[CCIP]

I think it’s important to give the Soviet submariners and designers due credit – their subs were not the most successful or ‘best’, but given the conditions they fought in and the odds they faced, they actually performed admirably and compare very favourably to everybody else’s subs. Coming into WWII, the USSR had the largest and most diverse submarine force of any nation, although they relied especially heavily on smaller and quicker coastal subs. Unlike the German or US sub campaigns, they did not face an enemy that relied mainly on shipping for their trade, so they performed very well against Germany given that. Unlike Germany, they had enough subs to accomplish their stated missions at the start of the war, and while it took them a while to get in gear, they did do this successfully. Unlike the US, they had a working tactical doctrine and mostly-effective torpedoes from the very start, and they used both of these well. Soviet subs also excelled in a number of aspects – the smaller coastal subs had very good underwater performance, and the survival, rescue and air recycling gear that they carried aboard was the most advanced in the world at the time (in fact their underwater endurance was largely limited by battery life, not air).

In terms of the odds they faced – the Baltic campaign is remembered for the sinkings of the German liners in 1945, but somehow what Soviet submariners faced in 1942-1943 is forgotten – a time when their survival odds on a patrol were as bad if not worse than for German U-boats who left port in 1944-1945. And yet they still went out, fought, and still managed to sink ships.
All in all, the Soviet subs did very well. A better comparison for their actions would be something like the Royal Navy’s experience with subs in the European theater, and arguably Soviet subs had somewhat more success, even. Both forces, however, had some real similarities in their strategy, equipment and tactics, and did well in often less-than-ideal situations.