So... Difference between subs?...

magic452 · 03-18-10, 01:08 AM

The Gato was such a successful design that there wasn't much you could or needed to do to it.
It fit the Pacific Theater so well as to range, armament, speed, etc. there was little need to change except quicker and deeper dive capability.
The Balao and Trench were little more than slight improvements rather than new designs. Could have been called Gato B and C models. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

U boats had to adapt to different operating theaters and conditions.

Magic

Capt. Teach · 03-18-10, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CybrSlydr

They look mostly identical, they have pretty much identical armaments...

Am I going crazy?

Heheheh that reminds me of that movie "Zoolander" ....
"Has anyone noticed he has one look? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!"

TH0R · 03-18-10, 03:44 AM

Not all of them have identical armaments. Pre Gar/Tambor class boats have less than 6 bow tubes, and this makes a whole lot of difference during the attack. Also, there is very little difference in conning towers in the beginning as well. Later in war when conning towers start to get refitted for lower silhouette, that is when the boats look at their best IMO.

Besides that, there are differences in top speed, and of course, the most important one - crush depth. Balao and Tench will give you much more manoeuvring space down at 450 ft, than Porpoise at 250ft IIRC.

danurve · 03-18-10, 08:13 AM

I just got a Gato from a Porpoise. Yes it does have better guns except the AA is sheilded by metal so you can't seem to use it against any small boats. I like the upgraded radar.
Funny thing about identical subs, in SHIII my favorite was the VIIB & VIIC/41. Could realy care less about the others, didn't like any of the type IX sonar magnets. So in that game you basicaly has two classes to choose from and then the normal upgrades. Seems like IV is an improvement over that.

Keelbuster · 03-18-10, 10:36 AM

I've got a Porpoise right now...really looking forward to the 10 tubes on the Gato. It kinda sucks how US subs had such shallow crush depths, but then against Japanese ASW and with the thermal layer thing, maybe we don't need to go so deep...

Dread Knot · 03-18-10, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keelbuster

It kinda sucks how US subs had such shallow crush depths, but then against Japanese ASW and with the thermal layer thing, maybe we don't need to go so deep...

Considering how shallow much of the South & East China Sea is, a deeper diving sub wouldn't help in many cases.

03-18-10, 02:55 PM

The Fleet Boat saw incremental improvements until the design jelled with the GATO's.

Having produced an effective design, why mess with it? The Gato/Tambor Fleet Boats were outstanding weapons system for the Pacific theatre and unrestricted warfare against commerce. They had excellent growth potential (something lacking in the German Type VII and IX's) and accomodated new technology and equipment with ease.

There is a certainly sameness to the Fleet Boats but that is a design strength not a weakness.

Older US designs, the R's, O's and the Bonita's were so inferior they were largely restricted to training and mostly in the Atlantic. The big V-Boats found a useful combat role even though the "U-Cruiser" doctrine that they were designed for proved a dead end. S-Boats were still useful, being about as capable as the Type VII in range and firepower so filling the numbers gap in combat. Mostly they served in the ugly areas to free up the Fleet Boats for the 'decisive' patrol zones but there were some significant exceptions to this.

razark · 03-18-10, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dread Knot

Considering how shallow much of the South & East China Sea is, a deeper diving sub wouldn't help in many cases.

But vast areas of the Pacific were very deep.

Bubblehead1980 · 03-18-10, 03:09 PM

Okay a little myth I want to TRY and get rid of here, because it seems to hang around.US subs did not have shallow CRUSH depths.THe red line on the depth gauge is the TEST depth, which means you prob should not go beyond this point.The pre war boats, many were riveted instead of welded or both, so they were rated at 250 feet, but have read about porpoise class etc going well beyond test depth, some by choice, some were damaged and forced down.The Gato was absolutely great design that I would put against U boat anyday.The Gato had a 300 foot test depth but could go well beyond say even 500 feet safely, a few did.The Balaos and Tenchs were all welded and could safely go to 600+ feet but their test depths were 412 feet.So many boats went well beyond test depth, no one really knows their crush depth, because if they reached it, they wouldnt be around to document how deep they went.The devs fouled up in SH 4 by making it where you cant go beyond 450 feet unless you are sinking or something, very stupid on their part.However, in TMO you can go to 600+ feet.Stock SH 4 did not do the PTO justice.

Another myth, Japanese ASW was not a complete sham.Their refusal to adapt convoy system fully in first part of war led to losses but by 44 and 45 Japanese ASW on both sea and air was pretty tough.On par with the Allies against Germany, don't think so but still tough.Many, many stories of US boats being accurately depth charged and taking tremendous damage, only to make it home.Check out one of the Tambor's late patrols or Seahorse's last patrol in 1945.Could list more but too many to list.The US boats were rugged and could sustain a lot of damage.

Remember the PTO was an entirely different war, one I find much more interesting as do many others.Regardless, give the PTO a chance with mods like TMO, RFB, with RSRD do some reading and learn about it, you'll enjoy it and see the differences between the pre war boats like the porpoise and the workhorse of the fleet, the Gato class.

03-18-10, 01:08 AM	#1
magic452 Sea Lord Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Reno Nevada USA Posts: 1,860 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	The Gato was such a successful design that there wasn't much you could or needed to do to it. It fit the Pacific Theater so well as to range, armament, speed, etc. there was little need to change except quicker and deeper dive capability. The Balao and Trench were little more than slight improvements rather than new designs. Could have been called Gato B and C models. If it ain't broke don't fix it. U boats had to adapt to different operating theaters and conditions. Magic __________________ Reported lost 11 Feb. 1942 Signature by depthtok33l

03-18-10, 03:44 AM	#3
TH0R XO Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Croatia Posts: 420 Downloads: 52 Uploads: 0	Not all of them have identical armaments. Pre Gar/Tambor class boats have less than 6 bow tubes, and this makes a whole lot of difference during the attack. Also, there is very little difference in conning towers in the beginning as well. Later in war when conning towers start to get refitted for lower silhouette, that is when the boats look at their best IMO. Besides that, there are differences in top speed, and of course, the most important one - crush depth. Balao and Tench will give you much more manoeuvring space down at 450 ft, than Porpoise at 250ft IIRC. __________________ *My IL2 stuff:* LEVEL BOMBING MANUAL v2.0 \| 'MUSTANG'

03-18-10, 08:13 AM	#4
danurve The Old Man Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Syracuse, NY Posts: 1,481 Downloads: 22 Uploads: 3	I just got a Gato from a Porpoise. Yes it does have better guns except the AA is sheilded by metal so you can't seem to use it against any small boats. I like the upgraded radar. Funny thing about identical subs, in SHIII my favorite was the VIIB & VIIC/41. Could realy care less about the others, didn't like any of the type IX sonar magnets. So in that game you basicaly has two classes to choose from and then the normal upgrades. Seems like IV is an improvement over that. __________________

03-18-10, 10:36 AM	#5
Keelbuster Ace of the Deep Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: BA 72 Posts: 1,092 Downloads: 43 Uploads: 0	I've got a Porpoise right now...really looking forward to the 10 tubes on the Gato. It kinda sucks how US subs had such shallow crush depths, but then against Japanese ASW and with the thermal layer thing, maybe we don't need to go so deep... __________________

03-18-10, 02:55 PM	#7
Randomizer Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	The Fleet Boat saw incremental improvements until the design jelled with the GATO's. Having produced an effective design, why mess with it? The Gato/Tambor Fleet Boats were outstanding weapons system for the Pacific theatre and unrestricted warfare against commerce. They had excellent growth potential (something lacking in the German Type VII and IX's) and accomodated new technology and equipment with ease. There is a certainly sameness to the Fleet Boats but that is a design strength not a weakness. Older US designs, the R's, O's and the Bonita's were so inferior they were largely restricted to training and mostly in the Atlantic. The big V-Boats found a useful combat role even though the "U-Cruiser" doctrine that they were designed for proved a dead end. S-Boats were still useful, being about as capable as the Type VII in range and firepower so filling the numbers gap in combat. Mostly they served in the ugly areas to free up the Fleet Boats for the 'decisive' patrol zones but there were some significant exceptions to this.

03-18-10, 03:09 PM	#9
Bubblehead1980 Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Florida USA Posts: 7,137 Downloads: 606 Uploads: 44	Okay a little myth I want to TRY and get rid of here, because it seems to hang around.US subs did not have shallow CRUSH depths.THe red line on the depth gauge is the TEST depth, which means you prob should not go beyond this point.The pre war boats, many were riveted instead of welded or both, so they were rated at 250 feet, but have read about porpoise class etc going well beyond test depth, some by choice, some were damaged and forced down.The Gato was absolutely great design that I would put against U boat anyday.The Gato had a 300 foot test depth but could go well beyond say even 500 feet safely, a few did.The Balaos and Tenchs were all welded and could safely go to 600+ feet but their test depths were 412 feet.So many boats went well beyond test depth, no one really knows their crush depth, because if they reached it, they wouldnt be around to document how deep they went.The devs fouled up in SH 4 by making it where you cant go beyond 450 feet unless you are sinking or something, very stupid on their part.However, in TMO you can go to 600+ feet.Stock SH 4 did not do the PTO justice. Another myth, Japanese ASW was not a complete sham.Their refusal to adapt convoy system fully in first part of war led to losses but by 44 and 45 Japanese ASW on both sea and air was pretty tough.On par with the Allies against Germany, don't think so but still tough.Many, many stories of US boats being accurately depth charged and taking tremendous damage, only to make it home.Check out one of the Tambor's late patrols or Seahorse's last patrol in 1945.Could list more but too many to list.The US boats were rugged and could sustain a lot of damage. Remember the PTO was an entirely different war, one I find much more interesting as do many others.Regardless, give the PTO a chance with mods like TMO, RFB, with RSRD do some reading and learn about it, you'll enjoy it and see the differences between the pre war boats like the porpoise and the workhorse of the fleet, the Gato class.