US subs performance vs U-boat performance.

[Sailor Steve]

Don't forget the meat locker and ice cream machine.

[Frenssen]

Ice cream machines? My boat is cramped enough as it is: I don`t need 40 fat guys taking valuable space

[Capt. D]

Originally Posted by CruiseTorpedo

Dont forget that US subs had showers and a washing machine to clean their clothes available to the men while on patrol. The water strainers or whatever they're called worked very well! If I had to pick between being in a uboat or US sub, I would definitely pick the one with air conditioners and showers! Also the men were not hot bunking in US subs, each man had their own bunk which I'd only assume helped the general health of the men in the subs since they didnt have to sleep in someone else's sweat. I think the us subs also had two working toilets while the uboat had one?

You make some very good points. However, one must put these in some sort of prospective.

US boats had evaporators which could produce a signifacant amount of water each day. However this water's main use was for the ships batteries and for cooking. Showers (1 for all officers, in the aft section of the forwd torp room next to their head; and 2 in the crew shower area. The 3 for 80 men) were not avaliable to the crew every single day and then it was wet down - turn off - soap down and rinse off. Though not a luxuary type shower it was still a lot better than most other countries subs.

Each of our subs had 4 heads. The officer head in the aft section of the forward torpedo room, 2 in the crew shower area, and 1 in the aft torpedo room. 4 heads for 80 men is not that many - however again far better then other navies.

Hot bunking was also part of the US sub process. With 80 men aboard a boat not counting "officer country" where the officers and Chiefs slept the rest of the crew had to use the 36 bunks in the crew quarters or bunks in the forward and after torpedo rooms. At times hot bunking was necessary as was noted in a TV program about the USS Bowfin - shown on the Histroy Channel last week. Yet if you compare to other navies it almost could be classed as the Hilton.

US subs were the "cream" of the crop in subs. Best food the Navy had, and in general, way better living conditions than other subs. Yet if you visit one of the remaining subs - life was not all a bed of roses in the cramped quarters etc. they had to live in for 60 some days at a time.




Crews berthing area USS Silversides




USS Silversides




Crew mess (My father in law - he came with me on may last visit. Was on a Light Crusier in WWII a little more room on his ship!:p)

Happy Hunting

[Deamon]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

US fleet boats were better for the crew: they had A/C and more space. Despite the dictate that the U-boats did not compromise for the crew, I would say keeping the crew comfortable (relatively) and morale high did a lot for efficiency and safety.

Well, germany had their own way of keeping the moral high. If a commander was to undecisive they shot him!

+Inhumane hard training.

The biggest difference between US fleet boats and U-boats, imo, were the torpedoes. The Germans solved their torpedo problems in a matter of months. The US took over two years

What the germans also dind't knew, as they introduced magnetic fuzes, was that the allies already had degaussed their ships before sending them on the voyage.

Cheers,
Deamon

[Deamon]

Originally Posted by John Pancoast

At the same time, the Germans cracked some British codes too, so both sides had a little help

Are there some good references about it ?

Deamon

[Deamon]

Originally Posted by Dantenoc

So allready the U.S. comes out on top, and we haven't yet taken into acount that U.S. involvement in war was shorter than Germany's, or the fact that these numbers still don't reflect the fact that Allied merchant shipping bounced back with vigor from their sinkings, while the Japanese had their fleet practicaly wiped out (which leads us to the very tempting conclusion that the U.S. could have sunk even more ships if there had been more ships to sink!)

P.S.: And I must stress the fact that I did make a misleading first post by mistake, and I thank you for your caring watchfulness

But then it also needs to be taken in account that germans enemies were far harder to beat than americas, if i'm not mistaken here. And maybe the invested u-boat tonnage vs. sunken enemy tonnage.

Deamon

[Respenus]

UFF!!! Enought data.

There is only ONE, and only ONE advantage of U.S. subs over U-Boats.

They didn't have Bernard!

EDIT: And let's not forget the XXI boat, which became the model for all modern subs!

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Respenus

EDIT: And let's not forget the XXI boat, which became the model for all modern subs!

Until Albacore, which then became the model for all modern subs. Let us not mistake it; the XXI was a major innovation, but it was more important to the Soviets, who used it's design well into the production of the Soviet nuclear fleet, than the Americans, who switched designs early in SSN development.

[Steeltrap]

Originally Posted by Respenus

UFF!!! Enought data.

There is only ONE, and only ONE advantage of U.S. subs over U-Boats.

They didn't have Bernard!

EDIT: And let's not forget the XXI boat, which became the model for all modern subs!

Yes, a more interesting comparison would be XXI v. Fleet boat.

The XXI had individual bunks for all crew, showers, A/C and 3 heads. Most importantly the schnorkel, active sonar, fast dive time (supposedly 25 seconds to 20m), max submerged speed of 17kts and surface range of around 24,000km @ 12kts.

Throw in the 'semi-auto' torpedo loading for the 6 bow tubes and it's clear that the XXI would've made the Atlantic a slaughter ground for Allied merchants. The impressions of commanders/crews who got to do sea trials with XXI was that they were a quantum leap in capability. Had the German's had them in numbers in 1943 things would've been VERY grim for the Allies.

The hull shape and over-all design philosophy of the XXI certainly became the model for future designs in all navies i.e. concentrating firepower forward and a teardrop hull designed with the thought that "a submarine belongs below the surface ALL the time".

[DanCanovas]

erich topp has repeatedly stated that he didnt think the Type XXI would have made any difference to the Battle of the Atlantic because it was unable to operate in packs. It was purely designed to defend itself. He continues to say that Schnorkeling boats cannot operate in packs.

[OKO]

In fact, at the end of war, the XXI was the base for new generation of submarines for USA, UK, Russia and France, the actual leaders in nuclear submarine technology
US WWII submarine concept was abandoned as soon as war ended, and as soon as they could have a XXI.
Before XXI, both conception (german and US) was quite close, even if also quite different.
But the born of the modern submarine concept start with XXI.
If german had XXI from 1942, the atlantic battle should have been very different.
A chance they couldn't built it at this time !

[OKO]

Originally Posted by Respenus

Let us not mistake it; the XXI was a major innovation, but it was more important to the Soviets, who used it's design well into the production of the Soviet nuclear fleet, than the Americans, who switched designs early in SSN development.

All allies had one copy of the XXI
and all allies, after the war, built their new submarine generation from it, USA included.
There is nothing to compare beetween US submarines before and after the end of the war for that reason.
USA didn't found themself this kind of concept, they used the german technology.
Not only in that subject and not only the USA, of course.

[OKO]

Originally Posted by DanCanovas

erich topp has repeatedly stated that he didnt think the Type XXI would have made any difference to the Battle of the Atlantic because it was unable to operate in packs. It was purely designed to defend itself. He continues to say that Schnorkeling boats cannot operate in packs.

so, what you say is you just have to build a radio antenna coupled to the periscope (or the schnorkel ... but more usefull on the periscope for this kind of ship) isn't it ?
well ... that's a minor problem, and it should have been resolved ... if XXI had made the war ... and fortunatly they didn't.

[OKO]

Originally Posted by Dantenoc

Acording to this site: http://www.oldsubsplace.com/Sub%20Statistics.htm , 288 U.S. submarines made a total of 1,692 patrols during WWII, in which they sunk 5,053,491 tons of merchant shipping and 577,626 tons of enemy warships.

(5,053,491 + 577,626)/288 = 19,552.4896

That's to say, on average, every single U.S. sub that actively participated in the war effort gave the allies a return of about 19,552 enemy tons going down

On the german side we have a total of 863 U-boats on operational use (actively participating in the war effort), and quoting Dan's figure of 14,500,000 tons sunk by them, we get:

14,500,000 / 863 = 16,801.854

So, on average, every german U-boat that actively participated in the war effort gave the axis a return of about 16,802 enemy tons sent to the deep.

So allready the U.S. comes out on top, and we haven't yet taken into acount that U.S. involvement in war was shorter than Germany's, or the fact that these numbers still don't reflect the fact that Allied merchant shipping bounced back with vigor from their sinkings, while the Japanese had their fleet practicaly wiped out (which leads us to the very tempting conclusion that the U.S. could have sunk even more ships if there had been more ships to sink!)

P.S.: And I must stress the fact that I did make a misleading first post by mistake, and I thank you for your caring watchfulness

If US submarines had operated on the atlantic battle, against allies, they probably couldn't have made half the score of the german boats
Remember japanese were really far from beeing as efficient as allies in ASW war ...
Anyway US submarines were designed for a very different theatre, waaaay less stressy and dangerous than the Uboats one.
I didn't said japanese was bad at ASW or US bad as submarine builder during WWII, I said that the theatre was much bigger and the japanese ASW means far less important than the allies one.
To be complete, if german Uboats had operated in pacific, they also couldn't have made the US results ...

IMHO, german boats (especially the type IX) were a bit more versatile than US couterparts at this period.
but who cares about versatility at this time ?
At this time, a platform should have been made especially for the theatre where it will operate. That's why german and US subs are so differents.

But there is so much difference beetween older submarines and Type XXI ...

Beeing a XXI commander should had give you the real feeling of the power at this time.
If you know how to use the XXI advantages, you just couldn't be stopped, harrassing the convoy until you are out of torpedoes and evading deep when you finished your devastation.
If you are detected, you just have to pass under the convoy at 15 knts to be on the other side to complete the job.
This platform could have been the absolute nightmare of the allies if it was released earlier.
Not able to win the war, but able to make it longer.
Imagine the D day with 50 XXI around ...

sorry for 4 posts instead of one ...

[DanCanovas]

Originally Posted by OKO

so, what you say is you just have to build a radio antenna coupled to the periscope (or the schnorkel ... but more usefull on the periscope for this kind of ship) isn't it ?
well ... that's a minor problem, and it should have been resolved ... if XXI had made the war ... and fortunatly they didn't.

im telling you what Erich Topp has said. Not what I said. And the XXI being the blueprint for post-war submarine development is not a reason for saying it would have changed the Battle of the Atlantic. The role of the submarine changed after the war.