Don't get me wrong, I didn't know anyway, it wasn't until I read your post I decided to look it up :DL

If we go by the opening post and simply disqualify the type XXI... wouldn't the Japanese I-201 be the most obvious contender for the best sub?

I've only been on a type VII and a type XXI myself, none of which have direct American counterparts. From what I know (which isn't very detailed), a comparison between a Tench class and a Type IXD2 favours the Tench... the drivetrain seems more attractive, more tubes, all torpedos internal, better crew comfort, and going into the TDC, optics and electronics also seems to give more possible advantages to the American boat. During the time of these boats, the American torpedos had also started to actually work.

Can we give the IXD anything solid other than, according to most sources, better underwater endurance?

hmm, Imagine a silent hunter set from the soviet side.............

That's pushing it just a bit. American subs could, and did, go quite a bit deeper than the recommended test depth. You might want to actually read the thread before throwing out statements that have already been discussed (and disproven) here.

Explain then why the Ohio class SSBN has a test depth only 10 meters deeper than VIIC...

The listing I show is a test depth of 240m, while the VIIc is listed at 230m.

But, the test depth for USN boats is 2/3 of their max operating depth, which is still less than their crush depth. The German VIIC had crush depth of only 250m. So the Ohio is a 66% of crush while the VIIC is at 92% of crush.

Test depth is some arbitrary number given to boats during peacetime operations, and is what the boat is tested to. Apples and Oranges again.

The concept of a pressure hull, hasnt changed much in the 100+ years it's been around. The deep diving boats had to have very thick hulls to survive those depths, but that made them very slow (also the limited energy systems). The mass of a SSBN with a similarly thick hull would be immense, and almost impossible to move. With the Ohio's been first built in '76, they are of 60's technology, only 20+ years removed from WWII. To see very little ratings difference in the hulls is actually not surprising. Until the fabled ceramic hulls start appearing, war boats will still be limited to relatively shallow depths.

Well, the Russian Lira class (test depth of 350m, max operating depth of around 800m, crush depth well below 1km) is older... but apparently someone went bonkers before dreaming that one up.

Interesting, because from what I've read the Germans place test depth one half of actual crush depth..

This statement is invalid as you do not know what the test depth of an Ohio class submarine is. Unless you have served on one. And besides, what would be the point of a modern nuclear submarine being able to go deeper? To escape depth charges?:doh:

Numerous sources I found showed 240m. Seems to have been declassified.

The ability to go deeper means better opportunities to exploit thermal layers, use topography for cover, dive below torpedo crush depths (not sure on that one, just random guess), etc etc.

I can asure you that the test depth of an Ohio has not been declassified, and won't be until years after the last hull is scrapped. I would disagree with your statements regarding diving deeper. Thermal layers are located more towards the surface, shallower during the winter and deeper during the summer. But still measured in the hundreds of feet. The ocean is several thousand feet deep thus rendering most topography well beyond use. In the shallower coastal areas they could be used, but most of the world is open deep ocean. The Mk-48 torpedo was designed to combat fast deep diving submarines, thus torpedo crush depth will always be deeper than submarine crush depth.

Did you do as I suggested and read the thread? As I said, this has all been discussed here before.

First of all, all "max depths" are by nature calculated, not actual. The only way to find the actual crush depth is to be crushed.

Second, I wouldn't expect an SSB(N) of any type to have an exceptional depth, simply because they are bigger than a WW1 Battleship, which means that longitudinally they are going to be more fragile.

Third, as has been pointed out more than once, the Tench class had an expected crush depth of 900 feet, which puts them very close to the VIIc.

Lastly, as always, I'm not trying to argue that "my favorite" was better than "your favorite". My point is that each different type was designed for a different purpose, and each has its strengths and weaknesses, and that each would fair poorly in the war the other was designed to fight.

Who had the best subs in WWII? The Germans.
 

The German subs could dive deeper for longer and faster than any other subs in the war. (German subs could dive in excess of 250 meters. American subs could only dive to 100 meters) The type 7's sank more shipping than any other sub type and were built in the greatest numbers. The type 21's could outrun their adversaries while at depth, or just cruise slowly, then rev up and duck out from under the depth charge splashes. By the time the depth charges arrived, they were no longer there. The streamlined shape of the hull was nearly impossible to detect with active sonar if it was angled head on or head aft to the emitter. They were way ahead of their time. American sub designs were greatly influenced by the German type 21's after the war. The nuclear submarine Nautilus had a very similar hull and very similar hydrostatic flow characteristics, including the nasty tendency to roll to the opposite side during high speed submerged turns due to the sail being too far aft.

First, welcome aboard. :sunny:

Second, it would be nice if you read the dates before posting. This thread died four years ago.

Third, did you read the entire thread? All of that was hashed out before. Funny, that was my reply four years ago as well.

welcome aboard!