US fleet boats - best frontline sub of ww2?

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by Nephandus

In my opinion it is hardly feasible to compare German U-Boats and US Fleetboats as they were based on completely different design ideas and intended areas of operation.

There were several instances in the thread where this was brought up. The apples and oranges argument doesn't seem to cut much ice anymore.

[tater]

Results matter. Not winning battles, but winning wars—or at least campaigns.

Fleet Type submarines wiped out the japanese merchant marine. Regardless of the initial design intention (the "fleet" bit), they turned out to be excellent commerce raiders (~90,000 tons per boat lost).

The KM boats were designed for commerce raiding, but for all the talk about superior depth, maneuverability, etc, they sank what, around 3 ships each before being themselves sunk (something like 11,00tons per lost boat)? Clearly they were neither deep-diving enough, nor maneuverable enough, which begs the question: were u-boats actually all that well suited to the Battle of the Atlantic?

If they evolved the superior form for their theater, they would not litter the bottom of the Atlantic.

[Freiwillige]

But Tater, Would the outcome be much differant if the Germans used Fleet boats? I am sure the Atlantic would still be full of dead submarines. Yes for the record I do beleive that the Fleet boat is the superior submarine to the U-boat. Well Pre- XXI that is.

And the point about the XXI that most people are missing that made it truly dangerous was not the fact that it could go fast underwater. It was the fact that it could go fast under water rather quietly and for a much longer time than any sub of its era. On all submarines batteries ran out rather quickly and escorts could just keep a sub down and wait and at worse the enemy could slip only so far at 2 knots before he had to come up again. XXI's could go much farther, faster and longer. Making it far more dangerous offensivly as well as defensively.

[tater]

I was confining my thoughts to subs that saw service. Only a few of the many built were even close to putting to sea, right?

XXI was an amazing boat, clearly.

As for the what-if, I have no idea, but you are probably right that fleet boats would do no better.

Fleet boats would have to do MUCH WORSE, however to lose this particular argument, IMO.

U-boats operating in place of USN subs would do poorly in the PTO, while Fleet Types would likely do no better.

Note that long range---and long submerged range---combined with surface speed does directly translate into survivability when ASW doctrine revolves around saturating a cirle which defines the max submerged endurance of the target. Watch that circle, and the target MUST surface in time. The bigger the circle, the more assets required to watch it.

[tater]

RR points out in the other thread that Archerfish did tests and found they could dive at 25 degrees down bubble, no problem vs the 10 degrees used universally during the war.

So the fleet could have crash dived considerably fast with no more change than a differently trained skipper giving the orders. What was a u-boat crash dive angle?

[LukeFF]

Originally Posted by tater

So the fleet could have crash dived considerably fast with no more change than a differently trained skipper giving the orders. What was a u-boat crash dive angle?

This is why I love the ONI manuals:

[A Very Super Market]

Japanese ASW tactics were primitive and limited even during the late stages of the war. The Japanese merchant fleet operated in obvious routes, poorly escorted ones at that, which gave the fleetboats an innate advantage in ship sinkings. I find your argument that U-boots were poor commerce raiders to be unfair, the early war situation closer to what the Japanese scenario was like delivered similar results.

[Freiwillige]

How do Japanese subs compare to the U.S. fleetboats I whonder. I know little about them but I did read an article tonight in one of my old WWII magazines about I-17 shelling an oil refinery off the Santa Monica coast in feb. 1942. It has some small details about the I class Japanese subs. Seems fast enough, Has plenty of torpedo tubes and a friggen airplane hanger that can launch a biplane in 15 minutes!

[Nephandus]

Originally Posted by Freiwillige

How do Japanese subs compare to the U.S. fleetboats I whonder. I know little about them but I did read an article tonight in one of my old WWII magazines about I-17 shelling an oil refinery off the Santa Monica coast in feb. 1942. It has some small details about the I class Japanese subs. Seems fast enough, Has plenty of torpedo tubes and a friggen airplane hanger that can launch a biplane in 15 minutes!

Well.... the Japanese subs were technically some of the most advanced models being higher in range, able to submerge deeper and being more resilient. One type even had a submerged speed higher than the Type XXI. They also had the fastest torpedos (travelling at 49-50 kn at 9900 yards range or 13200 yards at 45 kn having the largest warhead of submarine torpedos in WW2).

But.... since the Japanese battle doctrine did not factor in the offensive use of submarines in commerce warfare, they were not used very successfully sinking only app. 1 million tons. And even that was only due to the fact that early in the war American ASW capacities were stretched pretty thin.

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by Freiwillige

How do Japanese subs compare to the U.S. fleetboats I whonder. I know little about them but I did read an article tonight in one of my old WWII magazines about I-17 shelling an oil refinery off the Santa Monica coast in feb. 1942. It has some small details about the I class Japanese subs. Seems fast enough, Has plenty of torpedo tubes and a friggen airplane hanger that can launch a biplane in 15 minutes!

They used one such sub's plane to bomb the US in 1942. The plane from the Japanes sub I-25 bombed a forest near Brookings, Oregon with incendiaries in an attempt to cause forest fires. It was meant to be a retaliation in sort for the Dolittle raid. It was the only time the continental United States was directly bombed during the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lookout_Air_Raid

[Nephandus]

Originally Posted by tater

Results matter. Not winning battles, but winning wars—or at least campaigns.

Fleet Type submarines wiped out the japanese merchant marine. Regardless of the initial design intention (the "fleet" bit), they turned out to be excellent commerce raiders (~90,000 tons per boat lost).

The KM boats were designed for commerce raiding, but for all the talk about superior depth, maneuverability, etc, they sank what, around 3 ships each before being themselves sunk (something like 11,00tons per lost boat)? Clearly they were neither deep-diving enough, nor maneuverable enough, which begs the question: were u-boats actually all that well suited to the Battle of the Atlantic?

If they evolved the superior form for their theater, they would not litter the bottom of the Atlantic.

I'm sorry to tell you, but you are missing some points from the equasion. You are giving credit for success only in the light of the boats itself.

Fact is: the Fleetboats sank app. 5.2 million tons of ships against an enemy totally oblivious of concerted ASW procedures and usually having merchants travel solo without any escort and aircover.

The U-Boats sank 14.3 million tons against an enemy deeming them as their principal enemy going lengths in measures to defeat them.

It is quite clear that the US submarine force had it a lot easier. Their boats weren't bombed while in port or just leaving port. They did not have to go up against strongly defended convoys having air cover. Neither did they have an enemy who could monitor their radio traffic due to the communications code being broken. They didn't even have their bases in areas that could be said to have hostile inhabitants.

I guess it is definitely a difference wether your enemy takes to you dead serious or to be a nuisance not to be really bothered with until it is too late.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Nephandus

I'm sorry to tell you, but you are missing some points from the equasion. You are giving credit for success only in the light of the boats itself.

Fact is: the Fleetboats sank app. 5.2 million tons of ships against an enemy totally oblivious of concerted ASW procedures and usually having merchants travel solo without any escort and aircover.

The U-Boats sank 14.3 million tons against an enemy deeming them as their principal enemy going lengths in measures to defeat them.

It is quite clear that the US submarine force had it a lot easier. Their boats weren't bombed while in port or just leaving port. They did not have to go up against strongly defended convoys having air cover. Neither did they have an enemy who could monitor their radio traffic due to the communications code being broken. They didn't even have their bases in areas that could be said to have hostile inhabitants.

I guess it is definitely a difference wether your enemy takes to you dead serious or to be a nuisance not to be really bothered with until it is too late.

US submarines certainly had it easier. That's not the point of this thread. The idea of a what-if is actually the best answer to the OP (which was the best type of boat).

What-if a u-boat was used in the PTO from Pearl instead of a Fleet boat, vs what-if a fleet boat was used as a u-boat out of France (or wherever). MY guess is that the fleet boat would do fine in the ATO as a u-boat (about as well as a u-boat), and the u-boat would not do nearly as well in the PTO. Had the USN faced the same threat level, we would have adapted faster since we'd find the U-boat loss rate utterly unacceptable, and the US was not willing to burn through men without regard to them in the same way the Germans (or Russians, or Japanese) we willing to.

You'd do the what-if for a couple time periods at least. As I said above, I don't think that the deep-diving and maneuverability of the u-boats significantly improved their survival (almost all were sunk). If a fleet type could keep up with the X sinkings, then sunk herself, she'd win the contest unless the u-boat type could sink as many ships with fewer fish, less duration on patrol, horrible tropical heat, etc.

I tend to think that a U-Fleet boat, with all her radar, etc, would be a very capable boat in the hands of the KM, while the u-boats would be more like an S-boat in the PTO. Meaning that the Fleet type was the better, more versatile craft.

You could sort of test this in SH4 assuming you ran equally accurate campaigns/mods.