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

[madmickey]

The German sunk more tonnage (I did not check the stats), but the American sub blockade was more effective. The Atlantic was a smaller ocean with limited island that could be use for aircraft ASW patrols. The Allied had more escort ships but there were fewer transport lanes then in the Pacific. The Americans performance improved during the war, the Germans relied on radio transmission and headquarter control too much. What are other people opinions?

[Ron Saueracker]

I'd say the Germans would be more effective given an even playing field. US had the benefit of Japanese technical and doctrinal limitations, while the Germans had the reverse.

[Bradley7735]

I've got to agree with Ron. The US subs were historically better at acheiving the strategic goal, but on an even playing field, I bet the Germans would have had a sleight advantage. (hard to admit, being an Allied fanboy)

Another way of saying this would be: If you put the US subs in the Atlantic and told them to sink US shipping, they would have suffered the same fate as the german subs. And, prior to mid 43, they wouldn't have had the successes that the Germans had.

[Admiral DadMan]

Who won the war, baby.

[strawbuk]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735


Another way of saying this would be: If you put the US subs in the Atlantic and told them to sink US shipping, they would have suffered the same fate as the german subs. And, prior to mid 43, they wouldn't have had the successes that the Germans had.

But if you put the Uboats in the Pacific and told them to sink Japanese shipping, they would not have reach most Japanese shipping routes (fuel issues on all but IXs).

[madmickey]

The German sub loses in 1943 and onward was mainly due to using radio transmission (ultra) and the Doentiz did not change his tactics after big loses. The Germans were also better prepared for war. The American had terrible torpedo exploding devices to start the war. Also the Japs shipping lanes should have better air coverage. Did the German ever sink any troop transport.

[Bradley7735]

Hey, I'm not knocking the US Subs. they won the war in the Pacific. But, if they had to defend against the US navy and not the Japanese navy, then they would certainly have been less effective.

I honestly don't know much about the German subs, but I do know they *almost* starved Britain. I still think that in a hypothetical situation, the German subs would have a sleight advantage to US subs. They had good torpedoes all the way through the war. Late war subs seemed to be very good. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think US subs could have defended against the US navy any better than the Germans did.

[juliet7bravo]

I don't think there's much to choose from between the 2. You can't really argue the differences between the boats and equipment as they were designed for different tasks (fleet boats vs. attack subs) for the most part. USN submarine force didn't have the pressures for true innovation the U-boats did. U-boats suffered from Allied intel capabilities as much as anything else. Post-war, most innovation was building upon German and Japanese research...IJN, for example, built the worlds first guppy hulled sub.

Can't really compare tonnage sunk either. By late '44 and '45, the USN had more or less ran out of ships to sink. '45, most of the remaining Japanese shipping was stuck in port because of the aerial mines.

"Another way of saying this would be: If you put the US subs in the Atlantic and told them to sink US shipping, they would have suffered the same fate as the german subs."

Certainly true. Probably worse in fact. I don't think the USN would have tolerated the living conditions and casualty rate in any case. And the late war E-boats were far better than anything the USN had. IIRC one of them actually penetrated a USN carrier TF and did practise attack runs...on its way to surrender. Without being detected.

"And, prior to mid 43, they wouldn't have had the successes that the Germans had."

Germans had their own torpedo issues. Just not as bad, and being able to line Admirals up and shoot them more or less on a whim is admirably conductive to focusing their thinking processes. Dictatorships do have a few advantages under some circumstances. Some of the USN people truely should have been courtmartialed and shot for treason.

[Mike Scholl]

The Krauts (and I am one) were better, hands down. They too started the war with the
"terrific, supersecret, magnetic exploder" for their torpedoes (as did the Brits---wasn't
that much of a secret at all), but after a couple of bad reports from crack skippers
Doenitz dumped them. The US took almost two years to get their torpedoes fully fun-
ctional; the Krauts about two months. The Germans built their boats to fight in the North
Atlantic because that'w where their war would be. The US built it's "Fleet Boats" to fight
in the Pacific because that's where their war would be. Had Germany been in the Pacific
they would have built longer ranged boats. They weren't..., so they didn't.

The real secret of German success was their younger, more aggressive, skippers and
better pre-war tactical thinking. The US finally started going with younger guys in mid-
1943 when they found that too many of the older ones had bought deeply into faulty pre-
war doctrines and couldn't adjust. (Not all the older guys were unaggressive, but too many
proved to be. The Germans faced MUCH stiffer opposition from the get-go than the US did
from the Japanese...and the situation got generally worse for them as the war continued.
The Japanese were "a day late and a dollar short" pretty much the whole war. Yet they
also had much more success from the start. The German U-Boat force had to be actively
BEATEN to end the Atlantic threat. In the Pacific it was much more a case of the US Sub
force getting it's act together and doing away with it's own screw-ups that led to success.

[KPAX]

Couple of things to keep in mind:

1. Pacific Ocean was pretty dang big. Lots of places for the subs to hide, but also, a nice amount of sea to travel as a transports.

2. Wolfpacks had just the opposite. Is that an advantage, not requiring them to travel far, but easier for the allies to concentrate on.

3. Germany had 5 years of real life combat experience prior to the Allies getting involoved. The Allies did pretty good one they had a bit of practice and the torp. issues being resolved.

4. Allies had a lot more and better ASW then Japan had. As us Allied Fanboys know, you concentrate your ASWs and down goes the subs.

[Tankerace]

I'm forced to go with US subs being better.

1) Range. All US subs built after the first 3 V boats (Barracuda class) had an enormous range, which allowed them an endurance of up 90 days. With the exception of the Type IX and Type XXI Uboats, German subs had a max endurance of I believe 60 days, with 45 the typical number. In addition, the majority of Uboats (Type VII) could not reach the US coastline, and indeed had trouble operating for any length of time in the western Atlantic.

2) Both groups had high rates of sinkings, but since US subs had faulty torpedoes throught the war, a claim has been made (by one author, can't remember his name) that "[US submarine] success were in spite of their torpedoes as opposed to because of their torpedoes, which is the German's case"

However, I believe that the German submarine force was better, because despite being almost doomed from the time they left their French ports, they continued to go out, and they continued to get sinkings, in the face of complete adversity. Any force that can remain proffessional, and still do its job to a certain extent faced with advanced enemy ASW, complete enemy air supperiority, and a near complete enemy dominance on the seas has to be the best. Even when boats failed to return in large numbers, morale stayed high, and the gallant Uboat men did their jobs.

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

Who won the war, baby.

Detroit, baby [;)]

[Tankerace]

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

Who won the war, baby.

John Lennon (Movie joke)

[steveh11Matrix]

I think this was a 'wetware' problem, not a hardware one, with the exception of the defective torps. German skippers and the Naval Staff - at least that of the Sub arm - were more aggressive and more adaptable. Put German skippers in the US boats - preferably with decent torps! - and those early US skippers in the German boats, and we in Britain would have eaten better. This is NOT a criticism of the US sub arm in general, just their initial commanders, and the fact that it took those above them so long to 'get the message'.

Still WE can get that message early - just turn off the US sub doctrine! [;)]

Can you imagine large numbers of Type XXI boats, with US ranges? That would have been nasty!

Steve.

[steveh11Matrix]

"Iron Coffins".

Also, of course, "Das Boot".


Steve.

[mdiehl]

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.

Radio transmissions were a 2 edged sword for Germany. They were the only thing that allowed the woldf pack strategy to work; without them the German subs would have been far less effective. But they also gave away a sub's position. Starting in late 1942 this was a real problem since the Allies had local HFDF capability and decent radar, enabling them to run down any radio transmission source.

[mdiehl]

Even when boats failed to return in large numbers, morale stayed high, and the gallant Uboat men did their jobs.

That's not what I've read. Numerous sources have suggested that morale was cracking in mid 1943. Latest decent study on the matter being Black May.

[steveh11Matrix]

Actually, you can to some extent model it in WitP: Edit the torps, give the US boats good commanders with the US sub doctrine turned off, and see what happens.

Won't model the "Wolf Pack" very well, though. I don't know how you'd do that, it'd probably take a code change.

Steve.

[mogami]

Hi, The great majority of submarines in all navies never sank a single enemy ship. (just like the great majority of fighter pilots never shot down an enemy and the great majority of infantry men never shot an enemy)
I think for it's size the German U-boat campaign produced terrible results. If you check I think you find that with half as many subs the USN sank as many ships/tons as the German U-boats. And they did it in half the time.

[Tankerace]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Even when boats failed to return in large numbers, morale stayed high, and the gallant Uboat men did their jobs.

That's not what I've read. Numerous sources have suggested that morale was cracking in mid 1943. Latest decent study on the matter being Black May.

Morale was starting to go south, yes. But it was high given everything they were facing. The German High Seas fleet in 1918 faced better odds, and mutinied(sp). Im not saying they were estatic, but considering their circumstances their morale was hgiher than what you would think it would be.