Should I get SH4?

[Arlo]

[Ducimus]

Fanboys..... ughh....

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by Renesco

German subs had less striking power as the yank ones have mostly 6 forward 4 aft and superior radar, but German subs had a much deeper diving depth and snorkels, and were fighting an uphill battle versus airpower and a large enemy surface navy yet still nearly strangled England, also the XXI was the pioneer of most cold war subs. The Americans had it easy by comparison, with air power and surface naval power on their side.

Just because the soviet union won the war for you does not mean your subs were better than the German ones, correlation is not causation in this instance.

Well, let's dismantle this fantasy one step at a time, shall we? First up, your first claim: that the German subs had much deeper diving depth and snorkels.

What is the function of a submarine? Is it to remain submerged, hiding all the time? Is it to lower its search radius and speed to the point that it is incapable of fighting at all? Then you love U-Boats! Hiding at periscope depth, running two knots, they could search a tiny portion of the search range of a nine-knot cruising American submarine with search radar blazing a search zone 20 miles across! Let's compare, shall we?

U-Boat, 2 knots, horizon 4 miles away (actually much less from periscope view 2 or 3 feet off the water surface). So, he's searching an 8 mile wide path 2x24 or 48 miles long during the day. That's 8x48 or 384 square miles a day.

American submarine, radar blazing, a 20 mile wide path 9x24 or 216 mile long path, for a total ocean surface searched of 4,320 square miles per day. Actually the comparison is much worse, as the U-Boat was likely traveling at more like 1 knot and the American boat could patrol much faster if it needed to.

Can you see that by that comparison alone, the U-Boat is entirely dependent on its communication with Admiral Doenitz? A hiding U-Boat is not killing anything. But that is what they were built for. Unfortunately for them, a submerged submarine on a snorkel is blind. Airplanes can see it but it has no way to detect the airplanes and a snorkel is a great radar reflector. Huge advantage airplanes. The boat hides its head in the sand, pretending its adversary does not exist. This is a non-productive war strategy.

Claim #2, deeper diving. Deeper diving is a useful tactical weapon for what? A submarine below periscope depth is not an offensive weapon, it is a large, slow moving target. Deploying targets is not a legitimate function of war. If you are malingering around at 1000' reveling in your superiority over an American submarine, you are just where the enemy wants you, defenseless, toothless and in fear for your life. As a submarine your job is to attack and make your enemies fear for THEIR lives. Merely diving deeper than periscope depth is surrender of your ability to function. Every second you are below periscope depth a proper commander's urgent and constant question is "why cannot I get back to periscope depth or the surface NOW and fulfill the only reason I am out here!" You see, survival is only a secondary goal, made necessary because your first goal, being dangerous, is only possible if you are alive. Dead people are not dangerous at any time.

This does not mean that the proper sub commander never dives below periscope depth. There are reasons not modeled in the game that he may wish to do so for a high speed submerged run during an attack. There are times where survival dictates that the boat dive below periscope depth for the shortest possible amount of time before regaining the initiative. The instant you surrender your initiative, your chances of survival plummet! In my submarine, I almost NEVER dive to 400'. Most of my fighting is at 200' or above. I am on the surface every possible second.

Claim #3: the Type XXI was the pioneer of post WWII subs. Yes I know you had another claim there, but I choose to kill it last, because it is the most ridiculous. What was the Type XXI? It was a submarine optimized for best performance while submerged, giving up surface handling and performance in the bargain, just like the World War I American S-Boats.

Yes, it was larger than the S-Boats so had better performance overall, but there was in reality nothing at all revolutionary about the Type XXI except for the snorkel, which wasn't revolutionary because it was an idea copied from the Dutch inventors. Put together, the Type XXI was a buggy, untested boat that could hide twice as fast as any submarine on earth. That merely meant that Admiral Gallery, aboard his jeep aircraft carrier needed a larger compass to draw a larger circle to search in order to kill the large, slightly faster moving target.

The characteristics that established the post World War II submarine as uniquely capable was nuclear power and computer power. For the first time a submarine became a lethal offensive weapon while submerged, able to find, identify and kill a target without ever having sighted it or using active sonar. The Type XXI? Not invited to the party.

It was no accident that the United States abandoned the underwater optimized S-Boat design and adopted the surface optimized fleet boats. They very intelligently analyzed what the purpose of a submarine is and defined it as a surface raider which could submerge for the shortest possible length of time when it absolutely had to. Surface performance was a hundred times more important than submerged performance for a diesel-electric submarine, a fact that the Germans never were able to contemplate.

Which brings us directly to claim #4, "were fighting an uphill battle versus airpower and a large enemy surface navy yet still nearly strangled England...Americans had it easy by comparison, with air power and surface naval power on their side." First of all that is no evidence for superiority of the U-Boat.

While certainly American submarines fighting on the side of the Germans in the Atlantic could easily have lost, German submarines, fighting in the Pacific for the Americans could not have won. They had too-short a range, did not have enough torpedoes per boat to do any damage and were too slow to significantly outperform our S-Boats, which were phased out for reasons of non-production.

But I said that American submarine could not have won the Battle of the Atlantic, fighting on the side of the Germans. That is the important argument. Why would I say such a thing?

I maintain that the very use of submarines by the Germans was inappropriate and certain to result in the defeat of the Third Reich. Although Britain was an island nation, and hence tactically vulnerable to having supplies sunk, that was where German thinking stopped, when they should have considered the entire strategic situation.

From a strategic, not tactical, point of view, there is a huge flaw in using submarines against Britain. First of all, unlike Japan, which supplied its island nation with supplies shipped on Japanese bottoms, Britian had supplies coming into it on ships of most nations of the world, not its own! That terminally affected the appropriateness of using submarines against her.

You see in order to strangle Britain, Germany had to declare unrestricted warfare, not sinking British ships, but American and Canadian shipping as well. This could not be done without inviting the United States and Canada to the party. However, it was abundantly clear that neither the US nor Canada was vulnerable at all to submarine warfare.

How can you sink a factory in Kansas? A submarine production facility at Manitowac? A wheat field in Sascatchewan? There was no way to strangle the US with any size blockade of submarines. US and Canadian production facilities were completely immune to Axis attacks, while the Germans were pounded to the point that getting the Type XXI to war was a fantasy.

Merely producing and using submarines in the only way they could guaranteed the defeat of Nazi Germany because it was a terribly sophomoric strategic blunder which could not be overcome by any means. Once the submarines were unleashed in 1939 the war was inevitably lost whether Britain temporarily surrendered or not. After all, the French temporarily surrendered and the Axis still lost.

I also contend that Britain was never in the danger that has been portrayed. Churchill was a very smart man. There is no advantage like letting the word leak out that you are minutes away from awful defeat at the hands of those terrible U-Boats. Surely the US must come and help poor defenseless Britain in their hour of need, eh? Making claims of near defeat had less to do with reality than with speeding up the United States' entry into the war.

You see, while the Germans were strategically deaf, dumb and blind (that's how totalitarian strong-man governments operate), Britain was strategically on solid safe ground with the outcome just about guaranteed as Churchill cried about how afraid he was of the U-Boats. He knew that. You don't.

I have, of course, held back other important reasons that your argument is entirely without merit, just in case you remain unconvinced. It might be fun to speculate on what they are.

[Arlo]

A very reasonable and well delivered reply, in my opinion. No offense to U-Boat fans (though I've always been more the fleet boat fan) - but this was indeed an enlightening moment for me. Kinda like zen sub.

[Rockin Robbins]

Certainly no offense to U-Boats. They were the best Germany could provide, their crew were the finest in the German Navy and they produced results far greater than could be predicted. That their political leadership and top brass screwed up royally does nothing to discredit the men inside the people tubes who served admirably and honorably against insurmountable odds.

[WernherVonTrapp]

@Rockin Robbins:
He also seems to have conveniently omitted that, unlike the Soviet Union who was fighting a one front war, The United States was fighting both the Germans and the Japanese on two vastly opposing theaters. Stalin was begging the allies to open a second front to relieve the pressure on his own. Contrastingly, he didn't enter the war with Japan until the final few days of the war when Japan was already defeated. He also fails to mention the Military aid rendered to the Soviets by the American Arsenal of Democracy (Tanks, Jeeps, Trucks, Oil, Planes, Artillary, Samll Arms, etc., etc.). During the early phases of Operation Barbarossa, the United States sent millions of tons of supplies to the Soviets.

The Soviet Navy was non existent. By the end of 1943, the United States Pacific Fleet alone was bigger than the navies of all the warring powers combined. In order to invade Normandy, the United States stocked all of it's supplies in England. In the Pacific, we carried the equivalent of England on ships, from one island invasion to another. The Soviets could never, ever, equal the industrial/technological might of the United States. Their rusting, idle, hazard ridden, hulks of cold war era subs is in stark contrast the the most advanced subs now roaming the oceans, compliments of the USN.

Just because the soviet union won the war for you does not mean your subs were better than the German ones, correlation is not causation in this instance.

It is also worth mentioning that the Kaiser's U-Boats came far closer to winning their tonnage war than Hitler's ever did. By May 1917, the remaining stocks of some strategic commodities held in the UK was measured in weeks, something never achieved by Doenitz vaunted wolf packs.

The USN's war against commerce was wholly effective, that of Germany's an ultimate failure. The Fleet Boat was ideal for its role but one could argue that Doenitz was wrong in his dogmatic belief in the Type VII as the best boat for the Atlantic. 12 of the twenty top scoring boats were the larger Type IX and derivatives although they represented a comparative minority of frontboots. Here at SubSim however, questioning the infallibility of Onkle Karl is generally a bad idea, usually requiring NOMEX suits and thick skins.

RR's arguments are largely unassailable but the "common knowledge" mythology of U-Boat superiority, particularly as it relates to the Type XXI (that never sank one single GRT) ensures this discussion will never die out.

[Howard313]

Didn't know this would turn into a "Who's subs were better?" thread when i started it.

[Kongo Otto]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

Certainly no offense to U-Boats. They were the best Germany could provide, their crew were the finest in the German Navy and they produced results far greater than could be predicted. That their political leadership and top brass screwed up royally does nothing to discredit the men inside the people tubes who served admirably and honorably against insurmountable odds.

To be honest, i wasn't a great fan of Fleet Boats at all, well until i bought SH4 and later played it with RFB and RSRDC.
This was the point were i bought me first books about the topic Fleet Boat and Subwarfare in the PTO. Ok i have to confess that i have to learn very much more about the PTO at all.
But also to be honest IMHO comparing U-Boats with Fleets boats is comparing apples with oranges.
You cant say the U-Boats were better than the Fleet Boats and vice versa because IMHO this are two totally different strategic directions.

[Rockin Robbins]

What exactly WAS the strategic direction of the U-Boat? I've never seen any evidence that there was one. At best they had tactics and rules of engagement. Stragegy? None.

Any strategic treatment of the U-Boat question would have resulted in scrapping the entire idea as totally inappropriate and the reallocation of resources to land warfare. At best the only strategic role of a German navy was coastal defense. They didn't even try THAT! The entire expensive in money and men apparatus was just willy-nilly thrown to destruction.

[Kongo Otto]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

What exactly WAS the strategic direction of the U-Boat? I've never seen any evidence that there was one. At best they had tactics and rules of engagement. Stragegy? None.

Any strategic treatment of the U-Boat question would have resulted in scrapping the entire idea as totally inappropriate and the reallocation of resources to land warfare. At best the only strategic role of a German navy was coastal defense. They didn't even try THAT! The entire expensive in money and men apparatus was just willy-nilly thrown to destruction.

Well the strategic direction was unrestricted Tonnagewar against the suplly lines of the UK, the problem was that this strategy only would have worked with many Hundreds of U-Boats at the beginning of the war and U-Boats which much more modern design as they had it.
That this concept wasnt to work, was not the Problem from the U-Boat Men it was a Problem because the Kriegsmarine leadership (Raeder and Dönitz) were men deep entangled in WW1 Thinking and backed up by some Austrian private which was solely a Land War Man. That was an mixture for failure right from the start.
The kriegsmarine Leaders were blind for new tactics and strategy and 1943 when the battle was definfitly lost, at least then they should had the guts to speak it out loud, but they hadn't and Hitler wasn't really interested anyways with the known results.

I have to disagree with you, because that the strategic concept Tonnagewar performed by U-Boats can be appropriate and very succesful was shown by the US Silent Service, but to do so you need a great industrial capacity not an overstretched industry like germany and you need leaders which are open for new things, which we also never had in anykind of Miltary or Civilian Branch.

But at least the German U-Bootwaffe showed how to fight gallantly and die with dignity against an also gallant enemy.

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by WernherVonTrapp

The Soviet Navy was non existent. By the end of 1943, the United States Pacific Fleet alone was bigger than the navies of all the warring powers combined. In order to invade Normandy, the United States stocked all of it's supplies in England. In the Pacific, we carried the equivalent of England on ships, from one island invasion to another. The Soviets could never, ever, equal the industrial/technological might of the United States. Their rusting, idle, hazard ridden, hulks of cold war era subs is in stark contrast the the most advanced subs now roaming the oceans, compliments of the USN.

Some German sources, in noting the lack of offensive spirit shown by Soviet naval commanders in the Second World War, have speculated as to whether it was Stalin's intention to husband his warships in order to be in a better position to challenge the naval supremacy of the Anglo-Americans after the war. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is more probable that the sea war was of no interest to Stalin, except that he wanted war supplies delivered to Murmansk, Archangel and Vladivostok. It is more likely that, even if the Soviet Navy had the ability and means to undertake the task, which it obviously had not, he saw no reason why the USSR should exert itself to sweep the Arctic Sea of German bombers and U-boats for the benefit of allies whom he deemed to be well provided with a plethora of top notch warships and aircraft.

It is doubtful whether Stalin's interest in the Soviet Navy ever went much beyond cynically seeing it as a ready reserve of manpower to provide bayonets for the land fighting. Between June and September 1941 six marine infantry brigades, each about 5,000 men strong, were formed from the Baltic Fleet crews to fight in the Siege of Leningrad. This was later increased to nine, and in the end the Baltic Red Banner Fleet gave up 13,000 officers and ratings to fight on dry land. Eventually, thinned by causalities, many of these marines infantry brigades were marine only in name, since they were by then commanded by Red Army officers and received their reinforcements from Central Siberia, from men who had never seen the sea. It points out the difference between the two dictators, Stalin and Hitler. Unlike the czars, Stalin was never much swayed by the prestige of seapower, or deceived into thinking his war would be won on the sea.

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by Kongo Otto

Well the strategic direction was unrestricted Tonnagewar against the suplly lines of the UK, the problem was that this strategy only would have worked with many Hundreds of U-Boats at the beginning of the war and U-Boats which much more modern design as they had it.

Pretty much my point, except that you are ignoring that in order to do unrestricted Tonnagewar (what a great term!) they had no choice but to go to war against Canada and the US. The only way for Germany to win was to keep the US and Russia out of the war. Keeping Britain out of the war would also have been possible and desirable had those nasty submarines not been immediately deployed, spoiling any potential diplomatic moves. Britain did not hate the Germans and in fact had much in common with them.

Originally Posted by Kongo Otto

That this concept wasnt to work, was not the Problem from the U-Boat Men it was a Problem because the Kriegsmarine leadership (Raeder and Dönitz) were men deep entangled in WW1 Thinking and backed up by some Austrian private which was solely a Land War Man. That was an mixture for failure right from the start.
The kriegsmarine Leaders were blind for new tactics and strategy and 1943 when the battle was definfitly lost, at least then they should had the guts to speak it out loud, but they hadn't and Hitler wasn't really interested anyways with the known results.

A brilliant and exact summation of German lack of strategy. Raeder and Dönitz were primarily interested in advancing their own personal positions. Of course the use of the Navy was appropriate, THEY were the leaders of the Navy. The Austrian private, we'll not talk about his lack of vision and zeal for his people's well-being.......

Originally Posted by Kongo Otto

I have to disagree with you, because that the strategic concept Tonnagewar performed by U-Boats can be appropriate and very succesful was shown by the US Silent Service

Not shown by the US Silent Service. They sank Japanese cargoes in Japanese bottoms, not risking drawing any other country into the war against them. The US followed a STRATEGY not a TACTIC. In the Pacific, use of the submarines was appropriate and could result in victory. In the Atlantic, use of the submarine was inappropriate and its very use guaranteed defeat. How well it was used could make no difference in the outcome of the war. Had they sunk three times more tonnage in the cross-Atlantic convoys, they STILL would have sunk less than 3% of the tonnage. That's a failure in anyone's book

Originally Posted by Kongo Otto

, but to do so you need a great industrial capacity not an overstretched industry like germany and you need leaders which are open for new things, which we also never had in anykind of Miltary or Civilian Branch.

But at least the German U-Bootwaffe showed how to fight gallantly and die with dignity against an also gallant enemy.

Totally agree. The German Navy, by taking vital resources and the best men Germany had from their war machine, worked feverishly and died gallantly to ensure Allied victory. That was not the aim of the men in the boats. They were merely being loyal to their motherland, fighting in whatever circumstances they were put in the highest and finest manner.

No military unit ever, anywhere in the world has maintained fighting spirit faced with the losses the U-Bootwaffe faced. Their dedication was a tribute to mankind, just about the only one to come out of Germany in World War II. I understand that Rommel's Afrika Korps was similarly high-minded, professional and effective.

It seems to me we agree totally, except that you harbor some lingering feeling that using the U-Boats in the Atlantic was a tactic which could have avoided losing the war. My position is that their use guaranteed defeat, all by itself, with or without the Russians, because of the expense in materials and men, plus causing the entry of the US into the war, making Canada ten times more effective in the process.

[Arlo]

War strategy in the European theater had many more shortcomings than German U-Boats. Honestly, Hitler's greed and impatience lost that war before it started. The whole set-up from the start was against the German submariners. The U-Boat may have been trying to see how far WWI successful (for it's day) design could be stretched but there were technical advances within the flawed direction that the Allies benefited from later. And the U.S. had it's own dragon to slay, what with BuOrd and the Mk 14.

Yes, 2 different worlds - 2 different wars - 2 different games.

But sunnabeech, I'm damned thrilled to see SH4+the mods offer me a decent Pac War fleet boat sim and really couldn't care less bout the debate over uber.

[Kongo Otto]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

Pretty much my point, except that you are ignoring that in order to do unrestricted Tonnagewar (what a great term!) they had no choice but to go to war against Canada and the US. The only way for Germany to win was to keep the US and Russia out of the war. Keeping Britain out of the war would also have been possible and desirable had those nasty submarines not been immediately deployed, spoiling any potential diplomatic moves. Britain did not hate the Germans and in fact had much in common with them.

As Canada declared war on Germany at 10th of September 1939 as member of the Commonwealth that was allready the case, and the only reason why he declared war to the usa was his alliance with the Japanese, which was also totally idiotic to say at least.
No one in the High ranking Nazi Bunch around Hitler ever thought that the UK and the French will really fight for Poland, another idiotic missinterpretation.
The Kriegsmarine was in no way prepared for an war, IIRC Hitler mentioned to Raeder there would be no war before 1943, well the guy didnt took it to serious with the truth anyways.
And keeping Russia out of the war was never an option because the whole war was an war for "Living space in the east" just read "Mein kampf" its all in there. The declaration of war from France and the UK was a disruption from the Original Plan Hitler had for his war.

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

It seems to me we agree totally, except that you harbor some lingering feeling that using the U-Boats in the Atlantic was a tactic which could have avoided losing the war. My position is that their use guaranteed defeat, all by itself, with or without the Russians, because of the expense in materials and men, plus causing the entry of the US into the war, making Canada ten times more effective in the process.

No nothing could have avoid losing the war, the war was lost with the first round fired at September 1st 1939. Neither the Kriegsmarine nor the German Industry was prepared for an war in 1939 and if the French and the BEF would have moved their asses and attacked while almost the entire Wehrmacht has overun Poland, the Battle of the Atlantic most probably never would have happened.
The only point in which we are disagreeing is that the U-Boot Waffes use quaranteed the German defeat, i think that teh U-Boots and their use are just a small part in the much bigger picture of an foreseeable defeat.