Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tater
Results matter. Not winning battles, but winning wars—or at least campaigns.
Fleet Type submarines wiped out the japanese merchant marine. Regardless of the initial design intention (the "fleet" bit), they turned out to be excellent commerce raiders (~90,000 tons per boat lost).
The KM boats were designed for commerce raiding, but for all the talk about superior depth, maneuverability, etc, they sank what, around 3 ships each before being themselves sunk (something like 11,00tons per lost boat)? Clearly they were neither deep-diving enough, nor maneuverable enough, which begs the question: were u-boats actually all that well suited to the Battle of the Atlantic?
If they evolved the superior form for their theater, they would not litter the bottom of the Atlantic.
|
I'm sorry to tell you, but you are missing some points from the equasion. You are giving credit for success only in the light of the boats itself.
Fact is: the Fleetboats sank app. 5.2 million tons of ships against an enemy totally oblivious of concerted ASW procedures and usually having merchants travel solo without any escort and aircover.
The U-Boats sank 14.3 million tons against an enemy deeming them as their principal enemy going lengths in measures to defeat them.
It is quite clear that the US submarine force had it a lot easier. Their boats weren't bombed while in port or just leaving port. They did not have to go up against strongly defended convoys having air cover. Neither did they have an enemy who could monitor their radio traffic due to the communications code being broken. They didn't even have their bases in areas that could be said to have hostile inhabitants.
I guess it is definitely a difference wether your enemy takes to you dead serious or to be a nuisance not to be really bothered with until it is too late.