What where the differences between American and German Subs?

[SquidB]

Im ready running silent atm and was astonished by the fact the crew had access to fresh bread from the galleys!

Having read other accounts of Submarine warfare from the german perspective it seems the USA's boats were much more comfortable.

In Iron Coffins, it mentions the constant damp and mould on everything. Yet Calvert dosent mention this at all on the USA boats.

I know the Fleet boats were much bigger than the U-boats, but how did the living conditions differ?

:hmm:

[elanaiba]

Most Fleet boats had air conditioning - vital in the Pacific temperatures and solving all humidity problems. This was also important - and thats why it probably was done in the first place - to solve electrical problems/shorts/etc.

[Fincuan]

The Ice cream machine

I ALWAYS repair that first if anything is damaged.

[SquidB]

Thanks for the insight, seems (if you can forget the problems with the torps) Fleet boats were a much nicer place to be.

[AVGWarhawk]

Dan is correct. The American subs had air conditioning. This help in reducing condensation but also was great for storing food. Just like todays refrigerators. In the galley, below deck is a large storage area that was kept cool. So meats, eggs, milk, etc would stay fresh for a long time. Sometime they resorted to powdered milk after the fresh stores were used. Water was made onboard but this was mostly used for the batteries and drinking. Onc could shower or do laundry but that did not happen often.

[ReallyDedPoet]

Similar thread, may give you some more insight : Here


RDP

[SquidB]

Thanks again Guys.

I didnt think the ice cream machine was serious! lol talk about home comforts

[Rockin Robbins]

American subs carried enough firepower to battle to get the job done. U-Boats were always crippled by a lack of torpedo tubes. Americans were very good at copying captured German torpedoes: so good they copied their defects too! The Germans fixed theirs long before we did. American subs because of their conning towers, were deeper at periscope depth and so less likely to broach the surface, bringing quick death to all on board.

Finally, American subs produced victory, where it is very debatable whether German subs helped or hurt their war effort. I am inclined to come down on the theory that the use of German subs necessitated fighting the United States, and that was the end of the war for the Germans. The submarines also made them fight the British, and the Germans may not have had to fight them either. In any event, the German submarines did not produce victory. The American ones did.

[OKO]

In any event, the German submarines did not produce victory. The American ones did.

japanese prosecution of US subs was FAR less effective than the one of the allies against german subs.

Just nothing to compare.

If you have had the same destroyer/sub ratio as in alantic, the US subs would have suffered the same kind of desaster as German subs during the late war.

Because the boats were nearly the same (considering global performances)
Even if german boat could dive deeper, the american ship could cruise speeder under see and were a lot more "confortable" (if you could say that about these kind of boats !)

I don't think anyone could say US submariners were better than germans one, especially at the beginning of the war, were german were better trained and US doctrine was inadequate (because of the lost of the surface fleet they were supposed to "escort" a bit in front of them).

Both nations had very valuable crews and boats.

But Axes just couldn't handled the US production capacity, in no matter.
Japanese underestimated the reaction of USA after pearl harbor, and that's why a frog like me can talk to you from a free country.

[msalama]

In any event, the German submarines did not produce victory. The American ones did.

Well actually neither did, because the Allied victory was ultimately secured by land battles fought by the Americans in the Pacific, and the Russians in Eastern Europe...

[Sodabob]

First on this is my first post here in this Forum and i greet all fellow subers...:-)

the best book about the life on German U-Boats is
Das Boot: The Boat

by Lothar-Günther Buchheim


and also the Movie.

just to say: one Bed for two people....


Sodabob

[Dread Knot]

Originally Posted by msalama

Well actually neither did, because the Allied victory was ultimately secured by land battles fought by the Americans in the Pacific, and the Russians in Eastern Europe...

I can't think of too many American land battles in the Pacific that would have been possible without naval power. Including submarines to sink the enemy carriers as happened in the Marianas battles for example. Not to mention sinking a fair number of troop ships bearing reinforcements for Guam and Saipan long before the actual battle was joined. Pairing down the number of hulls Japan had to transfer troops from China and Japan to threatened areas in the Pacific went a long way in easing victory in the land battles. Now Burma...that's a different matter.

[tater]

Originally Posted by msalama

Well actually neither did, because the Allied victory was ultimately secured by land battles fought by the Americans in the Pacific, and the Russians in Eastern Europe...

USN submarines played a substantial role in the defeat of Japan. Japan waged war against the US/UK(incl. Commonwealth)/Dutch in order to secure oil to continue their war in China. The utter failure of the IJN to secure their routes of transport and communication from the fringes of the Empire to Japan itself hastened their defeat.

In terms of the KM and U-Boats vs the Allies, yes, they had a harder time, but it should have been obvious to them that the U-Boat war was a waste of resources after a while. German intelligence (the whole Axis, really) consistently failed to accurately estimate enemy capability, particularly logistical capability. Had they bothered to try, they'd have quickly realized they simply could not possibly sink ships fast enough to make a difference.

As far as the difference in ASW capability each side faced, one CRITICAL factor usually gets overlooked in such arguments in favor of the nitty-gritty technology used to prosecute individual targets (forward DC throwers, etc). That is the doctrine of the target sub force.

KM and IJN submarine doctrines were fatally flawed, and they played a terrible price for it. Both shared the same problem—THEY TALKED TOO MUCH. Their commo doctrines were abysmal. Both forces used centralized control. Both forces had their chatty submarines on the radio all the time calling home. Both sides were accurately DFed and tracked (even without code breaking). Both forces had their codes compromised, though the code is really secondary to the DFing. Allied forces (convoys, etc) were then intentionally steered around the subs. Allied ASW assets were then steered towards the subs (including allied subs themselves in many cases in the PTO). I don't think you can weight this enough. Had the Ubootwaffe been a "silent service" they would not have suffered nearly the loss rate they did, IMO. The tonnage sunk would have been lower, perhaps, mostly due to lack of wolfpacks.

I bet they'd still have sunk more ships if for no other reason that their were simply far far more targets for them.

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by tater

I don't think you can weight this enough. Had the Ubootwaffe been a "silent service" they would not have suffered nearly the loss rate they did, IMO. The tonnage sunk would have been lower, perhaps, mostly due to lack of wolfpacks.

Exactly my point. American submarines would not have suffered the losses that the Germans did in the same anti-sub environment. They were silent and American codes were not breakable without learning the Navaho language first. Plus the greater firepower from American subs would have made them more effective.

In any event, the presence of the U-Boat in the Atlantic removed the option of making peace with the UK and guaranteed war with the US. Germany couldn't handle the British, much less the Americans. Without the U-Boats, they would have been much stronger on land and could have maintained peace with both of the enemies who eventually destroyed the Wehrmacht. With submarines, Germany could not win the war. Without, there were multiple ways to win.

How in the WORLD does someone credit the Russians for any part of the US victory against the Japanese? At best, Marshall Zhukov gave the Japanese a bloody nose and lit out for the German front. The battle had no effect on the war as a whole.

The war was won by the US Navy's ability to starve the Japanese from supplies necessary to maintain their military and build replacements for anything. Japanese island strongholds could not be resupplied or reinforced because American submarines and aircraft carriers made that impossible.

[tater]

The Soviets certainly played a huge role in the defeat of Germany. That said, a huge amount of war materiel used by the Soviets came from... the USA. Almost 60% of their highly refined petroleum products came from the US, for example (can you say "aviation gas?").

Soviet advances would have been far less easy under a virtually unopposed Luftwaffe, even giving "General Winter" his due.

It would be interesting to imagine the vast majority of U-Boats attempting to exclusively interdict tankers for Russia, keeping just enough boats elsewhere so that the allies could not put all ASW assets North. Of course they'd need to have made such a plan, then they'd have needed to shut the hell up about it, and tell the subs to stop using their radios like teenage girls on the phone

Regarding the sub war vs the IJN, this is also important. German subs did effectively no damage to Allied naval capability at all. USN subs, while practicing "unrestricted" warfare, also sank or heavily damaged many significant warships—warships were critical to the IJN's (completely wrong-headed) Mahanian strategy for winning a "decisive battle."