US vs. German subs - which was better?

[joegrundman]

Originally Posted by Hitman

Oh, SH4 models a very simplified version of the TDC, more similar to the british fruit machine than to the real thing.

But yes, the autoupdate based on optics was not in the US one...and no need for it, since the TDC operator could do it with one of the handles (Change bearing input telling the TDC to keep the rest of the data for attacking multiple targets)

i see, thanks a lot.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

American torpedoes were greatly inferior to German torpedoes, there can be some comparison of the abysmal American torpedoes with the magnetic pistol of German torpedoes during the Norwegian campaign, but at least the German impact pistol functioned.

Actually the Germans had problems with their impact pistols as well, but the opposite problems to the Americans. While the US contact heads would bend and fail with direct 90° hits, the Germans sometimes failed at any angle outside 40°.

"The contact detonator used during the First World War was simple and reliable. After the war, the detonator had been completely redesigned to transfer the impact of the blow backwards through a series of complicated levers. In theory, it was supposed to provide a wide impact angle of 69 degrees to perpendicular. However, in practice, this was closer to 40 degrees. The new design had been tested only twice and that too with mixed results. As a result, the contact detonator was replaced with a much simpler design, mainly influenced by British technology captured from the submarine HMS Seal."
http://www.uboataces.com/articles-wo...orpedoes.shtml

To suggest that American and German torpedoes were of a similar quality and effectiveness is not only wholly inaccurate, but intellectually irresponsible.

I would agree, but I'll defend my position by pointing out that: 1) I didn't claim that they were of similar quality (though in the case of the magnetic detonator faults the Germans took twice as long to solve the problem, coming up with a fix at about the same time as the Americans), but that they suffered the same problems, and 2) I was answering a specific charge, namely that the Germans did everything better.

As for "our TDC was superior", I'm not sure what you're basing that on, because I have never read anything to that effect.
Every source I have read indicates that the German TDC was the best of the war, and the UZO was the most sophistcated of the night time surface targeting systems. I will admit that I have read books that referenced that the only thing close was the U.S. TDC, and that my knowledge of late war US TDC innovations - if any - is limited, but I have not come across anything that suggests that the U.S systems surpassed the German one.

I was citing a direct observation made in the American report on U-570:
"(3) The torpedo data computer installed in this submarine materially adds to the offensive characteristics of the ship. In general it is considered to be markedly superior to the British "Fruit Machine", but definitely inferior to our torpedo data computer, into which all argument for the complete solution of the torpedo fire control problem except angle on the bow and range are automatically introduced into the instrument."
-Page 71

And finally: On the Bismarck - it was far from "average", as you suggest.


The Bismarck was the largest warship in the world when she was completed, and the third largest battleship class ever built; behind the Yamato class and the Iowa class (although the Bismarck class ships were three meters wider than Iowas at the beam, making it a very stable gun platform).

And Bismarck was faster than any big battleship except the Iowas. Again I will state that I was trying to deflect a flat statement of national superiority made without documentation. In an honest comparison I will gladly agree on Bismarck's good points. On the other hand, as far as the argument of large beam equaling stability, Bismarck scored no hits on presumably less stable targets in a running battle lasting more than an hour.

Aside from that, much is made of the fact that Bismarck only had 15 inch guns.
While obviously inferior to a 16 inch shell, it is worth noting that the 36,500 yard range of the German 38 cm SK was on just about on par with the American 16 inch / 40 and 45, and it was not until the improved American 16 inch / 50 came into service in 1943 that a significant range advantage (42000 yard) came into play.

And the British 16" guns used on Rodney had a maximum range of 39,000 yards, with the 15"/42 having 32,500 yards at the time in question and the 14"/45 36,500. All of which makes Bismarck's guns "about average". Also the maximum ranges aren't too important, since the longest hits on a naval target were both obtained at about 26,000 yards, one by the German 11" gun and one by the British 15".

Bismarck's Krupp steel armor was superior to American "A" armor plate, with some proof of it's effectiveness shown as she absorbed 6 torpedo hits (not counting the one the disabled her rudder), along with an estimated 350 shells, a large number of them fired from within 1-2 km's as she was disabled, 70 - 100 of those estimated to be from either 14 inch or 16 inch shells.

First off, armor plate is no more effective against torpedoes than regular steel. In order to protect against torpedoes ships must have a dedicated TDS (Torpedo Defense System). Bismarck's was of good quality, but neither better nor worse than similar systems on the battleships of other navies.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-047.htm

Only two 16 inch shells from Rodney were found to have penetrated the armor belt.

And yet, according to Rodney's gunnery log of the battle, Bismarck was observed to be listing heavily, and expected to sink within a few hours' time. This was before the crew had abandoned ship, and before German scuttling charges and British torpedoes made sure of her demise. This can be found in Warship Quarterly #28, or volume 7 of the collected series.

More to the point:

Calling the Bismarck "average" when compared to something like an Iowa class (designed later, utilizing war time experience, improvements in design, and technology) is as pointless as calling American fleet boats somehow superior.
They were designed 10 years after Type VII's, for a completely different mission.

I would like to reiterate: When I call Bismarck "average", I mean that she was typical of her day - more advanced in 1941 than most of her opponents, but a product of the technology of the time. I will gladly admit and discuss those differences and advances, but I've had too many arguments with rabid fans who insist that she was somehow the be-all and end-all of battleship development, magically better than any ship ever built, and unsinkable except by her own crew. From your statements I don't place you in that category, but you can see where it's coming from.

The Germans were indeed devoting time and resources to advancing technological developments in every field. This gave them some successes and many failures, but also came at the expense of having a few new advanced designs but falling far behind in manufacturing and production. And I will support the German side of the argument by noting that some American development came from captured German technology. In the U-570 report the investigators said that the periscope was "the best...they had ever seen" and recommended obtaining the details from their British counterparts and constructing their own as quickly as possible.

[looney]

Dumb question, but I played SH4 with the D2 for a while and mostly it has been a walk in the park. I think a D2 would do very well on the pacific theater especially later in war, working on the allied side. Late war many kills where made by the guns. and not the torpedo. Dive times are much shorter, imho due to the already deployed dive planes.

Or am I wrong and is the game much to easy in favor of a D2 compared to a us SUB?

[Hitman]

Or am I wrong and is the game much to easy in favor of a D2 compared to a us SUB?

The game is easier in that you find too many targets But considering the japanese ASW, I don't think that any of the advantages of the Type IX/D2 versus fleet subs would have been that important. (Except the better torpedo pistols in 1942-43, of course). And on the other side, it carries less torpedoes and has not a good radar to hunt in fog or low visibility weather.

On a side note, I was re-reading yesterday "Clear the Bridge" by O'Kane and was amazed again at the fabulous episode when they engage a small convoy of four ships with twelve (12!!!!) escorts penetrating the screen on surface by night with the huge Balao. That was a performance not shy of Kretschmer's best ones

[Phaedrus]

Originally Posted by Hitman

Nope, different characteristics. The only possible comparison because of size, tactical objectives, year of design and year of entering service is Balao versus Type IXD/2.

----------------

And I still think that my conclusion above was correct: Germans built better, Americans equipped better.

Cheers

I generally agree with the "Germans built better, Americans equipped better premise".

My U.S. information is a little thin, so thanks also for the TDC points.

I'm more curious than anything else, but why isn't the Salmon, Porpoise and other U.S. boats a similar comparison?
I don't want to throw this topic too far on a tangent, so if you could be kind enough to just PM a quick little synopsis whenever you get a chance I'd be most grateful!

... any books you could recommend for a little indepth U.S. info would also be appreciated, I'm a little behind the curve.

Thanks Hitman!

[Biggs[CV]]

The Bismarck was a great ship for her day. As for if she was sunk or scuttled, if the Germans scuttled her or not she was going down. She was on fire from stem to stern and basically a drifting hulk.

German subs-vs- American: Each did an amazing job for what they were intended to achive. I wonder how well the Germans could have done if they had a Gato/Balao class in the numbers the Americans had.

[UnderseaLcpl]

http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General.../scuttled.html

Bismarck was scuttled. Divers found her sea-cocks open. Not that it matters. she would eventually have been sunk anyway.

[U-84]

two different types of submarines with two different missions...but honestly it kind of is who has the best technology installed to detect ur foe first, and the best crew manning the sub.

[Kipparikalle]

Originally Posted by U-84

two different types of submarines with two different missions...but honestly it kind of is who has the best technology installed to detect ur foe first, and the best crew manning the sub.

...Which means that Germans win.

/thread

[Hitman]

I generally agree with the "Germans built better, Americans equipped better premise".

My U.S. information is a little thin, so thanks also for the TDC points.

I'm more curious than anything else, but why isn't the Salmon, Porpoise and other U.S. boats a similar comparison?
I don't want to throw this topic too far on a tangent, so if you could be kind enough to just PM a quick little synopsis whenever you get a chance I'd be most grateful!

... any books you could recommend for a little indepth U.S. info would also be appreciated, I'm a little behind the curve.

Thanks Hitman!

Sure, I'll PM you later when I compile a document for you to read

[msalama]

...Which means that Germans win.

He said "detect your foe". That criterion, plus the superiority of American electronics and radio technology (radar etc.) taken into consideration I think you're actually, ahem, wrong and he's right :hmm:

But then if you change your perspective and think of the war in the Atlantic the tables of course turn again...

Apples and oranges is what I say. And both are good.

[Cohaagen]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General.../scuttled.html

Bismarck was scuttled. Divers found her sea-cocks open.

The fact that that link quotes a creature like David Irving in support more or less sums up a lot of the mentality behind the people pushing the scuttling theory* - a weird fondness for Nazi militarism that goes beyond curiosity and strays into admiration. I wonder what the reaction would be if people began digging into sinkings of Japanese ships looking for evidence of scuttling?

I don't believe anyone has found evidence the seacocks were open or blown up. The "evidence" seems to rest on the testimony of an octogenarian who also claims the British fired poison gas shells into the Bismarck. And quite how they pulled off such a textbook scuttle procedure when by their own testimony the main and lower decks were scenes of chaos and carnage with most of the crew dead is beyond me.



*not you personally, the academics and super-geeks expounding the theory

[Hitman]

I don't really understand what the difference is between being sunk by shells or scuttled before the shells did their job :hmm: Even if the crew had scuttled the Bismarck, it was just a matter of some minutes (And shells) more before it would go down anyway. And of course, since the last gun went off, it was a defeated ship

The Bismarck episode has much of epic and in the popular folklore it was sure augmentated a few times but overall it was just another of the many dramatic actions in the war. Only it received more propaganda.

Originally Posted by Hitman

I don't really understand what the difference is between being sunk by shells or scuttled before the shells did their job :hmm: Even if the crew had scuttled the Bismarck, it was just a matter of some minutes (And shells) more before it would go down anyway. And of course, since the last gun went off, it was a defeated ship

The Bismarck episode has much of epic and in the popular folklore it was sure augmentated a few times but overall it was just another of the many dramatic actions in the war. Only it received more propaganda.

It's quite simple a matter of British pride, especially after Bismarck sank Hood. That is also the reason why the british ships kept on firing on Bismarck long after all her weapons were silent. Chruchill was quite precise in his orders.
The notion Bismarck sank herself takes away from this feeling of "victory". It's alsmost sacreligious to say otherwise in certain circles.

[Sailor Steve]

Sounds like even more mythology. As I said earlier I've read Rodney's gunnery log and they didn't keep "firing on Bismarck long after all her weapons were silent". That they didn't stop firing immediately is a given, since on a crippled and heavily damaged target you can't tell what's going on.

As for the torpedo/scuttling controversy, I have to go with the words of a man who was there at the time. In Sink The Bismarck! - not the 1960 movie but the 1996 documentary - several of the men who lived through it were interviewed, including Hood survivor Ted Briggs. Baron Burkard von Mullenheim-Rechburg, when asked about the controversy, answered "To both of you I say 'Yes! You sank us!'"