US vs. German subs - which was better?
 

Hi!

I'd like to know which Country had the better Subs, the United States or Germany?

From what I have gathered the US Fleet Boats were faster both submerged and surfaced, but the German Boats could dive deeper.
What is the maximum documented diving depth of a US and German boat respectively? I know that Kptl. Heinrich Lehmann Willenbrock took U-96 to 220 meters to evade a group of destroyers.... would this have been possible with a US sub?

But what were the other main advantages and differenences between the US and German submarines?

U.S submarines are better in endurance, speed, life conditions (like the ice cream machine )and a lot of space for the crew. All torpedoes are stored inside of the sub, and 6 tubes in the bow and 4 in the stern, this means a lot more of firepower.

And finally the biggest difference: the superior technology in Radar and radio, it means detect the targets and planes in the distance and know if is aproaching or not, and plot intercept courses in the dark without visual sight.

Geman subs are superior in dive depths and optics. but very limited in ASW tech
(finally decisive in the war)

Well, I can't argue with that summation.

Though I'm sure someone will. :rotfl2:

Both the fleet boats and the u-boats were childs of their time, with their technical differences and their main operational theaters. We all know this. At the time they were used, they were the best their country could make. So both types was good, but only good in the setting they were made to perform in.:yep: I agree with Hartmann's excellent statement, it summons it up in details. :up:

Apples and Onions :)

You only can compare a long range Type IXD/2 with a fleet sub, mainly with a Balao (Both the german and american launched in 1943), because the Type VIIC was a much smaller, short range boat designed to operate in packs and closer to the home base. The US boats had to be bigger because they had to go farther -all away across the Pacific- and could not go back quickly to their home bases to refit. They carried therefore a larger load of torpedoes, much more diesel, storage for food and had better living conditions for their crews.

By comparing a Balao and a Type IX/D2, you can notice that:

Type IX/D2 has deeper crush depth
Type IX/D2 has slightly better crash dive times (Only 5 seconds or so)

Balao had higher surface & dived speed
Balao had longer range
Balao had larger torpedo load and bigger guns
Balao had way superior electronics (Radar)

Then again we know that when we play radar is more a magnet to attract the attention of hunter killer groups. Thus radar was nice but imho also very dangerous.

firepower. several convoys got hammered by U-boats. They just took out 1 or 2 ships per day. So 2 torps/ ship was enough mostly. In my book no of tubes isn't that important, it's the number of eels one can carry.

Basically the theater of operations where so different, as where the conditions (winning vs loosing the war). It's impossible to compare both types of subs. Then again I know on which type i wanna be.

The one that brings me home.

America had the better subs for certain things. Though if given a choice between going on a U-Boat or going on a fleet boat in war conditions... I think I would have to pick a fleet boat. Going on a U-Boat would be tantamount to suicide. Not that it wasn't dangerous for the Americans... but god... their losses can't compare to 3 out of 4 submariners dying.

Also one advantage a IXD has over a Balao that Hitman missed is underwater endurance. IXD2's can stay under longer than a Balao can. At least if SH4 and the U-Boat mission expansion are anything to go on... :up:

U-Boats of WW2 had very little change from those of WW1 and thats why they failed. There was no real big effort to modernize them until it was to late. The XXI shows what they could have done but a lack of thinking and budget sealed the U-Boat fate.

American subs had more going for them as already pointed out.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Clay Blair inspect one captured specimen after the war and find her shoddily made? I.e. the design was innovative but the realization somewhat lacking...

PS. Effin' SH3 :damn: Crashed just when I was about to attack a BIIIG convoy. Back to a previous save now :cry:

No you are right... however, the XXI's were built using slave labour practically, and were thrown together as fast as possible. Underwater the XXI could run rings around any other submarine in the world. In terms of design it truly was state of the art.

What did you expect for that time in the war? The XXI could have been better if built early in the war but by the time they were being built Germany had lost the war.

Once again too little to late, as Penelope_Grey pointed out I hardly think a slave labour force is going to do a good job are they. ;)

Oh, absolutely true Steed & Penelope, and also partly explains (the slave labor bit I mean) why totalitarian societies / regimes and technological innovations are mutually exclusive in the long run.

Dictatorships of course have their share of highly paid and prestigious engineers and designers, but what they also have to make do with is a labor force consisting of people who've been coerced into putting those ideas into practice - and this includes the so-called "free" workers, too, because those hapless cogs of the Machine usually cannot (or do not dare to) go and say "no" to their bosses / Politruks / Gauleiters regardless of what the buggers throw at them! So as a result what you get is a coercive work culture negatively affecting pretty much everyone, "free" or not - and comparably substandard production, too, in the long run.

Nowhere was this as evident as in the former Soviet Union, but I'm pretty sure this would've happened to the Nazies as well had their Reich lived any longer. A totalitarian state due to its very nature usually succeeds in getting rid of is its brain power (and thus its innovators), and this of course cannot but wreck its technological process in the long run. That the Third Reich succeeded in producing technology like the XXI does not disprove this at all BTW, because as stated already their particular form of society (fortunately) didn't live long enough to really suffer from this...

OK, done rambling, thanks for letting me test this nifty new soapbox of mine :arrgh!:

Back in March we had this discussion.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=133357

Read the sixth post in that thread for what Clay Blair wrote about the US evaluation of the Type XXI

Its a little like asking:

What was better?

A Spitfire or a B-17?



Two different designs, for two very different theatres, and two different missions.

Both types were designed for totally different missions. They both had advantages and disadvantages but they are not comparable. My personal opinion is that the US Boats due to the operation theater were closer to the modern idea of the submarine (long range and endurance) but in terms of performance they were not so far off the German designs. Nevertheless as others said before me you just cannot compare them.