US subs performance vs U-boat performance.

[DanCanovas]

well ive decided to take it upon myself to try and learn a little more about US WW2 subs in preparation for SH4. I have to say, my knowledge in this area is somewhat limited most likely caused by my geographical location. This may have led to my keen interest in the European Theatre and in particular the battle of the atlantic. Up until now I have to say, that if someone gave me 2 pics, i couldnt tell the difference between a Gato and a Balao class boat!

Anyway after a brief effort to somewhat correct this i noticed that the main difference between U-boats and US Boats was as follows and I welcome any corrections.

1. US Boats (Gato, Balao and Tench) seemed to have more tubes that German boats.
2. US boats seemed to have longer operational ranges in comparison to the Type VII. This was obviously necessary due to the size of the area in question.
3. US boats had the capability to go slightly faster both surfaced and submerged than their German counterparts.
4. German boats seemed to have considerably more flexibility in terms of depth. Figures Ive pulled from several sites show that maximum operational depth for a Balao or Tench was about 120m. Please note im comparing the sort of maximum depths not normal everyday operating depths.
5. US Boats are uglier than there German counterparts. If you found this thread boring then you wont have got this far :rotfl:

[Frenssen]

The boats were so different so it`s hard to compare. I think it`s wrong to say one boat was better thamn the other. They all had their pros and cons.

[DanCanovas]

thats what ive tried to point out, I dont think I came to any conclusions about which were better, I certainly wasnt meant to give that impression. they were both strong in their own areas. This is purely a technical comparison.

[Nightmare]

Originally Posted by DanCanovas

1. US Boats (Gato, Balao and Tench) seemed to have more tubes that German boats.

Correct, those three classes carried 6 forward tubes and 4 aft tubes. The Germans u-boats carried 4 forward and 1 aft (or 2 in IX class). The US boats carried more torpedoes and had a more sophisticated TDC than their German counterparts.

2. US boats seemed to have longer operational ranges in comparison to the Type VII. This was obviously necessary due to the size of the area in question.

The US Fleet submarines had longer cruising ranges than most of the IX class.

3. US boats had the capability to go slightly faster both surfaced and submerged than their German counterparts.

This is correct, but only by several knots.

4. German boats seemed to have considerably more flexibility in terms of depth. Figures Ive pulled from several sites show that maximum operational depth for a Balao or Tench was about 120m. Please note im comparing the sort of maximum depths not normal everyday operating depths.

Generally the u-boats had a deeper diving depth across the board. However the Balao class had a thicker pressure hull than the Gatos. In his book Clear the Bridge Richard O’Kane (USS Tang) stated they took the boat down below 600 feet. I believe the US submarines had a wider safety margin in diving depth than what is stated by the builders.

5. US Boats are uglier than there German counterparts. If you found this thread boring then you wont have got this far :rotfl:

This is purely subjective, as I prefer how the US submarines looked. Especially when their conning towers were cut down to make them harder to spot on the surface.

As Frenssen said, they both had their pros and cons. Both has two completely different build philosophy due to the different challenges in each theater.

[donut]

raiding Turk atol in USN GATO,My gaming desire,what fun.

[Hitman]

Different boats for different purposes.....

The US subs had to travel thousands of miles before they arrived to their patrol zones in the vast Pacific Ocean, so they are more to be compared with a german long range Type IX/D2 than to any other U-Boot.

In a face to face comparison between a Balao and a IX/D2 (Both ships available appeared around 1943), you note that:

-Maximum diving depths is similar, with slight advantage for the IXD2 (Talking here about REAL crush depth, not factory specs)

-Slight speed advantage for the US sub (Surfaced & submerged)

-Armament advantage for the US sub (Both deck gun and 4 extra torpedo tubes)

-Huge electronics advantage for the US sub (Radar with PPI)

-Range advantage for the US sub

U-Boots are beautiful, and specially the Type VII was a masterpiece at the beginning of the war (Like its WW1 predecessor the UB-III), but let's face it: The US never attempted to do such a mid-size sub, so comparisons agains that one are not fair.

I would also like to remark that unlike the germans, the americans had little need for further development of their subs after the war started, because 1) They already had better electronics than the germans, and 2) Japanese ASW was not as good as the allied one. Note however that japanese convoys had less ships and much more escorts, so it still was a VERY challenging affair to engage them.

[Camaero]

Well I learned a thing or two new. Heres to SHIV being as good or better than SHIII!

[DanCanovas]

my interest lies in the atlantic and med but i think SH4 will improve upon SH3 in terms of graphics and gameplay. really looking forward to it

[CCIP]

I think it's fair to say that the US fleet boats were just that - fleet boats built on an entirely different design philosophy, whereas German U-boats were, on the other hand, purpose-built Atlantic commerce-raiding vessels. It's a bit unfair to compare them.

Ironically, the U-boats lost a war where they did exactly what they were built for, whereas the US subs won a type of battle they weren't designed for :hmm:

[JSF]

After reading this thread I guess I felt the need to post some ideas which came to mind regarding some of the differences which caused Germany to take submarine technology down a different path from the US. Both countries started out building subs which for the most part were considered coastal defence and as such were primarily designed to operate in the lottorals. Also it may be worth noting during the intial stages of submarine development most countries considered the use submarines to be a somewhat cowardly way of waging war and this reason contributed heavily to the diminutive scale of the subs physical dimensions and scope of operations.

However once it became clear that the submarine was the most cost effective means of controling the sea lanes, development around this strategy quickly resulted in the designs we have now come to know. Geographically Germany didn't require the use of ultra long range fleet type subs until the US entered the war. On the other hand the US was well aware of the threat Japan posed to US interest throughout the Pacific region as early as Theodore Roosevelt's presidency.

Two different philosophies one purpose in mind. Both equaliy effective but techology on the US front proved to be the determining factor as well as a decidedly higher quality management of the available resources. US submarines forces amounted to 1.9% of the US Navy however they were responsible for sinking 52% of all Japanese shipping with a loss of 52 units in the process. And that was inspite of prosecuting the war for 2 years with faulty torpedos.

[Onkel Neal]

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.

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

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

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

Not really, they just stopped using magnetic triggers. As it was nicely put in one book, the Germans suddenly ended up with torpedoes that were actually worse than what they had in WWI (WWI torpedoes didn't have magnetic triggers and weren't electric, but they generally had better performance... and with magnetic triggers being faulty, there went the advantage). I believe it was only in late 1942 that the real fix came.

[MadMike]

Let's not forget the compromise of Enigma (by the Poles, British, and eventually U.S) which gave the British and U.S. great insight into neutralizing U-boat operations (same with Ultra against the Japanese).

Yours, Mike

[JSF]

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.

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

German torpedos in the beginning were afflicted with the same problems as the US. And you're correct that it took the US roughly 2 years to produce a reliable torpedo but on the other hand it took Germany the approximate same length of time. But Germany was already at war for 2 years prior to US's entry so you could say they had a head start. Torpedo stowage was another significant difference. Some early US designs experimented with external stowage but this was quickly abandoned in favor of full internal load out. This was not realized in German designs till the revolutionary type XXI appeared.

As Neal pointed out airconditioning was another improvement. It is worth mentioning that crew comfort from the A/C was an unintended consequence. Since fleet boats were being packed with more performance enhancing electronic devices A/C was needed to keep the humidity levels down in an effort to prevent short circuits in the electrical bus.

Again operating in thier own specific theaters both the VIIs and Gatos possessed thier own particular nuances which combined to make each design successful...up to a point. Improvements to the VIIs and IXs were not intiated soon enough to offset technological advances made on behalf of the allies. And reference must be made again about the lack of total quality leadership on the part of the Kreigsmarine.

[Dantenoc]

US subs where a resounding success in the war, sinking way more tonnage than the U-boats ever did, however, this is often paid little attention to because their success is completely eclipsed by the succes of the aircraft carriers. In contrast, outside of the U-boats, the rest of the german navy didn't do zip for the war effort, which makes the U-boat look a hell of a lot better in comparison.

...or something along those lines