Good point! With that many boats that close to the Solomons, the Tokyo Express would have been toast a year sooner at least. I never thought of that!:salute:

How well do the fleet boats do with AAA guns?

How about snorkels?

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

How reliable where the fleet boats?

And finally; how quiet are they?

:D Sorry for all the questions.

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

Unavailable in US boats AFAIK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did the Americans have a targeting system for surface attacks?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Thanks :D

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


Speaking of radar.....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Yup.

>>Did this work well?

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

>>Did Americans develop pattern running torps?
No.

>> Wake-less torps?
Yes.

>> How good where American acoustic torps?

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

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

>>Did the Americans have decoys like bold?

Called SBT. Submarine Bubble Target.

>>How about anti-sonar paint?
No.

>>What about radar detectors like Metox?

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

Wiki tells me Chopper got down to 720 ft.

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

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

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

No, just pure bureaucratic BS.

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

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=8

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

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

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

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

Your Dec 42 is spot on :yeah:

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

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

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

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

Take care mate :sunny:

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

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

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

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

You beat me to it.