Who had the best submarines in wwII?
 

Excluding the Type XXI which is the clear winner! Before that type what was the differance between Japanese, American, German, British and Italian subs?

I know alot about U-boats but nothing much about any of the others.

It does seem that the American subs were huge in comparison to even the type IX Based on pictures from SH IV.

So Fire away, WHichs subs were better and which were worse and why.:know:

The better subs were the ones that made it home.
The ones that made it home were better because they came home alive.
:up:
The ones that didn't make it home were worse. For obvious reasons.
:down:

Do I win a prize?
:lol:

Congratz you win the flawless logic award :smug: don't spend it all in one place...:D

It's a tough debate, some countries had lots of different subs with some especially good but others very bad (Japan) and some other had relatively ok subs but a whole lot (USA, Germany) it's mostly in how you use them though, and looked at it that way the US and Germany come out on top...

It's difficult to compare subs of different nationalities, since the respective nations often had different needs in mind due to geography or doctrine. The large US fleet type was originally meant to be scout sub for the battle fleet, but turned out also to be an excellent solitary raider for the vast distances of the Pacific for which it was designed. The German Type VII has horribly cramped but was ideal in the North Atlantic where the distances to patrol areas were shorter and it's slim sonar profile was the margin between life and death in many a depth-charging. The small British 'U' type was ideal for the Mediterranean but not really of use elsewhere due to low endurance. The British had other subs for that purpose tho.

The Japanese subs also were designed for the Pacific. They were large and had excellent endurance, and often scout planes, but weren't deep deep divers and performed sluggishly underwater. Japanese subs suffered primarily from a doctrine that emphasized them as part of the battlefleet and their job was seen as going after other warships. The Japanese never really developed an effective merchant sinking program.

Italian subs. Big conning towers. Poor doctrine. Probably excellent food tho. :up:

Also you have to bear in mind the changing times. Technological progress was huge between 1939 and 1945.

The type VII may have been the best all-rounder by the turn of 1940, but was more or less obsolete by 1943

Well let’s not just assume that the Type XXI is the clear hands down winner here.

I reference Clay Blair’s 1996 book “Hitler’s U-Boats” in two volumes.

Specifically I would like to quote from the Forward of the book where Mr. Blair discusses the United States’ evaluation of the U-2513 Type XXI Uboat. While 118 of the Type XXI boats were constructed, I believe only two (U2511 and U3008) had combat patrols.

From the Blair book

“In the classified report [the American evaluators] sent to the Chief of Naval Operations, dated July 1946, they wrote that while the Type XXI had many desirable features that should be exploited, it also had many grave design and manufacturing faults. The clear implication was that owning to these faults, the XXI could not have made a big difference in the Battle of the Atlantic. Among the major faults the Americans enumerated:

Poor Structural Integrity.

Hurriedly prefabricated in thirty-two different factories that had little or no experience in submarine building, the eight major hull sections of the type XXi were crudely made and did not fit together properly. Therefore the pressure hull was weak and not capable of withstanding sea pressure at great depths or the explosions of close depth charges. The Germans reported that in their structural tests, the hull failed at a simulated depth of 900 feet. The British reported failure at 800 feet, less than the failure depth of the conventional German U-Boats.

Underpowered Diesel Engines

The new model, six-cylinder diesels were fitted with superchargers to generate the required horsepower. The system was so poorly designed and manufactured that the superchargers could not be used. This failure reduced the generated horsepower by almost half: From 2,000 to 1,200, leaving the Type XII ruinously underpowered. Consequently, the maximum surface speed was only 15.6 knots, less than any ocean going U-boat built during the war and slightly slower than the corvette convoy-escort vessel. The reduction in horsepower also substantially increased the time required to carry out a full battery charge.

Impractical Hydraulic System

The main lines, accumulators, cylinders, and pistons of the hydraulic gear or operating the diving planes, rudders, torpedo tube outer doors, and antiaircraft gun turrets on the bridge were too complex and delicate and located outside the pressure hull. This gear was therefore subject to saltwater leakage, corrosion, and enemy weaponry. It could not be repaired from inside the pressure hull.

Imperfect and Hazardous Snorkel

Even in moderate seas, the mast dunked often, automatically closing the air intake and exhaust ports. Even so, salt water poured into the ship’s bilges and had to be discharged overboard continuously with noisy pumps. More over, during these shutdowns, the diesels dangerously sucked air from inside the boat and deadly exhaust gas backed up, causing not only headaches and eye discomfort, but also serious respiratory illnesses. Snorkeling in the Type XXI was therefore a nightmarish experience to be minimized to the greatest extent possible.” End of quote

So on paper the Type XXI should have been the best submarine of the time. If the Germans had the proper manufacturing capability the problems with the pressure hull and the diesel engines could have been fixed. The design of the hydraulic system being outside of the pressure hull is, in my opinion, a bad idea, just for the reasons listed in the Blair book.

Did the Type XXI have a reputation that was greater than the reality?

In the 1995 book “Count not the dead: The popular image of the German Submarine” Michael L. Hadley wrote “During both wars and during the inter-war years as well, the U-boat was mythologized more than any other weapon of war.”

Perhaps the greatest capability of the Type XXI was the myth of the Type XXI.

Since only two of them were used in combat (if memory serves me correctly) we will never know how effective the Type XXI would have truly been.

I think that a good Type VIIC or IXD2 might have been a better all around boat.

When it came to meet operational requirements of the time. the Type IX was probably the best.

I don't know how well would have the American Fleet type performed against the Royal Navy.

A typical American Gato class would have fared poorly against the vaunted Royal Navy hunter-killers, especially later in the war. It's large size and slow dive time would have worked against it, but without that large size and habitability it would have been incapable of operating effectively against Japan all the way from Pearl Harbor. Different boats designed for different oceans.

The Type IX was a good long range boat, but the lack of air-conditioning and refrigeration made life hell for the crew in the tropics.

An age old debate. This argument is usually centric to uboat vs fleetboat. Its a flawed argument becuase not all subs were designed and built for the same purpose. A type7 uboat would fail miserably to accomplish a fleet boats objectives and vise verasa.

Submarine design, is highly influenced by doctrine. The Germans already had an idea of what they wanted to do based on lessons from WW1. The US had their own ideas and went off in another (flawed) direction, it just happened that while the doctrine was flawed, the submarine designed for that doctrine happened to fit what was needed in the pacific theater quite nicely.

What im getting at here is that different subs, were built for different purposes. Type 7's were basicaly picket boats that would from a line (aka wolfpack) for convoy attacks. This intent thrust upon the design, requirements in order to accomplish its mission. When things are designed, its always a case of give and take. Hence, while they had nice profiles and performance, they lacked the range and firepower of longer ranged subs. This lack of firepower in the indvidual sub was offset by the pack tactic.

Type 9 uboats, orginally designed as at sea wolfpack headquarters of sort, happened to be their most ideal long range boat. Performance and profile was sacraficed for firepower and range.

So if one was to ask, who had the best boat, you have to look at the role for which the subs your comparing were intended for. The US really had no direct equivlant of a Type7. All of their boats excepting the S class were basicaly long range submarines, primarly because of doctrine and their operational theater was the worlds largest ocean.

U.S. has the best submarines no doubt about it :arrgh!: :up: . The Gato/Balao class would dominate both oceans without a sweat. Highly superior technological advances in radar and electronics combined with outstanding performance: 20+ knots on surface, 8.75-9 knots submerge, large amount of torpedoes, super deep diving capabilities of the awesome Balaos, and a 30-35 second crash dive time (super fast for such large subs =D) would OWNZ all other subs of the era. =D

Plus, young and aggressive skippers like Mush Morton and Samuel D. Dealey (aka "The Destroyer Killer"), would turn the RN's sub hunters into the hunted. :up: :up: :arrgh!: :arrgh!:

The problem is the British know how that highly superior radar technology works. They invented it. They knew how to detect and exploit it. ;)The Japanese didn't have radar for most of the war. Speed was only an advantage on the surface when the enemy wasn't tracking your every move on their radar. German boats dived far deeper than American subs and still the British hounded them mercilessly.

Plus, the Japanese didn't have hedgehogs. Those things are nasty.

"German boats dived far deeper than American subs" :rotfl: I don't think any Type VIICs would be able to survive a 1,011 feet depth excursion such that the USS Chopper (Balao class) had when she lost power in a training execise.:up:

:rotfl: As much as i love fleet submarines, even i woudlnt make that boast! If one *REALLY* wanted to know how well a fleet boat would do in the atlantic, all one has to do, is look at how well the 9D2's faired. Which, really is the only fair comparision, as they're both very similar in size and endurance. The upperhand in THAT matchup however, i think goes to the fleet boat. No externally stored torpedos, better electronics, better propulsion system, and better (higher) field of view for lookouts. edit: Oh yeah, and faster dive time. A fleetboat in wartime was required to dive in under 40 seconds. 30-35 second dive being the goal in training.

1,011 feet is 308.1528 meters. There are a few U-boats that have been that deep and lived to tell about it.
The desighne depth of the type XXI is 300 meters.

Good point Freiwillige.

Here is example:
Partial quote of Jimbuna´s topic posted before some time.
NOTE THAT THIS UBOAT WAS ALSO BADLY DAMAGED AND SHE STILL ENDURED PRESSURE AT 1000 FEET

Link: http://207.44.214.111/subsim.com/rad...d.php?t=128787

I think that german subs haved greater survivabilty, and US subs haved superior firepower. Against UK hunter-killers German u-boat´s got definetly better chance due their deeper dive capability, noticable smaller hull design(small sonar profile) and obviously better manouverability.