Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Incubus
USA: Obviously operating in the Pacific, their boats needed to be longer ranged. US and IJN's boats are huge compared to Germany's. The other thing I noticed is the number of tubes- compare a Type IX, with 4 bow and 2 stern tubes with many US classes boasting 6 bow and 4 stern tubes, not to mention 2 deck guns in some cases. Ive heard that as the war progressed, the surface armament of the boats actually increased. One thing I'm wondering, though, is if the IJN's lackluster ASW allowed US to get away with stuff Germany couldn't (big honkin boats that must have much slower dive times/maneuverability underwater). Their size and profile don't strike me as terribly stealthy (haven't heard of any antisonar/radar coatings in SH4 like the Germans get) and it makes me wonder what a spanking the US sub fleet would get against a more ASW-oriented nations like England.
|
If you compare dimensions, you'll find a typical US fleet boat, isn't that much different then a type9D2. From accounts ive read, for a US fleet boat, a dive time of 40 seconds was what was minimally accepted for a combat boat, with a 35 second dive time the true goal.
As for maximum depth, im unsure. Nobody really knows much about the 9D2's and information on how deep type 9s were pushed is also sketchy. But its a safe bet that they were probably, on the average, deeper then a gato because of all the external hull openings in the way of torpedo tubes. (although for a balao, im sure it could dive deeper then a type 9) Of course on the other hand, what better way to store torpedos, then in a tube? A us fleet boat, carried, as many torpedos (if not just 1 more fish), then a type 9, without the need for external stores.
The biggest advantage US fleet boats enjoyed (aside from ULTRA), was in their electronics. Depth charge plotters, thermal layer bathospheres, and radar were far more advanced then the germans, at a much earlier point in the war.