Differences between German and American submarine life and combat

[U-96]

German U-Boats and their American counterparts had similiar technology which was common in world war two before the entering of the type XXI Electroboot.

But also I would imagine their tactics, philosophies, etc were different. Germany's U-Boats formed the bulk of their navy, However only a small percentage of the U.S. navy were Diesel Submarines. (I tend to call any diesel sub U-Boats but most don't so this terminology is to avoid confusion)

So the question being, What did they do differently? The only one that comes to mind is that I've noticed that American subs tend to keep their distance while German U-Boats would try and get in close.

Also Americans seemed stricter on their dress code while on U-Boats the crew wore mostly their home clothes. I've never seen photos of returning American crews with beards.

I find U-Boats more facinating in both the technology and the lifestyle however I'd be interested in knowing how it was for Americans as well.

[Quagmire]

Originally Posted by U-96

German U-Boats and their American counterparts had similiar technology which was common in world war two before the entering of the type XXI Electroboot.

But also I would imagine their tactics, philosophies, etc were different. Germany's U-Boats formed the bulk of their navy, However only a small percentage of the U.S. navy were Diesel Submarines. (I tend to call any diesel sub U-Boats but most don't so this terminology is to avoid confusion)

So the question being, What did they do differently? The only one that comes to mind is that I've noticed that American subs tend to keep their distance while German U-Boats would try and get in close.

That was the USN doctrine. Until a man named "Mush" broke out of that mold!

Also Americans seemed stricter on their dress code while on U-Boats the crew wore mostly their home clothes. I've never seen photos of returning American crews with beards.

Well that is because the USN fleet boat was a luxury yacht compared to the U-Boat. Much larger, many more comforts of home (can you say ICE CREAM MACHINE). Also with air-conditioning and showers you have no excuse not to keep that face shaven sailor!

I find U-Boats more facinating in both the technology and the lifestyle however I'd be interested in knowing how it was for Americans as well.

Yes the Germans were on the cutting edge of technology. They actually set the stage for modern warfare as it has evolved today. However, the mass production of tried and true technology won the day in the end.

The Russians have a saying to that regard "There is a certain QUALITY in QUANTITY." How true...

Highlights are by me obviously. I am sure others will chime in.
.

[Julhelm]

On the subject of shaving, it is my stated opinion that shaving for submarine crews should be strictly verboten. Submariners should have large beards, and that's it.

Just imagine a returning boomer crew after a 6 month cruise during which their beards have been steadily growing, growing and growing.

[the_belgian]

Originally Posted by Julhelm

On the subject of shaving, it is my stated opinion that shaving for submarine crews should be strictly verboten. Submariners should have large beards, and that's it.

Just imagine a returning boomer crew after a 6 month cruise during which their beards have been steadily growing, growing and growing.

For me at least, the Pacific Theatre was a "Carrier War" with both adversaries having a substantial naval force. The goal being to control air superiority whilst battling for pacific islands (which in turn can be considered carriers, albeit stationary ones).

The Atlantic Theatre was an attrition war, with both adversaries having completely different naval forces. The Axis goal was to restrict the supply lines to Britain (itself a stationary carrier of sorts) and hence starve it into submission or at least ineffectivness. In this regard, the U-Boat was the dominant Axis sea weapon. Likewise, the Allies used the Destroyer, and later Air power, with equal zeal.

The two theatres are really not comparable in my oppinion, neither are the general goals and aims of the participating submarine forces.

This is my oppinion, any likeness with anyone else's oppinion is purely coincidental.

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by Uber Gruber

For me at least, the Pacific Theatre was a "Carrier War" with both adversaries having a substantial naval force.

Well, that's how the Japanese saw it. So they ignored the necessity of escorting their merchant fleet. The British understood the most dangerous threat and acted accordingly with the convoy system and the escorts from hell. The Japanese remained seduced by sexy battleships and carriers, not realizing that there are losses in war and those losses must be replaced with materials brought in with your mrechant fleet if you are an island nation like the UK or Japan. The Japanese never did understand that battles and wars are won by logistics, not just fancy weapons.

But had they understood that they never would have begun their war. They would have worked hard to prevent it, realizing that their supply lines were not tenable.

[Captain Vlad]

Originally Posted by Uber Gruber

The two theatres are really not comparable in my oppinion, neither are the general goals and aims of the participating submarine forces.

Japan, as an island nation, shares similar vulnerabilities with the United Kingdom. The US Submarine campaign in the Pacific and the German in the Atlantic both had the same overall aim: The isolation of the enemy nation by the destruction of it's merchant shipping.

[Hitman]

It was a different warfare, mainly because of the very different theater of operations, Atlantic versus Pacific. Americans started with much of their doctrine based in lessons learnt from the germans of WW1, adapted to their own needs. The "Fleet submarine" was called like that because it was expected to work with the fleet, as scouting unit (Thus the required high speed on surface), when Mahan's doctrine was still considered and a clash of battleships was expected. Pearl Harbor and the subsequent carrier battles changed that dramatically, and the Navy discovered the potential of Fleet subs as surface raiders, though it took a long time to allow the use of aggressive tactics, like Morton showed. In the end of the war, americans also made surface attacks at night going really close, and they operated in wolfpacks with devastating success. The difference came when the younger commanders pushed their way, tearing appart the older ones who had distinguished themselves during peace time keeping clean subs. Germans instead built an elite submarine fleet in great secrecy, with aggressive young officers from the beginning, trained in daring tactics. If you are interested in comparing the difference of philosophy, a recommended reading is the U-Boat commander's handbook http://hnsa.org/doc/uboat/index.htm versus the official US submarine doctrine http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/...oct/index.html There you will see the differences in cautiousness

In technology I would not say that germans were more advanced. True, they had the german way of building things (Allowing their subs to go deeper then their US counterparts), but ultimately americans had a much better TDC and of course the radar, something the germans only could start dreaming of towards the end of the war. Plus a heavy punch with their large numbers of torpedo tubes. Only the faulty MK14 torpedoes ruined an otherwise mighty pack :hmm:

Dress code: True the dress code was not as relaxed aboard US subs (Although pics of crewmen in underwear or without shirt are not rare, due to the heat), but overall the relation between officers and crew was way less relaxed on U-Boots.

Hope that clarifies some points

[U-96]

Quagmire, You say that yet more then 570 Type VIIC U-Boats were built, And by 1943 they were being sunk in appallingly high numbers. So I figure a balance must be struck between quantity and qualitiy. The Type VIIC was amazing in 1939 and obsolete by 1943 so advances and upgrades were needed. Though in the self destructive Nazi bureaucracy it only impeded research and advancement to which the Germans already had the edge.


Hitman, you make a good point, A lone American (fleet sub) as they're called did pack a large number of tubes. But I wouldn't go so far as to say the Americans had a much better TDC, U-Boat hit rates were high, considering the proportion difference as well of U-Boats and U.S. Subs, unfortunately faulty early war torpedoes made this excellent hit rate rather moot. But the tactics were different as well, Germany built their subs with the idea of 'wolfpack tactics' in mind. So the boats were built relatively small and bare. While in the pacific were the subs were expected to operate alone and in small numbers, The large amount of torpedo tubes and torpedoes on board were necessary to have any effectiveness, but as you correctly point out the faulty MK.14 torpedo did ruin a powerful package.

Thanks for the reading material as well. Very informative and interesting

[AVGWarhawk]

German U-Boats and their American counterparts had similiar technology which was common in world war two before the entering of the type XXI Electroboot.

True but the Americans improved their techology when German unexploded torpedoes were found on the beaches of the US east coast.

But also I would imagine their tactics, philosophies, etc were different. Germany's U-Boats formed the bulk of their navy, However only a small percentage of the U.S. navy were Diesel Submarines. (I tend to call any diesel sub U-Boats but most don't so this terminology is to avoid confusion)

So the question being, What did they do differently? The only one that comes to mind is that I've noticed that American subs tend to keep their distance while German U-Boats would try and get in close.

One difference was the US skippers were not instructed in night time surface attacks. As far as close, I believe they were instructed to fire only we in 1000 yards from the target. A lot of the skippers were quite gutzy and got closer. I believe the aggressivness was about the same. But, this only happened after many skippers from the old Navy school doctrine of playing safe were removed for more aggressive skippers.

Also Americans seemed stricter on their dress code while on U-Boats the crew wore mostly their home clothes. I've never seen photos of returning American crews with beards.

As mentioned, showers and air conditioning. Most skippers would leave it up to the crew if they wanted to grow a beard. Most made a contest out of it for the thickest longest beards.

I find U-Boats more facinating in both the technology and the lifestyle however I'd be interested in knowing how it was for Americans as well.

There is a bit more alure and mystique with the U boats but you will find the boys in the Pacific had their challanges and tribulations.

[mrbeast]

Sub crews had a bit of a tradition of growing beards while on patrol even if they could shave them off. Even though fleet boats had showers and better washing facilities the crew only got one shower a week if that. Water usage was always kept to a minimun, you never know when enemy action or malfunction might cut supplies. On the S boats facilities were a lot more basic and I think they generally had a more relaxed attitude to dress etc and as they were not air conditioned it wouldn't be unusual to see the crew wearing just a pair of shorts and some light footware. I'm not sure if many of the photos of US crews were somewhat staged with crews in regulation dress. I've seen some images of US crews looking pretty casual, dresswise. But ultimately it would boil down to what the skipper tolerated.

[U-96]

AVGWarhawk.

Oh don't get me wrong, I never meant to convey that the Americans had it easy. Especially against a country where it's Navy got most of it's country's military resources (that being Japan). I just meant to say it was different and the lore, the technology and frankly the mentality of the German Kriegsmarine with their U-Boats interests me more then their U.S. counterparts. However the Pacific and the Atlantic were very different theaters of operations. Would German U-Boats have been more successful against the Japanese? And American Subs suffer the same losses were they in the German's situation in the Atlantic?

They were just very different was all I was trying to show, But the U-Boats simply interest me more then the American Submarines.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by U-96

AVGWarhawk.

Oh don't get me wrong, I never meant to convey that the Americans had it easy. Especially against a country where it's Navy got most of it's country's military resources (that being Japan). I just meant to say it was different and the lore, the technology and frankly the mentality of the German Kriegsmarine with their U-Boats interests me more then their U.S. counterparts. However the Pacific and the Atlantic were very different theaters of operations. Would German U-Boats have been more successful against the Japanese? And American Subs suffer the same losses were they in the German's situation in the Atlantic?

They were just very different was all I was trying to show, But the U-Boats simply interest me more then the American Submarines.

I did not take it in the wrong way. No issue here. Both fronts for the subs/Uboats had very different challenges. Admittedly the Uboat ASW was absolutely devastating once the Allies got their heads together. It is a well known fact that the Japanese got onboard with effective ASW very late in the game. The most effective tool IMO was the radar. Targets were picked up miles away and tracking for the kill commenced. We must also look at were each skipper had to take their boats to meet the enemy. Uboat afforded the open ocean in most if not all instances. Submarines had the open waters for a while but then resorted to raiding ports and having to stay close to the shores as the merchants began hugging the coastline for protection. A very hair predicament for a sub in only 80 fathoms of water. We can say one thing for sure, both German skippers and US skippers had a large set of nuts to do what they did and with the tools at hand to accomplish what they set out to do. If the Germans had the radar set up as the US subs one can only wonder if English would have been brought down. There are more factors in that statment to consider such as how many keels Donitz requested to be layed and how many he was given. Things of that nature. The Atlantic is vast and Donitz realized that. He never had the amount of boats patrolling as he would have wished. Possibly yet another military blunder on Hitlers part not to listen and provide what Donitz requested.

Do I believe the Uboat would have been just as effective in the PTO, hell yes. These men like most adapt and change to meet the problem. Certainly no slackers in the bunch.

[TheSatyr]

I don't think the US boats would have been any more sucessful in the Atlantic than the Uboats were,but they wouldn't have taken anywhere near the losses the Uboats did either. The SD and SJ radars on the US boats would have alerted them to danger alot sooner than the Uboat reliance on MkI eyeballs.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by TheSatyr

I don't think the US boats would have been any more sucessful in the Atlantic than the Uboats were,but they wouldn't have taken anywhere near the losses the Uboats did either. The SD and SJ radars on the US boats would have alerted them to danger alot sooner than the Uboat reliance on MkI eyeballs.

This is the reason why the snorkel was installed on US boats only after the war. It wasn't really needed due to the effectiveness of the fleet boat's radar.