Wow, that is one nasty hole in the side of U-505. But if you've read the books, Gallery's and Goebler's, you know that incident was a completely different incident from the surfacing and surrender of an essentially undamaged U-boat which was still full of fight and its capture and towing back to the US. U-505 had been repaired and had no hole in the side when Gallery added her to his collection.

I've looked and I can't find it. Probably my fault, but a link would be appreciated.

As for taunting, I took it to mean that US boats would be helpless against British and American ASW.

Wrong. Plain and simple, wrong. German destroyers were equipped with depth charges, and active sonar (S-Gërat), as well as hydrophones. Several attacks were made on suspected submarines. Oil slicks were sighted on more than one occasion, but no actual confirmation. I'm not saying the Germans were anywhere near the Allies' capacity. They were in fact far behind. But "NO ASW capacity at all! Zero. Zilch. Nada."? Yes, they did.*

Sorry, but to me this seems opinionated and very much an overreaction. Of course that's just my opinion.

* M.J. Whitley, German Destroyers of World War Two, Naval Institute Press, 1991

I completely agree with you on the merits of the US boats and their purpose. I just wanted to point out that the Type IX had a longer cruising range than the Gato, and just as slow a dive time.

Yeah, I'm not sure why I didn't remember that the Type IX had a greater range at 10 knots when compared with the Gato and Balao.

Let's assume that one morning in 1944, all the Gatos and Balaos in the USN disappeared and were replaced by Type IXCs. Yes, we'd have a boat which could dive slightly faster and had a slightly longer surface range, could dive deeper, and have a smaller surface profile. We'd also end up with boat which was two to three knots slower on the surface, carried 12 fewer torpedoes internally, and didn't have effective surface or air search radar. We'd also end up sending boats without a shower, refrigerated storage, air conditioning, or sufficient bunks for the crew, into humid tropical waters for weeks on end. Sounds like a bum deal to me.

The funny thing is, despite how "huge and yachtlike" the fleet boats were, the Bureau of Ships were designing submarines even bigger than the Gato and Balao in 1945. Two of their designs submitted in May 1945 displaced between 330 and 490 tons more than the Tench class, featured an extra pair of stern torpedo tubes, six athwartship tubes for anti-escort torpedoes, much more powerful diesels, and thicker hulls giving a crush depth around 800 feet. Of course, these designs were put together before the Allies had a chance to examine the Type XXI.

Sorry this is getting off-topic.

Don't forget the ice cream making machine :03:

Actually the Germans lost 24 submarines to Allied submarines during the war. British subs knocked off the biggest score with 13 kills. Among the American kills, the last one was USS Besugo bagging U-183, Op Monsun boat, two weeks before the German surrender. The USS Flounder also scored another OP Monsun U-boat, U-537. Sub vs sub was very one-sided an favor of the Allies.

Interesting. I didn't read it that way. That is a much more intriguing angle. The Germans made a huge mistake using U-boats in WWII. They sent their boats out into a sea completely controlled by the Allies, beyond the range of any air support. Therefore, with the American jeep carrier hunter-killer groups, no diesel-electric sub could possibly survive, neither German nor American. Even the Type XXI would have been doomed (if it worked properly, a fact never established). So as I've said before, American subs could not win the German war. Subs were not appropriate for their war at all. They had a key but it didn't fit the lock.



The problem was that other than the Med, Germans had very little area to run their destroyers in. The German navy was completely inexperienced in ASW and had no demonstrated capability. You can have a garage full of tools but that doesn't make you a mechanic. Not a single kill is evidence of no capability.

Edit: although they didn't sink any submarines, the only German warship ever to operate in the Med, the destroyer ZG3 did induce the HMS Splendid to surrender and its crew scuttled the sub. A quote from Wikipedia which proves both points, some limited success and no ability to use the 19 total destroyers the Germans deployed in WWII. Edit: 19 plus 22=41 German DDs total. The US gave 50 to the British before the war even started!

I must admit I'm never hesitant to share a room with a strong opinion. http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/a...leys/winky.gif Maybe I just worded it wrong. <rewind....> How is a strategy of sinking ships of several dozen nations other than the one you are at war with, operating on a huge ocean with submarines suited for coastal defense only and of a drastically outdated design, consuming Germany's best resources and manpower in a submarine war that sunk less than 5% of Allied shipping possibly justified?

Put all those wasted resources into land based military capability. How many planes can you make with the materials used in a single U-boat? How many tanks? Machine guns? Keep in mind that construction of a U-boat took much more time than constructing a ****e-Wulf. Or a hundred ****e-Wulfs. Good thing this is Subsim, not AvSim! Think of the incredible skill and fortitude of the U-boat crews. What would they have accomplished on land? They were the best of the best in the German military.

Then reflect that without U-boats there wouldn't have to have been a war with America and the war against the British might well have been avoided too. Yes, this was all in the hands of a madman, but theoretically, without the U-Boat the Germans could have pursued more fruitful means of conquest. They would have had a much wider range of options available both militarily and diplomatically. That would have been bad. It's tempting to say it was a tragic waste, but mistakes in the pursuit of evil are not tragic but fortuitous.

And then there were the ice cream machines!
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/a...mileys/OMG.gif

Back on subject, one American sub skipper was asked whether he wanted his deck gun mounted fore or aft. He said he didn't care so long as they put wheels on it so he could chuck it overboard.

Dudley Morton said he wanted his on the stern because the only use he could think of was last resort if the sub were being chased by a bad guy. Stern mount was the most prevalent in American boats.

U Kant really hav a propr GEDUNK w/o an ice crême machine! The one aboard the USS Pampanito...still works!:up: