Fleet Boat vs. U Boat

[Krauter]

what is up with jsut being able to donwload 3 files. it ahs been a week adn still cant download anymoer files?

wait what?

[razark]

Originally Posted by Krauter

wait what?

That's why u-boats are obviously superior. The Type VII u-boat would allow you to download seven files. The Type IX allowed even more.

Imagine if they Germans had been able to deploy the Type XXI early enough, they could have overwhelmed the Allies with the sheer number of mods they could have employed.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by razark

Again?

How about we do Titanic vs. iceberg this time? At least it would be new.

It was a lucky thing that iceberg survived.

Who would have thought that Murdoch was such an Iceberg hater.

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Who would have thought that Murdoch was such an Iceberg hater.

Actually colliding with the iceberg it was a desperate maneuver on Murdoch's part to scrape these two idiots off the bow.

[Ducimus]

The only "vs" discussion i would ever indulge is a Gato or Balao vs a Type 9C or type 9D uboat.

All other versus and comparison's are apples and oranges.

[Subnuts]

I really wish people would read a serious technical history of conventionally-powered US submarines before indulging in these debates. John Alden's The Fleet Submarines in the United States Navy or Norman Friedman's US Submarines Through 1945 would do just fine.

Seriously, the level of ignorance I see in these sort of threads boggles my mind. A lot of people seem unwilling or unable to understand the basic tenets and trade offs of submarine design. Forget surface speed, habitability, underwater endurance, armament, sonar and radio outfit, range, diving depth, or reserve buoyancy. There will always be those who think that the ability to dive deep was the only important factor in submarine design prior to the Nautilus.

[Anthony W.]

Originally Posted by Subnuts

There will always be those who think that the ability to dive deep was the only important factor in submarine design prior to the Nautilus.

Though personally I'd love to be able to outrun a destroyer... Lol

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Schwieger

Maybe, but there are IJN sub mods out there.. and some British ones too, I think

The problem I have with that is that for me it's not complete unless the interiors and the voices are all correct. I'd love to play a real British, Dutch or Japanese campaign, but only if it's all there.

[Schwieger]

Originally Posted by Subnuts

I really wish people would read a serious technical history of conventionally-powered US submarines before indulging in these debates. John Alden's The Fleet Submarines in the United States Navy or Norman Friedman's US Submarines Through 1945 would do just fine.

Seriously, the level of ignorance I see in these sort of threads boggles my mind. A lot of people seem unwilling or unable to understand the basic tenets and trade offs of submarine design. Forget surface speed, habitability, underwater endurance, armament, sonar and radio outfit, range, diving depth, or reserve buoyancy. There will always be those who think that the ability to dive deep was the only important factor in submarine design prior to the Nautilus.

Range and Speed are the precise reasons I'm a fan of the Japanese subs. If I want to go deep and evade destroyers, there's VII. For everything else, there's IJN.

[JU_88]

For gaming - a Uboat, just because I prefer the ATO.
In reality, I'd go with a Fleet boat (for obvious political reasons) and because my chances of survival would be better

Though I think if I were riding ANY WWII era vehicle in to combat, I'd be far too busy crapping my pants to worry about the technical specs of my given unit.

Originally Posted by Subnuts

I really wish people would read a serious technical history of conventionally-powered US submarines before indulging in these debates. John Alden's The Fleet Submarines in the United States Navy or Norman Friedman's US Submarines Through 1945 would do just fine.

Seriously, the level of ignorance I see in these sort of threads boggles my mind. A lot of people seem unwilling or unable to understand the basic tenets and trade offs of submarine design. Forget surface speed, habitability, underwater endurance, armament, sonar and radio outfit, range, diving depth, or reserve buoyancy. There will always be those who think that the ability to dive deep was the only important factor in submarine design prior to the Nautilus.

Excellent post! But I would also include research into the technical design origins of the Type VII and Type IX dating back to WW1.

In three months when this topic reappears, it should be linked back here so it can die a quick, painless, and unlamented death.

[JU_88]

I guess most of the weapons that fought WWII in the first few years were pretty out dated - hell, never mind design, some WWII ships even fought in WWI, though I guess ships have a longer shelf life due to the time and cost of production
But yeah, the Type VII and IX are classic examples of a weapon being pushed way beyond its effective operational life, they were technically obsolete as early as 1941, they should have been replaced mid-war.

The main British sub classes S and T were quite badly technically flawed come to think about it.

-Oval shaped pressure hulls to accomadate 6 fore tubes (no where near as stong as a cylinder).
-Torpedos had no TDC or gyro and were gas powered only (at least the detinators were reliable though)
-Lack of external tube doors on the bow tubes created alot of drag.
-External Torpedo tubes mounted outside the pressure hull, were often prone to failiure and could not be reloaded at sea.
-They were Slow, even slower than their predecessors such as the P, O and R classes.
-They were ASDIC equipped, why? not suprisingly British submariners never used it!

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Subnuts

I really wish people would read a serious technical history of conventionally-powered US submarines before indulging in these debates. John Alden's The Fleet Submarines in the United States Navy or Norman Friedman's US Submarines Through 1945 would do just fine.

Seriously, the level of ignorance I see in these sort of threads boggles my mind. A lot of people seem unwilling or unable to understand the basic tenets and trade offs of submarine design. Forget surface speed, habitability, underwater endurance, armament, sonar and radio outfit, range, diving depth, or reserve buoyancy. There will always be those who think that the ability to dive deep was the only important factor in submarine design prior to the Nautilus.

I have read and own both of these books and I must to an extent disagree with your statement.You are over thinking the question the OP asked about what one prefers what one thinks is better from the limitations of the Silent Hunter series not what was best in real life.And even from that view better technology alone means nothing if you do not have highly trained and motivated men manning a sub.Also I find Friedman's book to be some what scattered he must have been under pressure of a deadline and have you read any books on German or any other nations submarine technology?You cant simply read two books about one nations subs and say that all others are inferior if you have only read books on part of the subject but consider this enough to be definitive evidence of superiority then maybe you are boggling your own mind.

[razark]

A-10 vs. C-5?

Which is the better airplane?

[I'm goin' down]

Originally Posted by zedjr

what is up with jsut being able to donwload 3 files. it ahs been a week adn still cant download anymoer files?

I think this the wrong thread for the above post.

As for all of the other posts, except razarks first post,