Am I crazy, or are the US subs pretty much identical?

[CybrSlydr]

This is the main reason I can't really get into SH4. In SH3, you had a clear upgrade when new subs came around. Going from the II to a VII to a IX was pretty awesome.

With US Boats... it's pretty much static throughout the war. Dive depth, tubes, equipment... I just can't get into it.

[les green01]

have you try a sugar boat

[CybrSlydr]

have you try a sugar boat

lolwut? :06:

[Sailor Steve]

Narwhal?

[les green01]

s-boat

[CybrSlydr]

Here's what I mean...

Playable Submarines:

United States S class submarine
Class & type: S Class
Speed: >15 knots
Range: 5,000 miles (8,047 kilometres)
Test depth: 200 ft (70 metres)

United States Porpoise class submarine

Speed: 18 knots (33 km/h) surfaced[3]
8 knots (15 km/h) submerged[3]
Range: 11,000 nautical miles (20,000 km) surfaced at 10 knots (19 km/h)[3]
Test depth: 250 ft (80 m)[3]
Complement: 50 [3] -55[6]
Armament: 6 x 21-inch (533mm) torpedo tubes
(four forward, two aft; 16 torpedoes) [3]
1 x 3-inch (76mm) / 50 caliber deck gun[3]
2 x 0.5-inch machine gun
4 x 0.3-inch machine gun

Salmon class submarine

Speed: 21 knots (39 km/h) surfaced[4]
9 knots (17 km/h) submerged[4]
Range: 11,000 nautical miles (20,000 km) at 10 knots (19 km/h)[4]
Endurance: 48 hours at 2 knots (3.7 km/h) submerged[4]
Test depth: 250 ft (76 m)[4]
Complement: 5 officers, 54 enlisted[4]
Armament: 8 × 21-inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes
(four forward, four aft)
24 torpedoes[4]
1 × 3-inch (76 mm) / 50 caliber deck gun[4]
four machine guns

Sargo class submarine

Speed: 20.8–21 knots (39 km/h) surfaced[3]
8.75 knots (16 km/h) submerged[3]
Range: 11,000 nautical miles (20,000 km) at 10 knots (19 km/h)[3]
Endurance: 48 hours at 2 knots (3.7 km/h) submerged[3]
Test depth: 250 ft (76 m)[3]
Complement: 5 officers, 54 enlisted[3]
Armament: 8 × 21-inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes
(four forward, four aft)
24 torpedoes [3]
1 × 3-inch (76 mm) / 50 caliber deck gun [3]
four machine guns


Tambor class submarine

Speed: 20.4 knots (38 km/h) surfaced[3]
8.75 knots (16 km/h) submerged[3]
Range: 11,000 nautical miles (20,000 km) at 10 knots (19 km/h)[3]
Endurance: 48 hours at 2 knots (3.7 km/h) submerged[3]
Test depth: 250 ft (76 m)[3]
Complement: 6 officers, 54 enlisted[3]
Armament: 10 × 21-inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes
(six forward, four aft)
24 torpedoes[3]
1 × 3-inch (76 mm) / 50 caliber deck gun[3]
Bofors 40 mm and Oerlikon 20 mm cannon


Gato class submarine

Speed: 21 knots (39 km/h) surfaced[3]
9 knots (17 km/h) submerged[3]
Range: 11,000 nautical miles (20,000 km) surfaced at 10 knots (19 km/h)[3]
Endurance: 48 hours at 2 knots (3.7 km/h) submerged[3]
75 days on patrol
Test depth: 300 ft (90 m)[3]
Complement: 6 officers, 54 enlisted men[3]
Armament: 10 × 21-inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes
(six forward, four aft)
24 torpedoes[3]
1 × 3-inch (76 mm) / 50 caliber deck gun[3]
Bofors 40 mm and Oerlikon 20 mm cannon


Balao class submarine

Speed: 20.25 knots (38 km/h) surfaced,[3] 8.75 knots (16 km/h) submerged[3]
Range: 11,000 nautical miles (20,000 km) surfaced @ 10 knots (19 km/h)[3]
Endurance: 48 hours @ 2 knots (3.7 km/h) submerged,[3] 75 days on patrol
Test depth: 400 ft (120 m)[3]
Complement: 10 officers, 70–71 enlisted men[3]
Armament: 10 × 21-inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes
(six forward, four aft)
24 torpedoes[3]
1 × 5-inch (127 mm) / 25 caliber deck gun[3]
Bofors 40 mm and Oerlikon 20 mm cannon

German Type IX submarine (U-Boat Missions add-on)
Type XVIII U-boat (U-Boat Missions add-on)

The Salmon and Sargo are identical - same speed, range and armament (4 fore, 4 aft) as well as diving depth.

Tambor, Gato and Balao are practically identical - same speed, range and armament (6 fore, 4 aft) as well as diving depth.

All boats, except S-boat, are identical in speed within +/- 3 knots.

They also all look extremely similar. You're playing the same boat essentially the whole game.

[GoldenRivet]

All boats, except S-boat, are identical in speed within +/- 3 knots.

They also all look extremely similar. You're playing the same boat essentially the whole game.

thats because essentially... they are all more or less the same boat; let me explain

Consider the tactical requirements of the US Navy vs the Kriegsmarine.

The kriegsmarine had to conduct short and long range missions, in a mix of deep open ocean and shallow coastal waters. Their sub bases were always relatively close to their operational areas with few exceptions. Aside from that the kriegsmarine was operating initially on the wolf pack raider ideology and tactics.

The US Navy on the other hand frequently had to send submarines many thousands of miles across open ocean before ever reaching their operational areas these operations were conducted in warm tropical environments. they built their boats in the prewar years to operate with and around task forces as scouts and recon boats. The boats had to be capable of extreme range, and as such they had to be capable of keeping food stores fresh and crew morale fairly high for long stretches of time. (hence air conditioning and refrigeration etc) to store these materials and equipment and extra fuel the boats had to be massive. It was initially the strategic concept in mind in Washington that the submarine force would operate in conjunction with a task force - not independently and alone as the war tended to dictate as the situation progressed.

because of these differing operational requirements you see trends in technology development.

The US navy never really modified the role of the submarine much throughout the war which was to say their purpose was to infiltrate, conduct recon, serve as radar picket and lifeguard boats as well as engage any target of opportunity - all the while they would be required to spend a lot of time traversing the expanse of the pacific ocean. as such many of the advancements on American Fleet Boats were focused in the form of upgrades to equipment and field modifications rather than complete "from the keel up" new hull designs.

The kriegsmarine on the other hand was forced to develop entire new hulls to meet their ever changing mission and requirements... hence SH3 letting you drive a IIA one year and a IXB the next.

the kriegsmarine had dozens of "types" in their inventory and each type was radically different from the next in appearance and operational capability.

The type II was obviously radically and visibly different from the VII and the VII radically and visibly different from the IX and the IX was radically different from the XXI and so on. and bigger type numbers didnt always mean bigger better submarine either... look at the type XXIII for example.

but with US Navy subs of the era... most of the differences in type were not immediately visible or noticable

Gato Class ...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/USS_Gato%3B0821201.jpg/800px-USS_Gato%3B0821201.jpg

Balao Class..

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/USS_Balao_SS-285.jpg

sure there are visible differences, but the differences are not major.

Thats because the latter was more or less just a new and improved version of the former... the differences are almost negligable despite the entirely different "type" designation. we are talking about a matter of inches of feet of difference in length, beam, draft etc... we are talking about a ton of difference in displacement overall.

The Kriegsmarine was in a constant state of expansion and development with respect to their operational needs.

The USN was more in line with the "this works... it aint broke, so dont fix it" mentality. and in what they did "fix" was so minor it almost warrants just calling a Balao class sub a "Super Tambor" or a "Tambor II" for example, because basically thats exactly what it was.

i think it throws people because you go from one class of boat to another in SH4 expecting to see a lot of differences between the types and one has to consider that the USN mindset at the time was practically to re-designate a whole new "type" just becase a different toilet was installed :haha:

[Hinrich Schwab]

Porpoise class boats possessed mechanical problems not simulated in SH4. Succeeding classes eliminated this.

Salmon/Sargo class are virtually identical except for construction dates and series.

Tambor/Gar are identical in every way in the manner similar to the modern 688/688i class(Los Angeles Class)

Gato/Balao are somewhat different. Balaos were constructed of stronger steel, allowing a deeper cruising and crush depth. (Dick O'Kane tested the USS Tang to 612 feet [calculated crush depth: 500 feet]) Balaos also likely came with better sensor packages whereas the Gatos had to be retrofitted.

Appearance-wise, there was little variations beyond reconfigurations of the conning tower to reduce the submarine's profile. Likewise, there are other historical differences that are not simulated in SH4, such as differences in batteries or performance issues between the Fairbanks-Morse Diesels, the GM Diesels and the infamously bad Hooven-Owens-Rentschler diesels. Other than torpedo tubes and maximum operating depth, many of the differences are cosmetic or consist of armament packages. However, those differences are enough to count in a fight.

[CybrSlydr]

thats because essentially... they are all more or less the same boat; let me explain

Thank you for that informative post - I just hate the lack of feeling progression in SH4. That's one awesome thing about SH3, "Oooo - look at what Franz has come up with that we can put on our boats!!!"

[GoldenRivet]

youre right, the feeling of progression is lost a bit i suppose. but it was a whole different concept on submarine warfare for the Americans compared to the Germans.

By USN logic at the time... we probably could have fought WW2 well into the mid 1950s and not seen a major new submarine type rolled out - they were just running at full speed with what met their operational needs

[sharkbit]

A good book to read on the submarine war in WWII is Peter Padfield's "War Beneath the Sea: Submarine Conflict During World War Two"

One of the early chapters discusses each nationality's submarines and, most importantly, the strategic doctrine use they were designed for.

As GoldenRivet stated, as far as American boats go, the doctrine they were designed for was to act as fleet scouts for a probable war against Japan. The whole design philosophy revolved around this-range, arnament, crew comfort, speed, etc. Using them to sink merchants in unrestricted warfare to strangle Japan only came about after the war started.

The Japanese boats were designed for the same purpose, they just left out the crew comfort portion. :arrgh!:

The book talks about German, British, Soviet, and Italian submarines and their design philosophies as well.

Good book with a good overview of the submarine war from all sides. I knew very little about British subs out of Malta in the Med. He covers them fairly well, although the bulk of the book covers the u-boats and the American boats in the Pacific.

:)

[joefremont]

I am still a newbie for SH4, in fact I have yet to finish my first full campaign. But I also was a bit disappointed that I only upgraded from a Gato to a Balao. They seam so similar although platforms for the AA guns were much better and the Balao seams to dive quicker.

I can see how the situation for the Kriegsmarine was very different than the USN. The U-Boats started with more of a short range operation and were pushed to go to longer ranges by the increasingly effective ASW work by the british and later USN, also as the war turned against the german war effort they got more and more desperate and had to come up with new idea's to make a change. As opposed to the fleet boats, where the most desperate time was the beginning of the war, and as the war went on they got new bases closer to japan so the distance they had to travel got shorter. Not much pressure to make any radical changes. Besides the germans had 6 years of fighting to make there changes while the USN had only 3.

[CybrSlydr]

So, in the end, the answer is no, I'm not crazy. They're all quite similar. :)

[joefremont]

Am I crazy, or are the US subs pretty much identical?

And just for the record. while I have no reason to believe you are crazy, I don't think the answer to that question is dependant on if US subs are identical.

It reminds me of things I have read about the 75mm Sherman tank, the army was very happy with it, thinking it was the perfect balance of armor, gun and ease of production and resisted any changes to it, despite warnings, until they ran into panthers and tigers in france. Only when they started losing lots of tanks did they consider upgrading.

[Sailor Steve]

So, in the end, the answer is no, I'm not crazy. They're all quite similar. :)
On the other hand, so were the u-boats. Yes, there were improvements from a Type VIIa to a Type VIIc, but it was still basically the same boat. An even better comparison is the Type IX. Again there were improvements, but the basic layout remained the same. In the Americans' case, why fix what already works?

The real observation here is that in real life no skipper fought through the entire war, American or German. Sooner or later you were 'retired' to a command position such as Squadron or Flotilla chief. The game situation of upgrading to a new boat every time one is available is highly unrealistic. It could happen to the very best, but more often not.

[CybrSlydr]

And just for the record. while I have no reason to believe you are crazy, I don't think the answer to that question is dependant on if US subs are identical.

It reminds me of things I have read about the 75mm Sherman tank, the army was very happy with it, thinking it was the perfect balance of armor, gun and ease of production and resisted any changes to it, despite warnings, until they ran into panthers and tigers in france. Only when they started losing lots of tanks did they consider upgrading.

Since I've been playing WoT, I've been reading up on them as well. :D

Though I've stuck to the German tree thus far.

[Bubblehead1980]

This post bothered me, misunderstanding I suppose.

The US boats were an evolution so often had similarities but improvements.Now, if you are running stock, then yes not many major differences.Running mods like say TMO with RSRD? You will see a difference.Example, Balao and Gato have different conning towers, Gato seems to handle a little bit quicker, slightly lighter perhaps but the Balao can deep in excess of 600 feet and bring you back home.Some of us know her crush depth i am sure but wont post it here, but like I said, can go in excess of 600 feet(as could in RL) and the Tench class, which was the final evolution of the fleet boat, can go even deeper.This comes in handy when have vicious TMO escorts after you.

Tench class can mount two 5 inch deck guns, then we have the Narwhal, which is a "cruiser" boat, an excellent model created by subsim, just download it.

The early boats such as Porpoise class, huge difference between it and a Gato, esp if using mods which fill in the many blanks left by UBI.The interiors in stock were too similar, well mods correct that.The Tamor/Gar/Gato/Balao/Tench are very similar but you have a boat with a test depth of 250 feet in Tambor Gar class, then 412 with the Balao, that can go much deeper, handles better etc. The Sargo/Salmons are part of the evolution, better than Porpoise but still lacks the capability of the Tambor class and on.

I'd suggest getting the mods TMO and RSRD, and taking time to explore the differences.Start a career with a porpoise in July 1943 or June 1944 even, you, its tough, then start one with a Gato or Balao in same time period, you will see a huge difference in what you can accomplish and the differences in the boats.

[pabbi]

:up::agree: with Bubblehead

[BigWalleye]

Herbert Werner was assigned to operational U-boats from April 1941 through the end of the war. He served in 5 boats, commanding 3. All were Type 7c.

[Armistead]

See how it takes to dive in a S-boat:haha:

[c13Garrison]

Part of the issue regarding US Submarines is best understood under the heading of strategic need.

I used to play (still would if I could find it) a very simple naval board-game called Victory in the Pacific (AH). One of the remarkable things about the game is noticing ALL the new construction stacked up waiting to come in on future turns. I made the observation one game that if the US Navy lost EVERYTHING it had in 1943, Quantitatively its new production for 1944 was still superior to everything Japan had afloat. The American philosophy was provide the soldier with an above average tool (gun/tank/ship/plane) and then build them out the door.

Consider the F6F Hellcat. It is grossly similar in planform and design to the F4F Wildcat. Yet the difference is in the engine. So loss-rates are higher than we prefer with the Wildcat? Ok, toss in an engine that's twice as big (yes there were other changes too) and call it done! Next!

The Gato class submarine never demonstrated it Couldn't do what the Navy was asking of it. The changes that came down through the chain from the field were much less demanding than say, a P-39 Airacobra pilot would make (and whose complaints were basically resolved with, "so what you're saying is its a bad airplane. Right! Ship them to Russia"). So, from a production point of view, it was illogical to invest the labor to make gross improvements in the boat. Lots of above average boats were better than a lesser number of 'great' boats. Henry Kaiser made his money off of quantity.

Prioritization of production resources are one thing the US managed distinctly better than the Germans. There are not many "boondoggles" to come up with in the history of WWII US production, at least that significant resources were spent upon. If Germany had focused on just 3 super-projects instead of dozens (say the Panther, the Do 335, and V1), it would have been a much more painful war.

So, they're much the same submarine, because they didn't Need to be very different.

[BigWalleye]

Well said. Churchil put it this way: "Better is the enemy of good enough."

[c13Garrison]

A good book to read on the submarine war in WWII is Peter Padfield's "War Beneath the Sea: Submarine Conflict During World War Two"

One of the early chapters discusses each nationality's submarines and, most importantly, the strategic doctrine use they were designed for.
:)

Thank you for tossing this out Sharkbit, this sounds like something I'd enjoy.

And thanks for the props Walleye. That is a very good Churchill quote, but my favorite is when the Parliament member said in frustration "If you were my husband I'd put poison in your coffee!", to which he replied, "And Madam, if I were your husband, I would drink it." :sunny: Churchill was brilliant.

...except for that whole Dardanelles thing...

My dad took me fishing for walleye in Elee, Minnesotta, if I'm spelling it right. Good eatin' fish... that was 38 years ago.

[Ducimus]

This is the main reason I can't really get into SH4. In SH3, you had a clear upgrade when new subs came around. Going from the II to a VII to a IX was pretty awesome.

With US Boats... it's pretty much static throughout the war. Dive depth, tubes, equipment... I just can't get into it.

To put it plainly:

German:
Type 2 Uboat = coastal patrol
Type 7 Uboat = medium range patrol, designed with wolfpack tactics in mind.
Type 9 Uboat = Long range patrol, often operated independently.

In SH3, what was the best boat is, often depended on where you intended to patrol.

If you want to get down to brass tacks with type 9 uboats:

Type IXB -> Type IXC -> Type IXC/41 -> TypeIXD2

Think of US boats along these lines. THey are all the mission equivlant of a type 9 uboat. The variations you see are the evolution of design similar to the variations of the type 9 uboat.

In this case:
Porpoise ->Tambor/Gar-> Gato -> Balao ->Tench

[ReallyDedPoet]

Nicely explained Ducimus.

[Rammstein0991]

"If it aint broke dont fix it"

This is the maxim which the US armed forces has always followed, case in point? while the world has moved on from the AK-47 to the AK-74 and now AK-101, we're STILL using the M-16, why? because it works. US naval design has always been this way, they will continue to refine and refit a particular hull design until its blatantly obsolete.

[ETR3(SS)]

"If it aint broke dont fix it"

This is the maxim which the US armed forces has always followed, case in point? while the world has moved on from the AK-47 to the AK-74 and now AK-101, we're STILL using the M-16, why? because it works. US naval design has always been this way, they will continue to refine and refit a particular hull design until its blatantly obsolete.I'm going to make an assumption here and say you haven't served in the navy then.

[Rammstein0991]

*shrug* just pointing out that our military can sometimes be loathe to move on to new technologies :oops: