Who had the best submarines in wwII?

KeptinCranky · 03-18-08, 06:48 PM

Congratz you win the flawless logic award

don't spend it all in one place...

It's a tough debate, some countries had lots of different subs with some especially good but others very bad (Japan) and some other had relatively ok subs but a whole lot (USA, Germany) it's mostly in how you use them though, and looked at it that way the US and Germany come out on top...

Torplexed · 03-18-08, 07:32 PM

It's difficult to compare subs of different nationalities, since the respective nations often had different needs in mind due to geography or doctrine. The large US fleet type was originally meant to be scout sub for the battle fleet, but turned out also to be an excellent solitary raider for the vast distances of the Pacific for which it was designed. The German Type VII has horribly cramped but was ideal in the North Atlantic where the distances to patrol areas were shorter and it's slim sonar profile was the margin between life and death in many a depth-charging. The small British 'U' type was ideal for the Mediterranean but not really of use elsewhere due to low endurance. The British had other subs for that purpose tho.

The Japanese subs also were designed for the Pacific. They were large and had excellent endurance, and often scout planes, but weren't deep deep divers and performed sluggishly underwater. Japanese subs suffered primarily from a doctrine that emphasized them as part of the battlefleet and their job was seen as going after other warships. The Japanese never really developed an effective merchant sinking program.

Italian subs. Big conning towers. Poor doctrine. Probably excellent food tho.

joegrundman · 03-18-08, 07:57 PM

Also you have to bear in mind the changing times. Technological progress was huge between 1939 and 1945.

The type VII may have been the best all-rounder by the turn of 1940, but was more or less obsolete by 1943

Brag · 03-18-08, 08:29 PM

When it came to meet operational requirements of the time. the Type IX was probably the best.

I don't know how well would have the American Fleet type performed against the Royal Navy.

Torplexed · 03-18-08, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brag

When it came to meet operational requirements of the time. the Type IX was probably the best.

I don't know how well would have the American Fleet type performed against the Royal Navy.

A typical American Gato class would have fared poorly against the vaunted Royal Navy hunter-killers, especially later in the war. It's large size and slow dive time would have worked against it, but without that large size and habitability it would have been incapable of operating effectively against Japan all the way from Pearl Harbor. Different boats designed for different oceans.

The Type IX was a good long range boat, but the lack of air-conditioning and refrigeration made life hell for the crew in the tropics.

Ducimus · 03-18-08, 08:49 PM

An age old debate. This argument is usually centric to uboat vs fleetboat. Its a flawed argument becuase not all subs were designed and built for the same purpose. A type7 uboat would fail miserably to accomplish a fleet boats objectives and vise verasa.

Submarine design, is highly influenced by doctrine. The Germans already had an idea of what they wanted to do based on lessons from WW1. The US had their own ideas and went off in another (flawed) direction, it just happened that while the doctrine was flawed, the submarine designed for that doctrine happened to fit what was needed in the pacific theater quite nicely.

What im getting at here is that different subs, were built for different purposes. Type 7's were basicaly picket boats that would from a line (aka wolfpack) for convoy attacks. This intent thrust upon the design, requirements in order to accomplish its mission. When things are designed, its always a case of give and take. Hence, while they had nice profiles and performance, they lacked the range and firepower of longer ranged subs. This lack of firepower in the indvidual sub was offset by the pack tactic.

Type 9 uboats, orginally designed as at sea wolfpack headquarters of sort, happened to be their most ideal long range boat. Performance and profile was sacraficed for firepower and range.

So if one was to ask, who had the best boat, you have to look at the role for which the subs your comparing were intended for. The US really had no direct equivlant of a Type7. All of their boats excepting the S class were basicaly long range submarines, primarly because of doctrine and their operational theater was the worlds largest ocean.

V.C. Sniper · 03-18-08, 10:01 PM

U.S. has the best submarines no doubt about it

. The Gato/Balao class would dominate both oceans without a sweat. Highly superior technological advances in radar and electronics combined with outstanding performance: 20+ knots on surface, 8.75-9 knots submerge, large amount of torpedoes, super deep diving capabilities of the awesome Balaos, and a 30-35 second crash dive time (super fast for such large subs =D) would OWNZ all other subs of the era. =D

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.

Torplexed · 03-18-08, 10:07 PM

The problem is the British know how that highly superior radar technology works. They invented it. They knew how to detect and exploit it.

The Japanese didn't have radar for most of the war. Speed was only an advantage on the surface when the enemy wasn't tracking your every move on their radar. German boats dived far deeper than American subs and still the British hounded them mercilessly.

Plus, the Japanese didn't have hedgehogs. Those things are nasty.

Ducimus · 03-18-08, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V.C. Sniper

U.S. has the best submarines no doubt about it. The Gato/Balao class would dominate both oceans without a sweat.

:rotfl: As much as i love fleet submarines, even i woudlnt make that boast! If one *REALLY* wanted to know how well a fleet boat would do in the atlantic, all one has to do, is look at how well the 9D2's faired. Which, really is the only fair comparision, as they're both very similar in size and endurance. The upperhand in THAT matchup however, i think goes to the fleet boat. No externally stored torpedos, better electronics, better propulsion system, and better (higher) field of view for lookouts. edit: Oh yeah, and faster dive time. A fleetboat in wartime was required to dive in under 40 seconds. 30-35 second dive being the goal in training.

Sailor Steve · 03-18-08, 11:00 PM

Quote:

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...

03-18-08, 07:32 PM	#2
Torplexed Let's Sink Sumptin' ! Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 5,823 Downloads: 43 Uploads: 0	It's difficult to compare subs of different nationalities, since the respective nations often had different needs in mind due to geography or doctrine. The large US fleet type was originally meant to be scout sub for the battle fleet, but turned out also to be an excellent solitary raider for the vast distances of the Pacific for which it was designed. The German Type VII has horribly cramped but was ideal in the North Atlantic where the distances to patrol areas were shorter and it's slim sonar profile was the margin between life and death in many a depth-charging. The small British 'U' type was ideal for the Mediterranean but not really of use elsewhere due to low endurance. The British had other subs for that purpose tho. The Japanese subs also were designed for the Pacific. They were large and had excellent endurance, and often scout planes, but weren't deep deep divers and performed sluggishly underwater. Japanese subs suffered primarily from a doctrine that emphasized them as part of the battlefleet and their job was seen as going after other warships. The Japanese never really developed an effective merchant sinking program. Italian subs. Big conning towers. Poor doctrine. Probably excellent food tho. Last edited by Torplexed; 03-18-08 at 07:59 PM.

03-18-08, 07:57 PM	#3
joegrundman Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 2,689 Downloads: 34 Uploads: 0	Also you have to bear in mind the changing times. Technological progress was huge between 1939 and 1945. The type VII may have been the best all-rounder by the turn of 1940, but was more or less obsolete by 1943 __________________ "Enemy submarines are to be called U-Boats. The term submarine is to be reserved for Allied under water vessels. U-Boats are those dastardly villains who sink our ships, while submarines are those gallant and noble craft which sink theirs." Winston Churchill

03-18-08, 08:29 PM	#4
Brag Navy Seal Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Docked on a Russian pond Posts: 7,072 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	When it came to meet operational requirements of the time. the Type IX was probably the best. I don't know how well would have the American Fleet type performed against the Royal Navy. __________________ Espionage, adventure, suspense, are just a click away Click here to look inside Brag's book: Amazon.com: Kingmaker: Alexey Braguine: Books Order Kingmaker here: http://www.subsim.com/store.html For Tactics visit:http://www.freewebs.com/kielman/

03-18-08, 10:01 PM	#7
V.C. Sniper Watch Officer Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 339 Downloads: 1 Uploads: 0	U.S. has the best submarines no doubt about it . The Gato/Balao class would dominate both oceans without a sweat. Highly superior technological advances in radar and electronics combined with outstanding performance: 20+ knots on surface, 8.75-9 knots submerge, large amount of torpedoes, super deep diving capabilities of the awesome Balaos, and a 30-35 second crash dive time (super fast for such large subs =D) would OWNZ all other subs of the era. =D 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. __________________ I only need one torpedo. Last edited by V.C. Sniper; 03-18-08 at 10:49 PM.

03-18-08, 06:48 PM	#1
KeptinCranky Ace of the Deep Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Netherlands Posts: 1,050 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	Congratz you win the flawless logic award don't spend it all in one place... It's a tough debate, some countries had lots of different subs with some especially good but others very bad (Japan) and some other had relatively ok subs but a whole lot (USA, Germany) it's mostly in how you use them though, and looked at it that way the US and Germany come out on top...

03-18-08, 08:49 PM	#6
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	An age old debate. This argument is usually centric to uboat vs fleetboat. Its a flawed argument becuase not all subs were designed and built for the same purpose. A type7 uboat would fail miserably to accomplish a fleet boats objectives and vise verasa. Submarine design, is highly influenced by doctrine. The Germans already had an idea of what they wanted to do based on lessons from WW1. The US had their own ideas and went off in another (flawed) direction, it just happened that while the doctrine was flawed, the submarine designed for that doctrine happened to fit what was needed in the pacific theater quite nicely. What im getting at here is that different subs, were built for different purposes. Type 7's were basicaly picket boats that would from a line (aka wolfpack) for convoy attacks. This intent thrust upon the design, requirements in order to accomplish its mission. When things are designed, its always a case of give and take. Hence, while they had nice profiles and performance, they lacked the range and firepower of longer ranged subs. This lack of firepower in the indvidual sub was offset by the pack tactic. Type 9 uboats, orginally designed as at sea wolfpack headquarters of sort, happened to be their most ideal long range boat. Performance and profile was sacraficed for firepower and range. So if one was to ask, who had the best boat, you have to look at the role for which the subs your comparing were intended for. The US really had no direct equivlant of a Type7. All of their boats excepting the S class were basicaly long range submarines, primarly because of doctrine and their operational theater was the worlds largest ocean.

03-18-08, 10:07 PM	#8
Torplexed Let's Sink Sumptin' ! Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 5,823 Downloads: 43 Uploads: 0	The problem is the British know how that highly superior radar technology works. They invented it. They knew how to detect and exploit it. The Japanese didn't have radar for most of the war. Speed was only an advantage on the surface when the enemy wasn't tracking your every move on their radar. German boats dived far deeper than American subs and still the British hounded them mercilessly. Plus, the Japanese didn't have hedgehogs. Those things are nasty.