Who had the best submarines in wwII?

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

just shoot me now and end the pain

[Synthfg]

Originally Posted by Torplexed

The Soviet Union had the largest sub fleet in the world when Germany attacked in 1941. Over 200 boats of various types. But they were victims of Russia's rambling geography being divided between four widely separated fleets; the Baltic, Black, Northern and Pacific. Given the Soviet Union's obvious army-centric approach, they also seem to have been poorly maintained and to have lacked sonar or modern fire control equipment. Other than the sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff late in the war with heavy loss of life I can't think of too many Russian submarine successes that come to mind.

You can read about the Wilhelm Gustloff disaster here: http://www.wilhelmgustloff.com/

Think the main issue with the Soviet sub fleet is that the secrecy inherant in the communist system, combined with the traditions of the silent service means that there is very little published material on there role in the war,
There were several significant victories inclunding the Gustloff however

Does anyone here have a decent summary of soviet sub activity in the war ?

[kaptkirkU4467]

Does anyone here have a decent summary of soviet sub activity in the war ?

Yes..but right now the book's 400 miles from me.

I see now how old the thread is...wow.
.the XXI was a real junker and would never have survived action in the Atlantic.It looked cool,but was put togather in a real stupid way.

The US Fleet boats of the Balo class were good for the job they had to do..but there flaws were as many as the Type VII and IX.

But all here have forgot the Dutch boats!!

[Bronzewing]

Personally I think the Kreigsmarine would have been better served had they not bothered trying to switch to the revolutionarry type XXI which they just DID NOT HAVE THE TIME to develop properly and had instead built the type VIIC/42 which was a type VIIC with extra fuel, torpedoes and thicker pressure hull. The VIIC/42 would have been the deepest diving yet, and would have had a faster dive time than the regular type VIIC, and it would not have taken as long to get into service. It was a common fault that Germany had in general in ww2 that in their quest to have the BEST equipment they never built enough of the types that already worked, and ended up with hundreds of small experimental classes most of which were never ready in time.
"Quantity has a quality all its own." Joseph Stalin

[Synthfg]

Originally Posted by Bronzewing

Personally I think the Kreigsmarine would have been better served had they not bothered trying to switch to the revolutionarry type XXI which they just DID NOT HAVE THE TIME to develop properly and had instead built the type VIIC/42 which was a type VIIC with extra fuel, torpedoes and thicker pressure hull. The VIIC/42 would have been the deepest diving yet, and would have had a faster dive time than the regular type VIIC, and it would not have taken as long to get into service. It was a common fault that Germany had in general in ww2 that in their quest to have the BEST equipment they never built enough of the types that already worked, and ended up with hundreds of small experimental classes most of which were never ready in time.
"Quantity has a quality all its own." Joseph Stalin

TBH by 44/45 even a properly funcioning fleet of XXI's would not have gotten far against the RN/USN anti submarine types,
It wasn't until the Nautalus and the sub launched stand off missile that the balence of power swung back to the subs

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

This is like finding an old girlfriend who had VD when you were dating her.

[BulSoldier]

Originally Posted by Synthfg

TBH by 44/45 even a properly funcioning fleet of XXI's would not have gotten far against the RN/USN anti submarine types,
It wasn't until the Nautalus and the sub launched stand off missile that the balence of power swung back to the subs

The problem is that missile launching submarines are quite different.Actually apart from the ability to submerge their roles and armament are quite distant.

I must say that i am a fan of VIIC so that for me is the best.

However as stated before, uboots arent made to sink navy ships, as they were merchant raiders.In the end it is all about what the sub is made to do and how well it did.

If the us subs were made for the same job and did the same job then we could compare them, however sins this isnt the case we cant.

Probably we can however compare the diffrent subs that were doing the same job (not exactly the same but as close as it gets)

[Peto]

Decided I'd throw a couple pennies in to this discussion... I've watched the debate over which nation had the best subs in WWII with a mix of interest and amusement and kept my opinions to myself. I still will (sort of) and let history decide which sub classes were the best design.

After WWII--Russia, UK and the USA split up the uboats so they could check them out. They each received fully oprational boats of various types. The types were all tested, dissected, put back together and tested again. So--the real question is--what boat type had the greatest longevity after the war? The boat that remained in operational use by the most fleets would inherintly indicate that it was the best design. Those that were "retired" the soonest would be indicative of being the most flawed/limited.

The winner is? Balao and Gato classes. They were still operational well into the 60's. Stream-lined and with snorts added, they could do everything any other boat of WWII was capable of. It wasn't done in WWII because it wasn't nessecary for their success. They didn't dive so deep mainly because they didn't have to (which doesn't mean they couldn't). And diving deep is worth very little if there is still a hunter right above you that you can't escape from...

History reveals the winner.

[BulSoldier]

I dont think this is reasonable.There are many reasons as for why a nation would keep old subs.

And the most obveous one is for this nation prioritazing(spl?) their military modernization programs for other types of military equipment.(aircrafts, tanks etc.)

And the reasons i believe XXI not to be on service at other navies is that they would have to manucture parts especialy for them or make their entire submarines fleets consisting of this type or redisigned but esentialy a foreigh type of sub.Witch would mean to scrap all current boats they would have.

It is simply better to keep the large nubmers they have instead of scraping them in order to construct an entire new subarines (witch were made for atlatik use after all).And consdidering ther eis no Germany after ww2 it is no surpries that uboots werent on active duty after the war

[Peto]

Originally Posted by BulSoldier

I dont think this is reasonable.There are many reasons as for why a nation would keep old subs.

And the most obveous one is for this nation prioritazing(spl?) their military modernization programs for other types of military equipment.(aircrafts, tanks etc.)

And the reasons i believe XXI not to be on service at other navies is that they would have to manucture parts especialy for them or make their entire submarines fleets consisting of this type or redisigned but esentialy a foreigh type of sub.Witch would mean to scrap all current boats they would have.

It is simply better to keep the large nubmers they have instead of scraping them in order to construct an entire new subarines (witch were made for atlatik use after all).And consdidering ther eis no Germany after ww2 it is no surpries that uboots werent on active duty after the war

Very good points. (I still lean toward history's selection though ).

[Platapus]

Peto,

Some very valid points there.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Peto

Decided I'd throw a couple pennies in to this discussion... I've watched the debate over which nation had the best subs in WWII with a mix of interest and amusement and kept my opinions to myself. I still will (sort of) and let history decide which sub classes were the best design.

After WWII--Russia, UK and the USA split up the uboats so they could check them out. They each received fully oprational boats of various types. The types were all tested, dissected, put back together and tested again. So--the real question is--what boat type had the greatest longevity after the war? The boat that remained in operational use by the most fleets would inherintly indicate that it was the best design. Those that were "retired" the soonest would be indicative of being the most flawed/limited.

The winner is? Balao and Gato classes. They were still operational well into the 60's. Stream-lined and with snorts added, they could do everything any other boat of WWII was capable of. It wasn't done in WWII because it wasn't nessecary for their success. They didn't dive so deep mainly because they didn't have to (which doesn't mean they couldn't). And diving deep is worth very little if there is still a hunter right above you that you can't escape from...

History reveals the winner.

Don't forget the Tench Class

[Jimbuna]

A really interesting debate has evolved here.

A little teaser if you like....meant as a potential means to broaden the discussion further:

Would or should success or quality or whatever be measured or have a weighting factor when consideration is given to which submarines sunk the most tonnage?

Should quality be measured in tandem to sinking successes?

[Peto]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Don't forget the Tench Class

I hope you can find room in your stoney heart for a smidgeon of foregiveness . Yes--I should have included the Tench Class .

[Peto]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

Should quality be measured in tandem to sinking successes?

An interesting point. My gut reaction is "no". Why? Because success was more a factor of strategy and tactics than boat design. However--those factors shouldn't be completely ignored either. After all--a boat had to be good enough to be capable of accomplishing the strategies and tactics required of it. IMHO--the Gatos, Balaos (and yes--the Tenches ) were more effective at executing the tactics demanded of them than the U-boats were.

To include sub success/ships sunk would also require consideration of ships sunk/subs lost ratios... This is very difficult to do considering the vast differences of ASW capabilities of the Allies vs Japanese. Is it fair to say US subs were better because they lost less boats? Absolutely not. US and Germany weren't up against the same ASW technology levels.

Overall though, I believe US boats were better suited to accomplish their mission. To be truly effective, u-boats required at sea supply (Type XIV's etc). This seriously ham-strung them and reveals a weakness in their capability to accomplish the mission required of them. Arguably--they would have been better off building more IX's than VII's and adjust their doctrine accordingly.

Anyway--I might add more later but I'd better do some work now. I'd hate to have to fire myself !