Comparisons of different nations' sub fleets

Incubus · 08-23-07, 11:41 PM

Obviously the major differences between nations is that each had a different overall mission, which likely reflected their boats' design. However, it is interesting to compare them. As far as I am aware,

KM: Playing SH3, its exciting to be in a situation where the odds rapidly stack against you. KM's fleet seems doomed on the 'too little, too late'; not having enough boats when there was advantages, and not being able to win the tech race when aircraft were scouring the skies and DDs scouring the depths. In spite of this, U-boats seemed to have the best underwater performance of any nation, and their skippers definitely pushed the boats to their limits. Late war models (like the Electroboat) were awesome precursors to modern submarines- the use of a snorkel allowed for great underwater performance with minimal exposure.

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.

IJN: Their fleet did surprisingly lackluster in merchant tonnage, why is that? Certainly their subs needed the same overall requirements US boats did (range, stamina) they were big, had lots of torpedoes, including an adapted version of the Type 93. Some of their boats also carried scout planes, which seemed pretty unique and sounds like it would have potential. However, with a number of exceptions (Yorktown, Indianapolis, etc) they seemed to have a marginal role in the IJN fleet. I find this hard to comprehend considering that in comparison, the US fleet sent a huge amount of steel to the bottom, and regardless of nation and skipper, all subs share inherent strengths/weaknesses.

Royal Navy: I know they had some subs and midgets, but I never really hear much about them. Granted, geography meant they didn't have much quarry (maybe in the Mediterranean?) but they were involved in the Pacific, too. How did their subs fare?

08-23-07, 11:41 PM	#1
Incubus Planesman Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 195 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Comparisons of different nations' sub fleets Obviously the major differences between nations is that each had a different overall mission, which likely reflected their boats' design. However, it is interesting to compare them. As far as I am aware, KM: Playing SH3, its exciting to be in a situation where the odds rapidly stack against you. KM's fleet seems doomed on the 'too little, too late'; not having enough boats when there was advantages, and not being able to win the tech race when aircraft were scouring the skies and DDs scouring the depths. In spite of this, U-boats seemed to have the best underwater performance of any nation, and their skippers definitely pushed the boats to their limits. Late war models (like the Electroboat) were awesome precursors to modern submarines- the use of a snorkel allowed for great underwater performance with minimal exposure. 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. IJN: Their fleet did surprisingly lackluster in merchant tonnage, why is that? Certainly their subs needed the same overall requirements US boats did (range, stamina) they were big, had lots of torpedoes, including an adapted version of the Type 93. Some of their boats also carried scout planes, which seemed pretty unique and sounds like it would have potential. However, with a number of exceptions (Yorktown, Indianapolis, etc) they seemed to have a marginal role in the IJN fleet. I find this hard to comprehend considering that in comparison, the US fleet sent a huge amount of steel to the bottom, and regardless of nation and skipper, all subs share inherent strengths/weaknesses. Royal Navy: I know they had some subs and midgets, but I never really hear much about them. Granted, geography meant they didn't have much quarry (maybe in the Mediterranean?) but they were involved in the Pacific, too. How did their subs fare?