane is able to signal your position, circle the area and gets relieved in this until the boat has to resurface just to have more planes or even a hunter/killer group waiting for you.

RADAR signals travel way further then their effective return signal treshhold.

That aside, this is a particualry good site for WW2 era RADARS:

http://www.radarworld.org

[Dread Knot]

I am guessing that the Japanese military did not have that good of an air coverage for the Pacific. Else aircraft would seem like a good way to spot US submarines on the surface.

So I am thinking that the Japanese was not that big of a threat when it came to air attacks against submarines. .

The Japanese had plenty of planes to defend their Pacific conquests. That's why the US had to build a massive fleet of carriers and escort carriers for it's offensive to retake them. However, if you have decent air search radar and your opponent's planes don't, then a plane is easy to evade by pulling the plug.

[Bilge_Rat]

That is the point, however. RADAR works both ways, like a flashlight it helps you seeing stuff, but it also helps others to see you even better, given the right detection equipment. And the allies were particulary good at using every means to find U-Boats, inclusing, to my knowledge, RADAR emission detectors.

RADAR signals travel way further then their effective return signal treshhold.

true, but in modern warfare, the key to survival is detecting your enemy before he detects you.

In the Pacific, the U.S. Navy showed what a huge tactical advantage Radar could be. By 1944-45, U.S. fleet Boats were attacking heavily escorted IJN convoys and Task Forces on the surface at will.

The reality of the battle of the Atlantic is that after Radar became standard equipment on Allied escorts/airplanes in 41-42, U-Boats were at a huge disadvantage.

[Gammelpreusse]

true, but in modern warfare, the key to survival is detecting your enemy before he detects you.

In the Pacific, the U.S. Navy showed what a huge tactical advantage Radar could be. By 1944-45, U.S. fleet Boats were attacking heavily escorted IJN convoys and Task Forces on the surface at will.

The reality of the battle of the Atlantic is that after Radar became standard equipment on Allied escorts/airplanes in 41-42, U-Boats were at a huge disadvantage.

The facts are there, I won't dispute any of your statements in this regard. However, I disagree with your conclusions.

Your claim about "Detecting the enemy before he detects you" is exactly what I try to bring across here.

Look at it this way. A german U-boat on patrol in the North Atlantic, in bad weather conditions, uses it's RADAR. Let's put the effective range for a generic set at 20 miles. Within this radius the Boat i able to get a return signal.

The RADAR waves, however, do not stop at this radius, an allied plane flying at a distance of around 30 miles would still be able to detect these signals without the U-Boat beeing able to detect the plane in return.

You see where this leads?

The japanese ASW and patrol planes, and again, only to my knowledge, did not posses such equipment, or at least not to the same sophistication, which made US RADAR use in the Pacific a completly different affair then german RADAR use in the Atlantic.

[nikimcbee]

I'll just add the livability factors to to the fleet boats. I can't imagine being on a type VII for an extended patrol:down:.

Regarding radar, I don't know (remember) at what point the Japanese came up with a radar detector?

Then there's the command and control structure, but I guess that is for another thread.

[Bilge_Rat]

If you are looking at air v. sub, detecting an airplane on radar was easier and possible at greater range, even with WW2 technology, because the airplane sticks out all alone in the air with no competing false returns.

Detecting a sub on the surface from the air could only be done from a much shorter range, because the sub gets lost in the "surface clutter", namely the many false returns from radar waves which hit the surface of the sea and are reflected back to the radar set on the airplane. In WW2, the airplane has to be fairly close before the radar image of the sub would burn through the clutter and show up on the set.

So a radar equipped sub on the surface could have detected the airplane early enough to dive and survive rather than be surprised on the surface and killed. The U.S. Navy proved that in the Pacific.

[Dread Knot]

I'll just add the livability factors to to the fleet boats. I can't imagine being on a type VII for an extended patrol:down:.

Regarding radar, I don't know (remember) at what point the Japanese came up with a radar detector?


By 1944 they were starting to become commonplace (with a little German help.) The Japanese battleships Ise and Hyuga ran a gauntlet of waiting US subs during their run from Singapore back to home waters using recently installed radar detectors. However, they never sailed again due to lack of fuel, and were wrecked at anchor by US carrier planes.

[Gammelpreusse]

If you are looking at air v. sub, detecting an airplane on radar was easier and possible at greater range, even with WW2 technology, because the airplane sticks out all alone in the air with no competing false returns.

Detecting a sub on the surface from the air could only be done from a much shorter range, because the sub gets lost in the "surface clutter", namely the many false returns from radar waves which hit the surface of the sea and are reflected back to the radar set on the airplane. In WW2, the airplane has to be fairly close before the radar image of the sub would burn through the clutter and show up on the set.

So a radar equipped sub on the surface could have detected the airplane early enough to dive and survive rather than be surprised on the surface and killed. The U.S. Navy proved that in the Pacific.

That applies if the plane's only detection equipment is RADAR as well, not a RADAR signal detector.

[Bilge_Rat]

That applies if the plane's only detection equipment is RADAR as well, not a RADAR signal detector.

a typical Naxos radar detector could detect allied aircraft at about 5 kms, which gives about 1 min warning.

the ASV MK II airborne radar, in operation in the atlantic in 42-43, would detect a U-Boat at 7-8 miles.

the SJ radar on U.S. Fleet Boats, could detect a large aircraft out to 20-40 miles.

you do the math...

[JamesT73J]

According to at least one source I've read (Cold War Submarines by Polmar and Moore) Doenitz knew as early as the late thirties that the contemporary type of submersibles had a limited future. As soon as Radar was advanced enough (and surface forces owned the surface) the type VII and IX were through.

Herbert Werner (Iron Coffins) was more critical, understanding that by 1943 the boats of the period were basically useless against the allied advances.

Hence the explorations into alternative designs as early as 1942.

[AVGWarhawk]

http://www.uboat.net/types/ixd.htm

Look for facts first.

Just FYI

Small VIIB was able to make 8700NM! and it was pretty close to 11000nm of US fleet boat range


Close only works in horse shoes. :O:

[Gammelpreusse]

a typical Naxos radar detector could detect allied aircraft at about 5 kms, which gives about 1 min warning.

the ASV MK II airborne radar, in operation in the atlantic in 42-43, would detect a U-Boat at 7-8 miles.

the SJ radar on U.S. Fleet Boats, could detect a large aircraft out to 20-40 miles.

you do the math...

Well, I am not going to debate this topic to death, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but the most important figure in your list is lacking, that beeing the efficiency of allied airborn based radar detection equipment.

[tater]

I think the US Fleet Type engine setup (diesel-electric) was unambiguously better, frankly. US boats could push 21 knots when not charging, but if you are dashing that fast, do you also need to be charging? Their 11,000 range was predicated on a 10 knots speed. It's not like u-boats ran around at 21 knots whenever they were surfaced—they needed to conserve fuel as well, presumably.

Did any post war boats use direct diesel propulsion on the surface? What %?

[Krauter]

As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, the two submarines are very hard to compare because each was designed to meet specific needs of it's theatre.

Thus it's like comparing (vague comparison coming..) a crocodile to a dinosaure. Sure they're related, but both predators come to meet different criterias of their region and age.

One point that boggles me is that yes, the earlier Type VIIA and possibly the Type VIIBs cannot really be compared to subs like the Gato, Porpoise, etc. But once the U-Boat operations started running out into the Atlantic Gap (now strictly talking of VII operations, not IX which could actually be compared to Gatos) the operational framework starts to look similar to that of the Pacific. Find, Fix and Destroy convoys and targets of opportunity in the middle of the ocean.

Thus, how do such subs such as the VIIC, VIIC/41 and the planned VIIC/42 compare to the Gatos and their contemporary American cousins.

Secondly, I understand the great difference that Radar makes for the Americans, but I'm really amazed to see that such simple (well not really simple..) things such as diving depth (really a Type VIIA can dive deeper then a Balao..) are greatly different between the two.

Question for you naval types: With the fleet boats larger size, would it not then offer a better chance at diving deeper then the smaller Type VIIs? What is the difference maker here?

I am really interested in the differences between the two campaigns and how they affected the ships that fought them, :yeah: to this thread :)

Krauter

[tater]

Well, I am not going to debate this topic to death, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but the most important figure in your list is lacking, that beeing the efficiency of allied airborn based radar detection equipment.

So the argument is that better radar gear would have been wasted? That is likely true, but it doesn't change the fact that the radar itself was fr more primitive.

Radar of course becomes the analog of active sonar on subs, a no-no since it broadcasts your position.

This goes to the overall failure of the u-boat since it faced a more advanced opponent. It's dangerous to use radar, so your search diameter is tiny (shears to masts or smoke of target... So doctrine then becomes lines of boats, but to make this work, the boats have to call home. Trouble is that the call home is just as detectable as using radar and gets DFed. U-boats had a tough time, really. If you operate alone like a Fleet Type and use radar, you run a grave risk. If you operate in the "chatty" way they actually did, you get detected from that (not even counting code-breaking) and run a grave risk.

It was one of those times in history where technology was "in between" sort of like the US Civil War, and doctrines needed to evolve. The USN boats were more of a true "silent service" which I think helped them a great deal (the IJN had excellent DF capability, for example, even though it took them a long time to get radar detection gear going at all). I imagine that the u-boats would have been less successful in tonnage doing it that way, but also would have sustained fewer losses.
:hmmm:

[MattDizzle]

Could it be the differances in tactics in the interwar period?

The americans most likely subscribed to the traditional theory of submarines, their role was to sit at periscope depth outside of the enemy home harbor and sink ships of the line as they sailed out for one big battle. The idea was that they were like torpedo boats that could hide for a bit, not roaming underwater death machines.

The germans thought this way as well, but due to the foe being much more obvious and the tactics based much more on attacking escorted supply convoys submerged and getting away underwater, the focus was indeed on long term underwater ops and a deeper diving depth would be needed.

Still cant for the life of my figure out why radar would be a bad idea. If you suspect air activity in the area than switch it off, why deprive yourself of a tool?

[Piggy]

Yeah Ive always found that a bit odd that the fleet boats max depth was well under that of u-boats...

However, could the explanation simply be that the germans had a lot of prior experience with submarines, at war.

What were the diving depths of WW1 U-boats?

Edit: According to U-boat.net the UB III's (most produced of WW1) had a max depth of ~250' (75m).. so not very deep. These boats are quite similar to VII's.

http://www.uboat.net/wwi/types/index.html?type=UB+III

[tater]

Could the VIIA actually dive deeper? Balaos dove far in excess of rated depth and survived, and post war boats which were little different went deeper still.

I think like radar in actual use, this is more necessity than anything else—not of design, but practice. Had the US faced better ASW, our boats would have gone deeper and deeper since when the alternative is certain death, risking a deeper dive is a chance worth taking.

As was said, comparisons are hard due to the situations faced. Seems like the added range and stores in the Fleets would have proved very useful since simply getting to sea was often troublesome for u-boats. Once there, duration on station would be desirable, right? I assume the allies paid special attention to patrolling approaches to u-boat bases. Were they successful in sinking many that were coming or going from port?

[Gammelpreusse]

So the argument is that better radar gear would have been wasted? That is likely true, but it doesn't change the fact that the radar itself was fr more primitive.

Radar of course becomes the analog of active sonar on subs, a no-no since it broadcasts your position.

This goes to the overall failure of the u-boat since it faced a more advanced opponent. It's dangerous to use radar, so your search diameter is tiny (shears to masts or smoke of target... So doctrine then becomes lines of boats, but to make this work, the boats have to call home. Trouble is that the call home is just as detectable as using radar and gets DFed. U-boats had a tough time, really. If you operate alone like a Fleet Type and use radar, you run a grave risk. If you operate in the "chatty" way they actually did, you get detected from that (not even counting code-breaking) and run a grave risk.

It was one of those times in history where technology was "in between" sort of like the US Civil War, and doctrines needed to evolve. The USN boats were more of a true "silent service" which I think helped them a great deal (the IJN had excellent DF capability, for example, even though it took them a long time to get radar detection gear going at all). I imagine that the u-boats would have been less successful in tonnage doing it that way, but also would have sustained fewer losses.
:hmmm:

Excellent post and lots of good points. Nothing to add, really, as the rest goes too much into speculation.

[Krauter]

For diving comparisons I`m just assuming the designed crush depth of 200m for VIIAs (220 i believe for VIIC's). Whereas the Balaos was somewhere around 600-650ft.

If I am wrong by all means correct me. Because with the arguments that Balaos could go under the 650mark, the argument that VII's went under the 200m mark is perfectly plausible as well.

Edit: In regards to your earlier post on this page tater.. it's kind of like a damned if you do damned if you don't situation :D. I have somewhere in a book at home a quote which I will post later on a description of the U-Boat Kaleun. These men are truly magnificent example of bravery and courage

[Ducimus]

http://www.uboat.net/types/ixd.htm

Look for facts first.

Just FYI

Small VIIB was able to make 8700NM! and it was pretty close to 11000nm of US fleet boat range

Acutally, the range of most US fleet boats was much farther then the figures cited due to wartime modificaitons. The number for a fleet boat is actually closer to 15,000NM

[tater]

I read in Friedman that the limiting factor on Fleet Type depth was actually the trim pump (which was based on a German design) seeing as it's not just the hull, but also every penetration that might leak. They made a new type of trim pump in 1944, and were much better off. I think the actual crush depth was beyond 675 feet.

It's tough, as I don't think either side destructively tested real boats, it was all sort of theoretical, whereas in practice, skippers on both sides went well below "sanctioned" depths.

You also have to be careful with production stats vs wartime use. US battery specific gravities were changed from the peacetime value upwards, increasing storage capacity, for example. So the time at 2 kts in the manual would be wrong if based on the lower sg. I'm sure there is loads of that on both sides.

[Bilge_Rat]

AFAIK, the deepest dive of a type VII (that came back up) was U-331 in november 1941. After it sank HMS Barham, it dived to 250 meters (820 feet).

The Balao class could dive to 600 feet and one accidently dived to 1011 feet and survived, although the hull was so damaged, it was taken out of service.

http://www.usschopper.com/Chopper%20Deep%20Dive%20Report.htm

[Rockin Robbins]

Re: Radar. Let's take a tactical look at the situation. You're on a submarine, tracking an aircraft carrier by radar. Perhaps you even know that the enemy can detect your radar. What do you do? What did the real skippers do?

As the user of radar, you know the course and speed of every enemy on the scope. You can plan attack and evasion with great flexibility. You can be much less optically visible by remaining at radar depth as you do so, or retain 21 knot speed by remaining on the surface.

The enemy with a radar detector such as the Japanese used in WWII knows only one thing: there's an American sub out there. This could be crucial information, but it is also a double-edged sword, sometimes pressuring the commander of the target into deadly blunders.

Read Shinano by Joe Enright, skipper of the Archerfish and you'll see that the above situation is not fictional, it is exactly true. Enright knew the enemy could detect his radar and so left it on! The enemy, detecting the radar, reasoned that a sub would only have its radar on if it were shadowing and spotting for a large wolfpack looking to sink the Shinano.

Based on that erroneous decision, the Japanese admiral aboard Shinano proceeded to make decisions which resulted in Archerfish being in the exact position for a very high probability spread. Had the admiral just kept a straight course and accelerated, Enright never would have had a chance.

The decisive factor? Enright had a complete combat picture, where the Japanese had only one fact to deal with. Advantage Radar. Blub! Blub! Blub!

The American fleet boat took enough ordinance to battle to equal a Type VII PLUS a Type IX. What's a sub with four forward torpedoes going to do confronted with a convoy of 500 ships? Not a lot. What are 20 subs going to do? Not a lot. In practice they got one spread off and were driven harmlessly to that extreme depth the Germans were so proud to boast about.

A submarine driven deep is a harmless thing, moving slow. It cannot keep up with the convoy and the battle is over. Deep diving capabilities, rather than being tactically useful, were little more than an "ours is better" talking point.

AA guns on submarines are good for sinking sampans, something the Germans didn't have to shoot at so their weaponry was useless. By their intimidating appearance, they encouraged the poor captain to decide to shoot it out on the surface.

So the big expensive submarine shoots down a cheap replaceable airplane. Before the attack the airplane radioed the positon of the spotted submarine, which had foolishly remained on the surface to demonstrate its manhood. What do you think happens next? Blub, Blub, Blub! One expensive, hard to replace submarine, filled with irreplaceable highly trained crewmembers traded for a couple of popcorn-like aircraft. What a bargain! That's called owned nowdays.

The U-Boats chatted on the radio like a gaggle of Japanese schoolgirls, secure in the knowledge that the superior German intellect could not be outwitted by the hapless Brits or soft Americans. This "superior feature" alone doomed the entire fleet.

Time after time the supposed advantages of the U-Boats were central to their defeat. Even their 2 to 1 hits percentage superiority had no effect because they did not have enough firepower to make a difference.

I would say a very good argument can be made that U-Boats were a total waste of money and good men for the Germans who could have used the resources to make a decisive difference in the ground war.

In fact, I would say that the Germans, equipped with a fleet of Balaos, would still have lost the Battle of the Atlantic decisively. The Americans with a fleet of Type IXs would have had a much more difficult time defeating the Japanese.

This is not to say that the U-Boats were not marvelous and fascinating machines. They were. They accomplished WAY more than anyone, especially the Brits, expected. In spite of that, from the first "torpedoes los" the German submarine fleet was doomed. Reallocating resources to beef up the ground war MIGHT have made a decisive difference. Thank God it didn't happen.

[Bilge_Rat]

The U-Boats chatted on the radio like a gaggle of Japanese schoolgirls, secure in the knowledge that the superior German intellect could not be outwitted by the hapless Brits or soft Americans. This "superior feature" alone doomed the entire fleet.



very good post RR.

On that last point, the Allies were observing how the German U-Boats were being handled, centralized control, regular radio reports, propaganda articles full of details on particular patrols and the US submarine service decided to go the other way, namely total secrecy.

It was too easy to break naval codes and read radio traffic, plot the location of U-Boats through RDF and glean info on tactics through newspaper articles.

That point was driven home in the early winter of 43 when a new sub commander took over in Australia who insisted that his subs send in daily location reports so he could control their movements. Within a few weeks, 3 fleet boats disappeared north of New Guinea. It was surmised that the new orders might be the reason, so the subs went back to near total radio silence and the said commander was shuffled off to a non-combat role.

After looking through the japanese records after the war, it was surmised that the location of the subs had been pinpointed by the excellent japanese RDF network.

A big part of the reason why US submarines were so successful in WW2 was due to smart leadership.

[Noren]

Thats a great post, but how can you be so sure of yourself?

First: the japanese fleet knew that there wasa sub out there somewhere and radio/radar-detectors could generally give the bearing. If they have numerous bearings simultaniously they can triangulate the subs position and locate it.
Even without triangulation, the captain could have sent a patrol of destroyers after the sub. This is all only theories but logical ones and the japanese commander made an error.

Next you speak of convoys of 500 ships? Only in the very end of the pacific war have I heard of such concentrations of ships, namely american taskforces. Early in the battle of the atlantic, convoys were often 10-50 ships and lightly protected, so even few uboats could wreck havoc there (like Kretschmer did during nightattacks).

One could argu that if Döntiz had even more uboats, with working torpedoes at the onset of the war, before effective asdic, DC, fast shipbuilding, enigma codebreaking and naval aircraft patrols perhaps England indeed would have been severly cut of - like Churchill feared.

Shift resources from the navy to the army? The navy was small to begin with. I dont think what would have much an impact, perhaps a few more panzer divisions and perhaps 10 more infantry divisions but it would'nt had halted the russians or made much of a strategic differance when germany was fighting on 3 fronts.

[Dowly]

Not this BS again. :-?

[Gammelpreusse]

yeah, nationalistic polemics had to happen in such a thread eventually, as much a pity as that is.

[nikimcbee]

very good post RR.

On that last point, the Allies were observing how the German U-Boats were being handled, centralized control, regular radio reports, propaganda articles full of details on particular patrols and the US submarine service decided to go the other way, namely total secrecy.

It was too easy to break naval codes and read radio traffic, plot the location of U-Boats through RDF and glean info on tactics through newspaper articles.

That point was driven home in the early winter of 43 when a new sub commander took over in Australia who insisted that his subs send in daily location reports so he could control their movements. Within a few weeks, 3 fleet boats disappeared north of New Guinea. It was surmised that the new orders might be the reason, so the subs went back to near total radio silence and the said commander was shuffled off to a non-combat role.

After looking through the japanese records after the war, it was surmised that the location of the subs had been pinpointed by the excellent japanese RDF network.

A big part of the reason why US submarines were so successful in WW2 was due to smart leadership.

Another big part of the Japanese failure/US success was the fact that the Japanese just didn't understand the use of the submarine. They were too pig-headed about sticking to their Mahanian doctrine and using the sub as a scout. And on the flip side, the Japanese just didn't respect the submarine and that was reflected in their attitudes regarding ASW duty and protecting merchant shipping. I guess they didn't get the memo regarding the German u-boats and anti-commerence.

[nikimcbee]

Plus there's ULTRA, that helped put them in a good spot to intercept.

[AVGWarhawk]

Not this BS again. :-?

Yes sir! :yeah: My boats better'n your boat, my boats just better than ur'ins boat, my boats better.....:O:

[Dowly]

Yes sir! :yeah: My boats better'n your boat, my boats just better than ur'ins boat, my boats better.....:O:

Hah, exactly. :)

[SteamWake]

Hey with the right skillz and some good soup you can dive, turn, and surface in the blink of the eye. Regardless of what boat.

I maxed out those skills just to see and holy crap I can dive in less than 10 seconds :haha:

So.. uhh.. how can you really make any kind of comparison?

[Dread Knot]

Shift resources from the navy to the army? The navy was small to begin with. I dont think what would have much an impact, perhaps a few more panzer divisions and perhaps 10 more infantry divisions but it would'nt had halted the russians or made much of a strategic differance when germany was fighting on 3 fronts.


A few extra panzer divisions would have made a HUGE difference in August 1941 when the Germans had to make a choice between taking Kiev or Moscow. Panzergruppe Guderian was diverted south to help Runstedt take encircle Kiev and the Germans lost their best bet to take Moscow before winter set in.

[Gammelpreusse]

Had there not a been a couple of diversions and botch ups by the italian allies, these devisions would have been available. But war is highly dynamic, you never know what to actually plan for as all predictions can be thrown over within a moment, as such these what ifs are pretty much senseless. This becomes more true the longer a war drags on.

[Ducimus]

Not this BS again. :-?

Heh, i thought exactly that the first i saw this thread. I admit comparisons are fun, so long as they are fair and proper. However, all to often people are far too eager (or too ignorant) and start comparing fleet boats to type 7's, that's like comparing an SUV to a sports car, or comparing type 7's to type 9's. In general this topic is rather interesting or frustrating, depending on the level of ignorance displayed by either side of the argument. Regardless it is a topic has been beat into the ground with a pile driver.
http://www.dor.state.ne.us/westdodge.info/images/photos/10-04/04-9-10-piling-vip-a.jpg

[MGR1]

Heh, i thought exactly that the first i saw this thread. I admit comparisons are fun, so long as they are fair and proper. However, all to often people are far too eager (or too ignorant) and start comparing fleet boats to type 7's, that's like comparing an SUV to a sports car, or comparing type 7's to type 9's. In general this topic is rather interesting or frustrating, depending on the level of ignorance displayed by either side of the argument. Regardless it is a topic has been beat into the ground with a pile driver.

Don't forget thread drift - always entertaining!

I see we've migrated from a comparison of subs, to discussing German Panzer divisions....

Mike.:03:

P.S. Who chose the order of the Avatars? I see I've been shipwrecked!

[coasterdigi]

Yes sir! :yeah: My boats better'n your boat, my boats just better than ur'ins boat, my boats better.....:O:

...because she eats Kahlen Ration!

Don't forget thread drift - always entertaining!

Yep. And now we're on dog food puns. :)

[Sailor Steve]

And now for something completely different...









But mine goes to 11.

[sergei]

Don't forget thread drift - always entertaining!

Thread drift! Good one :DL

But mine goes to 11.

Perfect example :03:

[Sailor Steve]

Perfect example :03:
We aim to please.

Though I wasn't actually drifting - I knew exactly where I was going.:D

[Krauter]

Sorry to start a pissing contest :cry:

But in reality this thread was not aimed to be a "Fleet boats kick U-boats ass!" "No U-boats blah blah blah.."

It was merely meant to show off which contrasts, differences, and similarities you see between the two types IN GAME. More meant as a 'which do you prefer' type question then stating which campaign was better, was the kriegsmarine worth it, etc ,etc.

[Ducimus]

Sorry to start a pissing contest :cry:

But in reality this thread was not aimed to be a "Fleet boats kick U-boats ass!" "No U-boats blah blah blah.."

It was merely meant to show off which contrasts, differences, and similarities you see between the two types IN GAME. More meant as a 'which do you prefer' type question then stating which campaign was better, was the kriegsmarine worth it, etc ,etc.


You cannot in good faith start any objective discussion on that topic. Most everyone's a fan of something, and they'll defend what they're into tooth and nail.

[Krauter]

I realise that from observing other forums, but figured this forum had more level headed people :)

Anyways, no harm intended.. Apologize if I opened any rifts between people.

[Ducimus]

I realise that from observing other forums, but figured this forum had more level headed people :)


People are people, no matter where you go.

[Krauter]

Kind of a cynical way to view people but I digress, the fact of the matter is that the aim of this thread was to provide technical differences on each type as well as how the theatre affected and developped said differences

[Sailor Steve]

Sorry to start a pissing contest :cry:
Actually you didn't - it's been going on for years. If you read back through the thread you'll see some real discussion in there, if not too much.

Every genre has its serious scholars as well as its fanboys. Just start a thread on P-51 vs Bf-109. We had one of those over in General Topics some time back, and of course there was one guy who just knew that the Mustang was the best piston-engined fighter ever! I tried to show actual technical and statistical comparisons which indicated that there really wasn't much to choose between, but I was the one who refused to listen to reason.

The fact is that if we talk about diving limits, the online source says that u-boats could dive much deeper. But that very source doesn't mention the fact that Type VIIc u-boats were 'rated' at only 90 meters, yet it mentions that they actually dove to well over 200. Yet a source that indicates that the Balao could go well below it's indicated 450 feet is dismissed simply because it's Wiki. And yet Wiki has been more reliable where submarines are concerned than any other online source I've seen. One book I read (I have to go to the other library to recheck the title) claimed that later US boats could be expected to be safe at twice their listed test depth, which would give the Balao a whopping 900 feet.

True? Who knows? My point isn't what is 'better', but that claims are made for different technologies, and fans are made and stick to their guns no matter what. You're never going to have a discussion about differences without people wanting to prove that "mine is stronger/faster/bigger than yours."

It's human nature to believe, and to feel the need to prove your belief.:sunny:

[Ducimus]

:sign_yeah:

[Noren]

...but we can always try to stay objective and discuss the strategic, tactical and mechanical nature of the subs of ww2 now cant we?

I admit I got a little carried away when someone wrote that the german navy never had chance at all in ww2 (and Im in no way german of a pro-nazi), it was a bit one-sided for me.

[Chromius]

Actually this thread was quite informative and fine, till someone reacted to a post and forced it into a sub vs sub, when obviously it was not the intent.

And people need to beware some of the data available on Wikipedia and some of the web sites its ok for most general data, but there are inconsistencies with some actual books/publications and other test results.

[Krauter]

That was my aim in effect in creating this thread, to remain objective and keep discussion lively, yet informative.

I'm very interested to see how the two great (well maybe 2 of three if you include baltic..) submarine campaigns of the Second World War compare to each other, and how technologie and the boats played out to determine the winner.

Yes I understand the vastness of the pacific demanded the fleet boats be larger, but once the VIIs were able to operate out of bases in france they were able to patrol out into the atlantic. My question is, if the Gato was so successful mid ocean as well as in the coastal waters and confined waters of the Japanese seaboard, why did the germans not just concentrate on constructing and operating a Type IX boat or something along those lines able to patrol around the British Isles, the Atlantic Gap and the American/Carribean/etc Seaboards?

[Takeda Shingen]

But mine goes to 11.

Love that film.

[Sailor Steve]

@ Krauter: You might want to find a copy of War Beneath The Sea, by Peter Padfield. He gives a nice overview of every nation's submarine efforts; how they developed and what they accomplished. It doesn't go as deep as some others, but it really gives a feel for what the aims of the different navies were and how their technologies, both sub and ASW, developed.

[Krauter]

Thanks Sailor Steve, I'll have to look into it.

[jazman]

Fleet Boats:

Ice Cream Machines Washing Machines Showers Fryers Shaving


Luxury yachts!

[Ducimus]

Fleet Boats:

Ice Cream Machines Washing Machines Showers Fryers Shaving


Luxury yachts!

This is the kind of ignorant post that draws out a scathing rebuttle, and the back and forth continues without end.

[Subnuts]

Fleet Boats:


Ice Cream Machines
Washing Machines
Showers
Fryers
Shaving


Luxury yachts!

Yeah, how dare 80 men crammed in a 14-foot wide metal tube for two months on end, with a 1-in-5 chance of being killed, be given some bare creature comforts in return for fighting a decisive submarine campaign against the Japanese empire. REAL men, like us in the Fighting Keyboardists, thrive on bad hygiene, bad food, and tropical diseases. :stare:

[Reaves]

I enojyed this thread and the information in it. Very interesting.


And the SPitfire is better than 109 and Mustang...

/runs :o

[V.C. Sniper]

U.S. Fleet submarines FTW

[Ducimus]

What's always funny to me is how some folks who, by the way they talk, seem obviously more interested in Uboats, like to use Ice cream machines as a point of ridicule. As if Ice cream machines were standard equipment or something.

They were actually Jerry rigged devices. Made out of "acquired" and salvaged parts; Producing ice cream that often had a taste of hydraulic oil with metal bits from gears. At least at first, until the crews perfected it. It was something that one boat did, and as time went on, other boats got in on the act and made some ice creamers of their own.

This "point of ridicule" in reality highlights the ingenuity that existed among the men that fought in these submarines. It's been said by one Naval author of the time, that submariners were "Born gadgeteers". One rumor has it that one crew disassembled an entire jeep and ferreted it away in the engine rooms before going on patrol. Jeeps arent all that big, so i suppose its possible.

[MattDizzle]

what was he planning on doing with it? Driving it on the sea?

[Ducimus]

what was he planning on doing with it? Driving it on the sea?


IF that rumor was true, i imagine that boat would probably be going from Pearl Harbor to Fremantle Australia. It was considered the port to go to. Lots to see and do. So some jeep would be something to have.

[Rockin Robbins]

So nobody thinks that unlimited submarine warfare by the Germans was inappropriate and could progress in no fashion but to lose the war for the Germans?

They were operating on an ocean where Allied ASW forces were completely unapposed. They had no effective air cover or spotting because the Allies controlled both the air and the surface. Once they were detected they were a dead duck with escorts and aircraft free to engage without any outside interference at all. That Atlantic was an Allied lake.

Then the ultimate stupidity of firing that first torpedo out of a U-Boat and declaring unlimited warfare. Across the Atlantic was a country mired in isolationism. The American people were almost unanimously of a mind to let Europe go to hell without them. Had Roosevelt been discovered helping the British as much as he did, letting Churchill set up a government in exile in case of Britain's defeat, allowing the British Secret Service to operate from the US, Roosevelt would immediately been impeached and there wouldn't have been much debate about it.

Yet, how could an unrestricted submarine warfare in the Atlantic progresss in any other way but inevitably to bring the US into the conflict. Can submarines attack a factory in Kansas? Surely they could torpedo all the railroad cars crossing the state of Utah! In fact, they couldn't touch the US in any meaningful way! It was nothing less than an act of suicide which resulted directly in the demise of the Third Reich.

Nothing nationalistic in anything I've said. Each point is a fact. In my first post, what is nationalistic? Calling names isn't sufficient to disprove anything, just makes the name-caller look silly.

I have equal fun playing U-Boats or fleet boats in the games, SH4 and SH3. I admit I tend to play the U-Boat with American leaning strategy, never engage aircraft, avoid diving deep, always look for a way to regain the initiiative thinking "why shouldn't I go to periscope depth NOW and dish out some punishment." I also play the fleet boat with German tactics emphasizing constant bearing techniques and shooting from extreme close range. In fact the genesis of the Dick O'Kane attack was discussions with SH3 U-Boat jockeys.

There are many other items that made the U-Boat inferior than what I pulled quickly off the top of my head in my first post. The most important was the lack of training for the too many boats. A huge proportion of U-Boats were sunk with zero or one kills. I don't think that was a reflection on the capability of the boat itself, but on the frantic turning out of incompetent new crews. It's like baseball. When you have too many players you dilute the talent pool and lower the effectiveness of your game.

The handwriting was on the wall as early as 1942. The U-Boats were rampant but they failed to sink enough tonnage to offset new ship building. The Battle of the Atlantic was effectively over even before Allied ASW techniques got so good. From a strategic point of view the U-Boats could be almost ignored.

[AVGWarhawk]

I enojyed this thread and the information in it. Very interesting.


And the SPitfire is better than 109 and Mustang...

/runs :o

The Spitfire is a beautiful bird. I have seen a Spitfire(Super Marine) and Mustang fly. Both are extremely powerful and extremely deadly in the right hands. The 109 is a nice bird also. I'm more inclined to agree with your statement. :up:

[AVGWarhawk]

Fleet Boats:


Ice Cream Machines
Washing Machines
Showers
Fryers
Shaving

Luxury yachts!

Ice cream machines were make shift churns and not standard equipment.

Washing Machines....not used, water was as precious for the American batteries as it was for the Germans and their batteries

Showers...see above

Fryers....yep, boat had refrigeration also. Just as the Army marches on it's stomach the Navy makes way on their stomach. Plus, it was a selling point to recruit! All will say the food on the submarines was darn good.

Shaving...see washing machines and showers. :03:

Luxury yachts? Perhaps, 4 Fairbanks diesels rated at 1600hp each would certainly put them in the yacht category. So would the air conditioning! :03:

[Jimbuna]

@ Krauter: You might want to find a copy of War Beneath The Sea, by Peter Padfield. He gives a nice overview of every nation's submarine efforts; how they developed and what they accomplished. It doesn't go as deep as some others, but it really gives a feel for what the aims of the different navies were and how their technologies, both sub and ASW, developed.

A fair to good reference base....and here ends my involvement :DL

[msalama]

In fact, they couldn't touch the US in any meaningful way!

They tried however, and even had some initial success. Google "Operation Drumbeat" for details.

It was nothing less than an act of suicide which resulted directly in the demise of the Third Reich.

Directly? Baloney. It's of course true that the U.S. industrial might helped the Allies tremendously, but what really was decisive in the defeat of Nazis was Hitler's stupid decision to open a second front in the East and the bloodbath that ensued. Google "Operation Barbarossa" for details.

Y'know, Robbins, for a self-confessed non-nationalist you sometimes sound like one a lot nevertheless ;)

[Ducimus]

:doh:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA5X1DnEUNQ

[msalama]

Gotcha Ducimus :DL

[Rockin Robbins]

They tried however, and even had some initial success. Google "Operation Drumbeat" for details.



Directly? Baloney. It's of course true that the U.S. industrial might helped the Allies tremendously, but what really was decisive in the defeat of Nazis was Hitler's stupid decision to open a second front in the East and the bloodbath that ensued. Google "Operation Barbarossa" for details.

Y'know, Robbins, for a self-confessed non-nationalist you sometimes sound like one a lot nevertheless ;)

Hey pal! The Russkies couldn't even have fought the Germans without the American ordinance imported through the Murmansk convoys. No America in the war means no shipments. Now the Germans fight a fatally weakened Russia and don't have to fight the USA. No matter how you cut it, submarines brought the US into the war. That directly resulted in the end of the 3rd Reich.

Hitler also had opportunities to keep Britain out of the war. Without the extreme provocation of the U-Boats, Hitler could have let the Brits escape Dunkirk and then declare peace on the European continent. It probably would have worked as Britain was similar to the US in that it had a lot of fans of Germany. They also lost a complete generation in WWI and the horror had not left their consciousness. I don't think with the U-Boats out there that the Brits would have been of a mind to accept any kind of peace. Without them and with a significantly strengthened German Wehrmacht across the Channel, there is a decent chance that even Britain could have been persuaded to exit the war.

Of course Hitler wasn't sane. Of course his decisions were irrational and trying to apply logic to their options is something like applying a screen door to a submarine.

But it is fun to speculate even if people get sensitive parts of their anatomy in the proverbial wringer.

And it is a fact that the U-Boats were next to useless. Of all the convoys crossing the Atlantic, the mighty U-Boats sank less than 1% of the ships. They could well have been ignored if it weren't so easy to kill them. Even Operation Drumbeat was only good for propoganda. It did nothing to limit US war production. It did nothing to prevent the US military from reaching Britain. It merely provoked the Americans to greater resolve while sinking insignificant resources which were easily replaced. America could well afford what the Germans deemed catastrophic losses. They merely changed some policies, ramped up production to exceed the sinkings and trudged on unhindered. Operation Drumbeat was a failure. The U-Boats were ultimately chased from the shores of the American continent with their tails between their legs.

Based on the abyssmal ineffectiveness of the U-Boats even in their Happy Times, based ot their function of bringing the US into the war, strengthening all the Allies, based on the possibilities for resolution of the conflict being totally negated by the U-Boats, it is not nationalistic, it is not an exaggeration, and it is not unreasonable to credit U-Boats as one of many fatal mistakes of the Third Reich, which was sufficient on its own to doom Germany.

The U-Boat, no matter if it were a perfect machine, was an inappropriate weapon for Germany to employ in World War II. A fleet of US subs wouldn't have made one bit of difference. A fleet of Type XXIs would have made no difference. In order to starve Britain it was necessary to sink American ships. Any fool could have seen that and reasoned that in view of it, the resources devoted to U-Boats would better have been placed elsewhere.

[Noren]

OK.

Hey pal! The Russkies couldn't even have fought the Germans without the American ordinance imported through the Murmansk convoys.Im sure sovjet was'nt best friends with USA and would not even say thank you for those supplies but they were'nt mandatory in keeping the sovjets fighting. Just drop it.

Hitler could have let the Brits escape Dunkirk and then declare peace on the European continent.Yeah right, even if Hitler wanted that Churchill would never had made peace, well perhaps forced into one if the island was starved out. England would never accept a solid enemy state in mainland Europe and churchill was hellbent on a steadfast war effort- there were many quotes on that.

significantly strengthened German Wehrmacht across the Channel True, like Napoleon an army could have invaded the british islands and surround London etc. But you forget that the luftwaffe did what they could and got their arrogance shot out of the sky by RAF.

And it is a fact that the U-Boats were next to useless. Oh really, is that why Britain got 50 old destroyers as a stop gap measure to escort their convoys or why churchill's only real fear was the uboat menace?

In the end you claim that the uboat was a wrong kind of weapon to produce. Its not like they did'nt try surface ships but the royal navy was always the double size, making the stealthy sub the only viable weapon available at the time (though germany had som commercial raiders).

This is all only theories...and nothing is 100% sure. I belive it would have a bit different had the XXII been availabe in numbers early on. Then the subs had'nt been so ridiculusly easy to sink as you claim.

Please stop waving the american flag in every post you make and ridicule other forces - thanks in advance. Now read this 5 times before you answer and chill.

[msalama]

Hey Robbins,

I've no problems whatsoever with anything you say except for the "directly" part, because what really was "direct" was those almost 30 million Russians dead, AND MOST OF THEM CIVILIANS TOO, who had to die because of a genocidal war against "slawische untermenschen" perperated by the Nazis. So putting things into _that_ perspective a claim of the U.S. "directly" causing the downfall of Nazi Germany really sounds a bit daft, now doesn't it?

No-one in their right mind denies the importance of the U.S. involvement in WW2, and your industrial capacity was undoubtedly one of the deciding factors of the war. But that doesn't take away from the fact that it really was the Russians who did most of the dirty work against the Nazis by waging massive land warfare against them, and that said land warfare was actually what carried the day in the end (although not in isolation of course). American war materiel was of course all-important, but when one thinks of what the Russkies had to endure during Operation Barbarossa I'd say it really would be sensible to tone down the hyperbole a bit when boasting of _your_ nation's thriumphs in the European war, no?

When you compare the losses, the Russians more than anyone else paid in sheer blood. And that, my friend, really is "direct" more than anything else. And that's all I have to say concerning this matter I think...

PS. I'm a Finn, and as you may know we fought the Russians in the war - and for a good reason too. But even that doesn't change my opinion on this on a more universal scale, because hey, the war's over already and as you grow older you tend to take a more objective view of things anyway. Because human suffering really is universal, now is it not?