I prefer the US subs for its crew amenities (ice cream machine, AC system, escape trunk, etc) and it seems that the US boats had more room for their crews.

:damn:

Funny, I happen to live in that region lol

Ok, since this got bumped already (Not me this time! I swear!!), I don't feel so guilty asking this. Reading the thread, this question popped into my head. And it actually may reinforce the apples vs oranges arguement.

Would density of the water affect the crush depth?

Modern ships have that density tree painted on the side of their hulls, indicating max load for a given body of water. Fresh water (great lakes, etc) had a lower density since they were fresh water, and merchants can safely hold less cargo than a tropical Ocean, since the salinity is higher.

How would this affect Subs? Would the Germans/British have a shallower crush depth since their water is more 'dense', and the Americans/Japanese have a greater depth? Not sure on where the Med rates, but that's the Italians.

Or is it a moot point since the difference would be so small that individual boat factors (welds, age, damage, etc) would affect it first?

The real crush depth varies by individual boat. Even with modern production line techniques one bad weld can make a difference, though a very small one. The only way to actually find a boat's crush depth is to go deeper until you get crushed, which is not a recommended tactic.

I'm sure density does make a difference, but how would you tell?

Well you wouldn't after the ultimate test :DL

I'd take a B-1/I-15 sub over the 7c or Trench, Gato or Balao... seaplane could really help to spot those targets not to mention it was as fast as the American boats :)

On the other hand the seaplane would have been spotted by the targets and that means destroyers hunting you.

I believe the Germans had the advantage in submarine warfare (both in weapons and tactics) at the start of WWII and lost it to the Allies ASW technology.

If the XXI type was put to service earlier then they might had a chance to fight back.

IMO the XXI and her little sister XXIII were the best subs of WWII.

While the XXI did see a little service in the war, you really can't count it as a boat from the war. It was the next generation of sub design, and it (and it's progeny) redefined what submarine warfare is.

Just like the Me 242, it's biggest impact was on the future, not the present.

Had the XXI come out earlier, or the war lasted longer, I think it would have been, hands down, the best sub in the war, but it didn't see enough service to be really considered part of the war.

Hi,
I saw type XXIs at Lisahally (Lough Foyle) after the surrender and they certainly looked impressive compared with our boats. I believe one was commissioned into the Royal Navy as Meteor, for evaluation.
R.R.

U-1407 a Type XVIIB was raised after scuttling and named HMS Meteorite

http://www.uboat.net/boats/u1407.htm

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_...VIIB_submarine

I think we can count it as a boat from the war
http://www.uboat.net/boats/u2511.htm
What if Kaluen Schnee had fired.......
I agree with you that the XXI has influenced all modern submarine designs.
I also agree about the Me 262 jet fighter!

Thanks Jimbuna,
I stand corrected but claim memory lapse in mitigation!
R.R.

To be honest, I think the whole debate is like comparing members of the citrus family. Just as grapefruits and kumquats have benefits and disadvantages, so did the subs.

The German subs were high quality themselves, but by the end of the war American sub-borne sensors were better, not to mention they could be cranked out in larger numbers. American diving depth was abysmal compared to the German subs.