US vs. German subs - which was better?

Schwuppes · 07-04-08, 09:44 PM

Hi!

I'd like to know which Country had the better Subs, the United States or Germany?

From what I have gathered the US Fleet Boats were faster both submerged and surfaced, but the German Boats could dive deeper.
What is the maximum documented diving depth of a US and German boat respectively? I know that Kptl. Heinrich Lehmann Willenbrock took U-96 to 220 meters to evade a group of destroyers.... would this have been possible with a US sub?

But what were the other main advantages and differenences between the US and German submarines?

Hartmann · 07-04-08, 09:59 PM

U.S submarines are better in endurance, speed, life conditions (like the ice cream machine )and a lot of space for the crew. All torpedoes are stored inside of the sub, and 6 tubes in the bow and 4 in the stern, this means a lot more of firepower.

And finally the biggest difference: the superior technology in Radar and radio, it means detect the targets and planes in the distance and know if is aproaching or not, and plot intercept courses in the dark without visual sight.

Geman subs are superior in dive depths and optics. but very limited in ASW tech
(finally decisive in the war)

Sailor Steve · 07-04-08, 11:37 PM

Well, I can't argue with that summation.

Though I'm sure someone will.

_Seth_ · 07-05-08, 01:00 AM

Both the fleet boats and the u-boats were childs of their time, with their technical differences and their main operational theaters. We all know this. At the time they were used, they were the best their country could make. So both types was good, but only good in the setting they were made to perform in.

I agree with Hartmann's excellent statement, it summons it up in details.

Hitman · 07-05-08, 01:36 AM

Apples and Onions

You only can compare a long range Type IXD/2 with a fleet sub, mainly with a Balao (Both the german and american launched in 1943), because the Type VIIC was a much smaller, short range boat designed to operate in packs and closer to the home base. The US boats had to be bigger because they had to go farther -all away across the Pacific- and could not go back quickly to their home bases to refit. They carried therefore a larger load of torpedoes, much more diesel, storage for food and had better living conditions for their crews.

By comparing a Balao and a Type IX/D2, you can notice that:

Type IX/D2 has deeper crush depth
Type IX/D2 has slightly better crash dive times (Only 5 seconds or so)

Balao had higher surface & dived speed
Balao had longer range
Balao had larger torpedo load and bigger guns
Balao had way superior electronics (Radar)

looney · 07-05-08, 02:30 AM

Then again we know that when we play radar is more a magnet to attract the attention of hunter killer groups. Thus radar was nice but imho also very dangerous.

firepower. several convoys got hammered by U-boats. They just took out 1 or 2 ships per day. So 2 torps/ ship was enough mostly. In my book no of tubes isn't that important, it's the number of eels one can carry.

Basically the theater of operations where so different, as where the conditions (winning vs loosing the war). It's impossible to compare both types of subs. Then again I know on which type i wanna be.

The one that brings me home.

Phaedrus · 07-05-08, 10:36 AM

Its a little like asking:

What was better?

A Spitfire or a B-17?

Two different designs, for two very different theatres, and two different missions.

melnibonian · 07-05-08, 10:42 AM

Both types were designed for totally different missions. They both had advantages and disadvantages but they are not comparable. My personal opinion is that the US Boats due to the operation theater were closer to the modern idea of the submarine (long range and endurance) but in terms of performance they were not so far off the German designs. Nevertheless as others said before me you just cannot compare them.

1480 · 07-05-08, 12:12 PM

You could compare the submarines, but not in a head to head competition. You have to come up with subjective categories and evaluate them in each. Not dive times and crush depth but more along the lines of actual patrol time , percentage of machinery malfunctions, down time on refit, sinkings during a patrol etc. to come up with a level field of play. I found it interesting that military channel had their top ten submarine episode, the Gato/Balao came in 3rd and the Type VII came in 1st.

Dowly · 07-05-08, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Its a little like asking:

What was better?

A Spitfire or a B-17?

Two different designs, for two very different theatres, and two different missions.

Messerschmitt 109 :rotfl:

Sailor Steve · 07-05-08, 12:57 PM

Just what I was going to say, Dowly. And as in the case of the submarines, the only possible real answer is: yes.

Schöneboom · 07-05-08, 01:13 PM

Another way of framing the question: If you were being hunted down by Allied ASW units of 1943-44 vintage, which sub would you rather bet your life on? Perhaps the right answer in this case is, "None of the above"!

Hitman · 07-05-08, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Another way of framing the question: If you were being hunted down by Allied ASW units of 1943-44 vintage, which sub would you rather bet your life on?

A russian Kilo class

No WW2 was suited to survive against the highly effective ASW methods developed by 1944 except the Type XXI and XXIII, but those came too late :hmm:

Americans were of course lucky to have the IJN as opponent, but ultimately I insist that the comparison between a Type VII and a fleet boat is impossible. If you don't trust me, then take Pearl Harbor as starting base and go patrol the Japan coast in a Type VII. Sure, you might kill lots of merchants, but you will run out of torpedoes and fuel long before a fleet boat does. And if you want to carry enough torpedoes and fuel to the japanese coast, then you need something way bigger....like a fleet boat

Apples and onions!!

onelifecrisis · 07-07-08, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dowly

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Its a little like asking:

What was better?

A Spitfire or a B-17?

Two different designs, for two very different theatres, and two different missions.

Messerschmitt 109 :rotfl:

Pfft.
How can you even put that Bf109 heap of junk in the same category as the Supermarine Spitfire!?

Yeah yeah, fuel injectors, negative-g's, highest kills of any aircraft, blah blah, boring...
What you really want is eight machineguns superglued to a Merlin.

rifleman13 · 07-07-08, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dowly

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Its a little like asking:

What was better?

A Spitfire or a B-17?

Two different designs, for two very different theatres, and two different missions.

Messerschmitt 109 :rotfl:

Pfft.
How can you even put that Bf109 heap of junk in the same category as the Supermarine Spitfire!?

Yeah yeah, fuel injectors, negative-g's, highest kills of any aircraft, blah blah, boring...
What you really want is eight machineguns superglued to a Merlin.

Like a P-51?:hmm:

07-04-08, 09:44 PM	#1
Schwuppes 中国水兵 Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 279 Downloads: 22 Uploads: 0	US vs. German subs - which was better? Hi! I'd like to know which Country had the better Subs, the United States or Germany? From what I have gathered the US Fleet Boats were faster both submerged and surfaced, but the German Boats could dive deeper. What is the maximum documented diving depth of a US and German boat respectively? I know that Kptl. Heinrich Lehmann Willenbrock took U-96 to 220 meters to evade a group of destroyers.... would this have been possible with a US sub? But what were the other main advantages and differenences between the US and German submarines? __________________ E8400 @ 4.00Ghz standard vCore, Gigabyte P35C DS3R @ 445 Mhz, Leadtek GTX 280, 3 x 1GB Kingston DDR2 800 @ 890Mhz, 250GB +160GB HDD, Terratec DMX 6fire 24/96, Silverstone ST60F 600W, Logitech Z-5500 THX

07-04-08, 09:59 PM	#2
Hartmann Sea Lord Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Grid CH 26, Spain ,Barcelona Posts: 1,857 Downloads: 204 Uploads: 0	U.S submarines are better in endurance, speed, life conditions (like the ice cream machine )and a lot of space for the crew. All torpedoes are stored inside of the sub, and 6 tubes in the bow and 4 in the stern, this means a lot more of firepower. And finally the biggest difference: the superior technology in Radar and radio, it means detect the targets and planes in the distance and know if is aproaching or not, and plot intercept courses in the dark without visual sight. Geman subs are superior in dive depths and optics. but very limited in ASW tech (finally decisive in the war) __________________ But this ship can't sink!... She is made of iron, sir. I assure you, she can. and she will. It is a mathematical certainty. Strength and honor

07-04-08, 11:37 PM	#3
Sailor Steve Eternal Patrol Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: High in the mountains of Utah Posts: 50,369 Downloads: 745 Uploads: 249	Well, I can't argue with that summation. Though I'm sure someone will. __________________ “Never do anything you can't take back.” —Rocky Russo Last edited by Sailor Steve; 01-27-10 at 12:08 PM.

07-05-08, 01:00 AM	#4
_Seth_ Ocean Warrior Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: In Tromsoe, @Tirpitz' final resting place.. Posts: 3,277 Downloads: 94 Uploads: 0	Both the fleet boats and the u-boats were childs of their time, with their technical differences and their main operational theaters. We all know this. At the time they were used, they were the best their country could make. So both types was good, but only good in the setting they were made to perform in. I agree with Hartmann's excellent statement, it summons it up in details. __________________

07-05-08, 01:36 AM	#5
Hitman Pacific Aces Dev Team Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Spain Posts: 6,109 Downloads: 109 Uploads: 2	Apples and Onions You only can compare a long range Type IXD/2 with a fleet sub, mainly with a Balao (Both the german and american launched in 1943), because the Type VIIC was a much smaller, short range boat designed to operate in packs and closer to the home base. The US boats had to be bigger because they had to go farther -all away across the Pacific- and could not go back quickly to their home bases to refit. They carried therefore a larger load of torpedoes, much more diesel, storage for food and had better living conditions for their crews. By comparing a Balao and a Type IX/D2, you can notice that: Type IX/D2 has deeper crush depth Type IX/D2 has slightly better crash dive times (Only 5 seconds or so) Balao had higher surface & dived speed Balao had longer range Balao had larger torpedo load and bigger guns Balao had way superior electronics (Radar) __________________ One day I will return to sea ...

07-05-08, 02:30 AM	#6
looney Commodore Join Date: May 2007 Location: Sneek, The Netherlands Posts: 635 Downloads: 43 Uploads: 0	Then again we know that when we play radar is more a magnet to attract the attention of hunter killer groups. Thus radar was nice but imho also very dangerous. firepower. several convoys got hammered by U-boats. They just took out 1 or 2 ships per day. So 2 torps/ ship was enough mostly. In my book no of tubes isn't that important, it's the number of eels one can carry. Basically the theater of operations where so different, as where the conditions (winning vs loosing the war). It's impossible to compare both types of subs. Then again I know on which type i wanna be. The one that brings me home.

07-05-08, 10:36 AM	#7
Phaedrus A-ganger Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 79 Downloads: 45 Uploads: 0	Its a little like asking: What was better? A Spitfire or a B-17? Two different designs, for two very different theatres, and two different missions.

07-05-08, 10:42 AM	#8
melnibonian Ocean Warrior Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Reading UK Posts: 3,473 Downloads: 90 Uploads: 0	Both types were designed for totally different missions. They both had advantages and disadvantages but they are not comparable. My personal opinion is that the US Boats due to the operation theater were closer to the modern idea of the submarine (long range and endurance) but in terms of performance they were not so far off the German designs. Nevertheless as others said before me you just cannot compare them. __________________ http://www.thegreywolves.com/ http://wolvesatwar.com/ Download GWX and other goodies: http://hosted.filefront.com/melnibonian

07-05-08, 12:12 PM	#9
1480 Lead Slinger Join Date: May 2007 Location: Chitcago, Illinoise Posts: 1,442 Downloads: 74 Uploads: 0	You could compare the submarines, but not in a head to head competition. You have to come up with subjective categories and evaluate them in each. Not dive times and crush depth but more along the lines of actual patrol time , percentage of machinery malfunctions, down time on refit, sinkings during a patrol etc. to come up with a level field of play. I found it interesting that military channel had their top ten submarine episode, the Gato/Balao came in 3rd and the Type VII came in 1st. __________________

07-05-08, 12:57 PM	#11
Sailor Steve Eternal Patrol Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: High in the mountains of Utah Posts: 50,369 Downloads: 745 Uploads: 249	Just what I was going to say, Dowly. And as in the case of the submarines, the only possible real answer is: yes. __________________ “Never do anything you can't take back.” —Rocky Russo

07-05-08, 01:13 PM	#12
Schöneboom Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 651 Downloads: 36 Uploads: 0	Another way of framing the question: If you were being hunted down by Allied ASW units of 1943-44 vintage, which sub would you rather bet your life on? Perhaps the right answer in this case is, "None of the above"! __________________ Dietrich Schöneboom, U-431 "Es wird klappen, Herr Kaleun. Ganz sicher."