Which sub force was better in WWII (USA or German)

[pauk]

Aren't all post-war conventional subs based on german design from WW II?

[mdiehl]

The US subs (like the US Sherman tanks) were "good enough" and once a reasonable design was there the goal was more with some incremental improvements, not constantly changing designs.

No, that's the wrong analogy. US subs were not, in re quality and durability, to German subs as M4s were to PzVs or whatever. US boats were in many ways better than German boats. A typical US fleet boat had 6 forward and 4 aft tubes, with reloads for all. That compares with the Type VII -- 4 forward and 1 aft tub, and Type IX -- 4 forward and 2 aft tubes. The US fleet boats had longer range than all of those. In practical terms, this meant that if the Germans had sailed against the UK in US fleet boats, submarines would have had to make fewer treks through waters heavily patrolled by aircraft. US fleet boats displaced more, making them slower divers especially in comparison with the Type VII, but US fleet boats were hands down more comfortable (they even had air conditioning), which tended to keep morale high. They were comparable underwater, but a Type IX IIRC could make better speed on the surface. Not too surprsising given the size differences.

[mdiehl]

Wargamers tend to focus on details of hardware specs rather than how the whole weapons system fits into naval or air or land doctrine and into the available resources. They tend to pick a tank with a 152 mm cannon rather than one with a 150 mm cannon because (to paraphrase Nigel Tuffnel in Spinal Tap) "this cannon goes to 152" rather than thinking that the 150 mm cannon will get about the same effect at 1/2 the cost so you have twice as many tanks.

Some wargames. That of course has a lot to do with the fact that most games are tactical level and logistics is not a factor. Most strategy games do not delve deep enough into the technical details to observe a difference between a 150mm and a 152mm.

[SpitfireIX]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

The US subs (like the US Sherman tanks) were "good enough" and once a reasonable design was there the goal was more with some incremental improvements, not constantly changing designs.

No, that's the wrong analogy. US subs were not, in re quality and durability, to German subs as M4s were to PzVs or whatever. US boats were in many ways better than German boats. A typical US fleet boat had 6 forward and 4 aft tubes, with reloads for all. That compares with the Type VII -- 4 forward and 1 aft tub, and Type IX -- 4 forward and 2 aft tubes. The US fleet boats had longer range than all of those. In practical terms, this meant that if the Germans had sailed against the UK in US fleet boats, submarines would have had to make fewer treks through waters heavily patrolled by aircraft. US fleet boats displaced more, making them slower divers especially in comparison with the Type VII, but US fleet boats were hands down more comfortable (they even had air conditioning), which tended to keep morale high. They were comparable underwater, but a Type IX IIRC could make better speed on the surface. Not too surprsising given the size differences.

Good observations--I just got onto this thread, and I was wondering if anyone was going to mention the issue of diving speed--if U-boats had been slow divers like the US fleet boats, many more would have been lost to air attacks.

One point that hasn't really been addressed, though, is that fact that the Type VII and Type IX could dive much deeper than even the reinforced Gato class could--around 700 feet, as opposed to 400 feet for the improved Gatos.

Another factor that I don't think anyone has mentioned is the advantage that codebreaking gave to US subs in the Pacific. The Japanese Merchant Fleet Code JN40 had been completely broken by 1943--US subs were able to know the composition, sailing times, routes, and escorts of Japanese convoys from that point forward.

[spence]

Just for kicks went to the Combined Fleet website and went through the operational histories of all the larger Japanese ships to see how many were sunk by subs: The USN subs sank 4 big CVs, 4 CVEs, 1 BB, 3 CAs and 9 CLs. I think the Brits got a CA and a CL. Didn't check the DDs but I know that quite a few were sunk by submarines. Pretty good percentage of the IJN.

[juliet7bravo]

The USN Fleet Boats were nothing more than incremental improvements over their pre-war Tambor class subs. Good boats, but nothing really new or spectacular. In fact, the earlier boats were patterned after WW1 U-boats. Tambor considered the first (almost) Fleet Boat, one reason because it incorporated a separate control room...just like the current German U-boats.

The various German VII class subs weren't their most advanced, just their most prevalent, with 693 built and commissioned. The Germans also produced 193 of their IX+ "Long Range" class subs against the USN building 211(?) Fleet Boats total during WW2...all still with a 750'+ dive depth, or almost 2x the US boats...which is also an indicator of their relative durability. With 10 torperdoes stored externally, they also had a larger torpedo loadout than USN boats. All of these subs were smaller than their USN counterparts, faster, faster dive rates, and a greater max depth.

USN subs are generally considered to be far superior to IJN subs for exactly the same reasons...because they were (generally) smaller, faster, faster dive rates, and a greater max depth. Given that the difference between USN and IJN subs is less than that between the USN and U-boats, I'd have to speculate that even moderate improvement of IJN ASW capabilities would have had some serious implications for USN Fleet Boats.

The Germans also built and commissioned 193 XXI (900+ dive depth) and XXIII class subs, which were superior by an order of magnitude over any existing boats. Few, however, saw service prior to wars end.

[mdiehl]

One point that hasn't really been addressed, though, is that fact that the Type VII and Type IX could dive much deeper than even the reinforced Gato class could--around 700 feet, as opposed to 400 feet for the improved Gatos.

No that's not right. 150m rated depth for the Type VII-IX vs 300 feet rated depth ("Test Depth") with emergency depth for the early Gatos was 450 feet. Late Gatos, Balaos and Tenches test depth 400 feet and emergency depth 600 feet. The latter are plenty good against any navy in WW2. Of course, a boat at 600+ feet is unlikely to be hit by anything and more than usual difficult to detect because of thermals and so forth.

see, for example: http://www.fleetsubmarine.com/balao-class.html

[mdiehl]

...all still with a 750'+ dive depth, or almost 2x the US boats...which is also an indicator of their relative durability.

Factually incorrect as stipulated above. About 150 feet depth advantage over the late Gatos, Tenches and Balaos. Crush depth does not equate with durability at all. Displacement is a big factor. The bigger the volume and the more compartmentation within, the better chance a crippled sub has to surface in the short window when things start to go bad but are not irrecoverably bad. Another big factor is the storage capacity of compressed air bottles and systems redundancy. One of the reasons why the US fleet boats were tough as rocks was because they were very redundant and had LOTS of air bottle pressure for emergency surface.

Whether the US boats were much more durable the German ones I can't say. There are certainly plenty of examples of US boats taking a serious pounding and escaping, and good examples for the German ones too. I do not accept at face value anyone's claim that the Typ VIIs or Type IX were "more durable" or damage resilient or whatever than US fleet boats.

The Type XXI was the best boat that never was. A wonderful also ran footnote to be included in any history of WW2 submarines, discussed perhaps after one investigates in detail the contributions of the Soviet, Italian, and Polish submarine fleets.

[juliet7bravo]

Whatever. I'm uninterested in playing "Amerika Uber Alles" with you.

[mdiehl]

Whatever. I'm uninterested in playing "Amerika Uber Alles" with you.

There is nothing "Amerika Uber Alles" in noting that the German submarines never had 2x the dive depth of American submarines (caveat, other than the S and R classes of the 1920s). Of course if the facts don't matter to you, then anyone who argues against your position on the basis of facts will be 'biased.'

And yeah, when I said...

That does not sound ballpark correct to me. If I remember right the USN subs accounted for *something like* 5M tons give or take 2M. And again if I remember right the Kriegsmarine accounted for some 17M tons, give or take a couple million. That's merchant vessels of course. USN subs were far more effective against warships than German subs or anyone else's for that matter in gross tonnage sunk. Ship per ship I'd be surprised if the German subs did not sink more tonnage of all kinds than the US subs... if for no other reason than that by late 1944 the US subs were running out of merchant targets.

that was clear evidence of my "Allied Fanboyism Amerika Uber Alles" attitude. Because when I stipulated that the German submarines sank more tonnage and possibly more ships per boat, it was part of my secret, ultra devious plan to confuse the argument by making the Germans seem better than a real Amerika Uber Alles type would care to admit, thereby making my other claim:

I'm going with the US subs being better but the Germans being far more effective at the merchant war for the first half. I agree that the comparison is almost impossible given the strategic differences between the Pacific and the Atlantic and the relative ASW capabilities of the various surface forces.

..seem all the more plausible. Which is part of the secret Amerika Uber Allies agenda because, as everyone knows, avoiding overstating a claim pointing out that the comparison is complex, nuanced, and does not lead itself readily to a particular deterministically statable answer is tantamount to saying "The Germans sucked."

P.S., Dork, it's spelled "America" and the most prevalent language is English, not Hollywood-other-speak. Your odd spellingcraft says more about your mind set than anyone else's.

[Tiornu]

As is usually the case with statistics, it is very difficult to compare across international lines with regard to dive time and diving depth. Many navies would have three depth figures for their subs, but the precise definition for each criterion might be different. The same goes for dive time--what starting and ending conditions apply?
I think it's pretty well established that the Germans were ahead of everybody else in submarine hull structure. On the other hand, American machinery was probably more resilient, though I don't know how to quantify that. American quietness standards were also higher, according to Friedman.

[pmelheck1]

I don't think compairing hardware matters very much at all. U-boats and US subs were both effective at sinking ships. Both allies and axis had effective torps, although early war U.S. sub torps. sucked they still sank ships. Both Axis and Allied subs were expertly manned and employed by there crews. Germany may have pulled the rope tighter than the allies but then it had to let it go. The U.S. was able to keep a steadier pressure on Japan. I think the most telling factor was their employment by higher command. How good a rifle a soldier has can get him out of a scrap but it is how he is used with the rest of his division that wins or loses battles. The allied blockade of Japan was much better than the German blockade of England. At the end of the war the Japanese navy didn't have enough fuel for normal ops. I don't remember the 8th Air Force being grounded due to U-Boats sinking their fuel. There are factors that do come into play to blunt effectiveness. Both the Allies and Axis improved there ASW during the war but the allied improvments were worlds better in terms of underwater detection (can't sink um if you can't find um) and underwater weapons (ahead thrown weapons were wonderful, Japan just made bigger depth charges). Tactics also evolved, for example the use of long range bombers and radar to find and attack subs and the use of radar to find targets for the subs. Again however the allies were better in the research area. Wolfpacks for me are a two edged sword. Just as convoys make a target rich enviornment for subs so wolf packs make a target rich enviornment for escorts The German sub fleet over the war wasn't nearly as effective as the U.S. / U.K. subs fleets were. On one side were how the sub was used by higher command and it's doctrine and tactics for sub warfare. On the other was the ASW of the enemy and their doctrine and tactics for ASW. It doesn't matter if you have the best rifle in the world if your shooting at the wrong target. It also doesn't matter if you have the best rifle in the world if your enemy can deflect your shot. I think the sailors of both navies were brave men doing their best, but that the allies better utilized there fleet against the enemy(which is what it is for after all). Just my 2 cents...

[DrewMatrix]

How good a rifle a soldier has can get him out of a scrap but it is how he is used with the rest of his division that wins or loses battles.

Hoc verum est.

And the doctrine and tactics used by the Germans and the Allies were each designed around the very different battles in the Atlantic and Pacific.

[Mike Scholl]

What it basically boils down to is that the Germans faced first-class opposition
in doctrine, skill, science, and production. The US faced forth-class opposition
without the ability to do much improving. So the US could bumble about repai-
ring their difficulties and eventually pounding the Japs to snot, The Germans
were in a race to try to stay effective long enough to accomplish thier goals.
They couldn't keep up..., and lost. Trying to compare the two is almost impos-
sible because only one faced any meaningful opposition.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

What it basically boils down to is that the Germans faced first-class opposition
in doctrine, skill, science, and production. The US faced forth-class opposition
without the ability to do much improving. So the US could bumble about repai-
ring their difficulties and eventually pounding the Japs to snot, The Germans
were in a race to try to stay effective long enough to accomplish thier goals.
They couldn't keep up..., and lost. Trying to compare the two is almost impos-
sible because only one faced any meaningful opposition.

Exactly![&o]

[juliet7bravo]

Yeah, sure...whatever.

[juliet7bravo]

What it basically boils down ect.

Yep...I think that covers it pretty succinctly.

[SpitfireIX]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

One point that hasn't really been addressed, though, is that fact that the Type VII and Type IX could dive much deeper than even the reinforced Gato class could--around 700 feet, as opposed to 400 feet for the improved Gatos.

No that's not right. 150m rated depth for the Type VII-IX vs 300 feet rated depth ("Test Depth") with emergency depth for the early Gatos was 450 feet. Late Gatos, Balaos and Tenches test depth 400 feet and emergency depth 600 feet. The latter are plenty good against any navy in WW2. Of course, a boat at 600+ feet is unlikely to be hit by anything and more than usual difficult to detect because of thermals and so forth.

see, for example: http://www.fleetsubmarine.com/balao-class.html

Can you show some other sources for U-boats and Gatos? I have several that have max depth for the improved Gato at 400, and 720-750 for Type VII and Type IX.

[Belce]

I agree Ron, and that first class opposition was the RCN. [;)]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Belce

I agree Ron, and that first class opposition was the RCN. [;)]

Right again![:D]