US fleet boats - best frontline sub of ww2?

[jazzabilly]

I happen to think that the Balao was a wonderful machine ~ if the sim is accurate, of course. I have to do some reading on the subject, which is a little weak. I much prefer it to the VIIc that I used to drive (mostly) in 3. The Battle of The Atlantic, I know very well. The Pacific, not so much.

The combination of speed, maneuverability and the EW capabilities of this boat make it my best sub pick. I don't know anything about the Tench class, though I imagine it was an improvement.

It's hard to say how differently the USN subs would have fared had the IJN had a more coherent and capable ASW force. They were certainly behind the game technologically speaking. An interesting "what if" would equip the Japanese with 10cm radar, Hedgehog and Squid DC mortars, and more capable ASW crews.

The Japanese also had no leader on par with Sir Max Horton, so the leadership wasn't there either.

As far as I can recall, it wasn't until after the war that most nations took ASW seriously, and career officers weren't normally drawn to the study of it.

[Torplexed]

I've always felt part of what made the submarine commerce war in the Atlantic and Pacific so different was that Germany and Great Britain had a huge rehearsal called World War One. Between Donitz's working on his wolfpack theories and British research into Asdic, radar, etc, they put a lot of thought and effort into it during the interwar period.

For some reason the knowledge from this bitter struggle never really caught on elsewhere. The US adapted U-Boat technology after WWI, but meandered through a lot of mediocre designs before very fortuitously coming up with the fleet boat in the late 30s, which by it's name was meant to operate with the fleet but turned out to be a fine independent machine. The US also struggled with very unrealistic prewar training and untested torpedo technology.

The Japanese really dropped the ball on their end, however. Being an island nation they really should have paid close attention to the British experience in the Great War. However, having built a navy and a mentality which emphasized the decisive battle and all things offensive it would have taken a major cultural shift for them to have done otherwise.

The US by dint of it's huge industrial capacity and it's alliance with Britain and her superb radar technology was able to overcome it's early mistakes in the misuse of it's submarines. For Japan, it was far too late by 1944 to have switched over to building cheap, dedicated escorts and radar-equipped ASW aircraft. At the time they were most needed their resources were already stretched to the breaking point. Prewar, in lieu of building the white elephant superbattleship Yamato they probably could have constructed 100 Kaikoban frigates. Hindsight is 20/20.

All that being said the fleet boats were probably the finest submarine for the environment and opponent which they were deployed against. Comparing submarines of different nationalities in WW2 is a bit like comparing apples and oranges. Unlike tanks and planes, submarines don't fight each other. They fight the other side's ASW system.

[AVGWarhawk]

Tench Class was basically the same in design as the others but it was the thick outer hull that separated it from the others. Dive a bit deeper. Take a bit more beating from DC.

[Red Lord of Chaos]

Japanese intrest in British naval technology and strategy was good upto the start of the War, indeed possibly too good, the Attack on Pearl Harbour was a copy of the British raid on Taranto. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Taranto

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by Red Lord of Chaos

Japanese intrest in British naval technology and strategy was good upto the start of the War, indeed possibly too good, the Attack on Pearl Harbour was a copy of the British raid on Taranto. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Taranto

That's because the Japanese obsession with battle came at the expense of trade defense. Japan went to war with six large carriers and an excellent fleet air arm, but only four purpose-built escorts in service, and none of these had sonar (Shumushu class). None of the 14 members of the Type A Etorofu class were within two months of being laid down. They came fifth in the shipbuilding priority list. (i.e. aircraft carriers, submarines, destroyers, minesweepers, escorts) Compare this with the British Flower class frigates were by the end of January 1940, a total of 116 ships were building or on order.

[Rockin Robbins]

Just quickly without reference to any books, the American submarine had six forward and four aft torpedo tubes and carried more torpedoes to battle than any German submarine. Serving good food and having air conditioning made the men aboard a much more efficient fighting machine. They had longer range and were faster both on the surface and submerged than any German submarine that saw combat during the war.

Also, the power setup was much more advanced with the diesels used only to produce electricity for the electric motors, which were the only motors connected to the propellor shafts and to charge the batteries. Four engines vs. only two for the German submarines meant much more flexibility in power/battery charging configurations. The American TDC's position keeper was a huge step forward from the German TDC, allowing the American sub to shoot entirely blind from any depth as long as their targeting solution was valid.

And finally, the deal clencher that made the American submarine undeniably superior to ANY German submarine, a great and dependable radar.

The Germans made the mistake of going forward with WWI designs. The American subs took it to the next level. There was no comparison in quality.

[tater]

And an ice cream machine.

[joegrundman]

This is kind of a side question - -could someone explain in easy language what the comparative advantage is of a diesel-electric drive train over a direct drive diesel engine?

[Freiwillige]

German subs dived much deeper early in the war than any of their counterparts. And the German type XXI was the next evolutionary step in submarine technology, beyond reproach from anything the allies had at the time.

[jazzabilly]

Originally Posted by Freiwillige

German subs dived much deeper early in the war than any of their counterparts. And the German type XXI was the next evolutionary step in submarine technology, beyond reproach from anything the allies had at the time.

The Type XXI doesn't really classify as a front-line boat, as it never really saw action.

It is, of course, a milestone in submarine development.

[Schroeder]

And here goes the next apples and oranges thread.

@RockinRobbins

Is there any source that indicates an incident where a German crew has not been able to perform it's duty because of the lacking luxuary on a German sub? I've never heard of German crews being unaffective let alone much more uneffective than American crews.

@all
Let's play a little game. We pretend Germany stole the Gato - class blue prints and started to build them themselfes in let's say 1943.

The much bigger Fleetboats surely required much more ressources than the smaller German subs. Ressources Germany didn't have, so they only build a handfull of them and are therfore not able to cover the entire Atlantic (which already was impossible with dozens of German subs).
The superior radar technology is rendered useless by the ability of the British to detect radar radiation, so the moment you switch it on it will give away your position to the enemy. With the SD switched off you can only hope for enemy planes to use radar that you can detect and dive because of the slower emergency dive time compared to German subs (IIRC the war reports of USS Drum indicated a dive time of about 46-47 sec. while the German dive time of the Type VII was around 30sec. [stated by the German Wikipedia article about Type VIIs, the English article does not feature any dive times I'm afraight])
German subs could be depthcharged and hedgehoged to death in 200m depth and deeper. Now imagine how a big Fleetboat (which also resembles a big target) at 400 feet would do against British vessels.
The only advantages that could be put to use are the higher number of torpedoes and torpedo tubes (but what good are they if you can't survive an attck against a British convoy?) and the higher speed.

The Fleetboats also lacked the agility of German subs which makes evasion of escorts more difficult.

The American TDC was definetly ahead of the German one but still they could sink a lot of enemy ships too so this doesn't seem to be a major disadvantage for the German subs.
We see for Germany the Fleetboat would have been useless.

Let's turn the table and send a German sub to patrol in Japanese homewaters operated by American crews from Pearl Harbour.
Well I guess we get several problems now. The range of the German subs was not as high as that of the Flettboats so that the patrols would be shorter (although ships could be used to resupply them, but that only comes at the risk of sending a ship close to enemy waters). The amount of torpedoes is also smaller than that of the Fleetboat. The crew suffers from the missing ventilation system and missing fridges (remember German subs where not designed to operate in the Pacific). The maximum dive depth gives the u-boat a greater survivebility while beeing chased by angry escorts but finding targets to make escorts angry is somewhat more difficult without a radar (that the enemy has problems to detect in this theatre) and the crew will curse every plane that appears out of nowhere envying there friends in the Fleetboats who would have been alarmed several minutes before by the (hopefully properly working) SD (at least they know the have the better dive time...).


So we see both types of subs were optimal for there theatre. I surely would not want to take on British convoys in a Fleetboat. On the other hand German subs would have needed much more time to clear the Pacific ( finding the targets without radar, having not as many torpedo tunes and torpedoes and lacking the range of the Fleetboat). Maybe so much time that the Jpanese would have developed better ASW vessels and technology. (on the other hand maybe they would have done the job even quicker by simply having greater numbers fielded, but that is getting philosophically.:hmm

[tater]

The resources required is not valid. Had the US needed more submarines, say the 1100-1200 that germany built, we would have just churned them out.

As for the max depth, had that been an issue, we'd have simply made the pressure hull thicker. It's just a material saving issue—only make the hull as thick as it needs to be. Had we needed thicker hulls, we'd have built them in the numbers required.

The difference in dive time is only critical if you are surprised by a very fast enemy—meaning an aircraft. 15 seconds is not life or death if you have radar, so it's a non-issue.

Regarding patrol times, while the distances in the ATO were shorter, it was quite dangerous for u-boats coming and going to their home ports, no? We knew where they were based, and they needed to sneak in and out. Larger boats with more range/stores would have meant fewer trips into port.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by tater

The resources required is not valid. Had the US needed more submarines, say the 1100-1200 that germany built, we would have just churned them out.

I think it is because because it's not just the materials but also the crew numbers. German subs could operate with smaller crews.

BTW I wanted to point out with that, that Fleetboats would not have been the boats of choice for every country as was once stated on this forum.

As for the max depth, had that been an issue, we'd have simply made the pressure hull thicker. It's just a material saving issue—only make the hull as thick as it needs to be. Had we needed thicker hulls, we'd have built them in the numbers required.

Are you sure? I mean the US Navy jeopardized their crews for material saving issues although this wasn't necessary? You just said it wouldn't have been a problem to build greater numbers of subs, so builder thicker hulls really shouldn't have been a problem. That would have saved a lot of lifes I guess.

The difference in dive time is only critical if you are surprised by a very fast enemy—meaning an aircraft. 15 seconds is not life or death if you have radar, so it's a non-issue.

Only if you can use your radar. In the atlantic you could not.

Regarding patrol times, while the distances in the ATO were shorter, it was quite dangerous for u-boats coming and going to their home ports, no? We knew where they were based, and they needed to sneak in and out. Larger boats with more range/stores would have meant fewer trips into port.

O.K. that's a point.

[Captain Vlad]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Is there any source that indicates an incident where a German crew has not been able to perform it's duty because of the lacking luxuary on a German sub? I've never heard of German crews being unaffective let alone much more uneffective than American crews.

Fresh food, better habitation, etc = better morale and potentially longer patrol times. Don't think RR was saying the Germans couldn't do their job because they didn't have ice cream -- Age of Sail sailors would sail for a year with moldy bread and some warm grog -- but the increased livability of the US subs couldn't help but have a positive effect on the crew's mindset and willingness to continue giving their best.

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

@all
Let's play a little game. We pretend Germany stole the Gato - class blue prints and started to build them themselfes in let's say 1943.

If I were Doenitz I would have then put them to the same use as the Type IX. Long range patrols to distant, less well patrolled waters. More torpedoes, more tubes, better electronics, habitability, more sinkings. That's more of an apples and apples comparison of course.