US vs. German subs - which was better?

[Sailor Steve]

I don't know. Are you also a ferret? Dowly created that one for himself.

[Penelope_Grey]

Originally Posted by Kongo Otto

A sub or U-Boot is just a peace of military equipment,it depends to the men who use it,to make it a bad or a good boat.

Your are absolutely right. 100%.

I agree.

[Jimbuna]

Not purposely wanting to steer this interesting thread off topic.....but I've often wondered why the original question (which has popped up previously in the past), never includes......"and what was the most effective ASW capability, the Japanese or the Allies ?"

Perhaps they should be kept apart......who knows ? :hmm:

[Puster Bill]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

Not purposely wanting to steer this interesting thread off topic.....but I've often wondered why the original question (which has popped up previously in the past), never includes......"and what was the most effective ASW capability, the Japanese or the Allies ?"

Perhaps they should be kept apart......who knows ? :hmm:

That's a very interesting part of the question.

I submit that if the US submariners had to face an opponent as tough as the German U-bootwaffe ultimately faced, their successes would have been far fewer, and losses would have been much greater.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Puster Bill

That's a very interesting part of the question.

I submit that if the US submariners had to face an opponent as tough as the German U-bootwaffe ultimately faced, their successes would have been far fewer, and losses would have been much greater.

That is a real possibility.

[predavolk]

Oh, there's absolutely no doubt that nothing compared to the ASW in the Atlantic by the Allies. Not even close. The pacific and the German ASW were pathetic in comparison, especially towards the end of the war. The German boats, IMO, were the best design to take on that kind of intense ASW. They obviously weren't up to beating that ASW, but they did much better than the giant US boats, the archaic British boats (poor fire control and torps), and the passive Japanese boats. The fact that other boats may have sunk more or less is not only comparing apples to oranges, it's measuring their success in totally different contexts.

[Puster Bill]

Originally Posted by predavolk

Oh, there's absolutely no doubt that nothing compared to the ASW in the Atlantic by the Allies. Not even close. The pacific and the German ASW were pathetic in comparison, especially towards the end of the war. The German boats, IMO, were the best design to take on that kind of intense ASW. They obviously weren't up to beating that ASW, but they did much better than the giant US boats, the archaic British boats (poor fire control and torps), and the passive Japanese boats. The fact that other boats may have sunk more or less is not only comparing apples to oranges, it's measuring their success in totally different contexts.

Absolutely, and that's why trying to compare the boats of different countries is iffy at best, because they served in totally different environments.

Now, Germany really didn't *NEED* to develop their ASW to the degree the Allies did, or to the degree that Japan should have. They get a pass pretty much because there was little submarine warfare against them.

Japan, on the other hand, should have started a crash program to develop and field any and every potentially useful ASW technique and technology as soon as it became apparent that the US was mounting a war of attrition against their merchant fleet. As it was, I believe that the IJN was so fixated on the "Decisive Battle" in terms of their main fleet clashing with the US fleet, that they didn't realize the decisive battle was actually the relentless sinking of their merchant hulls, and the supplies they carried.

I'm not sure what they could have realistically done. Probably the effort to make an equivalent of centimetric radar equipped VLR Liberators would have been problematic, although they did have maritime patrol aircraft equipped with metric radar if I recall correctly.

Certainly, they could have adopted some doctrinal changes, like "hunt to exhaustion", ie., you don't give up until you see the captains hat (preferrably still on his head) float to the surface. Having dedicated Hunter/Killer groups that can do that is another doctrinal change, as would recognizing that a couple of really big convoys, even if only minimally protected, are better than a bunch of small ones.

Almost certainly they would have failed on the codebreaking front: The SIGABA was much more sophisticated than even the 4 rotor Naval Enigma, and almost certainly unbreakable, given the technology of the day and the resources Japan could have used trying to break it.

I see no reason why the IJN couldn't have adopted a weapon similar to the Hedgehog.

Had Germany shared the technology from the T5, they could have also developed something similar to the FIDO anti-submarine torpedo. That would have been a *MAJOR* problem for US sub commanders, although I supposed countermeasures could have been developed.

[predavolk]

Here's an interesting quote from the American inspectors of the captured German VII U-570:

"In general the submarine has much more equipment to give it stronger offensive characteristics than any submarine of comparable size in either our Navy or the British Navy."

You can see the whole American report here:

http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-570ONIReport.htm

and the British version here:

"Comparison has been made [between the batteries] with standard plate cells of British manufacture. The German cells have a capacity/weight ratio which is about 45 per cent. higher than that of the British cells, but it is estimated that the life of the cells is only 2 to 2-1/2 years."

The British also conclude that her offensive systems are superior to any of theirs. Her torpedo control in particular, but her deck and flack guns as well.

So it looks like the right answer is: the German subs were the best built subs of the war. Pound for pound, nothing else was as generally capable, with the caveat that certain specific missions or goals might be better suited by specialized designs in other Navies.

[Deutschland]

German subs were the best of WW2..a lot best..the Germany was more technological advanced than Alies(much more!) and they have highest
constrution quality!

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by predavolk

"In general the submarine has much more equipment to give it stronger offensive characteristics than any submarine of comparable size in either our Navy or the British Navy."

You quote one line from a description of the sound gear and make it sound like they're talking about the whole boat. US doctrine considered active sonar to be part of the equation. Also, the only US sub of comparable size was the 'S' class. The first Gato wasn't even in service when the US report was written.

"Comparison has been made [between the batteries] with standard plate cells of British manufacture. The German cells have a capacity/weight ratio which is about 45 per cent. higher than that of the British cells, but it is estimated that the life of the cells is only 2 to 2-1/2 years."

So the batteries weigh less than the British, but fail sooner. I fail to see the point.

The British also conclude that her offensive systems are superior to any of theirs. Her torpedo control in particular, but her deck and flack guns as well.

But the question didn't involve British subs. And on the TDC, from the Americans: "but definitely inferior to our torpedo data computer"

So it looks like the right answer is: the German subs were the best built subs of the war. Pound for pound, nothing else was as generally capable, with the caveat that certain specific missions or goals might be better suited by specialized designs in other Navies.

An easy conclusion to come to when you cherry-pick the reports and only choose what you like. Let me do the same:
"The deck gun is entirely too low to be of value unless the ship is operating in exceptionally calm water and the single anti-aircraft gun does not contribute materially to the offensive qualities of the ship."
"difficulties in reloading due to crowded conditions in torpedo rooms offset some of the advantage gained by the number of torpedoes carried" (which, by the way, is far less than the newest fleet boats)
"Congested conditions as they affect the efficiency of personnel."
"Lack of automatic emergency lighting, independent of main battery."

As has been said, tactically the Type VII was a great boat for short periods of time, but it was a bad choice for any long-term operations. It was indeed the best boat for the war it fought, but would have been useless in any long-range combat.

Originally Posted by Deutschland

German subs were the best of WW2..a lot best..the Germany was more technological advanced than Alies(much more!) and they have highest
constrution quality!

Did you read the whole thread? The relative advantages of both are discussed at length, and with references. If you are going to just make a flat statement that one is best, please provide references to prove it. Your insistence doesn't mean any more than mine or anybody else's.

[STEED]

Originally Posted by Deutschland

German subs were the best of WW2..a lot best..the Germany was more technological advanced than Alies(much more!) and they have highest
constrution quality!

Really?

Forgive me but didn't Adolf Hitler in 1940 put a stop to all long term scientific/tech research? Hitler believed the war was over and there was no need to carry on in this area which resulted in a mad dash later in the war when Germany was on the defensive.

[predavolk]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

You quote one line from a description of the sound gear and make it sound like they're talking about the whole boat. US doctrine considered active sonar to be part of the equation. Also, the only US sub of comparable size was the 'S' class. The first Gato wasn't even in service when the US report was written.

I quote one line from the summary. I left the link there for the reader to read, so give me a break. US doctrine was against an opponent whose ASW efforts were about as good as me sticking my ear in the water with a heavy empty can as a weapon, so I'm not going to consider active active sonar very important. It wasn't important in WW2 in any but the most permissive environments.

An easy conclusion to come to when you cherry-pick the reports and only choose what you like. Let me do the same:
"The deck gun is entirely too low to be of value unless the ship is operating in exceptionally calm water and the single anti-aircraft gun does not contribute materially to the offensive qualities of the ship."
"difficulties in reloading due to crowded conditions in torpedo rooms offset some of the advantage gained by the number of torpedoes carried" (which, by the way, is far less than the newest fleet boats)
"Congested conditions as they affect the efficiency of personnel."
"Lack of automatic emergency lighting, independent of main battery."

Come on Steve, seriously. The deck gun comment has been proven wrong by combat experience and the deck gun is a secondary weapon used only in the most permissive environments (i.e., no escorts, no air cover, and no serious armament on merchant ships).

Reloading is a concern, but not a very major one. Subs rarely get the chance to stick around shooting, reloading, shooting, reloading, etc.

Congestion did not seem to impair the efficiency of U-Boat crews.

Lack of automatic emergency lighting is pretty minor. They also don't have an ice cream maker on board, but I don't consider that major either.

Instead of "cherry-picking" I chose broad, summary statements.

As has been said, tactically the Type VII was a great boat for short periods of time, but it was a bad choice for any long-term operations. It was indeed the best boat for the war it fought, but would have been useless in any long-range combat.

That's a ridiculous statement, given the success they had in 1941 off the US coast. But I agree that the VIIs, especially without refueling, aren't the best long-rage boats. That would be the IXB, which was the most effective WW2 design in terms of actual performance- tonnage sank (IIRC all 14 IXBs sunk about as much as the entire 77-strong fleet of Gatos- over a 5:1 ratio!). As I said above:

the German subs were the best built subs of the war. Pound for pound, nothing else was as generally capable, with the caveat that certain specific missions or goals might be better suited by specialized designs in other Navies.

If you want to argue that US fleet boats were better at long-range patrols against weak (and ONLY weak) ASW defenses, I might agree. In fact, with their better radar, I probably would agree. But they would have been massacred in the Atlantic 1942-on in even greater numbers than the VIIs or XIs. If you want to argue that troop insertion or airplane launches are better suited to Japanese big boats, I wouldn't argue with that either. If you want to argue that British boats took the least amount of design effort away from valuable design resources, I again wouldn't argue that.

But the German boats had the best defensive capabilities, and according the reports above, the best overall offensive capabilities in the face of modest-strong defenses. Look at the British pros and cons for the torpedo system. Pretty significant pros for the VII vs. the pretty minor cons. If you disagree, fine, but I personally think the evidence provided by the documents, on top of actual historical performance, is pretty clear.

[Hitman]

If you want to argue that US fleet boats were better at long-range patrols against weak (and ONLY weak) ASW defenses, I might agree

The US Balao/Tench were better when compared to a Type IXD/2, which was the german equivalent. The german sub was well built and dived deeper, yet the TDC and electronics (Radar, active sonar) were not as advanced as the american one.

Of course the US subs would have suffered disastrous loses, much worser than the Type VII german UBoats if facing the allied ASW in the Atlantic, no question about it. But if the americans had needed to engage superior ASW forces in shorter ranges then they would have built different submarines, not feelt boats.

It amazes me how people insist in these comparisons between Type VIIs and fleet boats; You can't compare them at all, not even in structural resistance and materials, because a larger design means always less strengthness.

German type VII subs were beatiful and well constructed, specially if you consider their design was hurried in the late 30s starting from a WW1 one (The UB-III type), and they set the pace in 1940-41. Later they became obsolete and the germans again developed a superb innovative design, the Type XXI, but too late for them. Americans never had the need to develop better or different submarines than their fleet boats because Japan had worser ASW. But in my opinion their superior industrial capacity would have done it if they had started suffering too heavy loses.

In all, my opinion is that germans constrcuted better subs, but americans equipped them better.

[Deutschland]

[quote=Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by predavolk

"In general the submarine .....
.....

Did you read the whole thread? The relative advantages of both are discussed at length, and with references. If you are going to just make a flat statement that one is best, please provide references to prove it. Your insistence doesn't mean any more than mine or anybody else's.

Germany in WW2 was more technological advanced than Alies(much more!)
its proved worlwide: V2 roquet(first ballistic missile and first man-made object to achieve sub-orbital spaceflight); Me 262(world's first operational turbojet fighter);
Heinkel He 178(world's first aircraft to fly under turbojetpower); Advanced armored vehicles-Tiger II, Tiger III-MAUS; Panther tank''served as a benchmark for other nations' late war and immediate post-war tank designs''; BISMARK(the greatest ww2 battleship)
U-Boat Type XXI 'Elektroboote'(They were revolutionary when introduced and, if produced earlier and in sufficient quantity, could have seriously influenced the outcome of the battle of Atlantic)..
So, the Germany in all areas(AIR; LAND; and SEA was more technological advanced than Alies ....
PS: it was necessary almost all ww2 powers(Russia;UK;Usa;and almost
others countries to defeat Germany 'and later' Japan(just with the help of military
ignorance of Hitler!)

US subs have cool names.