Top Ten Submarines....

[danlisa]

I just happened to catch this ranking on Discovery Turbo and some of the boats mentioned might interest you.

The one's that relate to us are:

5th Place - British T Class
4th Place - US Gato
.
.
1st Place - Ger Type VII

The ranking was based on:

Production Ease
Terror Effect
Weaponry
Overall Effectiveness (read tonnage sunk)
Range
Length of Service

While I concur that none of the boats above are actually proper submarines do you agree with the ranking's assessment of these boats?

Discuss.

[jas39]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Templat...ing_submarines

[Kipparikalle]

Hell yeah

[subvers4]

Nice one Danlisa, well spotted. It depends on what you call a " proper submarine " I guess. My own personal opinion is that submarine warfare ( according to effectiveness ), peaked during the second world war. The theory was immaculate, the enemy was an island nation, surrounded by sea, cut off the sea routes and the supply routes are stopped. your enemy is then reduced to a small nation engaged in a siege situation. Provided this is not diluted, it is only a matter of time before you emerge victorious. Patience is a virtue. But as we all know, things can and do change, and success depends on how you adapt to changes. However, the type V11 was a very effective and efficient " bogey man ". Perfect for the period, and type of warfare it was used for.

[JU_88]

Glad to see the ol' T class up there, they certainly 'out gunned' their US and German counterparts - the 1st group T class could fire a whopping spread of 10 torpedos if they wanted....

If im not mistaken there were really 3 major factors that let RN T class subs down;

1) Low surface speed; I dont think any of the WW2 RN subs could achieve more than 14 knots, The 1st group T-class Lost a few knots due to its poor Bow design. The 2nd and 3rd group had the bow redesigned to boost performace - however they also removed the 1st group's some what unreliable bow caps which caused some additional streamlining issues, (but still an improvment overall.)

2) The S-class used oval shaped pressure hulls to accomodate the the 6 internal fore tubes, oval is not a strong as circular - and had a detremental effect on max depth. Not completley sure but I think the T class suffered from the same problem.

3) External Tubes on the T-class were quite unreliable too.

Alot of T-class boats were lost in the Mediteranien, at 84 meters long (thats 3 meters shorter than a type IXD2 Uboat) - they were just too darn big to operate comfortably in those waters. I guess by 1941 there just wasn't enough prey for RN subs in the North sea and Atlantic, so they sent them in to the Med - At least the trip through the Gibaltar straights would have been rather pleasent for British sub crews.

Gotta Love the T-class though

[Umfuld]

Yeah, I've seen that show a few times. It's pretty good.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by subvers4

Nice one Danlisa, well spotted. It depends on what you call a " proper submarine " I guess. My own personal opinion is that submarine warfare ( according to effectiveness ), peaked during the second world war. The theory was immaculate, the enemy was an island nation, surrounded by sea, cut off the sea routes and the supply routes are stopped. your enemy is then reduced to a small nation engaged in a siege situation. Provided this is not diluted, it is only a matter of time before you emerge victorious. Patience is a virtue. But as we all know, things can and do change, and success depends on how you adapt to changes. However, the type V11 was a very effective and efficient " bogey man ". Perfect for the period, and type of warfare it was used for.

Perfect until about 1943....

[looney]

I'd love to see that show.. top 10 submarines.

Ofcourse the no1 can be only 1 the type 7.. Most ppl just know only 1 submarine the 7 or as many call em U-boat.

P.s. In Dutch there are 2 words for submarine:
1 Duikboat (=Dive boat) a vessel wich sails mostly surfaced like the WW2 era ships
2 Onderzeeer ("below sea-er" translated stricktly) New diesel/nuke subs.

[Brag]

I wish I could remember the title or the author. I've read a fantastic book written by the CO of a T type about his experinces in the Med. I particularly liked his descripption of the submarine's systems and explanations of some of the maneuvers.

Maybe someone in this forum knows the book.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Brag

I wish I could remember the title or the author. I've read a fantastic book written by the CO of a T type about his experinces in the Med. I particularly liked his descripption of the submarine's systems and explanations of some of the maneuvers.

Maybe someone in this forum knows the book.

Is it Kemps book?

[subvers4]

Originally Posted by JU_88

Perfect until about 1943....

Precisely my point about adapting to changes. The U-Boot's main attacking strength, and also it's main defence, was stealth. It was not supposed to, or designed to be, a battleship. It was an assassin, silently in, make it's target, then silently out. Trying to make them bigger and more offensive, just defeated the whole point. They were never meant to be a conventional warship. They were ninja, if you like. Their most effective weapon was psychological.

[predavolk]

Or are you thinking of Bryant's book on the S-class?

And that show sucks. They're ratings are completely arbitrary which is what happens when you compare WWI, WW2, Cold War, and Modern subs. That's apples, oranges, bananas, and grapes as far as I'm concerned! I certainly think the Type VII is incredibly important, but I would consider Germany's WWI subs to be a close, or greater, match as they were the initial proof of the effectiveness of submarines. Putting the Sea Wolf at #2 is nice, because it's a gorgeous, extremely capable boat, but it's hardly had any impact on world. Certainly nothing like the WW1 or WW2 ships. Then again, they hardly compare to it in terms of capability. So the whole idea of their scale is porked. And that's about enough ranting for now. :p

[Brag]

Bryant seems to ring a bell (I've read it about 20 years ago).

In my opinion all of these so-called "Best", "Top" or "Greatest" (insert item here) lists are just plain crap. The criteria used is entirely subjective and as noted already, comparing apples to oranges is required as is an ignorance of the conditions under which the boats operated. What about habitability, range, sensors and blah, blah, blah. Using tonnage is a bogus measure and is like saying that Bomber X is better than Bomber Y because Bomber X got the opportunity to drop more bombs in action.

These things are entirely superficial and driven almost solely by fame and popularity.

Good Hunting

[bigboywooly]

Aye tis an interesting read

The IX has the VII beat hands down on the 3 following

Weaponry
Overall Effectiveness (read tonnage sunk)
Range

Of the top 10 most succesfull uboats against merc shipping only one type VII gets in there
Granted tis number 1 AND a VIIB
:rotfl:

But the next 9 are all IXB\IX\IXC

The VII were produced in massive numbers - not sure that was because of ease of manufacture or because thats the size of boat thought best suited for convoy attacks
The long range boats - IX - built in far reduced numbers yet most with very high tonnage returns - almost SH3 tonnage returns

You will never compile a list that will have everyone in agreement