Gato class

[Trav_R]

It sure would be nice to have 6 forward tubes and 4 aft tubes, but only being able to dive to 90m? What's that all about? I'm guessing they just didn't need to go deep, maybe the Japanese didn't have decent active sonar? I know there's a lot of experts here, hopefully one of you knows.

Also, from the information I've found, the Gato class seems to outclass German subs in every respect (except for depth of course.) Were they really that much better? Here I've always imagined the Germans as having such an advanced U-boat force, made famous by nearly strangling the Allies in two world wars, and the whole time I've known next to nothing about my own country's subs. So, my question is, were the Gato's really that much better than the German subs, or is there something (besides the lower depth) that I'm not seeing that would make them inferior?

[GlobalExplorer]

As far as I know the main disadvantage of many "other" nations subs was their size. Most Italian and some American subs had so high towers that they could be spotted much too easily.

I would say the American subs were probably more modern constructions, but the germans ones had the advantage of being proven in a real war (WWI constructions) and after all, need I say Made in Germany :)

Apart from that I think there is no reason to believe that other nation's submarines were any worse, it's just that the german one's did just about everything they had to, and could be produced in large numbers.

[Hartmann]

American submarines had a advantage ... 20 or more torpedos with 6 forward tubes and 4 in stern.

The size is very similar to the IX series,and the same for the diving times, in this case they use more the radar systems for locate the japanese ships.

The main difference between the two wars and the victory or defeat ??

perhaps japanese scorts and aircrafts don´t had a good sensors and radar detectors,
the pacific ocean is very wide and they don´t had a lot of planes looking for submarines like in the atlantic.

The convoys systems are very different, smaller than allied and they lost more ships than they could replace.

[Ducimus]

Aside from differences in allied vs Japanese ASW, there were some small differences.

One advantage i think they had was in the conning tower. Granted its a bit higher profile but it worked to their advantage. A gato class sub had periscope shears. Almost like a built in crows nest, to put lookouts higher up from the water, thereby increasing their visiblity. Radar was located up atop the conning tower too. Point here being a US sub could cruise with just the top of the connning tower sticking up and search by radar along with sonar if i remember correctly. Thats quite a combo, but its been so long since ive read up on that i could be mistaken. Aside from that their radar much more advanced.

Simiuarly i think they had about the same range and speed of a IX. Unlike VII boats, they have 4 diesel engines and not two. Also i think all torepdos were stored internally. With the exceptioni of depth rating, they were suprior in most respects.

Heres some pictures of one:
http://www.emackinnon.com/gato-diagram.html

[wamphyri]

I recall reading somewhere that american torpedoes were much more prone to dud, and in the case of the magnetic trigger, explode prematurely more often. The german torps were reported to be much more reliable, and if I wasn't soo lazy to look it up they may have had a bigger explosive too(doubt it .. but as i said .. lazy).

There was also the issue with sound, american subs were noisier! The german subs were made extremely well, the american's could only hope to make theirs as good. In fact many things they tried to copy when they captured a VII.

Could be wrong since I didn't feel like double checking my facts .. but I've been dealing with this community for a few years ( not much of a poster .. but a reader) .. and i'm certain of what I said.

Wamphyri

[Ducimus]

Hmm didnt know they were noiser. If thats true, honsestly im not surpised.

Anyway heres some general statistics:

* Displacement: 1825 tons surfaced, 2410 tons submerged
* Length: 312 feet (95 metres)
* Beam: 27 feet (8.2 metres)
* Draft: 15 feet (4.6 metres)
* Depth: 300 feet (90 metres)
* Speed: 20.75 knots surfaced, 8.75 knots submerged
* Armament: one three-inch/50-caliber gun, two 20mm cannon, six 21-inch torpedo tubes forward, four aft
* Crew: 65 - 74 officers and men
* Powerplant: four 6500-hp Diesel engines and four 2740-hp electric motors
* Range: 11,800 nautical miles at 10 knots surfaced


It was a good sub for its theater, but i wonder if it would do as well in the atlantic. Against allied ASW, im a bit credulous.

[Sheppard]

It sure would be nice to have 6 forward tubes and 4 aft tubes, but only being able to dive to 90m? What's that all about?

Actually 400 feet is 122 meters, 500 feet is 152 meters.

German boats could dive deeper because they were shorter, a shorter cylinder can resist water pressure better than a longer one; US fleet boats were generally very large.

Also, consider the fact that it cost the US the same amount of money and time to build a GATO fleet boat of 1,825 tons, as it did the Germans to build a Type VIIC of 800 tons, due to superior US construction techniques; the Germans would build the pressure hull of the VIIC, and then put everything into it, which ate up time and money; the US simply placed large items like engines inside the pressure hull during construction to save time.

[Ducimus]

German boats could dive deeper because they were shorter, a shorter cylinder can resist water pressure better than a longer one; US fleet boats were generally very large.



Intresting tidbit that. Did i say Us Fleet boats were superior in most respects? Hmmm, well lets see.


US Gato class:
Displacement: 1825 tons surfaced, 2410 tons submerged
Length: (95 metres)
Beam: (8.2 metres)
Depth: (90 metres)
Range: 11,800 nautical miles at 10 knots surfaced
Speed: 20.75 knots surfaced, 8.75 knots submerged


German IXC class:
Displacement: 1,120 tons surfaced; 1,232 tons submerged
Length: (76.76m)
Beam Width:(6.76m)
Depth: (ca. 230 m)
Range: 13,450 nautical miles at 10 knots surfaced / 63 miles @ 4k t (sm)
Speed: 18.3 knots surfaced; 7.3 knots submerged

So from that we can say is that:

The US gate class :
- has 4 more torpedo tubes, and 2 extra reserve torpedos?
- Is faster on the surface and submerged


The IXC:
- Is smaller in size (Good greif, and i thought a IXC was a cow :hmm )
- Has greater range
- dives deeper

What im wondering now is how these two boats compare for manuverablity on the surface and submerged. Yah one can dive deeper, and the other is faster, but how do they handle compared to one another? Doesnt matter if you have 1 forward torpedo tube or 8 forward tubes, if you cant bring them to bear fast enough when you need them the most , they don't do you much good.

Another thing i wonder is the underwater endurance of a Gato. The only statstic i could find is 48 hours at 2 knots. At any rate i retract my earlier statement that they were superior in most respects.

[CCIP]

Well, logically speaking - compare the performance of the VII to the performance of the IX. I think that gives us a rough idea of the impact it would have.

Even the IX was technically not well-suited to combat against convoys in the North Atlantic; if you notice, it was consistently used in lower-threat and far-away areas, aimed mostly at single shipping. I'm sure the American subs also excelled at that. This is also the reason that, as individual boats and in terms of tonnage, Type IX's were far and above more successful than the Type VII's.

The situation of the Italian boats is pretty comparable I think. They're probably much closer to American than German boats in most respects - and they did miserably against convoys and excellently on their own in far away areas.

But out in the North Atlantic against these kinds of escort froces, I don't doubt the American boats would not be successful, at least once said escort forces got a handle on the tactics. The convoy system would tear them to shreds - as it did the U-boats, which were technically better-suited. :hmm:

[kiwi_2005]

I just saw on an online auction, Silent Hunter 1 Commanders Edition! Comes with all addon mission packs.

Saw in an interview once with an US captain, he gave the impression they were afraid of the Uboats. He was asked the question, Did you ever come across Uboats during the war.
His reply: Whenever we did we did our best to avoid them.

[Trav_R]

Yeah I figured there had to be something I wasn't seeing. Just looking at the numbers I saw, the Gato's looked way superior. I was wondering about maneuverability, which wasn't mentioned. Plus the obvious lack of ability to dive deep compared to German subs. Thanks for all the input.

Also, you know those pics of the Gato in Pearl Harbor you posted? My ship tied up right next to that thing once, and I didn't even check it out :damn:

[CCIP]

Saw in an interview once with an US captain, he gave the impression they were afraid of the Uboats. He was asked the question, Did you ever come across Uboats during the war.
His reply: Whenever we did we did our best to avoid them.

Well, the fact is that there was no real means of sub-to-sub combat at the time wouldn't make you want to fight another sub; the only way for that would be catching one on the surface and unaware of you. But given that a U-boat would be smaller and harder to spot, it'd probably have the edge - and could turn or dive quicker even if attacked. :hmm:

[kiwi_2005]

Well, the fact is that there was no real means of sub-to-sub combat at the time wouldn't make you want to fight another sub; the only way for that would be catching one on the surface and unaware of you.

Yes i know. I too did my homework :)

In the interview the US Gato Commander, when asked the question about uboats, changed his tone of voice in a way where saying Hell no! we avoided them!

[bookworm_020]

The two subs were designed for diffrent missions areas. American Sub had to work in more tropical areas of the world and so had airconditioning, better crew acommadation which resulted in a larger sub.

German subs had a shorter traveling distance to their patrol areas (IX sub did travel greater distances, a couple made it to Malaysia) so there subs tended to be smaller

American subs had more problems with mag torps due to the proximity to the equator, it changed the mag field on ship from a hemisphere field of influance to a flater pancake shape.

The were american subs that could go deeper than 90 meters, some were rated to over 600 feet (180 meters), these were the Drum class, which were an improved Gato. I think I have records of one that went to 800 feet in a depth charge attack (I'll try to find it's name and post it along with the details)

It is intersting to note that later model electic torps used bu the US were copies of captured geman G7e torps! :o

Hope this helps,

I await your response.

[Trav_R]

Yeah this is the kind of information I was looking for. I just wanted to get some more insight into the Gato class in addition to the flat numbers. The numbers only tell you so much, that's why I asked here. This place is full of sub experts, so I appreciate all the information.

[bookworm_020]

Yeah this is the kind of information I was looking for. I just wanted to get some more insight into the Gato class in addition to the flat numbers. The numbers only tell you so much, that's why I asked here. This place is full of sub experts, so I appreciate all the information.

I'm also a librarian :up: as well as a maritime buff. So both go hand in hand

[Harry Buttle]

Its also worth noting that the Japs were absolutely inept at convoy protection, it was not a priority for them as it was seen as being defensive rather than in the offensive spirit and so it received few resources (and what resources it got were frequently squandered by interservice rivalry).

The US sub force also had the advantage of getting help in training and doctrine from the Brit, Canadian and US Atlantic ASW forces.