Who had the best submarines in wwII?

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

A really interesting debate has evolved here.

A little teaser if you like....meant as a potential means to broaden the discussion further:

Would or should success or quality or whatever be measured or have a weighting factor when consideration is given to which submarines sunk the most tonnage?

Should quality be measured in tandem to sinking successes?

That is a good question Jim but the uboats got a head start on the action therefore tonnage would be higher for the uboats. Do you concur?

EDIT: If I had to choose between the two and go on patrol, Tench for me. I'm extremely impartial in this matter but that is expected.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

That is a good question Jim but the uboats got a head start on the action therefore tonnage would be higher for the uboats. Do you concur?

EDIT: If I had to choose between the two and go on patrol, Tench for me. I'm extremely impartial in this matter but that is expected.

Not losing site of the fact we are comparing apples with pears.....I'd probably err on the side of a pro rata formula with regard to tonnage figures, but taking into account all the differing dynamics and factors I doubt it would ever be possible to agree on such a broad and widely diverse topic.

Basing my opinion on what I have read regarding both the ATO and PTO the only fair conclusion I can come to is a recognition that both submarine arms were relatively successful at what they set out and were designed to do.....the only difference being one accomplished well at the beginning whilst the other did similarly at the end.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

Not losing site of the fact we are comparing apples with pears.....I'd probably err on the side of a pro rata formula with regard to tonnage figures, but taking into account all the differing dynamics and factors I doubt it would ever be possible to agree on such a broad and widely diverse topic.

Basing my opinion on what I have read regarding both the ATO and PTO the only fair conclusion I can come to is a recognition that both submarine arms were relatively successful at what they set out and were designed to do.....the only difference being one accomplished well at the beginning whilst the other did similarly at the end.

And I sir, will drink to that conclusion!

[Peto]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

Not losing site of the fact we are comparing apples with pears.....I'd probably err on the side of a pro rata formula with regard to tonnage figures, but taking into account all the differing dynamics and factors I doubt it would ever be possible to agree on such a broad and widely diverse topic.

Well said! There are so many factors involved that it would be nearly impossible to create a formula everyone would agree with.

Originally Posted by jimbuna

Basing my opinion on what I have read regarding both the ATO and PTO the only fair conclusion I can come to is a recognition that both submarine arms were relatively successful at what they set out and were designed to do.....the only difference being one accomplished well at the beginning whilst the other did similarly at the end.

A reasonable statement .

My only argument along these lines is that the u-boat arm never really had a chance from the beginning (not enough boats to accomplish the envisioned strategy). They were naver able to seriously threaten the UK. In fact, year-by-year statistics reveal that UK's merchant fleet grew every year of the war, replacements and new builds from many sources were always more than the losses they suffered from u-boats. But this wasn't a problem caused by the u-boats or their crews. It really came down to leasing shipping, aquiring shipping from other lost/threatened nations and the US' industrial capacity. They were handed a broken strategy at the beginning. What would they have been able to accomplish if they would have had 300 boats? Much more than they did without a doubt!

Cheers!

[Torplexed]

Found an interesting article on the web which compares the performances of the various WW2 sub fleets, not the submarine themselves. Basically he ranked them by comparing a ratio of tonnage destroyed to subs destroyed. I have no idea how accurate the numbers are though.

http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/macslog/TheRol...arineinWo.html

[Peto]

That's an interesting link. Thank You for posting it!!!

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Torplexed

Found an interesting article on the web which compares the performances of the various WW2 sub fleets, not the submarine themselves. Basically he ranked them by comparing a ratio of tonnage destroyed to subs destroyed. I have no idea how accurate the numbers are though.

http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/macslog/TheRol...arineinWo.html

Great link Torplexed

The write up in that article IMHO was really excellent, it approaches the subject from many angles, allowing each indivudal theorist to consider the facts from their own perspective and more or less supports everything already said on this thread.

[kaptkirkU4467]

Originally Posted by Synthfg

Does anyone here have a decent summary of soviet sub activity in the war ?

My book for the USSR subs is "Submarines of WWII" by Erminio Bagnasco
Covers all boats used by everyone.
They were on the most part M class,Shch class,K and S class with some prewar L and D class....S class being the best.*based on the Turk "Gur" built in Spain.*

The USSR was the only country to have fewer boats at the end of the war then it had at the start.
Best opening kill:
Shch 307 sinks U 144 on 8/9/41.

[Pvt. Public]

from a technical aspect a admire the germans handywork, they achieved some amazing breakthroughs in technology. but if i had to choose any sub (excluding the XXI since its not fair to the rest) i would take a tench or balao. mainly because it is fast, has lots of destructive power, and most important in my mind are the crew comforts. a happy crew performs better under stress!

[Task Force]

I have a hard time decideing which boat was best, because they worked in different enviornments, and conditions.

U boats had it get progressivly harder on them, and had multiple nations working against them, also had technology from the allies get worse on them/ air power that made them caused alot of problems.

The us boats had it harder at the begining of the war. Faulty torpedos and other things made them have issues, but as the war went by things got somewhat easyer, and working conditions got better. Because the japanease wernt as advances as the allies when it comes to anti sub warfare.

So in my opinion nither sub was realy that much better than the other, there working conditions, and enviornments were different.

Things swhiched off, uboats got it harder, and fleet boats got it alittle easyer, and better technology.

[UpLateAgain]

Originally Posted by Platapus

The maximum diving depth of the Me-109 sucked. It was able to dive quickly but once fully submerged it took forever to surface again.

The maneuverability of the Type VII stunk too. Split-s and Immelman's were awkward and ineffective.

And don't forget.. the 109's cannon had an extremely limited range when submerged and its SONAR capabilities were nonexistent. Pretty good visibility though.......

[Sailor Steve]

Your very first post is to resurrect a year-and-a-half-old thread to add to a bad joke? Interesting introduction.

Still, I don't want to discourage you so WELCOME ABOARD!

[Jimbuna]

[QUOTE=Sailor Steve;1559071]Your very first post is to resurrect a year-and-a-half-old thread to add to a bad joke? Interesting introduction.

Still, I don't want to discourage you so WELCOME ABOARD! [/QUO TE]
I was wondering that when I recognised the thread title

[Hitman]

Your very first post is to resurrect a year-and-a-half-old thread to add to a bad joke? Interesting introduction.

Still, I don't want to discourage you so WELCOME ABOARD!

LOL don't be so hard with him Steve, he his just catching up

I hope that's all it is.