Who had the best submarines in wwII?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by V.C. Sniper

Plus, young and aggressive skippers like Mush Morton and Samuel D. Dealey (aka "The Destroyer Killer"), would turn the RN's sub hunters into the hunted.

Umm...they were both caught and killed by the "inferior" Japanese destroyers. Maybe more real discussion and less boasting...

[yamato9]

Here is clearly visible who got beter chance.
Note that this data is taken from Wikipedia and so this reflects standard worlds opinion about US & Jerry´s WW2 submarine capability.

LOOK ON TEST DEPTHS AND DISPLACMENT, so what you think who is the sub of the day in strugle against UK destroyers?


Balao class
Displacement: 1,525 tons (1,549 t) surfaced
2,424 tons (2463 t) submerged
Speed: 20.25 knots (38 km/h) surfaced
8.75 knots (16 km/h) submerged
Range: 11,000 nautical miles (20,000 km) surfaced at 10 knots (19 km/h)
Endurance: 48 hours at 2 knots (3.7 km/h) submerged
75 days on patrol
Test depth: 400 ft (120 m)
Complement: 10 officers, 70–71 enlisted[3]
Armament: 10 × 21-inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes
(six forward, four aft)
24 torpedoes

1 × 5-inch (127 mm) / 25 caliber deck gun
four machine guns

Type 7c
Displacement: Surfaced 769 tons,
submerged 871 tons
Speed: Surfaced 17.7 knot (33 km/h),
submerged 7.6 knot

Test depth: 230 m (754 ft). Calculated crush depth: 250-295 m (820-967 ft)
Range: Surfaced 15170 km (8200 miles) at 10 knots (19 km/h),
submerged 150 km (80 miles) at 4 knots (7 km/h)
Complement: 44-52 officers & ratings
Armament: 5 53.3cm Torpedo tubes: 4 bow, 1 stern (14 torpedoes or 26 TMA or 39 TMB mines))
1 C35 88mm gun/L45 deck gun with 220 rounds
Various FLAK weaponry

All doubts stops here.

[msalama]

Who has the best submarine of WWII? Well I do of course. It's only a IIA and I've only died thrice

[V.C. Sniper]

Originally Posted by yamato9

Here is clearly visible who got beter chance.
Note that this data is taken from Wikipedia and so this reflects standard worlds opinion about US & Jerry´s WW2 submarine capability.

LOOK ON TEST DEPTHS AND DISPLACMENT, so what you think who is the sub of the day in strugle against UK destroyers?


Balao class
Displacement: 1,525 tons (1,549 t) surfaced
2,424 tons (2463 t) submerged
Speed: 20.25 knots (38 km/h) surfaced
8.75 knots (16 km/h) submerged
Range: 11,000 nautical miles (20,000 km) surfaced at 10 knots (19 km/h)
Endurance: 48 hours at 2 knots (3.7 km/h) submerged
75 days on patrol
Test depth: 400 ft (120 m)
Complement: 10 officers, 70–71 enlisted[3]
Armament: 10 × 21-inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes
(six forward, four aft)
24 torpedoes

1 × 5-inch (127 mm) / 25 caliber deck gun
four machine guns

Type 7c
Displacement: Surfaced 769 tons,
submerged 871 tons
Speed: Surfaced 17.7 knot (33 km/h),
submerged 7.6 knot

Test depth: 230 m (754 ft). Calculated crush depth: 250-295 m (820-967 ft)
Range: Surfaced 15170 km (8200 miles) at 10 knots (19 km/h),
submerged 150 km (80 miles) at 4 knots (7 km/h)
Complement: 44-52 officers & ratings
Armament: 5 53.3cm Torpedo tubes: 4 bow, 1 stern (14 torpedoes or 26 TMA or 39 TMB mines))
1 C35 88mm gun/L45 deck gun with 220 rounds
Various FLAK weaponry

All doubts stops here.

Survivability also depends on OFFENSE!!! You gotta punch em' in the nose! And that's where the mighty Gato/Balao cleary beats the uboats in, with 6 bow and 4 stern tubes, you got a lotta firepower to send at those destroyers before having to result to going deep.

And besides, no body knows how deep the Balao class are capable of going. They could go way beyond 1,000 feet and survive for all we know. =D

[Torplexed]

Survivability also depends on OFFENSE!!! You gotta punch em' in the nose! And that's where the mighty Gato/Balao cleary beats the uboats in, with 6 bow and 4 stern tubes, you got a lotta firepower to send at those destroyers before having to result to going deep.

And besides, no body knows how deep the Balao class are capable of going. They could go way beyond 1,000 feet and survive for all we know. =D

Problem is you gotta get in range to punch them. Unlike the Japanese who relied mainly upon visual lookouts they have radar too. And they can detect your radar emissions. Their sonar suites were excellent too. Working in groups they'd make your life short especially the with ahead throwing weapons. :p

Hey...I'm a proud American, but I wouldn't wanna go up against Johnny Walker and his deadly HKs.

[yamato9]

Survivability also depends on OFFENSE!!! You gotta punch em' in the nose! And that's where the mighty Gato/Balao cleary beats the uboats in, with 6 bow and 4 stern tubes, you got a lotta firepower to send at those destroyers before having to result to going deep.

And besides, no body knows how deep the Balao class are capable of going. They could go way beyond 1,000 feet and survive.

Well, yes its true...i always admire to WWII US subs in their brutality of firepower, but i still belive that Jeery´s u-boats ar more suitable subs for dealing with british killers. 5 TT is also quite enough for taking some destroyer(expecially if they loaded with acoustic torps) but at the end its showed that destroyers more or less get beter end in this types of duels.

If Balao (test depth 120) can go beyond 300 m the who knows how deep was cracking point of 7 0r 7c41 boats with theirs 230 m test depths.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by yamato9

If Balao (test depth 120) can go beyond 300 m the who knows how deep was cracking point of 7 0r 7c41 boats with theirs 230 m test depths.

Very true, but how deep is only one factor. As was stated earlier, US subs would have had a harder time against British (and US) ASW techniques, but there is no way a 7C could have conducted a war across the distances required in the Pacific war.

I sometimes joke about US boats being better because they had showers, laundry, refrigerators and ice cream, but morale is also a factor in the isolation of life inside a submarine. Which is the better boat depends much on the situation and type of warfare being conducted.

[Antiacus]

Type IID

In my mind, sneakiest = best.

[yamato9]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Very true, but how deep is only one factor. As was stated earlier, US subs would have had a harder time against British (and US) ASW techniques, but there is no way a 7C could have conducted a war across the distances required in the Pacific war.

I sometimes joke about US boats being better because they had showers, laundry, refrigerators and ice cream, but morale is also a factor in the isolation of life inside a submarine. Which is the better boat depends much on the situation and type of warfare being conducted.

Totaly agreed with you, both subs(US & German) was designed for different tasks and they performed best in ther field of use. Hardly is to imagine survival of US sub in high aircraft & destroyers traffic on atlantic or Med. and also vice versa german u boat who needs to cross over entire Pacific to pound some Japs.

My first post are based on hipotetical engagment of uboat vs british destroyer and then US sub vs brit. DD. OK this is my point of view... but i think that the VIIc/41 is more suitable for this, but this dont´t need to be also opinion of all others here in discussion.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by yamato9

Balao class
Test depth: 400 ft (120 m)

You (they) give no calculated crush depth. According to at least one source I've seen the Balao is good to at least 800 feet, and the Tench 900.

Type 7c
Test depth: 230 m (754 ft). Calculated crush depth: 250-295 m (820-967 ft)

According to http://uboat.net/types/viic.htm the calulated crush depth is only 220 m (722 ft)

All doubts stops here.

Not really. There is a lot of good discussion going on here about all the different parameters of the various boats, and one or two people showing some basic numbers and then proclaiming the discussion over doesn't help anyone.

[yamato9]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

You (they) give no calculated crush depth. According to at least one source I've seen the Balao is good to at least 800 feet, and the Tench 900.

According to http://uboat.net/types/viic.htm the calulated crush depth is only 220 m (722 ft)

Not really. There is a lot of good discussion going on here about all the different parameters of the various boats, and one or two people showing some basic numbers and then proclaiming the discussion over doesn't help anyone.

1. Yes, statistic are diferent from site to site or book from book.

2. Type 7c/41 have 250 m(820 feet) crush depth. http://uboat.net/types/viic-41.htm

3. True, we can drag this statistics and thinking all day and generaly we could not extract some good(exact) conclusion about which subs are beter. Generaly is mater of how opinion and perspective have someone over submarine warfare in those days.

[Ducimus]

True, we can drag this statistics and thinking all day and generaly we could not extract some good(exact) conclusion about which subs are beter. Generaly is mater of how opinion and perspective have someone over submarine warfare in those days.

Thats why these discussions are kinda pointless. And lets not kid ourselves, the majority here are biased for one type of sub or another. People tend to enter these discussions, like they were lobbying over who's football team is better. I admit, im a big fan of fleet boats, but im not so diluted as to compare apples and oranges. comparing a Gato or Balao fleet boat to a type 7c uboat is like comparing a sports car with an SUV.

[yamato9]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Thats why these discussions are kinda pointless. And lets not kid ourselves, the majority here are biased for one type of sub or another. People tend to enter these discussions, like they were lobbying over who's football team is better. I admit, im a big fan of fleet boats, but im not so diluted as to compare apples and oranges. comparing a Gato or Balao fleet boat to a type 7c uboat is like comparing a sports car with an SUV.

Thumbs up mate!

By the way i´m also a fan of fleet subs, i like their good look(design),impresive size and number of torpedo tubes, also on other hand i also like those much smaller u-boats (type VII & IX) and their nasty look.

Unfortunatly i dont have SH4 yet, to sail on those titans.

[ridgewayranger]

Hi Everybody,
I find this discussion quite interesting although most of it is pure speculation and, in some cases, flag waving. I served in various classes of R.N boats in the 50's and 60's. We were seconded to the R.C.N. based in Halifax on an A boat and had several visits to places such as Brooklyn Yard, New London and Norfolk where we usually tied up alongside a Host boat. The U.S.crews were always very interested and, after being shown around, were almost unanimous that for comfort they preferred their boats but for operations they would prefer ours.
The hospitality we were shown was wonderful. Three of us, young(ish!) petty officers were trying to find our way out of Norfolk yard when a car drew up and we were invited to hop in. We were taken to the home of the Exec of our host boat, LtCdr Vincent Shirley Lunn, met his wife and were given a lovely dinner.
I hope he, or someone who knows him, will get in touch.
RR

[Hartmann]

Germany had better hulls and steel, and other things like dive times, maximum depth but allies had better ASW devices like radar, and better confort..but the electronics technology makes a big difference in the ressults of the war.

I think that a gato could easily survive a biscaia cross with the radar.